Chicken Hawk!

[fintstone]

Originally posted by DaveE
...Regarding our involvement in Yugoslavia, funny you should bring it up in comparison. There was an internal blood-bath going on at the time if you might remember, and the first actual deployment of 500 US soldiers occurred in Sept '91 with the UN under Bush I. These were the days when coalitions were possible, we had friends around the world, had NATO and UN co-operation. Bush, Rice, et al railed against this when running for office, saying we were not about nation-building. What are we attempting to do now, my friend?

There was no internal "blood bath" in Kosovo when Clinton went to war with Yugoslavia. The supposed "mass graves" in Kosovo turns out to have never existed...just as all our intel indicated all along. You are referring to a totally different war (Bosnia/Croatia). The UN did not authorize Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia and we killed many innocents in an air war. As far as "nation-building." in Yugoslavia we divided a sovereign country and removed the duly elected government and installed a new one. Clinton did this to a country that never attacked or threated the US...Iraq did both. We stiill have to keep troops in Yugoslavia after all these years just to ensure they run their government as we see fit...Some success!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Seems like I have heard the phrase bandied about on this BBS. The following article is an interesting take on it.

Anti-war rant -- "Chicken Hawk!"
By Larry Elder
Thursday, September 7, 2006

Chicken hawks: "cowards" who support the Iraq war, but never served in the military.

They're not just Chicken Hawks, they're soft human beings physically, and love seeing others die at their command. They're the embodiment of evil men.

Former President Bill Clinton

The operative word is "former", which makes bringing up his name completely irrelevant.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by jyl
I read it, from the other thread.

After I crossed out all the adjectives, analogies, etc I got about 3 sentences of actual content, and it simply said what's been said over and over in the debates on the Plame/Wilson/Rove thing. I didn't find anything new.

I really cannot understand why you think removing most of the words from an article would provide any insight. It does just the opposite. Perhaps that is why liberals have so much trouble misrepresenting other's posts or seeing the "big picture." They remove all the words they do not like or do not fit their agenda before reading a post. Amazing!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
I rally cannot understand why you think removing most of the words from an article would provide any insight. It does just the opposite. Perhaps that is why liberals have so much trouble misrepresenting other's posts or seeing the "big picture." They remove all the words they do not like or do not fit their agenda before reading a post. Amazing!

You've never seen the "big picture" as far as I can tell from your posts. Your political and strategic myopia is almost legendary on this forum.

[jdm61]

Originally posted by Usmellgass2?
We can keep John Kerry's service record out of scrutiny here and just call him a War Hero. I am sure he and his supporters would like to have it no other way. But I will point out that after he came home, as he traveled with Jane Fonda, routinely and as publicly as possible accused US forces, including members of his own unit, of repeated atrocity's. As witnessed by his own eyes. But when the Navy called a board of inquiry to examine these accusations, he refused to testify. Whether the ex naval vessel commander was lying to start with, or decided to with hold evidence of these crimes, he made his own bed. It is not one that I would call a Hero's. I point this out because I believe that it is an example of how the man operates.

Hmmmmm......If Jane Fonda now sees the folly of her ways and is teribly sorry for all of the pain she caused the POW's in Vietnam, why haven't Kerry and others who were there with her done the same? Or denouced her from vacillating from her righteous postion? Some of Kerry's own men called his war record into question, but that is neither here nor there. What WAS called into question by many people was what he did for personal political gain when he got home. In old school Army terms, he is known as a "buddy f*cker"

[Jim Richards]

I would never, I REPEAT, NEVER, marginalize the service of those on gunboats during Vietnam. Anyone who does is the real buddy fucher.

[fintstone]

Regardless of what Kerry did on the swift boat...he was a traitor when he returned. I understand Benedict Arnold was once a good soldier also.

[Jim Richards]

America allows freedom of expression. Maybe your homeland doesn't.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
America allows freedom of expression. Maybe your homeland doesn't.

Please explain.

[Jim Richards]

Opposition to the war is "freedom of expression." That freedom is an American value. One you've repeatedly shown contempt for. Is that clear enough for you?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The only "error" Fonda committed was holding the Vietnam War against the SOLDIERS as well as the idiots in gubmint that got us into the mess. Why d'ya think all them yellow ribbon magnet things (all Made in China, BTW) say "Support Our Troops", not "Support Our Foreign Policy"?

Kerry was - and is - no traitor. If anything he's the bigger man than Bush for at least learning the truth about war. . . that it sucks, it's hell and it should be a LAST (not first) resort for settling disputes internationally.

Perhaps if our current Buffoon-in-Chief had actually done meaningful service himself instead of skirting reporting duties in the National Guard, he'd have learned that lesson himself and maybe thousands of innocent lives could have been spared years later. . . Speculation, but food for thought nonetheless.

And of course there are those among us that don't NEED to serve in the military to know war is an evil thing - not something to be embraced and talked up like a football coach's pre-game rally speech. And on the other hand there are those that will rave about how great war and the military and tanks and bombs and guns are no matter what. . .

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Opposition to the war is "freedom of expression." That freedom is an American value. One you've repeatedly shown contempt for. Is that clear enough for you?

Meeting with and aiding the enemy while in the military (reserve) is a traitorous act. Lying about the war to congress and the American people was not much better. Neither falls under "freedom of expression"....is that clear enough for you?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
America allows freedom of expression. Maybe your homeland doesn't.

I assumed you were a United States citizen also. Are you from Mexico or Canada?

[Jims5543]

This thread is worthless without pictures. Here!! I'll help!!

[cmccuist]

The argument boils down to if you have never served, then you shouldn't send others to die in a war or you're a chickenhawk. It's a lot of BS.

Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, Clinton - never served. Arguably good or great presidents (left or right notwithstanding).

Grant, Carter, horrible presidents, but served nonetheless.

It's the same as if you say if you've never had an abortion, or if you've never been a homosexual or if you've never been shot by an illegal handgun you shouldn't comment.

I've lived in the middle east for extended periods. However, I don't see how my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's when it comes to Muslims.

As far as attacking Kerry, he invited that when he "reported for duty" at the Dem convention. That was his whole campaign!! Other than being a war hero 30 years ago, the only thing he has experience in is windsurfing and marrying old Republican money.

[Usmellgass2?]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
I would never, I REPEAT, NEVER, marginalize the service of those on gunboats during Vietnam. Anyone who does is the real buddy fucher.

Neither JDM nor myself made any statement about his service record. Both comments were referring to factual events after the war. But thank you none the less for your pointless and emotional post.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Regardless of what Kerry did on the swift boat...he was a traitor when he returned. I understand Benedict Arnold was once a good soldier also.

No, Kerry was not a traitor. He voiced an opinion against the war in Vietnam, which was his right.

Benefict Arnold went to the British, accepted a commision, and then fought for them.

Saying that John Kerry, or any opponent of the Vietnam War, is the same simply brands you as a traitor to America and the American philosophy.

[Usmellgass2?]

Originally posted by Usmellgass2?
with Jane Fonda, routinely and as publicly as possible accused US forces, including members of his own unit, of repeated atrocity's. As witnessed by his own eyes. But when the Navy called a board of inquiry to examine these accusations, he refused to testify. Whether the ex naval vessel commander was lying to start with, or decided to with hold evidence of these crimes, he made his own bed. It is not one that I would call a Hero's. I point this out because I believe that it is an example of how the man operates.

That is not an opinion about the war. That is a buddy fkin Traitor, and he should have been prosecuted

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
I really cannot understand why you think removing most of the words from an article would provide any insight. It does just the opposite. Perhaps that is why liberals have so much trouble misrepresenting other's posts or seeing the "big picture." They remove all the words they do not like or do not fit their agenda before reading a post. Amazing!

If more words = more content, you might as well read the phone book.

[fintstone]

Agreed. The only reason he wasn't was the political climate of the time.