Generation ChickenHawk

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I, and others have been over this before.

Not successfully. You're probably used to that though, and have lowered your standards.

Cycloptichorn

Typical smart ass reply when you have nothing to add. It's been shown before and you are just to arrogant to admit you are wrong.

Link to it.

Funny line coming from the fellow who posted what you did as the second comment in the thread.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/23/911_generation/index.html

Quote:

The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"

There are currently 41.9 million Americans (.pdf) who are between the ages of 18-29 -- the "9/11 Generation." And according to the CIA, there are roughly 108 million Americans "fit for militiary service" -- 54 million males and 54 million females who, as the CIA defines it, are able-bodied and between the ages of 18-49.

But the total number (.pdf) on active duty in American's armed services in 2007 only totaled roughly 1.4 million. Thus, a meager 1% of the total number of Americans fit for military service -- and less than 1/3 of 1% of the total number of Americans -- actually serve in the armed forces.

Moreover, roughly 60% (.pdf) of those in the armed forces are in the 18-29 age group, which means that 800,000 out of the 41 million Americans in this 9/11 Generation -- i.e., 2% -- have "answered the call" by volunteering to fight in the Epic War of Civilization against the Existential Islamofascism Threat. Thus, 98% of the "9/11 Generation" in America refuses to serve. It is a redundancy to say so, but nonetheless, the Weekly Standard cover story is a fraud.

And this is how Chickenhawks try and make themselves feel better about the situation: false bravado and pumping up of the 'younger generation,' who hasn't given but a tiny percent of the participation of former wars.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This "hawk" risked his health and at times his life building weaponry for use by our military. For this I am labeled a "chickenhawk" by the libtards of A2K...

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

This "hawk" risked his health and at times his life building weaponry for use by our military. For this I am labeled a "chickenhawk" by the libtards of A2K...

Yup, too much of a coward to go actually use the guns you love so much.

Your excuses are immaterial. You risked your life to make money, just like any other job. You didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart or any sense of sacrifice. Go peddle that weak **** elsewhere.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.

I find this so incredibly insulting. Not to me -- I wasn't born yet -- but to all those people who were drafted and died fighting or were permanently disabled mentally or physically. History didn't call the Baby Boomers. History went to their houses and dragged them out of bed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
This "hawk" risked his health and at times his life building weaponry for use by our military. For this I am labeled a "chickenhawk" by the libtards of A2K...

Yup, too much of a coward to go actually use the guns you love so much.

Your excuses are immaterial. You risked your life to make money, just like any other job. You didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart or any sense of sacrifice. Go peddle that weak **** elsewhere.

Cycloptichorn

WTF would I be making excuses for? I came of age in the late '70s and early '80s. We weren't fighting any war other than the cold war, and I went into battle against that. In so doing, the weapons we produced also made for a resounding victory in the Gulf War. Why 41 never went into Bagdhad is beyond me, then eight years of douchebag Bill doing nothing but letting Saddam shoot at our planes... During which time they dismantled and sold off most of their WMD programs and purchased conventional weapons which they hid all over the place and are now using to kill our troops...

43 is 100% correct to be in Iraq, but it's truly unfortunate he had to try to clean up after the retard from Arkansas...

Liberals suck and their pacifist thinking gets more and more people killed. Innocents as well as service men and women.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why 41 never went into Bagdhad is beyond me

Haven't been paying attention for five solid years now, I see.

He didn't invade Bagdhad b/c he didn't want to deal with the mess. Which is exactly what we are doing right now.

You didn't go into battle against anything, so please stop saying that. I don't care if you worked on a plane or bombs or something. It isn't even close to the same thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I did what I could D-A.

We all fight our own battles. I fight the good fight here every day at A2K. Trying desperately to contain political correctness and liberal, socialist, wanna-be-commies such as yourself. The truth is so obvious, yet you continue to deny that truth and spew your lies. I can't just give it a pass.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I did what I could D-A.

We all fight our own battles. I fight the good fight here every day at A2K. Trying desperately to contain political correctness and liberal, socialist, wanna-be-commies such as yourself. The truth is so obvious, yet you continue to deny that truth and spew your lies. I can't just give it a pass.

The fact that you equate posting on a forum with 'fighting a battle' is ridiculous. You aren't fighting ****. You're sitting in front of a keyboard, in perfect safety, typing away. It's insulting to the troops who are being shot at and blown up for you to say such a thing. Demeaning to their cause.

Though you certainly aren't the only one; there's a veritable legion of you in the 101st Keyboard Kommandos... bravely stopping Islamofascism one word at a time. You pretend you're something more then you actually are, which is just another person who talks a much bigger game then he walks.

It isn't surprising, given the gun fascination that you have; it's pretty obvious that fake toughness has supplanted actual toughness for those like yourself. From a psychological point of view, it's predictable, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ok dips--t, what do you do for a living? How do you support the troops and your country?

There's nothing wrong with working a keyboard. I'm in it for hearts and minds. People need to understand that you've fallen for the big lie. You are an entitlement freak. Admit it.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Ok dips--t, what do you do for a living? How do you support the troops and your country?

There's nothing wrong with working a keyboard. I'm in it for hearts and minds. People need to understand that you've fallen for the big lie. You are an entitlement freak. Admit it.

You really win the 'hearts and minds' with your constant snark and insults, yaknow? Once again, not surprising to hear you say such a thing; you are as clueless about how to go about actually doing such a thing as those who are doing the same thing in the Middle East.

The armed forces would not accept someone with a strong visual impairment such as mine, I found out. I work behind a keyboard as well. The difference is, I don't act as if it makes me a tough guy, like you do. I don't pretend that I'm fighting anything. I don't pump myself up with false bravado. That's what makes me a regular guy, and you, well, I don't really need to go on, do I?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm so sorry you shot your eye out with that BB gun....

So, you still haven't told us what you do...

0 Replies

My mother always did warn me.

I work in a Law School in California. I know, I know - it's not a military job or even one which supports the military. But, then again, I don't present myself as a militaristic, faux-tough douchebag like you do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,
I must point something out to you.
That long cut and paste you did mentioned the number of people in the US military.

If you notice,it specified ACTIVE DUTY.
That is not a fair statement,because it ignored the reservesd,the national guard,and the individual ready reserves.
When you add the NG and the reserves alone,you get a whole different number...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Foreign_relations_and_military

Quote:

The United States Department of Defense administers the armed forces, including the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. The Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security in peacetime and the Department of the Navy in times of war. In 2005, the military had 1.38 million personnel on active duty,[45] along with several hundred thousand each in the Reserves and the National Guard for a total of 2.3 million troops.

The individual ready reserve comprises every person that is a veteran and able to be recalled.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-irr.htm

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

Now,when you add the IRR into the nnumbers,it goes up even more.
The link you posted seemed to ignore that.
I wonder why.

0 Replies

The fact that those who have already served, can be called up at any time, doesn't equate to active service, sorry.

And even if it does, you're talking about 1% vs. .5% of the population. Big f*cking whoop. Doesn't even come close to the huge participation in WW2, WW1.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My mother always did warn me.

I work in a Law School in California. I know, I know - it's not a military job or even one which supports the military. But, then again, I don't present myself as a militaristic, faux-tough douchebag like you do.

Cycloptichorn

Kill all the lawyers.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Max Blumenthal goes to the Young Republicans convention in DC, and asks why none of them - who strongly support the WoT and the War in Iraq - have bothered to sign up and serve in the armed forces....They are too cowardly to put their ass on the line, but continually advocate that others do so.

Cycloptichorn

Attacking an argument by attacking the arguer is invalid. Even if you can prove both your thesis about his faults, and that the poster is also a serial killer, you haven't taken the first step towards disproving his argument. Are you trying to prove his words incorrect or are you just trying to appear to win?

Poster 1: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
Poster 2: Do you still beat your wife?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Max Blumenthal goes to the Young Republicans convention in DC, and asks why none of them - who strongly support the WoT and the War in Iraq - have bothered to sign up and serve in the armed forces....They are too cowardly to put their ass on the line, but continually advocate that others do so.

Cycloptichorn

Attacking an argument by attacking the arguer is invalid. Even if you can prove both your thesis about his faults, and that the poster is also a serial killer, you haven't taken the first step towards disproving his argument. Are you trying to prove his words incorrect or are you just trying to appear to win?

Poster 1: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
Poster 2: Do you still beat your wife?

That's a non-sequitur.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I did what I could D-A.

We all fight our own battles. I fight the good fight here every day at A2K. Trying desperately to contain political correctness and liberal, socialist, wanna-be-commies such as yourself. The truth is so obvious, yet you continue to deny that truth and spew your lies. I can't just give it a pass.

Fighting Keyboardist 101st LOL

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I did what I could D-A.

We all fight our own battles. I fight the good fight here every day at A2K. Trying desperately to contain political correctness and liberal, socialist, wanna-be-commies such as yourself. The truth is so obvious, yet you continue to deny that truth and spew your lies. I can't just give it a pass.

Fighting Keyboardist 101st LOL

I think you might be surprised at what the government does in this realm. Me, I'm a private contractor, a Blackqwerty.

0 Replies

Generation ChickenHawk

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know