Posted on 12/04/2005 2:11:59 AM PST by Gordongekko909
I've noticed several leftists pulling the "chickenhawk" argument with impunity. Probably the most public example of this is Michael Moore in Farenheit 911 pointing out that only one member of Congress has a kid serving in Iraq, and that the rest of Congress is cowardly for not "sending" their kids to Iraq (which makes no sense, as the military is all-volunteer).
Something else that I've noticed is the lackluster and, to be frank, wussy response to this argument. The response that I've seen on FR and other places, including from Rush, is generally something along the lines of "we live in a democracy, and you don't need to be neck-deep in something to hold an opinion on it, etc." While I don't disagree with this response, I advise against using it from now on. Especially in the presence of leftists.
The problem with that response is that it is inherently defensive. If a leftist has pushed you so far against the wall that you actually have to justify your right to hold an opinion, then you are losing. Big. The proper course of action is to go on the offensive.
First, the "why." In making the chickenhawk argument (which generally goes something like 'if you like the war so much, why aren't you in the military'), the speaker crosses a big, bright, thick line: he has moved from civil discourse on substantive issues to personal attack. The chickenhawk argument is a not-so-subtle way of calling you a coward. It has literally no substantive value in terms of whether the war itself is justified, but merely questions your conviction.
If someone decides to go that route, then they do not deserve for you to continue to fight according to the Queensbury rules. It's time to remove the gloves.
And now, the "how." Start by asking what the leftie has done in support of his anti-war position. The answer will range from "nothing" to "I attended a protest." This should clinch it immediately: point out the absurdity of drawing a parallel between moping around with a placard and picking up a rifle. Follow that up by throwing a modified chickenhawk right back at the leftie: why has he or she not done more to stop the war? Hell, if you've so much as Freeped a protest, you've done as much as he has, removing any grounds to complain he may have.
The response will likely be, "but I've done all I can, whereas you haven't." See? You've already got the retreatnik on the defensive. This means that you're advancing. Point out that the leftie is incorrect; there is plenty more that he can do to oppose the US presence in Iraq. For example, he could join the insurgency. If you're talking face-to-face with the leftie, odds are he hasn't done that. Fire off the reverse chickenhawk again: why is he not planting roadside bombs and beheading hostages if he feels so strongly about his position?
The leftie has two options now: whine that you've made it personal, in which case you return to square one (that HE made it personal with the chickenhawk argument, see above), or he can stay the course and tell you that he's opposed to all of the violence, man, so of course he's not going to actually hurt anyone. To deal with this, simply beat him over the head with the reverse chickenhawk again: if he's as gung-ho as he claims to be about US withdrawal from Iraq, then he would be doing everything in his power to make his vision a reality; ends justify means and all that. The fact that he isn't in Iraq makes him a coward.
Now that you're in full charge, exploit your victory. DO NOT give your opponent time to breathe or even think, let alone respond. You have a few options here.
A) Attack the House Democrats. Segue from him being all talk to Murtha and his crew being all talk. Hell, they won't even vote for a non-binding resolution calling for the instant removal of troops. Odds are, you'll get him to go on the attack against the Congressional Democrats (in much the same way that Republicans will routinely hang conservatives out to dry if said conservatives draw the ire, deserved or undeserved, of the MSM).
B) Continue the personal tear. Don't feel guilty about this; he started it. If this causes him to wuss out and make the same arguments that conservatives have been making lately (I can think what I want, yatta yatta), then cross-apply this to the original chickenhawk argument and flat-out tell him that he can't use it anymore. Then make absolutely sure that YOU decide where the next battle starts in terms of argument. DO NOT surrender the initiative.
Cerebral substantive arguments are fine and good if the person you're up against will play by the rules. That's how political arguments are really supposed to be executed. But if your opponent decides to take it outside, so to speak, you won't look as good as you think you do by keeping your jacket and glasses on while he punches you in the kidneys. You've got to hit back.
Street fighting......I like it!
Only way to go. Return fire.
BTW, I have served so I am entitled to speak on this topic EVEN if any Freepers thinks the "chickenhawk" argument has merit. ;->
Some of the articles I've read seem to be also making a double entendre with the sexual meaning of "chickenhawk."
Thank you for serving our country.
I so don't want to know.
Or you could simply say, "So by your standard Cindy Sheehan has no credibiliity?"
Ooh, good one. Make that option "C" under the follow-up attacks.
What's funny about that, though, is that if you break the polling data down by gender, guys favor abortion more heavily than women do. Talk about not seeing the big picture.
My brother and sister are both extremely anti-Iraq war, and in the past have seemed to live to bombard me with their predictions of doom.
This past Thanksgiving, I waited patiently for the onslaught I knew would come. This time I had prepared. The inevitable attack came with the snide opener ..."Well, what do you think of the Iraq war NOOOWWWW"?...Huh?...Huh...?
I replied that I thought the war was already won...by our side.
Mockingly grinning from ear to ear, in unison, they pounced. "Oh really?"
"Yes, the outcome is now inevitable, you have chosen the wrong side to root for. The insurgency has now been reduced to having to send 10 year olds, the retarded, and recently in the Amman bombings we see the use of valued lieutenants sent to die for the cause. This indicates to me their recruiting is headed in the wrong direction."
"Is that all you've got?"
"No. The withdrawal you are calling for will soon happen, and it will leave the insurgency with the now-proven losing tactic of having to kill fellow Muslims and Arabs in order to succeed. Incidentally, can you name one strategic victory the jihad can claim in Iraq?"
They could not name one. I proceeded to itemize the failures of the jihad....failure to seed civil war, failure to stop the election of an interim government, failure to stop the vote on the constitution, failure to derail Bush's timetable for each election, failure to expel the infidel..."they have succeeded however, in achieving ONE of their goals....can either of you tell me what that is?
Silence.
"They have succeeded in HARDENING THE HEARTS of people like you...they have succeeded in getting you to embrace their cause of preventing the liberation of 27 million from unspeakable tyranny."
I'm not so smart. What had occurred here is I had been passive on previous occasions with their sniping at the war, and I had boned up on this forum prior to going home for Thanksgiving. I got most of the above from astute Freepers on this forum. The key to the whole thing is to position yourself for the coup-de-grace, calling a lefty hard-hearted really hits them at their core.
Anyway, this is the first time I feel I have won the argument, as they could not refute anything I said.
Welcome Home. Thank you for serving.
This argument while good misses the key philosophical point - is the left suggesting that public officials should make national policy decisions based on their own family's self-interest? Are they suggesting that Bush's decision to go to war would (or should) be different depending on whether or not his daughters would see combat? If Bush made economic policy decisions based primarily on whether or not it would enrich his children, that would rightfully be called corruption. Same thing applies here - it should be irrelevant whether or not Bush's daughters are in the military.
I don't hear many "Republicans" telling it like it is. For crying out loud Lieberman, a socialist Democrat, has caused more of a media stir than most, if not all, the weak kneed "Republicans".
The fact is that the leadership is just not leading on this, and one, or two citizens railing for his bretheren to stand up and be counted isn't going to cut it.
That is not to say I do not applaud your efforts and good intentions.
Someone's history has no relevence to the correctness of their beliefs, anymore than the fact that Michael Moore is fat, goofy-looking, and dresses funny has any bearing on the validity of his arguments.
There is one other response to to the charge of "chickenhawk" but you have to MEAN it: Just say 'Are YOU calling me a COWARD?" If the answer involves any words other than 'yes' or 'no'interrupt and ask again and KEEP asking untill you get an answer or he backs down--but as I said you HAVE to MEAN it.
I have no trouble in this respect because I AM offended when I am pointed to and called a coward, both by the filthy sneaking cowardice in the tactic as well as the slur.
So the response is not to defend avoiding military service but to launch into personal attacks of your own? Good plan.
"Have You Slapped Down A Liberal Today?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.