Lindsey Graham warns Iran if it escalates war in Israel, ‘We’re coming for you’

The Hill ^ | 10/15/23 11:08 AM ET | BY LAUREN SFORZA

[RandFan]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Iran against escalating the conflict in Israel after Hamas launched an unprecedented, deadly attack on the nation more than a week ago.

“I just got off the phone with the Israelis. Their goal is to destroy Hamas in the south and try to save as many innocent Palestinians as possible to prevent escalation north from Hezbollah,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Here’s my message. If Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran, launches a massive attack on Israel, I would consider that a threat to the State of Israel, existential in nature.”

“I will introduce a resolution in the United States Senate to allow military action by the United States in conjunction with Israel to knock Iran out of the oil business. Iran, if you escalate this war, we’re coming for you.”

Earlier this month, militant group Hamas launched its attack on Israel, resulting in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring war on the group, which the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist organization. The war has claimed more than 3,600 lives across Israel and Gaza as Israel prepares for a possible ground operation into Gaza.

Iran-backed Hezbollah, an ally of Hamas, and Israel have exchanged fire in recent days in the wake of Israel’s separate front against Palestinian militant group Hamas.

When asked if he was ready to declare war on Iran, Graham said he was ready to use military force to destroy the funding backing Hamas and Hezbollah.

” I am poised to use military forced to destroy the source of funding for Hamas and Hezbollah. The idea that Iran read about this operation in the paper, or on television is laughable. Ninety-three percent of Hezbollah and Hamas’ money comes from Iran. They’re the source of the problem. They’re the great evil. So, if Hezbollah escalates against Israel, it will be because Iran told them to. Then Iran, you’re in the crosshairs of the United States and Israel.”

[fireman15]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chickenhawk.

[ansel12]

No, the definition is in post 60.

You fell for some lefty who wanted to include fighter pilot George W.

Chickenhawk
noun Informal—A person, especially a public figure, who favors military force or action to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military.

noun pejorative—politics, slang An advocate of war or military action who is avoiding personal military service, or avoided it in the past.

[fireman15]

You fell for some lefty who wanted to include fighter pilot George W.

The definitions that I provided were from the "urban dictionary" which often has more accurate definitions in this type of slang language than other sources... and it certainly has little if anything to do with "George W".

Lindsay was in the Air Force but never learned to fly, be part of a flight crew, or even participate in maintenance operations. He was a lawyer. There is a big difference between his experience and that of either President Bush, who both learned to fly fighter planes. I am an aviation enthusiast and live on an airport with our airplanes. Flying fighter aircraft is a hazardous occupation regardless of whether one flew them in actual combat.

You provided no link, but your definition seems to be similar to the Merriam-Webster version which is probably the least accurate to the actual usage.

A person who was recognized as a military officer for 30 years but never saw any action resembling combat or by his own words was never deployed yet has a long history of calling for others to put themselves in harm's way is considered by most to be one of the most odious examples of a “chickenhawk”. To deny this one would has to be intentionally obtuse.

I do not mean any disrespect to you, but those who were members of the military for an extended period of time through various international conflicts but never participated in any form of combat or managed to avoid ever being in harm's way... are considered to be the same as “firefighters” who never fought any fires. Those who have been in the military but never participated in any form of combat or were never put in harm's way are not considered by most to have been in “active service”.

Here is the Oxford definition:

chick·en hawk
/ˈCHikən hôk/
nounUS
noun: chickenhawk
1. a hawk of a type that is reputed to prey on domestic fowl.
“chicken hawks and peregrine falcons are on the hunt”
INFORMAL
an older man who seeks younger men or boys as sexual partners.
“the chicken hawks who want to find someone young hang out there”
2. INFORMAL
a person who speaks out in support of war yet has avoided active military service.
“rich chicken hawks stay well away from any real fighting”

[ansel12]

LOL, you are even weirder than I thought, that was some bizarre and nutty stuff.

You don’t know anything about military service or what a chickenhawk is, but your talk on military service was truly bizarro land.

[fireman15]

LOL, you are even weirder than I thought, that was some bizarre and nutty stuff.

That is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. I would not try to claim that the wording in my response was as good as it could have been. It was late, and I did not bother to proofread since this has turned into a discussion between only the two of us. But you and I both know that the gist of what I said about how non-military people perceive those who have spent decades in the services but have avoided any and all hazardous assignments was dead on.

A very long time ago it was difficult for someone to advance through the ranks in the officer corps without something in their service record showing that they had been tested by some sort of challenge that put them at personal risk. But there have always been people such as Lindsay Graham who were promoted for other reasons that were not as valiant.

My guess is that this is a sensitive issue for you because of the nature of your own service as “cold warrior” and the fact that you were never a Commissioned Officer. I do find you to be a very interesting character here. Unfortunately, you have a long pattern of using silly and inaccurate insults when you are wrong and losing an argument. I completely disregard them and try to find the point that you were trying to make.

In this last post you had no point at all. I have been tested on many occasions by events that I was extremely lucky to survive. Something about your posts makes me feel that you, like Lindsay Graham have reached a ripe old age without these types of experiences. You lash out for what would appear to be no good reason, but I believe it is something that you do because you are secretly and rightly very ashamed of yourself. And that is why this all leaves me feeling sad for you.

My suggestion to you would be that you concentrate on helping others in need instead of pretending to be something that you obviously are not.

[kiryandil]

You were SPOT ON in your posts #80, #81 and #83 about chicken hawks.

Apparently, the truth has put you on someone's lawn.

[ansel12]

You just don’t seem to know anything about the military or military service, what you are saying just isn’t true.

This Graham guy has you off in some strange world about the military and serving in it, bizarre ideas of your own creation.

You ignored that your definition source defined George W as a chickenhawk, you have something for guys who spray paint aircraft and work on them in support versus people who work in legal support, you used Oxford as a source and it agreed with me but you keep going on and on.

And every serviceman I have ever served with and every veteran in any organization I have ever been a member of or are a member of now would think you defining retired military, active military, and veterans from cooks, and lawyers to Navy SEALs and Green Berets as never having been in active service if they weren’t in combat is truly one of the most bizarre things they had ever heard.

“””Those who have been in the military but never participated in any form of combat or were never put in harm’s way are not considered by most to have been in “active service”.”””

[fireman15]

You ignored that your definition source defined George W as a chickenhawk,

There was no reference to George W as a “chickenhawk” from any source that I provided that I am aware of.

I am sorry Ansel, I am actually around military people almost constantly and have frequently been to both officers’ clubs and organizations made up mostly of enlisted veterans. It is universally acknowledged that there is a big difference between those who have been in harm's way whether in some sort of combat situation or other types of hazardous duty and those who have never been deployed to any type of conflict or were ever in harm's way.

I suppose many people are like you and pretend that there is no difference... to you. This is typically an effort not to hurt people's feelings. But they say something completely different to others. My Uncle was a cook on a diesel sub during the Vietnam. He received both hazardous duty pay for being on the sub. When they were within waters near Vietnam where they were dropping off and picking up men who were going on missions, he received additional pay for that as well. No one I know would deny that his service was without risk.

I do not know about your experiences; you have never shared anything here that I have read that has indicated you were ever in harm's way, or deployed to an area that was in an open conflict. Lindsay Graham's service may have had some significance to someone somewhere, but he certainly was not in harm's way at any time. The vast majority of the time when you would define him as in “active service” he wasn't even able to collect pay from the military. He had a uniform in the closet that was used mostly for special events and political clout and also allows him to collect a much larger pension now. It is a joke.

You are pretending that reality is somehow different because of misleading definitions. It all reminds me very much of "woke" people and their obsessions with pronouns. There are veterans who deserve all the recognition that they could possibly get. Then there are others whose example detracts from all the rest. I have met plenty of both types, both in the military and in the fire service.

[ansel12]

Go to the source that you first tried to use and look at the various definitions offered.

As far as the bizarre descriptions of military service and active duty that you think are real, they aren’t.

You don’t make sense, but you are obsessed with rambling on with your weird personal ideas about the military and military service.

[fireman15]

You don't make sense, but you are obsessed with rambling on with your weird personal ideas about the military and military service.

Again you need to look in the mirror. You know the truth... not all people who have been members of the military have been created equal or deserve the same type of recognition. You have let leftist idealism cloud your judgement.

I come from a military family, my wife comes from a military family, most of our close friends have been in the military. The one who has weird ideas is you.

[ansel12]

Well, be sure and bring up your theories on veterans, your definition of active duty, what constitutes military service, and all the other stuff you think, at your next veteran’s group meeting.

[Osage Orange]

LOL...good post!!!

[fireman15]

I said in post 82, “Those who have been in the military but never participated in any form of combat or were never put in harm’s way are not considered by most to have been in “active service”. I was not referring to a definition that I came up with. I was referring to the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “active service”,

“noun
direct participation in warfare as a member of the armed forces.” This is the definition that comes back first if you do a Google search of the term “active service”.

Your NeoCon hero, Lindsay Graham was a member of the military, but he has never had any “direct participation in warfare”.

I never claimed that this was my definition... Again, I said that most people would not consider Graham’s military experience to be “active service”. Obviously, many if not most terms have different meanings depending on the context that they are used in.

You continue trying to obfuscate by distorting the gist of our conversation. It is disingenuous and I suppose intended to confuse someone who has not read through the comments in our exchange.

[ansel12]

If you only count combat MOSs in combat as active duty then you eliminate almost the entire Navy and Air Force and most of the Soldiers and Marines who have ever served.

Have fun with your imagination.

[ansel12]

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+military+active+service&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1057US1057&oq=define+military+active+service&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARBFGDvSAQk2MTc2OGowajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.va.gov/vetsinworkplace/docs/em_activereserve.html
Active Duty vs. Reserve or National Guard
What is the difference between someone who is active duty military and someone who is in the Reserve or National Guard?
A person who is active duty is in the military full time. They work for the military full time, may live on a military base, and can be deployed at any time. Persons in the Reserve or National Guard are not full-time active duty military personnel, although they can be deployed at any time should the need arise.

https://myfuture.com/military/types-of-military-service
Active Duty means that service members’ jobs are full time, whether they are deployed overseas or domestically. These service members receive a regular paycheck and full benefits, including health care, a housing allowance and 30 days of paid vacation per year.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/archive/07aarch/07a_definitions_Feb99.pdf
4. Active Duty. Full-time duty in the active service of a Uniformed Service, including fulltime training duty, annual training duty, full-time National Guard duty, and attendance, while in the active service, at a school designated as a Military Service school by law or by the Secretary concerned.

[ansel12]

I know what some of the confusion is, you are using a phrase that I have never heard any military person or veteran use, “active service”.

American veterans don’t talk like that, the American military doesn’t talk like that, are you British?

I never heard it during the Vietnam War, or at any veteran’s hospital in different states, or in any veteran’s organization (again in different states).

Active service definition in American English
Collins Dictionary
https://www.collinsdictionary.com › dictionary › activ...
Someone who is on active service is taking part in a war as a member of the armed forces. [mainly British]. In April 1944 he was killed on active service.

[fireman15]

I know what some of the confusion is,

I know too... you are roughly as coherent as Joe Biden on one of his bad days... You have been arguing about the term “Active Service” in multiple posts claiming that I was misusing it. I was quoting definitions of the word “chickenhawk” which you were not familiar with when I used the term.

Oxford Dictionary, "a person who speaks out in support of war yet has avoided active military service."

I never heard it during the Vietnam War,

Are you now claiming that you were in the Vietnam War? Interesting that it has taken nearly 20 years for this revelation to come out.

[fireman15]

But I am glad that I inspired you to look up terms which I have been familiar with for years but which somehow you apparently have just now discovered.

[fireman15]

The only time that I used the term “active duty” in this thread was in post 76 when I was quoting from a New York Times article,

“During the 1990–1991 Gulf War, Graham was recalled to active duty, serving as a judge advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war. In 1998, the Capitol Hill daily newspaper The Hill contended that Graham was describing himself on his website as an Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran. Graham responded: “I have not told anybody I'm a combatant. I'm not a war hero, and never said I was. ... If I have lied about my military record, I'm not fit to serve in Congress”, further noting that he “never deployed”.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/lindsey-grahams-curious-military-career.html

You imagined that I misused the term and have scolded me multiple times. You seem to have a real problem staying focused.

[fireman15]

If you only count combat MOSs in combat as active duty then you eliminate almost the entire Navy and Air Force and most of the Soldiers and Marines who have ever served.

You are so foolish.

From post my post 88,

“My Uncle was a cook on a diesel sub during the Vietnam War. He received hazardous duty pay for being on the sub. When they were within waters near Vietnam where they were dropping off and picking up men who were going on missions, he received additional pay for that as well. No one I know would deny that his service was without risk.”