Generation Chickenhawk

Generation Chickenhawk-The unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour

And they say that this current generation doesn’t understand the most important issues.

:bravo:

Should be “Generations of Chickenhawks”

[quote]During his years as an undergraduate at Manhattan College and then at New York University Law School, Giuliani qualified for a student deferment. Upon graduation from law school in 1968, he lost that temporary deferment and his draft status reverted to 1-A, the designation awarded to those most qualified for induction into the Army.

At the same time, Giuliani won a clerkship with federal Judge Lloyd McMahon in the fabled Southern District of New York, where he would become the United States attorney. He naturally had no desire to trade his ticket on the legal profession’s fast track for latrine duty in the jungle. So he quickly applied for another deferment based on his judicial clerkship. This time the Selective Service System denied his claim.

That was when the desperate Giuliani prevailed upon his boss to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an “essential” civilian employee. As the great tabloid columnist Jimmy Breslin noted 20 years later, during the former prosecutor’s first campaign for mayor: “Giuliani did not attend the war in Vietnam because federal Judge Lloyd MacMahon [sic] wrote a letter to the draft board in 1969 and got him out. Giuliani was a law clerk for MacMahon, who at the time was hearing Selective Service cases. MacMahon’s letter to Giuliani’s draft board stated that Giuliani was so necessary as a law clerk that he could not be allowed to get shot at in Vietnam.”

His clerkship ended the following year but his luck held firm. By then President Nixon had transformed the Selective Service into a lottery system, and despite Rudy’s renewed 1-A status, he drew a high lottery number and was never drafted.

Today Giuliani’s problem is not avoiding military service but explaining how and why he avoided it. A spokesperson for the candidate recently told New York magazine that he “has made it clear that if he had been called up, he would have served,” which doesn’t quite expiate his strenuous efforts to make sure that never happened. Giuliani opposed the Vietnam War for “strategic and tactical” reasons as well, according to his flack. Of course, that sounds much like the bipartisan dissent against the Iraq war that he now dismisses so contemptuously.

If Giuliani has a draft problem, Romney’s may be even worse. The former Massachusetts governor, whose supporters object strenuously to any discussion of his religious beliefs, got his military service deferred thanks to the Mormon church.

Like Giuliani and millions of other young American men at the time, Romney started out with student deferments. But he left Stanford after only two semesters in 1966 and would have become eligible for the draft – except that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Michigan, his home state, provided him with a fresh deferment as a missionary. According to an excellent investigative series that appeared last month in the Boston Globe, that deferment, which described Romney as a “minister of religion or divinity student,” protected him from the draft between July 1966 and February 1969, when he enrolled in Brigham Young University to complete his undergraduate degree. Mormons in each state could select a limited number of young men upon whom to confer missionary status during the Vietnam years, and Romney was fortunate enough to be chosen. (Coincidentally, or possibly not, Mitt’s father, George W. Romney, was governor of Michigan at the time.)

Now Romney echoes Giuliani by asserting that if he had been called, he would have served. “I was supportive of my country,” he told Globe reporter Michael Kranish. “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” Perhaps. But it is hard to blame Romney for choosing missionary work over military service. After all, the Mormons didn’t send him to proselytize in the slums of the Philippines, Guatemala or Kenya.

They sent him to France.[/quote]

salon.com/opinion/conason/20 … nd_romney/

This example pretty clearly illustrates why we’re losing the war of terror. While their jihadis are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up our jihadis are a bunch of spineless careerists who get edgy at the mere thought of doing anything that involves personal sacrifice.

I think it’s high time consequently that we come up with a Plan B which doesn’t rely on the fighting fire with fire, jihadis vs. jihadis concept to fix things. Something more along these lines.

As if the DemoCarts would do a damn shade better.
The whole stinking frame is rotten to the core.

Yes, no matter how bad they can be, the Dems are still better than the Repubs.

This video is Republican youth at their classic best – clear where that their learned their values from.

Note that in the 2006 election the vast majority of war-vet candidates for office were Democrats – the “Fighting Dems” as they were called. The Republicans were only able to come up with one guy to run for a seat in Texas who completely lamed out and had his ass handed to him on national TV by Marine Maj. Paul Hackett – just took that guy to pieces as soon as he started parroting GOP “talking points” instead of discussing the Iraq situation.

[quote=“spook”]This example pretty clearly illustrates why we’re losing the war of terror. While their jihadis are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up our jihadis are a bunch of spineless careerists who get edgy at the mere thought of doing anything that involves personal sacrifice.

I think it’s high time consequently that we come up with a Plan B which doesn’t rely on the fighting fire with fire, jihadis vs. jihadis concept to fix things. Something more along these lines.[/quote]

Congratulations spook! You have just earned the Twisted Sense of Moral Equivalency Award! Jaboney has held that worthy prize for several months, but equating Western leaders with jihadis is a new low on these forums, and you must be given your just deserts. Congratulations again!

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]This example pretty clearly illustrates why we’re losing the war of terror. While their jihadis are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up our jihadis are a bunch of spineless careerists who get edgy at the mere thought of doing anything that involves personal sacrifice.

I think it’s high time consequently that we come up with a Plan B which doesn’t rely on the fighting fire with fire, jihadis vs. jihadis concept to fix things. Something more along these lines.[/quote]

Congratulations spook! You have just earned the Twisted Sense of Moral Equivalency Award! Jaboney has held that worthy prize for several months, but equating Western leaders with jihadis is a new low on these forums, and you must be given your just deserts. Congratulations again![/quote]

Did spook actually equate them? Looks like he differentiated them. “Jihadi” of course is a term of convenience to describe those eager to engage the other side in combat without spending a long sentence to do so. Thus, to avoid your fear that the beloved members of the Bush Jugend are referred to with a funny-sounding “islamic” word, I’ll rephrase spook’s post in a different way to match more “American” terminology:

“This example pretty clearly illustrates why we’re losing the war of terror. While their gung-ho, jingoistic people are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up our gung-ho, jingoistic people are a bunch of spineless careerists who get edgy at the mere thought of doing anything that involves personal sacrifice.”

Figure out the differences between the two sets of people. Keep in mind that we, as a society, faced fanatics before in fighting the Japanese during World War II – the idea that our soldiers fought with the idea of coming home and theirs fought with the aim of dying. Clint Eastwood cited that as what sparked his interest in making the bookended movies “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima”. In general, that would also apply to the fight against fanatical muslims; however in the specific case of College Republicans it would not. College Republicans want other Americans to fight and die without risking themselves.

Agreed. But that isn’t what spook said, and try as you might, you can’t deprive him of his well-earned award! Did you read the link spook provided? Let’s see what it has to say about “literalist” Islam:

No mention, of course, of the fact that jihad has throughout Islamic history been considered a duty of all Muslim men. No mention, of course, of the Muslim conquest of 2/3 of Christendom from the 7th to 8th centuries (AD), or the continuing conquest after that of Eastern and Central Europe. However, the preceding sentences to the above helpfully inform us.

Oh I get it! So those Turkish historians who inform us that the Ottoman Empire perceived its failed siege of Vienna in 1683 to be a temporary setback, and was determined to eventually conquer all of Europe, are just making it up. I mean otherwise, wow man, the last time I checked in 1683 the European powers had little more than a commercial presence in the Islamic world. So how could there be Muslim aggression against Christians if the Christians had not invaded Muslim countries?

I’m so glad we have spook around to enlighten us all!

I certainly do believe that Christian jihadis are just as nutty and dangerous as Muslim jihadis. See for yourself.
Rapture Ready