wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby gh » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:56 am

a columnist (with left leanings, to be sure) muses on how the hawk/dove roles seem to have switched parties

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-24/e ... money-army
gh
 
Posts: 46316
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:00 pm

"But, of course, back when these were Bush's wars, the Republicans couldn't say enough good things about them. One of the things they used to say was "Support our troops," which meant "Support our military policies whatever they are."

Republicans are against anything Obama does.

Sadly, I am not sure Obama really understands that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 ... ver-obama/
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby jeremyp » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:52 pm

I think the majority of both parties want us out of there, but it is up to the current Prez to do it responsibly. But sending in 33,000 troops and then removing them a year later didn't seem responsible, it seemed like: "I'll play to both sides of the field."
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby Pego » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:57 pm

jeremyp wrote:I think the majority of both parties want us out of there, but it is up to the current Prez to do it responsibly. But sending in 33,000 troops and then removing them a year later didn't seem responsible, it seemed like: "I'll play to both sides of the field."


Unfortunately, he has "played to both sides of the field" on quite a few issues. I am one of those greatly disappointed. This is not what I expected of him 30 months ago.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:25 pm

Pego wrote:
jeremyp wrote:I think the majority of both parties want us out of there, but it is up to the current Prez to do it responsibly. But sending in 33,000 troops and then removing them a year later didn't seem responsible, it seemed like: "I'll play to both sides of the field."


Unfortunately, he has "played to both sides of the field" on quite a few issues. I am one of those greatly disappointed. This is not what I expected of him 30 months ago.

I feel the same way, Pego. Obama gives triangulating a bad name. He also puts far too much faith in the power reasonable persuasion. You can't always get people to do what you want by changing their minds. Sometimes you have to twist their arms to get them to do what you want. Here's what Obama said about the Iraq war when he was running for president:
I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.

http://votersforpeace.us/perspectives/zeese020508.html

Foreign policy was my #1 priority when I cast my vote in 2008, and of all the candidates for president, I think Ron Paul might be the only one who would change the direction of American foreign policy if he were elected.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby bruce3404 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:43 pm

I saw Steve Earle last night and he made a very good point that wars are always about someone's money and that someone wants somebody else to go to the front and fight their battles for them. We seem to continue making the same mistakes we made in Vietnam which are to ram democracy and our way of thinking down everyone's throats. I'd have to go back to the Korean War to find a war that seems to have had some justification and didn't involve our country being attacked.
bruce3404
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:00 am
Location: Track Town, USA

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby shivfan » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:39 am

Historically, hasn't that always been the case? Woodrow Wilson took the US into WWI, FDR into WWII, Truman into Korea, and the JFK-LBJ partnership into Vietnam....

My understanding is that until the Bushes came along, Republicans tended to be more isolationalist.
shivfan
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby Cooter Brown » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:40 am

We really need an automatic flat war tax of 5% on everything and everyone to pay for existing wars. It'd stay in effect from the first day of war to the last.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:49 am

Cooter Brown wrote:We really need an automatic flat war tax of 5% on everything and everyone to pay for existing wars. It'd stay in effect from the first day of war to the last.

That would be a great constitutional amendment. I think it would have prevented the Iraq War from happening.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby tandfman » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:10 am

Pego wrote:Unfortunately, he has "played to both sides of the field" on quite a few issues. I am one of those greatly disappointed. This is not what I expected of him 30 months ago.

I'm a little disappointed, too. But seeing the Republican Party so driven by the Tea Party's agenda, and reading what many of the prospective Republican candidates are saying, absolutely scares the shit out of me.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:13 am

shivfan wrote:Historically, hasn't that always been the case?... FDR into WWII...


Say what? We were provoked into WWII I believe. Or is this another silly 'FDR let PH happen' comment.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby kuha » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:25 am

tandfman wrote:
Pego wrote:Unfortunately, he has "played to both sides of the field" on quite a few issues. I am one of those greatly disappointed. This is not what I expected of him 30 months ago.

I'm a little disappointed, too. But seeing the Republican Party so driven by the Tea Party's agenda, and reading what many of the prospective Republican candidates are saying, absolutely scares the shit out of me.


Everyone's a little (or more) disappointed--but mostly by the overall climate of hysterical irrationality. Has any president, ever, had to face a more impossible, absolutely reflexive, and ideologically inflexible opposition than Obama? It would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious and destructive.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby tandfman » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:53 am

Remember too that the financial meltdown happened on W's watch. Both domestically and internationally, Obama faced really difficult situations not of his making.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby kuha » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:58 am

tandfman wrote:Remember too that the financial meltdown happened on W's watch. Both domestically and internationally, Obama faced really difficult situations not of his making.


Absolutely. For many of us, this was never in any question and has never been forgotten.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: wait, now it's the Dems that are hawks?

Postby bruce3404 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:16 pm

kuha wrote: Has any president, ever, had to face a more impossible, absolutely reflexive, and ideologically inflexible opposition than Obama? It would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious and destructive.


Clinton did, though perhaps not to the degree than Obama is; at least people didn't hate Clinton for the color of his skin. A recent writer to my local paper quoted a song that should be the GOP's theme song. From the movie, Horsefeathers, as sung by Groucho:

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.
bruce3404
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:00 am
Location: Track Town, USA


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest