Why are most neo-cons devoid of actual military sevice?

Question

They speak very aggressively but were reluctant to carry the "big stick" when it was their turn-or when their was an opportunity to fight for their country. It should scare alot of conservatives that their idols did not serve-kinda like when you find out your heros are phonies-Oh yea Clinton did listen to his Generals-unlike Bush.

Answer 1

The majority of US citizens have no military service. Are you saying they should have no opinion on the war?

FYI: Clinton didn't listen to his generals who dissented, he had them fired.

Answer 2

You will find me as far to the right of Genghis Khan as you are to the left of Lenin. HeII when I look to my left I couldn't see Rush Limbaugh with a good pair of binoculars.

I am a retired Master Sergeant, and a Vietnam vet with 22 years of active duty. Is that enough stick for you??? Yep, I went to Nam, not England to organize protests or Canada to hide my yellow stripe.

And while we are at it, I watched the Deity you call Clinton screw up everything military he got anywhere near. That man could not have gone to the bathroom alone in some of the places I worked because he would have been deemed trustworthy enough. Yet he was able to secure the White House with less than 50% of the popular vote, 5-12 percentage points less than the President you hate.

Don't forget to vote next time but be sure the hospital is alerted. With your bleeding heart you will require a transfusion.

Good Day.

Answer 3

A Neo-Con is a former Democrat who detested the way the liberal democrat party was against
the Vietnam War in the 60s and 70s and also AGAINST the US Armed Forces who were in the War and refused to supply them with funds and equipment. The idiots from the 60s and 70s are responsible for all 58,000 names who
are on the Vietnam Memorial. Clinton DID NOT talk to his Generals and He, being a DRAFT-DODGER, loathed the US MILITARY!!!!!!!

Answer 4

Your reasoning here is terrible.

The great majority of those in the military come from conservative/Republican families and they tend to vote Republican themselves. So your entire assertion is ridiculous.

Even if this were NOT SO: the majority of Americans have zero military experience. Does this mean they are not entitled to speak in favor or against the war on terror?

Also, is it necessary to experience war before you advocate the military to engage in it?

"# Let's restrict the ballot to only veterans. They've shown their commitment to our nation, so let's ban anyone who has not put on our nation' uniform from trying to shape the future of the country. Another benefit of this will be to pay back, a little, the shameful actions of the Gore campaign in 2000, when they waged an all-out assault on military absentee ballots in Florida, attempting to disenfranchise American men and women on active duty.

"# The police will no longer respond to 911 calls from those who are not, themselves, police officers (or immediate family of officers). If you support the police so damned much, sign up and prove it.

"# The same principle will eventually be extended to fire and ambulance services.

# Those people without health insurance will be covered by a national health-insurance plan -- but must volunteer their services in the health care field in some fashion. You want your broken arm set, bub? empty a few dozen bedpans first.

"# Animal rights activists will be licensed, and as part of the certification process must undergo the treatment they are protesting. Don't like veal? Talk about it after a week in a pen. Wanna protect the dolphins? Show us your gill net scars. And if you protest fur, you better be scalped.

"# Opponents of torture must submit to the treatments they are protesting. If you don't like waterboarding, then you better be damned ready to tell me just how bad it is.

"# Opponents of capital punishment must... well, that one should take care of itself quite nicely."

Answer 5

So, when the commanders in Mogadishu said they needed armor for the mission given them, and Clinton refused to give it to them, that's considered "listening" to his generals?

But when Bush heeds the counsel of the JCS, the general staff and his military commanders, he is "not listening"?

OK, if you say so, MacArthur.

Was service an important factor for Democrats in 1992 and 1996? If so, why did they nominate and elect someone who dodged the draft and explicitly stated he "loathed the military"? And do any of the Democrat frontrunners for 2008 have military service? Hillary? Obama?

We've never said service was a requirement or necessary. That's you guys. Well, that's you guys for only the last 2 election cycles. To an objective observer, that would be called, quite rightly, hypocrisy.

And I did serve. Did you?

Answer 6

The experience of actually serving in the military, and in particular for those who are involved in combat tends to create an individual who reflects upon the consequences of war, whereas those who have effectively avoided serving tend to view the world from a philosophical position that fails to take into consideration the disaster that war creates. It much easier to propose policy about war, when you haven't actually been there. It was interesting that the great majority of those espousing the policy that lead to the New World Order and ultimately to the conflagration we now have in Iraq, had managed to receive deferments and avoid military service.

Answer 7

Your contention is false and yet quite the opposite is true.

Lib-coms are actually the ones I have noted that are devoid of actual military service and/or any remote feelings of duty to serve in combat to protect anything, to include their families, fetuses, victims of crime, the poor, the rich, children, women, much-less and God forbid, their own country.

The only Democrats that ever served with "distinction" in military service that I can recall are Kennedy and Kerry (Clinton went to Europe and smoked a big fatty with his anti-war left buddies.).

Interestingly, both Kennedy and Kerry enlisted in the Navy, disobeyed orders, wrecked their boats, and subjected the men under their command to grave and wreck-less danger, and death, yet both were privileged enough to have powerful and influential family & political handlers, who were able to re-write history and clean the whole affair up until it earned them each a medal.

Answer 8

The same reason most NeoLibs are I would guess. Volunteer army and no real war except the Gulf war and this one. I registered in '81 and even went to enlist a few weeks before graduation.The recruiter bugged me so much to come in and take a physical before graduation,I told him to screw himself.There was no war to fight I was only going to do it for school money and so I could say I did.Well I didn't and I was a little past the prime age by the Gulf war. I am a long way past now.
How about you?

Answer 9

90% of the military is Conservative. Where are you getting this information? Bush does not represent all Conservatives. Clinton listened to his generals when they said Bin Laden need to be taken care of. So what did he do? He ordered a half assed mission to bomb a couple of buildings on Al Qaida training camps, which proved unsuccessful, so he called it a day and went back to getting head from Monica Lewinski.

Answer 10

Ignore the clowns who have answered you. The military offers the high-school graduate money, adventure, financial Independence, and college financing. Four concerns that do not trouble the sons and daughters of the wealthy. These are some of the reasons why they (i) enlist. P.S. work on your writing a bit. Good ideas can get lost in the presentation.

Answer 11

It's interesting to see that most people who are stirred up by this question either readily identify themselves as neo-conservatives, or they don't know the difference between a conservative and a neocon. Personally, I doubt anyone in the military is a neocon, though many are certainly conservatives.
I'm guessing you are referring to the crowd in power now (the neocon "think tank war" proponents). Good question!