Gravitymaster 0 #26 July 31, 2006 Quote I prefer the "101st Fighting Keyboarders" myself, those brave souls who put their honor on the line and risk carpal tunnel syndrome every single day to ensure that some "expendable" US troops get to die for their country. So you think people who discuss the Pro's and Con's of the war have the power to send troops to war? Interesting... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 July 31, 2006 Kallend wrote Quote No hypocrisy there. It's the people who actively avoided combat for themselves ("I had other priorities", R. Cheney) but who have no hesitation sending others into harm's way who are the hypocrites. You wrote Quote It appears your definition and Kallends definition are in conflict with each other. I think we Kallend and I agree on this...we just used different words...he calls them hypocrites... I call them greedy self serving COWARDS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,067 #28 July 31, 2006 >So you think people who discuss the Pro's and Con's of the >war have the power to send troops to war? Nope! Only one person has that power. And only one person used it, despite what some right wingers believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 July 31, 2006 Quote Kallend wrote Quote No hypocrisy there. It's the people who actively avoided combat for themselves ("I had other priorities", R. Cheney) but who have no hesitation sending others into harm's way who are the hypocrites. You wrote Quote It appears your definition and Kallends definition are in conflict with each other. I think we Kallend and I agree on this...we just used different words...he calls them hypocrites... I call them greedy self serving COWARDS. But that's only your most recent definition. You have called many on this site chickenhawks just because they didn't serve. The original post refutes your long held definition, not your most recent. It appears you have flip flopped only to align yourself with Kallend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 July 31, 2006 Quote You have called many on this site chickenhawks just because they didn't serve. The original post refutes your long held definition, not your most recent. It appears you have flip flopped only to align yourself with Kallend. Nope... they are one and the same and have been....I keep putting up the sites showing how the administration to a man avoided putting their asses on the line.... and there are more fellow travellers on this site who lock step right with them...HAWKS.... who were chicken when it was their time to serve their country. If you support the war so much... why dont you go see what its all about for yourself.... there are plenty on this site.. who have been there.... and seen it first hand...Those posters I thank for doing the right thing and actually serving their country.... The future will tell if the CHickenhawks in PNAC will support these men and women with REAL VA Benefits.... of if they too will be forgotten like so many of them who have gone before have. My bet.. the whole thank you for your service when made by a PNAC/Chickenhawk will once again be just so much lip service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 July 31, 2006 Quote Quote You have called many on this site chickenhawks just because they didn't serve. The original post refutes your long held definition, not your most recent. It appears you have flip flopped only to align yourself with Kallend. Nope... they are one and the same and have been....I keep putting up the sites showing how the administration to a man avoided putting their asses on the line.... and there are more fellow travellers on this site who lock step right with them...HAWKS.... who were chicken when it was their time to serve their country. If you support the war so much... why dont you go see what its all about for yourself.... there are plenty on this site.. who have been there.... and seen it first hand...Those posters I thank for doing the right thing and actually serving their country.... The future will tell if the CHickenhawks in PNAC will support these men and women with REAL VA Benefits.... of if they too will be forgotten like so many of them who have gone before have. My bet.. the whole thank you for your service when made by a PNAC/Chickenhawk will once again be just so much lip service. Right...and if you read the article I posted, it seems to refer to someone with your views. Don't try and backpeddle now. I won't bother to go back and research your posts where you called anyone who didn't serve a Chickenhawk because anyone who has posted here for the last year or so knows how you defined it in the past. So don't try and weasel out of it now by redefining the definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 July 31, 2006 Quote I won't bother to go back and research your posts where you called anyone who didn't serve a Chickenhawk because anyone who has posted here for the last year or so knows how you defined it in the past. So don't try and weasel out of it now by redefining the definition. By all means go back and do your research since you seem to fit the description to a tee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,067 #33 July 31, 2006 >So don't try and weasel out of it now by redefining the definition. Coming from you, _that_ is funny! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #34 July 31, 2006 Here is my definition since I posted these sites over and over.. and it SEEMS to have affected someone greatly...he is feeling a little thin skinned me thinks... WHO SERVED http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html CHICKENHAWK HEADQUARTERS http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,561 #35 July 31, 2006 Quote Right...and if you read the article I posted, it seems to refer to someone with your views The lynch pin of the article was that people use 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is unqualified to formulate military policy because they never served. It is pretty obvious that Amazon has always used 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is a hypocritical coward for being eager to send others to war while avoiding it for themselves and their family. I'm no fan of Amazon's debating (angry shouting) style but she is being consistent on this one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #36 July 31, 2006 Bill can you give them a better demeaning slur? The 101st shouldn't be attached in such a stigmatic manner. Tunnel carpal is not a wound most of the wounded in the 101st would mind getting over what they did get.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #37 July 31, 2006 Quote Quote Quote Yea, point understood, but still . . . she hasn't fought anywhere, so how is she more qualified to speak out any more than a "chickenhawk"? She lost her son, but that doesn't give her more knowledge (outside the personal grief) than anyone else. She donatated a child to lay on the alter of sacrifice for this country... NONE of the Administration has put their ass on the line...NOR have they encouraged THEIR children to put themselves in harms way. THAT from a group of self serving neo-cons who strap on the mantle of Ultra Patriot and send off our children to an unnecessay war to enrich themselves and their friends. They are Hawks... just like they were HAWKS during the Vietnam war... yet they did not serve... they are the CRAZY BRAVE.. with other peoples blood It appears your definition and Kallends definition are in conflict with each other. Only to someone who wants them to be in conflict. She is correct. I am correct. We are both correct. This administration is a bunch of hypocritical cowards. The article you quoted uses an incorrect definition in a vain attempt to make the administration's chickenhawks look good.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 August 1, 2006 Quote At the expense of re-opening an old debate on this forum, I will remark that GWB wore his country's uniform and was an aviator. However, he did not see combat. Then again, neither did Carter, but to give credit where it is due, Carter was a submariner, hand-picked by Rickover himself, but although having been an Executive Officer, never held his own command. Reagan served in the military in WW2. Poor eyesight kept him from seeing action. There are very few in the upper echelons of government who have served, and that number is getting smaller every year. *** Rue Paul wears a dress, but he’s not a woman. Let’s be real, Bush 2 is as much a draft dodger as Clinton. At least Clinton didn’t pretend, which me being a person who did serve but not in action as there was none when I was in, I find Bush’s pretending offensive. Quote However, he did not see combat. And there was action when he was in but he quite obviously dodged it. Quote Then again, neither did Carter, but to give credit where it is due, Carter was a submariner, hand-picked by Rickover himself, but although having been an Executive Officer, never held his own command. Isn’t it funny that Carter never received accolades for being a military guy…… Dems kinda get that, their military time must have been meaningless. Quote Reagan served in the military in WW2. Poor eyesight kept him from seeing action. Was he in like Elvis Presley? Kinda the USO clown who was coddled? Quote There are very few in the upper echelons of government who have served, and that number is getting smaller every year. Most are Dems tho, but the public gives them no credence for public service. One observation is that Bush used as political fodder his service against Gore’s non-service, yet ran from it like a coward during Viet Nam when the issue came up in the 2004 election. So why was “Klinton” a loather of the military? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 August 1, 2006 Quote Bill can you give them a better demeaning slur? The 101st shouldn't be attached in such a stigmatic manner. Tunnel carpal is not a wound most of the wounded in the 101st would mind getting over what they did get. Quote Tunnel carpal is not a wound most of the wounded in the 101st would mind getting over what they did get. How about dyslexia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #40 August 1, 2006 Carpal Tunnel, Car Pool in a Tunnel what ever. An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 August 1, 2006 Quote Here is my definition since I posted these sites over and over.. and it SEEMS to have affected someone greatly...he is feeling a little thin skinned me thinks... WHO SERVED [url]http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html CHICKENHAWK HEADQUARTERS http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/chickenhawk_headquarters/ http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2338139#2338139 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1867098#1867098 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1994144#1994144 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=734716#734716 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 August 1, 2006 Quote >So don't try and weasel out of it now by redefining the definition. Coming from you, _that_ is funny! Name one time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #43 August 1, 2006 Quote Quote Right...and if you read the article I posted, it seems to refer to someone with your views The lynch pin of the article was that people use 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is unqualified to formulate military policy because they never served. It is pretty obvious that Amazon has always used 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is a hypocritical coward for being eager to send others to war while avoiding it for themselves and their family. I'm no fan of Amazon's debating (angry shouting) style but she is being consistent on this one. Wrong. Kallends definition is anyone who sends others to war and haven't served themselves. He even used Cheney as an example. Amazon switches back and forth between Kallend's definition and anyone who supports the war, but didn't serve themselves. Of course what many fail to remember is that in the 90's when Clinton was downsizing the military, very few people were joining. Nor does it take into account those who couldn't serve because of medical conditions like asthma. That doesn't make them any less patriotic and it certainly doesn't make them a Chickenhawk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 August 1, 2006 Quote Quote Quote Right...and if you read the article I posted, it seems to refer to someone with your views The lynch pin of the article was that people use 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is unqualified to formulate military policy because they never served. It is pretty obvious that Amazon has always used 'chickenhawk' to describe someone who is a hypocritical coward for being eager to send others to war while avoiding it for themselves and their family. I'm no fan of Amazon's debating (angry shouting) style but she is being consistent on this one. Wrong. Kallends definition is anyone who sends others to war and haven't served themselves. He even used Cheney as an example. Amazon switches back and forth between Kallend's definition and anyone who supports the war, but didn't serve themselves. Of course what many fail to remember is that in the 90's when Clinton was downsizing the military, very few people were joining. Nor does it take into account those who couldn't serve because of medical conditions like asthma. That doesn't make them any less patriotic and it certainly doesn't make them a Chickenhawk. Quote Of course what many fail to remember is that in the 90's when Clinton was downsizing the military... Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #45 August 1, 2006 Quote Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. Bush = downsizing due to coming off the cold war, which Reagan ended. Clinton = downsizing because "the military sucks". . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 August 1, 2006 Quote Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military? Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #47 August 1, 2006 First link.. Yup the Administration and their Chickenhawk Bandwagon..... all fucking hypocrites.. supposedly good christians... yet when you see Georgie Boy in church for the National Prayer Service AFTER the last election he and DickieBoy were joking around.. whilst the rest of the congregation was lifting up their voices to God... I would expect a staunch Born again Christian to be joining in the praises to the lord rahter than laughing and joking around in church. Link #2 Yes I stand completely by it.. GeorgieBoy got into the guard by virtue of Daddy's position.. just like that staunch defender of our shores.. Quayle... He was coached well on what to fly to ensure his survival. Others.. in pretty large numbers in front line units... were not so lucky.. I knew some of them VERY personally. To top it off he did not show up for a flight physical... WHY... and where was your hero for the last year.. he did not bother to even show up.. MOST people would be courts martialed its called AWOL... It was about that time that we were all subjected to drug testing due to rampant drug usage in the military... I would lay you 10 to 1 odds Georgie the Party Boy had a wee too much nose candy in his system to be able to pass a goldenflow test... Link#3... Yup some of our wonderful little chickenhawks right here in SC.. one in particular LOVEs thinking of me as a lesbian.. and keeps it up through numerous threads... guess what...he is wrong... BUT he basically is a CLASSIC Chickenhawk thru and thru... and why???? A PM from him is quite interesting in his comments about WHY people serve their country) CLIP I am one of the smarter ones that didn't need to put his life on the line for a tiny salary ... in his terms he would never serve because only the financially challenged.. unlike himself.... would serve for what they pay our troops. Guess what MR CHICKENHAWK.. some people actually BELIEVE in our country... and are actually patriotic enough to serve.... to put their butts on the line for those like you who would never do that because the pay just does not attract you.( that is why I call you self serving) Link #4 Just go the Chickenhawk website.. they gleefully list some of the Ultra Right wing loudmouths who shout their patriotism to the right wing masses daily... but like most of the hypocrtites.. they did not serve either...and were quite successfull in avoiding putting their asses on the line. At least they only talk some young people into going.. after the ChickHawk Headquarters has ordered the units off to a disastrous but quite lucrative war in which they have done quite well to line their pockets. http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/barking_head_brigade/ I served my country for 8 years.. I lost good friends.... a lot of our young people are experiencing that first hand now. Others like Murtha who you disdain so much.. also served.. and have a FAR better idea of what it means when our young people are sent in harms way. Too bad the Chickenhawks will never listen to them... perhaps then we could use our milirtary sparingly.. when its truely needed to protect us rather than wasting the lives of so many for so little gain..... ( well SOME are doing quite well.... those who have stock in the right places... RIGHT GM???) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,067 #48 August 1, 2006 >that is why I call you self serving. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 August 2, 2006 Quote Quote Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. Bush = downsizing due to coming off the cold war, which Reagan ended. Clinton = downsizing because "the military sucks". Quote Bush = downsizing due to coming off the cold war, which Reagan ended. There are at least 2 myths within that sentence. 1) Reagan ended the Cold War. The Cold War started after WWII, so how is it that Bonzo, or whatever silly little acting role Reagan played, ended the Cold War? If mass military spending is what ended the Cold War, then shouldn't every presdent since and including Truman be credited with that spending? Furthermore, the wall fell and the USSR (former) economy fell over 4 months after Reagan left office; how is it that he gets credit? Becuase it seems "feel good" to do so? Exactly. People are willing to blame the 1st WTC attack on Clinton, 1 month after taking office, but poor Bush1 can't get credit for something that occurred 4 months into his presidency? Let's quit revising history for sake of selected gratitude. 2) Bush closed bases because of the end of the Cold War. Bush closed bases because it was long overdue and there was never a need for that kind of mass proliferation of the military since WWII. The debt was soaring thanks to Reaganomics, so it was time for cuts and mass military spending was on teh blocks. Remember, Congress had to agree too. Quote Clinton = downsizing because "the military sucks". Did Clinton say that, or is it that you are just quoting that for effect by transposing your sentiments into his words? Anyway, Bush 1 whacked as many troops as Clinton did, and Clinton had the help of a Republican Congress for 6 years. Not to mention Bush 2 hs just cloed bases. Here's the myth: - Dems close bases becuase they hate the military. - Repubs close bases out of neccessity and ultimate good for the country, but they love the military. For an aside, Reagan gave lesser pay raises for military personnel than Clinton or either Bushs', so do know who was better and worse for the guys. Clinton hated the military? Instead of rhetoric explain why and contrast presidents within his era. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 August 2, 2006 Quote Quote Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military? Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons. Quote Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons. True, but to say Clinton downsized the military isn't totally true. Congress had a bigger role in it than did the president. That's like saying NAFTA was Clinton's baby, when in reality it was started during the Bush1 era, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
