• 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
Declan said:
Excellent. Of your list I don't see Russia, Ukraine, the Mid-East, ISIS, North Africa or Domestic Terrorism in Europe as our problems except to the extent that some people are more susceptible than others to the military industrial complex's propaganda machine that keeps us meddling in other people's business for profit when we have more pressing problems at home that we should be spending money on.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's only their business until they hit our shores then it's our business to go offshore to take care of our business.
 
Dittohead not! said:
"Deal with" meaning launch shooting wars against Russia, Iran, and anyone else causing trouble in the world all at the same time?

No, I'd rather see a rational person in the White House, whether or not I agree with all of his/her policies.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is talking about launching shooting wars against Russia, or Iran. However with Iran, Obama wants to give Iran the green light to make nuks. Same with Russia taking over Ukraine. I mean Russia tells Obama to jump and how high. Iran is doing the same.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah it's only their business until they hit our shores then it's our business to go offshore to take care of our business.
Click to expand...

When they "hit our shores" it is our business. Until then, it is not. That we "go offshore" is why they "hit our shores" to begin with.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I feel like I've heard ecofarm call her that once, but I can't quite remember.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, though it would be ironic for a war hawk to call somebody a war hawk.
 
Declan said:
When they "hit our shores" it is our business. Until then, it is not. That we "go offshore" is why they "hit our shores" to begin with.
Click to expand...

Now all we need is for more of our leaders to acknowledge the same, and we can make progress.
 
Declan said:
When they "hit our shores" it is our business. Until then, it is not. That we "go offshore" is why they "hit our shores" to begin with.
Click to expand...

Japan hit our shores and you say the only reason terrorists hit our shores is because we went offshore first. Does naive mean anything to you. You must be really pissed off at Obama for bombing Libya, adding more troops in Afghanistan, bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Gee if we only let them kill us whenever they want and we do nothing in return they will get tired and stop killing us, and let us live in peace. Give me a break. Your world is seen through a small pinhole.
 
azgreg said:
I don't know if we need a war hawk, but we do need someone who will garner respect from the international community, and can help rally them around a common cause.
Click to expand...

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...

What does any of this mean? Do you want a president who acts like a tough guy or do you want a president who will actually start a war?
 
Born Free said:
Japan hit our shores and you say the only reason terrorists hit our shores is because we went offshore first. Does naive mean anything to you. You must be really pissed off at Obama for bombing Libya, adding more troops in Afghanistan, bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Gee if we only let them kill us whenever they want and we do nothing in return they will get tired and stop killing us, and let us live in peace. Give me a break. Your world is seen through a small pinhole.
Click to expand...

I'm pissed off at Obama for all those things and at FDR for provoking that attack.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm pissed off at Obama for all those things and at FDR for provoking that attack.
Click to expand...

Now it's "if we provoke", that is reason to attak and kill us. Gee if we only had no interest outside of our borders. Of course our southern border anyone can cross it anytime they want. Yeah I know the only reason Mexicans are crossing our border is because we pissed them off once. Your dead set on your simple view of things. If one country is nuking another, not our problem. If another Holocaust is happening not our problem. Let the world destroy itself as long as they don't touch our land and if they do it's because we pissed them off at one point and we should let them destroy us, because we deserve it.
 
Helix said:
also, i have a proposal. back in the middle ages, the king and noblemen led the troops into battle. perhaps we should return to that way of doing things. also, wartime tax rates should be in effect whenever we are at war.
Click to expand...

Good idea.
You wanna be commander-in-chief, eh?
You wanna "protect our interests", eh?
To the frontlines with you!!
 
radioman said:
Good idea.
You wanna be commander-in-chief, eh?
You wanna "protect our interests", eh?
To the frontlines with you!!
Click to expand...

my guess is that politicians would be much less enthusiastic about new wars if they had to directly participate. there are exceptions to that rule, granted.
 
Born Free said:
Now it's "if we provoke", that is reason to attak and kill us. Gee if we only had no interest outside of our borders. Of course our southern border anyone can cross it anytime they want. Yeah I know the only reason Mexicans are crossing our border is because we pissed them off once. Your dead set on your simple view of things. If one country is nuking another, not our problem. If another Holocaust is happening not our problem. Let the world destroy itself as long as they don't touch our land and if they do it's because we pissed them off at one point and we should let them destroy us, because we deserve it.
Click to expand...

It's certainly their reason, same with 9/11, and it's been articulated by many of them in various forms. The only country that's ever nuked another is the US. otherwise, containment is preferred to hostilities. As for Hitler, there's plenty of ways he could of been dealt with long before hostilities were the only solution left. And there's people like Prescott Walker Bush, busted under the TWTEA that were profiting off the Hitler machine. Problem is greed makes for nasty people at times.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
What does any of this mean? Do you want a president who acts like a tough guy or do you want a president who will actually start a war?
Click to expand...

Neither.
 
Lovin that polling.
 
A violent idiot is the last thing we need. It would be great to stop the droning and bombing, too. But more invasions and attacking more countries? Hell no.
 
Born Free said:
Once again Obama leads from behind, he is the commander in chief is he not. Why does he not act like one.
Click to expand...

What is he supposed to act like? A lot of people didn't think Lincoln acted like a very good commander in chief, either. I guess that just goes with the territory.
 
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...

Not only no but **** no.Are you ****en insane? I am not eager for our service men to go die for citizens of other countries, nor am I eager for our tax dollars to be wasted on those other countries.

Our foreign policy should be is we leave you alone and if you **** with us then we will bomb you into kingdom come and leave.No more of this lets rebuild countries that attack us nonsense.
 
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 don't know that a “war hawk” is exactly what we need, but I think t is very clear that the next President needs to be someone who possesses a degree of competence and expertise on how to conduct a war, along with a measure of courage, that Obama very clearly lacks. The situation in the Middle East and the threat that it poses to our nation and our interests, is not something that is going to be safely or properly managed in the cowardly, wishy-washy way that Obama has so far mismanaged it. It's probably going to take some very heavy-handed use of our military resources, directed by a leader who has the courage and the competence to use them correctly.
 
Helix said:
not only no, but **** no.

also, i have a proposal. back in the middle ages, the king and noblemen led the troops into battle. perhaps we should return to that way of doing things. also, wartime tax rates should be in effect whenever we are at war.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
America does not have kings or noblemen.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Bob Blaylock said:
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...

yeah. because the rest of us have just as much pull as a Clinton, Bush, Walton, Koch, or Soros. please; save that bull**** for the tourists. royalty in America just has a different flavor.
 
Moot said:
What is he supposed to act like? A lot of people didn't think Lincoln acted like a very good commander in chief, either. I guess that just goes with the territory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Born Free said:
I don't think anyone is talking about launching shooting wars against Russia, or Iran. However with Iran, Obama wants to give Iran the green light to make nuks. Same with Russia taking over Ukraine. I mean Russia tells Obama to jump and how high. Iran is doing the same.
Click to expand...
Yeppers, that's the ticket all right. Obama is on record as giving Iran the green light to make nukes. In his famous Madeup speech, he clearly said, "Go ahead, Iran, we're with you in your quest for a nuclear bomb." Again, in his Neversaid it speech, "Hey, Europe, let's lift those sanctions and let our buddy, Putin, have his way with Ukraine."

I think I read it in the World Nut Daily, or somewhere like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom