• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

The New Chickenhawks

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
When you have the Saudis openly stating they would fund such a campaign, we know it's not about Repub or Dem. It's about who pulls the strings.
 
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 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.
 
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.

We are told (promised?) that this will be a new kind of "mini war" that will not (ever?) require U.S. boots on the ground (well now that means "in a combat role"). It will, we are (now) assured, be conducted using remote viewing to select "military" targets to be wiped out using "accurate" weapon systems that keep their operators at a safe distence (what collateral damage?).

Initially we are told that this "mini war" will take days and not weeks; naturally this "detail" will never, ever appear in the "resolution" that congress actually votes on - allowing "the Syria afair" to last as long it takes to do whatevr the "clear mission" evolves into.

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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.

Sounds kind of like the ATF/FBI "actions" at Waco huh? ;)
 
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.

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?
 
Sounds kind of like the ATF/FBI "actions" at Waco huh? ;)
That was before my time of being able to understand world events. I wasn't even ten yet. :)
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?
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.
 
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.

That has already greatly exceeded the "days and not weeks" which was the "mission" according to those in Syria that want this "international help".

"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.

Syrian National Coalition | Humboldt Sentinel
 

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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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:

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.;)
 
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.

The only thing Joe served was pancakes at a political meet. He was called up 5 times and dodged the draft. The claim is medical reasons. The two shots in the air maven knows how to avoid things like the draft.
 
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.;)

Hey, they fought real hard in court to be allowed lie about making claims of military service. The court says you can make the claim without any legal repercussions.
 
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

You just described every Progressive Democrat.
 
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:

Funny you mentioned Vietnam. Especially with LBJ, Democrat lies and micromanagement of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Tet debacle. More than 58,000 Americans KIA, never mind the POW's still out there.
 
Last edited:
It also was a slang term we grunts used for huey drivers. There were 'guns' and 'slicks' Slick drivers were chicken hawks.
:

You sure about that? I never heard either of those. What unit were you in?
 
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.;)

Can't debate the issue so you launch personal attacks. Typical Con games. :roll:

I don't wear any military hats, I wear scars- chicks dig scars... :mrgreen:

I don't need liedar with Cons... I know they are lying when their lips move.

Now back to your Con game-

Voting to launch missiles is not the same as INVADING a country. Cons scoffed at Clinton for just using missiles. Cons are desperate to cover their scandals and debacles by any, even pathetic, means possible.

'that was then- this is now' oh how brilliant... face it, you Cons are desperate.

Voting to send in missiles doesn't even rise to the level of sending manned aircraft over a hostile nation to enforce a no-fly zone.

Stick to 3 card monty- this Con game isn't working... :2wave:
 
Funny you mentioned Vietnam. Especially with LBJ and Democrat lies and micromanagement of the war from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Tet debacle.

It isn't funny at all, and a lesson written in the blood of thousands of men that should have been learned by the chicken hawk neo-cons of the BushII league.
 
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.
Whats the justification?
Is the US threatened?
 
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's exactly how Iraq was positioned, I agree, and that's exactly how Iraq was playing out until Paul Bremer, the US Presidential Envoy, put in charge of the transition in Iraq disbanded the entire Iraqi military and sent them home with all their weapons and it was also Bremer who ordered American forces to stand down and watch as Iraqi militants looted and sacked all of the Iraqi museums and federal buildings and palaces resulting in utter chaos, lawlessness, and sectarian violence that in some sectors continues today.

People forget that when Sadaam fell, the American and coalition forces were indeed greeted as liberators but Bremer ****ed up. It is the fault of Bush or Rumsfeld or whomever put Bremer in charge that the situation deteriorated into chaos, but the actual conduct of the war and the take over of Iraq went perfectly as planned.

There's a lot of revisionist history going on related to Iraq but it was still absolutely the right thing to do and over time it will be seen to be so as a from of democracy takes shape in a region of the world that never knew democracy.
 
You sure about that? I never heard either of those. What unit were you in?

That you claim to never heard it means little... had you heard of the term means pedophile... :confused:

Try the air cav for the term- :2wave:

What were you in over there?
 
Back
Top Bottom