jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (40 posts)

Tis the Season of the Chicken Hawk?

  1. Credence2 profile image87
    Credence2posted 12 months ago

    I read of GOP candidate solutions to the ISIS crisis.

    McCain and Lindsey talk about an American led ground force that includes regional armies to destroy ISIS on the ground.

    He we go, full circle, involving ourselves in more foreign entanglements. These guys talk a good game on "Meet the Press', but where is the follow through?

    Everybody wants to look tough, it is the President's responsibility to be prudent and measured in response and solutions.

    President Kennedy once said that advisers come and go, but it is the  President that takes the responsibility while advisers simply move on to more advice. That sort of responsible attitude is how he was successful in navigating America through the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 1962.

    ISIS is almost as much an 'idea' as it is a physical force. Who is going to commit troops and resources to make sure that once ISIS is stamped out it stays 'stamped out'? Ideas are extremely difficult to defeat.

    Trump want to create a 'beautiful safe zone' in Syria to deal with the refugee crisis. Thats brilliant, so I suppose Assad, Al Queda and ISIS are just going to concur with Trump's vision of a more peaceful world.

    More rightwing stupidity: Religious litmus tests for those Syrians refugees permitted to find asylum here.

    Your thoughts....

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      Making money the old fashioned way is what McCain and Graham want to do. How many donations can you get if you start another little war? Halliburton and the like made out like bandits. The coffers are drying up under Obama so let's get it going again.

      LET ME BE CLEAR! YOU CANNOT WIN A TERRORIST WAR WITH CONVENTIONAL  METHODS!!!!

      If we do anything it should be to terrorize them.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        No doubt, RH, you are preaching to the choir. I am still pissed by the exploits of Haliburton and how much money was wasted and stolen, but all domestic aid programs always seem to be 'over the top' when considering the national budget.

    2. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I have already posted a rant in another thread, (re; the Paris attacks), that shouted for sending in the Marines. But, a rant was what it was. An emotional response that is not too different from what many others feel.

      After pouring a Martini and deciding to be realistic instead of emotional, I am looking for a different approach. I know that militarily crushing ISIS in Syria, or Iraq, or where ever is not a realistic option, it just makes folks feel good to shout for it.

      So what to do? Go after the money! In everyone's world, western or otherwise, it is money that makes the world go round. Go after ISIS money sources first. Either here, or in the news, I recall a statement that ISIS pulls in about 3 million a day. Let's go after the money first. We will never defeat their ideology with force, so let's go after its force multiplier, (the money), and then ponder further moves.

      ps. pandering is an equal opportunity tool, the Right is just more blatant in its use. So while you rightly castrate the Right's advocates, don't be blind to your guys moves either.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        GA, let me clarify your 'PS".

        The view from my perch is that of life and our viewpoints are relative. These are not 'my guys' more than they are the lesser of two evils. If I were running things and I could be free and clear to navigate, it would be a different world.

        As I told you before the military industrial complex is a fixture in American life that has not and cannot be dislodged by either party, neither 'my guys' or the other guys.

        It is just that my guys are not so quick to hop into bed and embrace the concepts of this 'complex' as readily as the other guys. And I will take that, as that may well be all that I can get, but it is better than the approach of the other side.

        P.S. But I do like your idea of attacking the funding sources, depriving the beast of its oxygen supply will have it surely die and dry up in the desert. It  has more potential as a weapon than all the standing armies

      2. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!

    3. ahorseback profile image52
      ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      "Your thoughts ? ......... as usual  you won't really want  our thoughts  but here they are .

      One day,  just one city in America  will become the European  city scene played out  again and again on the news .     This  is simply inevitable  , a ticking clock ,    much like 9//II   and yet we will all stand in shock ,watching once again as  the bodies , the names ,  the families and the questions are replayed  on camera .   The political "leaders " will join arm and arm  and then return to the bunkers .

      WHEN that happens  ,   some part of my imagination just can't wait to see the about face with liberal puppets and parrots  in America .   Somehow everything will change when tragedy hits YOUR  town , your  city , your  family .    I admit ,    I have never lived in a war torn environment   , I suspect however , that most people  become a bit more conservative in their political outlooks .   I KNOW THAT WILL BE THE CASE IN AMERICA .   at least then the parroting of liberal  world order will  disappear into a world of silence for their own protection .

      Imagine the obvious , you turn on the faucet , no water ,  you take the garbage bag out to the streets and stack it onto a thousand others ,     No  super-bowl on Sunday , that alone will  destroy  half of Americans .     Run to the super market to empty shelves and  that means   empty stomachs ,   And all of this occurs in  just ONE city in America ,   Katrina  will seam like a  daydream .  Some part of me just cant wait to watch the panic on the much parroted left in this country .

      I however have  questions for liberals  , WHY do liberals ALL parrot the chosen leader of the day ? Verbatim  ?     When at least  those on the right know instinctively how to think for themselves ?  How to prepare  , how to overcome the  obstacles and prepare for the inevitable .  And yet  , every single time the left  creates  the joke  of  day as  actually being   conservatism  ?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        "I however have  questions for liberals  , WHY do liberals ALL parrot the chosen leader of the day ? Verbatim  ?     When at least  those on the right know instinctively how to think for themselves ?  How to prepare  , how to overcome the  obstacles and prepare for the inevitable .  And yet  , every single time the left  creates  the joke  of  day as  actually being   conservatism  ?"

        These generalizations I know are a part of your rant and venting because this is not and never will be about the liberal or conservative theories that they espouse to be. This is about the movement towards globalization. Reduce the rich countries ability to sustain and uplift the competing countries abilities to compete. ISIS is a movement that will be a good vehicle to bankrupt rich countries to fight the conventional expensive wars the banks want. The banks will of course finance it and collect from the citizenry accordingly. Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" are behind globalization. We will now find out how much with the intricacies as we meander through the latest crisis. If this all sounds too crazy ask yourself why Saudi Arabia has been silent in all of this and when Yemen attacked them it was squashed toot sweet? Why is Saudi Arabia so insulated from all of the problems to their north? And than ask yourself the importance of the petro dollar?

      2. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, I did ask for your thoughts, your point of view is welcome even though I won't agree with it.

        When does the rightwing guys ever stop crying "Wolf"

        You can check me on this but since 9/11, we have had more home grown domestic terrorism from anti-government, white supremists than any threat from the outside.  Maybe, we need to be looking more earnestly there?

        It has been 14 years since 9/11 and it has been relatively quiet, I think that I can safely step outside without fear of being killed by a falling meteor.

        It is the rightwingers , not the left that always show a deficit in good judgement. The rightwing community plays the same script like a TV miniseries, this scare tactic stuff,  because they know their techniques has a profound effect on the feeble minded, it is that power of suggestion, you know.... And the Right knows that there are plenty of these people around, ever ready to be 'spooked' by the next parlor trick.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          "It has been 14 years since 9/11 and it has been relatively quiet,"

          Yes, it has been relatively quiet although there have been instances (the Boston Marathon comes to mind).  How much of that is due to efforts on the part of government?

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Point taken... I think that for the most part administrations of both Bush and Obama have done a pretty good job keeping much of this terrorism away.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          But does the right wing advocate terrorism and anarchy as a solution? Are these crackpot domestic terrorists even lucid in the arguments from both sides?

          This right/left argument gets in the way of any progress and frankly leaves a void where there should be discussion. It is a convenient way for politicians to push our buttons and propagandize every issue they want confusion to reign. Then the politicians go on the merry way doing what their handlers want them to do. Where does it leave us? If all this liberal/conservative wrangling had any effect on our politics why do we still have a 93% dissatisfaction rating of Congress while they do what they want against our wishes and get richer for it?

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            There is discussion, Bernie Sanders is a liberal and he is that breath of fresh air that challenges the trend, putting the lease back on Wall Street and taking the steam from the perpetual war machine. I have no problem with labels so long as the label actually reflect what is in the jar.

            But we both know, that the solutions that we seek are definitely  not coming from the Right. Reality is relative and I have to take the best that I can get toward the goals that you and I share in regards to the direction toward which we should be moving.

            Which ideological pole and political perspective is challenging the hegemony of big money and militarism? There is the side whose only solution is military adventurism, that confuse the desire for peace with naivety.

            We can see over the politicians, they and their pandering are quite transparent. I already know what I am looking for and what it is I want to avoid, and if can't do that perfectly......

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              The discussion between the liberal/conservative camps is more a vile argument between bitter rivals complete with finger pointing and name calling. Liberals and conservatives have made grave mistakes alike.
              I lean more liberal than conservative but I see points on the right that sometimes make more sense. I am not sure what the solution is for the Syrian refugees but I want to make sure in our bighearted philanthropy we do not end up with even one crazed bomber here that may kill my grand daughter. As far as rushing in to kill as many Muslims as we can in Syria I abhor the idea of boots on the ground as does about 75% of the rest of America. These are ideas right down the middle and all I get from either side of the opposing opinions is grief because I won't agree all one way. As an independent we decide the elections and the liberal/conservative factions should come back to the middle and compromise.

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                RH, the fact that you lean more liberal than conservative is an acknowledgment that there is a difference.

                Seems to me that most of the trouble makers are not so much refugees, but homegrown adherents, 5th column types. While I don't have the info with me but I thought that those involved in the Paris attacks were not refugees.

                The problem is that no one can agree as to what is the middle and there is a difference. I really have not seen a strident radical left in 50 years, but for the Right it is here and what we contend with now. They pose the greatest threat to harmonious government

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Just because I lean one way or the other is not an admission that I am one way of the other. It just means I identify with the topic and not the implication. I worked with a guy who liked to argue politics and identified with the right almost exclusively. We got into many discussions where he was always left wondering where I stood. He said he spoke with his wife one night about a conversation we had that day and she said what was I? A liberal or a conservative. He said he scratched his head and replied with frustration, reasonable.

                  As far as the Paris attacks I think it would be prudent to examine the situation further before committing to something that could become catastrophic. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean the conditions for it to happen have been fully eliminated. I would rather be more careful than magnanimous with my security.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            I just want to comment that I notice you are constantly talking about the right/left polarization as a big problem, and I agree that it is.  However, I think you are wrong to lay equal blame on both sides.  Equal blame was accurate 30 years ago, but then the polarization was not so drastic that at least some progress was made through compromise.  But now, blame is pretty much on the radical conservative Tea Party types and the more mainstream politicians who catered to them to win elections.  Now, they are out of control and causing real harm to our nation.  I think the tide is turning and they will soon be marginalized enough that we can finally start to move forward.  I don't know if that will happen in this next major election, but I believe at least by the next one we will see a shift back to some semblance of sanity in the Republican party.  It must happen for them to be relevant again.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              The problem is not with Congress. It is with us. Do you think the Tea Party is a representative majority of our population? What about the progressives? Are they a fair representation of our electorate? The problem is not who is in there but us that keep sending the same people back to Congress expecting a different result. It just gets worse and they get more power with each year they are there. Big money has bought them out and we just sit back and argue theories and postures while they do whatever they want. Congress feeds us whatever we need to drabble about and get re-elected every time.

              Hillary was for the TPP and now she is against it. Her bold promise to expand President Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration reverse the ambivalence she showed during the 2008 campaign when asked in a primary debate of undocumented immigrants should be allowed to have driver's licenses. And her embrace of same-sex marriage came even though she once supported the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most high-profile anti-gay pieces of legislation ever enacted.

              We swallow all this horse manure and more and vote for the lies about the lies that the politicians are going to do for us, are against for us and doing as a choice of leadership. Jeb Bush got on Fox Snooze this morning and advocated a US lead war against ISIS in Syria. Boots on the ground even though 75% of Americans are dead set against it. Did we not learn from the first imbecile Bush "W". His Dad knew the consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein and stopped at the city gates.

              Can we talk about the topics without bringing theories into the mix?

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                RH, how much time have most of us spent trying to get so much of the electorate to stop voting against their own best interests? I am open to suggestion as to how we fix that....


                Information is so readily available these days so that there is no excuse for people uninformed.

                What do they say, you can lead a horse to water.....

                Bush is the most prominent among the chicken hawk class. War is good for the economy allowing the creation of a bogey-man and is an excellent distraction for the people diverting their attention from who it is that actually has their hands in their pockets.

                Ms. Clinton has too many stakes in the status quo for my comfort, but the candidates from other side is even more egregious than she.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  "Information is so readily available these days so that there is no excuse for people uninformed. "

                  Readily available, yes...and 90% wrong.  Either an honest mistake, an outright lie or, more commonly, half the story with the other half deliberately hidden.  As such it isn't easy to educate ones self at all - coupled with an much improved snake oil salesman from the old west it is impossible for most folk.

                  1. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    You have to take the time to vet sources properly, just like you did to support your claims as to firearm deaths related to general homicides. The information is there and if you look carefully somewhere inbetween opposing points of view is the truth.

                  2. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    I also have to ask you what would make you presume that all of the 'story' is not being told and which aspects do you think is bein 'held back' for instance?

                2. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  "RH, how much time have most of us spent trying to get so much of the electorate to stop voting against their own best interests? I am open to suggestion as to how we fix that...."

                  Better candidates that are not bought by special interests would be a good start. We can implement term limits to keep out the lobbyists and reform how lobbying can take place.

                  1. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    The people still have to produce the 'better candidates' at the grass roots. Then the electorate has to select these candidates to hold the offices.

                    Better candidates still mean smarter voters, ultimately, right? Only then can we get the changes we are all looking for

        3. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Cry wolf ?,   I honestly cannot wait until  the 'left' in America shows its true colors . As always AFTER  a catastrophic  failure  of  policy .    You people need to look at your  "domestic terror "  for what it really is ! The Boston bombers came here as refugees . Is that to be considered domestic terror  ?      Islamic immigrants  that do not assimilate their  beliefs  to the western  cultures are a problem .   

          Europe and  America would be far better off to set up the camps IN THE HOME  countries of the refugees ! That would be far serve all the   humanity of Islam  . Thereby allowing them the comfort of their OWN cultural  happiness  .  Hell, we [ the west ]already pay them enough in foreign aid .     And yet ,    they cannot make it there !    What is the attraction here then ,  if not a more peaceful , successful economy for one ?

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Ahorseback, I don't require to islamic immigrants to compromise their faiths, but I do require them to accept the idea of western pluralism and freedom of choice in regard to religious preference or lack of same. If they can't do that then they need to stay where they are.

            To carve out areas for refugees in among the territories of combatants means we are going to war with those forces in Syria that are not going to just sit by and allow for the comfort of refugees because Trump says so.

            With the cast of characters involved in the region, I say that if you want to go to war take your old rusty rifle and go help yourself.

            As for 'true colors', I don't have to wait, as the Right has already shown its true colors and its not advantageous to the America people, I can tell you that.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago

    Every politician knows that committing ground troops leads to fatalities which leads to a precipitous drop in their popularity.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

      93 per cent of incumbents are re-elected. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        That is because they responded to the dip in the polls by backpedalling furiously, and a few--presidents included--have definitely lost elections on American losses.

  3. Credence2 profile image87
    Credence2posted 12 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12754370.jpg

    BE VEWY, VEWY QUIET, I AM HUNTING CHICKEN-HAWKS

  4. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    President Obama  takes great pride in shaking up the  dialog  of the day , does that  make him a good president ?    I believe  that in the end  President Carter will have to relinquish his trophies for the least  effective leader of the free world ......ever .

 
working