CHICKEN HAWKS, What is your understanding of this Term?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    As I remember, the term Chicken Hawk first appeared in reference to Cheney. I've heard a lot of versions of the terms meaning, so what is your understanding of it ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 6:19 PM GMT
    A derogatory term for older people that seek young people for dating etc.

    However I just looked up the term in reference to US politics and discovered another meaning.

    Ugh.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 7:01 PM GMT
    meninlove said A derogatory term for older people that seek young people for dating etc.

    However I just looked up the term in reference to US politics and discovered another meaning.

    Ugh.







    Well what is that other meaning from your research ? your leaving us hanging. LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    realifedad said As I remember, the term Chicken Hawk first appeared in reference to Cheney. I've heard a lot of versions of the terms meaning, so what is your understanding of it ?

    I heard it before Cheney. My late partner, when we were still dating, gave me some hints he might like to see me without a beard. I was almost 53 then.

    So I shaved it off to surprise him. Of course your face always looks younger when you first take your beard off, the skin all fresh & pink.

    "OMG!" he exclaimed at seeing me. "I'm a chicken hawk!" (He was 55) I had no idea what he meant. But he explained it, and we went directly to bed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 8:14 PM GMT
    henery_hawk_yelling_tshirt-p235078582295
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jan 26, 2012 8:15 PM GMT
    dayumm saidhenery_hawk_yelling_tshirt-p235078582295


    Yup, he used to give old' Fogorn Leghorn a rough time
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 8:19 PM GMT
    It's a term used by ignorant partisans to denigrate people who support the military by saying "unless you or a very close family member are serving, you don't deserve an opinion."

    ...without apparently realizing that this perspective undermines the idea of civilian government and tacitly supports an autonomous military and by default a Military Junta.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    Larkin saidIt's a term used by ignorant partisans to denigrate people who support the military by saying "unless you or a very close family member are serving, you don't deserve an opinion."

    ...without apparently realizing that this perspective undermines the idea of civilian government and tacitly supports an autonomous military and by default a Military Junta.


    Incorrect. It's used to (rightly) denigrate those who refused to serve (like Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) but believe war is the answer to every problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 10:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidIt's a term used by ignorant partisans to denigrate people who support the military by saying "unless you or a very close family member are serving, you don't deserve an opinion."

    ...without apparently realizing that this perspective undermines the idea of civilian government and tacitly supports an autonomous military and by default a Military Junta.


    Incorrect. It's used to (rightly) denigrate those who refused to serve (like Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) but believe war is the answer to every problem.


    Actually, according to wikipedia, you're BOTH right.

    Larkin, I think, made a brilliant observation.

    Here, take a look:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)[/url]


    Gads, I hate jingoism. It reduces complex thinking down to the stupid level.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Larkin saidIt's a term used by ignorant partisans to denigrate people who support the military by saying "unless you or a very close family member are serving, you don't deserve an opinion."

    ...without apparently realizing that this perspective undermines the idea of civilian government and tacitly supports an autonomous military and by default a Military Junta.


    Incorrect. It's used to (rightly) denigrate those who refused to serve (like Limbaugh, Cheney, etc.) but believe war is the answer to every problem.


    I have heard both usages, but i believe the latter is the most common intent.

    The former opinion I've tended only to hear from service folks and their families but we most commonly just use the term "civilians"

    (I can speak only to hearing it from U.S. and Cdns; I would kinda expect it is the same for other nationalities (we just never said it in front of other nationalities other than the Americans) hee I bet the Brits said it too. ;) (If we did, they prolly did too - we use a lot of the same kind of language when it comes to military terms.) and we keep it that way as a parochial way of being distinct from Americans.


    (I mean, why the HELL do we insist on saying LEFtenant? icon_lol.gif The Yanks say it like the French and it makes more sense.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2012 10:11 PM GMT
    "(I mean, why the HELL do we insist on saying LEFtenant? The Yanks say it like the French and it makes more sense.) "

    Probably because lieutenant would would mean you're getting his services in lieu of something else. Bwaaahaahaaaa.

    OK that was bad, wasn't it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2012 1:38 AM GMT
    Larkin saidIt's a term used by ignorant partisans to denigrate people who support the military by saying "unless you or a very close family member are serving, you don't deserve an opinion."

    ...without apparently realizing that this perspective undermines the idea of civilian government and tacitly supports an autonomous military and by default a Military Junta.






    Everyone of course deserves, and has a right to their opinion, but it seems to me that when the likes of Cheney, Gingrich, Santorum, Romney and many a think tank officianado, who have nothing to lose from supporting war, are doing the most pushing for it.

    Their talk about promoting war comes cheap, purhaps they deserve the negative connotation of this term 'ChickenHawk', espcecially when a good share of them preach that talking (use of diplomacy) to our enemies shows weakness. If they think it is so weak to avoid war by talking, maybe they should be the first to take up arms and see how weak they are facing some manufactured enemy face to face with a gun.