Quote Originally Posted by KafirChobee
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.