hornsofthedevil: Glad you've clarified your original post.

You ask about those who recognised the evil of Hussein and yet question the recent military action there. I have yet to see any correlation between the morality of a nation's leadership and the willingness of the west to bomb it.

You ascribe views to me I can't recall expressing. However, since you're concerned about the welfare of the people of Iraq, you might wish to enquire of Donald Rumsfeld what his answer to your question might be. Why did he shake Hussein's hand after Hussein had used chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people?

Edited by author 05-15-2003 08:22 AM
Hi.

This is the creator of "Chickenhawk Cards" (http://www.chickenhawkcards.com).

No. We are not affiliated with Newsmax. But they did inspire our deck.

It pissed me off to no end how they are trying to suggest anyone with a dissenting opinion of the war is unpatriotic so I decided the conservatives could swallow a little of what they're dishing out.

Those who've served (Colin Powell for example) are usually careful before wanting to go to war. Blowhards like the ones depicted in the set have never, ever placed themselves in armed combat or chosen to enlist in support of any cause.

People like Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc... they could have enlisted and served their country during the conflicts of their time. They didn't. As for the senators and congressmen... they're a bunch of draft dodging pussies as well.

The deck was also inspired by the roster kept at the New Hampshire Gazette. Go visit it for more in depth coverage at: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.
 
If Newsmax can make mock anti-war protestors... I can do the same mocking republican chickenhawks. And the quotes and factoids on the cards are true (researched them all thoroughly.)

I wonder how they will all like it?

The cards are not just a novelty item, it's my way of identifying every last one of these jagoff politicians and pundits who don't think twice about sending others into battle while having avoided service themselves. Maybe if they circulate enough people will have a good checklist of who to vote AGAINST next election.

Hope you all enjoy the site and the cards.

Creator, CHICKENHAWKCARDS.COM

Edited by author 05-14-2003 03:53 PM
Weevil: No, you're thinking of the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes.

iblis }()+

Adam in Poland wrote:
"I also hope that hornsofthedevil is not suggesting that opponents of military action denied the nature of Hussein and his regime."

No i am not suggesting that at all. i am bringing into question the convicions of those who recognized this rabid tyrant and opposed a use of force against him. What exactly did you want to do about him?
humor me- was it sanctions you wanted? what was the great solution to Saddam that wasn't used. Force deposed him and sent a message to other tyrants. Here is a headline from today:

<Hundreds of grieving relatives gathered today at a mass grave discovered about 55 miles from Baghdad, Iraq. A forensic team working at the site says up to 11,000 bodies may be buried there. The dead are thought to be mostly Iraqis -- killed during an uprising against Saddam Hussein.>

Huh. I always thought a chickenhawk was somebody who fucked little boys.

i find it curious that these cards list the "Gulf War" and "Desert Storm" as the wars that Katherine Harris, Sean Hannity, and Anne Coulter "avoided".

Equally perplexing are the quotes given at the bottom of their cards - none of them have anything to do with war. One has to do with the death penalty for John Walker Lindh, one has to do with black voter fraud, and one has to do with the war on terror (generically).

I am for exposing hypocrisy as much as the next rabble-rouser, but I at least would prefer it to make sense and be funny. These examples are just lame.

I was at West Point when GWB gave his big policy speech promising preemptive wars. The audience, up in the bleachers went wild in enthusiasm. The Cadets graduating, were noticeably quieter.

He's a scoundrel, or worse.

I hope and assume that Senator McCain's support of military action against Iraq was based on something a little more meaningful than "Saddam was evil".

I also hope that hornsofthedevil is not suggesting that opponents of military action denied the nature of Hussein and his regime.

If you look carefully at their websites, you will realize that the NewsMaxStore.com (Deck of Weasels) and www.chickenhawkcards.com are probably the same outfit.

Just to push the MCain thing, since it was brought up, this real life war hero was then vilified by the coward who now shames our country by the office that he holds.

Hoards of strange and freaky 'pro americans' called him a 'RINO' because he had the audacity to challenge the first weasel in the primary...

well, let us not forget Senator MCain, a man who endured not only the horrors of battle, but the horrific torture at the hands of Ho Chi Mihn's regime. McCain was offered to be released when that barbaric government found out his father was an Admiral in the Navy and McCain refused the pardon and stuck to the military code that no POW is to be released without all being released. The man was in such bad shape that his N. Vietnamese captors put him in the care of other POWs, so they could not be blamed for his death in the camp.

the man endured this staggering episode and he was still supportive of military action against Iraq. Not because he is a war monger- but because he understands that Saddam was evil and to tolerate him was to support him. we spent decades looking the other way. it was the right thing to do.

Edited by author 05-13-2003 11:25 PM
Brian Carnell - If you want to discuss Heinlein's attitudes towards war and the question of when it is right to wage it, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Heinlein recognized that even in a 'just' war - innocents fighting tyrants - innocents are killed, hurt and forever changed by the well-intentioned heroes that lead them.

I would love to think that the US was being led by an unerring computer like 'Mike', whose main goal is our survival, seconded by a desire to see the struggle succeed without bloodshed.

Starship Troopers was Heinlein's take on a government in which military service was compulsory if you wanted to gain citizenship. In 'Starship Troopers', most of the people who command our troops wouldn't even be allowed to vote.

It's interesting that the people who haven't been in the military are usually the ones most enthusiastic about sending men to their death. When one of the "hawks" turns out to have not been willing to risk his own life for his country when he was called upon to do so it looks like cowardice.

I'm speaking as a United States Navy veteran, a former crewman of the U.S.S. Independence (CV-62).

"bellicosity (a warlike manner or temperament), public prominence, and a curious lack of wartime service when others their age had no trouble finding the fight."

Ah, just like Starship Troopers. Only people who have served in the military should ever weigh in about war!