Chicken Hawks: the Bush war mongers who opted out of US Military service

BurlyShirley · Oct 18, 2003

Did you read the list?

Doesnt look like they all skipped to me. :confused:

nydave · Oct 18, 2003

what's your point? Were YOU ever in the service?

androshandrew · Oct 18, 2003

well if you saw what war was like, wouldnt you not want to send anymore people in to find out what it is like?

nydave · Oct 18, 2003

This country and it's citizens have been victums of terrorists since the early eighties, imho..it's about time our country is doing something. And yes, I am presently in military service.

Silver · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by nydave
This country and it's citizens have been victums of terrorists since the early eighties, imho..it's about time our country is doing something. And yes, I am presently in military service.

You're exactly right. I'm so glad we found Osama bin Laden hiding out in Iraq. Of course now we need to find Saddam. He's probably in Syria.

LordOpie · Oct 18, 2003

serving or having served should have no bearing on whether someone has a right to an opinion and does not disqualify said opinion.

Since Eric served as a policeman and is serving as a fireman... what would you say if you had an opinion of local emergency services and he said you didn't have a right to an opinion or your opinion was wrong by default?

LordOpie · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by androshandrew
well if you saw what war was like, wouldnt you not want to send anymore people in to find out what it is like?

what you're suggesting is that serving might make our leaders hesistant to do the right thing.

So, they should not serve then :confused:

rbx · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
what you're suggesting is that serving might make our leaders hesistant to do the right thing.

So, they should not serve then

I think he meant to say that if a president actually seen the atrocities that happen during war he would think twice before sending in troops and putting their lifes in danger.

This what i admire about powell the guy has seen first hand how ugly war can be and will not jepordize innocents lifes unless its REALLY necessary.

JRogers · Oct 18, 2003

Originally posted by eric strt6
Thanks for being there. I agree we need to fight these guys and I also belive the Military should be calling the shots not some politician with no military background.

On the one hand, service does give new perspective and understanding to military issues....on the other, this isn't Augustan Rome; you don't have to serve to be a leader. If I were a politician, I would consider my opinions valid (and equally so with others) even if the extent of my 'military' service is a few years in the Civil Air Patrol.

Jorvik · Oct 19, 2003

Military background has no bearing on political respect?

Lets get a medal of honor recipient and a national guard deserter. Which one am I going to vote for? I don't care if they're democrat or republican, I won't vote for somebody who ran away from their duty.

fluff · Oct 19, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
what you're suggesting is that serving might make our leaders hesistant to do the right thing.

So, they should not serve then

Might he not also be suggesting that serving might make your leaders do the right thing?

The point being made is that those of your leaders who avoided service are keener to send in the troops. You've made a leap with a political bias

ohio · Oct 19, 2003

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think eric ever claimed that not serving should deny you the right to an opinion, or even the right to act on those opinions.

He was just pointing out the difference of opinion between those that have served and those that haven't. I think the IMPLICATION is that those with military experience are more thoughtful about their opinions due to their experiences, but nowhere does anyone say that others should be denied their right to speak or act.

JRogers · Oct 19, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think eric ever claimed that not serving should deny you the right to an opinion, or even the right to act on those opinions.

He was just pointing out the difference of opinion between those that have served and those that haven't. I think the IMPLICATION is that those with military experience are more thoughtful about their opinions due to their experiences, but nowhere does anyone say that others should be denied their right to speak or act.

Seems to me that the implication some are making is that because you haven't served, your opinion is less valid or shouldn't count in military matters. We elect politicians to make value judgments and make those decisions- to invade or not to, to attack or hold back. We can't deny a politician his say in military matters just because of lack of service.

Silver · Oct 19, 2003

I can't see any benefit for the Democrats here. After all, even with the benefit of the experience they seem to have compared to Bush and many of his pals, they still rolled over and voted for the Patriot Act and war in Iraq.

I'll actually give Rush Limbaugh a pass on this issue as well (avoiding the draft, not being a hateful loudmouth warmonger who just says, "Hey, I'm an entertainer!" when he gets called on something.) From what I've read, having a pilonidal cyst is like having a grapefruit full of pus sitting on your tailbone. That ain't cool at all....

valve bouncer · Oct 19, 2003

Originally posted by Silver
From what I've read, having a pilonidal cyst is like having a grapefruit full of pus sitting on your tailbone. That ain't cool at all....

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy though

scofflaw23 · Oct 19, 2003

Originally posted by Jorvik
Military background has no bearing on political respect?

Lets get a medal of honor recipient and a national guard deserter. Which one am I going to vote for? I don't care if they're democrat or republican, I won't vote for somebody who ran away from their duty.

duty?

Jorvik · Oct 20, 2003

du-ty: noun A service, function, or task assigned to one, especially in the armed forces.

llkoolkeg · Oct 20, 2003

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Oh yeah great idea.

It sure is.

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
The military is only good for one thing, and that is killing people. Politicians,ambassadors and diplomats are the guys who usually keep things from getting ugly in the first place.

Correct. That is what armed forces do. War is failed diplomacy, but sometimes, all the talk in the world cannot settle age-old differences. Simple :monkey:

s chatting online cannot even agree on many things. Diplomacy often delays the inevitable, though, until small brush fires have become huge conflagrations. We need both.

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
It is ridiculous to state that politicians have no right to comment on military issues if they haven't served. This isnt ancient rome. Why would you want the country's future leaders being slain anyway?

They have the right to comment on military issues, but lack the experience to command respect and legitimacy on them. Until we manage to sit on top of the world for as long as the Romans did, I would be wary of holding negative judgements on how they did as a civilization. We Americans would be fortunate to have so enduring a legacy as the Romans did. Anyhow, there are quite a number of current politicians w/o military experience whose perishing in a previous conflict could frankly have been a good thing. I won't name names, though. That's a debate for another thread.

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Military background should have no bearing on political respect.

I disagree. I personally think all citizens should have mandatory military service or a tour in the Red Cross or similar service-based organization(if they are genuine conscientious objecters to arms-bearing). Politicians whose policy decisions determine military deployments should absolutely have had to serve. You should never be able to order another man's son into battle without having had to risk your own. Why should they as politicians enjoy all the fruits of our society without any of the associated risks?

scofflaw23 · Oct 20, 2003

Originally posted by Jorvik
du-ty: noun A service, function, or task assigned to one, especially in the armed forces.

hmm...none of the dictionary definitions i found mentioned anything about military service...maybe there's a military dictionary...

anyway, i was really just trying to see if you meant that you thought everyone should have to serve in the armed forces, or just that people who made a commitment should stick to that committment.

fluff · Oct 20, 2003

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Oh yeah great idea.

The military is only good for one thing, and that is killing people. Politicians,ambassadors and diplomats are the guys who usually keep things from getting ugly in the first place.

You can't be serious? Are you suggesting that the US army goes around starting wars against the wishes of the politicians?????

Politicians, ambassadors and diplomats are the ones getting a country into ugly situations. The military is then called in to cover their asses.

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego

Military background should have no bearing on political respect.

Perhaps not, but how honest you are in and about your past sure the hell should. If someone tries to pass themselves off as a war hero when in fact they tried to dodge the draft it tells you something about that person's integrity.

JRogers · Oct 20, 2003

Originally posted by fluff

Perhaps not, but how honest you are in and about your past sure the hell should. If someone tries to pass themselves off as a war hero when in fact they tried to dodge the draft it tells you something about that person's integrity.

That's baltantly obvious. However, I have not been drafted (and probably won't be). I also don't really feel like joining up. Am I lumped into the same category as the draft dodgers? Should my opinion, if I were in a position to make these decisions, count as much as, say, John McCain's?

fluff · Oct 21, 2003

Originally posted by JRogers
That's baltantly obvious. However, I have not been drafted (and probably won't be). I also don't really feel like joining up. Am I lumped into the same category as the draft dodgers? Should my opinion, if I were in a position to make these decisions, count as much as, say, John McCain's?

It may be baltantly obvious to you, but it seems some others are missing the piont..

Regarding the rest of your post, I see no reason why military service should be a prerequisite to political office (a conscience would be far more useful). However I do think that your decisions woudl be less informed than John McCains. In that situation a good move would be to take advice from people who are more knowledgeable and experienced in a particular area than you would be.

Unfortunately ego can often get in the way.

Jorvik · Oct 21, 2003

Originally posted by scofflaw23
hmm...none of the dictionary definitions i found mentioned anything about military service...maybe there's a military dictionary...

anyway, i was really just trying to see if you meant that you thought everyone should have to serve in the armed forces, or just that people who made a commitment should stick to that committment.

Sorry, I used an obscure dictionary: www.dictionary.com

I don't think everybody should have to serve, it isn't for everybody. I also think that people who shirk their service shouldn't lead those that accept their service willingly.

valve bouncer · Oct 21, 2003

Taking things one step further......should you have been a doctor to make health policy, a teacher to make education policy, a lawyer to make legal policy? I guess it probably wouldn't be a bad thing, just impractical, like expecting our leaders to have had military experience before making military policy.

fluff · Oct 21, 2003

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Taking things one step further......should you have been a doctor to make health policy, a teacher to make education policy, a lawyer to make legal policy? I guess it probably wouldn't be a bad thing, just impractical, like expecting our leaders to have had military experience before making military policy.

Well, now you mention it, it makes complete sense to have people with experience involved in making policy at the very least. It's the way companies work, managers mange experts who advise on the detail. At least that's what's supposed to happen...

Money kinda gets in the way mostly. Along with politics and empire-building.

Human nature does not lend itself to logical & rational decision making. It is good at spin though.

valve bouncer · Oct 21, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Well, now you mention it, it makes complete sense to have people with experience involved in making policy at the very least. It's the way companies work, managers mange experts who advise on the detail. At least that's what's supposed to happen...

Money kinda gets in the way mostly. Along with politics and empire-building.

Human nature does not lend itself to logical & rational decision making. It is good at spin though.

That's the way it would be in a perfect world, I agree....unfortunately what we get are politicians :rolleyes:

Chicken Hawks: the Bush war mongers who opted out of US Military service

Resident Curmudgeon

Resident Curmudgeon

Resident Curmudgeon

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Resident Curmudgeon

Chimp

Resident Curmudgeon

Chimp

Chimp

find me a tampon

MOTHER HEN

Resident Curmudgeon

Resident Curmudgeon

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

talks too much

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

The Fresno Kid

talks too much

find me a tampon

Master Dildoist

Monkey

Monkey

Ranger LL

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

talks too much

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Master Dildoist

Monkey Turbo

Master Dildoist