chickenhawks exposed...crushed...

Post by **seremtan** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:15 am

then there's the fact that america has been at war or engaged in some sort of military action almost constantly since 1962 - vietnam, central america, balkans, middle east. since war is a major pastime of US administrations, it makes sense to expect the guy in charge to have some experience of it

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:12 am

u mean right after a coup destroyed real democracy in america? how obvious...

Post by **seremtan** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:54 am

so kennedy was just about to dismantle the military-industrial complex before he collected a slug in the noggin. right

Post by **seremtan** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:27 am

Freakaloin wrote:u mean right after a coup destroyed real democracy in america? how obvious...

btw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

what coup?

Post by **Dave** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:02 am

Freakaloin wrote:u mean the treasury printing money like theres no tomorrow is a conspiracy? rofl@themoron...

I know this was a real historical event, but do you have any idea what the economic and political conditions in and outside of Germany were that caused a loaf of breat to cost 2 billion DM? You're smart enough to answer my question without having to redirect focus to some completely unrelated detail.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Tue May 30, 2006 4:25 am

its a different time moron...with completely different reasons...but hey...they r kinda the same...got it punk?...good...

Post by **Ryoki** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:15 am

Dave wrote:
Ryoki wrote:
Dave wrote:Ignoring all the issues of draft dodging and string pulling, why does military service have to be a prerequisite for holding legitimate high office?
War is sweet to those that did not experience it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sweet" (cool, romantic, easy, etc), but that's got nothing to do with it either. It's kind of a broad assumption to make that those who do not experience war find it sweet. Making war isn't the only business of a politician.

Oh shit - i messed up that quote, it should have the word 'only' in it somewhere.

What i meant was that in general those who've experienced combat (not just military service) are inclined to actually think things like war through when they're in a position of political power. Then again, there's Hitler as a nice counterexample of that, so i guess i don't really have a point.

Post by **MidnightQ4** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:00 am

All of those ppl didn't serve because it's the idiots who have no future that enlist. Anyone with a clue stays out of the military. We don't need America's best and brightest out there in harms way, that's what idiots are for.

Post by **Ryoki** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:05 am

HEY you're not supporting the troops there buddy :icon13:

Post by **MidnightQ4** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:33 am

Oh I support them. Just saying that it is stupid to think that high ranking officials in our government should have served in the military, as this article seems to indicate. That being said, I hope our boys over there kick some insurgent ass right off the freaking planet.

Post by **Dave** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:34 am

MidnightQ4 wrote:Oh I support them. Just saying that it is stupid to think that high ranking officials in our government should have served in the military, as this article seems to indicate. That being said, I hope our boys over there kick some insurgent ass right off the freaking planet.

RIGHT ON GO USA MORAN

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue May 30, 2006 8:36 am

More "American style stupidity" in this thread.

You fagg0ts simply never learn.

Post by **R00k** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:58 pm

The article had nothing to do with suggesting politicians should be required to serve.

The point is that there are people out there who have the utter gall and contempt for veterans, that they will belittle veterans' accomplishments, decrease funding, have no sympathy for veterans' problems which they helped create, etc... and do all this while never having served a day themselves.

Judgemental/hypocritical people who do this sort of thing need to be called on the carpet for it, and that's what the article is about. Hence the mention of Max Cleland being ridiculed and practically making light of the service he gave and the 3 limbs he lost in the process, all by some cunt-knuckle who has absolutely no idea what it's like to stand in a pair of boots.

IMO this thread is a perfect example of why no issues get resolved in this country. If any debate touches on one of several key topics, then the whole debate is rendered useless by reactionary slams and one-ups regarding the one part of the debate that people can actually grasp and argue about with a minimal of effort.

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:14 am

I've always liked the idea of a short term of mandatory military service (or a civil service equivalent for the peaceniks n such) for all. I think 'the people' need a dose of 'reality' far more than the politicians do in this regard. Maybe fewer bellicose motherfuckers would make it into national office as a result.

Post by **Tormentius** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:07 am

MidnightQ4 wrote:...insurgent ass right off the freaking planet.

You realize that it was their country that was invaded and is being occupied right? Your stupidity still never ceases to amaze.

Post by **nsaP** » Wed May 31, 2006 2:20 am

Dave wrote:Why geoff? or is "don't be a moron" the best reply you can come up with?

to be honest I'm surprised to see a post from him that doesn't contain a link to some liberal news site.