 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Chickenhawk Database
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 02 - 04:14 PM Yo GUEST: There is no moral superiority here, unless you percieve someone you consistently preaches making every effort to find better ways of solving difference between peoples tahn blowing folk up. If that is moral superiority, then yeah, count me in. I have nothing but respect for my brothers and sisters in uniform and during the Vietnam War, made every effort to accomodate the folks from Fort Lee, Va. at a Rock-n-Roll joint that I ran in Richmond. I graduated fromn a small military school with a graduating class of about 125 of which 8, who were my friends, died in Vietnam. I lost one cousin in Vietnam and another barely survived after being critically injured from a land mine. And, everyone has the 20/20 hindsight when it comes to the last war with Iraq and lots of folks think it would have been as easy to take out Saddam as it was to expell the Iraqis from Kuwait. I disagree. There is something about urban warfare that is inherently dangerous. I'm not saying this from any illusion of superiority on any level. It has been reported that it is a major concern of the Pentegon, as well it should be. It certainly does not play to our strengths and it is very much in Saddam's end of the court. His brother has all ready said that is their plan. I think it is a fair concern. And where is the rhetoric that you speak of, GUEST? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST Date: 11 Oct 02 - 08:42 AM You may feel morally superior by spouting rhetoric but it doesnt make you superior Bobert. Military veterans would have finished the job in Iraq if it were not for people who thought that it was wrong to invade after liberating Kuwait. "As to the abuses I meet with, I number them among my honors. One cannot behave so as to obtain the esteem of the wise and the good without drawing on oneself at the same time the envy and malice of the foolish and wicked, and the latter is testimony of the former. The best men have always had their share of this treatment, and the more of it in proportion to their different and greater degree of merit. A man, therefore, has some reason to be ashamed of himself when he meets with none of it." Benjamin Franklin, 1767 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 02 - 08:35 AM And, P.S., we'll know in a few days the folks who get added to the database... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Oct 02 - 08:34 AM I agree with you Teribus, that most of Iraq can be secured easily, but until Bagdad is taken the misssion ain't over and remember just who has the guns... yep, the RG and the SRG who will have no trouble *controling* the streets of Bagdad should they have the will. Even the administration has some anxiety on the "will" issue. It'sa been said that in war one plans and plans but once the battles begin, many of those plans just get shreaded. One only need look at the Battle of Antietam to see just how accurate that theory is. You may have no concern about a street brawl in Bagdad but I'll guarentee you that it's the Pentagon's biggest nightmare right now. If it isn't, then that $1B a day is going down the drain... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Teribus Date: 11 Oct 02 - 06:16 AM Hi Bobert, Re: Your opinion regarding US and a "Vietnem mentality". "If Iraq pulls it's military back to Bagdad you will have two choices. Starve everyone out, which won't play too well on the world's satge of public opinion... or get into a street brawl. Vietnam was a street brawl held in rice paddies and thick jungles, but non the less a street brawl. Problem was, we seemed to alwayd be brawling on the others guys turf. What's the difference with Iraq? I mean, the enemy will look just like the civilians. The enemy will be holed up in on apartment building after another. Hey, sure, you can bring in an Apache gunship and kill lots of folks in those aartment buildings. Unfortunately, most will be civilians... Meanwhile, Saddam's guys will be ambushing our kids in the middle of the the streets." These "guys" of Saddam's that you are talking about - Now they are the same ones who surrendered in embarassingly large numbers in 1991? Or are you talking about his Revolutionary Guards and Special Revolutionary Guards? If it's the latter, let's just take a look at what their standing is with the normal man in the street in Baghdad. These "guys" have been pulling your average man off the streets and treating him rather less than civilly for decades. If put to the test the personnel making up Saddam's RG & SRG units have more to fear from the Iraqi people than they do from any force confronting them. Another parallel with Vietnam that you seem to assume, but which does not in fact exist is this (Claymore will no doubt recognise it's importance from his own past experience). In Iraq you have a number of different ethnic groups, Shia muslims in the south, Sunni muslims for arguements sake in the centre and Iraqi Kurds in the north. Of those groups any intervention force is likely to be well received in the south and in the north. That situation never existed in Vietnam, the "hearts and minds" of the populations living in those areas will be extremely easy to win over. Saddam Hussein could of course bomb them and target them with bio and chemical weapons - but hell, he's been doing that for years so what's the difference. I would imagine that quite a large number of members of Congress have served. The situation has been laid before them and they have given the current President far greater support than their predecessors ever gave his father. They have done that for reasons that transcend Party Politics. Your rather cheap shot with respect to their children is not so much food for thought, more of a complete and utter red-herring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:59 PM Claymore: I respect you and your opinions and realize that you are not going to respond to what I am saying but I disagree that the US won't again "put itself in a Vietnem mentality". If Iraq pulls it's military back to Bagdad you will have two choices. Starve everyone out, which won't play too well on the world's satge of public opinion... or get into a street brawl. Vietnam was a street brawl held in rice paddies and thick jungles, but non the less a street brawl. Problem was, we seemed to alwayd be brawling on the others guys turf. What's the difference with Iraq? I mean, the enemy will look just like the civilians. The enemy will be holed up in on apartment building after another. Hey, sure, you can bring in an Apache gunship and kill lots of folks in those aartment buildings. Unfortunately, most will be civilians... Meanwhile, Saddam's guys will be ambushing our kids in the middle of the the streets. Don't think so? Remember Vietnam for just one minute. Back to the original point of the thread. It would be real interseting to see how amny of the folks in Washingotn who passed Bush's okay to *go it alone resolution* have served and how amny of their kids will be involved. Food for thought... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:13 PM Bobert, this will be my last post on this subject, so a couple of words in clarification. 1. The hippie comment I made was in response to OBU's previous comment (which is why I gave the hint "in response to OBU" in that paragraph). I really did know that hippies weren't around during the Civil War, though there are some really old hippies. I am however overjoyed that you feel that had there been hippies back during the Civil War, they would have joined the Republicans in fighting the Democrat slave holders. And despite Democrat rumors to the contrary, the Republicans still hold that position against slavery. 2. Every election I have voted in I have split my ticket, and have voted for Democrats at federal, state and local offices, though only Kennedy and Johnson as presidential votes. 3. And yes, when I wrote "Taliban crushed" I was more than aware there were other casualties involved, despite the supersilious reminders. And no, in my dark little world, other nations casualties are not worth more than American lives (or the lives of those who stand with us). I would vastly prefer that is never "either - or", but once I am clear in my mind that that is the choice, I have never had a problem with insuring that the other guy, and those standing around him, get to die for their country. 4. Finally, if you truely believe that those nations of the "Axis" can again conduct a Vietnam-like war and defeat us, you might want to think of a couple things first. We have no intention of putting ourselves into the Vietnam mentality, and now conduct our wars with the idea of notifying everyone in country we are coming, killing hundreds of thousands of the enemy combatants with absolute air power, telling the noncombatants to get far away, or at least don't fire weapons at a wedding party, and then sending in troops to get personal with anyone who hasen't gotten the message. And as far as the Gulf and Afaghan wars, we have lost more personnel to accidents, than enemy fire. There are no more political do-not-cross lines, you die where we find you. There are no Democrat politicians selecting the target list. Vietnam went away the day that bomb went down the air shaft in Bahgdad. And at this point, most people in the world know it. (By the way, I haven't "carpet bomed" any women lately, though I have "sofa bomed" a couple of gals who later told me they loved it... and I know I did... ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 09 Oct 02 - 11:50 PM These are fine words you're saying I know you mean them well This game of life we're Playing Half in heaven, half in hell You're the soldier for freedom you're the fighter for peace But you'd put the gun into my hand ...Signal off the guillotine's release ...Your ideals are to be envied Like some little child's dream ...they crash around my aching head, like rocks tumbling down a stream... -Dougie Maclean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 09 Oct 02 - 11:14 PM Claymore: As per usual your loyalties to the Republican Party come thru loud and clear. I don't get it? You seem to be an intellegent person but you are so angry with Bill Clinton, the person, that you seem blinded by the fact that you have been sucked into the Repubocratic Party. And I think if you will talk with historians that you will find that your favorite party and that of the oppostion fraternity have swapped places since the Civil War. And there weren't a lot of hippies around during the Civi War but had there been any, they would have sided with the slaves and abolitionists, just as today as we side with the slaves and abolitionists. And lastly, the book is still out on Afganistan. And the Taliban. But there is one thing that is for certain. Anytime one of the Axis-folks decides to examine the ldessons of Vietnam, the US will be beaten again, uness they just want to carpet bome women and children and pave which ever Axis country digs in... and pave it. Not my idea of forward progress for mankind, thank you. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:35 PM Claymore: "a. Taliban crushed with only three combat casualties." I thought there were several more killed than that. I thought there were some Afghanis that got killed helping us, and some civilians that got killed because they were there. I thought that human life was valuable even if it wasn't American human life. Clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 09 Oct 02 - 02:50 PM Hey, this thing went off my radar screen a month ago, and I've just now had a chance to read the responses. For the record, I was clearly the first to point out that: 1. The fact that one had previously served in the military or not had no particular effect on ones ability to lead a nation in military activities. 2. That it was intellectually dishonest to attempt to point out the veterans who were indicating some reservations about the impending conflict with Iraq, without pointing out the numerous Veterans groups who supported the President. In point of fact, it appears that most of these veterans are now backing the President in whole or in signifcant part of his endeavors. 3. That absent the "bag of pus" adjective, my discussion of Clinton's lack of military experience (or his lying to get clear of that experience) and what is now clearly acknowledged as his inadequate response to bin Laden's actions, is more clearly inline with Boberts "chicken hawk" theory than any person now serving in the Bush Administration, veteran or not. 4. That whether you agree with the current trend in our "war on terrorism", Bush and his administration, have for the most part, been singularly effective in pursuit of what most people view as the "bad guys" in this affair. Let's review: a. Taliban crushed with only three combat casualties. b. He's poised on a Congressional vote to give him the freedom he needs to continue the "war." c. He steps out of the ABM treaty with all parties now in basic agreement with the process. d. Congressional elections (give or take an NJ) headed in his favor [against all normal trends]. e. The UN still as useless as ever, but consulted with nonetheless... 5. And finally to OBU: You seem to forget that the hippie/Quakers did absolutely nothing to "end" slavery in the US. It was the armed intervention of Republicans who freed the slaves in the US, (the Democrats being the slave holders) in a long and costly "war". The underground railroad was certainly more Republican than Quaker, once you count the political persuation of all its members, during it's existence. The "Party of Lincoln" was expressly formed over the issue of slavery, and only after Secession was the preservation of the Union a second aim. And since those people cared enough to go to war over it, the Quakers lose by comparison. And to the rest of you, please don't try to tell a combat veteran that running away is bravery in another direction... do the plastic surgery on your own history in private... The Veterans Administration pays me 60% for my mine... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 08 Oct 02 - 05:50 PM Getting back to the subject; it's not necessary to have been in the armed services to have a valid opinion about war. Of course, a soldier may have more knowledge of some aspects of war than a civilian, the same way a farmer may know something about farming that a suit-&-tie-man does not. The thing is, I find it distasteful that, for example, George Will wrote about how gunpowder sometimes smells sweet, although he took care to stay home when it was his turn to go during the Vietnam war. (And since you asked, I spent a hitch in the First Infantry Division nearly 50 years ago, early enough to get GI Bill benefits from the Korean War, but too late to fight in it. I don't know what that qualifies me for.) Clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Amos Date: 08 Oct 02 - 04:18 PM With that in mind, here's a list of some of my favorite Dubyisms. Enjoy 'em while you can! "Reading is the basics for all learning."--Announcing his Reading First initiative in Reston, Va., March 28, 2000 "I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."--Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000 "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"--Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000 "Actually, I--this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about--when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."--U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000 "The fact that he relies on facts--says things that are not factual--are going to undermine his campaign."--New York Times, March 4, 2000 "It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature."--Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000 "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."--Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000 "We ought to make the pie higher."--South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000 "I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes."--Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000 "When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there."--Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000 "States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live."--Cleveland, June 29, 2000 "I understand small business growth. I was one."--New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000 "He can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."--To reporters in Florence, S.C.., Feb. 17, 2000 "The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."--Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000 "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"-Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000 "The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." --All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000 "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000 "It's evolutionary, going from governor to president, and this is a significant step, to be able to vote for yourself on the ballot, and I'll be able to do so next fall, I hope."-Associated Press, March 8, 2000 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Nerd Date: 08 Oct 02 - 03:06 PM To those who think our President trained as a fighter pilot: not exactly. He was enrolled in the Texas Air National Guard, but he NEVER SHOWED UP! His CO never met him! He was "on paper" only, 'cause daddy was a high up politico. So technically, on paper, he served. Really, he was serving himself highballs. 'strue! Read the book: Is Our Children Learning? Lots of dirt on our CURRENT lying, draft-dodging bag of pus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 08 Oct 02 - 02:37 PM Or for some extra fun: www.nhgazette.com Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 08 Oct 02 - 12:44 PM Just an interesting website for those folks who might like a little more info and the drum beaters and huffers and puffers... www.flyingsnail.com Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: InOBU Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM "If ye love comfort better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of your master. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Seems to me Adams was not the one in chains, real chaffing chains, whips and the horrors of real slavery were reserved for those who we "hippie" types (Quakers) through our peaceful means helped to steal themselves away to the land of freedom, Canada... funny old world. I have nothing against the soul of any who fight, I just wish they'd think of a better way. Cheers and peace, Larry
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 13 Sep 02 - 10:48 AM Tried to tell you Amos - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:57 PM I knew we shouldn'ta never drafted no damn hippies! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Newly Enlightened Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:17 PM ...people accusing me of being the problem... Those folks were, and are, in my opinion, the derogatory sense of Hippies... Well, shoot! NOW I see!! It werent U.S. service personnel that were bombing neutral Cambodians and killing them Veet-Namese women and children- it wuz the damn HIPPIES!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:31 PM Bobert - one of the things I like about you is your willingness to stick with something until it is resolved. That's how wounds are mended. It's easy to get PO'd and go away without coming to a resolution.
I am never sorry when you and I engage in these rants. It seems we always come out much more the same than different. Yes Bobert - you are starting to act a bit like me - and I you - I also think that Claymore's pain may have been deeper than mine on this particular day. I can be much harder than Claymore was when I'm really twisted up.
Thank You very much for the apology - it has been accepted by me with no reservations, and forgiven back to you. No residuals here. In my belief about people I always know that I am half of the issue - so I sincerely apologize for any mis-statement that caused grief on your part. I have always had the utmost of respect for those who did their best to keep us out of the killing fields and remembered who we who fought were. I didn't always agree - but I respected.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:08 AM Okay, I'll try again, Steve... First of all there's a world of difference between "Former Corporal of the Marines" and "LT., USMC, Vietnam". One has a softness to it and the other a hard staccato-ness to it that was, either intended or not, is threatening. That, coupled with the prior "bag of pus" remarks about a Presidnet set a tone that heavily implies,"Im right, End of Discussion" In these times we need a lot more discussion, not less. There are differences of opinion as there were in 1776 and thats an essential element of democracy, that is if we are going to continue Jefferson, at al's experiement. With that said, ol' bobert having explained his possible misinterpretation of intent, extends a most heartfelt apology to any veteran in Mudcat who I have offended here. I have deep respect for each and every one of you. Your courage exemplifies what it is to be an American. I lost a cousin and 8 close friends in Vietnam and I know that you folks suffered thru equally or greater pain than I. It is my deepest hope that yet another generation will not be put in harms way and suffer the pains that we all still carry daily when the leaders have not done every possible thing that can be done to prevent it. I am deeply sorry, Claymore and Steve, most specificly... Peace Bobert
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:41 AM Amos - I certainly enjoyed your clarification of all of the above.
Bobert - When you drop the hillbilly act you are one of the clearest writers I know. But I believe you still don't get it about combat veterans and how we perceive verbal diatribes like yours. "Licking some Marine's boots" - get real. No one is asking that. No one even insinuated it. Your last post was on both sides of the fence - first an apology (Accepted and forgiven by the way) - then the boot thing. Incongruent and uncalled for I think. Say it to your friend and see how he reacts.
And BTW - I signed mine "Former Corporal of Marines" so why didn't you jump on me as you did the Lt.? And Claymore is a long standing member of this forum - that he signed on as Guest first was most likely due to cookie death.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Amos Date: 11 Sep 02 - 10:01 PM Well, I reckon we owe Claymore a vote of thanks for what he did, so long ago, and for speaking his truth. I have never met a Marine I didn't like -- they are some of the straightest talking and clearest thinking people around. But I believe we also need to offer Bobert a vote of thanks for what he did, so long ago. I don't think either of you would argue that war should be gone into lightly. I think it can be agreed on that those who have seen it know it best. They may not be the best strategists, but they understand why so many veterans hate the condition and activity of war, even while treasuring the loyalties and heroic acts and friendships they forged under it. Let those who know it advise those who do not. Personally I am distrustful of the current urgings for war by the U.S. against Iraq; but less because of Bush's inexperience in it, than because of his reluctance to state his reasons plainly and factually. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 02 - 09:18 PM Mg, Lt, Norton, et al. I am sorry for any pains that I have inflicted upon you or your memories of fallen comrads, for this has not been the spirit of this thread. The Vietnam War was a major foriegn polict blunder and we all got caught up in the devesation. No, you don't have to have memories of the guy on the flank gettign his brains blown out to appreciate ( for lack of a better word) the utter evilness of the motivations that brought about that war and for what motivations.... No, I was not rude to Lt, USMC, Vietnam. He was *rude* to me. We talk about terrorism. What is terrorism. It 's trying to scare folks, that's what it is. Nothin' more. Just, huff and puff and scare folks. There are a lot of vets here in Midcat that don't go arounf signing off "Lt,USMC,Vietnam". That's like a big ol'"Im Rambo, Punk! Get out of my f**kin' way, boy" sign up. Well, I stoof up to LBJ and Richard Nixon and the Richmond police trying to get *my brothers* out of an unwinable war and now, tonight, I gotta lick some Marines boots because he thinks he's got the market cornered on "righteosness". Wellm tell you the same think I told the Masters of War. Takes your war and shove it. You want to fight so bad, go do it your own selves and leave my working class folks at home with their families and their friends. Hey, this was Vietnam. You want to *argue* the merits of that war, start another thread entitled, "Why we should have nuked Vietnam" but don't plan on no kicking this old boys butt for problems that you *think* he might have had back then with the returnoing vets, 'cayse not only will that dog not hunt... but that *dog* don't exist. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,mg Date: 11 Sep 02 - 08:11 PM If someone who actually served themselves wants to call someone names like Chickenhawk, it is fine by me. I am totally disinterested in those who didn't and yet feel qualified to discuss someone else's service or lack thereof. And I believe our president was trained as a pilot. No one knew, including me, where we would end up in those days. Some had a fairly good idea. Bobert, you were extremely rude there. Extremely. This is not the day to be rude. I thought I was done being angry. Maybe not. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Gareth Date: 11 Sep 02 - 07:11 PM It ill behoves us, safely this side of the Pond, who have never seen military service, and are now to old and unfit to do so to to get involved in a "firefight" about who was is or should be a posthomous here. But for what its worth - I have a respect for George Bush Snr - Any man who volunteers to fly off carriers 1n the 1940's is no coward, and has a moral right to make military decisions. A George W Bush Jnr did not serve his 365 days in South East Asia, if accounts are correct influnce was used to find him a nice safe sinecure. Powell spent his time "up the sharp end" Cheney did not. All of the above were in a position to make that decision on where they would serve. Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves had word to descibe this. So did Wlifred Owen
"If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Gareth - Turned down by the Royal Navy 1973 on Medical Grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 11 Sep 02 - 06:24 PM "Something most of you anti-war folks were not able to do. At least in my experience. Those folks were, and are, in my opinion, the derogatory sense of Hippies."
Keyword here is "most." Maybe you ought to reread mine. If someone took this to mean themselves personnally - in other words that I said this to them - my apologies if it doesn't fit. Otherwise that's my view.
"Now, Lt,USMC,Vietnam,Sir, I'm sure I've privided you with ample ammunition to really get your jollies, so fire away, brother. BTW, ever really read the Gospels? Nevermind... "
Just a smidgen cynical and uncalled for from one who is so peace ridden. And to say it to a combat veteran? That is what I mean about saying things to those who fought. Have your friend read it. He might have another view of it - but then he knows you fairly well and can interpret the written word from what you really meant.
Lt. may or may not be your Brother - but he is mine for a fact. Maybe you ought to rethink your response. No pissin contest Bobert - you and I think alike about war. But I'll not stand by and have a Brother Marine, and combat veteran, talked to in any kind of derisive manner. And that is how I read it. He's pretty angry - and so am I - we've been there and done that. So why are you sounding so angry and accusatory at Lt.? I saw lots of anti-war demonstrators be angry at the government and we veterans got hit with the anger. Maybe it wasn't directed at us - but it hit us just the same. Just like your post.
Curmudgeon - if you think I aimed this at you - didn't happen. And the above apology is aimed at you if you believe I did. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:27 PM Opps, make that Fort Lee... Bobert p.s. And if your still on the fence, PM me with your phone number or address and I'll have my Marine buddy contact ya' and you all can discuss what I did for my uniformed brothers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:22 PM Yo, Norton. I'm not going to get into a spitting contest here on this issue but you got me all wrong. I lost 8 members of my samll graduating class of Massanutten Military Academy. These kids were my friends. I lost a cousin and have another one come home without a right leg. During the Vietnam War, I was involved in a rock and roll club in Richmond and we let it be known that folks from Camp Lee were welcome and we had serivce folks in there every weekend. My absolute best friend, whoes party I played last montyh in Virginia Beach, is a guy I met the week he returned from Nam after his tour in ther USMC. So you've got the wrong guy, pal. I never once blamed one person who went into the armed services for a lousy foriegn policy that several Presidents had a hand in. My point is that the folks who sit around in their comfy war rooms and make decisions about going to war are the folks that happen to be furthest from the battle fields. And by in large, that goes for their kids too. Maybe you should reread the original post, Steve... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: curmudgeon Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:21 PM Lt. Claymore Guest -- Take a look at Chickenhawk; you will find people you don't like there also. Norton1 -- Please do not clump all of us who opposed the war together. I never condemned any man or woman who served in that war; nor did any of my friends to the best of my knowledge. Rather I condemned, and still do, the politicians and their industrialist string pullers for the wanton loss of human life of all nationalities, at any time and in any land. Peace -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:16 PM "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then ask yourself, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Are we just to do nothing? To allow the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? I detest any submission to a people who have either ceased to be human, or have not virtue enough to feel their own wretchedness! If ye love comfort better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of your master. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
--Samuel Adams, 1776 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Steve in Idaho Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:05 PM Lima Tango - Bobert - Cease fire for a second. As one who has sat in fighting holes and seen friends go away I have a belief that you are both talking about the same thing.
For me I believe the line that gets drawn puts the warrior in the wrong space. Sure Veteran's Groups are supportive of the Veterans. I don't know about the rank and file. Here in Idaho I would say that we are 90% Republican, whatever that means, but none of the Combat Veterans I know are out in the streets screaming for us to go to war. What we are about is trying to find the means to be supportive of our country, that is in deep pain, and not go getting us involved in something that we cannot extricate ourselves from.
I personally do not support our going into Iraq. Iraq has had ample opportunity to utilize the weapons of mass destruction on US Forces during the Gulf War and did not. And the current administration has not provided the evidence of Iraqs acquisition of nuclear capability, mas destruction, or their willingness to use what they currently have for anything after the Kurds got gassed.
But if we go into Iraq - I will support our troops and our national policy while continuing to find a middle ground that keeps me sane - well as sane as I get.
And Brother Bobert - you get awfully self-righteous at times and really make a big deal of how you fought against the war in Viet Nam. While you were beginning that I was fighting in Viet Nam. Then I came back to people accusing me of being the problem. I joined the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, supported the troops coming home, and opposed the war. Something most of you anti-war folks were not able to do. At least in my experience. Those folks were, and are, in my opinion, the derogatory sense of Hippies.
None of us has the moral high ground here. Including me - I'm babbling and will climb off my soap box now - Steve Neff Former Corporal of Marines |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 02 - 03:11 PM "rationals in the crowd"? Just who is doing the judging? Sound like a purdy angry feller there Lt.,USMC, Claymore, sir. But you will be happy that I share your feeling about the last President but since I have never called Junior an AWOL. bag of pus, I wouldn't exactly use those words for Slick Willie. I do practice some constraints, Sir. As for the Departmenbt of Peace, if you will go back and review the co-sonsors of the bill you'll find more folks than you mentioned. Do you personally have a problem with promoting peace, Sir? Or are you one of those marines that never met a war he didn't like. My Uncle Jack was like that. Lied to get into the Marines in '43 and fought in the Pacific, reupped in '52 for Korea and tried to reup for Vietnam. Heck, if we declared war on Heaven, he'd have tried to reup. As fir me, Lt. Sir, You'd probably think that I was a draft-dodging bag of pus because, heck, fresh from 3 years of military school, I could have done what a lot of my friends did. But I didn't. Instead, I fought against the War and organized demonstrations against it and I'm proud that I did. In 1966, before it became fashionable, it took courage to speak out against the War. Now, Lt,USMC,Vietnam,Sir, I'm sure I've privided you with ample ammunition to really get your jollies, so fire away, brother. BTW, ever really read the Gospels? Nevermind... Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: gnomad Date: 11 Sep 02 - 02:50 PM My reading here is that what is in question is not these guys competence to wage war, but their desire to do so. I do not offer comment on either in respect of these men, other catters are far better qualified, but I have observed over a number of years that the most vehement pacifists often spring from those with extended close up experience of war. Those who ignore history (AKA other peoples experience) are doomed to repeat it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 11 Sep 02 - 02:25 PM Again claptrap. In an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, that BS was put to rest as they compared those Presidents who had experience in war prior to the conflict during their presidency, and the conduct of Presidents who had little or no wartime experience, but who conducted a wartime presidency. Examples given were Lincoln vs Grant, FDR vs Ike, etc. The point they were making was that there is no correlation between wartime service and an ability to fight a war as President. Johnson was a Navy Officer during WWII (so were Nixon and Kennedy) and none of their performances during the Vietnam War were exceptionaly good. Any excuse will serve a fool... By the way, from the above I take it that you also thought our previous lying, draft-dodging, bag of pus, was a singularly inept President. Leave it to the rationals in the crowd to point out, you can't have it both ways. And obviously, you would not have the guts to make the comparison, which became clear, when Bush was urged to respond like Clinton right after 9/11, and he retorted that he "Wasn't going to fire off a bunch of million dollar missiles, to go through some empty tents and smack a camel in the ass". Sounds like a basic grasp of "strategery" to me... And while you ineptly quote those with war experience as being against the war, why do you ignore the fact that the national veterans groups are the most supportive of these actions? Or the many veterans who support the Presidents stand while currently in positions of political power. This is a diverse issue with diverse viewpoints by diverse groups of people. To quote one group, without acknowledging the others, approaches dishonesty... And regarding your Dept of Peace thread some time ago. did you note that of the three sponsors of the bill, one was indicted and convicted, one was voted out of office, and the last has been laughed at so may times, he no longer brings it up? (By the way, Lt, USMC, Vietnam...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: curmudgeon Date: 11 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM I just alerted Steven Fowle of his presence on this noble site along with a suggestion that he join up, When you do go to Chickenhawk, take the time to read the paper. It's a remarkable combination of news, commentary, wit, history and philosophy. Subscriptions are available for those living far away. Keep fanning the flames -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 02 - 10:53 AM Thanks for the assist, Nicole. You've been doing a lot of that lately for which I am grateful. I had mixed feeling about psoting this at all because their is an aspect of it that implies that war is okay, just as long as everyone gets to experience it first hand. But the point that wars are generally stared by the ruling class and fought by the working class (with the exception of those commanders who watch from a far) out weighed my other thoughts. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: NicoleC Date: 11 Sep 02 - 09:48 AM The actual web site in question is at: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 11 Sep 02 - 12:30 AM Y'all can add Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich ,and Dick Army. Ahhh, good ol' Dick Army. Always inspired an addendum to the old saying: " Them that can ,do_Them that can't ,teach_ and them that can't teach run for Congres" ;-) I love the way these Economic Laissez faire Libertarians have spent so precious little time earning their livlihood outside the *Private sector* they worship as the be all and end all according to Hayek,Schumpeter, and Mitlon Freidman. Sorry but working at a University and then Congress hardly constitutes making a living in the private sector. I guess I'm a lead-by-example type of upstart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: mack/misophist Date: 10 Sep 02 - 11:08 PM Their old men make a devastation and call it peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bill D Date: 10 Sep 02 - 06:38 PM "Where I come from, a chickenhawk is an old guy with a thing for YOUNG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Chickenhawk Database From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Sep 02 - 05:41 PM Where I come from, a chickenhawk is an old guy with a thing for YOUNG women... Wouldn't suprise me if they fit THAT bill as well... |
|
Subject: The Chickenhawk Database From: Bobert Date: 10 Sep 02 - 05:14 PM This from www.prwatch.org: What do George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Britt Hume, Rush Limbaugh, John Ashcroft, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reily and Jerry Falwell all have in common? They're all listed in the "Chickenhawk Database". Compiled by Vietnam veteran and newspaper editor Steve Fowle, the database lists pro-war pundits who "share three qualities: bellicosity (a warlike manner or temperament), public prominence, and a curious lack of wartime service when others their age had no trouble finding a fight." The Washington Post notes that many of "the nation's most persistent voices in support of military attack on Iraq...are people who never served in Vietnam or saw first hand the carnage that war produces. Conservative Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, agrees: "It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country to war and think it would be quick and easy don't know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in the jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off." Hmmmmmmm? Bobert |