No chickenhawk screech?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
That was the favorite diversion from the issues before by appeasers - a chickenhawk is someone who is hawkish about the war, but didn't serve in one. Now Obama is not hawkish about the war, he's chickenish, and he never served in the military. I guess that makes him a chickenchicken? :D

McCain is oppposing the bill Obama supports

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May20/0,4670,McCainVeterans,00.html

because it would cause people to leave the military after three years (what the bill permits in regard to benefit eligibility) at a time when it's already hard to get enough troops.
 
Werbung:

all_arm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
164
Location
Florida
i think it'll be a pleasant change to have a president who doesn't think the best solution to everything is to bomb it, like we have for the last 27-odd years.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
i think it'll be a pleasant change to have a president who doesn't think the best solution to everything is to bomb it, like we have for the last 27-odd years.

Yeah, we've bombed everything in the last 27 years - another pearl of wisdom from you. :D
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Or how About Bush and Cheney. Both Chickenhawks of the worst order. Cheney is a draft dodger and chicken hawk if Clinton was ever one.

But hey, if McCain wants to continue to align himself with Bush, it only works to further his defeat, awfully gutless for a former war hero to treat his fellow veterans this way. Its a shame what this man has let himself to become.
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Bill summary

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 would improve educational benefits for certain individuals who serve on active duty in the Armed Forces on or after September 11, 2001.

The main bill benefits include:

- Four academic years of educational benefits for an approved program up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school.
- 50% coverage of additional tuition at more expensive private schools.
- A monthly living stipend based on housing costs in the area.
- A benefit elegibility period of 15 years after leaving active duty (compared to 10 years in the current Montgomery GI Bill).
- Elimination of the $1200 program enrollment fee paid by the veteran at the beginning of military service currently required by the Montgomery GI Bill.


The elegibility requirements would include:

-Requiring individuals to complete the requirements of a secondary school diploma (or its equivalent) before applying for such assistance.

- Full benefit eligibility after 36 months of active duty service beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

- Proportional benefit eligibility for service between 3 and 35 months active duty on or after September 11, 2001.

Apart from the "certain individuals" bit (anyone know what that means) ....seems like a reasonable bit of legislative amendment. One thing though which is the 36 month eligibility but of humming and arring about that but the basis seems sound - combination of this and the GI Bill would give a beneficial package to vets which UK Squaddies only have in wet dreams.

Maybe yer man Webb would like to spend some time in the UK!!??....anyone know him personally....if so give him a nudge.
 

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
If we ought not to listen to chickenhawks, why should we pay any more attention to chickendoves?
 

Vietvet

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
95
That was the favorite diversion from the issues before by appeasers - a chickenhawk is someone who is hawkish about the war, but didn't serve in one. Now Obama is not hawkish about the war, he's chickenish, and he never served in the military. I guess that makes him a chickenchicken? :D

McCain is oppposing the bill Obama supports

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May20/0,4670,McCainVeterans,00.html

because it would cause people to leave the military after three years (what the bill permits in regard to benefit eligibility) at a time when it's already hard to get enough troops.


McCain is all talk. When it comes time to help pass legislation to provide our veterans with the same educational benefits that helped wwll vets to get through college, he's AWOL. Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel co-authored the bill, both decorated combat vets. Recruiters have been lying to young people about the benefits they will recieve in order to meet their recruiting goals. Our troops are being repeatedly deployed over and over and over again. It's breaking up families and decimating our military. Yet McCain goes around claiming that he cares about them. What a load of bs.

It's fairly obvious that you haven't served in the military, or you would know better than to post such ridiculous, ignorant tripe.

BTW, I favor bringing back the draft, in order to give all the "chickenhawks' who like to wave the flag and "support our troops" the chance to put their own butts on the line. That would solve the problem of providing troops. it would also serve to turn chickenhawks into instant anti-war protesters. Talk about a "twofer..":cool:
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
It's fairly obvious that you haven't served in the military, or you would know better than to post such ridiculous, ignorant tripe.

What a bizzaar precept!

Question - Do people have to have served in the Military in order to have an oppinion on political legislation regarding military matters - which in effect is what this is about. As you know the US Military is responsible to the People, ultimately they fund the Military out of their taxes thus the only qualification that Masher or indeed anyone needs to make a comment is to be a tax payer!
 

Vietvet

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
95
What a bizzaar precept!

Question - Do people have to have served in the Military in order to have an oppinion on political legislation regarding military matters - which in effect is what this is about. As you know the US Military is responsible to the People, ultimately they fund the Military out of their taxes thus the only qualification that Masher or indeed anyone needs to make a comment is to be a tax payer!

I'm not sure which side of the issue you are on, but you are helping me to make my point, the way I see it. Obama has an opinion on legislation regarding military matters, yet he is criticized by McCain for not knowing anything, because he hasn't served. In Obama's case, he's apparently done his homework, at least, unlike "Libbasher", or whatever his "name" is..

As for being a taxpayer, well, I'm one myself, and I didn't authorize my tax money to go to a war that I've been against from the beginning, so taxes are a moot point here, imho..I've read that the new GI Bill would cost an additional two billion, which is what it costs for ONE WEEK of combat operations in Iraq. So, evidently, we can spend two billion bucks a week on an idiotic, unneccessary war, yet we can't spend that much, once, to fund the new GI Bill?!:confused: If I recall, you are not a US citizen, so I don't believe you understand the economics going on here. Two billion is the proverbial drop in the bucket, compared to the astronomical debt Bushco is running up for our kids and grandkids, in order to line the pockets of the war profiteers and oil companies.

I'm merely saying to the poster I responded to that he doesn't have a clue as to what military people are having to endure these days, or he wouldnt be against legislation to help them out. I'm assuming that since he is a right-wing "chicken-hawk"(if he weren't, why would he be offended by the term?)he claims to "support our troops." I don't believe that he does, because if he did, he would be supporting legislation to give them the educational and other benefits that they were promised.McCain obviously has forgotten about the very vets he claims to care about, or he would be supporting them now, just as seventy-five out of one hundred of our other Senators have, including many of his own party.Instead, he didn't even show up for the vote.That's not what I call leadership.

I'm sure John McCain took full advantage of the GI educational benefits that were available to him. So did many of the rest of us who were in 'nam. Now he wants to make sure that the military doesn't offer our troops TOO much, because we need to keep them in uniform. More "cannon fodder," that's all he cares about.
 

all_arm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
164
Location
Florida
Do you add Mr. Clinton to the list?

bush 2- afghanistan, iraq, overtures to iran, etc.

clinton- bosnia, somalia, sudan

bush 1- iraq, panama

ronnie raygun- nicaragua, grenada, lebanon, libya

not to say it stops there, but i think it's safe to say our last four presidents have been VERY eager to seek military solutions to problems, justified or not.

i'm no great fan of bill clinton, with his pandering, "microtargeting," dlc strategies. he was the best president in that list, but he's also a giant scumbag.
 

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
BTW, I favor bringing back the draft, in order to give all the "chickenhawks' who like to wave the flag and "support our troops" the chance to put their own butts on the line. That would solve the problem of providing troops. it would also serve to turn chickenhawks into instant anti-war protesters. Talk about a "twofer.."

(A) What if they actually did enlist and serve, in droves? Would it really change your opinion of them?

(B) Are you seriousy saying that, in order to generate public opposition to a thing you don't like (presumably something like "Americans dying in a needless war"), you're prepared to force more Americans to die that way?

Try to imagine it in reverse. I support the death penalty; imagine for a moment that you oppose it. If I seriously said, "I'd like all those paroled felons to shank family members of anti-death penalty activists so that way they'd know how it feels and support my position, too!!!", wouldn't you (rightly) regard me as a lunatic?
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Apart from the "certain individuals" bit (anyone know what that means) ....seems like a reasonable bit of legislative amendment. One thing though which is the 36 month eligibility but of humming and arring about that but the basis seems sound - combination of this and the GI Bill would give a beneficial package to vets which UK Squaddies only have in wet dreams.

Maybe yer man Webb would like to spend some time in the UK!!??....anyone know him personally....if so give him a nudge.

Here's the problem: with two wars going on, and what little help we've had from our "allies" shrinking, it's been a big struggle to keep the ranks filled. This bill would give an enlisted person not much incentive to do anything but bail after a three-year enlistment, and cash in on all the (expensive) goodies. McCain's time-served connection makes much more sense, and I would add something further: people who have not served in combat zones shouldn't be entitled to any new benefits - what they already get is plenty.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
McCain is all talk.

What can that possibly mean? He's offered a counterproposal.

When it comes time to help pass legislation to provide our veterans with the same educational benefits that helped wwll vets to get through college, he's AWOL.

Can the US offer the same as WWII? Maybe not.

Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel co-authored the bill, both decorated combat vets.
Recruiters have been lying to young people about the benefits they will recieve in order to meet their recruiting goals.

Proof? Citation?

Our troops are being repeatedly deployed over and over and over again. It's breaking up families and decimating our military. Yet McCain goes around claiming that he cares about them. What a load of bs.

We don't have enough troops is the reason - not because we're devishly trying to break up families. :D

It's fairly obvious that you haven't served in the military, or you would know better than to post such ridiculous, ignorant tripe.

McCain served in the military, didn't he? :rolleyes:

BTW, I favor bringing back the draft, in order to give all the "chickenhawks' who like to wave the flag and "support our troops" the chance to put their own butts on the line. That would solve the problem of providing troops. it would also serve to turn chickenhawks into instant anti-war protesters.

Did 700,000 vietnam war vets turn into instant war protesters? Do you REALLY think everyone who served in the military thinks like you?
 
Werbung:

Vietvet

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
95
(A) What if they actually did enlist and serve, in droves? Would it really change your opinion of them?

(B) Are you seriousy saying that, in order to generate public opposition to a thing you don't like (presumably something like "Americans dying in a needless war"), you're prepared to force more Americans to die that way?

Try to imagine it in reverse. I support the death penalty; imagine for a moment that you oppose it. If I seriously said, "I'd like all those paroled felons to shank family members of anti-death penalty activists so that way they'd know how it feels and support my position, too!!!", wouldn't you (rightly) regard me as a lunatic?

I don't see them enlisting and serving in droves, do you? If they did, they would no longer be "chicken-hawks", they would be military enlistees. I have the utmost respect for military people. I was once an "enlistee" myself.And I also believed after a year in Vietnam, that the war was a mistake. If it had not been for the massive protests, the war would not have ended when it did.Even though it DID take Nixon forever to finally end it. One big reason for the protests? The unwillingness to serve in Vietnam, when the draft was in effect. Do you honestly think there would have been a rush to war in Iraq, had we still had the draft in effect? Think again.The draft is a very effective way to keep idiotic politicians like Bush and Cheney from starting totally unnecessary wars. There should be exemptions for single parents and special hardship cases, but not because you've got a rich daddy or friends in "high places" like before.

Your comparison of supporting a draft to supporting the death penalty doesn't wash. Apples and oranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top