Drake McHugh
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 138
- Location
- Brookfield,Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I don't believe that was the criticism. The criticism was starting an unjustified war by people who had not served in the military.During the Bush years,an often used term was chickenhawk. It was used for people who had not served in the military yet advocated military action. Well,unless I have missed something,neither Obama,Biden or any of the Dems who voted for action yesterday ever served. Oh well,that was then,this is now.
During the Bush years,an often used term was chickenhawk. It was used for people who had not served in the military yet advocated military action. Well,unless I have missed something,neither Obama,Biden or any of the Dems who voted for action yesterday ever served. Oh well,that was then,this is now.
Not really. I never felt I was led to believe what happened in Afghanistan would be a quick military action like we are being told will happen in Syria. The Iraq war, on the other hand, I do feel as if we were led to believe shock and awe would bring Iraq to its knees in no time and we'd move on once we installed a new government.How many would have ever approved the Afghanistan "adventure" knowning that it would end in stalemate and likely take 12 years or more and cost hundreds of billions? Did it not initially sound like a "hit and git" military operation to oust a few "terrorists" and restore peace, love and tie dye to Afghanistan?
I don't believe that was the criticism. The criticism was starting an unjustified war by people who had not served in the military.
Last I checked, these military actions are neither unjustified nor a war.
Not really. I never felt I was led to believe what happened in Afghanistan would be a quick military action like we are being told will happen in Syria. The Iraq war, on the other hand, I do feel as if we were led to believe shock and awe would bring Iraq to its knees in no time and we'd move on once we installed a new government.
That was before my time of being able to understand world events. I wasn't even ten yet.Sounds kind of like the ATF/FBI "actions" at Waco huh?
I haven't paid real close attention, but the impression I've been getting is this is not a war of any kind, but rather targeted strikes, similar to how we use drone strikes, just with larger weapons and on more stationary targets.Now we are (sort of) being told that this "mini war" will take "us" a mere couple of days yet are not told what gov't changes, if any, are expected to result. Just how are we to tell if (when?) this Syria "mission" is accomplished?
That was before my time of being able to understand world events. I wasn't even ten yet.
I haven't paid real close attention, but the impression I've been getting is this is not a war of any kind, but rather targeted strikes, similar to how we use drone strikes, just with larger weapons and on more stationary targets.
And I also believe the resolution being crafted said it can last only 90 days, with the President having the discretion to extend it for only 30 days longer. According to the reports I saw, the longest the strikes could last would be 120 days. So we have a definitive end to the action.
"There is no precise timing... but one can speak of an imminent international intervention against the regime. It's a question of days and not weeks," AFP news agency quoted Syrian National Coalition official Ahmad Ramadan as saying.
During the Bush years,an often used term was chickenhawk. It was used for people who had not served in the military yet advocated military action. Well,unless I have missed something,neither Obama,Biden or any of the Dems who voted for action yesterday ever served. Oh well,that was then,this is now.
Great minds think alike. :lol:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/171765-chicken-hawks.html
Tip of the hat to Ken how ever some of us have had this discussion on other websites.
Chicken Hawk used to mean those advocating war who never served in a war, not just dressed up and saluted. Reagan dressed up and played Navy, Jimmie Stewart wore an Army Aviator uniform and bombed Germany- see the difference?
It also was a slang term we grunts used for huey drivers. There were 'guns' and 'slicks' Slick drivers were chicken hawks.
It also is a term for pedophiles as I learned on that website.
So do your best Con quibble and search far and wide to try and make this equiv. Sad fact is there is a HUGE difference between voting to launch a few missiles and voting to send thousands of other people's children into battle.
When the never served in combat politicians vote to send a division of US Troops into Syria THEN you Cons can start squawking... :roll:
Thanks for the history of a term lesson.:lol: In the here and now "chicken hawk means anyone who wants to start a military action but not be involved or have their kids involved. Nancy Pelozi is the face of the word now.
Typical Con response to history- doesn't fit their warped highly partisan view so it doesn't count. (that is how we ignored Vietnam and INVADED Iraq, that is why we didn't just hit and git in Afghanistan but BushII's crew decided 'nation building' in a nation of mud brick houses would work :roll: )
I do have to admire how contorted positions you Cons have to get to see a missile launch as the same as an invasion... :lamo
In the here and now a few Rabid right Cons are trying their damnedest to mimic a cat burying it's crap when it comes to risking our troop's lives and sending in a few missiles.
The face of chicken hawks still is the Neo-Con BushII team. (nice try) :2wave:
During the Bush years,an often used term was chickenhawk. It was used for people who had not served in the military yet advocated military action. Well,unless I have missed something,neither Obama,Biden or any of the Dems who voted for action yesterday ever served. Oh well,that was then,this is now.
I'm noticing that nearly every lib boy online is suddenly a vet. They seem to think that pretending to be one somehow lends credence to whatever they say and when I see somebody constantly refer to their service my liedar goes off. Anybody can say anything on line, I'm rich. I'm 6ft 4, I'm great looking, I'm a vet. You remind me of a guy I knew IRL that wore his NAM VET baseball cap everywhere he went but the truth is he was in the Air Force during Nam and never left Thailand. CYA clerk.
to me a chickenhawk is someone who talks tough when its easy. For example, imagine a president prancing around the whitehouse saying he wanted a certain terrorist “dead or alive” and then when given the opportunity, literally chickens out
"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency."
http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf
Typical Con response to history- doesn't fit their warped highly partisan view so it doesn't count. (that is how we ignored Vietnam and INVADED Iraq, that is why we didn't just hit and git in Afghanistan but BushII's crew decided 'nation building' in a nation of mud brick houses would work :roll: )
I do have to admire how contorted positions you Cons have to get to see a missile launch as the same as an invasion... :lamo
In the here and now a few Rabid right Cons are trying their damnedest to mimic a cat burying it's crap when it comes to risking our troop's lives and sending in a few missiles.
The face of chicken hawks still is the Neo-Con BushII team. (nice try) :2wave:
It also was a slang term we grunts used for huey drivers. There were 'guns' and 'slicks' Slick drivers were chicken hawks.
:
I'm noticing that nearly every lib boy online is suddenly a vet. They seem to think that pretending to be one somehow lends credence to whatever they say and when I see somebody constantly refer to their service my liedar goes off. Anybody can say anything on line, I'm rich. I'm 6ft 4, I'm great looking, I'm a vet. You remind me of a guy I knew IRL that wore his NAM VET baseball cap everywhere he went but the truth is he was in the Air Force during Nam and never left Thailand. CYA clerk.
Funny you mentioned Vietnam. Especially with LBJ and Democrat lies and micromanagement of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Tet debacle.
Whats the justification?I don't believe that was the criticism. The criticism was starting an unjustified war by people who had not served in the military.
Last I checked, these military actions are neither unjustified nor a war.
Not really. I never felt I was led to believe what happened in Afghanistan would be a quick military action like we are being told will happen in Syria. The Iraq war, on the other hand, I do feel as if we were led to believe shock and awe would bring Iraq to its knees in no time and we'd move on once we installed a new government.
You sure about that? I never heard either of those. What unit were you in?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?