The Kos Dictum
I read an article about how "Chicken-hawk" was being used as a slur against those that supported the Iraq war, but had not served in the military.
Here is a bit of a write up by Captian Ed:
You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war. ``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."
Well, the blog that drew my attention to this came up with a great idea about how to handle the call of "Chicken-Hawk" by those that use this slur. Here is the explination, directly from Four Right Wing Wackos:
But I say let them keep calling us chickenhawks. We can make it like "Godwin's Law". You know, the first one to bring up a Nazi reference in the debate automatically loses? We can call this one "The Kos Dictum". When someone calls the other side a "Chickenhawk", you know that they have no substantive arguments whatsoever and can safely be ignored on any further debate on that subject.
So for everyone out there, there is now a new version of Godwin's law called The Kos Dictum.
Use it when faced with the idiotioc ranting of the Anti-War crowd, when they have gone over the edge, and lost their ability to do anything but scream profanities and slurs.
Here is a bit of a write up by Captian Ed:
You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war. ``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."
Well, the blog that drew my attention to this came up with a great idea about how to handle the call of "Chicken-Hawk" by those that use this slur. Here is the explination, directly from Four Right Wing Wackos:
But I say let them keep calling us chickenhawks. We can make it like "Godwin's Law". You know, the first one to bring up a Nazi reference in the debate automatically loses? We can call this one "The Kos Dictum". When someone calls the other side a "Chickenhawk", you know that they have no substantive arguments whatsoever and can safely be ignored on any further debate on that subject.
So for everyone out there, there is now a new version of Godwin's law called The Kos Dictum.
Use it when faced with the idiotioc ranting of the Anti-War crowd, when they have gone over the edge, and lost their ability to do anything but scream profanities and slurs.

















