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?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.
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.
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.
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.
.... 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.