The hawks out out already

Ira · 11-08-2010, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Well, I just don't know what to say.
It appears that it doesn't matter which party is in power, you people just like to beat the crap out of everyone.
Sorry Jim, you won the battle, lost the war on this one.

Hey--someone had to stand up to the Nazis!

Parallax · 11-08-2010, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Well, I just don't know what to say.
It appears that it doesn't matter which party is in power, you people just like to beat the crap out of everyone.
Sorry Jim, you won the battle, lost the war on this one.

Bill, as Ira pointed out, some of that was necessary and unavoidable. The fact that there have been enough deaths in enough questionable actions since to make "which party gets more people killed" a topic of discussion is pretty sad, though.

Nesster · 11-08-2010, 10:50 AM

Let's hear from some libertarians on this topic...

Deficit Hawks or War Hawks? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Quote:

Last month I asked if the American people can afford a world-girdling foreign policy more befitting an empire than a republic. Look at it this way: War hawks make poor deficit hawks. Facing a $13 trillion national debt and trillion-dollar-plus annual budget deficits, we can’t afford to be complacent about foreign interventions costing $12 billion a month.

It’s not just that the budget numbers are daunting: The very institutions of small-government republicanism are suffocated by the quest for global hegemony. As James Madison said, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

The soul of the American founding, Thomas Paine, noted in The Rights of Man that in British history “taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but . . . wars were raised to carry on taxes.”

This philosophy was heard throughout the nineteenth century.

Quote:

Flynn, a muckraking reporter who had exposed special-interest corporatism in the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, had an unrivaled understanding of how domestic and foreign policies interact. In analyzing how federal policy makers are able to expand their power over the economy without inciting conservative opposition, he observed in 1944: “[M]ilitarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement. This economic phase of the institution, however, is not always stressed, being smothered under the patriotic gases pumped out in its defense. Nevertheless, this economic aspect is never absent from the consciousness of most people who champion militarism.”

Summing up, Flynn wrote: “We have managed to accumulate a pretty sizable empire of our own already—far-spreading territories detached from our continental borders. . . . We have now managed to acquire bases all over the world. . . . There is no part of the world where trouble can break out where we do not have bases of some sort in which, if we wish to use the pretension, we cannot claim our interests are menaced. . . . Because always the most powerful argument for a huge army maintained for economic reasons is that we have enemies. We must have enemies. They will become an economic necessity for us.”

jeffkrol · 11-08-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

Let's hear from some libertarians on this topic...

Deficit Hawks or War Hawks? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Nice article no one will pay attention.......

Maybe "waterboard Bush" should read it......
Another one.............
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/budget-mice/

Quote:

That makes discretionary nonsecurity spending – at $520 billion — only a little more than one-third of total discretionary spending and only one-seventh of the entire budget.

That’s not a very big portion.

If the deficit is projected to be $1.267 trillion and if the opposition wing of the uniparty managed to cut all discretionary nonsecurity spending – which of course it does not promise to do — the deficit would still be a whopping $747 billion.

Some Revolution

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call that a revolution. Getting started on the task of dramatically shrinking government’s spending — that is, control of resources — will require much bigger thinking than that. Entitlements and “security” (which is far more likely to create insecurity) must be on the chopping block. (See my “Can America Afford an Empire?” and “Deficit Hawks or War Hawks?”)

If they are not on the block, then the opposition is just performing a vacuous pantomime aimed at only one thing: procuring political power.

Quote:

The final reason to cheer for the Republican ascendancy is Iran policy. President Obama deserves credit for shifting gears from an all-carrot-no-stick approach to new sanctions, which have proven marginally more effective. Obama also deserves praise for his decision to sell $60 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Clearly the Saudis are scared of the mullahs’ quest for nukes and Israel’s silence on the deal means they are likely in agreement. Now come January, when the new Congress is sworn in representatives who are deeply concerned about Iran, whether Democrats or Republicans can work together to stiffen President Obama’s spine in the coming months as the United States finally leads the charge to stop the Iranians from getting the bomb.

Read more: The Jewish Chronicle - A GOP Congress means good things for Israel

http://www.thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/10203006/article-A-GOP-Con...nce=home_title
and Russia.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/europe/07policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-08-2010 at 12:56 PM.

Wheatfield · 11-08-2010, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Hey--someone had to stand up to the Nazis!

Err yes. Thanks for standing up to the Nazis. Thanks especially for waiting until after the Battle of Britain so that we could have some sport with them before you smote them with your awesome military prowess.
You seem prone to forgetting that you were Johnny Come Latelies to the party, and were pretty much the last of the major combatants to stand up to them.
This is not to say that your efforts weren't appreciated, what isn't appreciated is your implication that no one had stood up to them before you were forced into the war on the Allies side by the Pearl Harbour attack.
As we approach Remembrance Day, I cannot help but think of the two uncles I never met who were killed prior to the USA entering the war.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature RT Hawks v. Western Kingbirds	swglera	Post Your Photos!	1	07-22-2010 02:46 AM
Nature Shitster hawks	photolady95	Post Your Photos!	3	02-21-2010 07:08 AM
Nature Red-shouldered Hawks	snooked	Post Your Photos!	5	02-07-2010 01:01 PM
Hawks	scott-devon	Post Your Photos!	3	03-27-2009 05:59 PM
Patoka Lake Visitor's Center, Hawks and Flowers	konraDarnok	Post Your Photos!	4	09-29-2007 05:47 PM

11-08-2010, 04:42 AM	#16
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by Wheatfield Well, I just don't know what to say. It appears that it doesn't matter which party is in power, you people just like to beat the crap out of everyone. Sorry Jim, you won the battle, lost the war on this one. Hey--someone had to stand up to the Nazis!

11-08-2010, 06:09 AM	#17
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by Wheatfield Well, I just don't know what to say. It appears that it doesn't matter which party is in power, you people just like to beat the crap out of everyone. Sorry Jim, you won the battle, lost the war on this one. Bill, as Ira pointed out, some of that was necessary and unavoidable. The fact that there have been enough deaths in enough questionable actions since to make "which party gets more people killed" a topic of discussion is pretty sad, though.

11-08-2010, 10:50 AM	#18
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Let's hear from some libertarians on this topic... Deficit Hawks or War Hawks? \| The Freeman \| Ideas On Liberty Quote: Last month I asked if the American people can afford a world-girdling foreign policy more befitting an empire than a republic. Look at it this way: War hawks make poor deficit hawks. Facing a $13 trillion national debt and trillion-dollar-plus annual budget deficits, we can’t afford to be complacent about foreign interventions costing $12 billion a month. It’s not just that the budget numbers are daunting: The very institutions of small-government republicanism are suffocated by the quest for global hegemony. As James Madison said, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” The soul of the American founding, Thomas Paine, noted in The Rights of Man that in British history “taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but . . . wars were raised to carry on taxes.” This philosophy was heard throughout the nineteenth century. Quote: Flynn, a muckraking reporter who had exposed special-interest corporatism in the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, had an unrivaled understanding of how domestic and foreign policies interact. In analyzing how federal policy makers are able to expand their power over the economy without inciting conservative opposition, he observed in 1944: “[M]ilitarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement. This economic phase of the institution, however, is not always stressed, being smothered under the patriotic gases pumped out in its defense. Nevertheless, this economic aspect is never absent from the consciousness of most people who champion militarism.” Summing up, Flynn wrote: “We have managed to accumulate a pretty sizable empire of our own already—far-spreading territories detached from our continental borders. . . . We have now managed to acquire bases all over the world. . . . There is no part of the world where trouble can break out where we do not have bases of some sort in which, if we wish to use the pretension, we cannot claim our interests are menaced. . . . Because always the most powerful argument for a huge army maintained for economic reasons is that we have enemies. We must have enemies. They will become an economic necessity for us.”

11-08-2010, 11:12 AM	#19
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434 Original Poster	Originally posted by Nesster Let's hear from some libertarians on this topic... Deficit Hawks or War Hawks? \| The Freeman \| Ideas On Liberty Nice article no one will pay attention....... Maybe "waterboard Bush" should read it...... Another one............. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/budget-mice/ Quote: That makes discretionary nonsecurity spending – at $520 billion — only a little more than one-third of total discretionary spending and only one-seventh of the entire budget. That’s not a very big portion. If the deficit is projected to be $1.267 trillion and if the opposition wing of the uniparty managed to cut all discretionary nonsecurity spending – which of course it does not promise to do — the deficit would still be a whopping $747 billion. Some Revolution I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call that a revolution. Getting started on the task of dramatically shrinking government’s spending — that is, control of resources — will require much bigger thinking than that. Entitlements and “security” (which is far more likely to create insecurity) must be on the chopping block. (See my “Can America Afford an Empire?” and “Deficit Hawks or War Hawks?”) If they are not on the block, then the opposition is just performing a vacuous pantomime aimed at only one thing: procuring political power. Quote: The final reason to cheer for the Republican ascendancy is Iran policy. President Obama deserves credit for shifting gears from an all-carrot-no-stick approach to new sanctions, which have proven marginally more effective. Obama also deserves praise for his decision to sell $60 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Clearly the Saudis are scared of the mullahs’ quest for nukes and Israel’s silence on the deal means they are likely in agreement. Now come January, when the new Congress is sworn in representatives who are deeply concerned about Iran, whether Democrats or Republicans can work together to stiffen President Obama’s spine in the coming months as the United States finally leads the charge to stop the Iranians from getting the bomb. Read more: The Jewish Chronicle - A GOP Congress means good things for Israel http://www.thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/10203006/article-A-GOP-Con...nce=home_title and Russia..... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/world/europe/07policy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-08-2010 at 12:56 PM.

11-08-2010, 06:40 PM	#20
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by Ira Hey--someone had to stand up to the Nazis! Err yes. Thanks for standing up to the Nazis. Thanks especially for waiting until after the Battle of Britain so that we could have some sport with them before you smote them with your awesome military prowess. You seem prone to forgetting that you were Johnny Come Latelies to the party, and were pretty much the last of the major combatants to stand up to them. This is not to say that your efforts weren't appreciated, what isn't appreciated is your implication that no one had stood up to them before you were forced into the war on the Allies side by the Pearl Harbour attack. As we approach Remembrance Day, I cannot help but think of the two uncles I never met who were killed prior to the USA entering the war.