Pathetic Chicken Hawkery - not just for republicans

[whatchamacallit]

Yay it's our turn to rationalize war and the sacrifice of others!

[polichick]

1. Fortunately, the people are not so easily fooled this time.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

4. We'll see.

The support Obama at any cost brigade is already beating the drum loudly on liberal message boards and blogs. Wait until the media starts spinning it.

Put a patriotic spin on the whole thing then roll out Lee Greenwood and next thing you know more than 50 percent of the American people are saying "like it or leave it" and yelling at you for not supporting the troops.

[polichick]

5. I don't know. In the last few days I've come across a lot of people saying...

We expected more from Obama. Same old shit.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. That brigade has not made many friends and allies, they have been surly isolationsists

In addition, they have not bothered to hone their skills of persuasion and have unwisely indulged in name calling, emoticon parades and taunts instead. They lack standing and trust outside their own very tiny sphere.

[sabrina 1]

2. We should go back to the old ways of fighting wars. I said this during the Bush years and I believe

it would make our elected officials think twice about starting wars.

Any elected official who wants to start a war would be required to do what leaders in the past did, lead the troops into battle. Their family members would also have to sign up and go fight.

I don't see why this should not be required.

If that rule was in place we know for sure the Iraq War and Afghanistan would never have happened.

[polichick]

3. Absolutely - politicians AND their families out front and center!

[4Q2u2]

9. Only one Major Apprehension

Would you want these morally corrupt single digit IQ morons leading anybody into Armed Conflict. They would sell their troops out just as fast as the American Public. Their Orders and direction would lead to untold deaths by idiocy.

I agree having skin in the game would change a lot.

[JoeyT]

12. They don't actually have to be in command.

They just have to be out in front.

[sabrina 1]

18. I think if they had to be there, it wouldn't happen in the first place so I'm not worried about them

screwing things up. Look at the lengths Cheney/Bush et al went to, to stay out of Vietnam? These elites do not want to be anywhere near a battlefield. If the law required that they put themselves and their families in harm's way, they would be far less likely to start any wars.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. Here's a little tune for the chickenhawks.

[whatchamacallit]

8. +1

[annabanana]

10. excellent!!. . . . n/t

[woo me with science]

15. +1

[Dragonfli]

11. Politically incorrect term! They prefer to be called "Soaring Eagles"

They feel it is their right to be called this due to the bravery it takes to demand killing without being able to fight themselves like they really, really, really want to.

"Chicken hawk" is insulting to chicken hawks, please be sensitive to their delicate feelings and call them Eagles, they only want to soar and rescue children by blowing up people, besides hurting their fragile feelings is a war crime in and of itself.

[zeemike]

14. OMG...

I can't un hear that...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. The Washington Villagers claim Obama will appear "weak" if he doesn't get approval...

This narrative has suckered Democrats on the hill to reflexively defend their President and caused Republicans to drool at the thought of defeating him and making him look like a ineffective leader.

It'll be EASY for them. They're used to casting a "No" vote.

[RandiFan1290]

16. Chicken Hawk Down (2003)

[whatchamacallit]

17. Haha classic!

Should be posted in every ThePeoplesView thread.

[sabrina 1]

19. Lol, I like that he mentioned the Murdoch owned Wall St. Journal, another totally unreliable source

once it was bought out by the Neocon's Propagandist. But oddly enough Murdoch appears to have become 'reliable' these days.