Sudan Chicken Hawks

[ALDurr]

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Anybody that fits this category is a chickenhawk, period. You can be considered a chickhawk even if you served in the military if you found a way to avoid conflict or never saw conflict even though there was opportunity available. Rumsfield can be considered a chickhawk under this definition.

Rumsfield served his time during the Korean war in an ROTC uniform at Princeton. There were many others that left college to go to Korea (eg. John Murtha), so it could have been done. His real duty came after Korea was over, where he flew jets for the Navy. Therefore, he saw no war action even though he could have done so. He hid in college like many rich kids did.

However, he is borderline because at least he did serve in the military.

Also, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt all fall into the category of chickenhawk.

Those who do not fall into this category are: George Bush Sr. (WWII vet), Colin Powell (Vietnam vet), John Kerry (Vietnam vet - actually went to Vietnam, not just put on a uniform and used money and power to stay home), John Murtha (Korea and Vietnam vet), Richard Nixon (WWII vet - and not to mention, got us out of Vietnam when chickhawks wanted to keep us in it), John Kennedy (WWII vet) and Harry Truman (WWI vet).

If you fit the definition above, then you are a chickhawk. I don’t care if you are in Hollywood, serve in the government, write for a newspaper, host a national radio/TV show or post on T-Nation. If you fit it, you are it period.

[ALDurr]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Strong work. I am the person most often labeled as a “chicken hawk.”
[/quote]

Because it fits.

I appreciate you pointing out the hypocrisy.

Please allow me to add another tidbit: The same guys that are up in arms about Bush/Cheney and Vietnam, are the same people who voted for bill “I’m not leaving” clinton.

In my opinion, writing a letter back to America (from England) after you have been drafted and refusing to serve, IS MUCH MORE REPREHENSIBLE THAN FLYING FIGHTER JETS (BUSH).

I do agree that the letter writing thing was weak. However, we can’t even prove that Bush Jr. even served, much less flew fighter jets because all his records have been sealed by him to prevent any investigation to prove anything. Even if he did fly jets, he flew them from the safety of our own shores while others went to fight overseas. He used money and prestige to hide at home. A punk move is a punk move no matter how you try to justify it.

[quote]
Yet, these people voted for billy boy, twice. They had the opportunity to vote for two legitimate war heroes, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. They chose Mr. mtv.

Oh, yes. billy’s Presidency did see the military in harm’s way.

Where were these guys screaming “chickenhawk?”

I hope that is taken into consideration when these guys start frothing at the mouth.

JeffR[/quote]

The point that all of you Clinton haters have missed (which after him being gone for 6 years, don’t you all think that it is time to stop blaming him for the GOP screwups? Man up already!) is that he never STARTED a war. He sent troops to conflicts that were already in progress with some failures (Somalia), some successes (Haiti and Bosnia) and some missed opportunities (Rwanda). The point is that he never started a war, nor did he excitedly advocate war, which doesn’t qualify him as a chickhawk. A scumbag? Sure, he qualifies for that. Did he pull a few punk moves in his day? Yes he did. But he is not a chickenhawk.

By the way, where was Dick Cheney? Oh that’s right, he had other things to do besides serve (5 deferments worth). I guess it takes a long time to build yourself up to be that evil and doing your patriotic duty would mess that up.

[hedo]

It takes more then men on the ground to win a war. An old military axiom is that tactics are for amatuers, professionals study logistics. It takes 5-10 men to support every man in combat. Ignore the support and the battle ends quickly.

I valued the guys who brought us fuel and munitions as much as anyone when I was an armor officer.

Same with this war. It takes a lot of different skill sets. The best commanders are not always the best soldiers or sailors. Eisenhower for example.

If the litmus test for politicians going forward is combat service with distinction, you’ll be drawing from a very small pool of candidates.

Chickenhawk is an insult not a standard.

[anon31651765]

[quote]hedo wrote:
It takes more then men on the ground to win a war. An old military axiom is that tactics are for amatuers, professionals study logistics. It takes 5-10 men to support every man in combat. Ignore the support and the battle ends quickly.
[/quote]

That’s interesting. I always remember when they taught cavalry to fight on foot in the Civil War, they said you had to cut the strength of the brigade down 1/4, because every fourth man had to hold the horses.

I didn’t realize all of this until I read Rich Atkinson’s book “In the Company of Soldiers”, the ridiculous mess that logistics is, and how it never ends.

I thought I knew about the military from all the history books I’ve read, but it turns out they all tend to ignore stuff like that in favor of grand charges and lost causes.

[JeffR]

al-a-baby wrote:

[quote}
Because it fits.[/quote]

I’m getting pretty fond of you!!!

I do agree that the letter writing thing was weak. However, we can’t even prove that Bush Jr. even served, much less flew fighter jets because all his records have been sealed by him to prevent any investigation to prove anything.

Ok. I’m going to start a new phase in liberal dealings. Many liberals won’t believe anything if it isn’t written in certain preordained rags. Therefore, what source would you consider to be irrefutable evidence?

Seriously, I’ll find it. I’ll find proof that George flew. Give me a couple of media outlets who you trust. Give me an idea what type of person’s testimony you would accept. For example, his base commander, fellow pilots, etc…

Help me help you!!!

Even if he did fly jets, he flew them from the safety of our own shores while others went to fight overseas. He used money and prestige to hide at home. A punk move is a punk move no matter how you try to justify it.

You (as in far lefty liberals) would be so much more convincing in your adversion to Bush if you hadn’t voted for clinton. I’m serious. If you were against trully reprehensible behavior (I DO NOT INCLUDE SERVING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD) you wouldn’t have given clinton a free pass.

The point that all of you Clinton haters have missed (which after him being gone for 6 years, don’t you all think that it is time to stop blaming him for the GOP screwups? Man up already!)

He is just such an easy way to remind you that your “principles” start and end with the letter d. d is for democrat. Many of you cannot see beyond it.

[/quote]is that he never STARTED a war.[quote]

Oh, this is fun!!! From that, I gather you mean that George Bush started war? Right?

Man, you have the whole dnc list memorized. Ok, al-a, must be hard for you to hold onto the concept of hussein firing on our planes or trying to assassinate our President. Oh, then there is the ever present support of al-qaeda and other terrorists.

Man, the war never ended.

Anyway, you get a D- for the weak response. You would have received a straight E had you forgotten the names of the major conflicts…

Oh, he did bomb a Sudanese aspirin factory. He also fired at saddam with cruise missles.

Using your “logic” it probably is fair to say he was “starting” things the same way Bush did.

[quote]He sent troops to conflicts that were already in progress with some failures (Somalia), some successes (Haiti and Bosnia) and some missed opportunities (Rwanda). The point is that he never started a war, nor did he excitedly advocate war
which doesn’t qualify him as a chickhawk.[/quote]

Here’s a 1998 quote: Might sound vaguely familiar:

‘‘The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors,’’ Clinton says from the Oval Office of the White House, shortly after anti-aircraft fire began erupting around Baghdad. ‘‘Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.’’

[/quote]A scumbag? Sure, he qualifies for that. Did he pull a few punk moves in his day? Yes he did. But he is not a chickenhawk.[quote]

I think you are pretty.

By the way, where was Dick Cheney? Oh that’s right, he had other things to do besides serve (5 deferments worth). I guess it takes a long time to build yourself up to be that evil and doing your patriotic duty would mess that up.

I love talking points!!! Keep it up!!! I’m having fun.

JeffR

[ALDurr]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
blah,blah,blah
[/quote]

Master the use of the quotes function on here first before trying to post. You mixed things I said with things you said and made it confusing to follow. As much crap as you spew on here, one would figure that you would have gotten the hang of it by now.

[ALDurr]

[quote]JeffyGirl spewed:
Ok. I’m going to start a new phase in liberal dealings. Many liberals won’t believe anything if it isn’t written in certain preordained rags. Therefore, what source would you consider to be irrefutable evidence?

Seriously, I’ll find it. I’ll find proof that George flew. Give me a couple of media outlets who you trust. Give me an idea what type of person’s testimony you would accept. For example, his base commander, fellow pilots, etc…

Help me help you!!!
[/quote]

How about pulling up actual military records that are public knowledge and are available on anyone that has ever served in the military? I’ve done this for my father, who served in the military during Korea. I’ve done this for other family members and friends of mine as well. If you can do that, I’ll let it drop. It’s easy to do. Come one JeffyGirl, let’s see if you can do it. Don’t give me some quoted source either. I want the actual records.

You (as in far lefty liberals) would be so much more convincing in your adversion to Bush if you hadn’t voted for clinton. I’m serious. If you were against trully reprehensible behavior (I DO NOT INCLUDE SERVING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD) you wouldn’t have given clinton a free pass.

JeffyGirl, as usual you see what you want to see. Reprehensible behavior includes taking favors to avoid work, but then gleefully sending others to do work that you, when you had your opportunity to do, avoided like the plague. I’ve given no one a free pass, you have.

He is just such an easy way to remind you that your “principles” start and end with the letter d. d is for democrat. Many of you cannot see beyond it.

More partisianship as usual from you? What a suprise!

Oh, this is fun!!! From that, I gather you mean that George Bush started war? Right?

Are you seriously going to say that he didn’t declare war on an entire country? I guess the presence of the troops in Iraq is just a mirage?

Man, you have the whole dnc list memorized. Ok, al-a, must be hard for you to hold onto the concept of hussein firing on our planes or trying to assassinate our President. Oh, then there is the ever present support of al-qaeda and other terrorists.

Man, the war never ended.

Man, talk about memorizing talking points. You are a living, breathing RNC primer. I’m not even going to get into when this was happening that the RNC controlled congress was too busy with trying to impeach a president to consider this a real threat at the time. If this was truly the threat as it has been trumped up to be, we should have delt with it then, not when we are crippled.

Anyway, you get a D- for the weak response. You would have received a straight E had you forgotten the names of the major conflicts…

A grading system from you means about as much as lifting advice from MrPushUps.

Oh, he did bomb a Sudanese aspirin factory. He also fired at saddam with cruise missles.

Using your “logic” it probably is fair to say he was “starting” things the same way Bush did.

Here’s a 1998 quote: Might sound vaguely familiar:

‘‘The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors,’’ Clinton says from the Oval Office of the White House, shortly after anti-aircraft fire began erupting around Baghdad. ‘‘Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.’’

So, in your mind, you are saying that he was trying to do the right thing and address this issue? So what stopped him? Oh, that’s right, the same people hollering now were too busy trying to oust him from his job to listen to him.

By the way, where was Dick Cheney? Oh that’s right, he had other things to do besides serve (5 deferments worth). I guess it takes a long time to build yourself up to be that evil and doing your patriotic duty would mess that up.

I love talking points!!! Keep it up!!! I’m having fun.

JeffR

I love how things become talking points when you don’t want to address them. The truth is that it is not a talking point if it is true. It is just the truth. Something you refuse to see when it is negative against what you want to believe. Keep living in your world, JeffyGirl.

Did you even look at the list of people that I typed. It was not divided into RNC vs. DNC. It divided people who were chickenhawks vs. people who were not, period. As usual, you are too blinded by hatred and stupidity to see what is in front of you. You see what you want to see. Please go back on your medication and your nice padded room and let the rest of us go back to civilized conversation.