• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

chicken hawks

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All we heard from dems during Iraq was "chicken hawks". Who's the chicken hawks now? LMAO How times change. Nancy sounds exactly like Reps in the runup to Iraq.

“It is in our national interest to respond to the Syrian government’s unspeakable use of chemical weapons. Indeed, it has been, and remains, a core pillar of our national security – under Democratic and Republican administrations – to prevent, limit, and halt the spread and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This is a matter of national, regional, and national security" we must respond"

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/09/03/nancy-pelosi-on-syria-we-must-respond/
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All we heard from dems during Iraq was "chicken hawks". Who's the chicken hawks now? LMAO How times change. Nancy sounds exactly like Reps in the runup to Iraq.

“It is in our national interest to respond to the Syrian government’s unspeakable use of chemical weapons. Indeed, it has been, and remains, a core pillar of our national security – under Democratic and Republican administrations – to prevent, limit, and halt the spread and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This is a matter of national, regional, and national security" we must respond"

Nancy Pelosi on Syria: “We must respond” | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

but...but...but....this time it's different
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Course the Neo-con chicken hawks wanted to INVADE and not just launch a few cruise missiles- they ridiculed that option.

Big difference here was the Cons wanted to commit our troops to a ground war- this is a limited strike with no boots on the ground.

Some are so blinded by partisanship rote rhetoric they can't tell the diference from sacrificing American lives vs American cruise missiles... :roll:
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Course the Neo-con chicken hawks wanted to INVADE and not just launch a few cruise missiles- they ridiculed that option.

Big difference here was the Cons wanted to commit our troops to a ground war- this is a limited strike with no boots on the ground.

Some are so blinded by partisanship rote rhetoric they can't tell the diference from sacrificing American lives vs American cruise missiles... :roll:

do you seriously believe that we can just lob a few cruise missiles into Syria and that will be the end of it?
 

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
30,917
Reaction score
32,113
Location
With Yo Mama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Killing innocents via carpet bombing, rockets, artillery and drones is acceptable? The U.S. has killed more civilians in Irag and Afghanistan than innocents gassed in Syria. It's passed time for us to stop killing for peace.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Course the Neo-con chicken hawks wanted to INVADE and not just launch a few cruise missiles- they ridiculed that option.

Big difference here was the Cons wanted to commit our troops to a ground war- this is a limited strike with no boots on the ground.

Some are so blinded by partisanship rote rhetoric they can't tell the diference from sacrificing American lives vs American cruise missiles... :roll:

The fact is once you open up this can of worms you don't know where it will lead or how it will escalate. Once you open a "can of whoop ass" on a foreign country you don't have any idea what they will do in retaliation and if that will suck you in even further. Remember that Nam started with a few advisors. What do we do if Syria retaliates by launching gas attacks or gives chemical weapons to terrorist? This is starting down a road that you don't know where it goes and if there is anyplace to turn around. It could just keep getting muddier and steeper until you have no choice but to keep going until you get to the cliff at the end. If we do this thing in Syria we lose control of the situation and will have to react to whatever Syria does so when you agree to this bombing you are agreeing to all out war if necessary.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The fact is once you open up this can of worms you don't know where it will lead or how it will escalate. Once you open a "can of whoop ass" on a foreign country you don't have any idea what they will do in retaliation and if that will suck you in even further. Remember that Nam started with a few advisors. What do we do if Syria retaliates by launching gas attacks or gives chemical weapons to terrorist? This is starting down a road that you don't know where it goes and if there is anyplace to turn around. It could just keep getting muddier and steeper until you have no choice but to keep going until you get to the cliff at the end. If we do this thing in Syria we lose control of the situation and will have to react to whatever Syria does so when you agree to this bombing you are agreeing to all out war if necessary.

Ahhh but your snarky OP was an attempt to compare the Neo-Con leap before you look INVASION of Iraq with a punishment strike into Syria. Oh yes indeed we could start an escalation into Syria- well except at damn near every other 'cross roads' the remaining chicken hawks in the GOP 'coughMcCainGrahamcough' have demanded intervention and Obama has demurred. So I don't see any headlong rush into putting troops in Syria.

I suppose to those who never served it all looks the same, to my eye there is a VAST difference between taking two years to get to the missile launching phase and BushII's two months with Iraq and sending in thousands of troops.

THAT is the difference between GOP Chicken Hawks mindless headlong rush into Iraq and this Administrations very calculated immediate punishment for using gas and the BushII's use of Saddam's gas attacks 20 years later.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
do you seriously believe that we can just lob a few cruise missiles into Syria and that will be the end of it?

The OP is comparing a missile strike to an headlong mindless invasion. I'd say you are like a 16 year old boy and his first, with a girl, sexual experience- a tad premature. :3oops:
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ahhh but your snarky OP was an attempt to compare the Neo-Con leap before you look INVASION of Iraq with a punishment strike into Syria. Oh yes indeed we could start an escalation into Syria- well except at damn near every other 'cross roads' the remaining chicken hawks in the GOP 'coughMcCainGrahamcough' have demanded intervention and Obama has demurred. So I don't see any headlong rush into putting troops in Syria.

I suppose to those who never served it all looks the same, to my eye there is a VAST difference between taking two years to get to the missile launching phase and BushII's two months with Iraq and sending in thousands of troops.

THAT is the difference between GOP Chicken Hawks mindless headlong rush into Iraq and this Administrations very calculated immediate punishment for using gas and the BushII's use of Saddam's gas attacks 20 years later.

If you read my "snarky OP" you would have read the quote by Nancy that sounded EXACTLY like what was being said before we invaded Iraq and I mean EXACTLY. Besides that everything I said in my previous post is fact, a vote for this action is a vote for all out war.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The OP is comparing a missile strike to an headlong mindless invasion. I'd say you are like a 16 year old boy and his first, with a girl, sexual experience- a tad premature. :3oops:

How do you know it will just be missiles? Inside info? This is like obamacare, we have to let them do it to find out what they will do.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If you read my "snarky OP" you would have read the quote by Nancy that sounded EXACTLY like what was being said before we invaded Iraq and I mean EXACTLY. Besides that everything I said in my previous post is fact, a vote for this action is a vote for all out war.

I read your snarky OP... you leave out your BS crap. funny how you do that. she doesn't say invade now does she???? :2wave:

On your other response- I'd say your crystal ball is much foggier than mine. Given there is no 'stop the commies' mantra driving Syria and we have shiite terrorists fighting sunni terrorists Obama has to this point successfully resisted the left over chicken hawks. I'd say you thinking her comments are 'exactly' like the Bush BS is partisan wishful thinking :roll:
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I read your snarky OP... you leave out your BS crap. funny how you do that. she doesn't say invade now does she???? :2wave:

On your other response- I'd say your crystal ball is much foggier than mine. Given there is no 'stop the commies' mantra driving Syria and we have shiite terrorists fighting sunni terrorists Obama has to this point successfully resisted the left over chicken hawks. I'd say you thinking her comments are 'exactly' like the Bush BS is partisan wishful thinking :roll:

What Nancy says is a carbon copy of what rep "chicken hawks" said pre Iraq and "chicken hawk" Obama is lobbying for military action.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What Nancy says is a carbon copy of what rep "chicken hawks" said pre Iraq and "chicken hawk" Obama is lobbying for military action.

Nice try but you are using bad carbon- 'military action' is too big a bin. Clinton's military action with cruise missiles was ridiculed by the Neo-Con chicken hawks as weak. NOW Cons are trying to compare missiles with men as equal... :roll:
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The OP is comparing a missile strike to an headlong mindless invasion. I'd say you are like a 16 year old boy and his first, with a girl, sexual experience- a tad premature. :3oops:

and you are like Obama. foolish enough to think you can fire off cruise missiles into a sovereign country to save face and that will be the end of it...no reaction, no escalation, no repercussions. mindbogglingly simple minded
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
16,957
Reaction score
5,868
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
and you are like Obama. foolish enough to think you can fire off cruise missiles into a sovereign country to save face and that will be the end of it...no reaction, no escalation, no repercussions. mindbogglingly simple minded

Laughing- not foolish, just not about to equate Sawyer's Snark for truth. The OP was comparing a call to punish Syria, not exactly known for a far reaching iron fist- couldn't punish Israel for the Golan now could it? comparing that nation and a limited strike with the Neo-Cons call to INVADE a sovereign nation.

To use your 'logic' then by golly we should have been knee deep in suicide bombers and at best we got two home grown dweebs in Boston... an invasion should have brought a HUGE reaction....

In this case i think the mindboggling simple minded shoe is on a few Con feet... :2wave:
 
Top Bottom