Violence begets violence

O

Onceler

New member
I just read a column from David Frum who said that Hillary can be "trusted" more than Obama on terror, because the guy who advises Obama on foreign policy is a known "dove."

Bush was a hawk, and we knew that going in. People loved him after 9/11, because he talked in tough, unforgiving terms. We certainly reacted to that event more from a hawkish philosophy.

And what did that get us? Can anyone say with a straight face, even in the admin, that we have prevented further violence with the Iraq war? Let's go beyond the 3,000+ dead American soldiers, and the 30,000+ casualties, many of whom will never be even close to being the same. The 1,000's of Iraqi citizens who have been tortured, and the 100K + (pick your estimate) of those who have been killed. We could even talk about the millions of refugees as a result of violence.

Beyond ALL of that, are the dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks that are going to occur 20-30 years from now, because of children growing up with such innate anti-Americanism due to the suffering that has resulted from our actions, and our seeming ignorance to it.

David Frum is an idiot for saying this, but his argument begs a larger question: isn't it time to give "dovishness", for lack of a better word, a chance? I'm not saying that we don't retaliate for attacks, or go after perpetrators. But hasn't hawkishness been shown time & time again - from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq - to be a failed starting point?
 
we dont need a wartime president right now. we need to instead of putting trillions into companies to build overseas cities put trillions into companies to turn American cities into what we envision they would look like in 2020.. hell even Canada's cities look more futuristic then ours now.
 
Yeah, but you can't run on that. You'll be slaughtered. Have you noticed Maureen Dowd already painting Obama as the feminine candidate? It seems cute now, because she's contrasting him in a positive light in comparison to Hillary, who she has an almost seething hatred of...but wait and see how funny it is when she continues painting him that way in comparison to John McCain.

I'm pretty certain that Obama's main advisors aren't "doves" anyway. They might not be hawks per se, but doves, I don't think so.
 
Chapdog said:
we dont need a wartime president right now. we need to instead of putting trillions into companies to build overseas cities put trillions into companies to turn American cities into what we envision they would look like in 2020.. hell even Canada's cities look more futuristic then ours now.
Click to expand...

Yes. An Outside In approach to reality! Cool. Like Giuliani's broken windows campaign.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, but you can't run on that. You'll be slaughtered. Have you noticed Maureen Dowd already painting Obama as the feminine candidate? It seems cute now, because she's contrasting him in a positive light in comparison to Hillary, who she has an almost seething hatred of...but wait and see how funny it is when she continues painting him that way in comparison to John McCain.

I'm pretty certain that Obama's main advisors aren't "doves" anyway. They might not be hawks per se, but doves, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Obama -- More feminine than Hillary, More masculine than John MCain!

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the first Hermaphroditic Black President!
 
Onceler said:
I just read a column from David Frum who said that Hillary can be "trusted" more than Obama on terror, because the guy who advises Obama on foreign policy is a known "dove."

Bush was a hawk, and we knew that going in. People loved him after 9/11, because he talked in tough, unforgiving terms. We certainly reacted to that event more from a hawkish philosophy.

And what did that get us? Can anyone say with a straight face, even in the admin, that we have prevented further violence with the Iraq war? Let's go beyond the 3,000+ dead American soldiers, and the 30,000+ casualties, many of whom will never be even close to being the same. The 1,000's of Iraqi citizens who have been tortured, and the 100K + (pick your estimate) of those who have been killed. We could even talk about the millions of refugees as a result of violence.

Beyond ALL of that, are the dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks that are going to occur 20-30 years from now, because of children growing up with such innate anti-Americanism due to the suffering that has resulted from our actions, and our seeming ignorance to it.

David Frum is an idiot for saying this, but his argument begs a larger question: isn't it time to give "dovishness", for lack of a better word, a chance? I'm not saying that we don't retaliate for attacks, or go after perpetrators. But hasn't hawkishness been shown time & time again - from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq - to be a failed starting point?
Click to expand...

David Frum was Bush's speechwriter who wrote his 2002 "Axis of Evil" State of the Union Address .. which says all that need be said about the "wisdom" of David Frum.

Peace must become an imperative for this nation.
 
"Yeah, but you can't run on that. You'll be slaughtered."

No doubt, but to me, that's just a testament to voter stupidity. It's probably the most egregious example of it.

To keep supporting a philosophy & starting point that has never really produced positive results, and has often proven disastrous on so many levels; it goes beyond futility.

Still, it's where we're at. I remember arguing with SR on the old board about Iraq; he acknowledged, to my surprise, that the war had actually had the reverse of its intended effect, and had worsenened the threat against us. He said it was still justified, because 'we had to do something after 9/11.'

That's how many Americans are to me. It doesn't matter if something makes no sense, and is counterproductive; they'd rather feel like they're doing something about "the enemy," and hitting them before they hit us, even if "them" is very ill-defined.
 
Onceler said:
"Yeah, but you can't run on that. You'll be slaughtered."

No doubt, but to me, that's just a testament to voter stupidity. It's probably the most egregious example of it.

To keep supporting a philosophy & starting point that has never really produced positive results, and has often proven disastrous on so many levels; it goes beyond futility.

Still, it's where we're at. I remember arguing with SR on the old board about Iraq; he acknowledged, to my surprise, that the war had actually had the reverse of its intended effect, and had worsenened the threat against us. He said it was still justified, because 'we had to do something after 9/11.'

That's how many Americans are to me. It doesn't matter if something makes no sense, and is counterproductive; they'd rather feel like they're doing something about "the enemy," and hitting them before they hit us, even if "them" is very ill-defined.
Click to expand...

The good news is that America is morphing.

The idiocy of Bush has been the "red pill" that has awakened many Americans to a reality beyond the illusion.
 
Onceler said:
"Yeah, but you can't run on that. You'll be slaughtered."

No doubt, but to me, that's just a testament to voter stupidity. It's probably the most egregious example of it.

To keep supporting a philosophy & starting point that has never really produced positive results, and has often proven disastrous on so many levels; it goes beyond futility.

Still, it's where we're at. I remember arguing with SR on the old board about Iraq; he acknowledged, to my surprise, that the war had actually had the reverse of its intended effect, and had worsenened the threat against us. He said it was still justified, because 'we had to do something after 9/11.'

That's how many Americans are to me. It doesn't matter if something makes no sense, and is counterproductive; they'd rather feel like they're doing something about "the enemy," and hitting them before they hit us, even if "them" is very ill-defined.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're stupid. You're not supposed to call Americans stupid, but stand in the DMV, look around, strike up a few conversations, and you tell me.

People may very well be just as stupid all over the globe. I don't know. But that doesn't negate how stupid far too many of us are.
 
Onceler said:
I just read a column from David Frum who said that Hillary can be "trusted" more than Obama on terror, because the guy who advises Obama on foreign policy is a known "dove."

Bush was a hawk, and we knew that going in. People loved him after 9/11, because he talked in tough, unforgiving terms. We certainly reacted to that event more from a hawkish philosophy.

And what did that get us? Can anyone say with a straight face, even in the admin, that we have prevented further violence with the Iraq war? Let's go beyond the 3,000+ dead American soldiers, and the 30,000+ casualties, many of whom will never be even close to being the same. The 1,000's of Iraqi citizens who have been tortured, and the 100K + (pick your estimate) of those who have been killed. We could even talk about the millions of refugees as a result of violence.

Beyond ALL of that, are the dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks that are going to occur 20-30 years from now, because of children growing up with such innate anti-Americanism due to the suffering that has resulted from our actions, and our seeming ignorance to it.

David Frum is an idiot for saying this, but his argument begs a larger question: isn't it time to give "dovishness", for lack of a better word, a chance? I'm not saying that we don't retaliate for attacks, or go after perpetrators. But hasn't hawkishness been shown time & time again - from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq - to be a failed starting point?
Click to expand...



Absolutely Oncelor. Some of us saw this even before we invaded Iraq and were ridiculed for it. The time for "Cowboy Diplomacy " is past and has been past for many years.

Darla, People are not learning and progressing. We are still just basically animals for the most part. Tech can be passed from generation to generation easially. but morality must start from scratch in each person.
Religion has been used in part to pass on morals, but it has always been misused as well.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
I just read a column from David Frum who said that Hillary can be "trusted" more than Obama on terror, because the guy who advises Obama on foreign policy is a known "dove."

Bush was a hawk, and we knew that going in. People loved him after 9/11, because he talked in tough, unforgiving terms. We certainly reacted to that event more from a hawkish philosophy.

And what did that get us? Can anyone say with a straight face, even in the admin, that we have prevented further violence with the Iraq war? Let's go beyond the 3,000+ dead American soldiers, and the 30,000+ casualties, many of whom will never be even close to being the same. The 1,000's of Iraqi citizens who have been tortured, and the 100K + (pick your estimate) of those who have been killed. We could even talk about the millions of refugees as a result of violence.

Beyond ALL of that, are the dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks that are going to occur 20-30 years from now, because of children growing up with such innate anti-Americanism due to the suffering that has resulted from our actions, and our seeming ignorance to it.

David Frum is an idiot for saying this, but his argument begs a larger question: isn't it time to give "dovishness", for lack of a better word, a chance? I'm not saying that we don't retaliate for attacks, or go after perpetrators. But hasn't hawkishness been shown time & time again - from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq - to be a failed starting point?
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I got caught up in some of the blood lust after 9/11 and fully supported going into afghanistan.

In retrospect, it was obviously a mistake. And certainly, the way Bush has handled it has been incompetent. Could another president have handled it better? Who knows. I don't see how occuyping Afghanistan and raining bombs down upon them for seven years is really accomplished anything. We probably should have treated the whole 9/11 thing as a criminal act, not an act of war. And used covert ops, intelligence, and law enforcment to address it.
 
uscitizen said:
Absolutely Oncelor. Some of us saw this even before we invaded Iraq and were ridiculed for it. The time for "Cowboy Diplomacy " is past and has been past for many years.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you have to couch it. Obama has been doing a fine job of letting it be known that the day of Cowboy diplomacy will end with his inauguration, without sounding like a dove or pacifist. If he ever got tagged with that label, no matter how much sense you make, and no matter how right you are, one terrorist attack puts John McCain in the oval office.

I view Obama as too smart to let that happen. He’s doing fine on this topic.
 
Cypress said:
I have to admit, I got caught up in some of the blood lust after 9/11 and fully supported going into afghanistan.

In retrospect, it was obviously a mistake. And certainly, the way Bush has handled it has been incompetent. Could another president have handled it better? Who knows. I don't see how occuyping Afghanistan and raining bombs down upon them for seven years is really accomplished anything. We probably should have treated the whole 9/11 thing as a criminal act, not an act of war. And used covert ops, intelligence, and law enforcment to address it.
Click to expand...

As Obama has correctly stated, "We must not only end the war, but end the mindset that took us to war in the first place."
 
Darla, People are not learning and progressing. We are still just basically animals for the most part. Tech can be passed from generation to generation easially. but morality must start from scratch in each person.
Religion has been used in part to pass on morals, but it has always been misused as well.

I am beginning to think that the bright future for mankind is only a myth. We might be eternally stuck in the gray ages.
 
I know what Cypress is talking about. This generation of Americans has never been attacked like that, and I knew people who flipped from dove to hawk overnight.

I remember when Bush first talked about the "war on terror" (still cringe when I say that). He said something to the effect of "this will require great patience, and it won't show up on your TV sets or in the headlines", and alluded to a war fought more with special ops, secrecy & good intel.

I knew that wouldn't fly with America; next thing you know, we get "shock & awe"...
 
well for sure obama will be looked at as a dove if we suddenly get attacked again and then he doesn't do anything.

im all for striking fear into the eyes and breaking the will of the enemy. if i was at the helm during Afghanistan i would have dropped tactical nukes / and or/ chem/bio warfare into tora bora.

but then.. thats why im not president.
 
Chapdog said:
well for sure obama will be looked at as a dove if we suddenly get attacked again and then he doesn't do anything.

im all for striking fear into the eyes and breaking the will of the enemy. if i was at the helm during Afghanistan i would have dropped tactical nukes / and or/ chem/bio warfare into tora bora.

but then.. thats why im not president.
Click to expand...


Obama is no dove. A real dove would never be allowed to be elected president.

He's almost certainly less hawkish than Bush/Cheney/McCain. And he had far better initial judgement on Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top