DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Bleacher Bums Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 147094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 1, 2013, 10:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
davep, whether you are or are not a war hawk, I did define it.
I referenced you, and then wrote, "I consider that a war hawk."
In other words, "that is my definition of a war hawk."
Do you need it set out for you as Webster's would?
HTML http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war%20hawk
Definition of WAR HAWK
: a person who clamors for war; especially : a jingoistic
American favoring war with Britain around 1812
I also referenced history, and even a specific period in history
(the War of 1812.... you and Curt probably remember it).
At that time two of the more the prominent war hawks were Henry
Clay and John Calhoun. The term has been around a long time.
Even has a wikipedia entry for it.
But a war hawk need not call for using military force to advance
any and all American interests, and nothing in the definition I
offered would suggest that.
Now, to try to clarify whether you are or are not, what military
involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what
proposed or actual involvement have you opposed? When have you
supported remaining long than we did and when have you supported
leaving before we did?
You have made clear many times that you oppose any meaningful
reduction in U.S. military bases overseas or the number of
troops overseas and that you believe we need to be pretty much
everywhere we are, and perhaps more. You ridiculed Ron Paul
for calling for major cuts in military spending and reducing
overseas bases. You seem to like the idea of the U.S. using
force to get its way around the world, and were very upset by my
suggestion that perhaps the world was made a better place by
U.S. rivals having nuclear weapons to counter-balance the
nuclear weapons of the only nation in the world to use them in
combat. You have before ridiculed the idea that U.S.
involvement in the middle east might well result in more
blowback harm to the U.S. than any benefit our level of
involvement there might bring.
To me those are all rather hawkish attitudes.
Have I misread your positions?
#Post#: 147162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 2, 2013, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So your entire definition of War Hawks "have relatively little
concern about blowback from that use of force."? Then I am
certainly not a War Hawk, since I have considerable concern from
blowback from the use of force. For this reason, for instance,
I would not advocate a nuclear strike against a country that has
the ability to strike us back with nuclear weapons.
Do you have a definition that would include ME in it, since you
feel I am one? Or are you merely trying to use an ad Hominem
attack to support a weak or non-existant argument?
As far as your above statements are concerned, most are totally
false.
I do not oppose any meaningful reduction in US military bases
overseas or the number of troops overseas. For instance, I
think we should close down most or all bases in Europe and South
Korea. That sounds meaningful to me.
I do not believe that we need to be pretty much everywhere we
are. As I said, we do not need to be in Europe, South Korea and
several areas, and I think we can close at least half the bases
in the United States.
I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way
around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical
harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm,
or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us
physical harm.
I certainly do not believe that the world would be a better
place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear
weapons. There aren't too many people insane enough to believe
that.
I remember ridiculing the idea that U.S. involvement in the
middle east might well result in more blowback harm to the U.S.
than any benefit our level of involvement there might bring.
However, I do believe that there is no alternative than to risk
it.
They may well be hawkish attitudes, but only one applies to me,
and that only partially.
And yes, you have misread my positions, as you consistantly
misread the opinions of almost every poster on the board.
Nor do you use consistancy when you do so. Comparing the
freedom riders of the 60s, who deliberately broke what they
believed to be unjust laws and were willing to face the
consequences of their acts, with a coward that releases military
secrets and then flees to foreign countries to escape the
consequences of his acts, buying sanctuary by giving away
further secrets that do devastating harm to the us, goes beyond
the bounds of logic.
#Post#: 147166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 2, 2013, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147162#msg147162
date=1378151008]
So your entire definition of War Hawks "have relatively little
concern about blowback from that use of force."? Then I am
certainly not a War Hawk, since I have considerable concern from
blowback from the use of force. For this reason, for instance,
I would not advocate a nuclear strike against a country that has
the ability to strike us back with nuclear weapons.
Do you have a definition that would include ME in it, since you
feel I am one?
[/quote]
Yes, war hawk.
And I see your comments about your concern about blow back...
and I have also read your posts here for quite some time.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147162#msg147162
date=1378151008]Or are you merely trying to use an ad Hominem
attack to support a weak or non-existant argument?
[/quote]
Support for what purpose?
We are not engaged in a debate with anyone keeping score, and it
is not as if I am going to change your opinion or my opinion by
pointing out that you are a war hawk.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147162#msg147162
date=1378151008]
I do not oppose any meaningful reduction in US military bases
overseas or the number of troops overseas. For instance, I
think we should close down most or all bases in Europe and South
Korea. That sounds meaningful to me.
[/quote]
I'm sure it does sound meaningful.... to you.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147162#msg147162
date=1378151008]
I do not believe that we need to be pretty much everywhere we
are. As I said, we do not need to be in Europe, South Korea and
several areas, and I think we can close at least half the bases
in the United States.
[/quote]
No, actually you said MOST or all, not all. So is it ALL bases
in Europe, and South Korea.... or MOST? And what "several
areas" are you talking about?
Much depends on perspective, and from my perspective, your
positions as expressed here for years have been quite hawkisk.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147162#msg147162
date=1378151008]
I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way
around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical
harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm,
or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us
physical harm.
[/quote]
Nice abstractions, but considering your prior posts I somehow
think that when push came to shove you would come down on the
side of hawkish positions.... that was why I asked a couple of
questions to try to address where you actually stood, though you
ignored the questions.
I will offer them again: what military involvement of the U.S.
since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual
involvement have you opposed? When have you supported remaining
longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we
did?
[quote]
I certainly do not believe that the world would be a better
place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear
weapons. There aren't too many people insane enough to believe
that.
[/quote]
Great straw man argument, but it indicates that either YOU are
now advancing a position to help in an argument when there is
not debate judge and your comment certainly is not going to
influence either you or me.... or you are misreading someone
else's opinion. It is not that the world would be a better
place by having countries that wish to harm us have nuclear
weapons. It is instead that the world is a better place when no
single nation, even one like the United States which likes to
consider itself as saintly, having weaponry which would allow it
to dominate the globe and run roughshod over everyone else.
[quote]
I remember ridiculing the idea that U.S. involvement in the
middle east might well result in more blowback harm to the U.S.
than any benefit our level of involvement there might bring.
However, I do believe that there is no alternative than to risk
it.
[/quote]
Hawks routinely talk about their concerns (John McCain is a
great example), but also routinely ultimately conclude that
there is no other alternative.
[quote]
And yes, you have misread my positions, as you consistantly
misread the opinions of almost every poster on the board.
[/quote]
So far you haven't offered any examples in this discussion of my
misreading of your position, but simply have disagreed with my
characterization of your position.
[quote]Comparing the freedom riders of the 60s, who deliberately
broke what they believed to be unjust laws and were willing to
face the consequences of their acts, with a coward that releases
military secrets and then flees to foreign countries to escape
the consequences of his acts, buying sanctuary by giving away
further secrets that do devastating harm to the us, goes beyond
the bounds of logic.
[/quote]
Apples and oranges. The freedom riders HAD to allow themselves
to be arrested, or beaten or jailed to make their point. That
was not needed for what Snowden did, and had he allowed himself
to have been jailed, he would also have eliminated his
opportunity to respond to the next government lie in response to
his disclosures or to disclose anything else.
[quote].... a coward that releases military secrets and then
flees to foreign countries to escape the consequences of his
acts, buying sanctuary by giving away further secrets that do
devastating harm to the us, goes beyond the bounds of logic.
[/quote]
What harm to us as a nation? The harm to us was in the form of
the spying on us. As to him "buying sanctuary by giving away
further secrets," that's a nice leap of logic, but on not
supported by evidence.
#Post#: 147174--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 2, 2013, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You keep mentioning that I have made many posts that prove your
point, but you have failed to point to a single one.
But you are right. We are certainly not engaged in a meaningful
debate.
#Post#: 147177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 2, 2013, 6:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Talk about mis-reading... nowhere did I write were were not
engaged in meaningful debate. I said there was no one SCORING a
debate, and pointed out that neither of us would likely be
swayed by ad hominems (your wording was "trying to use an ad
Hominem attack to support a weak or non-existant argument").
That is not at all the same as saying the debate (or discussion)
was not meaningful.
Of course it might be more meaningful if you would at least
attempt to respond to the rather simple questions I posed,
intended to flesh out just how hawkish you might be... since my
reading of your posts leads me to conclude that you are, and
your claim is that you are not.
So, for the third time now: what military involvement of the
U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual
involvement have you opposed? When have you supported remaining
longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we
did?
#Post#: 147179--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 2, 2013, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg147174#msg147174
date=1378161510]
You keep mentioning that I have made many posts that prove your
point, but you have failed to point to a single one.
[/quote]
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2011, 01:49:25 pm »
"t also doesn't mean you get to violate international law... nor
does being a liberal, since Obama was the one doing the
violating here."
If a foreign country protects a terrorist that has wreaked
destruction in America, I could care less about criminal
international law. When Tunisia gave safe harbor to pirates,
Jefferson went in after them. It was the right thing to do.
When Cambodia gave safe harbor to the Viet Cong, we went after
them. It was the right thing to do. When Pakistan gives safe
harbor to the Taliban, we go after them. It is the right thing
to do.
Do you want more?
#Post#: 147185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 2, 2013, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I said above
I do NOT like the idea of the US using force to get it's way
around the world, except those who are trying to do us physical
harm, or support those that are trying to do us physical harm,
or harbor within their borders those who are trying to do us
physical harm.
Cambodia was giving safe harbor to the Viet Cong, who were
trying to do us harm.
#Post#: 147188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 2, 2013, 8:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, davep, the Viet Cong were trying to conquer South Vietnam.
They were not trying to do us harm. Had we not been there
helping South Vietnam, they wouldn't have cared about us at all.
We were there trying to kill them. They fought back. This is
a lot like much of the blowback we suffer from our activities in
the middle east....
And for a fourth time: what military involvement of the U.S.
since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual
involvement have you opposed? When have you supported remaining
longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we
did?
Oh, and since we are close to your comment about my misreading
of your posts, I had to laugh a few minutes ago when I ran
across one of your earlier claims that I had "misread" what you
had written.
[quote]
Quote from: davep on May 24, 2011, 01:38:43 pm
Jes - you are once again resorting to the extreme. I never said
that there were ZERO small farmers.
Dave, here is what you wrote: But my point was that without the
subsidies, the small farmers would no longer exist.
True enough that you did not say there would be "ZERO small
farmers." You just said "small farmers would no longer exist."
Excuse me if I took those to mean the same thing.
Quote from: davep on May 24, 2011, 01:38:43 pm
And I never said that a politician has to be pro-ethanol subsidy
in order to win in Iowa. Merely that announcing that you are
anti-ethanol subsidy will lose more votes than it wins in Iowa.
What you wrote was Some people are indeed willing to vote for
the national interests over their own narrow interests.
Unfortunately, not enough to actually win an election over those
that DO vote in their own narrow interest.
Again, excuse me if I see those posts as in conflict. You
apparently are able to reconcile them. I bow to your clearly
superior command of the language, because I can't.
[/quote]
That is pretty common for the exchanges when you contend I
"misread" what you wrote, though the problem more often appears
to be that I simply read the words in context and apply standard
meanings to them, even if sometimes you fail to write what you
actually meant... those two examples immediately above might
help to illustrate my point. (You will find the original here:
HTML http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/<br
/>)
#Post#: 147189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Playtwo Date: September 2, 2013, 8:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
::)
#Post#: 147191--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: September 2, 2013, 9:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Jes Beard link=topic=96.msg147188#msg147188
date=1378171136]
No, davep, the Viet Cong were trying to conquer South Vietnam.
They were not trying to do us harm. Had we not been there
helping South Vietnam, they wouldn't have cared about us at all.
We were there trying to kill them. They fought back. This is
a lot like much of the blowback we suffer from our activities in
the middle east....
And for a fourth time: what military involvement of the U.S.
since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual
involvement have you opposed? When have you supported remaining
longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we
did?
Oh, and since we are close to your comment about my misreading
of your posts, I had to laugh a few minutes ago when I ran
across one of your earlier claims that I had "misread" what you
had written.
That is pretty common for the exchanges when you contend I
"misread" what you wrote, though the problem more often appears
to be that I simply read the words in context and apply standard
meanings to them, even if sometimes you fail to write what you
actually meant... those two examples immediately above might
help to illustrate my point. (You will find the original here:
HTML http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/<br
/>)
[/quote]
Don't be an idiot. The Viet Cong were trying to harm our
troops. We sent them there, and they are us.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page