English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Chicken hawks like Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Delay etc

2007-04-29 16:34:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

Absolutely. The Washington apparatchiks who started, 'planned' and control the war saw the war as just another corporate maneuver, the US Army as just a 'strategic partner' on a corporate-style takeover.

While most of the policies Republicans deal with are basically trivial or irrelevant (gay marriage, abortion, 'values', corporate shenanigans), the war is a real situation... and reality is not their friend.

In 1993 Colin Powell said: 'My philosophy in all this is rather simple: match political expectations with military means in a wholly realistic way. Don't slide in, don't mislead yourself.'

Powell, the only experienced soldier in the administration, indeed, the only man with any knowledge of actual military history or any sense of gravity abut deploying troops, played their game for the sake of party loyalty and he was kicked out when he no longer served his purpose.

Writers here talk of winning if they 'kick in doors' or 'deploy maximum air power'. Who are they kidding? That aligns the 'terrorists' objectives with the US Army's: prevent nation-building, kill people, create fear. How can the US forces, a piffling 150,000 or so, take the offensive? Nobody on any side has ANY idea what to do to make progress in this war... the Democrats will fulfil their historic mission: by being realistic enough to admit facts, they will withdraw and allow the reality-challenged conservatives to 'blame' them for losing.

Their only strategy is to deny they've lost.... such an attitude would see Russia still in Afghanistan today, or the British still in the US for that matter.

All this is a shame because your question points toward a very important issue- the abuse of the military by military illiterates. It was a lesson of Vietnam, and now the Republicans are making sure they don't learn it.

2007-04-29 19:14:30 · answer #1 · answered by llordlloyd 6 · 0 2

Less than 10% of our men and woman serving in Iraq are liberal.In an all volunteer army most of those are conservative Americans. Bush was in the national guard, and that's serving, like it or not. Only liberals like Harry Reid think we are losing the war. Just ask all the conservative troops that are on the ground over there.

2007-04-30 00:07:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Im a conservative. I'm serving, and we arent losing, things are progressing, And the IRAQI military is quietly assuming command of bases all over Iraq. So we are WINNING no matter what politicians say. Politicians need get their butts out of military decision making and leave that up to the GENERALS.

2007-04-30 00:12:29 · answer #3 · answered by fla5232 3 · 2 0

Funny that you should ask such a stupid question. How many of the current liberal leaders have ever served? Chickenshits like Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, either Clinton, Biden, Obama, Richardson, Edwards . . .

2007-04-30 10:54:54 · answer #4 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 1 0

Bush didn't serve?

I sure seem to remember he flew fighters in the Air National Guard.

Or maybe you mean the :

Hillary
Biden
Obama
Edwards
Richardson

Never served.

Didn't Biden, Hillary and Edwards all vote for the Iraq War Resolution ?

Since none of them ever served, I guess that makes them a chickenhawks?........ right ?


And when you think, that

20% of the Republican Senators who lost reelection were veterans, but only 10% of the Democrats who replaced them were veterans.

25% of the Republican House members who lost reelection were veterans, but only 11% of the Democrats who replaced them are veterans.

That sure seems to me, to point out that Democrats don't like Veterans and generally do not vote for veterans.

2007-04-29 23:55:29 · answer #5 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2 2

Maybe if they were allowed to kick doors down and actually shoot at people rather be stuck on defence all the time things would be different... perhaps if the politicians would get their tails out fo the war and let the generals do their jobs. I know you are hoping the war gets lost, the libs like Ried who already say its a loss and all the ones that made us also lose Viet Nam can go sing hippy songs, have gay sex, and smoke all the pot they desire

2007-04-29 23:46:58 · answer #6 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 3 2

Only the Coward Harry "Surrender at all cost" Reid thinks we are losing the war in Iraq. Last I heard he's not conservative. I am, and I am currently serving. Perhaps your "chickinhawk" comment is about your yellow, cowardly, spineless, attempt to slander those who know, believe, and try harder than you do?

2007-04-29 23:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by MSG 4 · 2 1

Actually I really appreciated the way Bill Clinton served. That gave him the needed military edge in several other terrorists attacks against our country and helped him win the war. What branch did he serve in again. We all need to be glad that we have people that VOLUNTARILY serve and get blasted for it. Not much pay either.

2007-04-30 05:41:00 · answer #8 · answered by Ret. Sgt. 7 · 2 0

I don't think it matters. It bothered me much more the way that John Kerry "served" than that GW didn't. Why do you say conservatives are loosing the war. Are the LIBERAL soldiers winning? We are not losing, but the press wants us to think we are so the dems will have a chance at the white house.

2007-04-29 23:46:14 · answer #9 · answered by big o 3 · 2 2

Yes

2007-04-30 00:05:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers