Why do neo-cons talk so aggressive when there service records are do lacking?

Question

I went to the "Chickenhawk" website-and I was appalled at the lack of service by our leading Republican Politicians -conservative talk show host etc. I know this is just a generalization-some Repubs served honorably-and I know the Clinton issue will always be a diversion for the neo-cons-but I think it is the" little fat kid nerd theory"-guys like Limbaugh-Cheney were the little wealthy fat kids who were picked on-when they got older and became empowered they became aggressive -look at the website your self-the Dems as a whole served there country (Military) more often than the Repub.

Answer 1

Well lets see , in the last congress there were more

Military Veteran Republican Senators than Democrat Senators.

Military Veteran Republican Representatives than Democrat Representatives.

Look at the announced Democrat Candidates for President, not a single Veteran among them.

If you look at Army recruiting, the trend is most new recruits come from red states, not blue states.

Maybe there needs to be a webpage called Racial-Hawks comparing Minority opportunity's in Republican Administrations vs Democratic Administrations, where we can see that the Democrats have never appointed a minority to a position of importance.

Answer 2

Without going into deep character analysis, the chickenhawk phenomenon is a very visible one.

There are a couple of reasons that a lot of neocons are hawkish but never served.

First, many of them are young and grew up when there was no draft. So to go into the military was a much more deliberate choice.

Second, I don't think they tend to see the disconnect between advocating lots of military action and not having served. Their outlook is based on their ideology in which they wholeheartedly believe. I'm sure most would see the lack of military services as an "emotional" element that doesn't have bearing on the issue at hand.

Third, the culture among neocons tends to be that they are 100% right and anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong. That demonstrates a fundamental lack of wisdom on their part. That lack of wisdom blinds them to the idea that maybe others might have experiences they don't and thus might have valuable input that disagrees with their conclusions.

Answer 3

Could you tell me what branches of the military the following liberal leaders served in?
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Evan Bayh
John Edwards
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Need I go on?

Answer 4

Politicians should be tactful in their words about the military, and not use terms like 'bring it on', 'cut and run', or any term that implies some kind of macho implementation on your part.

Its inevitable that at some point a politician with no military service will have to send soldiers into battle. They should at least educate themselves and listen to generals who actually fought in wars when making decisions on military matters.

Answer 5

Republicans having been talking tough over the last 100 years. It's their MO. But the only ones that really are tough are the ones who fought in combat like Bob Dole. The rest are all talk with nothing to back it up like GW Bush, Gingrich, Tom Delay. Basically rich kids with attitude & glass jaws who love to send the real tough guys (US troops) to fight wars that they are too yellow to have fought in themselves when they were younger.

Answer 6

That's bull. I think it's just the opposite. Most Neo-Libs are hippies from the 60's and never went in the service.

Answer 7

?? you make no sense....democrats are the bitter angry types not neo-cons....plus- im not fat and I never had power issues...im conservative because I did the research into the truth instead of catching the jay leno monologue and pretending to be informed....If you want to talk stupid theories....WHY ARE ALL LIBERALS SO UGLY"....get my point?

Answer 8

You know too darn well to be seriously asking. ;)

Only american use the word liberals the way they do why???