why is it the biggest war-mongers are chickenhawks? http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category= NEWS; Chickenhawks
Because it's easy to tell other people to die for you. LOLPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dee Cee
Who? Me? do you mean this? http://www.realdictionary.com/I/dir/isolationistic.asp Can't be me, I spent 6 years in the USAF, most of the time ‘frozen’ at Edwards (’74-‘79), while they tested all those neat things, you know; like cruise missiles, YF-16, YF-17 (revamped as the F-18 Hornet for the Navy), C-12 & C-13 (they never made it), the Space Shuttle & the B-1. I believe in air power, space exploration & Star Trek ideals, (you know, like progress, IDIC, trying to understand those around us, exploring the unknown, living in wonder in our universe). But I just don't like the fact that all these chickenhawks are leading us down the road to Viet Nam; what with politicians in control of the war, people that never saw war except on TV & the movies. Ducking down from the audio effects of bullets flying by in "Saving Private Ryan" & slogging it out in the jungles & deserts of real war are two different things. These guys don't know what they are doing. They lie, they cover-up, they make poor decisions, they don't know how to fight in a muslim context; but they do know how to make more enemies & get into expensive messes. They know how to blow all the good will & cooperation from 9/11. Where is Osama, where is Saddam, where are the WMD, where is the link to al-Queda, where is all the support for freedom in Iraq, by Iraqis? So, answer, where? Oh, BTW, if we're an empire, let's call it that, no hiding behind words. But expect terrorism, protest, opposition, & other countries not to agree with your every decision. You know, like France, Germany, Russia & the UN.
From: XColumn@aol.com http://www.voznuestra.com/Americas/_2003/_November/21 Moderator edit: Reduce length of quoted text - Provide link to source.
LOL...You're trying to outgun Tiassa, aren't you? Just because a post is long doesn't give it extra credibility. Some of you guys on this forum would do well to get a real job for a bit just because it forces you to be succint at times. That seems to be a lost art on this forum. Happy reading.
One salient point. While I do agree that Bush and his neo-con hawks are somewhat over-zealous in their pursuit of war and attempts to use the military as a foreign policy instrument, I am not entriely in agreement with Randolfo. I know what you're saying about Bush (especially given the universal draft dodging efforts of the current junta, sorry, I mean government...), but I don't think we should overly criticise civilians for using the military. After all, the Presdient is the legitimate commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but he is elected by the peoplke and, necessarily, a politician. I think civilian authoriity over the armed forces is absolutely essential, so I would expect politicians with no military experience to make decisions that employ the military. That's why they have advisors. You don;t make that explicit argument I know, but that seems to be the implication. Oddly it usually seems to be the liberals who can't shake off the lack of military credibility, and oddly the military seems to prefer draft-dodging hawks from the right.
Re: LOL...You're trying to outgun Tiassa, aren't you? My bad, that column was too good for me to cut, I guess I won't make a good editor for things I agree with. it's all good anyway, no matter how short or long, etc. a post is, doesn't matter, it's the ideas that count. you don't have to agree with anything written, but hopefully you can see their POV. Me & Tiassa in the same league? he's either a world-class typist or he's typing at work, etc. I'm good at about 22 wpm, so I don't think so. also, most of the stuff he posts is his; I posted a whole column, my bad. though I don't always agree with him, he has a lot of valid points, & he's a thinker.
all, except for Powell, isn't that a record? you're too funny this is a free country still, he is a legitimate target for critics, derision, etc. true on both counts I agree, but people that can barely see 2 moves ahead in chess? there are world-shaking implications in any false step he takes, the old Soviet Union suffered humiliation in Afghanistan, at the hands of muslims (with US help), if we create a new wave of mujahadin, willing to take on the West, convinced that the West is corrupt & teetering on the brink of collapse, then that lack of experience has cost us all dearly but all chickenhawks, except for one? during the Viet Nam war, most of that Administration, Cabinet were all vets of WWII, just that as politicians, they thought they could run a war, without starting WWIII, they put too many constraints on the military. Though I'm not a military historian nor tactician, I do believe we could have won there, we had the technology & manpower to win, but the leadership & tactics to lose. also, the US forgot that the Vietnamese had fought it out with the Chinese for over a thousand years, & recently against the French & Japanese, they were well prepared for a long war, they had leaders, tunnel complexes, tactics, & the manpower to win ahh, yeap that is odd, isn't it? BTW, I'm starting a campaign to have Baby Bush court martialed, for being AWOL for 40 years & conduct unbecoming an officer. I think I know where he's hiding out now a days.
