Chicken Hawks

[k4kyv]

Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to, since all the positions had been taken by blacks and hispanics? We suspect there might be someone in Iraq today who would be willing to trade places with him.

To read about him and a dozen-and-a-half other elected officials, click the link:

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/politicans_platoon/

[KW4MW]

Don't you guys ever get tired of this stupidity?

NotImpressed FL

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,08:22)]Don't you guys ever get tired of this stupidity?

NotImpressed FL
Not really. We enjoy your posts.

[KW4MW]

Ah OES darts in with his usual half finished sentences - delivers a quick insult - and darts away again.

Pesky really, kind of like an annoying mosquito and should not to be taken seriously, since he's not capable of original thought and is content to ape the rhetoric of those he admires most.

[k4kro]

K4KYV felt the urge to regurgitate ...

Quote[/b] ]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to ....... other elected officials, click the link:


Consider the source - the Socialist Ledger of NH. Haven't you lefties learned after years of daily assault on the President that this stuff just isn't working? How many times has this been rehashed? Aren't you getting tired of it? How horrible it must be to live your life of scanning left-leaning rags for bad news that you can pass along to others who don't care. Try hard my pinko friend, and you too can breath the fresh air of originality.....


NAAAAAAHHH!!!!

[N9XR]

These are our elected officials. You can call the list stupid, you can lash out against others, but the list remains in tact.

The truth is ugly. It isn't original. If it was, people would be screaming about that.

Face it. Many of the people in this country choose to follow politicians like these listed. Mostly the facist types. People who like hypocrites. Many do not want the country to take a real direction.

[KW4MW]

I could take this article seriously if it had listed "chicken hawks" from both parties. #The author(s) have an obvious agenda. The hidden premise of this post is that only Republicans were draft dodgers and ergo, all Democrat politicians have served honorably. #To quote one QRZ member of dubious distinction, Bravo Sierra.

Realistically speaking, I know of people from all walks of life, D & R, that either joined the National Guard or remained in college so as to avoid the draft and I would not be surprised if some of the shriller posters on this forum weren't guilty of the same tactics. #

I, for one, don't like hypocrites.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,09:54)]I, for one, don't like hypocrites.
Hence, the chickenhawks: those with the courage (and now the authority) to send others into battle while they themselves hadn't the courage. It seems that the biggest warmongers are those with the least battle experience.

Now why is that?

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]Hence, the chickenhawks: those with the courage (and now the authority) to send others into battle while they themselves hadn't the courage. It seems that the biggest warmongers are those with the least battle experience.

Now why is that?

As I have said before and I don't want to elaborate here but - it's all about power and control by a few hundred persons that consider themselves the elite of the elite and they don't mind sending 'commoners' into battle to do their dirty work. #However to believe that only one political party represents that position is ludicrous. #

Give us a leader like Charlemagne or Alexander the Great who is willing to lead his country into battle and maybe the entire nation will be behind him. #

I can't imagine Bush I or II, Clinton, Carter or Johnson doing such a thing. # Reagan would, but would probably think it was just a movie set.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ June 19 2006,10:35)]Now why is that?
They are better than us. Their Mom told them they would grow up to be leaders of men. They are too important to be put in danger. That is what little people are for.

[KC0VWU]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 18 2006,12:58)]Give us a leader like Charlemagne or Alexander the Great who is willing to lead his country into battle and maybe the entire nation will be behind him.
Amazing, we agree on something. If Bush was half a man, he'd be on the front lines leading us to victory. Sadly, he is a cowardly, lying moron who is even afraid of people like Cindy Sheehan, nevermind a real enemy.

To be fair, however, he isn't the only President guilty of cowardice.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ June 19 2006,12:30)]K4KYV felt the urge to regurgitate ...

Quote[/b] ]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to ....... other elected officials, click the link:


Consider the source - the Socialist Ledger of NH. Haven't you lefties learned after years of daily assault on the President that this stuff just isn't working? How many times has this been rehashed? Aren't you getting tired of it? How horrible it must be to live your life of scanning left-leaning rags for bad news that you can pass along to others who don't care. Try hard my pinko friend, and you too can breath the fresh air of originality.....


NAAAAAAHHH!!!!
Now you're not trying to be a 'News Nazi' are you? Unlike MW, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're just being a bit snobbish. LOL!

http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,12:54)]I could take this article seriously if it had listed "chicken hawks" from both parties.
If you have such information, why don't you post it? I love when someone wants you to disprove your own thread demanding that you give them what they want. If it's there, then why haven't YOU posted it? It's called making your point.

I mean, it's like when Bush was running in '04. They called him a chickenhawk and he proved that Kerry was just as big a chickenhawk as he was. Oh, that's right. Kerry SERVED didn't he?

http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[k4kro]

N2NH and K4KYV,

Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ June 19 2006,19:23)]N2NH and K4KYV,

Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I'm only pandering to my Nazi audience who like to quote NewsNaziMax and Faux News. I even give pictures so that those little goose-steppers that are illiterate and vote for the elephant picture every election day can follow the thread.

See, we Socialist care about our misguided treasonous Nazi bretheren. How do we know that you're Nazi's? MW told us how to find them. Their the NEWS NAZIs always critiquing anything posted.

Just Like You.
http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ June 19 2006,16:23)]N2NH and K4KYV,

Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Then why would you even bother to read these opinion threads? Isn't all this a terrible waste of your time...time you could better spend reading the newspaper or watching the news on TV?

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,21:57)]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam...
Before we get to that - how about YOU?

Did you serve?

[k4kro]

WA5EOS,

I keep asking myself the same question. Temptation is a b***h.

Gotta go now... the dry cleaner guy is wondering when I am coming to get my white robes back. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,19:37)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,21:57)]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam...
Before we get to that - how about YOU?

Did you serve?
Let's talk about the war right now. How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq? Even if they're in college? Even if you have 4 or 5 kids? And let's not get into whether or not they have enough troops there now. 2,500+ have already died. They will have more openings soon enough. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to send your kids, that's a reasonable thing to do. So how much support DO you have for the war?

http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:41)]Let's talk about the war right now. #How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?
Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him?

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,19:44)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:41)]Let's talk about the war right now. How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?
Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him?
That's not an answer. Answering a question with a question.

Typical neo-con response. When you don't want to answer try to shift attention and ask another question. Nice try.
http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,16:37)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,21:57)]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam...
Before we get to that - how about YOU?

Did you serve?
Mar 1966-Mar 1970. US Army Security Agency.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 20 2006,07:04)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,16:37)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,21:57)]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam...
Before we get to that - how about YOU?

Did you serve?
Mar 1966-Mar 1970. #US Army Security Agency.
Glad to hear it - and thanks for your service!

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:55)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,19:44)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:41)]Let's talk about the war right now. #How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?
Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him?
That's not an answer. #Answering a question with a question. #

Typical neo-con response. #When you don't want to answer try to shift attention and ask another question. #Nice try.

Ok, I'll play your silly game of "projection"...

Quote[/b] ]How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?

I am!

Now then:

Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[w8cbc]

Did wa6ccw serve?

Now, something I've been pondering...

Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) R
Service record: high-power general in WW2, played major part in winning it.
As president: No major wars. Warned against military-industrial complex.

John Kennedy (1961-63) D
Service record: navy, WW2.
As president: No major wars but for an abortive attempt to invade Cuba. Faced down USSR over Cuban weapons placements.

Lyndon Johnson (1963-69) D
Service record: I haven't a clue. Can anyone fill this in?
As president: got us into Vietnam. Also invaded the Dominican Republic.

Richard Nixon (1969-74) R
Service record: none that I know of.
As president: continued the Vietnam war.

Gerald Ford (1974-77) R
Service record: Korean war? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
As president: end of Vietnam war. Didn't start any more.

Jimmy Carter (1977-81) D
Service record: I haven't a clue. Can anyone fill this in?
As president: No wars. Foreign relations were not very intelligent at times.

Ronald Reagan (1981-89) R
Service record: none that I know of. Does "war correspondent" count?
As president: Played chicken with the USSR. Some small invasions here and there.

George Bush Sr. (1989-93) R
Service record: WW2 fighter pilot.
As president: Responded effectively to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - went in, got it done, got out.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) D
Service record: none. "Studied abroad" during Vietnam war.
As president: No major wars. "Peacekeeping" operation in Somalia was a disaster. Did not respond to Rwandan self-destruction.

George Bush Jr. (2001-2009) R
Service record: National guard during Vietnam, did not fulfill commitments.
As president: Invaded Iraq on an unproven pretext. Presently making threats about Iran.

I have to say I admire Eisenhower's record both as a general and a C in C. I also think that Bush Sr. got it right with Iraq and Kuwait. I did not like Carter's administration raising hell about Vietnam liberating Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge. I did not like the Clinton administration (along with the rest of the world) sitting back and doing nothing while Rwanda went to hell. My views on Reagan playing chicken with the USSR are already on record. I think the worst of the lot however is what is going on now.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ June 20 2006,07:40)]Did wa6ccw serve?


Absolutely.

And you?

[w8cbc]

Where and when?

I'm curious as I rarely see hard-line attitudes from vets, especially those who've seen combat.

As for me, they wouldn't take me with the diabetes and all.
Else it would have been air force.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ June 20 2006,07:47)]Where and when?

I'm curious as I rarely see hard-line attitudes from vets, especially those who've seen combat.

As for me, they wouldn't take me with the diabetes and all.
Else it would have been air force.
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance, USAF, 1983-1988.

Service in Okinawa, with frequent deployments throughout the Pacific Theatre.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,11:22)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:55)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,19:44)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:41)]Let's talk about the war right now. #How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?
Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him?
That's not an answer. #Answering a question with a question. #

Typical neo-con response. #When you don't want to answer try to shift attention and ask another question. #Nice try.

Ok, I'll play your silly game of "projection"...

Quote[/b] ]How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?

I am!

Now then:

Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Maybe he was a chickenhawk. No, I lived in Kansas at the time, and all Kansas votes went to Bush and Dole.

But you know what? 100% of all who were sent to battle by Clinton returned to their families to tell about it.

Does this bother you? How badly does this dissappoint you that Clinton leadership was that much better?

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 20 2006,08:02)]Maybe he* was a chickenhawk.
No "maybe" about it.

Therefore, those of you who who voted him (Mr. Clinton* that is), and choose to ramble on about "Chickenhawks", need to keep your collective mouths shut on that particular issue - unless you simply enjoy looking like hypocritical fools.

[w8cbc]

A buddy of mine was Air Force in Hawaii.
He's got stories... you probably know them all too...
He's also quite a ways to the left of old centre-left me and totally against this war.

I guess it takes all types and so on.

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ June 19 2006,11:40)]George Bush Sr. (1989-93) R
Service record: WW2 fighter pilot.
As president: Responded effectively to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - went in, got it done, got out.
And for years afterward was accused of getting out too quick and not finishing the job.

Now "Junior" goes in to "finish the job" although he cannot state publicly this reason. Caught in the middle of "Dad" and reality trying to figure out what constitutes "finished".

WMD, human rights violations....whatever excuse one wants to use the fact is this whole deal is covering bets "Daddy" laid down. Fact is the accusations of not finishing in 1991 may have a lot to do with Bush Sr. not being re-elected.

Now for the interesting twist. While we may have been able to secure other areas for this, what better launching point if we were to go into Iran than Iraq? May happen, may not...either way don't be surprised.

BTW, you forgot the most notable military act under Clinton. He made high powered generals eat a steady diet of "Don't ask, don't tell" and injected these same words into the UCMJ. Probably a good thing nobody asked him exactly what "ask" meant. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 19 2006,12:02)]But you know what? 100% of all who were sent to battle by Clinton returned to their families to tell about it.
Does this include the helicopter crew who had their bodies drug through the streets of Somalia? May not have been intended as being sent to battle but that is exactly where it ended up.

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending Bush or the Iraq situation but I think that statement was a little strong considering soldiers did die executing Clinton's orders.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,09:54)]I could take this article seriously if it had listed "chicken hawks" from both parties. The author(s) have an obvious agenda. The hidden premise of this post is that only Republicans were draft dodgers and ergo, all Democrat politicians have served honorably. To quote one QRZ member of dubious distinction, Bravo Sierra.

Realistically speaking, I know of people from all walks of life, D & R, that either joined the National Guard or remained in college so as to avoid the draft and I would not be surprised if some of the shriller posters on this forum weren't guilty of the same tactics.

I, for one, don't like hypocrites.
Hmm, joining the guard or being in college instead of being drafted now makes a person guilty of tactics and somehow leads to shrillness.

All this time I thought it was called getting an education or serving your country.

Your logic says dubya should have been drafted. Then he couldn't have used tactics to go awol.

[n9yb]

Quote[/b] ]Jimmy Carter (1977-81) D
Service record: I haven't a clue. Can anyone fill this in?

President Carter served as a sub commander in the USN if I recall correctly. This is from memory, I am sure a google search would list his correct rank.

[al2n]

Who here voted for Clinton?

Come on, lets hear the truth.

If you are railing against those who did not serve, yet you voted for Clinton, then what does that say about your character?

[KW4MW]

n2nhQuote[/b] ]If you have such information, why don't you post it? #I love when someone wants you to disprove your own thread demanding that you give them what they want. #If it's there, then why haven't YOU posted it? #It's called making your point.

From official US Government webpages.
Representatives with military service (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/memberstats.htm)
121 members total with prior military service - 72 are Republicans, 49 are Democrats
Senators with Military Service (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/seanatestats.htm)
35 #members total with prior service - 18 are Republicans, 17 are Democrats.

Home page for the above:

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/vetsincongress.html)

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ June 19 2006,18:48)]Who here voted for Clinton?

Come on, lets hear the truth.

If you are railing against those who did not serve, yet you voted for Clinton, then what does that say about your character?
Nothing. Why do you think it does?

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Does this include the helicopter crew who had their bodies drug through the streets of Somalia? May not have been intended as being sent to battle but that is exactly where it ended up.

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending Bush or the Iraq situation but I think that statement was a little strong considering soldiers did die executing Clinton's orders.

Bush the first sent those soldiers to battle. Clinton requested information from Colin powell on the method at which they would attack the city, and Powell suggested to the commanding General in Somolia that they should raid at night. The dip General did not follow orders. Read your history.

Besides, Clinton get blasted constantly for only losing a few helicopter men rather than the thousands of Dubya. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,13:02)]n2nhQuote[/b] ]If you have such information, why don't you post it? #I love when someone wants you to disprove your own thread demanding that you give them what they want. #If it's there, then why haven't YOU posted it? #It's called making your point.

From official US Government webpages.
Representatives with military service (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/memberstats.htm)
121 members total with prior military service - 72 are Republicans, 49 are Democrats
Senators with Military Service (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/seanatestats.htm)
35 #members total with prior service - 18 are Republicans, 17 are Democrats.

Home page for the above:

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs (http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/vetsincongress.html)
Looks like an House of Rep. old list. It has my old Rep. Phil Crane who lost to the Dem challenger last 2004. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Can you find something from this half of the decade?

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,11:22)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:55)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,19:44)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 20 2006,06:41)]Let's talk about the war right now. #How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?
Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him?
That's not an answer. #Answering a question with a question. #

Typical neo-con response. #When you don't want to answer try to shift attention and ask another question. #Nice try.

Ok, I'll play your silly game of "projection"...

Quote[/b] ]How many are willing to send all their sons and daughters - TONIGHT - to volunteer to serve in Iraq?

I am!

Now then:

Bill Clinton was certainly willing to send people's sons and daughters to war - and most certainly DID.

Bill Clinton was a tried and true "Chickenhawk".

Did you vote for him? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
If you lived in California during the 90's, you voted for Clinton. The electoral votes from your state went to William Jefferson Clinton.

I lived in Kansas at the time. Kansas always votes Republican.

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]Looks like an House of Rep. old list. #It has my old Rep. Phil Crane who lost to the Dem challenger last 2004. #

Can you find something from this half of the decade?Sorry Jerry - I don't really have the time right now to play your silly game - perhaps with all of your Cook county political contacts surely you can enlighten us with current and impartial data. #

Besides - my point to n2nh was was simply that there were politicians from both sides of the aisle that didn't serve in the military and that list serves well enough to prove my point. #At least my data, albeit somewhat dated, is from an unbiased source and not from a put up job like the NHGazette. #

Now before anybody starts pointing out that the top dogs in the Republican party is comprised of many individuals who did not serve in the military let's just remember that they are the party in power. #If the Democrats were in charge I'm sure that we would see about the same ratio. #

So some of your scream about NewsMax (which is not owned by the Enquirer by the way - tweak! tweak!) and yet k4kyv proudly points to that piece of NH Gazette journalistic crap as a valid database. #

As long as guys like k4kyv try to pull silly stunts like dragging an obviously biased "database" into the fray your party's credibility level remains near 0.00.

If your party wants respect then its members should start showing some class by giving us some real answers to todays problems instead attacking the other side with silly crap like that NHGazette piece that is obviously so biased and put on that it is laughable.

Out.

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ June 19 2006,18:23)]N2NH and K4KYV,

Don't you realize that most of us here at QRZ have Internet service as well as access to cable or satellite TV and newspapers? If we want read the news we will consult the original sources. Unless it comes some obscure source.

Oh, that's right, those socialist rags you like to quote are obscure sources. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well if it's Fox News you want us to watch, then it's out of the question I hear enough lies from our present administration, I want the truth not what the radical neo con right nut jobs are trying to feed us...

I voted for Bill Clinton and I'm proud to say it, in 2000 I voted for GW and I'm ashamed, "fool me once, you fooled me, fool me, uh? we don't get fooled again" that's right I voted DEMOCRAT in 2004 no more fooling....

kxq

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 19 2006,15:00)]Quote[/b] ]Looks like an House of Rep. old list. #It has my old Rep. Phil Crane who lost to the Dem challenger last 2004. #

Can you find something from this half of the decade?Sorry Jerry - I don't really have the time right now to play your silly game - perhaps with all of your Cook county political contacts surely you can enlighten us with current and impartial data. #

Besides - my point to n2nh was was simply that there were politicians from both sides of the aisle that didn't serve in the military and that list serves well enough to prove my point. #At least my data, albeit somewhat dated, is from an unbiased source and not from a put up job like the NHGazette. #

Now before anybody starts pointing out that the top dogs in the Republican party is comprised of many individuals who did not serve in the military let's just remember that they are the party in power. #If the Democrats were in charge I'm sure that we would see about the same ratio. #

So some of your scream about NewsMax (which is not owned by the Enquirer by the way - tweak! tweak!) and yet k4kyv proudly points to that piece of NH Gazette journalistic crap as a valid database. #

As long as guys like k4kyv try to pull silly stunts like dragging an obviously biased "database" into the fray your party's credibility level remains near 0.00.

If your party wants respect then its members should start showing some class by giving us some real answers to todays problems instead attacking the other side with silly crap like that NHGazette piece that is obviously so biased and put on that it is laughable.

Out.
Then don't pretend to play. You come on here like a regular News Nazi that you say you dislike so much, and offer no real objection to the posted article except to bash the source. And this source has been used here many times, and with all the howling, moaning, and outright bi***ing, no one has ever found this source to be unreliable. The truth hurts.

On here, I see posts that say that Clinton was responsible for Ruby Ridge, and Clinton dodged the draft, and Gore claimed to invent the internet. All are lies. Not once do I see you stand up to these falsehoods. I see you complain that a list does not include Democrats or moan that a newspaper called Bush I - Mr Bush. What's this about?

So don't play any "games". Just read and don't post.

I challenged your love muscle Newsmax one time and you could never find the protest rally anywhere that they reported. That is an unreliable source. They keep no archives of their articles because they do not want people pointing out what a piece of carp that their website is.

[kb2vxa]

"Chicken hawk" is slang for child molester. Looks like this thread got off to a bad start and went downhill from there. Well maybe not, any president is a chicken hawk when he sends our children off to another stupid and pointless war.

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]You come on here like a regular News Nazi that you say you dislike so muchHey - don't call me a News Nazi you'll make your alpha clone mad - Oh wait - I see, #you're allowed to use that phrase - I'm not. #Typical Liberal double standard. #Quote[/b] ]And this source has been used here many times, and with all the howling, moaning, and outright bi***ing, no one has ever found this source to be unreliable. #The truth hurts.
When a 'source' only tells part of the truth and then tries to fool the public into believing that is the entire story then I have to say as I did in the beginning of this thread Don't you guys ever get tired of this stupidity?

Come Jerry - you're bright enough to see that such a stupid article/database is so obviously biased and hackneyed that only a fool would use it as ammo against the other side. #In a public debate you all would be laughed off of the podium if you tried to drag that piece of journalistic bewilderment into the argument as a valid truth. #It is absolutely laughable. #

Jerry, you bad mouth NewsMax and I'll agree with you that their articles are biased toward the administration - no doubt about it. #But at least there is some semblance of professionalism in their format. #

Yet you, in your desperate attempts to validate your own party's platform you stoop to using amateurish journalism, badly written by what appears to be a high school sophomore to ever being taken seriously by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. #

Remember you insisting that NewsMax was owned by the National Enquirer? #And when I pressed youj for proof you finally directed me to some poor pathetic blog in which some poor slob was trying desperately to make the connections between NM and the NE by coorelating some similar data. #

Quote[/b] ]On here, I see posts that say that Clinton was responsible for Ruby Ridge, and Clinton dodged the draft, and Gore claimed to invent the internet.

Uh - you mean like Bush was responsible for 9/11, Halliburton is in Cheney's pocket and GWB was a draft dodger? #Sounds like differing opinions Jerry. #

But I'll make you a deal. If you'll admit that Clinton was a draft dodger, I say the same about GWB. #

Quote[/b] ]I challenged your love muscleWhoa there big fellow - you don't know me that well!

Quote[/b] ]I challenged your love muscle Newsmax one time and you could never find the protest rally anywhere that they reported. #That is an unreliable source. As I recall the situation - and unlike you I don't keep detailed records of these things - you were being serious and I really just didn't give a damn about the damn rally. #If you want to continue harping on that piece of ancient history please go ahead. #
Quote[/b] ]They keep no archives of their articles because they do not want people pointing out what a piece of carp that their website is.
Uh Jerry - I just did something I haven't done in months. #I just went to NewsMax. #Right in the middle of the page - just below the dot in .com is a button that says [SEARCH]. #So just for the Hell of it I clicked on search, entered 'Cook county' , selected the little circle for NewsMax.com and then clicked on the [SEARCH] button again. #

The first article that came up on Cook county was from Friday, November 10, 2000. #It said - (Oh the irony # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif ) #Quote[/b] ]Comment: Are Democrats Too Stupid to Vote?
Chuck Noe
Friday, Nov. 10, 2000
Are Democrats too stupid to vote? Gore campaign chairman William Daley seems to think so.
Daley, of course, is best known as the son of the man widely blamed – or praised, depending on which circles you travel in – for helping steal the 1960 presidential election from Richard Nixon in favor of John Kennedy, thanks to the votes of a bunch of dead Chicagoans.


Looks like NewsMax does archive its articles Jerry. #So it looks like

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN ! ! ! !</span></span> #

No wonder you believe the crappola that the liberal hacks grind out. # Unlike LBJ you don't seem to know the difference between chickensalad and chicken####. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[al2i]

Clinton wasn't really what I would call a &quot;Hawk&quot; by any stretch of the imagination.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 20 2006,00:37)]Clinton wasn't really what I would call a &quot;Hawk&quot; by any stretch of the imagination.
Exactly the point, succinctly expressed.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Looks like NewsMax does archive its articles Jerry. So it looks like

Newsmax Articles I could not find:

Story about Gennifer Flowers bringing charges against Hillary. (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/2/24/83301)

&quot;Daschle, Clinton, Schumer Nix 9/11 Disaster Aid for New York&quot;; (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/2/6/93857)

recounting recent events in the life of Roger Clinton (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/1/30/151911)

&quot;Sticky Fingers Hillary&quot; for not returning $950 given to her campaign by Enron employees (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/1/17/223225)

Quote[/b] ]Whoa there big fellow - you don't know me that well!

It appears you know me quite well. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]But I'll make you a deal. If you'll admit that Clinton was a draft dodger, I say the same about GWB.

Let's look at the definition:
draft dodger

n : someone who is drafted and illegally refuses to serve

Clinton was drafted, but used legal paths to avoid serving. It may not be right, but it is not draft dodging. Bush avoided the draft by the Texas Air National Guard duty. Again, a legal avoidance. But Bush deserted the service. Again, this is legal for the dirty son of a representative to do this. As is his insider trading of the oil company, and so on. There is nothing illegal about Clinton avoiding service, and nothing wrong with the coke snuffer deserting the service. I don't have a problem with any of that.

Just because an article is biased, I don't have a problem with that as you do. My problem is the lying in the article. If you want to support an article that supports your view even though it lies, it reflects on you. I backed down on the &quot;Newsmax owned by Enquirer&quot; belief. You were correct and even though the writing techniques are similar, they may not be owned by the Enquirer. You post an article and try to pass it off as current,

Quote[/b] ]Representatives with military service
121 members total with prior military service - 72 are Republicans, 49 are Democrats
Senators with Military Service
35 members total with prior service - 18 are Republicans, 17 are Democrats.
At least to me this says that it is current, then when I correct you, you write,
Quote[/b] ]Sorry Jerry - I don't really have the time right now to play your silly game
As if correctly representing your post is a &quot;silly game&quot;.

Go ahead and believe your news source that deletes it's lies from archives after they are posted for awhile. I was not wrong again, just a victim of neocon slander.

[W8EFA]

John Kerry Lt.j.g., 1966-70, Vietnam, Silver Star, Bronze Star
John Edwards None
Tom Daschle 1st Lt, Air Force 1969-72
Al Gore Army journalist, Vietnam
George McGovern WWII, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross
Bill Clinton None
Jimmy Carter Annapolis graduate, Naval officer, 1946-53
Walter Mondale Army, 1951-53
Richard Gepardt Air National Guard, 1965-71
Ted Kennedy Army, 1951-53
Bob Kerry Lt.j.g., 1966-69, Vietnam, Congressional Medal of Honor
Daniel Inouye Army, 1943-47, Congressional Medal of Honor
Max Cleland Capt., Army, 1965-68, Vietnam, Silver Star, Bronze Star, triple amputee
Tom Harkin Lt., Navy, 1962-67
Fritz Hollings Army officer, WWII, Bronze Star, seven campaign ribbons
John Glenn WWII, Korea, Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, Air Medal with 18 clusters, Astronaut
Wesley Clark West Point graduate, Army, 1966-2000, Silver Star, 4-Star General
Charles Rangell Army, 1948-52, Korea, Bronze Star
Gray Davis Capt., Army, Vietnam, Bronze Star


Republicans
George W. Bush Texas Air National Guard (during Vietnam, thereby avoided combat)
Dick Cheney * None
John Ashcroft None
Don Rumsfeld * Navy aviator, 1954-57 (between Korean and Vietnam wars)
Dennis Hastert None
Tom DeLay None
Bill Frist None
George H. W. Bush Navy aviator (youngest), WWII, Distinguished Flying Cross
Ronald Reagan Army Air Corps Intelligence 1st Motion Picture Unit, WWII, made pilot training films
Jeb Bush None
Karl Rove None
Paul Wolfowitz * None
Richard Perle * None
Douglas Feith * None
Elliot Abrams * None
Newt Gingrich None
Trent Lott None
Phil Graham None
Antonin Scalia None
Clarence Thomas None
Rudy Giulani None
George Pataki None
Mitch McConnell None
Rick Santorum None
Colin Powell ** Army, 4-Star General, Chairman of Joint Chiefs
John McCain ** Vietnam POW
A. Schwartzenegger None
Cheerleaders
Sean Hannity None
Rush Limbaugh None
Bill O’Reilly None
Michael Savage None
Michael Medved None
Bill Bennett * None
George Will None

[KW4MW]

n9xr - Jerry: #Well that that makes it at least twice now that you've changed your story. #

First of all you absolutely declared that the National Enquirer owned NewsMax and then by your own &quot;proof&quot; you were proved wrong.

Secondly, you said They keep no archives of their articles because they do not want people pointing out what a piece of carp that their website is.

&quot;They keep no archives&quot; - your statement. #No archives - meaning none - nada - zero zilch. #I really didn't know if it was true or not - I could have taken your word for it but I decided to check it out. #It turns out that they do archive their articles. #So #You were wrong again

Now maybe they don't archive all of their articles or you're not searching correctly - that's you problem I'm not going to solve it for you. #But for you to make that statement is just as dishonest as the one sided article in the NHGazette. #

But I won't go so far as to actual say you were being dishonest, I'll give you a pass and simply believe that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote[/b] ]Clinton was drafted, but used legal paths to avoid serving. #It may not be right, but it is not draft dodging. #Bush avoided the draft by the Texas Air National Guard duty. Clinton was drafted, but used legal paths to avoid serving.
Sorry, that's a classic example of draft dodging.
It may not be right ?? #
So one guy goes slinking out of the country and the other one puts on a uniform of the Air national Guard and you accuse the guy wearing the uniform as being a draft dodger. #Good grief man, have you sunk so low as to actually believe that poppycock?

As long as you and the rest of the Democrats keep up those kind of dumbassed statements you will continue to have 0.00 credibility.

Quote[/b] ]Go ahead and believe your news source that deletes it's lies from archives after they are posted for awhile. There are several things wrong with that statement. #Just because the article does not reflect your point of view does not make it an untruth. #

Let's look at a few current NewsMax headlines: (I haven't visited this site in ages but in order to placate a sulking liberal I have had to visit it twice within the last 24 hours!)

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Eagerly Greets Bush
Pentagon: Homosexuality Is a Mental Disorder
Schwarzenegger Fund-Raises for Gay GOP Group
Episcopal Bishop: Homosexuality Not a Sin
V.P. Cheney: Aggressive U.S. is Reason for No New Terror Attacks
Democrats to Launch 'Journal of Ideas'
Lieberman 'Proud' to Work with Republicans
National Guard Sent to New Orleans Again

Guess what Jerry? #They're all true and by the way they are all orignally from the Associated Press with the exception of the Bishop story - that one was from a CNN interview. #

Quote[/b] ]I was not wrong again, just a victim of neocon slander.

Oh poor Jerry takes the last refuge of the wronged (or is it just being plain wrong) liberal and takes on the role of the poor victim. #I think I'm going to puke. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Oh - by the way - it's &quot;crap&quot; not &quot;carp&quot; #although in some rivers and lakes there's not much difference between the two. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KW4MW]

EFA - your list is far from complete - one would suppose that you work for the NH Gazette.

[N9XR]

KW4MWQuote[/b] ]Oh - by the way - it's &quot;crap&quot; not &quot;carp&quot; although in some rivers and lakes there's not much difference between the two.

I apologize for the error. You are right. Newsmax is crap.

[N9XR]

EFA,

Looking over your list here. You might re-check Kerry's line again. I am not real sure about that one.

Also, to me, a glaring omission on the repub cheerleading section are the Ollie North's (semper Fi a criminal record)and that Watergate co conspirator. And a few others who have problems in court.

Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis graduate. He is such a dolt, (I mean anyone with a finger to pick their nose with can graduate from Annapolis), his major was either basket weaving or Nookyoular Fisicks. I can't remember which.

[al2i]

This is what I find most disturbing:

Cheerleaders
Sean Hannity None
Rush Limbaugh None
Bill O’Reilly None
Michael Savage None
Michael Medved None
Bill Bennett * None
George Will None

I have listened to some of these big-talking big-mouths beat the war drums quite loudly, but I wonder...
...would their rhythm falter if they had to drive a humvee past possible IEDs on some dusty, foreign road. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif


http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/wardrum.jpg

[k0ews]

I was looking at EFA's list and it was interesting. I thought I would check out the current Congressional membership and their service records. Here is what I found:

109 members of the House of Representatives and 1 non-voting delagate served in the military. Of those they break down this way.

70 of them are Republicans.
40 of them are Democrats.
325 of them never served.

In the Senate:
30 members of the current US Senate served in the military.

16 of them are Republicans
13 of them are Democrats
1 of them is an Independent

70 of them never served at all.

[KW4MW]

n9xrQuote[/b] ]I mean anyone with a finger to pick their nose with can graduate from Annapolis)

This coming from a person that isn't even qualified to wipe the runny nose of a Sea Cadet.

When was the last time you landed an aircraft on a bucking carrier deck in the middle of a stormy night, led a platoon of Marines into the middle of Hell, commanded a squadron, made life or death decisions affecting military and civilians or any of the other 100's of decisions, these guys routinely perform daily? #

What little respect I still had for you is gone. #As usual you have shown your dislike of the military.

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,17:04)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 19 2006,16:37)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ June 19 2006,21:57)]Guess which congresseman said he had wanted to serve in Vietnam...
Before we get to that - how about YOU?

Did you serve?
Mar 1966-Mar 1970. #US Army Security Agency.
Don

I did not know you were a
Lightning Fast Chicken blanker

Army Signal Corps boys hated ASA ops
FT Greeley Alaska
we slept in bays
ASA boys lived down the hall
in real rooms with lock on the door

Mac

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 20 2006,08:31)]n9xrQuote[/b] ]I mean anyone with a finger to pick their nose with can graduate from Annapolis)

This coming from a person that isn't even qualified to wipe the runny nose of a Sea Cadet.

When was the last time you landed an aircraft on a bucking carrier deck in the middle of a stormy night, led a platoon of Marines into the middle of Hell, commanded a squadron, made life or death decisions affecting military and civilians or any of the other 100's of decisions, these guys routinely perform daily? #

What little respect I still had for you is gone. #As usual you have shown your dislike of the military.
Oh, Mike, I was being facetious. I have the utmost respect for anyone graduating from any of the fine military schools. You are right about me not being worthy. Not many are.

I thought sure you would see through the post. Nuclear physics and all. Carter was most impressive. It is incredible how the right wing &quot;liberal media&quot; seems sucessful at making people believe he was just a peanut farmer. Media says &quot;Hilk hilk, Carter is a peanut farmer and knows how to tie his shoes.&quot;

Love him or hate him, Carter is an intellectual force to be admired.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 20 2006,20:25)]Richard Gepardt Air National Guard, 1965-71
Ok. Glad to see it. Service is service regardless of the component one enters into - and Mr. Gepardt obviously did his part. We all know (or should know) that members of the ANG have just as likely - or even more likely - a chance of being called into the front line of active duty during conflict or wartime.

Anyway, moving right along... #

Quote[/b] ]George W. Bush #Texas Air National Guard (during Vietnam, thereby avoided combat)

Whoa, whoa, hold the phone there, EFA!

I notice that you fail to hold Mr. Gepardt to the same apparent standard as Mr. Bush, even though they BOTH served in the ANG during Vietnam... and why IS that??? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Note: Please avoid any lame excuses, such as: #&quot;But Gepardt isn't the Commander in Chief!&quot; as such an excuse will be immediately disposed of. # #

Quote[/b] ]A. Schwartzenegger #None

Wrong.

Schwarzenegger served in the Austrian army in 1965, to fulfill the one-year service requirement expected at the time of all 18 year old Austrian males. (Source: Wikipedia)

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (k0ews @ June 20 2006,13:04)]I was looking at EFA's list and it was interesting. #I thought I would check out the current Congressional membership and their service records. #Here is what I found:

109 members of the House of Representatives and 1 non-voting delagate served in the military. #Of those they break down this way.

70 of them are Republicans.
40 of them are Democrats. #
325 of them never served.

In the Senate:
30 members of the current US Senate served in the military.

16 of them are Republicans
13 of them are Democrats
1 of them is an Independent

70 of them never served at all.
Interesting. Thanks for digging up data with a complete and unbiased sample.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 20 2006,18:32)]Quote[/b] (k0ews @ June 20 2006,13:04)]I was looking at EFA's list and it was interesting. #I thought I would check out the current Congressional membership and their service records. #Here is what I found:

109 members of the House of Representatives and 1 non-voting delagate served in the military. #Of those they break down this way.

70 of them are Republicans.
40 of them are Democrats. #
325 of them never served.

In the Senate:
30 members of the current US Senate served in the military.

16 of them are Republicans
13 of them are Democrats
1 of them is an Independent

70 of them never served at all.
Interesting. #Thanks for digging up data with a complete and unbiased sample.
That is interesting if true however the point was not how many Republicans vs Democrats are Vets.

The point is about Chickenhawks.

The name comes from combining the word &quot;chicken&quot; (coward) with &quot;hawk&quot; (war hawk). To be a chickenhawk, you need to meet three criteria:

A chickenhawk is A) a famous person who B) supports the CURRENT wars but C) never served in the military.

In other words, a hypocrite who advocates sending children to die in a war, but who refused to go themself when given the chance.

Note you have to meet ALL THREE conditions - A, B, and C - to qualify.


Once Again

George W. Bush Texas Air National Guard (during Vietnam, thereby avoided combat)

Dick Cheney * None
John Ashcroft None

Don Rumsfeld * Navy aviator, 1954-57 (between Korean and Vietnam wars)

Dennis Hastert None
Tom DeLay None
Bill Frist None
Jeb Bush None
Karl Rove None
Paul Wolfowitz * None
Richard Perle * None
Douglas Feith * None
Elliot Abrams * None
Newt Gingrich None
Trent Lott None

and the Cheerleaders
Sean Hannity None
Rush Limbaugh None
Bill O’Reilly None
Michael Savage None
Michael Medved None
Bill Bennett * None
George Will None

[w8cbc]

What are the stars about?

By the way, has the point been made that GWB deserted?

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 19 2006,13:57)]Quote[/b] ]Does this include the helicopter crew who had their bodies drug through the streets of Somalia? May not have been intended as being sent to battle but that is exactly where it ended up.

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending Bush or the Iraq situation but I think that statement was a little strong considering soldiers did die executing Clinton's orders.

Bush the first sent those soldiers to battle. Clinton requested information from Colin powell on the method at which they would attack the city, and Powell suggested to the commanding General in Somolia that they should raid at night. The dip General did not follow orders. Read your history.

Besides, Clinton get blasted constantly for only losing a few helicopter men rather than the thousands of Dubya. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
As I tried to make clear, I am not bashing or blasting Clinton. No, I don't like Clinton and don't believe he was worth much as president but that is not the point of my original post or this one. My point was that he was indeed responsible for sending troops in that were killed in the line of duty. No, I am not trying to balance 2 or 3 against 2500. I was only stating that it was not entirely accurate to say that none had died by his order.

As for Bush Sr. sending them in??? I don't remember any of the Bush klan being in the White House in October of 1993. I don't remember any of the Bush klan serving in Clinton's cabinet in a position where they would have the authority to send troops to battle or anywhere else.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 20 2006,14:28)]Quote[/b] ]A. Schwartzenegger #None

Wrong.

Schwarzenegger served in the Austrian army in 1965, to fulfill the one-year service requirement expected at the time of all 18 year old Austrian males. (Source: Wikipedia)
Damn.. you beat me to that one.. He wasn't a citizen here when he would have served.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 20 2006,00:00)]So some of your scream about NewsMax (which is not owned by the Enquirer by the way - tweak! tweak!) and yet k4kyv proudly points to that piece of NH Gazette journalistic crap as a valid database.
Now MW, let's not call everyone else a &quot;NEWS NAZI&quot; then commit the same &quot;NEWS NAZI&quot; act ourselves.

Quote[/b] ]OUT

REALLY. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

CCW

No, I couldn't vote for Clinton in '92 - I had pneumonia. In '96 I was preoccupied with caring for a paralyzed wife and couldn't get someone to be with her.

Too bad. It would've made for some interesting if not banal and irrelevant banter to see if you'd excuse monkey boy's being AWOL from his draft deferment with this little bon-mot, eh?
http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

BTW, can't wait for you to show me all those pics of the harmonics in uniform. You must be so proud. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[k0ews]

EFA, your list is interesting, but by your criteria of the ChickenHawk, you must add a few to the list.

Bill Clinton: Never served
Ordered the US Military into action.

Ronald Reagan: Never served in combat.
Ordered the US Military into action.

Lyndon Johnson: Served for 6 months as a Naval Officer, mainly as an observer, before FDR ordered him back to Congress to serve.
Presdident during the Vietnam Conflict.

FDR: Never served but did serve as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Wartime President

Woodrow Wilson: Never served.
Wartime President.

Abraham Lincoln: Served in the Illinois militia for 3 weeks.
Wartime President.

I guess by your standards, you would have to call them Chickenhawks too. The funny thing is, some of our better Presidents never served in the Military, or saw very little combat. Personally, I don't think the association is very relevant. Nor do I think it matters how book smart they are. Herbert Hoover is regarded as one of America's least effective Presidents, yet he was one of the smartest men to ever hold the office. The same thing can be said for Jimmy Carter. Leadership is defined by the times in which the leader leads. To be an effective leader, that leader must have the qualities called for in that time of need. Franklin Roosevelt was a great leader because he inspired confidence, and reached the masses. The same could apply to Kennedy and Reagan.
Most of the ones who don't like Bush now never did, and it has much more to do with November 7, 2000 than it ever did with September 11, 2001. Clinton had the same problem when he served. Half of this country was dead set against him from Day 1, probably because he didn't have a popular majority. Had it not been for Ross Perot, he may not have even won the first time.
The next President will endure more of the same, I think. If it is a Democrat, the Republicans will bash this person to no end. I would expect that if the Republicans win the White House, the Liberals will do the same thing they've been doing to Bush for the last 6 years. It takes a special person to unite all Americans, and looking through history, it really doesn't happen very often. Judging from the early list of Presidential hopefulls, the pattern will continue.
All of this is normal, probably, but the tone of the rhetoric is definitely much more negative and has been for the past 14 years or so. I expect it will continue...of course it is only my opinion, and you are entitled to yours too.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ June 20 2006,14:34)]As I tried to make clear, I am not bashing or blasting Clinton. No, I don't like Clinton and don't believe he was worth much as president but that is not the point of my original post or this one. My point was that he was indeed responsible for sending troops in that were killed in the line of duty. No, I am not trying to balance 2 or 3 against 2500. I was only stating that it was not entirely accurate to say that none had died by his order.

As for Bush Sr. sending them in??? I don't remember any of the Bush klan being in the White House in October of 1993. I don't remember any of the Bush klan serving in Clinton's cabinet in a position where they would have the authority to send troops to battle or anywhere else.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp
My sources say that the US troops were sent to battle in Somalia on December 9, 1992. This was after the Clinton election victory, but before the swearing in.

The Hollywood bunch were upset at the lack of US life, so they wrote movies about Clinton excursions in Europe getting US soldiers killed &quot;Behind enemy lines&quot;. But Hollywood is so right wing, they spell Hollywood with swastikas.

I do not see that Clinton sent those soldiers to Somolia, but if you want to believe it, be my guest. I might mention to you that the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes if you will.

Oh, and I notice that ews does not mention Reagan or Clinton as wartime presidents. The US hasn't signed a war declaration since WWII. But Johnson is listed as a wartime president. I am so confused.

As far as Swartzenegger not having served in the US military, he has 2 strikes against him as a Governer. The first is that the fact that he was not born here does not stop other non-citizens from serving proudly for the red, white, and blue American flag. The second is that he is an entertainer just exactly like Natalie Maines. Entertainers have no right to voice their political opinions, much less run for office. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif But he smokes pot and womanizes, so he might not be that bad. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KW4MW]

From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Mogadishu was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia, by forces of the United States (by order of U.S. President Bill Clinton) supported by UNOSOM II against Somali guerrilla fighters (loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid).

Les Aspin: United States Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton from January 21, 1993 to February 3, 1994. #- #General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops.

From WA5OESQuote[/b] ]Hence, the chickenhawks: those with the courage . . . . #to send others into battle while they themselves hadn't the courage. It seems that the biggest warmongers are those with the least battle experience.

Footnote: #I was aboard a Navy ship that docked in Berbera Somalia in the early 80's shortly after the Somalies had kicked the Russians out of their country. #We were among the first Americans to arrive in Somalia after the Russians left. # They were glad to see us and were in hopes of receiving US aid to revive their sorry country. #The pictures you saw of starving Ethiopeans a few decades ago paled in comparison to what I saw in Somalia. #People were simply laying down during the heat of the day in whatever shade they could find. #Most had no food, a few boiled water for tea - mostly from mulberry leaves. #Others simply ate the mulberry leaves - apparently they contain a substance that wards off hunger pangs. #

IMHO we could have made allies for life with the Somalies with a few tons of rice and some goat meat. #I don't know how our own government screwed up that relationship so badly during the next decade. #Despite &quot;humanitarian efforts&quot; to the contrary, our main interest was the startegic location of Somalia on the horn of Africa.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ June 21 2006,10:50)]From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Mogadishu was fought on October 3 and 4, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia, by forces of the United States (by order of U.S. President Bill Clinton) supported by UNOSOM II against Somali guerrilla fighters (loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid).

Les Aspin: United States Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton from January 21, 1993 to February 3, 1994. #- #General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 Spectre gunships for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops.

From WA5OESQuote[/b] ]Hence, the chickenhawks: those with the courage . . . . #to send others into battle while they themselves hadn't the courage. It seems that the biggest warmongers are those with the least battle experience.

Footnote: #I was aboard a Navy ship that docked in Berbera Somalia in the early 80's shortly after the Somalies had kicked the Russians out of their country. #We were among the first Americans to arrive in Somalia after the Russians left. # They were glad to see us and were in hopes of receiving US aid to revive their sorry country. #The pictures you saw of starving Ethiopeans a few decades ago paled in comparison to what I saw in Somalia. #People were simply laying down during the heat of the day in whatever shade they could find. #Most had no food, a few boiled water for tea - mostly from mulberry leaves. #Others simply ate the mulberry leaves - apparently they contain a substance that wards off hunger pangs. #

IMHO we could have made allies for life with the Somalies with a few tons of rice and some goat meat. #I don't know how our own government screwed up that relationship so badly during the next decade. #Despite &quot;humanitarian efforts&quot; to the contrary, our main interest was the startegic location of Somalia on the horn of Africa.
From MW's link
Quote[/b] ]Operation Provide Relief began in August, 1992, when the Bush White House announced that U.S. military transports would support the multinational UN relief effort in Somalia. Ten C-130s and 400 people were deployed to Mombasa, Kenya during Operation Provide Relief, airlifting aid to remote areas in Somalia, to reduce reliance on truck convoys. One member of the 86th Supply Squadron was deployed with the ground support contingent, USAFE's only contribution to the operation. The Air Force C-130s delivered 48,000 tons of food and medical supplies in six months to international humanitarian organizations trying to help the over three million starving people in the country. When this proved inadequate to stop the massive death and displacement of the Somali people (500,000 dead and 1.5 million refugees or displaced), the U.S. in December, 1992, launched a major coalition operation, Operation Restore Hope, to assist and protect humanitarian activities, under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation, in accordance with resolution 794 (1992).

As XR said Clinton was continuing what Bush had already started. Not exactly a Chicken Hawk. A chickenhawk action would be say Pre-emptively striking and invading a sovereign nation?
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu)

[N9XR]

Mike, It means nothing for me to post anything on here because you make up your own definition of what I say. You are welcome to twist my words and make them say what you want. This is the only way you can attack, and this is the only thing you like to do.

Be my guest. Don't read what I wrote. Misrepresent what I say. Small people get small joys from small minded activities.

If you say that Bush I did not send troops into Somalia, we will rewrite history books for you. Okay, Presto chango, history books now have Clinton sending US troops into Somalia, and I am wrong.

I was trying to make a point that US troops were already in Somalia, and Clinton took over this &quot;screwed up&quot; as you called it. But I was wrong.

I am also taking note and realizing you are correct about the &quot;startegic location of Somalia on the horn of Africa&quot; that Somalia represents.

Go ahead. Make up whatever you want me to say and misquote me. I thought those soldiers were already in Somolia for battle. I guess they weren't. Wikipedia failed me.

[AK7V]

Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. Remember Serbia/Croatia?

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,02:51)]Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. Remember Serbia/Croatia?
Was that without UN support like what we have now?

Fill me in more.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 21 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,02:51)]Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. #Remember Serbia/Croatia?
Was that without UN support like what we have now?

Fill me in more.
If Bush's venture in Iraq had UN support, would it suddenly be the right thing to do?

If you're using UN support as the arbiter of right and wrong, that's pathetic. #Can't you do better? #Was oil for food right? #How about explaining why it was right for Clinton to invade Serbia but wrong for Bush to invade Iraq.

If UN support is the sole key to invading soverign nations, why all the arguments against invading soverign nations in general? #If you're accepting it as a function of the UN, you seem to be legitimizing the idea of invading soverign nations, making war, etc. on countries with bad leaders.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 21 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,02:51)]Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. Remember Serbia/Croatia?
Was that without UN support like what we have now?

Fill me in more.
That was another war I did not appreciate being executed in my name.

We did nothing for the hundreds of thousands of Serbs who were forcibly evicted from their towns and homes of many generations and forced to walk to remote cities as part of Croatia's ethnic cleansing.

Then the US troops were used to do more of the same in Bosnia.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]Ronald Reagan (1981-89) R
Service record: none that I know of. #Does &quot;war correspondent&quot; count?
As president: Played chicken with the USSR. #Some small invasions here and there.

Dutch was in the Active Duty Army and served as a Lieutenant during WWII. He was actually DENIED the privelage of serving active duty at first, because of eyesight problems, but PERSISTED in taking the physical exam until he passed it. Now that is what I call patriotism and determination to serve. But because of his eyesight problems, he was classified &quot;limited duty&quot;, so he was denied his ambition of serving oversees.

Don't try to paint Dutch as a chickenhawk, you can do your worst with the others, but not him.

Nixon was in the NAVY, BTW, so yes, he served.

[AK7V]

I have a hard time comprehending people who seem happy to substitute the majority opinion for their moral compass.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,11:47)]I have a hard time comprehending people who seem happy to substitute the majority opinion for their moral compass.
Mega-dittos.

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]Mike, It means nothing for me to post anything on here because you make up your own definition of what I say. #You are welcome to twist my words and make them say what you want. #This is the only way you can attack, and this is the only thing you like to do.

Be my guest. #Don't read what I wrote. #Misrepresent what I say. #Small people get small joys from small minded activities. #

If you say that Bush I did not send troops into Somalia, we will rewrite history books for you. #Okay, Presto chango, history books now have Clinton sending US troops into Somalia, and I am wrong. #

I was trying to make a point that US troops were already in Somalia, and Clinton took over this &quot;screwed up&quot; as you called it. #But I was wrong. #

I am also taking note and realizing you are correct about the &quot;startegic location of Somalia on the horn of Africa&quot; that Somalia represents.

Go ahead. #Make up whatever you want me to say and misquote me. #I thought those soldiers were already in Somolia for battle. #I guess they weren't. #Wikipedia failed me.

Sorry that you feel that way, I was not my intent to discredit what you said - I only specifically addressed the Battle of Mogadishu and not the events leading up to it. #

You may want to go back and read my post again because I didn't twist your words, I didn't even refer to them FCS. #I never even denied the involvement of the Bush I regime leading up to Battle of Mogadishu. #

OES had made the point some posts back about the definition of chickenhawks. #My reply was simply to point out that by his definition, Clinton and Aspin should be included in that list. #

If it makes you feel better the troops were in Somalia because GHBush sent them there in support of UN humanitarian efforts 5 months before he left office. #I was not arguing that point at all.

Specifically:

US military troops were ordered into Somalia orignially under Bush's presidency - W8EFA saw fit to add all the information and he is right.

Specifically:

The Battle of Mogadishu was fought on October 3 -4, 1993 and Bill Clinton was President of the United States. #His Secretary of Defense was Les Aspin who, despite the advice of Colin Powell, refused to allow APVs', heavy armor and gunships into the area to support the troops. #For that reason our GI's were trapped like rats and 18 soldiers were killed and 75 wounded. #

Mogadishu happened on Clinton's watch - 9 months after he became president, relieving GHBush. #

9/11 happened on GWBush's watch - 8 months after he became President, relieving Bill Clinton.

You and your pals seem to want it both ways. By your reasonings the debacle in Somalia was GHBush's fault because he sent the troops there in the first place but on the other hand Clinton should be exonerated from any 9/11 blame because he had been out of office for 8 months.

You twist my words and take them out of context and I'll just come back and point out the flaws in your logic. #

OTOH You accuse me of twisting your words when I didn't even quote or reference your post and instead of rebutting the point you've resigned yourself to whining and claiming to be a victim. #

Whiners never win. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Winners never whine. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N9XR]

KW4MWQuote[/b] ]You may want to go back and read my post again because I didn't twist your words

KW4MWQuote[/b] ]… and you accuse the guy wearing the uniform as being a draft dodger. Good grief man, have you sunk so low as to actually believe that poppycock?

N9XRQuote[/b] ] … Bush avoided the draft by the Texas Air National Guard duty. Again, a legal avoidance. But Bush deserted the service. Again, this is legal for the dirty son of a representative to do this.

I never said he is or was a “draft dodger”.

KW4MWQuote[/b] ]I think I'm going to puke.

Stop whining.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,14:26)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 21 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,02:51)]Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. #Remember Serbia/Croatia?
Was that without UN support like what we have now?

Fill me in more.


If you're using UN support as the arbiter of right and wrong, that's pathetic. #Can't you do better? #Was oil for food right? #How about explaining why it was right for Clinton to invade Serbia but wrong for Bush to invade Iraq.

If UN support is the sole key to invading soverign nations, why all the arguments against invading soverign nations in general? #If you're accepting it as a function of the UN, you seem to be legitimizing the idea of invading soverign nations, making war, etc. on countries with bad leaders.
First of all Kosovo had full NATO support. #Every single member helped stop Milosevics genocide.

Quote[/b] ]If Bush's venture in Iraq had UN support, would it suddenly be the right thing to do?

Well if it had full UN support then yes there would be a VALID reason. #Not a made up reason like WMD's.

This whole post is too ridiculously disjointed to even respond too - comparing a miltary action in Serbia to stop genocide to invading and occupying Iraq for 4 years- contrasting oil for food corruption with justification for invading Iraq.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,12:59)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,14:26)]Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 21 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ June 21 2006,02:51)]Don't forget when Clinton sent US troops to violently depose a soverign country's leader - a move of questionable legality. #Remember Serbia/Croatia?
Was that without UN support like what we have now?

Fill me in more.


If you're using UN support as the arbiter of right and wrong, that's pathetic. #Can't you do better? #Was oil for food right? #How about explaining why it was right for Clinton to invade Serbia but wrong for Bush to invade Iraq.

If UN support is the sole key to invading soverign nations, why all the arguments against invading soverign nations in general? #If you're accepting it as a function of the UN, you seem to be legitimizing the idea of invading soverign nations, making war, etc. on countries with bad leaders.
First of all Kosovo had full NATO support. #Every single member helped stop Milosevics genocide.

Quote[/b] ]If Bush's venture in Iraq had UN support, would it suddenly be the right thing to do?

Well if it had full UN support then yes there would be a VALID reason. #Not a made up reason like WMD's.

This whole post is too ridiculously disjointed to even respond too - comparing a miltary action in Serbia to stop genocide to invading and occupying Iraq for 4 years- contrasting oil for food #corruption with justification for invading Iraq.
Wait a minute.

Which is required before invading a country and killing innocent civilians again? #Full UN support or full NATO support? #I'm getting confused. #Or is it different depending on the current President's political party?

And who's OK to be occupiers and who's not? #I mean, Serbia and Iraq are both occupied as we speak, aren't they?

I sometimes forget which authority I'm supposed to defer to when thinking gets tricky. #

(Note for XR - the UN Security Council did not sanction the invasion of Kosovo, to answer your question)

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]Wait a minute.

Which is required before invading a country and killing innocent civilians again? #Full UN support or full NATO support? #I'm getting confused. #Or is it different depending on the current President's political party?

And who's OK to be occupiers and who's not? #I mean, Serbia and Iraq are both occupied as we speak, aren't they?

I sometimes forget which authority I'm supposed to defer to when thinking gets tricky. #

(Note for XR - the UN Security Council did not sanction the invasion of Kosovo, to answer your questi

Are you just playing Dumb or do you really not understand the difference between:

A consensus of multiple countries providing collective security by #determining that a regime is either threatening it's neighbors or commiting genocide or otherwise #breaking international law.

vs.

One nation deciding a sovereign nation is a threat and pre-emptively striking

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,15:33)]
Are you just playing Dumb or do you really not understand the difference between:

A consensus of multiple countries providing collective security by #determining that a regime is either threatening it's neighbors or commiting genocide or otherwise #breaking international law.

vs.

One nation deciding a sovereign nation is a threat and pre-emptively striking

Those things are different, but their differences don't determine right and wrong #(Nor does your crafty use of spin - one is a &quot;soverign nation[sympathetic connotation]&quot; and the other is a &quot;regeime[antagonistic connotation]&quot;). #That would be a rediculously simplistic way to look at any situation. #Did you stroke out when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuke plant a while ago? #Do you deny that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors and/or breaking international law? #Ever heard of the Marsh Arabs? #Kurds?

Your little stipulations also don't reflect reality, because there was a coalition that went to war with Iraq, not just one nation.

But your mangling of the truth is beside the point - what I'm most interested in is your ethics, and how they're derived. #It seems you're OK with innocents slaughtered and US intervention and foreign occupation when certain groups give the green light, but not others.

If you want, you can discuss the specific differences between the pre-war activities on the ground in Yugoslavia versus Iraq, and the different responses each warranted. #For example, you could say that there was an ongoing, active genocide in only one of the two. #Or that one had a nuke. #Or that one of them was more liable to attack the US. #And how do those differences make it OK for Serbia to be currently occupied, but not OK for Iraq to be occupied? I don't know - make a case other than &quot;powerful people who I like decided it was OK.&quot;

[W8EFA]

Well apparently you are not playing dumb. #

Though how can I argue with someone that doesn't see the difference between one country attacking another country, #and an organization of Nations be it NATO or the UN sending forces to protect agreed upon, voted upon International Law.

The fact is the UN was right, we should have never invaded Iraq. #The US was wrong. #We said their were WMD's and we were wrong. #We were once the most admired and trusted country in the world. #A leader of fairness and human rights. #Now world opinion is we are a threat. #You need to wake up to reality.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,20:43)]Well apparently you are not playing dumb.
I came to the same conclusion. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,09:23)]Once Again

George W. Bush # # Texas Air National Guard (during Vietnam, thereby avoided combat)
And &quot;Once Again&quot;, EFA:

We all know (or should know) that members of the National Guard (i.e., people such as Dick Gepardt or George W. Bush) have (or had) just as likely - or an even more likely - chance of being called into the front line of active duty during conflict or wartime.

You can run, but you can't hide. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

P.S.

Did you serve in the Armed Forces, or did you not?

[kd5rpo]

I want to know what the hel is up with these jerks who think they are superior because they did not happen to have a funny heart valve or on a different level, perhaps be female? There is no shame in not being able to pass a physical for the Vietnam war.

I am sick and tired of certain attitudes here.

I don't like hate mongering. Why did your wife get a break in these times of war?

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ June 21 2006,21:24)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,09:23)]Once Again

George W. Bush Texas Air National Guard (during Vietnam, thereby avoided combat)
And &quot;Once Again&quot;, EFA:

We all know (or should know) that members of the National Guard (i.e., people such as Dick Gepardt or George W. Bush) have (or had) just as likely - or an even more likely - chance of being called into the front line of active duty during conflict or wartime.

You can run, but you can't hide. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

P.S.

Did you serve in the Armed Forces, or did you not?
Wrong thread. And just what difference does that make? Sounds elitist to me. And Negatively Divisive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Who here has walked on the beach?

Who here has walked in a park?

The implication is that I'm better than you because I have and so has everyone else that replies they have - like I have - is also better than you. We're getting close to the point where you'll be saying again that you served to protect our rights, even to free speech, but that if you didn't serve, you don't have to right to talk about anything.

If You Say So.
http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

[w8cbc]

FRF - &quot;Dutch&quot;?

In my opinion, Reagan encouraged much of what's wrong in this country today: the inflexible hard line, international double-dealing, extreme self-interest, division for the sake of winning political points, voodoo economics, class marginalisation, to name a few.

George Bush Sr. paid the price for much of it - Iraq-1, soaring debt, economic stagnation, riots in our cities. Now with George Bush Jr. we have Iraq-2, soaring debt, imminent currency collapse, and general unfocussed public anger.

The attitudes that have resulted in the above mess are what I see as the legacy of the ol' Gipper. Some time in the mid 1980s they became the &quot;mainstream&quot;.

[N9XR]

AK7V Quote[/b] ]But your mangling of the truth is beside the point - what I'm most interested in is your ethics, and how they're derived. #It seems you're OK with innocents slaughtered and US intervention and foreign occupation when certain groups give the green light, but not others.

Apparently you hate Reagan, because he and GHW Bush had no problem with Saddam gassing Kurds. #Reagan probably sold the poison to Saddam and probably got Rummy to broker the deal. #These people are of the highest ethics. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # At least by your dipstick method. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W8EFA]

I don't know what is up with certain Vets on here clamoring for attention. #The ones that call attention to themselves and say hey salute me as I volunteered for my country and you should honor me because I did it for you are people that have identity problems.

You know the Vets I respect? The ones that were drafted. #They didn't want to become soldiers but they did their duty for their country. #Those are the ones I appreciate. #Also if they were drafted they were probably in a war.

Lets get real here. #When I #graduated from High School about 7 out of every 10 in my class joined the service as an alternative to working at McDonalds. #Very few that could have went to college joined the service though there were some that wanted to be officers and leaders.

People join the service for their own reasons because that is what they want to do or it is the best opportunity for them. #There are posters on here demanding they be honored because they volunteered for a job they wanted or were able to do in peacetime!

Again I totally respect people who volunteer in a time of war when they know they probably will be sent, and those drafted.

[w8cbc]

I know no combat vets with that &quot;I'm better than you are&quot; attitude.

As for whoever notioned that GWB was liable to be sent to Vietnam as part of the National Guard - yeah. The whole idea of joining the National Guard was to NOT GO. He didn't take the service seriously enough to fulfill his commitments as it was.

Two of my friends were &quot;excuses&quot;. They were conceived in 1965 and 1967 for the sole purpose of keeping their father out of the draft. He was a bomb-them-all hawk in the 80s of course. Huh.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ] know no combat vets with that &quot;I'm better than you are&quot; attitude.

And that is the truth. My golf partner is a Vietnam Decorated for bravery war hero and he sure doesn't run around crowing about his service. The real ones usually don't.

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 20 2006,23:32)]Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ June 20 2006,14:34)]As I tried to make clear, I am not bashing or blasting Clinton. No, I don't like Clinton and don't believe he was worth much as president but that is not the point of my original post or this one. My point was that he was indeed responsible for sending troops in that were killed in the line of duty. No, I am not trying to balance 2 or 3 against 2500. I was only stating that it was not entirely accurate to say that none had died by his order.

As for Bush Sr. sending them in??? I don't remember any of the Bush klan being in the White House in October of 1993. I don't remember any of the Bush klan serving in Clinton's cabinet in a position where they would have the authority to send troops to battle or anywhere else.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp
My sources say that the US troops were sent to battle in Somalia on December 9, 1992. This was after the Clinton election victory, but before the swearing in.

I do not see that Clinton sent those soldiers to Somolia, but if you want to believe it, be my guest. I might mention to you that the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes if you will.
US troops may have originally been sent to Somalia under Bush Sr., I am not disputing this. All I am saying is that the particular action where the helicopter crew went down was under Clinton's administration. I am not commenting on whether this was the right or wrong thing to do. I am not faulting anybody for this action. The only point I was trying to make was that the statement that 100% of those who were sent to battle under Clinton returned to tell about it was not fully accurate. I am not trying to justify 2500 deaths under one president by showing 2 or 3 under another. I am not playing the game of comparing apples to oranges. I am only clarifying one fact that I find to be in error.

Once again, my post was not to take sides or fault anybody, only to clarify one point.

Your referring to the insurency in Iraq in response to my statement is a bit off the wall. I did not mention Iraq or the insurgency. I stated one fact and posted a link referencing my source of information. Your apparent attempt to drag me off track to avoid that which you cannot defend has failed.

I also don't know what Hollywood or their liberal or conservative bias has to do with basically restating historical fact to clarify one point. I guess we can chalk that up to another failed attempt.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2006,17:43)]Well apparently you are not playing dumb. #

Though how can I argue with someone that doesn't see the difference between one country attacking another country, #and an organization of Nations be it NATO or the UN sending forces to protect agreed upon, voted upon International Law.

The fact is the UN was right, #we should have never invaded Iraq. #The US was wrong. #We said their were WMD's and we were wrong. #We were once the most admired and trusted country in the world. #A leader of fairness and human rights. #Now world opinion is we are a threat. #You need to wake up to reality.
I can't believe you'd call me dumb when you trot out responses like these.

Since some form of international consensus seems to be the cornerstone of your argument, it would be honest of you to admit that it was not only the US that invaded Iraq. #There were several countries. #Instead, your argument remains based on an incorrect premise. #If the &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot; re-named itself &quot;NATO2&quot; or &quot;The UN Without The Bribes&quot; or something official and international sounding, would you have been for the war? #

Even if your premise that the US acted alone was factual, you have not proven to me that that makes the act wrong. #You have said that hindsight makes the act wrong, though. #So apparently you'd support the war if WMD were there. #Did you support the war on day one?

I am repulsed by the idea that what lends an attack legitimacy is an arbitrary consensus, according to you. #And I am annoyed by the fact that you can't even understand that your argument is completely bankrupt, not to mention unsound and based on obviously false premises. #You're not being intellectually honest. #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 21 2006,20:38)]AK7V Quote[/b] ]But your mangling of the truth is beside the point - what I'm most interested in is your ethics, and how they're derived. #It seems you're OK with innocents slaughtered and US intervention and foreign occupation when certain groups give the green light, but not others.

Apparently you hate Reagan, because he and GHW Bush had no problem with Saddam gassing Kurds. #Reagan probably sold the poison to Saddam and probably got Rummy to broker the deal. #These people are of the highest ethics. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # At least by your dipstick method. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Yes. I hate everybody. Isn't that clear? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Since some form of international consensus seems to be the cornerstone of your argument, it would be honest of you to admit that it was not only the US that invaded Iraq. There were several countries. Instead, your argument remains based on an incorrect premise. If the &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot; re-named itself &quot;NATO2&quot; or &quot;The UN Without The Bribes&quot; or something official and international sounding, would you have been for the war?

Let's assume for a moment that you will have an opportunity to buy a new rig for the shack. You have 3 options that you are pondering. ICOM, Yaesu and YaeCOM. Icom and yaesu are organizations with people who have been working and designing for many years together. YaeCOM has designers and managers who were miffed that they did not get things to go their way at ICOM or at Yaesu, and they have joined together for several months now.

What company or companies will have the better product, make better decisions, and support you better after the sale? Keep in mind, all of these people making product in all these companies are of equal intelligence and equal ability. Where will your money go? Do I hear the cash transfer sending to YaeCOM?

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 22 2006,08:19)]Quote[/b] ]Since some form of international consensus seems to be the cornerstone of your argument, it would be honest of you to admit that it was not only the US that invaded Iraq. #There were several countries. #Instead, your argument remains based on an incorrect premise. #If the &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot; re-named itself &quot;NATO2&quot; or &quot;The UN Without The Bribes&quot; or something official and international sounding, would you have been for the war? #

Let's assume for a moment that you will have an opportunity to buy a new rig for the shack. #You have 3 options that you are pondering. #ICOM, Yaesu and YaeCOM. #Icom and yaesu are organizations with people who have been working and designing for many years together. #YaeCOM has designers and managers who were miffed that they did not get things to go their way at ICOM or at Yaesu, and they have joined together for several months now.

What company or companies will have the better product, make better decisions, and support you better after the sale? #Keep in mind, all of these people making product in all these companies are of equal intelligence and equal ability. #Where will your money go? #Do I hear the cash transfer sending to YaeCOM?
Thanks for a thoughtful response. #I'm impressed. #Especially apt because I'm radio-less at the moment and thinking of what to get. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Your analogy is far from perfect, though, because buying a radio isn't an decision anywhere near going to war - it doesn't involve ethical choices and doesn't have the ramifications. #Also, I have to reject your premise of equal capabilities/intelligence -- the US is the world superpower responsible for much of the planet's freedom as we know it, and Great Britain has been powerful on the world stage for a long, long time - so it's almost as if the chief designers of Yaesu and Icom, long time friends, formed their own company, and I'd expect such a thing to be pretty darned good. #Sure, there would be missteps along the way, customer service might be bumpy at first, but that's the cost of progress. #It would likely be better than a mish-mash of Kenwood, Alinco, Ramsey, Swan, and the Pixie II.

Regardless, though, I try not to make &quot;right-or-wrong&quot; decisions based on things like that. #So the whole point of establishing moral credibility through numbers isn't useful to me because that is not the right way to make ethical decisions. #If I were going to base my decisions on experience, the US-Great Britain alliance is a mighty experienced one, and I'd trust it more than Russia or China or Germany on making world-effecting decisions.

To play along, if I did base those decisions on consensus, and I held the US in the same esteem as each other country in the UN (Including places like Sudan, etc.), I _still_ would have trouble justifying Kosovo while harping on UN disapproval for Iraq - it's inconsistent. #If I thought that NATO approval was enough, I'd need to be clear about my &quot;line in the sand&quot; where I go from rejection to acceptance. #How many countries must agree? #Which organizations are credible enough and why? #And do I accept the fact that if one of these groups decided to attack the US or Canada for our WMDs or rotten pop culture, they'd be right to do so?

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] ]Your analogy is far from perfect, though, because buying a radio isn't an decision anywhere near going to war
You're joking, right? Well duh.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I have to reject your premise of equal capabilities/intelligence The Alliance to Invade is made up of the same countries who were within other organizations. The organizations did not approve their plan to invade, and were forced out of their respective organizations to carry out the plan to invade pre-emtively. The Alliance was new. It was not an alliance that had many years to think out how they would proceed, decide how they would handle problems. The plans they came up with were a hodge podge of plans that were brought to the table, and the task of assembling these methods would be overwhelming. Does over 2500 soldiers dead to this point sound like a &quot;well thought out plan?&quot;

Anyway, how can you complain about my premise? Are you saying that the alliance countries have greater &quot;intelligence and ability&quot; outside the UN and NATO and others? I cannot see this way of thinking. The alliance was looking for fewer restrictions, and not greater intelligence and ability.

Also, you must realize that this YaeCOM is made of disgruntled former employees, just like the Alliance. It is your money. I would say that YaeCOM could make a good product after many years of trial and error. But my money goes to the places who have the organization that has been time tested. Otherwise, you end up with 2500 dead soldiers for just buying a bad HF rig.

Quote[/b] ]If I were going to base my decisions on experience, the US-Great Britain alliance is a mighty experienced one, and I'd trust it more than Russia or China or Germany on making world-effecting decisions.
This is the YaeCOM choice. A quicly flung together organization where there are four times as many conflicting ideas on how to proceed and find resolution as there are participants. They were disgruntled at not getting their way at the old place and started anew.

http://images.cafepress.com/product/11513051v14_240x240_F.jpg

Quote[/b] ]
Regardless, though, I try not to make &quot;right-or-wrong&quot; decisions based on things like that. So the whole point of establishing moral credibility through numbers isn't useful to me because that is not the right way to make ethical decisions.
The Electoral College are a group of people who need to make a decision as to who to elect for president and vice president. Do they make their decision based on numbers? Should they have unanously voted for Kerry last time because the &quot;numbers &quot; were against him? Would that be the correct &quot;ethical&quot; decision for them to make? Back in the 60's or so, there was a song that went &quot;nobody's right if everybody's wrong.&quot; But even now, we can be Monday morning quarterbacks and see that this Alliance did not work. It is failing more every day. And we still have people say, &quot;It can work. It has players that I think are good and does not include crummy players.&quot;

Styx said it well, &quot;...you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it.&quot;

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ June 22 2006,09:57)]Quote[/b] ]Your analogy is far from perfect, though, because buying a radio isn't an decision anywhere near going to war
You're joking, right? #Well duh.


Grumpy grumpy! #I can and will point out problems when you pretend to be profound with a barely relevant, crass analogy relating something like buying radios to war. #Especially when that difference is fundamental and undermines the entire analogy, as is the case here. #Yet, I play along...
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Also, I have to reject your premise of equal capabilities/intelligence #The Alliance to Invade is made up of the same countries who were within other organizations. #The organizations did not approve their plan to invade, and were forced out of their respective organizations to carry out the plan to invade pre-emtively.
Huh? #So we're not in NATO anymore? #Quit making things up.
Quote[/b] ]
#The Alliance was new. #It was not an alliance that had many years to think out how they would proceed, decide how they would handle problems.
How long do you think the US, Britain, and any other country should have thought about going into Iraq? #If they had planned for 10 years, would the war then be right and run smoothly? #If all of NATO had gone in, would the invasion have been right? #These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they meant to lead -- I really want an answer. # Seriously.# Of all the known pre-war factors that you guys complain about incessantly -- no UN consensus; now no NATO consensus; evidence of WMD was shaky; against international law; Saddam wasn't a direct threat to us; #Bush is dumb, etc. -- which ones, if changed, would have made the invasion OK?
Quote[/b] ] #The plans they came up with were a hodge podge of plans that were brought to the table, and the task of assembling these methods would be overwhelming. #Does over 2500 soldiers dead to this point sound like a &quot;well thought out plan?&quot;
Sounds like a war to me. #Who are you quoting there with your &quot;s? #Surely not me.Quote[/b] ]
Anyway, how can you complain about my premise?
Because it's wrong. #Read what I wrote.
Quote[/b] ] #Are you saying that the alliance countries have greater &quot;intelligence and ability&quot; outside the UN and NATO and others? #I cannot see this way of thinking. #The alliance was looking for fewer restrictions, and not greater intelligence and ability.

No, that's not what I said. #Read again and think harder. #YOU stipulated that all &quot;employees&quot; of Yaesu and Icom were equally capable and intelligent. #I rejected that stipulation. #I meant just what I said. #I'm an America-chauvinist; I admit it. (and we certainly aren't the UN or NATO's &quot;employee.&quot;)
Quote[/b] ]
Also, you must realize that this YaeCOM is made of disgruntled former employees, just like the Alliance. #It is your money. #I would say that YaeCOM could make a good product after many years of trial and error. #But my money goes to the places who have the organization that has been time tested. #Otherwise, you end up with 2500 dead soldiers for just buying a bad HF rig.

OK mister conservative. #I disagree with you. #Especially when the time-tested organization is corrupt and bribed by the enemy, and the new organization is founded by the best, brightest, and most powerful. #I'd hate to have you handling my 401k (since we're crassly mixing analogies).
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]If I were going to base my decisions on experience, the US-Great Britain alliance is a mighty experienced one, and I'd trust it more than Russia or China or Germany on making world-effecting decisions.
This is the YaeCOM choice. #A quicly flung together organization where there are four times as many conflicting ideas on how to proceed and find resolution as there are participants. #They were disgruntled at not getting their way at the old place and started anew.

Good for them! #Are you aware of how many great innovations started this way? #Why, it even sounds kind of like the beginnings of The United States of America, believe it or not.

The new companies benefit from the information they gleaned from the shortcomings of the previous. #It's often a quantum leap in quality when something like this happens, especially when the &quot;disgruntled employees&quot; are the most skilled and dedicated.

Now please allow that I am not stating that this is the #case right now with the Iraq war, so don't put words in my mouth and claim that I'm thrilled with how things have gone in Iraq. #I am only pointing out the problems that I see with your logic, and how I think you and many on your &quot;side&quot; are making piss-poor arguments.

Your analogy is certainly lame because it doesn't actually relate to worldwide issues or ethics, but it's also lame because this supposed business reality that you're clinging to is itself flawed. #It's lame on both legs (heheh - does that make it un-lame? #Not in your case!). #I suppose you could write up a big post defending the veracity of your analogous business reality, and that would be amusing to me, but still irrelevant to geopolitics and especially ethics with regard to the war. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

This next bit is a big mess, but I'll respond because I'm bored.
Quote[/b] ]
The Electoral College are a group of people who need to make a decision as to who to elect for president and vice president. #Do they make their decision based on numbers? #
Usually. #They're supposed to. #I don't know if there have been &quot;disloyal electors&quot; - can't recall.
Quote[/b] ]
Should they have unanously voted for Kerry last time because the &quot;numbers &quot; were against him? #Would that be the correct &quot;ethical&quot; decision for them to make?

Of course not. #My whole point is that the numbers shouldn't be the arbiter of ethics. #&quot;Duh.&quot; Have you made a cunning point here? #Try again. #I don't see it. #The UN doesn't have to approve of something for it to be right. #If you supported the invasion of Serbia, you agree.

Quote[/b] ]
#Back in the 60's or so, there was a song that went &quot;nobody's right if everybody's wrong.&quot; #But even now, we can be Monday morning quarterbacks and see that this Alliance did not work. #It is failing more every day. #And we still have people s