Incredible that this guy rose the ranks as high as he did without ever actually seeing action. How is this possible? How can it be that the guy running the war in Iraq never even previously fought a war at all? ....Then he has the nerve to make comments like the one about not going to war with army he wants.
Speaks For itself............
- Thread starter hammer1
- Start date
Incredible that this guy rose the ranks as high as he did without ever actually seeing action. How is this possible? How can it be that the guy running the war in Iraq never even previously fought a war at all? ....Then he has the nerve to make comments like the one about not going to war with army he wants.
wait a sec,smurph.....this started by spongy calling me out....calling me a chickenhawk...
hillary and bill backed the war...hillary voted for the authorization to use force...
you may disagree with rumsfeld...but he served....and btw,he ran back into the pentagon.....was one of the first.....confirmed by eyewitness reports...to try and help the victims after the plane attack....
the guy`s 78 years old.....and he`s no coward
i`m making a counterpoint...beemer didn`t serve.....if he had backed the administration,i guess that makes him a chickenhawk....right?
are you saying that anybody that thought that saddam should be removed...and didn`t serve...should stfu and stfd?.....
the implication was that if you didn`t serve..you aren`t entitled to an opinion....that`s ludicrous...
that`s like me going into the "off the wall" section and declaring that anyone that didn`t box,can`t voice their opinion.....
that`s ludicrous...
clarification please...
hillary and bill backed the war...hillary voted for the authorization to use force...
you may disagree with rumsfeld...but he served....and btw,he ran back into the pentagon.....was one of the first.....confirmed by eyewitness reports...to try and help the victims after the plane attack....
the guy`s 78 years old.....and he`s no coward
i`m making a counterpoint...beemer didn`t serve.....if he had backed the administration,i guess that makes him a chickenhawk....right?
are you saying that anybody that thought that saddam should be removed...and didn`t serve...should stfu and stfd?.....
the implication was that if you didn`t serve..you aren`t entitled to an opinion....that`s ludicrous...
that`s like me going into the "off the wall" section and declaring that anyone that didn`t box,can`t voice their opinion.....
that`s ludicrous...
clarification please...
No no no, sir. Being a chickenhawk doesn't make you wrong. Kinda like being a liberal doesn't make you wrong. It just means you were never willing to serve and fight, but now push aggressively for others to fight for your benefit. Again, it doesn't automatically mean that you are wrong. It just gives a person that label. Some of those guys - who knows - maybe they desperately wanted to serve back in the day but couldn't for one reason or another. Cheney is pretty obvious though. He was called upon 5 times and weasled out of it every time.
As for supporting Bush leading up to Iraq - well, in case you forgot - anyone who spoke out against him was branded a traitor. I give crazy Howard Dean a lot of credit in retrospect because he held tough back then. Same with Paul Wellstone - who died in a mysterious plane crash right after challenging Cheney on the Senate floor. Trusting in the president during a difficult time and giving him power to make quick judgement calls if needed is a lot different than actually starting a war. Can you really blame someone for trusting him then, later realize that they were deceived, and now taking a stand against Bush? This administration abused it's support from 5 years ago. It was innevitable that people would wake up and turn against them. Most regret giving him such leeway and wouldn't do it again.
Again - you fly off in strange directions - whose talking about "not having a right to voice an opinion"? All anyone is doing here is pointing out the glaring hypocracy on many of these hawk's records. If anything, the attempt to silence comes from those very same hawks.
As for supporting Bush leading up to Iraq - well, in case you forgot - anyone who spoke out against him was branded a traitor. I give crazy Howard Dean a lot of credit in retrospect because he held tough back then. Same with Paul Wellstone - who died in a mysterious plane crash right after challenging Cheney on the Senate floor. Trusting in the president during a difficult time and giving him power to make quick judgement calls if needed is a lot different than actually starting a war. Can you really blame someone for trusting him then, later realize that they were deceived, and now taking a stand against Bush? This administration abused it's support from 5 years ago. It was innevitable that people would wake up and turn against them. Most regret giving him such leeway and wouldn't do it again.
Again - you fly off in strange directions - whose talking about "not having a right to voice an opinion"? All anyone is doing here is pointing out the glaring hypocracy on many of these hawk's records. If anything, the attempt to silence comes from those very same hawks.
Last edited:
One heck of a list. I am surprised at some of those names. I would have thought at the way a few of them talk they served. I guess the will say by getting elected they are serving. Right. I don't think so. Big difference.
""No no no, sir. Being a chickenhawk doesn't make you wrong. Kinda like being a liberal doesn't make you wrong. It just means you were never willing to serve and fight, but now push aggressively for others to fight for your benefit.""
""Cheney is pretty obvious though. He was called upon 5 times and weasled out of it every time.""
who said anything about right or wrong?.....where`d that come from?.....
i see we`re riding cheney pretty hard...why not clinton?.....
we`re all gung ho about military service....did you vote for war heros bush sr. and bob dole when they ran against clinton the draft dodger?....
i thought not....
and i see you mentioned dean.... .another hero...
""Dean, during a military physical, carried with him X-rays and a letter from an orthopedist noting a back condition called spondylolisthesis.... U.S. military doctors classified Dean 1Y -- a medical deferment. ...Yet Dean spent the next year pouring concrete and enjoying skiing in Aspen.""
still,phony deferments aside,because you weren`t born in the viet nam era...or chose another career path...doesn`t mean you "weren`t willing to serve"...and can`t debate the issue....
military service isn`t obligatory....it`s a choice...
"". It just means you were never willing to serve and fight, but now push aggressively for others to fight for your benefit.""
i have to resort to a past response on this ridiculous subject...
it seems to me that the logical conclusion to this argument is that you should not be able to call the cops unless you are (or were) a cop......
"what's that? ...there's a gunman shooting up your street?...well if you want guys like that stopped, why didn't you join the force?...wanted others to do your dirty work, huh?...
lol
ditto for fire fighters....why should others risk their lives putting out your fire?
i am amzingly surprised at your argument smurph....
this kinda`logic could cause some poor lurker to have a seizure...
""Cheney is pretty obvious though. He was called upon 5 times and weasled out of it every time.""
who said anything about right or wrong?.....where`d that come from?.....
i see we`re riding cheney pretty hard...why not clinton?.....
we`re all gung ho about military service....did you vote for war heros bush sr. and bob dole when they ran against clinton the draft dodger?....
i thought not....
and i see you mentioned dean.... .another hero...
""Dean, during a military physical, carried with him X-rays and a letter from an orthopedist noting a back condition called spondylolisthesis.... U.S. military doctors classified Dean 1Y -- a medical deferment. ...Yet Dean spent the next year pouring concrete and enjoying skiing in Aspen.""
still,phony deferments aside,because you weren`t born in the viet nam era...or chose another career path...doesn`t mean you "weren`t willing to serve"...and can`t debate the issue....
military service isn`t obligatory....it`s a choice...
"". It just means you were never willing to serve and fight, but now push aggressively for others to fight for your benefit.""
i have to resort to a past response on this ridiculous subject...
it seems to me that the logical conclusion to this argument is that you should not be able to call the cops unless you are (or were) a cop......
"what's that? ...there's a gunman shooting up your street?...well if you want guys like that stopped, why didn't you join the force?...wanted others to do your dirty work, huh?...
lol
ditto for fire fighters....why should others risk their lives putting out your fire?
i am amzingly surprised at your argument smurph....
this kinda`logic could cause some poor lurker to have a seizure...
The most disturbing point offered up here was the fact that Dan Quayle was in the Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. Surely there was a better place for him that fighting all those darned words every month.
As I was typing this extremely funny jibe...the unfunny thought occured to me that if Quayle was enlisted now, he would probably be in his third extended tour of duty, patrolling Baghdad highways, or some such thing. That would be some bad helmet hair, for sure.
As I was typing this extremely funny jibe...the unfunny thought occured to me that if Quayle was enlisted now, he would probably be in his third extended tour of duty, patrolling Baghdad highways, or some such thing. That would be some bad helmet hair, for sure.
As usual, you are completely missing the point of the argument. You are either not reading everything or you are just taking from it what you want. I'm not saying that you have to serve in order to make decisions regarding the military. What I am saying is that it's ludicrous for someone to be a hardline hawk and make judgements against people with an opposing view when they don't really know what battle is like - or at least to put themselves out there for the possibility of risking their own lives. It's the bashing of opposing views -especially against people who served in wars and have had important people in their lives die for those causes from these chickenhaks that is the most absurd.
But of course you extrapolate the most insane analogies from my reasonable statements. Yes, of course - none of us have the right to call cops if we haven't been a cop. Give me a break - can't you sense your own absurdity when you try to make connections like that?
As for the Clinton draft dodging stuff - well that might make him a chicken. But he never aggressively pushed the country into a pre-emptive war. Don't you understand the word - you need both the chicken and the hawk to make someone a chickenhawk.
But of course you extrapolate the most insane analogies from my reasonable statements. Yes, of course - none of us have the right to call cops if we haven't been a cop. Give me a break - can't you sense your own absurdity when you try to make connections like that?
As for the Clinton draft dodging stuff - well that might make him a chicken. But he never aggressively pushed the country into a pre-emptive war. Don't you understand the word - you need both the chicken and the hawk to make someone a chickenhawk.
Last edited:
I've heard that proposal before. While it seems more palatable, I still dislike it. Let parents and their religious leaders tell kids what they have to do, not the government.
Hey DTB which one is u? I cannot blow it so I got the microlens out. I'll see if I can post a picture of all 4,000 plus of us as we massed to deploy.
GW it was a joke. But i like smurph do take it to heart when i see assholes pounding their chest when they wouldn't fight for one second. Rove is a prime example of this. Calling guys like Murtha names like traitor when this prick is full of nothing but hot air. I wrote somewhere that i appreciated your service but for the life of me in my opinion your veiws should be even stronger than mine. Stop using the labelslike liberal and that stuff in your post and stop lumping democrats in all your answers. talk about what is going on now. All that other shit yyou talk about just clouds your judgement. All thsoe dems who voted for this garbage should be held accountable to but they are not incharge and running this show.
Just to be clear, it was DTB who served, not Weasel.
All liberals are against the Bush administration, but not everyone against the Bush administration are liberals. For some reason they all get labeled that way though.
i thought i read both dog and weasal served. No wonder weasals veiws are what they are. Its the Fox News playbook.
Neverteaseit: Front row center-almost out of pic--
--Will look forward to your pics.
Got a few more I might hunt up that are clearer.
--Will look forward to your pics.
Got a few more I might hunt up that are clearer.
Isn't this actually a photo from the set of the movie version of 'Mash'? Isn't that Donald Sutherland in the upper left?
This was our crew and attire--two 5 man teams plus medic.
Hey G-dub, I don't mean to be confrontational with you on these subjects. Actually, I feel like we are pretty damn similar in our perspectives - minus a few points. It seems we dwell on those few pooints perhaps too often instead of celebrating the similarities, but overall I have a feeling that we probably fall in line with each other's opinion more often than not. ....Like Jessie Jackson would say before he became a useless soldout piece of crap - "common ground".
Rock over Maryland, rock on Vegas.:SIB
"Isn't this actually a photo from the set of the movie version of 'Mash'?"
Smurph-- remember the daughter I had contact with some time back? Her father that was killed is directly in center of pic with bush hat on.
Smurph-- remember the daughter I had contact with some time back? Her father that was killed is directly in center of pic with bush hat on.
""Just to be clear, it was DTB who served, not Weasel.""
of course you`re being confrontational..getting personal......you called me a "freak" a few days ago...
you`ll have to learn that letting your temper get the best of you is a losing proposition...i`m surprised you haven`t learned that already...in business...in a street fight...in anything...
""As for the Clinton draft dodging stuff - well that might make him a chicken. But he never aggressively pushed the country into a pre-emptive war. Don't you understand the word - you need both the chicken and the hawk to make someone a chickenhawk.""
Yesterday 08:16 PM
clinton couldn`t have been involved in any war...he never served?...right?...
of course there`s bosnia..with nato support...but we handled most of the wet work......with a shitpot load of collateral damage..civilian casualties.....but it doesn`t count if you don`t get your hands dirty...right?...
tail wagging the dog?
lets proceed given the absurd assertion that "if you didn`t serve,you can`t declare...or even discuss war"...
we`ll confine the iraq debate to only current and former members of the military...
of course,this excludes over 90 percent of living americans....but,that`s unimportant...lol
so,o.k...as moronic as the premise is,for the sake of argument, let's confine the iraq war debate to those who served in the military, active and reserve, current and retired.....
polls show 70-80 percent of military personnel supported bush's re-election....
i wonder why?....
and let me reiterate...i can`t ever recall stating that i was "gung ho" for invading iraq....i always said that i would have hated to make that decision....
BUT.....i always said that to ignore that there WAS rationale for doing it was cognitive disonance... revisionist history....and just plain dishonest.....
you would have to ignore the genocide of kurds....
the attempted building of the osirak reactor that the israeli`s bombed....
the invasion of kuwait/the burning of their oil fields
the firing at american planes....
the 25 k for suicide bombers...
the bed and breakfast provided for terrorists of all stripes....
the attempted assassination of bush sr...
the over 10 years of blocking u.n. attempts at full and free inspections....
the duplicity of the u.n. regarding sanctions....even when the the faux sanctions were on the verge of being abandoned...even before saddam allowed complete inspections...
the fact that every major intelligence agency declared that saddam was building and or attempting to acquire wmd`s...and that he had not provided proof/accounting of disbanded or destroyed stockpiles of weapons...
the fact that the rhetoric of many high profile dems in congress........during the clinton and bush administrations(including president clinton).....along with their votes to authorize the use of force.....seems to be ignored.....along with the clinton`s "iraq liberation act of 1998" declaring that regime change in iraq was "american policy"....
""The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agree following the First Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed in the House [2] and Senate [3] and signed into law by the US President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."""
there were reasons....agree or disagree...
to ignore all this?.....would only enforce the evidence that supports the long term affects of ritalin abuse on the cranial atrophy of today`s enlightened ignorant....
and no.....before you start....that kid-shooter in montreal wasn`t part of a bush/rovian plot to invade quebec.....
weasel, do you really believe your own bullshit?
"you would have to ignore the genocide of kurds...."
yeah, Bush and you losers are there because of moral concern for the kurds...nevermind that they left them to be slaughtered in 91. If you guys are the moral saviours of the world, where was your outrage during the Rwandan genocide? When are we going to invade and "save" the North Koreans? When are we giong to war with the Chinese and get their moral house in order? How about Saudi Arabia? When are we going to invade them and bring democracy to their people? If you really believe this war has anything to do with moral outrage you are a complete fvcking idiot.
"the attempted building of the osirak reactor that the israeli`s bombed...."
wtf does this have to with a war in Iraq?
"the invasion of kuwait/the burning of their oil fields"
again, wtf does this have to do with the current war in Iraq?
"the firing at american planes....
the 25 k for suicide bombers...
the bed and breakfast provided for terrorists of all stripes....
the attempted assassination of bush sr..."
you are not serious with this shit are you? I thought that you were better than this neocon, idiotic blog fodder.
"the over 10 years of blocking u.n. attempts at full and free inspections....
the duplicity of the u.n. regarding sanctions....even when the the faux sanctions were on the verge of being abandoned...even before saddam allowed complete inspections..."
The inspecters were given full access, but we went to war anyway.
"the fact that every major intelligence agency declared that saddam was building and or attempting to acquire wmd`s...and that he had not provided proof/accounting of disbanded or destroyed stockpiles of weapons..."
every major intelligence agency? do you do any research other than filling your head with the talking points of your dipshit, blowhard neocon pundits? Big Dick and the boys fabricated facts and silenced the dissenters within the CIA to make the case against Iraq. If you want a list of books on this topic I will be happy to provide them, but they are not talking books, and they weren't written by Limbaugh and the band of Bush backing dimwits, so I doubt that you would read them.
This is my last post to you weasel, because I realize now what a hopeless case you are. Save your moronic "so you think 9/11 was an inside job?" Hannity rhetoric for somebody else because I will not be responding. Go gobble up some more neofacist drivel and pat yourself on the back for being a "true" American who gets it.
"you would have to ignore the genocide of kurds...."
yeah, Bush and you losers are there because of moral concern for the kurds...nevermind that they left them to be slaughtered in 91. If you guys are the moral saviours of the world, where was your outrage during the Rwandan genocide? When are we going to invade and "save" the North Koreans? When are we giong to war with the Chinese and get their moral house in order? How about Saudi Arabia? When are we going to invade them and bring democracy to their people? If you really believe this war has anything to do with moral outrage you are a complete fvcking idiot.
"the attempted building of the osirak reactor that the israeli`s bombed...."
wtf does this have to with a war in Iraq?
"the invasion of kuwait/the burning of their oil fields"
again, wtf does this have to do with the current war in Iraq?
"the firing at american planes....
the 25 k for suicide bombers...
the bed and breakfast provided for terrorists of all stripes....
the attempted assassination of bush sr..."
you are not serious with this shit are you? I thought that you were better than this neocon, idiotic blog fodder.
"the over 10 years of blocking u.n. attempts at full and free inspections....
the duplicity of the u.n. regarding sanctions....even when the the faux sanctions were on the verge of being abandoned...even before saddam allowed complete inspections..."
The inspecters were given full access, but we went to war anyway.
"the fact that every major intelligence agency declared that saddam was building and or attempting to acquire wmd`s...and that he had not provided proof/accounting of disbanded or destroyed stockpiles of weapons..."
every major intelligence agency? do you do any research other than filling your head with the talking points of your dipshit, blowhard neocon pundits? Big Dick and the boys fabricated facts and silenced the dissenters within the CIA to make the case against Iraq. If you want a list of books on this topic I will be happy to provide them, but they are not talking books, and they weren't written by Limbaugh and the band of Bush backing dimwits, so I doubt that you would read them.
This is my last post to you weasel, because I realize now what a hopeless case you are. Save your moronic "so you think 9/11 was an inside job?" Hannity rhetoric for somebody else because I will not be responding. Go gobble up some more neofacist drivel and pat yourself on the back for being a "true" American who gets it.
Last edited:
jeez....and i thought you liked me......:scared
i can`t do a page on each issue...
the intelligence communities of every major country were confident that iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003.....these include the united states, canada,the united kingdom,spain,australiajapan,IRAN and even countries in whose interest it was to stop any action against iraq(germany/france/russia)......
it was a working assumption that such wmd`s were in iraq...
after iraq admitted producing a certain amount of wmds, disarmament by the u.n. began.......how come a large portion was not disarmed by the u.n. and iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them “unilaterally”?...
why didn’t the saddam regime just destroy them with u.n. supervision like the rest of them?...like south africa and ukraine?...
the u.n. recognized that iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that iraq do so.....
if he was clean,why not do so?....
bill clinton is the one who originally put the focus on saddam`s wmd possession and links to terrorists.......how come when he bombed iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn’t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about wmds?
the accusations that the bush administration used 9-11 to make a lie about iraq to cause war are ridiculous.....
even before 9-11, the administration was making such claims (as was the clinton asdministration beforehand)...
i could go on and on...but i have football and boxing to handicap...and family to deal with...
i have one question,jabberwocky.....and please,don`t fly off the handle.....
WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11?.....
would you mind answering that for me?....pretty please with sugar on it....
thanks....and chill out.... .................dude:Yep: ....
i can`t do a page on each issue...
the intelligence communities of every major country were confident that iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003.....these include the united states, canada,the united kingdom,spain,australiajapan,IRAN and even countries in whose interest it was to stop any action against iraq(germany/france/russia)......
it was a working assumption that such wmd`s were in iraq...
after iraq admitted producing a certain amount of wmds, disarmament by the u.n. began.......how come a large portion was not disarmed by the u.n. and iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them “unilaterally”?...
why didn’t the saddam regime just destroy them with u.n. supervision like the rest of them?...like south africa and ukraine?...
the u.n. recognized that iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that iraq do so.....
if he was clean,why not do so?....
bill clinton is the one who originally put the focus on saddam`s wmd possession and links to terrorists.......how come when he bombed iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn’t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about wmds?
the accusations that the bush administration used 9-11 to make a lie about iraq to cause war are ridiculous.....
even before 9-11, the administration was making such claims (as was the clinton asdministration beforehand)...
i could go on and on...but i have football and boxing to handicap...and family to deal with...
i have one question,jabberwocky.....and please,don`t fly off the handle.....
WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11?.....
would you mind answering that for me?....pretty please with sugar on it....
thanks....and chill out.... .................dude:Yep: ....
Last edited:
