Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2014, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,482 posts, read 11,280,665 times
Reputation: 9000

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy View Post
Well I'm terribly sorry if calling people who lustily sent young men and women to their deaths while they assiduously avoided serving their nation in time of war "chickenhawks" offends you. Perhaps a more proper word would be "cowards." And a war they engaged in was based 100% on lies. Their lies.

There's a word for that, too, but it won't pass the swear filters on CD.
Prove it. If you can't then it is you who is the liar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2014, 11:45 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,193,725 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
If we are going to make an accusation of a lie, it would behoove us to pinpoint the liar. If we're not sure who was the guilty party then maybe we should shut our traps.
How about the fact that we're more than a decade after the start of the Iraq War, and shutting our traps isn't an option now.

Because me personally, I know who the guilty party is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,264 posts, read 26,199,434 times
Reputation: 15637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Read the piece by Yale prof Stephen Carter. Everyone, even Saddam's own generals, believed prior to 2003 that Saddam Hussein still had WMD.
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ut-wmd-in-Iraq

The question here is not to rehash whether we should have invaded Iraq. There are many who supported invasion who would like to be able to take it back, but sadly, no one has invented a time machine yet. The question here is whether "Bush lied, thousands died" and the answer is "no."
Yes many supported the invasion but to attempt to minimize the impact of a president and his entire staff going to congress and the UN with proof positive that they had WMD's is a bit disingenuous. They should have listened to the UN inspectors and waited, what was the rush it wasn't as if Iraq had nuclear missiles in silos and they were opening the doors.

Beleiving is one thing but before you go to war you better have solid proof, they did not have that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,648,279 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Nope.
The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush | RealClearPolitics





So you're redefining 'chickenhawk' so that it applies only to people who were of military age when we had a draft. Google 'chickenhawk' and you get this definition:








Sorry, there is nothing in there about the draft. Pres. Obama supported the war in Afghanistan (actually talked about expanding it to Pakistan), yet as a young man he did in fact avoid military service. Now I would not call him a 'chickenhawk.' I think the very term is stupid, and anyway just by running for office, a candidate puts his life on the line. Approx 10 of 44 presidents have been shot at.



I wouldn't call him that, but you would if you were consistent. But you're not.
He didn't "avoid" anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,358,834 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
He didn't "avoid" anything.

Yes he certainly did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam Webster
avoid

verb
: to stay away from (someone or something)
: to prevent the occurrence of (something bad, unpleasant, etc.)
: to keep yourself from doing (something) or participating in (something)
Obama avoided going into the military, i.e. he kept himself from participating in it. He could have signed up, but didn't. That fits the definition of avoid. If the word used had be 'evade' then I would agree that he did not evade the military. But the word used was "avoid."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,648,279 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Yes he certainly did.



Obama avoided going into the military, i.e. he kept himself from participating in it. He could have signed up, but didn't. That fits the definition of avoid. If the word used had be 'evade' then I would agree that he did not evade the military. But the word used was "avoid."
Whatever. Few people post Vietnam were needed to sign up. The military was not drafting, was not on a war footing and indeed was downsizing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 05:33 PM
 
Location: College Hill
2,903 posts, read 3,457,052 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Prove it. If you can't then it is you who is the liar.
Prove WHAT? Dick Cheney got five deferments. FACT. No one really knows where the hell Bush was during his last half year in the National Guard. FACT. Rudy Giuliani dodged the draft. FACT. Romney did a 30 month "Mormon mission tour" in France shortly after getting his draft notice. FACT.

Now. Come to terms with the reality that those Republicans who cheered on the war in which other people's sons died, well, they themselves did EVERYTHING they could to avoid serving when it was THEIR TURN is NOT a lie. GIYF.

Honestly, I sickens me that Republicans cannot come to terms with the fact that their "leaders" are great in STARTING wars, but not so great in FIGHTING them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,358,834 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
Whatever. Few people post Vietnam were needed to sign up. The military was not drafting, was not on a war footing and indeed was downsizing.

whatever yourself. Again, I think the very term 'chickenhawk' is inherently dumb, I don't use it, and when someone does, I immediately have to question their intelligence. It's like someone who uses 'mute' instead of 'moot.' They're not thinking closely and carefully about the words they use.

But if people are going to use it, at least be consistent about it. Don't trot it out in 2000 and 2004, and then bury it in 2008. And BTW,I also had the same complaint about R's who called Clinton a draft dodger in 1992. I am old enough to remember the Vietnam era. Nobody wanted to go to Vietnam. My cousin, whose lifelong dream was to be an Air Force Pilot, breathed a sigh of relief when he got a favorable draft lottery number. He never served in the military.

I am consistent, you libs are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,358,834 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy View Post
Prove WHAT? Dick Cheney got five deferments. FACT. No one really knows where the hell Bush was during his last half year in the National Guard. FACT. Rudy Giuliani dodged the draft. FACT. Romney did a 30 month "Mormon mission tour" in France shortly after getting his draft notice. FACT.

Now. Come to terms with the reality that those Republicans who cheered on the war in which other people's sons died, well, they themselves did EVERYTHING they could to avoid serving when it was THEIR TURN is NOT a lie. GIYF.

Honestly, I sickens me that Republicans cannot come to terms with the fact that their "leaders" are great in STARTING wars, but not so great in FIGHTING them.

It sickens me that people try to score cheap partisan points w/ this meme. FDR never served in the military. Was he a "chickenhawk?" I hardly think so--au contraire he was an excellent Commander in Chief. Bill Clinton never served. Was he a "chickenhawk?' Not in my view--see my previous post. McCain served (with valor) but Obama didn't. You're going to tell me that you voted for McCain on that basis??? LOL.

Be consistent is all I ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 06:51 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,185,320 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
It sickens me that people try to score cheap partisan points w/ this meme. FDR never served in the military. Was he a "chickenhawk?" I hardly think so--au contraire he was an excellent Commander in Chief. Bill Clinton never served. Was he a "chickenhawk?' Not in my view--see my previous post. McCain served (with valor) but Obama didn't. You're going to tell me that you voted for McCain on that basis??? LOL.

Be consistent is all I ask.

You're comparing apples to oranges. FDR didn't start World War II, remember? Bill didn't do what George W. Bush did in invading Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, knock off their government and try to set one up to our liking and then continuously rotate military personnel in and out of the country for years until some people were serving 5 or 6 tours there. Iraq was a war of choice. We used lots of our people (some 4,500 of whom we lost) and much of treasure. It was chosen by a group of people who when given a choice to fight in the unpopular war (that they supported) of the 60s-70s, made sure they wouldn't find themselves in a Vietnamese jungle with an M-16. You can call Clinton a draft dodger, but he didn't start a war that saw us pour troops and money into a failing endeavor and he was against the war he dodged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top