Get off my property

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So then FDR is a chicken Hawk of the first magnitude.

[Red Harvest]

I did for 10 years. If your so against the United States and her allies being in Iraq or fighting terrorist, then get your terrorist sympothyzing, anti western, socialist loving, disctator worshipping ass over there and fight the "able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks" currently over there...

...whew...somebody missed the point entirely...and still has ZERO clue as to what a chickenhawk is.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and still has ZERO clue as to what a chickenhawk is.

Its a slur made up by those on the left. Of course no democrats could ever be accused of being a chicken hawk. Having served in the armed forces is not a pre requset for being president or sending us to war. Certainly there would be a lot fewer wars if all countries made their polticians fight their wars instead of the regular Joes.

[Red Harvest]

So then FDR is a chicken Hawk of the first magnitude.

Really gotta wonder if you understand the definition... Do you really know anything about FDR or are you just running on what you would like to believe about the man? Born in 1882, his only shot at war would have been the 1898 Spanish American War...and that would have made him too young. (Don't know if he personally supported that or not.) By WWI he was acting as the administrative head of the Navy and had been instrumental in setting up the Naval Reserve and preparing the Navy for war. In 1921 he was stricken with Polio.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you really know anything about FDR

No I never heard of him.

Born in 1882, his only shot at war would have been the 1898 Spanish American War...and that would have made him too young. (Don't know if he personally supported that or not.) By WWI he was acting as the administrative head of the Navy and had been instrumental in setting up the Naval Reserve and preparing the Navy for war.

So he was young enough to quit and go join the army during WW1 then. Hes a chicken hawk. He was instrumental in getting the US involved in two world wars.

[Red Harvest]

Its a slur made up by those on the left.

No, it's not. 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.

At it's heart it refers to hypocrisy. There is no reason a democrat wouldn't be eligible for the list...assuming the individual in question fit the criteria.

[Red Harvest]

So he was young enough to quit and go join the army during WW1 then. Hes a chicken hawk. He was instrumental in getting the US involved in two world wars.

Since he was working for the Navy, he was in the war effort rather directly. No hypocrisy on his end.

I guess with your logic it would have been better to let the Nazi's and Japanese win WWII, while we sat it out.

[bmolsson]

I guess with your logic it would have been better to let the Nazi's and Japanese win WWII, while we sat it out.

The Nazi would never have won the war, even if US would have sat it out.

[Red Harvest]

The Nazi would never have won the war, even if US would have sat it out.

Great Britain was prevented by collapsing through FDR's efforts--the U.S. wasn't doing the fighting, it was throwing a lifeline. Without Great Britain and the U.S. the Nazi's would have chased the Russians over the mountains. There would have been nothing to tie the Nazi forces down in Western Europe or the Mediterranean.

[Redleg]

Now see? There some of you go again. Did I mention names? If you are of the right age to join the military and you're able to serve and you're rah-rah for the war and you haven't tried to sign up in spite of the desperate need for new recruits in the military right now, then you are a chicken hawk. If the military turns you down, then fine. There is no other excuse for letting someone else do your fighting. If you're in college, then put it off, go see your recruiter. It's that simple. If you don't meet ALL of those conditions, then you aren't a chicken hawk. Could it possibly be more clear? Those of you claiming my post fits you personally and then arguing with the above are having some difficulty with reading comprehension. I suggest remedial reading.

Yes indeed someone needs to have a little remedial reading - Here let me suggest you read your own words.

find the responses interesting, to say the least. Have you allowed your dogmatic arguments on a heated and emotional issue to cloud your ability to see things other than in black and white, pro and con?

And what do you think the term Chickenhawk is used for. Again don't get upset with responses and attempt to claim the higher ground when one uses demonization and dogmatic arguements in the first place.

Yep Aenlic the arguement of the Chickenhawk is an emotional one - therefor it elicts an emotional response. Like I stated - am I a Chickenhawk because I no longer serve in the military but I advocate the war. Since I am only 10% disabled I actually still fit within the catergory as defined by you of

feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is.

Yea right - claiming a high ground when one starts with a emotional laden statement. LOL Someone needs some

[bmolsson]

Great Britain was prevented by collapsing through FDR's efforts--the U.S. wasn't doing the fighting, it was throwing a lifeline. Without Great Britain and the U.S. the Nazi's would have chased the Russians over the mountains. There would have been nothing to tie the Nazi forces down in Western Europe or the Mediterranean.

Actually Germany lost the war the day they declared war on Sovietunion. In reality that would mean that Stalingrad was the turning point.

Surely, US was an important support for the allied forces, and all Europeans are greatful for that, but the war was not won by or due to US.

[bmolsson]

Wow. That's the biggest load of revisionist BS i've seen this week.

Why ?

[Red Harvest]

Actually Germany lost the war the day they declared war on Sovietunion. In reality that would mean that Stalingrad was the turning point.

Surely, US was an important support for the allied forces, and all Europeans are greatful for that, but the war was not won by or due to US.

You miss the simple point...the reason he was in big trouble invading Russia, is that he had not finished off the Brits. The Brits were in danger of being starved out and otherwise taken out of action.

You also don't seem to understand that the U.S. was not only providing more fronts for the Nazi's to deal with, but also SUPPLYING the Russians with additional aircraft, tanks and other gear, foodstuffs, etc. The aircraft total alone was ~13,000 U.S. and 8,000 Brit/Canadian. The total of U.S. tanks and self propelled guns was ~8,000 and ~4,000 from Brit/Canadians.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Since he was working for the Navy, he was in the war effort rather directly. No hypocrisy on his end.

No only on yours. Bush was in the ANG and now hes commander in chief so he was in the war effort both times and is therefore no chicken hawk.

[Aenlic]

Bush was AWOL from the ANG for almost a year. Despite having a substantial cash reward available, no one has come forward with proof that Bush ever attended a single ANG duty in Alabama. Both the CO and XO of that unit at the time have stated - on the record - that they do not remember ever meeting ol' Georgie. The only reason he was assigned to Alabama in the first place was because he'd already moved there, abandoning his Houston duty post. It took three requests before his transfer was finally approved. The first two were denied outright.

Bush didn't even serve honorably while he was in Houston. He failed to achieve a required physical for flight status. Whether he just didn't show up or actually failed it is unclear. "Failed to achieve" can mean a lot of things in military speak. He was grounded from flying. He never again regained his flight status. Why? Bush was trained, expensively, to fly jets. And yet, for the last 2/3 of his ANG duty he had no flight status.

He clearly admitted the AWOL, because he later, while still absent, accepted a punitive adminstrative assignment to a Denver ANG office to make up his AWOL time. For those of you unfamiliar with the military, if you go AWOL you can make up the time and still get an honorable discharge. Bush never showed up in Denver either! He never made up his 1 year in Denver as required. Instead, he asked for and recieved an early discharge because he was already enrolled at Harvard Business School. That, right there, shows an obvious intent not to return to the duty post from which he was absent. Now anyone else would have been dishonorably discharged at that point, and possibly even charged; but ol' Georgie's father was then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and in tight with Nixon and about to be appointed Chairman of the RNC. Guard appointments are purely political. It should come as no surprise that the state ANG commander who approved most of these things for ol' Georgie was later appointed national commander of the ANG by Daddy Bush when Daddy was finally president. That was the same man who bumped ol' Georgie over 500 other applicants for the Texas ANG, all of whom scored higher than Georgie in testing and had been on the waiting list longer. Why? Daddy. When Georgie entered the ANG, Daddy was a U.S. Congressman from Texas. When Georgie lost his flight status and ran off to Alabama (before getting permission!), Daddy was U.N. Ambassador. When Georgie never showed up in Denver and then asked for an received an early, and entirely undeserved, honorable discharge, Daddy was Chairman of the RNC.

Because of Daddy's influence, as a Congressman, Ambassador to the U.N. and RNC Chairman, Georgie was allowed to get away with being a deserter. That's right. I said deserter. Article 85 of the UCMJ is pretty clear. Since he was gone for more than 30 days, the military may assume he never intended to return. In fact, he never did return, and displayed his intent blatantly by entering Harvard Business School while he was supposed to be serving his AWOL time in Denver. Why wasn't Article 85 applied? Daddy. Plain and simple. Cut and dried. If he'd been a poor black man guilty of the same offense, then would have been in prison. Wonderful thing, wealth, power and privilege. Makes a real man out you. A real chicken hawk of a man.

[bmolsson]

Had Hitler listened to his generals,

Well, he didn't. If he would have listened, there would most probably never been a WWII anyway.....

[KafirChobee]

Yes indeed someone needs to have a little remedial reading - Here let me suggest you read your own words.
And what do you think the term Chickenhawk is used for. Again don't get upset with responses and attempt to claim the higher ground when one uses demonization and dogmatic arguements in the first place.
Yep Aenlic the arguement of the Chickenhawk is an emotional one - therefor it elicts an emotional response. Like I stated - am I a Chickenhawk because I no longer serve in the military but I advocate the war. Since I am only 10% disabled I actually still fit within the catergory as defined by you of
Yea right - claiming a high ground when one starts with a emotional laden statement. LOL Someone needs some

Red, I really do respect you as a vet. However, as a person that did his duty and understood it? I give you an "C-". Either you forgot the moments of terror - or now discount them for a more philosophical right-wing line (as does my friend Gawain), or you accept a particular political party line and discount anything that discredits them.

You attempt to change the definition of "ChickenHawk to serve your own defintion. That, in part, is hypocracy. Not pure hypocracy, but hypocracy just the same.

Eliciting emotion to expound an idea? Isn't that exactly what Bush43 has done from the outset of his suggestion of war in Iraq? Or, since 9/11 - for all of those that simply wanted some sort of revenge.

Suggesting that all vets must be "ChickenHawks" - I find insulting. Denying that ChickenHawks should be allowed to proclaim their authenticity because they believe as our ChickenHawk President does? Well, that is just wrong. To claim a higher ground or knowledge because you were once wounded - but accepted the benefit package - is what? Exactly? it is BS. A true believer would turn in his benefits as simply being the patriotic thing to do - no? Hell, I have buds that wanted out bad enough to sign away their rights to benefits just to not go back to the military (Marines and Army - Navy never brought it up, nor the AF - but the grunts were told sign this or you might go back - to 'nam, or have to finish your ETS - of course the VFW found them and corrected that issue - still is for some).

Justification for illegal wars seems to be the new trend of the GOP - since Nixon, anyway. Now, don't get me wrong - Nixon was a liberal, when it came to actually giving a damn about the American people, but he was confused when it was about their rights (guaranteed freedoms and such - which all GOPers are). Nixon served in the Navy, rode a desk well and honorably. He was denied war activity because he was a Quaker - well, he wrote it and the navy deffered him. Still, he did serve and he did ask to be in combat. Personally, I always liked him as a man - I just didnt' like that he wanted to expand the presidency (as Bush43 has done).

Back to the subject (sorry, I tend to ramble - as those that know me accept or enjoy finding the finer points to counter my real ideas), ChickenHawks. It never ceases to amaze me when true heroes justify the actions of cowards. I find it almost comical, when a man that put his balls on the line justifys why someone else didn't (that person being someone whom's philosophy or actions they now agree with - even if they were a limp dick in reality). It is like, "if you agree with me, you don't need to have served - or be willing too, just agree and we can talk all the poor boys into doing it for us." And, that's alright. Even for those that had the balls to be shot at.

Me, I was one of those poor boys. I understand what was happening, and accepted it as my fate. As someone pointed out - the AirFarce and Nambys are making their enlistment quotas. It is just the harmsway boys that ain't (army and marines) - was the same during my era actually. Some stuff never changes. Especially the ChickenHawks finding ways to avoid it all together.

Point is, never justify an idea with an ideal. It simply doesnot work. In the long wrong, the people will see thru it. If, one is honest at the start - they need never justify the why or wherefore of their actions. However, if the original premise was a lie, then one must continue to weave the web that got them there. "oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first choose to deceive." Do any of you truely believe that Bush or any of his "never made a mistake" followers will ever step forward and say, "We may have made a mistake" or that they might have had alternatives to the invasion? Or, do you simply accept that we are where we are, and therefore must accept it?

The people I would expect to challenge the present hyperbole of the ChickenHawks, are those that actually heard the shot fired in anger. Those that were truely in the S_it - those that held a buddy's head and acted as their Mother (MOMMY!... it's ok son, just a scratch), as they lay dying in the muck (or dust on the side of a road). Amazing, guess it is a matter that once one is deceived it simply happens to them over and over again - because it is the patriotic thing to do. Or, just because they can't give up on .... something or some new ideal of the new patriotism (like in, blindly into the night).



Finally, I beg you don't one line quote me .... if you do, I swear I'll have my friends find out who you really are and expose you. J/K ... be honest.

[Aenlic]

Well said, KafirChobee.

I am always amazed by most people's inability to tell the differences between patriotism, nationalism and jingoism. All three have very distinct meanings, but the last two are almost universally believed to be the same as the first. Somewhere, our education system failed them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wrong. Bush is a chickenhawk because he started this war. He pushed for it. In World War II,

First off to say Bush started the war is desingenuous. Secondly then FDR is a chickenhawk as he did everything he could to get us involved in ww2 . FDR drove the Japanese to attack us and he the same can be said of his policies towards Germany.

Bush was AWOL from the ANG for almost a year.

You still believe Dan Rather?

Despite having a substantial cash reward available, no one has come forward with proof that Bush ever attended a single ANG duty in Alabama.

Wrong again. This is old and tired and has been debunked .

[Redleg]

Red, I really do respect you as a vet. However, as a person that did his duty and understood it? I give you an "C-". Either you forgot the moments of terror - or now discount them for a more philosophical right-wing line (as does my friend Gawain), or you accept a particular political party line and discount anything that discredits them.

And you would be wrong. What is worse you yourself are committing the error that you claim I am doing. LOL

You attempt to change the definition of "ChickenHawk to serve your own defintion. That, in part, is hypocracy. Not pure hypocracy, but hypocracy just the same.

Yes I was changing the defination of Chickenhawk - just as Aelnic has done - but don't let that cloud your reason.

Eliciting emotion to expound an idea? Isn't that exactly what Bush43 has done from the outset of his suggestion of war in Iraq? Or, since 9/11 - for all of those that simply wanted some sort of revenge.

Yes indeed its a politicians normal course of actions.

Suggesting that all vets must be "ChickenHawks" - I find insulting. Denying that ChickenHawks should be allowed to proclaim their authenticity because they believe as our ChickenHawk President does? Well, that is just wrong. To claim a higher ground or knowledge because you were once wounded - but accepted the benefit package - is what? Exactly? it is BS. A true believer would turn in his benefits as simply being the patriotic thing to do - no? Hell, I have buds that wanted out bad enough to sign away their rights to benefits just to not go back to the military (Marines and Army - Navy never brought it up, nor the AF - but the grunts were told sign this or you might go back - to 'nam, or have to finish your ETS - of course the VFW found them and corrected that issue - still is for some).

Actually my disability does not come from being wounded in combat - but from an accident. Again Chickenhawk as described by Aelnic is also not correct. A little hyperbole for his hyperbole is a method to deal with his emotional appeal arguement.

Justification for illegal wars seems to be the new trend of the GOP - since Nixon, anyway. Now, don't get me wrong - Nixon was a liberal, when it came to actually giving a damn about the American people, but he was confused when it was about their rights (guaranteed freedoms and such - which all GOPers are). Nixon served in the Navy, rode a desk well and honorably. He was denied war activity because he was a Quaker - well, he wrote it and the navy deffered him. Still, he did serve and he did ask to be in combat. Personally, I always liked him as a man - I just didnt' like that he wanted to expand the presidency (as Bush43 has done).

Again the War in Iraq is not illegal - don't go now mixing emotional appeal on your arguement against emotional appeal. That is hypocrisy on your part.

Back to the subject (sorry, I tend to ramble - as those that know me accept or enjoy finding the finer points to counter my real ideas), ChickenHawks. It never ceases to amaze me when true heroes justify the actions of cowards. I find it almost comical, when a man that put his balls on the line justifys why someone else didn't (that person being someone whom's philosophy or actions they now agree with - even if they were a limp dick in reality). It is like, "if you agree with me, you don't need to have served - or be willing too, just agree and we can talk all the poor boys into doing it for us." And, that's alright. Even for those that had the balls to be shot at.

Again you and Aelnic might want to check out the defination of Chickenhawk
Here I will help you out

Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military, especially one who opted out of a previous war on dubious grounds. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war is morally better-equipped to make decisions about war.

By the way since when is an individual expressing his opinion in this type of setting means that he is a commentator? Again notice how it is defined as an ad hominem given Aelnic's attempt at playing the better debater - the context of my last two post are spot on about his hyperbole and hypocrisy. However it seems that you are falling into the same trap he is. Individuals in this forum - I doubt very seriousily fall into any of the catergories that define Chickenhawk via the politicial defination. Here is the only one that many would even fall close to - but in myopinion still fall short of meeting the defination.

A commentator is an individual who comments on sports, politics, current events, or public issues; synonyms include pundit. Social commentator may cover anything from a preacher to a columnist to a cultural critic.

A live broadcast of a major public event, such as inauguration, funeral of a public figure, space flight or sporting occasion, is almost invariably accompanied by the thoughts of a commentator. This may be on television, accompanied by relevant images, or on radio. The technique involved differs between the two media, with radio broadcasters needing to be more explicit and descriptive because of the absence of pictures.

Sports and other commentators usually broadcast live during events, in an essentially unscripted way, though they may refer to prepared materials, for example on sports statistics. Spontaneity, and even enthusiasm and partisan comments, are sometimes valued by those watching or listening to sports.

So before jumping on the Bandwagon of lets attack all who are Chickenhawks maybe you should take the advice that Aelnic spouted then chose to ignore.

Me, I was one of those poor boys. I understand what was happening, and accepted it as my fate. As someone pointed out - the AirFarce and Nambys are making their enlistment quotas. It is just the harmsway boys that ain't (army and marines) - was the same during my era actually. Some stuff never changes. Especially the ChickenHawks finding ways to avoid it all together.

There you go doing what you just criticized me of in the first paragraph. Should I take the same course of grading you. LOL

Point is, never justify an idea with an ideal. It simply doesnot work. In the long wrong, the people will see thru it. If, one is honest at the start - they need never justify the why or wherefore of their actions. However, if the original premise was a lie, then one must continue to weave the web that got them there. "oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first choose to deceive." Do any of you truely believe that Bush or any of his "never made a mistake" followers will ever step forward and say, "We may have made a mistake" or that they might have had alternatives to the invasion? Or, do you simply accept that we are where we are, and therefore must accept it?

You might want to look at some statements of those you support the war. I believe several of us have criticized the mistakes of the adminstration. But don't let that distract your attempt at hyperbole here.

The people I would expect to challenge the present hyperbole of the ChickenHawks, are those that actually heard the shot fired in anger. Those that were truely in the S_it - those that held a buddy's head and acted as their Mother (MOMMY!... it's ok son, just a scratch), as they lay dying in the muck (or dust on the side of a road). Amazing, guess it is a matter that once one is deceived it simply happens to them over and over again - because it is the patriotic thing to do. Or, just because they can't give up on .... something or some new ideal of the new patriotism (like in, blindly into the night).

Or maybe some of use realize in regards to Iraq that this had to be done - it should of been finished in 1992 when the Kurds and the Shai' revolted, but the Senior Bush adminstration bailed out, and then there were the numerous times during the Clinton adminstration that shows that a course of action involving the overthrow of Saddam would eventually have to take place. Again don't throw hyperbole into the arguement when you are complaining against hyperbole - it makes your arguement disengenous - and hypocritical.

Finally, I beg you don't one line quote me .... if you do, I swear I'll have my friends find out who you really are and expose you. J/K ... be honest.

LOL - your arguement deserves to be quoted by paragraph and countered by paragraph.

[Aenlic]

Redleg, you are a real piece of work. Are you and Fred Phelps related by any chance?

Until now, any statements which I've made in this thread against others have been made indirectly at no one in particular, except in the case of some politicians, and a drunk yahoo in a pickup. That means they can't, by definition, be ad hominem attacks; because they weren't used against someone else in the debate. You, on the other hand, have called me and others hypocrites directly as well as other directed personal attacks. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the phrase.

I realize that you just don't get the difference; because you also seem to think my comments about chicken hawks were directed at you, in spite of my very specific categorization, into which you don't fall. I even went out of my way to exclude Rumsfeld as a chicken hawk when he was mentioned; because he doesn't fit the definition. As for the rest, your defensive attitude speaks pretty eloquently all by itself. I don't need to make accusations while you're chewing on your own logical toenails with both feet planted firmly in your mouth.

Here's the definition for chicken hawk by WordSpy.com:

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.

Do you see a specific requirement that it be politicians in that definition. I've been exacting in more than one post about my usage of the phrase. and yet, others, yourself included, got your panties in a wad and took offense at something that wasn't even directed at you in the first place. But if you're going to claim that something is tailored to fit you, then you'd best be prepared to like the cut.

Now, if your defensiveness over the phrase, which can't be because of the above definition, is instead the result of some pent up emotional distress because you fit one of the other definitions of the phrase, then I suppose we had best hope you have feathers and can fly.

The above post is an ad hominem argument. It is used to directly attack another person in a debate. Behavior in which you've chosen to behave in this thread by specifically insulting other posters. Would you like it explained to you again? I'll be more than happy to further enlighten you.

[Red Harvest]

No only on yours. Bush was in the ANG and now hes commander in chief so he was in the war effort both times and is therefore no chicken hawk.

Hiding in the ANG? That isn't in the war effort, that's hiding from it. Of family members I know of who served in the guard at the time, I can safely say that none of them wanted to go to Vietnam. The ones who did want to go to Vietnam did not serve in the Guard, and they went.

The ANG MAKES him a chickenhawk extraordaniare. He had strings pulled to get the position, was a discipline problem, failed to fulfill his obligations, etc., didn't even find it necessary to keep his flight status. What useful service was he performing in the ANG? He couldn't even be bothered to do his job. He struts around saying what a great "War President" he is despite mismanaging the two wars he has on his hands right now. Quintessential chickenhawk.

[Red Harvest]

You still believe Dan Rather?

While the memo may have been a fabrication and therefore Dan Rather had failed journalistically, what I have read/heard reported elsewhere it that the sentiment in the memo was an accurate representation of Dubya's commanders views of the situation. The memo might be false, but the story minus the memo is not.

Wrong again. This is old and tired and has been debunked .

Really??? That's news. So who claimed the reward? Who has come out and proven that they served with the future president. The one fellow I know of claiming he remembered Dubya there didn't have service dates that lined up with Dubya. His claim was not credible.

Seems like there would be a bunch of folks who would remember serving with a future president.

[Redleg]

Redleg, you are a real piece of work. Are you and Fred Phelps related by any chance?

The pot calling the Kettle Black - lots of fun there. I know who my relatives are - can you say the same thing. Notice how you are calling me a piece of work - when you fit more in that category then I. Have a nice day with your feeling superior.

Until now, any statements which I've made in this thread against others have been made indirectly at no one in particular, except in the case of some politicians, and a drunk yahoo in a pickup. That means they can't, by definition, be ad hominem attacks; because they weren't used against someone else in the debate. You, on the other hand, have called me and others hypocrites directly as well as other directed personal attacks. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the phrase.

Actually again - you might want to check definations. You made a rant - an emotional appeal - which I responded to. The emotional appeal ie the rant was directed at others within this forum - inother words it was an ad hominem arguement . Here let me refer to your words exactly, which you posted here in the .Org - knowing that President Bush, and others are not reading posts here, but members of the .Org Community. So by ranting here you are ranting at members of the .Org Community.

As a disabled vet, I feel it should be mandatory for all able-bodied jingoistic, slogan-mouthing, war-loving, pseudo-patriotic, nationalistic, flag-draped chicken hawks to get their butts down to the local recruiter and join up. Tell them you want to be a scout in the Army or a forward observer in the Marines. If you're a pro-war American of the right age, then shut up and put your life where your mouth is. Or you could just be a 5 time deferment like Dick Cheney and just send other people off to die for your oil. What are you waiting for? Go on! We're waiting...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Now lets see Panzer supports the war - and by his own words can not enlist because of medicial reason. So are you addressing it at him. Again try checking out how the defination came about and what it means.

I realize that you just don't get the difference; because you also seem to think my comments about chicken hawks were directed at you, in spite of my very specific categorization, into which you don't fall. I even went out of my way to exclude Rumsfeld as a chicken hawk when he was mentioned; because he doesn't fit the definition. As for the rest, your defensive attitude speaks pretty eloquently all by itself. I don't need to make accusations while you're chewing on your own logical toenails with both feet planted firmly in your mouth.

Please feel free to include yourself in that comment. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal - then attempt to claim the high ground when you yourself are at fault. Notice in your orginal rant - quoted above to refresh your memory - that you did not exclude Rumsfeld - you actually were including all here in the .Org because of the language you used. Again an emotional appeal arguement - which indeed is an ad hominem arguement.

Since you seem to be confused on what an ad hominem arguement is - here let me help you understand.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

The initial phase and using the label of Chickenhawk does indeed fit the description of ad hominem where are you attacking the people who support or arueme for the war with Iraq, not the arguement concerning the war. However you are attacking those who support (the Man) the war (the arguement).

Futhermore in your rant - which is ad hominem you meet one of the criteria for it to be such an arguement.

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Now who has their foot in their mouth.

Here's the definition for chicken hawk by WordSpy.com:

chicken hawk (CHIK.un.hawk) n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.

Again try reading the defination provided by Wikepedia - it includes more spefics along the lines of what Chichenhawk means - well besides being a bird of prey . Then again how can any member of .Org be shown to take special measure at avoiding going to war - since most here are young. Again you made a rant - an emotional appeal directed at who knows what - but one must assume it was at the general audience of the .Org since you posted it here verus somewhere else.

Do you see a specific requirement that it be politicians in that definition. I've been exacting in more than one post about my usage of the phrase. and yet, others, yourself included, got your panties in a wad and took offense at something that wasn't even directed at you in the first place. But if you're going to claim that something is tailored to fit you, then you'd best be prepared to like the cut.

No I saw your little post for what it was - a rant. However don't let that distract you from taking pot shots at others for calling you on the rant. Actually try reading the Wikipedia one - it gives a spefic defination. And again look at your own provided defination. Who here in the .Org meets the conditions to be a "Chickenhawk."

Now, if your defensiveness over the phrase, which can't be because of the above definition, is instead the result of some pent up emotional distress because you fit one of the other definitions of the phrase, then I suppose we had best hope you have feathers and can fly.

Maybe so - but you first. Maybe its because I recoginzed your rant for what it was - and decided to play a little logic game with you. I am not the most intelligent person in the world - but I recoginzed your rant for what it was. To bad you didn't.

The above post is an ad hominem argument. It is used to directly attack another person in a debate. Behavior in which you've chosen to behave in this thread by specifically insulting other posters. Would you like it explained to you again? I'll be more than happy to further enlighten you.

No - I understand it very well - maybe you need to understand what the nature of your initial rant is - an attempt to demonize those who you disagree with. You placed a label on people in which disagree with you - not because of who they are - but because of opinions they express on an internet forum. Those people who might meet the defination of "Chickenhawk" are few and far between. Now if you would of stated in the Rant that Bush, and several politicans where chickenhawks - I would of just chalked it up to another baised opinion because you disagree with the war with Iraq - however since you made it a general rant direct at the general audience of the .Org - I called it what it was and still is - nothing more then an ad hominem arguement directed at members of the .Org who do not agree with your politics or postion.

[Redleg]

Hiding in the ANG? That isn't in the war effort, that's hiding from it. Of family members I know of who served in the guard at the time, I can safely say that none of them wanted to go to Vietnam. The ones who did want to go to Vietnam did not serve in the Guard, and they went.

Care to guess how many National Guard units were in Vietnam?

The ANG MAKES him a chickenhawk extraordaniare. He had strings pulled to get the position, was a discipline problem, failed to fulfill his obligations, etc., didn't even find it necessary to keep his flight status. What useful service was he performing in the ANG? He couldn't even be bothered to do his job. He struts around saying what a great "War President" he is despite mismanaging the two wars he has on his hands right now. Quintessential chickenhawk.

Not necessarily - I know several individuals who were in the National Guard who ended up going to Vietnam - I also know of whole units that were deployed to Vietnam. For instance you might want to check out the history of one of the Ranger Regiments that was in Vietnam - if I remember the state correctly the unit was from Illinois.

[KukriKhan]

Pretty good work, folks...it took 5 and a half pages for this one to derail into personal bickering and one-to-one sniping.

Warning: Any further name-calling hurled at another member will result in unpleasant sanctions.

Back on-topic: Does anyone know if Ms. Sheehan received and/or cashed the survivors' benefit check that should have been issued after her son's death? The debate in the op/ed media over her 'moral high ground' might be affected by that information.

[Strike For The South]

5 cand a half thats got to be record

[Xiahou]

While the memo may have been a fabrication and therefore Dan Rather had failed journalistically, what I have read/heard reported elsewhere it that the sentiment in the memo was an accurate representation of Dubya's commanders views of the situation. The memo might be false, but the story minus the memo is not.

To paraphrase Dan Rather "It's not the facts, but the seriousness of the allegations.".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Who needs facts when you can fling allegations around?

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Back on-topic: Does anyone know if Ms. Sheehan received and/or cashed the survivors' benefit check that should have been issued after her son's death? The debate in the op/ed media over her 'moral high ground' might be affected by that information.

I do not beleive such things are a matter of public record - however I would image that if he had the SGLI someone has recieved payment.