Operation Chickenhawk: The Cowardly, Hypocritical College Republicans

Pro-America, without a doubt... By considering what's best for our country, instead of blindly following a political party, I consider myself more of a patriot then most...

If anyone here is "anti-america", I believe it's you... By supporting the "surge" and sending more troops to fight in the unpopular and mismanaged war, you're condemning more of our brave men and women to die for in a conflict that we cannot "win"...

By defeated, you mean come home safely; as opposed to leaving our troops in Iraq to be killed in a war that we will eventually leave unfinished anyways?

If you're accusing me of lying, please post some links... *some* weapons were discovered, that *were* (past tense) weapons of mass destruction, but none could have currently caused "mass destruction", and I don't think you can argue otherwise...

Accusing a person of being "dishonest" is a hard-charge, I hope you can back it up....

I believe they want to come home alive; would you agree? I think most soldiers are smart enough to know we're not going to quell the violence in this religious civil war... So why continue to let them die? The only reason more troops don't speak out against the war, is because of the backlash they'll receive from their unit... Believe me, there's not as many "pro war" people as you'd think sitting in the 130 degree heat, in body armor, seeing buddies die, while the Iraqi parliament takes an entire month off...

Who has claimed to support terrorism? I've never seen a post like that; if you can provide a link then I'll surely have a different opinion of the person...

No question, the troops... I want them alive, they don't deserve to die...

If you're so pro war, why not enlist again, so you can help with the conflict? I know you were "supposedly" in the military, did you ever do multiple tours to a combat zone where more then 1 American soldier was dying every single day?

If you wanted to defend our troops, you'd rally support for bringing them out of harms way... Even though you can't see it, you're doing more harm then good in the eyes of many troops and veterans...

 

That is a superb post tarponkeith, it will be interesting to see what GTechs response is, my bet is that it will be the typical usual rhetoric he espouses.

 

So you believe defeat is in the best interest of our country? Yet you are worried about world perception? I'm not sure I follow this.

What I want to make sure doesn't happen, is what liberals did to our soldiers after Vietnam. You and other soldiers have done everything asked of you and more. I'm not opposed to a withdrawl. Don't misunderstand that. What I'm opposed to, is democrats standing up and calling for defeat. What I'm opposed to is the blind hatred of a President that somehow justifies selling out America.

I'm pretty open with the words I choose. Defeat means defeat. I want nothing more than our soldiers home, yesterday...last year. What I don't want, is a political partisan struggle that ends with our soldiers being defeated. Are you proud of your service? Do you want others to proclaim a victory for terrorists?

We covered this:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

So, do we now agree that *some* wmd were found in Iraq? Or shall we play the denial game for partisan purposes. You don't have to support Bush to acknowledge *some* were found. Hell, not even I would even remotely suggest that these were enough to go to war over. That would be absurd. My only contention, has always been, that *some* were found. To say otherwise, is simply dishonest, given all the others that were found as well.

Yes, I believe any soldier in any war wants this. We can agree on this, however, this was not the question. The question was, do you believe they want defeat? Or are you speaking for yourself, as an individual?

I take no exception here. I'm not opposed to a withdrawl, but I am opposed to a defeat. I am opposed to the democrat party declaring defeat when most Americans are against defeat.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=375076
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=242934
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3611949&postcount=31
dumb Americans
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3464145&postcount=24
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3467367&postcount=37

This was a thread where gworld was defending terrorists caught in Jordan with chemical weapons. A good read, if you ever have time:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=346994&postcount=885
here's one where gworld started a thread seeking sympathy and support for an al qaida terrorist:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=27898
Here's one where gworld said he wouldn't support terrorists anymore, but when put to the test, walked away without saying a word:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=3128407

Ignorant Americans


Army is for dumb people.

Nor do I. Do they deserve democrats stepping forward and claiming defeat on their behalf? Do they deserve democrats like Murtha, convicting them in the media before having a trial, and later were cleared of all charges?

You are confusing support with pro-war. There is a subtle difference here. I want the war over today, yesterday, last year. What I don't want, is people selling out our country for this objective. What I don't want, is people claiming victory for terrorists.

I'm not opposed to this. I'm opposed to those who wish to proclaim a victory for terrorists to do such. If we don't deal with it today, it will have to be dealt with down the road.

 

Actually, I wanted to make sure that TK knew and understood the type of person you are. You use the suffering of soldiers, as if you pretend to care, to justify what you really want...which is a win for terrorists in Iraq.

I just hope he's smart enough to see what your true colors really are. He wasn't always around, to see the utter vile you've openly admitted to on this forum.

AGS, when a terrorist attack occurs, who is the first one to rush to the forum to start a post defending them?

ags - terrorist supporter - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=375076
ags - admires ahmadinejad - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=242934
supporting hamas - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3611949&postcount=31
whining about authenticating - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=394927&page=3
dumb americans - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/reputation.php?p=4174852

I'd like for him to see gworld too:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=2075630&postcount=140

This is the kind of vile I've defended you against, with the likes of gworld, while you were off serving your country. Now, he's anti-war, but he's anti-America and will never say a bad word about a terrorist. Feel free to ask gworld why he wants the US out of Iraq, so terrorists can take over.

 

What do you consider defeat? I'd consider it loss of American life while unsuccessfully trying to quell sectarian violence in a 3rd world country... That's defeat to me... Victory is when we no longer hear "# soldiers died in Iraq today"...

Maybe you're right, let's just leave our soldiers there, stay the course and keep letting them die with no real "mission" at hand... That will undoubtedly lead to a "victory" down the road...

So by leaving, that means we were overcome? No, that means we were smart enough to see that an attempt to stop a civil war is no longer worth the lives of our brave...

And you still believe him, over the president?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

Back to the gulf era weapons... They posed a threat to American lives, or a "mass" scale? Can you prove that 14 year old sarin gas is still potent enough to cause mass destruction? Because if you can prove that, there are going to be some pretty embarrassed scientists...

Defeat would be letting our soldiers die... I want victory, no more American's needlessly dying in a conflict like this...

Of course they're against the term defeat... Let's do a poll and see how many approve of the conflict in iraq, are you willing to claim that a majority will be in support of it?

I'll check into these...

No one should be calling a withdrawal "defeat"... Withdrawal means saving American lives, and I want that!

The war was over, remember "mission accomplished"? And who claimed victory for the terrorists? Please post a link where someone used those words...

 

Since as usual Gtech posts are the result of his dishonesty and fantasy, let's look at those links:

1) first link is just a link to Gtech own BS post which has nothing to do with me.

2) the second post is the defense of democracy, rule of law and U.S. Constitution. Strangely enough Gtech imagine himself as "pro-America" and "patriot" while he clearly is an enemy of U.S. Constitution.

Here is a quote from that post:

3) A link to a page full of his and his friends in cheer leaders squad nonsense.

4) A quote from the post that he think I claimed Americans are ignorant:

Is anyone here who is going to claim that all Americans are well educated in politic and international questions?

5) the post is not even by me, just part of Gtech usual lies.

Now, are you going to tell us why you don't enlist and take part in this war or are you going to continue with being a loud mouth sissy and hope everyone forget the question?

 

Does defeat need a rewriting of it's definition? Do you want defeat...yes or no?

So as opposed to victory, you prefer defeat?

I'm not opposed to leaving. Granted, the surge should be in place to sufficiently guage it's success. Leaving during a time when things are moving forward is not smart.

Absolutely. Bush is speaking in a global sense here. The WMD that democrats had said were stockpiled there during the 90s was not found in nice neat little piles. That's the context he's speaking of.

From a partisan perspective, is this the only thing you believe Bush has said, that is correct? A little too convenient, isn't it? And just to clarify, you disagree with Colonel Chu whose job is to know this?

What did Colonel Chu say? According to him, I've already proved this. And what sparked this renewed discussion was my pointing out what you did last time, you taking exception with it, and here I have illustrated it once again. It's as if you are so partisan and so against Bush, that you would deny what's right in front of you, for the sake of partisanship. That's really sad.

Incorrect. Soldiers die in war. They've died in many wars. By your standard, we lost WWII. This is simply not so.

Be my guest. However, it doesn't dismiss the fact that most Americans do not share the democrats desire for defeat.

For someone who places great importance on what the world things we should or should not do, how do you perceive they will see it? Are you concerned over that, or only that our allies sold us out and now some heckle us?

I posted it in another thread. Imagine my surprise that you chose denial based upon semantics of a word? Ummm, ummm ummm.

Mission accomplished.

 

Since you keep ignoring this question:

 

GTech, quoting your own posts to the extent that you do makes you one of the craziest MOFO's on the internet IMHO mate.

 

Well, this dumbed down American (you know, the one's who don't know the difference between hatred for it's residents and it's government ) thanks you for the kind words. I'm sure hamas would approve of your message.

Sis boom rah!

 

Since you keep ignoring this question:

By the way, have you received your purple heart of cheer leading for defending America by not leaving your keyboard and staying under your bed while real man go to war?

 

Good question for GTech. Why aren't you serving right now?

I'm also very curious to know how you feel about the US enforcing UN resolutions without the approval of the American people. These resolutions are not voted on by Congress.

Do you take your authorization to go to war from the UN or from Congress? The Constitution is pretty clear that only Congress can authorize a war.

Unless you want to play the semantic game of saying this is not a war, in which case, why would we be concerned with defeat?

And again, for someone so pro-war, ala Mitt Romney the chickenhawk, why exactly are you not serving your country in a combat capacity? At least he can hide behind his pending presidential candidacy.

Mitt - "You guys go to the front, and I will hold capital hill, repelling the stinking masses."

 

I've already explain...

I do not want to be defeated, that's why we must remove our troops from harms way... The continuous loss of American life is not worth it...

How many more soldiers have to die before you'll be willing to withdrawal? How many more American lives are you willing to see crushed, before you can admit that this conflict is not worth it?

So you're admitting no weapons of mass destruction... Because that's what Bush said...

Do you even know what his job specialty is? Or are you just making this statement because he's a Colonel? Please explain why you believe his "job is to know this"?

Does that make it ok to send them to fight in an unnecessary conflict?

And most American's don't share the republican's desire to allow more US troops to die in Iraq...

 

Jesus! Quit showing only one side!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/01/iraq.poll/index.html

 

I only got one thing to say about that TK.

Mission Accomplished.

 

Must be the gworld question. I have him on ignore. Ask ol' one nut why he isn't in Iraq? Oh, wait, since gworld is against the war, even though he's for the enemy, he gets a pass from the anti-war crowd. Right? Like AGS just got. Kind of proves my point about how low the anti-war crowd will go to justify their hatred.

UN resolutions are worthless. The UN's only purpose is to issue resolution after resolution for Isreal and send out harshly worded letters (not unlike RP would do, if he ever had a chance to win). Whole lot of backbone there

Congress did vote on action with Iraq. Democrats and Republicans. Do you believe the US needs a permission slip to protect it's interests? I sure hope not. Not unless you like letter writing campaigns. I wonder what al qaida thinks about the UN? Heh...

I'm not interested in a semantics game. I believe most terms have solid definitions behind them.

Asked and answered dozens of times here. Do you demand that those who support terrorists do the same? Probably not, huh? There are no scruples when it comes to defeat

I don't see hillary's kid over there, or any number of liberals. Where's kerry's kids? He voted to go to war. He was for the war before he was against it before he was for it before he was against it before he called our troops dumb.

Partisanship and double standards go hand in hand, don't they?

 

Oops, you are quite correct! Most ships don't have a Kinkos on board and to the best of my knowledge, Kinkos hasn't setup shop in the ocean yet. Imagine the surprise that the ship commander wanted a banner, but needed someone to pick it up from the Kinkos on their way to the ship

 

The war is bullshit and young soldiers from your country are getting needlessly wasted every day GTech, surely that itself should be a reason to get out of there.

If you feel that strongly kick off the carpet slippers, get down your local recruiting office, put pen to paper and fuck off over there eh.

Actively defend the BS war you so resolutely support.

 

So you're dodging providing an answer again?

I was under the impression that gworld was a Canadian. Regardless, his involvement has nothing to do with yours. You are Pro-War, remember?

If they are worthless, why did the MUAF use them as the foundation for the legislation? If they are worthless, why did we enforce them by going into Iraq for WMDs?

Did Congress declare war? I seemed to miss that part. Did they authorize war as per the Constitution? If they didn't, then either we're fighting an illegal war, or we're not at war at all. Which is it?

You're handy with the post quoting. I've never read your reason (honestly), so post it once and I will drop it. Why aren't you serving?

They seem to go hand in hand, because I am addressing you as an individual, not as a conservative vs. a neo-conservative. You're the one who voted for Clinton, not me.

Seems like you have a lot of pent up partisan guilt. I on the other hand could care less about what the dems or republicans stand for as a party. I'm interested in the merit of individuals. That explains why I am still posting here tonight. Trying to find your merits.

 

That's why he is a chickenhawk. He supports it, but he won't fight it. Better to let someone else die for the (sic) freedoms he is so proud of.