Chicken Hawks: Barking Head Brigade ! Line up front and center !!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
This thread makes me laugh! Many, including Al Gore, skipped out early from their military commitment. Nobody really cares. The reason is that leaving the Guard or even active duty early isn't all that uncommon. Anyone in the military knows that early discharge is fairly routine for someone in a REMF position. Furthermore, if you never served, how can you fault someone from not wanting to go to Viet-Nam. Hell most on this forum are against ANY military conflict. Bush is their soulmate because he didn't want to go and die in what he felt to be a senseless war.

The Washington Post history of GWB. A good read

I never usually read the Post, but it seems to be a favorite of the "Bush is Stupid" crowd, so I use it here.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,814
199
106
4000.00 a month? You guys are dreaming. Even the liberals would volunteer for that much.. LOL

Just ask the Vietnam vets what they were paid. If my recollection is clear my younger older brother got 95.00 plus his harzardous duty pay of 95.00 per month an E4.

When I joined up the all volunteer army started up and pay was MUCH higher. I started out at a whopping 200.00 a month base pay.

Many a soldier gave thier lives for pennies on the dollar what soldiers are paid today.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: mastertech01
4000.00 a month? You guys are dreaming. Even the liberals would volunteer for that much.. LOL

Just ask the Vietnam vets what they were paid. If my recollection is clear my younger older brother got 95.00 plus his harzardous duty pay of 95.00 per month an E4.

When I joined up the all volunteer army started up and pay was MUCH higher. I started out at a whopping 200.00 a month base pay.

Many a soldier gave thier lives for pennies on the dollar what soldiers are paid today.
Tax free too!!

Save it. liberals volunteered in great numbers in veitnam (war will make you a liberal or at least very weary about offensive war). Not saying conservatives did'nt (excluding this list) but dogma does no good. Anyway I've never been in military war but have noticed those that talk the most, pound the drum the most, do the least and are most cowardese when thier in peril. From my limited scope of wrestling for eight years and all my working life.
IMO
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Zebo gave you the straight answer, I gave you a joke answer. Sorry if you don't like either of them, but I'm not responsible for your entertainment.
Nor am I responsible for your or Zebo's ability to comprehend a simple premise. I'll elaborate below.

The frequent suggestion that one must have military service to [ insert today's topic ] is both specious and offensive. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I have every right to have and express my opinions about any matters of public interest.
The question of military service does have significant bearing on whether or not someone is capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security. If you understand the way the military works, if you understand to a degree military tactics and strategy, if you understand what's it like to serve in uniform, you have a much greater understanding of how AND WHY the decisions being made. If not, you're simply spouting a baseless opinion. Subsequently, when you (specifically, by implication, or generally) critisize certain policymakers or even completely irrelevent radio talk show hosts for their lack of military service while claiming their decisions (or opinions in the case of the talk show host) on national security are flawed, you only turn the mirror on yourself, which I find highly amusing.

Now, I can certainly accept that some people may be knowledgeable about military and national security affairs by virtue of their background without military service, say if someone had worked in DIA or CIA for awhile or even for a defense contractor of some sort. I doubt that's the case here either.

If you can't accept that, I question whether you are well-suited to be defending our Constitution.
I took an oath to defend the Constitution and the citizens of the United States, ignorant, stupid and otherwise.

In spite of what you or others might try to imply, I have tremendous respect for our military, and for the men and women who serve. This does not require that I agree with every decision and every action. It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
Who said it was? You seem to be awfully touchy on the subject.

I support law enforcement ... but not unconditionally. I support our military ... but not unconditionally. I do not confuse my overall support with my right, my obligation, to have my own informed opinions about specific actions, decisions, and policies. In my opinion, the Bush administration's urge to send young Americans to their death is suspect when they, themselves, so carefully avoided military service. If you disagree with this, I'll be happy to debate the issue on its merits. I will not entertain some holier-than-thou notion that I have no right to an opinion just because I didn't serve in the military either.
But, do see it? You mention it right there. "Informed opinion". The question of military service does have bearing on how "informed" an opinion is. Further, you blithely overlook the military service records of other advisors within the administration and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who I would assume you would not recognize as having avoided military service. Even moreso, the Bush administration does not have an "urge" to send Americans to their deaths, or shall I remind you of the various attacks this country in the last decade or so?

Regardless, the notion that people who have no military service background can turn around and critisize others for not having one on the basis that the critics' uninformed opinions are somehow superior in areas of national security could only have been cooked up in the jumbled minds of the Bush hating crowd.

Just for clarification, the book that I mentioned above was written by a Vietnam war vet and was critical of the war coming from his perspective of the war after participating in it, not based on his political views of the administration.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
The question of military service does have significant bearing on whether or not someone is capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security. If you understand the way the military works, if you understand to a degree military tactics and strategy, if you understand what's it like to serve in uniform, you have a much greater understanding of how AND WHY the decisions being made. If not, you're simply spouting a baseless opinion. Subsequently, when you (specifically, by implication, or generally) critisize certain policymakers or even completely irrelevent radio talk show hosts for their lack of military service while claiming their decisions (or opinions in the case of the talk show host) on national security are flawed, you only turn the mirror on yourself, which I find highly amusing.
So based on what you're saying, the Chickenhawks mentioned in this thread: Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc., are NOT capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security? Do I have that correct?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
AndrewR,
The question of military service does have significant bearing on whether or not someone is capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security. If you understand the way the military works, if you understand to a degree military tactics and strategy, if you understand what's it like to serve in uniform, you have a much greater understanding of how AND WHY the decisions being made. If not, you're simply spouting a baseless opinion. Subsequently, when you (specifically, by implication, or generally) critisize certain policymakers or even completely irrelevent radio talk show hosts for their lack of military service while claiming their decisions (or opinions in the case of the talk show host) on national security are flawed, you only turn the mirror on yourself, which I find highly amusing.

Now, I can certainly accept that some people may be knowledgeable about military and national security affairs by virtue of their background without military service, say if someone had worked in DIA or CIA for awhile or even for a defense contractor of some sort. I doubt that's the case here either.
National Security is a political consideration. The means to effect its needs is the military function. They are not the same.
Combat tactics and strategy is the purview of the commanders in uniform. However, evaluating the strategy or to some extent the tactics in terms of progress toward stated objectives is easily determined... assuming the observer can see it clearly and knows the agenda being prosecuted. She need not be at all intimate with military thinking to apply reason to the obvious.
Determining the appropriate agenda is the right and duty of the people by virtue of the simple notion that the government derives its authority from the governed.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Regardless, the notion that people who have no military service background can turn around and critisize others for not having one on the basis that the critics' uninformed opinions are somehow superior in areas of national security could only have been cooked up in the jumbled minds of the Bush hating crowd.
:D
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Regardless, the notion that people who have no military service background can turn around and critisize others for not having one on the basis that the critics' uninformed opinions are somehow superior in areas of national security could only have been cooked up in the jumbled minds of the Bush hating crowd.
:D
But, of course, that "notion" is a straw man that could only have been cooked up in the ignorant, fawning minds of the Bush apologists, and the pointless trolls like Corn who egg them on.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
So based on what you're saying, the Chickenhawks mentioned in this thread: Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc., are NOT capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security? Do I have that correct?
Of course you don't have "that" correct. Sometimes I wonder how the Bush haters provide for themselves when they obviously don't have the reading comprehension of the average 3rd grader:

The question of military service does have bearing on how "informed" an opinion is. Further, you blithely overlook the military service records of other advisors within the administration and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who I would assume you would not recognize as having avoided military service.
Also posted back on the first page:

Regardless, the premise these days that a politician needs to have military experience excludes the majority of the population, and in a decade or so, veterans will be a miniscule minority in politics -- those with combat experience even more so. Incidentally, the liberal poster child for wartime presidents, FDR, never served in the military. I guess he was completely unqualified to command the American military in WWII, huh?
I know, DM, you were merely, desperately, trying to be witty.......and instead you just come off looking like a nitwit.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
But, of course, that "notion" is a straw man that could only have been cooked up in the ignorant, fawning minds of the Bush apologists, and the pointless trolls like Corn who egg them on.
My god, the whining is nearly deafening.

But more to the point, the existence of this thread is proof that "notion" is no strawman, except in the eyes of the birdbrained. :D

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
This thread makes me laugh! Many, including Al Gore, skipped out early from their military commitment. Nobody really cares. The reason is that leaving the Guard or even active duty early isn't all that uncommon. Anyone in the military knows that early discharge is fairly routine for someone in a REMF position. Furthermore, if you never served, how can you fault someone from not wanting to go to Viet-Nam. Hell most on this forum are against ANY military conflict. Bush is their soulmate because he didn't want to go and die in what he felt to be a senseless war.

The Washington Post history of GWB, a good read

I never usually read the Post, but it seems to be a favorite of the "Bush is Stupid" crowd, so I use it here.
It's an interesting article, but unless I missed it, it completely ignores the [ one-year gap in Bush's Guard duty ]. I posted a great article from the Boston Globe several months ago. They did a lot of research and presented an in-depth look of Bush's Guard history. All in all, I found it pretty balanced. It discussed the year he was missing, but it also mentions it appears he tried to make up the time and that he was a very good pilot. I haven't tried to compare the two timelines between the articles, but here's a link for anyone who's interested:

One-year gap in Bush's National Guard duty



Edit: replaced "AWOL" with more accurate description
Edit 2: tweaked link to eliminate horizontal scroll

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
It seems like some people are insisting on a double standard: In order to criticize administration officials for ducking military service you have to have a military background yourself. There's this notion that prior military service makes NO difference for politicians or administration officials who are deciding on foreign policy and/or whether to go to war, but it DOES make a difference if a civilian should happen to bring it up. You guys can't have it both ways.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Corn
So based on what you're saying, the Chickenhawks mentioned in this thread: Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc., are NOT capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security? Do I have that correct?
Of course you don't have "that" correct. Sometimes I wonder how the Bush haters provide for themselves when they obviously don't have the reading comprehension of the average 3rd grader:
Don't be stupid Corn, I was using Andrew's own words. Quote:
"The question of military service does have significant bearing on whether or not someone is capable of comprehending what is being done in the arena of national security."
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Don't be stupid Corn, I was using Andrew's own words.
I find it odd that Andrew's "own words", mind you the exact same "own words", were also quoted in my previous reply. I guess the concept of "context" is only reserved for stupid people like me.

I would certainly hope you are not really as intellectually dishonest as the portrayal you now depict, but if perhaps you really can't quite grasp how context can be framed, I went back and bolded the relevent part.

Let's see if you can figure it out. :camera:
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Bowfinger, missing your Guard weekends is not AWOL. AWOL is a charge under UCMJ. Unless someone charged him with being absent without leave, then it isn't AWOL. The fact that his commander didn't charge him with AWOL might mean....Gasp! That his commander knew where he was, and maybe had approval? Did anyone check to see if his (Bush's) early release fell before his guard commitment, or that maybe one of his Guard weekends was resheduled to fall after his early release? Resheduling is not uncommon. Also, he was on suspension from his normal duties, and if nobody reassigned his duties, or his unit, then it's no wonder that he didn't show.

You should also check for updates to old articles. This is frome the Globe, and the same author you quted. Please note the updated information. If Bush was suspended, it's no wonder he wasn't there. I wouldn't be, till I was reassigned. What for? Many sldier fail to show for snowbird/shitbird assignments. It still happens, and they are chalked up as lost in-transit until someone either gets tired of it, or the soldier signs into his new unit.

There is strong evidence that Bush performed no military service, as was required, when he moved from Houston to Alabama to work on a US Senate campaign from May to November 1972. There are no records of any service and the commanding officer of the unit Bush was assigned to said he never saw him. Bush was suspended from flight duty for not taking his annual flight physical.
The Bush campaign?s initial explanation for the lapse ?incomplete records,? it now admits, was wrong. An Air Reserve official said last week that they now believe that Bush met minimum drill requirements before his discharge.
The result is that Bush?s discharge was ?honorable.? Other current and retired Air Force officers said Bush?s military records are much like those of countless other Guardsmen at the time: guardsmen who lost interest in their units, and commanders who found it easier to muster them out than hold them to a commitment many made to avoid Vietnam.
Source: Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe, p. A14 Oct 31, 2000
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
Bowfinger, missing your Guard weekends is not AWOL. AWOL is a charge under UCMJ. Unless someone charged him with being absent without leave, then it isn't AWOL. The fact that his commander didn't charge him with AWOL might mean....Gasp! That his commander knew where he was, and maybe had approval? Did anyone check to see if his (Bush's) early release fell before his guard commitment, or that maybe one of his Guard weekends was resheduled to fall after his early release? Resheduling is not uncommon. Also, he was on suspension from his normal duties, and if nobody reassigned his duties, or his unit, then it's no wonder that he didn't show.

You should also check for updates to old articles. This is frome the Globe, and the same author you quted. Please note the updated information. If Bush was suspended, it's no wonder he wasn't there. I wouldn't be, till I was reassigned. What for? Many sldier fail to show for snowbird/shitbird assignments. It still happens, and they are chalked up as lost in-transit until someone either gets tired of it, or the soldier signs into his new unit.

There is strong evidence that Bush performed no military service, as was required, when he moved from Houston to Alabama to work on a US Senate campaign from May to November 1972. There are no records of any service and the commanding officer of the unit Bush was assigned to said he never saw him. Bush was suspended from flight duty for not taking his annual flight physical.
The Bush campaign?s initial explanation for the lapse ?incomplete records,? it now admits, was wrong. An Air Reserve official said last week that they now believe that Bush met minimum drill requirements before his discharge.
The result is that Bush?s discharge was ?honorable.? Other current and retired Air Force officers said Bush?s military records are much like those of countless other Guardsmen at the time: guardsmen who lost interest in their units, and commanders who found it easier to muster them out than hold them to a commitment many made to avoid Vietnam.
Source: Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe, p. A14 Oct 31, 2000
My apologies re. using "AWOL". I did not intend it as a legal term. just a shorthand way of describing Bush's absence from Guard duty. I revised my post to remove the term.

Re. your other comments, I may be misunderstanding you but it seems to reinforce the first article. The issue is whether Bush continued to meet his Guard committments once he moved to Alabama. From your quote, "There are no records of any service and the commanding officer of the unit Bush was assigned to said he never saw him." He suspension also suggests he was not meeting his obligations.

None of that was really my point, however. I was simply noting that the Washington Post article was interesting, but I felt it was weakened by avoiding the questions around Bush's service record.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Don't be stupid Corn, I was using Andrew's own words.
I find it odd that Andrew's "own words", mind you the exact same "own words", were also quoted in my previous reply. I guess the concept of "context" is only reserved for stupid people like me.

I would certainly hope you are not really as intellectually dishonest as the portrayal you now depict, but if perhaps you really can't quite grasp how context can be framed, I went back and bolded the relevent part.

Let's see if you can figure it out. :camera:
Corn, I understand the administration has advisors with military experience. I wasn't talking about them. I would imagine you'd understand that the decision to go to war is a political one. It's not made by generals or military advisors or the joint chiefs of staff -- rather it's made by the president as well as Congress. Launching a pre-emptive, some would say unnecessary, war while ducking service yourself is analagous to making everyone go to church on Sunday when you yourself have not been in twenty years.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Bowfinger, I get ya now!!!

It's really interesting to see that someone like Bush, who didn't agree with the Vietnam conflict, and avoided it at every turn is nowadays the moral enemy of the non-military mindset. I myself tried to avoid service when I was 18, (the parents thought that it would be good for me). Funny thing is that years later I was all for it (parents weren't though) and joined up during Desert Shield.

People change, attitudes change. That's why the distant past is rarely useful as a guide to a person. The previous five or six years is often a better yardstick. It's well known that Bush was a party animal, and once even confronted Bush Sr. while in a drunken stupor. It's very likely that he didn't take his flight physical for fear of either finding alcohol in his system, or THC. He's now a non-drinker, and likely a non-smoker if you know what I mean.

As far a this political parties youthful stupidity or that ones, throw a rock ito the air; you'll hit someone that's guilty as charged.

Later,

Mark
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
Bowfinger, I get ya now!!!

It's really interesting to see that someone like Bush, who didn't agree with the Vietnam conflict, and avoided it at every turn is nowadays the moral enemy of the non-military mindset. I myself tried to avoid service when I was 18, (the parents thought that it would be good for me). Funny thing is that years later I was all for it (parents weren't though) and joined up during Desert Shield.

People change, attitudes change. That's why the distant past is rarely useful as a guide to a person. The previous five or six years is often a better yardstick. It's well known that Bush was a party animal, and once even confronted Bush Sr. while in a drunken stupor. It's very likely that he didn't take his flight physical for fear of either finding alcohol in his system, or THC. He's now a non-drinker, and likely a non-smoker if you know what I mean.

As far a this political parties youthful stupidity or that ones, throw a rock ito the air; you'll hit someone that's guilty as charged.

Later,

Mark
Yeah it's kind of hard to blame Bush for not wanting to go to Nam. I know I didn't want too but if they would have called my number I would have gone. Good thing they stopped the draft when I turned 18 because my lottery number was in the single digits and I didn't have a rich father who would have been able to keep me stateside. Going to Canada or jail was not an option!
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: maluckey
Bowfinger, I get ya now!!!

It's really interesting to see that someone like Bush, who didn't agree with the Vietnam conflict, and avoided it at every turn is nowadays the moral enemy of the non-military mindset. I myself tried to avoid service when I was 18, (the parents thought that it would be good for me). Funny thing is that years later I was all for it (parents weren't though) and joined up during Desert Shield.

People change, attitudes change. That's why the distant past is rarely useful as a guide to a person. The previous five or six years is often a better yardstick. It's well known that Bush was a party animal, and once even confronted Bush Sr. while in a drunken stupor. It's very likely that he didn't take his flight physical for fear of either finding alcohol in his system, or THC. He's now a non-drinker, and likely a non-smoker if you know what I mean.

As far a this political parties youthful stupidity or that ones, throw a rock ito the air; you'll hit someone that's guilty as charged.

Later,

Mark
Yeah it's kind of hard to blame Bush for not wanting to go to Nam. I know I didn't want too but if they would have called my number I would have gone. Good thing they stopped the draft when I turned 18 because my lottery number was in the single digits and I didn't have a rich father who would have been able to keep me stateside. Going to Canada or jail was not an option!

Where I grew up in NYC it was like a vacation to go to Vietnam... Heck we even got to shower under plane loads of some nifty DDT stuff.. NaTrang Orange or something.
I can't complain though, I was paid really big bucks to be in the service, relatively speaking. And, because they knew how stupid I was for being there they paid for me to complete my degree 'On the clock'. Nah... Our leaders don't need being veterans to know how to prosecute a war agenda. They only need to know the Pentagon phone number. Besides, you'd have to wonder about a civilian leader who made a living doing war stuff.. be cunning and avoid war.. that's the ticket! Maybe we can all ride on the coat tails of such intellectual superiority.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Off topic - why is this thread so screwed up...horizontal scroll bar?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Off topic - why is this thread so screwed up...horizontal scroll bar?
My guess is it's because of the length of my link to the Boston Globe article -- it's over 130 characters long with no whitespace for a line break. I looked for a shorter link but couldn't find one. The original is no longer availabe on the Golbe's web site.

Edit: now fixed, at least with Mozilla



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY