Does one need to be in a war to be a veteran?

I was talking to the local libtard on the block. He claims that LBJ was a veteran because he recieved a silver star during WW2.

We got into the old debate. Did LBJ really deserve a silver star for sitting in an airplane that retreated in the face of enemy fire? Libtard said it didn't matter. He insists that LBJ was a veteran even though he never fought in a war, but instead, soon after, was appointed to political position.


For the record, I think being in a war should be the qualifier but by libtard standards, I can think of a bunch of people who are "veterans".

[White_Male_Canada]

Are you a "chickenhawk" unless you`ve heard bullets zipping by your head in battle ?

8)

[guyone]

Hey! What about me? I want to be a chickenhawk too!

(but maybe I'm a veteran)

[White_Male_Canada]

Now there's a surprise! TFan doesn't know what a word means, and WMC who probably knows exactly what it means, twists it just to piss people off!



CHICKENHAWK:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chickenhawk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29

Following the textbook definitions:
ChefMike = Veteran
TFan + WMC = Chickenhawk.

Now WMC, your not going to argue with the textbook definitions are you?

Still got your panties in a wad I see 8)

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

[White_Male_Canada]

Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur...
Whoa "Prof.", got it in one! I'd not heard of the term chickenhawk before I came to this Forum (clearly a North American term). But it seems to aptly describe TFan, you, and the whole of BushCo..
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/pigeonhawks.htm


The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action.
Well, if anybody knows what being dishonest is all about, it's you "Prof." (allegedly)! And callling someone opposed to military action a hawk would simply be retarded, now wouldn't it "Prof."?

That`s it ? That`s all you got?

Actually, we`d call crazy people like you either maggots or weasels 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

Actually, we`d call crazy people like you either maggots or weasels

You seem to have resorted to name-calling pretty fast tonight, "Prof.". Had a bad day? How's the court-case going; loser! BTW, have you seen a shrink about your N.P.D. yet?

What in the fuck are you talking about !? :lol:

..

[LG]

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

No one here has said that military experience should be a prerequisite in determining foregin policy. What is clear however, is that some members of the conservative party have found it awfully easy to send America's boys (and girls) to war, even though they themselves cannot contemplate what war is like. And it is abundantly clear that the people on these forums who advocate military force by the US are the ones who know the least about what serving in the military is like. I would be more interested in a veteran advocating diplomacy than in a hawkish youth who has never served but advocates war becuase the veteran has seen what it is like to be involved.

The chickenhawks of the Republican party have not only not fought but have avoided fighting. And they are keen to send America's young people to war but would never send their own children. "Chickenhawk" may not be a term you like but it is not a dishonest slur. If liberals can be branded as "libtards" and "commies" by you and your entourage of schmucks, then I think we can use this one term against you. Unlike "libtard", which means nothing, the term "chickenhawk" signifies a great deal.

It signifies both hawkishness and cowardice. I don't think that only those who fought should decide on whether military action should be taken but I do think that those young enough to fight should either shut up or ship out. If the war is honourable and Iraq is heaven on earth (lower homicide rates than Detroit, you once claimed) then why aren't you there fighting? And what is guyone doing "heating and lighting the earth" as "a chef in New York" or whatever he actually is? He should be there too. If you have the gall to claim this is a just war, then have the guts to join in. If not, then you are in fact, chickenhawks. End of story.

And, whatever you called me in these pages "bolshevik", "communist", "marxist", "stalinist"and other such offensive but meaningless or inaccurate term, I personally never called you a fascist. A moron maybe, but never a fascist.

[chefmike]

Following the textbook definitions:
ChefMike = Veteran
TFan + WMC = Chickenhawk.

ROTFLMFAO!

And it's killing them!

Cowards! :P

[trish]

Bravo LG, you're the man.

[White_Male_Canada]

``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

No one here has said that military experience should be a prerequisite in determining foregin policy. What is clear however, is that some members of the conservative party have found it awfully easy to send America's boys (and girls) to war, even though they themselves cannot contemplate what war is like. And it is abundantly clear that the people on these forums who advocate military force by the US are the ones who know the least about what serving in the military is like. I would be more interested in a veteran advocating diplomacy than in a hawkish youth who has never served but advocates war becuase the veteran has seen what it is like to be involved.

The chickenhawks of the Republican party have not only not fought but have avoided fighting. And they are keen to send America's young people to war but would never send their own children. "Chickenhawk" may not be a term you like but it is not a dishonest slur. If liberals can be branded as "libtards" and "commies" by you and your entourage of schmucks, then I think we can use this one term against you. Unlike "libtard", which means nothing, the term "chickenhawk" signifies a great deal.

It signifies both hawkishness and cowardice. I don't think that only those who fought should decide on whether military action should be taken but I do think that those young enough to fight should either shut up or ship out. If the war is honourable and Iraq is heaven on earth (lower homicide rates than Detroit, you once claimed) then why aren't you there fighting? And what is guyone doing "heating and lighting the earth" as "a chef in New York" or whatever he actually is? He should be there too. If you have the gall to claim this is a just war, then have the guts to join in. If not, then you are in fact, chickenhawks. End of story.

And, whatever you called me in these pages "bolshevik", "communist", "marxist", "stalinist"and other such offensive but meaningless or inaccurate term, I personally never called you a fascist. A moron maybe, but never a fascist.

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass. 8)

[LG]

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass. 8)

All your language ability disappears like water vapour in the noonday sun when you are pissed off, WMC.

I was never a Clinton apologist. The issue here is not so much Bush and Clinton but you and your neocon schmuck-buddies. You are the chickenhawks.

In any case, the numbers don't lie. You know how many Americans die in Iraq. You know Bush never used diplomacy. You know he had no UN backing. You do the math, professor. If you can. And then maybe you can come up with a reasoned argument.

And take those sunglasses off. You still look like a dork when you were them.

[White_Male_Canada]

All your eloquence melts like a snow cone at the equator when anyone asks what branch of the service did Bill Cliton serve in ?

Hmm ? Where did Clinton, both hillary and bill serve? Or did Bill run off to europe and disappear behind the iron curtain, became Prez and launched a war against a country that did nothing to the USA with no Congressional resolution.

Chickenhawk my ass. 8)

All your language ability disappears like water vapour in the noonday sun when you are pissed off, WMC.

I was never a Clinton apologist. The issue here is not so much Bush and Clinton but you and your neocon schmuck-buddies. You are the chickenhawks.

In any case, the numbers don't lie. You know how many Americans die in Iraq. You know Bush never used diplomacy. You know he had no UN backing. You do the math, professor. If you can. And then maybe you can come up with a reasoned argument.

And take those sunglasses off. You still look like a dork when you were them.

And just what is the definition of a neo-con?

Don`t tell me you are now competing with the Village Idiot for her crown !? I don`t think you`re that stupid and you know very well what a neo-con is and what they were before being mugged by reality.

Oh, of course Clinton had no backing for his "war of agression" against a country that did not sponsor terrorism and did nothing to the USA.

So all this hot rhetoric about chickenhawk this and coward that is just that, rhetoric and hot hyperbole. That and complete ignorance of Art. II.

[muhmuh]

Oh, of course Clinton had no backing for his "war of agression" against a country that did not sponsor terrorism and did nothing to the USA.

which war?

[specialk]

..

:P

Following the textbook definitions:
ChefMike = Veteran
TFan + WMC = Chickenhawk.

ROTFLMFAO!

And it's killing them!

Cowards! :P


You're pretty stupid.

You're a veteran you say? What war did you fight in?

:peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter

Chickenhawk

You DON'T have to fight in a war to become a veteran. Ok. :D

I post this, as a veteran!

I post this, as a veteran!

No, sorry your wrong again, TFan; when it comes to war, you are very much a chickenhawk!


I'm a veteran.

I'm just a regular veteran.

[chefmike]

:lol:

It's hard for me to be embarrassed since I'm a veteran.

[chefmike]

Does managing a convenience store now qualify as military service, TFool?

Don't you wish... :lol:

But maybe if you volunteer to help shrubya build his dandy new border fence you might feel like less of a nancy boy, Francis! :P

You might even meet the soon-to-be ex-AG Gonzalez...I hear that he's looking for a job... 8)

Chump. :lol:

Does managing a convenience store now qualify as military service, TFool?

Don't you wish... :lol:

But maybe if you volunteer to help shrubya build his dandy new border fence you might feel like less of a nancy boy, Francis! :P

You might even meet the soon-to-be ex-AG Gonzalez...I hear that he's looking for a job... 8)

Chump. :lol:

Hello!!! Fellow veteran! I'll tell the veteran, George W Bush, that you said "HEY!"

[specialk]

It's hard for me to be embarrassed since I'm a veteran.


:P :evil: :P

[chefmike]

:lol:

8)

:P

:lol:

8)

:P

As predicted, other than post the funny papers, you're not touching this thread. You're going to continue dancing around the use of the term "Veteran", aren't you? :D You're really slimy.

[qeuqheeg222]

yeah bush was is veteran who went awol from a air national guard unit...at least yer frankenstein boy kerry and gore went off to war.and fdr was crippled me boy so he couldnt go..Cheney...5 count em five military service deferments!!!i dont think rumy ever went anywhere to fly the flag on foreign soil...yeah tfan if you did do a lil ol stint in the ai national guard or reserves i does make you a vet.but why aint you kickin the real jihadists ass "over there"(old ww1 song).....plenty of reservists and national g's went to fight.re-enlisted and the such..but what about those tax free halliburton jobs too!!!!90'gs to drive the big rigs!!!!and cheney is yer boss and daddy!!!!

Chickenhawk

[qeuqheeg222]

cheney-5 draft dodges.chickenhawk.

CHICKENHAWK

[qeuqheeg222]

cheney 5 draft dodges.chickenhawk.

cheney 5 draft dodges.chickenhawk.

So you made the leap from "Deferment" to "draft dodger"?

This whole "Deferment is dodging" nonsense is bullshit. The same arguments could apply to Boy Clinton, whom not only recieved deferments, but effectively lobbied the board to push back his induction and then ignored induction notices.

Our Christian founding fathers did not establish a country under Military rule, they established a country who's military would be subordinate to the civilian elect.

But I'll play along with you. You were saying?

[qeuqheeg222]

yer boy with 5"deferments"could have gone like numerous others who may have had the same conditions but chose not to serve his country.now he wants to send young men and women from the wyoming national guard to iraq,when he himself would not even have done.sounds like a chickenhawk...they should make illegal for congress to authorize the use of military force unless they themselves are willing to send their own kids into the fray for the "just causes"....

yer boy with 5"deferments"could have gone like numerous others who may have had the same conditions but chose not to serve his country.now he wants to send young men and women from the wyoming national guard to iraq,when he himself would not even have done.sounds like a chickenhawk...they should make illegal for congress to authorize the use of military force unless they themselves are willing to send their own kids into the fray for the "just causes"....

That would be contrary to the US constitution, wouldn't it? :lol:

[qeuqheeg222]

you dont think they should put their progeny where the money is???hey what sbout rumy with his lil air reserve membership form the 50's to the 70's but when it came time to up the ante in nam did he go?he was with W,hidin in the 'bama woods....both affectin southern accents to fit in the deep south....

you dont think they should put their progeny where the money is???hey what sbout rumy with his lil air reserve membership form the 50's to the 70's but when it came time to up the ante in nam did he go?he was with W,hidin in the 'bama woods....both affectin southern accents to fit in the deep south....

I don't even think our Christian Founding Fathers believed that.

[LG]

Don`t tell me you are now competing with the Village Idiot for her crown !?

Nah, you can keep the crown...


And by the way, I do have an idea of the various definitions of neo-con, one of which refers to former liberals who became "mugged by reality" (what did reality take from you? your brain?). This description perfectly describes you because you yourself claim to be a disenfranchised former liberal who just came her to piss us off (I got another word coming to mind here apart from neo-con- ugly creatures, live in the Norwegian woods, piss people off on forums, starts with a "T").

My point is that you and your mates, like many conservatives, advocate war without knowing anything about it and without being willing to fight in it, and that you ignore the views of the people here with more experience.

Anyway, the major difference between us is that you and your buddies advocate war as a first option rather than a last resort whereas I advocate peace.

One real issue here is whether this war is wrong or right, just or unjust, justified or unjustified and unjustifiable. It is also about whether the people so willing to send America's youth to fight a war are doing so because that is the right thing to do or for other reasons.

And finally the other issue is whether those young people who are not fighting and are unwilling to risk their lives, but who do support the war and actually claim Iraq has lower homicide rates than Detroit shouldn't just shut the fuck up and enlist to fight, for fuck's sake!

The rest is just chickenshit.

[thombergeron]

CHICKENHAWK

In the interest of accuracy, James Madison did serve as an officer in the Virginia militia at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.

[chefmike]

I've just been informed that you don't need to, technically, fight in a war to be a veteran.

I fought the war on terror. I'm looking for my fellow Saddam fighters.

Where you at, fellow veterans?!?!!!


Take that to your local VFW and see if they'll let you join.

Yeah here that, Sheepmike? Take that to the local "Veteran of FOREIGN WARS hall" and see if they let you get away with calling yourself a "Veteran" LMAO

Chef would be welcome at my, or any other, VFW...He has actually served in the military, unlike the super patriots posting here. All real (not self proclaimed) veterans are free to join.

Thanks, Oli. I'm sure my former shipmates would find it both ludicrous and humorous that a grocery clerk such as TFool has declared their service to their country to be null and void.

We weren't collecting hazardous duty pay for our flight deck duties because we were bagging groceries somewhere like TFool.

Nor were those brave servicemen who perished on flight decks in both war and peacetime, and still do to this day.

They served with honor, as did I.

I've just been informed that you don't need to, technically, fight in a war to be a veteran.

I fought the war on terror. I'm looking for my fellow Saddam fighters.

Where you at, fellow veterans?!?!!!


Take that to your local VFW and see if they'll let you join.

Yeah here that, Sheepmike? Take that to the local "Veteran of FOREIGN WARS hall" and see if they let you get away with calling yourself a "Veteran" LMAO

Chef would be welcome at my, or any other, VFW...He has actually served in the military, unlike the super patriots posting here. All real (not self proclaimed) veterans are free to join.

Thanks, Oli. I'm sure my former shipmates would find it both ludicrous and humorous that a grocery clerk such as TFool has declared their service to their country to be null and void.

We weren't collecting hazardous duty pay for our flight deck duties because we were bagging groceries somewhere like TFool.

Nor were those brave servicemen who perished on flight decks in both war and peacetime, and still do to this day.

They served with honor, as did I.

So not only did you not serve in a war, you are staunchly against certain wars even though you have no experience in war.

Chickenchicken? :lol:

Let me tell you, sheep. Actually, fuck it. Hey I bet when you got back home, THIS was a welcome relief from the toils of spud peeling-

[chefmike]

Who would have ever thought that a grocery clerk would post that pic...

And BTW, francis.... I was in V-4 division...and the only cooking that we ever did was in the suffocating flight deck gear that we wore in the burning sun every day.... while sailing from PI to Pattaya and all points in between...you're talking to a shellback, coward.

But I'll let you get back to your grocery bagging now, TFool...

Besides...I just noticed that there are still people standing in line to call you out for the chickenhawk cretin that you are...

Next... :sleep