Any Other Hawks Here?

[Rage Inc.]

I opposed---and continue to oppose---the Iraq war. I initially supported the Afghan invasion, until it became clear (in Tora Bora) that the Bushies had no real interest in nailing bin Laden. I want ALL of our troops out of both hellholes by the end of THIS year, not next!

But I still believe in a strong military for our country. Hey, call me a properly-programmed puppet of the very complex that Eisenhower warned us about, but I still don't trust the Russians, I still think that it's a good idea to remain vigilant, and, while we should keep our hands off Iran, I wouldn't mind at all if one of our missile subs "accidentally" wiped the incredibly annoying Kim Jong Il off the surface of the planet. And how about defending our southern border, just for the fuck of it?

I'm a Scoop Jackson Dem: Liberal on all domestic issues, but skeptical of other countries' good intentions.

Let the unrecs fly! :loveya:

[Captain Hilts]

1. I'm with you. I'll note that the military has been socially progressive while the civilian world

has been regressive.

We still need a military to keep an eye on China and Russia.

I marched in all the anti-Iraq war marches and I donated platelets at Walter Reed yesterday.

Anti-Iraq War and pro-troop.

[Brickbat]

2. Agreed.

And I'd like to see it face the same kind of regulation, accountability, and results-based funding threats that, say, education gets.

[rurallib]

3. I have always wondered how strong is strong enough?

We can blow the world up hundreds of times over. Is that strong enough?
We have all the latest gee-gaws and hoo-hahs, yet we can't win a 'war' against guerrilla fighters.
We own space, yet what good is it?
We spend half our national treasure every year for 'defense' yet it seems some cheap and simple diplomacy could and can accomplish so much more.
Do we need to spend 100% of our treasury on weapons?

The lust for "security" has bankrupted us and crippled our economy. It has made us an inflexible giant. How is that good?
I am really curious.

[dionysus]

5. we could slash spending and STILL have the most "kick-ass" army, if we got rid

of waste and contactor fraud.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. How strong do you want it to be? Strength at the expense of domestic programs is no victory.

We spend 53% of our federal budget on defense. Our defense spending exceeds that of all other countries on the planet - combined.

That's insane.

I find building planes shameful while children go to bed hungry.

[dionysus]

6. i think we could cut a ton of spending and still have the strongest military, if we were to

investigate fraud, stop using contractors, and get rid of obsolete weapons we spend billions on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. and 95% of our overseas bases, which serve no purpose but to

project 'empire'.

Why do we need bases in Britain? Does Britain have bases in the US? If the idea is 'forward deployment', couldn't that be achieved just as easily by renting warehouses on British bases, and flying in the troops when they are needed?

We could save billions by simply bringing the troops, and their families, and their shopping malls and bowling alleys and fast food courts, home.

[Rage Inc.]

8. According to THEIR figures!

At the height of the Cold War, do you really think the Soviet Union was only spending $23 billion per year on defense?

[Dogtown]

44. And the Soviets spent themselves into collapse.

Maybe we shouldn't use them as a model.

[NeedleCast]

7. While I support a strong military

I don't support the mega-corps who supply it. The Lockheeds, Beoings, Northrups, BAEs, et. al. have proven time and time again that profit is far more important to them than the actual defense of the country.

[NNN0LHI]

9. I sure ain't no pacifist

But I am against all wars that we cannot win. And we are involved in two of those right now.

I never supported the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. Not even for one minute. My past posts from here will confirm that.

Don

[boomerbust]

10. No unrec here

I still say if we got the truth from the Tora Bora Bin Laden escape it would go a long way in explaining the destruction that this country endured during the Bush years.

[Ikonoklast]

11. I consider myself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, to a limit.

The defense budget is now becoming unsustainable, however. It is gobbling up resources best used for nmore pressing needs in this country.

We will soon find out just how long we can sustain an empire without a viable economy behind it.

[hlthe2b]

12. Henry Scoop Jackson is the hero to Neocons like Wolfowitz,

Pearle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Libbey, Bill Kristol, and others. Jackson was an unapologetic proponent to internment camps for Japanese during WWII and without end, the Vietnam War. When Bush* took office, the neocon crowd made certain that many of Jackson's papers "disappeared"--leaving one to wonder what the entire truth might be.

You say you are a Hawk, but today's Hawks are the neocons--the Joe Liebermans of the world, who will never apologize for Iraq or Afghanistan and continue to beat the war drums against Iran.

I believe in smart defense policy--strategic policy. Having grown up with the RW rhetoric about how we should just "nuke North Vietnam," I find that kind of ilk distressing and dangerous. Skepticism is one thing. Letting groups manipulate foreign and defense policy for their own aims--such as occurred with the Neocons, is quite another.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. It's is disgusting that Scoop Jackson --

is being given the thumbs up here at DU. :puke: What a sad fucking place this is becoming.

For those of you who do NOT know just who he was and what his idealogy has wrought on our country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=henry_jackson

[Obamanaut]

14. The US can have a strong military - at home in the US. Close the

more than 700 military sites in the more than 30 other countries.

Saves money on lease payments. Saves money on shipping supplies to those sites.

Bring all the troops and their families home, spread them around the US in the bases that were closed or down-sized. This will bring a boost to the local economies.

Reduce the overall size of the military (won't need all the troops if the 700+ sites are closed) through normal attrition as enlistments expire and less vigorous recruitment.

Stop being the policemen for the globe. Let the other countries do their own.

[Mari333]

15. so,enlist.

unrec.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. +1

[leftstreet]

49. +1

[Gman2]

16. An empire is diminished every time it projects force.

And expecially every time it acts against gnatts. The pissants want to be acted against by the only superpower, or to engage them in angry words. To add to their gravitas. When those that care about such things scream for action, they are idiots. It would be better for an empire NEVER to actually have to fire a shot.

[Bigmack]

17. We can't afford it! Simple...

as that! An Empire is too expensive for a country up to it's ass in debt. Make no mistake about it, 750 overseas bases and fleets in every ocean is about Empire.

The story of the F-35 is a good analogy. Too expensive... no mission... too fragile... and expensive toy that we cannot afford.

A huge military didn't protect us from 19 guys with box cutters. A huge military didn't pacify Iraq. A huge military isn't winning Afghanistan.

We have to work smarter, not harder. A lean military with actual missions related to national security would be a start.

[Iggo]

18. K&U

You asked for it.

[GodlessBiker]

19. Detonate a nuclear bomb in NK? Really? What do you think that might do to SK? And...

how many people might be put out of work here when the subsequent chaos causes stock markets to collapse?

[dmallind]

20. Well there is nothing you say all that far from me but not really a hawk

I am actually fine with an engagement longer than this year to ensure a secure and smooth transition of security responsibility. It does us no good to leave a massive power vacuum which will devolve into civil war and extremist hegemony. This is not because I particularly relish changing Afghan or Iraqi political systems but because we've already broken them and need to fix them. I certainly would have preferred not to have broken them in the first place.

But in general terms I am only for a COMPARATIVELY strong military. It's enough for me to have the world's best prepared and supplied armed forces. They don't need to be better prepared and supplied than 75% of the world's militarys COMBINED in my book.

We could, in my admittedly layman's estimation, halve the Pentagon budget and still comfortably maintain military superiority over any potential challenger. Not a bad idea to do so - although politically only possible for a Republican sadly.

I have absolutely no interest in destroying Kim Jong Il or the tens of thousands of North Koreans we would have to also destroy to achieve that. He's doubtless a dick of the highest order, but he is no threat to me or you at all and precious little threat to anyone else. If S Korea ever needs help from a real threat from him I am sure even our hlaved military above would have no problem supplying it. Until then keep our nose out.

Defending our Southern border from whom? Last time I took any notice Calderon was not working on plans to become the reincarnation of Santa Ana and take back California by force. I don't hear word one about massed troops trying to claim El Paso TX as a suburb of Juarez. Surely for the love of all that is holy you don't suggest a military response to people so desparate for paying work that even now Arizona is an Eldorado-like haven of wealth and opportunity for them? Call me a wuss but I'm not sure an Abrams is a suitable rejoinder to somebody waiting outside Home Depot for day laboring jobs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Gotta keep the bogeyman of the week at bay by bankrupting the "home of brave" and killing people.

"Fear is a disease that eats away at logic and makes man inhuman." Marian Anderson

[ShortnFiery]

28. Exactly! "War is a Racket" - But a strong military as a deterrent = good thing.

Check out "The Power of Nightmares" if you wish to know about how the ruling class of Large Nations keeps "thinning the herd" for their own enjoyment and financial interest.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

[asdjrocky]

22. No. And you have been misled. nt

[miscsoc]

23. I'm a crypto-hawk

because war is nice to watch.

Have never served in the army, would never, am a total physical coward.

War is just fucking beautiful tbh.

Look at this thing

[pitohui]

25. don't trust the russians? what sense is that?

half the russians i meet live in new york, the other half live in vegas, if there are even any russians remaining in russian or ukrainains remaining in the ukraine, bless their hearts honey how big an army do you honestly believe we need to stop them?

at some point, i think we need more money spent on criminal investigations and shutting down druglords and terror spreaders, etc, less money spent on "armies" that attack nations

the folks killing americans today are rogues and criminals such as the terrorists who hit the world trade center, the druglords selling crack to our cities...the biggest nuclear navy in the world can do fuck all about that

i guess i'm a believer in the INTELLIGENT use of our army, and by definition a "hawk" is operating from the lizard/animal brain rather than TARGETED intelligence

"hawks" are still fighting world war 2 or even world war 1-- the world is more complicated now, and our enemies live among us

atta & his buddies lived in florida on properly granted usa visas!!!

[truebrit71]

26. I don't trust the Russians OR the Chinese...i still have a hard time getting my head around..

..the fact that these enemies from my youth are now our "friends"...

I think a better target for the "accidental nuke" as you out it would be Iran and not NK..If we carpet bombed NK with food I think the gen pop would rise by themselves and take care of that particular short-arsed problem..

"defending the southern border"? Not so much..how about just enforcing the immigration laws we already have first...

[Rage Inc.]

40. Iran? No.

That country is a threat to Israel, not us.

As for carpet-bombing NK with food, well, the supplies we already give them are portrayed by their "media" as tribute from a frightened America. The more we send, the more that fucking little mutant is aggrandized!

[ShortnFiery]

27. Believing in a strong military doesn't make you "A Hawk." Some of us liberals believe in that.

We just don't want our military mis-used.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Scoop Jackson?

One of the fathers of the neocon movement that helped get us into this fucking mess in Iraq and Afganistan? Thanks but no. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Well said. Brief and accurate.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. You oppsed a war that was the DIRECT --

result of Scoop Jackson's idealogy and born of his personal protegees?

You say you are a blogger -- I would love to see your blog site. Post a link, please!

[grantcart]

33. Not a hawk and I trust the Russians to do exactly what is in their own self interest

Just like us.

In fact the Soviet/Russia record on keeping their word on the agreements they signed on to is pretty good from 1970 onward.

I had opportunity to negotiate directly with the People's Republic of Vietnam over a small number of items after the war and they were completely honest and straightforward in their international agreements. The problems that arose came out of shifting priorities and positions on the US side. I would then read about it the next day in the paper where the US embassy was blaming the PRV for something the US side was responsible for. The hapless Vietnamese were easily tagged as being dishonest brokers when I knew that it was the Americans who changed their position (and given the fluctuating pressures from Congress and the American Public you can understand why an administration has to change its position - but they always spun it on the Vietnamese).

Having said that equating the War in the Iraq as being the same as the War in Afghanistan is foolish. There is no case for the War in Iraq it was a bold faced war of aggression and even if it turns out perfectly in Iraq - which it won't - was still a horrible precedent for the US.

Afghanistan is a completely different set of circumstances. I am not going to re argue that here but ironically people who equate the two as being the same actual undermine the real criticism and the crimes of the Iraq War. If all wars are the same, etc etc., then there is nothing special about Iraq, and this is not only untrue it actually undermines the wall that we should be building on reducing the rationality to going to war.

[Grand Taurean]

36. And we are signing a new nuclear arms/materials control treaty.

[robdogbucky]

34. Is this DU?

or is this someplace else?

I am lost.

WTF!

“…the military has been socially progressive…” You can't be serious. Unfuckingbelievable.

“…Anti-Iraq War and pro-troop.” This is exactly what Barack Obama said when he voted repeatedly to fund the illegal Iraq War. Unfuckingbelievable.

“…I wouldn't mind at all if one of our missile subs "accidentally" wiped the incredibly annoying Kim Jong Il off the surface of the planet…” Are you sure You are at the right message board? Are you any different from any other war monger on the planet? So this would solve what exactly? Getting rid of your pro-war hard-on? Unfuckingbelievable.

“…because war is nice to watch…” Comment not necessary. Troll. Unfuckingbelievable.

“…reducing the rationality to going to war.” Not any time soon with this type of rhetoric. Unfuckingbelievable.



This is all on DU?



Unfuckingbelievable.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. "Troll."

Me thinks you are correct. They are a self-admitted shit stirer. :eyes:

[Iggo]

45. Obvious troll is obvious. (n/t)

[Grand Taurean]

35. Scoop Jackson was a proud whore of the MIC.

Never a defense contract went in front of him that he would vote against.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. He was the Joe Lieberman of his day.

[robdogbucky]

39. I would not put the Senator from Boeing

at the top of my Dem leadership list.

If anything he was the epitome of the DINO as we have come to know it, or the DLC:


"...Jackson was often criticized for his support for the Vietnam War and his close ties to the defense industries of his state. His proposal of Fort Lawton as a site for an anti-ballistic missile system was strongly opposed by local residents, and Jackson was forced to modify his position on the location of the site several times, though he continued to support ABM development. American Indian rights activists then protested Jackson's plan to give Fort Lawton to Seattle instead of returning it to local tribes, staging a sit-in. In the eventual compromise, most of Fort Lawton became Discovery Park, with 20 acres (81,000 m2) leased to United Indians of All Tribes, who opened the Daybreak Star Cultural Center there in 1977.

Opponents derided him as "the Senator from Boeing"<11> and a "whore for Boeing"<12> because of his consistent support for additional military spending on weapons systems and accusations of wrongful contributions from the company; in 1965, eighty percent of Boeing's contracts were military.<1><10> Jackson and Magnuson's campaigning for an expensive government supersonic transport plane project eventually failed.

After his death, critics pointed to Jackson's support for Japanese American internment camps during World War II as a reason to protest the placement of his bust at the University of Washington.<13> Jackson was both an enthusiastic defender of the evacuation and a staunch proponent of the campaign to keep the Japanese from returning to the Pacific Coast after the war..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson



Clean for Gene

[Greyhound]

41. Can you answer two questions?

1. Define "a strong military for our country"

2. Being distrustful of other nations is prudent, but just what do you think "the Russians" or the Chinese or the Venezuelans or whomever, are going to do? How?

Anxiously awaiting your reply...

[Rage Inc.]

50. Fair enough

A strong military is one that can protect the country. But we do have interests abroad. There are hundreds of thousands of our troops that should come home, but some overseas deployments (South Korea, Germany, the waters of the Indian Ocean, etc.) must be maintained.

It doesn't matter whether you or I trust the Chinese or not, as we are locked with them in the 21st-century MAD paradigm: Mutual Assured Depression. Our economies are so interdependent as to render us conjoined twins!

Russia? They're capitalists now. Woo-hoo! But the devolution back to Soviet-style authoritarianism---and aggression---is obvious for anyone to see.

[LWolf]

42. Not where I sit.

A strong military? Sure.

A military ever used for anything except for the direct defense of this nation against a direct attack on our soil? Absolutely not.

A military industrial complex that sucks our resources dry and bankrupts our nation under the guise of keeping "a strong military?" HELL NO.

Use of the military to achieve political goals? I will never support that.

No unrec. It's not a popularity contest for me, lol.

[Iggo]

43. "Defending our southern border" against what? Brown people? (n/t)

[deaniac21]

46. I'm a Carolina Chickadee

[DevonRex]

47. .

:rofl:

Thanks.

[deaniac21]

51. and proud of it!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. I'm something less than a "hawk" but more than a pacifist

I believe in some military actions and oppose others. It just depends to me what the situation is and how much of a threat we're facing.
I don't know much about WWI but any time there's a war of that magnitude it's probably pretty impossible to stay out of it. WW2 definitely needed to be fought- even before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor IMHO as the "Axis" powers were a definite threat to the world if they were left unchecked.
Don't know much about the Korean war other than it was bloody and unpopular but, technically, we're still considered to be "at war" with North Korea and letting them trample over South Korea probably wouldn't be very good for anybody (least of all the South Koreans).
Vietnam was an utter mistake/failure and a monumental waste in lives and resources- accomplishing nothing substantive in the end.
Gulf War I, despite the fact that it didn't threaten us directly, seemed justified insofar as it involved driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, something that most countries/leaders agreed needed to be done. Bush I developed a REAL coalition and stuck to the mandate/scope of the mission and accomplished it within a fairly short time frame and with few American casualties/death.
I supported Afganistan post-9/11- going after Bin Laden and AQ there (something that Gore would've probably also done had he been POTUS- possibly because of OR maybe even in the absence of 9/11 although on a much smaller scale) although Bushco ultimately didn't finish the job (or do it) right because of GWB's obsession with hurrying up and invading occupying Iraq- which I strongly opposed and, frankly, could have never been able to figure out.

[Spazito]

52. I hope you are lurking and enjoying a well-deserved...

tombstone!

[Call Me Wesley]

53. OP left the building,

heading for Russia, which he can see if there's no ash cloud in the sky. From his basement. ;)

[scarletwoman]

56. Geeze, what took so long? That jerkoff was an obvious troll from day one.

Good riddance! :woohoo:

[marmar]

54. "Let the unrecs fly!"

Gladly.....and I don't "unrec" very often.


"I wouldn't mind at all if one of our missile subs "accidentally" wiped the incredibly annoying Kim Jong Il off the surface of the planet."

Un-fuckingbelievable. I had to check the URL to make sure it didn't say freerepublic.com


:wtf:

[mmonk]

55. You're welcome to Scoop. He was the father of neoconservatism.

I will never forgive nor ever forget.

[lunatica]

57. Tombstoned

No surprise there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=256424

[ima_sinnic]

good riddance. (nt)

[marmar]

58. What's sadder is all the agreement with Now Tombstoned in this thread....

Yikes !!!! :scared:

[Swamp Rat]

59. Scoop Jackson was a neocon, and the boss of the PNACers

So if you love endless war, mass murder and genocide, then vote for Scoop Jacksonites!

[TexasObserver]

60. Dead Man Walkin'!

Here lies ...

[MadHound]

61. Well, while you might distrust the Russians, by following your path,

We're guaranteed to go end our empire in much the same way those Russians did, through a military system that we spend entirely too much on.

We spend over fifty percent of our government budget on the military, far to much to sustain our people. We are cutting spending on education, public health, hell they're even looking to cut Social Security, but the military budget keeps on growing. Why? Isn't the fact that we spend more on our military than the next twenty eight countries combined enough? Do we honestly have to spend our way to oblivion just to prove we're "tough"?

You do realize that by wiping out Kim Jong Il, you would also most likely be wiping out thousands of innocents along with him? Why must genocide be the answer. As far as militarizing the border goes, what a fucked up, racist based idea is that? How about we end the useless war on drugs, put streamlined immigration in place and tear down the goddamn fence that Bush put up, and watch our country and economy thrive.

It is people like you who are part of the problem, constantly preparing for a war that never comes, spending our society into oblivion, sacrificing everything on the altar of war. As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. Why don't we expand our tool box, engage with our global neighbors, and cut our military spending in half. We'll still have the capability to defend ourselves, but also have the money we need to address domestic needs as well.