Forcing the other side to shut up is the goal of the movement

The chicken-hawk argument stacks the deck in favor of the antiwar movement because it permits only veterans and those currently serving to disagree with them

writes OIF veteran Benjamin Duffy as he compares presidents present and past.

Military service is a prerequisite for supporting the war effort, whereas absolutely anyone can oppose it. If you have no military service, you can either agree with them or you can shut up. Forcing the other side to shut up is, in fact, the goal of the movement.

…It is the knee-jerk reaction of the Left to bat away real arguments with the stale response of "why don't you go enlist." It systematically disqualifies most of the population from holding a particular point-of-view, and essentially shames them into silence. I don't have to worry about the chicken-hawk argument, because I almost always have more honorable military service than the person commanding me to "go enlist." Other people, however, should be free to support the war effort, whether or not they have actually served.

Read also:
• Shape Up, Shut Up, or Ship Out
• Dissecting the Chickenhawk Charge: The accusation is less an argument than an insult; it's also a form of bullying and it rejects the Constitution
• If your house is being broken into or is on fire…

Update I (thanks to trainer):



Update II: • America Victorious in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq
• An Armed Liberal Asks the Iraqi People About U.S. Withdrawal