Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc.  (Read 99310 times)

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #45 on: September 01, 2013, 10:31:35 am »
Reading comprehension, davep, reading comprehension.

You are a war hawk.  And those who would urge pre-emptive nuclear strikes would be war hawks.  That is not to say that YOU feel "we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons."

X is a number.  Two numbers added together equal 8.... that is not to say that X is either of the numbers which total 8 when added together.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2013, 04:46:19 pm »
If you are going to make a meaningless statement like that, Jes, you have to try to add at least a little meaning to it by defining what a "War Hawk" is, and explain why you feel I fit into your definition.

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2013, 04:53:50 pm »
Short lob.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2013, 09:00:14 pm »
If you are going to make a meaningless statement like that, Jes, you have to try to add at least a little meaning to it by defining what a "War Hawk" is, and explain why you feel I fit into your definition.

If it is meaningless, why bother adding any meaning?

You have for several years now made clear that you have very few reservations about the use of force (i.e. war) in order to further American interests, and that you have relatively little concern about blowback from that use of force.  I consider that a war hawk, which is the way the term has been used for more than 200 years now in American history, dating back to as least the War of 1812.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2013, 09:52:27 pm »
You have obviously misread my posts for the past several years.  I have never advocated the use of force to advance American Interests.

I HAVE advocated the use of force for those who threaten America and their allies.  That is quite a different thing.

But although you defended the use of the term War Hawk, you failed to define it.  Exactly what is a War Hawk.  If it is merely someone that advocates the use of force to advance American Interests, then I clearly am not one, since there are a great many American Interests that I would NOT use force to advance.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2013, 10:48:41 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?
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?

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2013, 02:43:28 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2013, 03:26:37 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?

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.

Or are you merely trying to use an ad Hominem attack to support a weak or non-existant argument?

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.


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'm sure it does sound meaningful.... to you.



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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2013, 05:38:30 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2013, 06:47:23 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?

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #55 on: September 02, 2013, 07:03:11 pm »
You keep mentioning that I have made many posts that prove your point, but you have failed to point to a single one.

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?

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #56 on: September 02, 2013, 07:53:47 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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #57 on: September 02, 2013, 08:18:56 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.


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: http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/ )

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #58 on: September 02, 2013, 08:20:34 pm »
 ::)

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #59 on: September 02, 2013, 09:28:30 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.

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: http://bbf.createaforum.com/archives/politics-religion-etc-etc/210/ )
 

Don't be an idiot.  The Viet Cong were trying to harm our troops.  We sent them there, and they are us.