No chickenhawk screech?

[Libsmasher]

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.

Sure they would have to! Only people who have been bankers can talk about interest rates, only people who are farmers can talk about agricultural policy, only astronauts can talk about space funding...........

 

[The Scotsman]

Hi mate!

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. .

I have the luxury of being an impartial by-stander.........

If I recall, you are not a US citizen, so I don't believe you understand the economics going on here..

try me..... I think I could hold my own!

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.

Humph... I think you are over simplifying the case somewhat to try and score political points - I realise that drawing up partisan battlelines is the norm in an election year but take a step back and look at the legislation. Take the levels of benefits provided to the squaddies in total not just as a single package presented here and equate them to the aspirational levels of most "average" American families!

For example - do you think that the qualification of 3 years service merits such a financial commitment on behalf of the American people that they themselves cannot afford for their own kids without years of saving?

Do you think the timing of this legislation has something to do with electioneering perhaps? Why not put a piece of Democrat sponsored legislation forward to the House that legislates from the time a soldier gets de-mobbed he is housed, fed, beered and looked after for the rest of his life by the Government...anyone that says no...well "he wants to make sure that the military doesn't offer our troops TOO much, because we need to keep them in uniform." as you say!

The same thing is going to start happening in the UK, the Forces are going to be used as a political punchbag in order to score cheap election points. Then when the election is over the politicians will forget about the soldiers until the next election when the promising and vote courting can start all over again! Its all bollox in reality!

 

[Libsmasher]

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..

McCain has served on the House Armed Services committee for over ten years, other military-oriented commitees such as the POW-MIA select committee, and other powerful committees for 26 years. Obama compared to him is strictly amateur night.

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?!

Obama has MANY ideas for new spending, and it's ridiculous for libs to whine forever about the cost of the war, and then suddenly say, duh, what's an extra $2 billion. As I've already pointed out - cost isn't the only issue, retention of troops is also a key issue.

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.

There you go again.

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.

Strawman - the issue isn't whether we should help the troops, but how that can best be done and within budget constraints.

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.

Despicable character assassination against someone who's given EVERYTHING to his country.
Chickenhawks, distinguished war heroes - looks like you have something b_tchy to say about everyone.

 

[Vietvet]

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

Yeah, a half-assed one, not as good as the benfits he recieved himself after leaving military service.

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

Why not? We can afford two billion bucks a week to line the pockets of the war profiteers, why can we not afford two million bucks, period, for decent benfits to our vets?

Proof? Citation

Do your own digging.It's called "Googling."

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

We don't have enough troops because of chickenhawks who love to wave the flag and put bumper stickers on their cars saying "we support our troops." My hunch is that those same chickenhawks would be the first ones to whine, if they were forced into serving in the military themselves. Talk is cheap. I am one who joined the Army during the Vietnam era because I knew I was going to be drafted otherwise, and I wanted a choice as to what type of job i wanted to do. If we had the draft back, we wouldn't have a shortage. I'm sure you'd be the first in line at your local recruiting station...

McCain served in the military, didn't he?

So? Doesn't mean he cares about vets.

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

I'm not talking about vets, even though, yes, many of them DID later become protestors. I'm talking about young people of draft age, who were refusing to go to a war that they did not support. I remember it pretty well. I was around back then. Were you? i don't think so.

 

[SW85]

I don't see them enlisting and serving in droves, do you?

That wasn't the question.

Moreover, why is this even part of the question? Once again, if it's true we shouldn't listen to "chickenhawks" (presumably the majority of war supporters), why should we listen to "chickendoves" (similarly the majority of war opponents)? Since when does the veteran status of an advocate for or against a position have any bearing at all on the objective merits or flawed of that position? Even if it were true that your respect for "chickenhawks" would magically materialize if they enlisted, would it change your opinion on the war? And if not, why is it an issue?

Do we live in a democracy in which civilian governments exercise control over military affairs, or in some kind of Starship Troopers-esque Spartan society in which veterans decide everything for us?

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.

I didn't say it wasn't true a draft would promote war weariness, I said it was flatly incompatible with your rationale for starting a draft in the first place. In order to reduce X, you're going to increase X. Insofar as you think people are dying in the war unnecessarily, your plan is to cause more people to die that way.

Your comparison of supporting a draft to supporting the death penalty doesn't wash. Apples and oranges.

Because you find it inconvenient. It "washes" somewhat more than you like, considering you are prepared to consign your opponents to a fate you regard as undesirable in the hopes that they'll come around to your politics.

 

[Libsmasher]

Originally Posted by Libsmasher
What can that possibly mean? He's offered a counterproposal.

Yeah, a half-assed one, not as good as the benfits he recieved himself after leaving military service.

OK, if offering more makes it not half-assed, how about a bill giving every three year timeserver free education, including grad school, a house, and a car? Can you document that McCain received more, or are you just flapping your gums?

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

Why not? We can afford two billion bucks a week to line the pockets of the war profiteers, why an we not afford two million bucks, period, for decent benfits to our vets?

War profiteers? What do you mean by that? The government orders ammunition and humvees and tanks from companies, and that makes them "war profiteers"?

Proof? Citation?

Do your own digging.It's called "Googling."

No, it's called "you are offering fake 'facts'"

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

.

We don't have enough troops because of chickenhawks who love to wave the flag and put bumper stickers on their cars saying "we support our troops." My hunch is that those same chickenhawks would be the first ones to whine, if they were forced into serving in the military themselves. Talk is cheap. I am one who joined the Army during the Vietnam era because I knew I was going to be drafted otherwise, and I wanted a choice as to what type of job i wanted to do. If we had the draft back, we wouldn't have a shortage. I'm sure you'd be the first in line at your local recruiting station...

I oppose drafts as being unamerican, and I support incentives sufficient to get enough troops, not incentives to make them leave.

McCain served in the military, didn't he?

So? Doesn't mean he cares about vets.

OK, so let's look at your list: vets hate current soldiers, and chickenhawks hate them. Garsh, that includes just about everybody.

 

[Vietvet]

OK, if offering more makes it not half-assed, how about a bill giving every three year timeserver free education, including grad school, a house, and a car? Can you document that McCain received more, or are you just flapping your gums?



War profiteers? What do you mean by that? The government orders ammunition and humvees and tanks from companies, and that makes them "war profiteers"?



No, it's called "you are offering fake 'facts'"



I oppose drafts as being unamerican, and I support incentives sufficient to get enough troops, not incentives to make them leave.




OK, so let's look at your list: vets hate current soldiers, and chickenhawks hate them. Garsh, that includes just about everybody.

Most of your post here is pure tripe, but I do have a question: Why do you say the draft is "un-American?" They've always had a draft in place until Nixon got rid of it in the seventies. I was "under the gun" to be drafted, but I never considered it to be "un-American", not at all. I think defending this country is an obligation that should be shared, not left to a few. It's called "shared sacrifice, and it's hardly "Un-American", it's as American as apple pie.You are only saying that because YOU are unwilling, or afraid, to serve in the military that you no-doubt so adamantly "support," with slogans and not action.

I can't believe you don't know who I am referring to as the "war profiteers"..Duh, have you ever heard of Halliburton? Blackwater? They've been bilking American taxpayers for years, yet you don't know who they are?!Hell, contracters outnumber our TROOPS in Iraq, and Blackwater people are paid triple what our troops are paid. Did you just fall off a turnip truck or what??

I overestimated your grasp of the obvious..

 

[top gun]

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?

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.

I thought a Chickenhawk was a guy that ducked in and out of the Texas Air National Guard avoiding drug tests and helping his fathers friends campaign for office... then got elected themselves and played bang bang shoot 'em up Cowboy without a single clue as to what the hell he was doing...

Yep... that's the text book definition of a Chickenhawk all right! Now who do we know like that?


Oh... and that song & dance about people leaving early. Heard a former Marine recruiter just today on the radio saying... It's possible a very small percentage more would leave after just one stint... but he was adamant that would way more be offset by the fact that, as he put it... It's the best recruitment tool we ever have offer... free education.

 

[Libsmasher]

Most of your post here is pure tripe,

Translation: you've been b_tch-slapped and have no response

but I do have a question: Why do you say the draft is "un-American?" They've always had a draft in place until Nixon got rid of it in the seventies. I was "under the gun" to be drafted, but I never considered it to be "un-American", not at all.

The US hasn't had it for 35 years. I believe it is unconstitutional, as it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude.

I think defending this country is an obligation that should be shared, not left to a few. It's called "shared sacrifice, and it's hardly "Un-American", it's as American as apple pie.You are only saying that because YOU are unwilling, or afraid, to serve in the military that you no-doubt so adamantly "support," with slogans and not action.

Garsh, that's real emotional, but disconnected from reality. The US is best served by a voluntary professional military, whose members look at it as a lifetime profession, and which is supported by incentives to stay in, not the assbackwards Obama incentives to leave.

I can't believe you don't know who I am referring to as the "war profiteers"..Duh, have you ever heard of Halliburton? Blackwater? They've been bilking American taxpayers for years, yet you don't know who they are?!Hell, contracters outnumber our TROOPS in Iraq, and Blackwater people are paid triple what our troops are paid. Did you just fall off a turnip truck or what??

Awwwwww - I refused to recognize a staple of left wingnut agitprop??

I overestimated your grasp of the obvious..

I underestimated your cluelessness.

 

[Vietvet]

Translation: you've been b_tch-slapped and have no response



The US hasn't had it for 35 years. I believe it is unconstitutional, as it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude.





You're making it too easy. You believe the draft is 'unconstitutional?!"

Do you realize what an amazingly naive statement that is? Yeah, it's unconstitutional. That's why they've had it in place almost since the day the constitution was DRAFTED, because it's unconstitutional!!:

Have you ever actually READ any of the constitution? Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and I think it's safe to say, they didn't have a problem utilizing "involuntary servitude." You MUST have fallen off a turnip truck..Whoever told you you were any good at debating politics was pulling your leg, mister.

You're a piece of work, I'll give you that...


Garsh, do you REALLY believe that, or are ya funnin' me?

 

[Vietvet]

Translation: you've been b_tch-slapped and have no response



The US hasn't had it for 35 years. I believe it is unconstitutional, as it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude.





You're making it too easy. You believe the draft is 'unconstitutional?!"

Do you realize what an amazingly naive statement that is? Yeah, it's unconstitutional. That's why they had it in place for all those years, because it's unconstitutional!!:

"Involuntary servitude" was referenced in the thirteenth amendment, and is about slave ownership, not about conscription..After the civil war, slavery was abolished, and slavery was, naturally, true 'servitude." The last time I checked, there was no record of slaves being paid for their "servitude." Military draftees were not slaves.

Have you ever actually READ any of the constitution? You MUST have fallen off a turnip truck..Whoever told you you were any good at debating politics was pulling your leg, mister.



Garsh, do you REALLY believe that, or are ya funnin' me?

 

[Vietvet]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Libsmasher]

Translation: you've been b_tch-slapped and have no response



The US hasn't had it for 35 years. I believe it is unconstitutional, as it violates the prohibition against involuntary servitude.





You're making it too easy. You believe the draft is 'unconstitutional?!"

Do you realize what an amazingly naive statement that is? Yeah, it's unconstitutional. That's why they've had it in place almost since the day the constitution was DRAFTED, because it's unconstitutional!!:

Have you ever actually READ any of the constitution? Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and I think it's safe to say, they didn't have a problem utilizing "involuntary servitude." You MUST have fallen off a turnip truck..Whoever told you you were any good at debating politics was pulling your leg, mister.

You're a piece of work, I'll give you that...


Garsh, do you REALLY believe that, or are ya funnin' me?

Don't want to debate that issue either, huh? Don't blame you - don't challenge someone to a sword fight when you're packing a pen knife.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Don't want to debate that issue either, huh? Don't blame you - don't challenge someone to a sword fight when you're packing a pen knife.

like you could beat a pen knife

 

[Vietvet]

Don't want to debate that issue either, huh? Don't blame you - don't challenge someone to a sword fight when you're packing a pen knife.

What in the heyall are you talking about? Who said I didn't want to debate it?

What's your point??You say you think the draft is unconstitutional. Links?(You're always asking me for them, where are yours??)

If you want to get into cliches', you're like a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest...I might have a "pen knife", but it beats having a pin head.


BTW, somehow the quote was attributed to me, not libsmasher..He made the "penknife" comment, not me.So no, I'm not talking to myself.