• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A War-Hawk for 2016?

A War-Hawk for 2016

  • Total voters
    28
I'm not sure what a "War-Hawk" actually is but I'm guessing it's not a good thing. Most people who are expert at waging war hate waging war. It's what makes them expert and rational as opposed to flippant and hollow. Men and women who are expert at waging war don't issue ultimatums and/or red lines they have no intention of defending. Men and women who are expert at waging war don't issue "junior varsity" comments about an opponent that makes only the issuer of the comment look weak and juvenile.

There are no military men or women running for the Presidential nomination of either party, that I'm aware of. But such a person would be a great option for the times we live in. In the absence of such a leader, I would hope that whomever wins the Presidency next time around will listen to and consult with their military leaders when it comes to these issues and doesn't consult only with political hacks who kiss his/her ass for a living.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Do we need a war-hawk as the next President?

I think we need someone who will roll up there sleeves and deal with Russia, Ukraine, the Mid-East, ISIS and North Africa. Each one of these areas plus a few other issues like Domestic Terrorism in Europe are some of Obama's failures. Foreign Policy used to be his strong suit. Not anymore!

How many of you agree with me that we need a war-hawk as President? And no. I am not talking about Hillary.
Click to expand...

Since you apparently want us in a series of unending wars, I assume you're planning on enlisting to lead from the front, right? Or are you only so giddy about it because you know you won't have to lift a finger for it?

No thanks, I've seen war and it's not fun and games.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Do we need a war-hawk as the next President?

I think we need someone who will roll up there sleeves and deal with Russia, Ukraine, the Mid-East, ISIS and North Africa. Each one of these areas plus a few other issues like Domestic Terrorism in Europe are some of Obama's failures. Foreign Policy used to be his strong suit. Not anymore!

How many of you agree with me that we need a war-hawk as President? And no. I am not talking about Hillary.
Click to expand...

I think someone who would carry out Obama-style foreign policy to a slightly greater extent, like Hillary, would be ideal. I disagree with the neoconservative approach to hostile states, but I also don't want a mindless isolationist like Ron Paul or even Rand Paul.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not sure what a "War-Hawk" actually is but I'm guessing it's not a good thing. Most people who are expert at waging war hate waging war. It's what makes them expert and rational as opposed to flippant and hollow. Men and women who are expert at waging war don't issue ultimatums and/or red lines they have no intention of defending. Men and women who are expert at waging war don't issue "junior varsity" comments about an opponent that makes only the issuer of the comment look weak and juvenile.

There are no military men or women running for the Presidential nomination of either party, that I'm aware of. But such a person would be a great option for the times we live in. In the absence of such a leader, I would hope that whomever wins the Presidency next time around will listen to and consult with their military leaders when it comes to these issues and doesn't consult only with political hacks who kiss his/her ass for a living.
Click to expand...

Um hmm. Because everybody knows that being an expert at waging war is a virtue.
 
MadLib said:
I think someone who would carry out Obama-style foreign policy to a slightly greater extent, like Hillary, would be ideal. I disagree with the neoconservative approach to hostile states, but I also don't want a mindless isolationist like Ron Paul or even Rand Paul.
Click to expand...

Right, because if the view point and policy isn't aggression, its "mindless"! And because we can throw out the isolationist label on the person that can accomplish the ends without it. And then the strawman N Chamberlain can be pointed to every time somebody suggests a non military approach to problems, because again, we know that all problems have a Nazi/Hitler comparison.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Apparently, you didn't. I'm glad I was of service.
Click to expand...

You and your hateful propensity for violence has never been of service. I still consider war to be a human scourge. Certainly nothing of virtue.
 
Montecresto said:
You and your hateful propensity for violence has never been of service. I still consider war to be a human scourge. Certainly nothing of virtue.
Click to expand...

Your false personal insults aside, I see you didn't understand a word I posted in the thread you quoted. Too bad.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Do we need a war-hawk as the next President?
Click to expand...


I think we need someone who will roll up there sleeves and deal with Russia, Ukraine, the Mid-East, ISIS and North Africa. Each one of these areas plus a few other issues like Domestic Terrorism in Europe are some of Obama's failures. Foreign Policy used to be his strong suit. Not anymore!
Click to expand...


Roll up thier sleeves implies hard work, I think the hard work is expected of the young men and women we send to do violence on our behalf. "rolling ones sleeves" really isn't impressive.


I for one am done with this endless cycle of war with no purpose.


How many of you agree with me that we need a war-hawk as President? And no. I am not talking about Hillary.
Click to expand...



We are not a country who's political system can stand a long protracted war.


If we do get a "war-hawk" president, will you be fighting for him?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your false personal insults aside, I see you didn't understand a word I posted in the thread you quoted. Too bad.
Click to expand...

False?!? This criticism has much company in elements on both fringes, one of which you reside.
 
TeleKat said:
No way. A war-hawk is the last thing we need for 2016. After nearly a century of perpetual war, it's about damn time we bring our boys home and stop nitpicking fights overseas.
Click to expand...

Do you know what that term means?
 
Montecresto said:
False?!? This criticism has much company in elements on both fringes, one of which you reside.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you'd be wiser to spend your time in analysis of the subject matter rather than the posters. You might have better luck in getting something right.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Do we need a war-hawk as the next President?

I think we need someone who will roll up there sleeves and deal with Russia, Ukraine, the Mid-East, ISIS and North Africa. Each one of these areas plus a few other issues like Domestic Terrorism in Europe are some of Obama's failures. Foreign Policy used to be his strong suit. Not anymore!

How many of you agree with me that we need a war-hawk as President? And no. I am not talking about Hillary.
Click to expand...

We need someone who is able to construct a rational foreign policy where our allies can count on us and our enemies respect our power. They don't need to go to war but should be willing to understand international threats and be prepared to do what it takes to face them. I wouldn't call that a war hawk. I would call that change you can actually believe in.
 
TeleKat said:
Yeah, that's kinda why I used it....
Click to expand...

Perpetual means constant.

After World War I, what war was being fought before World War II started?
 
Mason66 said:
Perpetual means constant.

After World War I, what war was being fought before World War II started?
Click to expand...

Well there was US involvement in the Russian Civil War, as well as the occupation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
 
Born Free said:
Sorry but if you can't determine a good commander in chief from a bad one, no explaining from me will help you. From your comment all past presidents were all excellent commanders in chiefs.
Click to expand...

So you can't answer the question, huh?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
America does not have kings or noblemen. That's part of the European system that was soundly rejected by those who founded this country. “All men are created equal…” was specifically, a rejection of the idea, still observed in much of Europe, that holds some men to be superior to others simply for having been born into higher levels of nobility/royalty.
Click to expand...

The point Helix is making that the rulers IE law makers physically led troops into war not sat in a cushy office while ordering men to their deaths. The other point he made is that if those law makers had to physically lead troops into battle then they would be less eager to bring us into another war. Basically **** sucking neocon pieces of **** like John McCain wouldn't be screaming for war everytime something went on in the world we did not like if they had to physically lead troops into battle, nor would they be trying to provoke countries into attacking us in order to get us into war.
 
jamesrage said:
The point Helix is making that the rulers IE law makers physically led troops into war not sat in a cushy office while ordering men to their deaths. The other point he made is that if those law makers had to physically lead troops into battle then they would be less eager to bring us into another war. Basically **** sucking neocon pieces of **** like John McCain wouldn't be screaming for war everytime something went on in the world we did not like if they had to physically lead troops into battle, nor would they be trying to provoke countries into attacking us in order to get us into war.
Click to expand...

Do you really want our troops to be led into battle by leaders as incompetent as those who would be doing so under that proposal?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'd suggest you'd be wiser to spend your time in analysis of the subject matter rather than the posters. You might have better luck in getting something right.
Click to expand...

Don't need those either.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Do you really want our troops to be led into battle by leaders as incompetent as those who would be doing so under that proposal?
Click to expand...
The point is if those elected officials asses were on the line just as much as your average combat soldier or marine then they would not be eager to provoke another country or to get us into war. Neocons wouldn't be trying to start **** with Russia or trying to pull us into another war they had to physically be part of that battle. When it comes to war neocons are like the socialist libs who do not mind tax increases when they are not the ones who have to foot the bill, but if they are effected then they change their tune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom