Charles Krauthammer: The fruits of weakness

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If we had an intelligence apparatus that wasn't so gun shy, now that they think they'll be prosecuted for doing their job, they could have help to galvanize and organize the resistance against the mullahs and political leaders that are squandering that nation's talent.

If our "intelligence apparatus" had stayed the fuck out of Iran in 1953 that country would likely still be a thriving secularist West-leaning democracy. The "might is right" belligerence you seem fond of has created many of the tensions that plague the world today. The mullahs and political climate in Iran are creatures of our own making. Given our crappy track record at using intelligence agencies to create "friends" by installing dictatorial regimes, you'd think we would have learned a little humility. Apparently the lesson is lost on some, who still think can bully the rest of the world into jumping to our every whim. Perhaps Mr. Krauthhammer should volunteer to go fight in one of the limitless wars he seems to think we should be fighting.

Don

Krauthammer is yet another right wing CHICKENHAWK. His columns are as predictable as the Sun rising in the east.

But not quite as reliable as your posts are for name calling and emotional kneejerking.

Krauthammer is a perfect example of the species known as Chickenhawk. The description fits him to a tee. Care to rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Krauthammer is a perfect example of the species known as Chickenhawk. The description fits him to a tee. Care to rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?

You're the one that should be challenged to rebut, based on something besides lame personal attacks.

Do you have no courage to attack his positions on issues? Is it just because it is more fun to make personal attacks? Is it because paralyzed old Jewish Harvard educated psychiatrist (with political science and economics degrees) syndicated columnists that have won the Pulitzer Prize, worked for pres Carter and wrote speeches for Walter Mondale really piss you off and make too tempting of a target? Maybe the fact that he has been close in to the center of the dem power structure before swaying conservative is what causes the hatred, I can understand that. The fact that he is so highly respected and won so many honors must really make you mad, who wouldn't be?

Please, please educate us oh learned professor and keen-eyed spotter of disguised chickenhawks, please tell us how awful this guy is. Please don't forget to inform the long time NPR commentators Mara Liasson and Juan Williams, for they also need your wisdom, for they know not of his chickenhawkedness. With your steady and reasoned guidance they may stop showing him respect and agreeing with him so much when they sit next to him on Bret Baier's show.

We are so easily led astray, please protect us from the chickenhawks!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Thanks, but I have read his bio and his hawkish columns for myself.

Maybe you can point out his military service since it seems I missed it.

Nothing in his bio suggests that he is anything but a chickenhawk.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Thanks, but I have read his bio and his hawkish columns for myself.

Maybe you can point out his military service since it seems I missed it.

Nothing in his bio suggests that he is anything but a chickenhawk.

Silly me, I thought you were going to, "...rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?" Much easier to simply avoid discussing the content of his writings, especially since he writes for the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Your liberal sensibilities shouldn't have to suffer the exposure to a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist that writes for those conservative rags. I suppose you could read his work in the Washington Post or one of the hundreds of other newspapers in which he appears, but it would still burn knowing he is a conservative, so best to avoid it completely.

So, you don't discuss the content of his columns, and the only part of his bio you "rebut" is the absence of military service. He must have gone to college just to avoid serving in Vietnam, and likely got himself paralyzed his first year of medical school to avoid it after he became a doctor.

We are all so grateful to have you inform us of the military service prerequisite for hawkish political commentary, at least for conservatives.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Thanks, but I have read his bio and his hawkish columns for myself.

Maybe you can point out his military service since it seems I missed it.

Nothing in his bio suggests that he is anything but a chickenhawk.

Silly me, I thought you were going to, "...rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?" Much easier to simply avoid discussing the content of his writings, especially since he writes for the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Your liberal sensibilities shouldn't have to suffer the exposure to a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist that writes for those conservative rags. I suppose you could read his work in the Washington Post or one of the hundreds of other newspapers in which he appears, but it would still burn knowing he is a conservative, so best to avoid it completely.

So, you don't discuss the content of his columns, and the only part of his bio you "rebut" is the absence of military service. He must have gone to college just to avoid serving in Vietnam, and likely got himself paralyzed his first year of medical school to avoid it after he became a doctor.

We are all so grateful to have you inform us of the military service prerequisite for hawkish political commentary, at least for conservatives.

The Online Urban Dictionary defines a chickenhawk as "A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience." Another reference to chickenhawks is that "the closest they have come to a tank is a think-tank."

Krauthammer fits.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

If we had an intelligence apparatus that wasn't so gun shy, now that they think they'll be prosecuted for doing their job, they could have help to galvanize and organize the resistance against the mullahs and political leaders that are squandering that nation's talent...

That's fine with me that the planes are still landing there. What I don't like though is that we have not been a good steward of our relations. How is it that we managed to not position ourselves so that they would welcome a continued presence?

You make it sound so easy.

Of course the world is full of long term, stable, friendly republics put in place by US Intelligence. And tell me, what would it take for you to welcome a foreign military base in the USA?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks, but I have read his bio and his hawkish columns for myself.

Maybe you can point out his military service since it seems I missed it.

Nothing in his bio suggests that he is anything but a chickenhawk.

Silly me, I thought you were going to, "...rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?" Much easier to simply avoid discussing the content of his writings, especially since he writes for the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Your liberal sensibilities shouldn't have to suffer the exposure to a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist that writes for those conservative rags. I suppose you could read his work in the Washington Post or one of the hundreds of other newspapers in which he appears, but it would still burn knowing he is a conservative, so best to avoid it completely.

So, you don't discuss the content of his columns, and the only part of his bio you "rebut" is the absence of military service. He must have gone to college just to avoid serving in Vietnam, and likely got himself paralyzed his first year of medical school to avoid it after he became a doctor.

We are all so grateful to have you inform us of the military service prerequisite for hawkish political commentary, at least for conservatives.

The Online Urban Dictionary defines a chickenhawk as "A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience." Another reference to chickenhawks is that "the closest they have come to a tank is a think-tank."

Krauthammer fits.

Still avoiding the "...content of his columns." I think you know that you won't win that battle.

I know what a chickenhawk is. Is it only conservatives that irritate you so, or do liberal chickenhawks cause similar distress?

Do you advocate for military service as a presidential requirement, even for the British PM? Perhaps actual shooting combat experience? Maybe having killed someone in war would be even better? Please inform us of what it should be. What if there wasn't a war for a while, before long nobody would qualify?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks, but I have read his bio and his hawkish columns for myself.

Maybe you can point out his military service since it seems I missed it.

Nothing in his bio suggests that he is anything but a chickenhawk.

Silly me, I thought you were going to, "...rebut, based on his bio and the content of his columns?" Much easier to simply avoid discussing the content of his writings, especially since he writes for the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. Your liberal sensibilities shouldn't have to suffer the exposure to a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist that writes for those conservative rags. I suppose you could read his work in the Washington Post or one of the hundreds of other newspapers in which he appears, but it would still burn knowing he is a conservative, so best to avoid it completely.

So, you don't discuss the content of his columns, and the only part of his bio you "rebut" is the absence of military service. He must have gone to college just to avoid serving in Vietnam, and likely got himself paralyzed his first year of medical school to avoid it after he became a doctor.

We are all so grateful to have you inform us of the military service prerequisite for hawkish political commentary, at least for conservatives.

The Online Urban Dictionary defines a chickenhawk as "A politician or other person who promotes war without having had any personal experience of it; especially those who have avoided the experience." Another reference to chickenhawks is that "the closest they have come to a tank is a think-tank."

Krauthammer fits.

Still avoiding the "...content of his columns." I think you know that you won't win that battle.
?

I take it that you don't read many of his columns or you wouldn't make such a silly statement. He is as hawkish as they come.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I take it that you don't read many of his columns or you wouldn't make such a silly statement. He is as hawkish as they come.

You would "take" incorrectly. I know he's hawkish. I was just expecting you to do as you asked others to, and, "...rebut, based upon his bio and the content of his columns." So far you've just labeled him a chickenhawk and left it at that. Not much "content" in that analysis. You're the one that asked for content, why do you avoid it?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

I take it that you don't read many of his columns or you wouldn't make such a silly statement. He is as hawkish as they come.

You would "take" incorrectly. I know he's hawkish. ?

OK, so you admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service.

QED

You lose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

You lose.

ROFLMAO ... lose what?

Are you still looking to take the Gold at the DorkZone Special Olympics?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I take it that you don't read many of his columns or you wouldn't make such a silly statement. He is as hawkish as they come.

You would "take" incorrectly. I know he's hawkish. ?

OK, so you admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service.

QED

You lose.

You're the one that wanted to rebut based on the content of his columns. You gave up.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I take it that you don't read many of his columns or you wouldn't make such a silly statement. He is as hawkish as they come.

You would "take" incorrectly. I know he's hawkish. ?

OK, so you admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service.

QED

You lose.

You're the one that wanted to rebut based on the content of his columns. You gave up.

Giving up - that is . . . what Surrender?

Or was he disqualified for non answers after demanding rebuttle concerning what he has written?

Either way he still gets the Gold Medal!

Cuz - you know what they say about arguing on the internet . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,184]

You admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

You admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.

I know what a chickenhawk is. Is it only conservatives that irritate you so, or do liberal chickenhawks cause similar distress?

Do you advocate for military service as a presidential requirement, even for the British PM? Perhaps actual shooting combat experience? Maybe having killed someone in war would be even better? Please inform us of what it should be. What if there wasn't a war for a while, before long nobody would qualify?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Do you advocate for military service as a presidential requirement, even for the British PM?

I wouldn't oppose military service being added to the list of requirements. Not battle experience, but military service. I think the important goal of that service would be understanding from a first person perspective how the system works and a leader's decisions can influence that system. To that end, the requirement could be broadened to "federal service" for the same term (4 years I think is the minimum military enlistment in the US). Thus many presidents even without military background would have fulfilled that requirement through their federal service in congress.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

You admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.

I know what a chickenhawk is. Is it only conservatives that irritate you so, or do liberal chickenhawks cause similar distress?

Anyone that advocates the use of force as a first resort irritates me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.

I know what a chickenhawk is. Is it only conservatives that irritate you so, or do liberal chickenhawks cause similar distress?

Anyone that advocates the use of force as a first resort irritates me.

Now that you've modified the definition, Krauthammer no longer fits it. I figure you wanted to qualify the meaning of the word because too many libs would fit.

Being a hawk is not unusual, advocating force as a first resort is another thing completely. Where has that happened? I realize this is going to be tough, you might even have to resort to rebutting the content of his columns, as you originally said you would. I think you won't, probably just a quick, dismissive insult of some sort, claiming that I've proved your point taking advantage of a few logical fallacies along the way.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You admit he's a hawk and you admit he has no military service. That is the definition of a chickenhawk.

I know what a chickenhawk is. Is it only conservatives that irritate you so, or do liberal chickenhawks cause similar distress?

Anyone that advocates the use of force as a first resort irritates me.

I must irritate the shit out of you, because, someone breaks into my house and starts doing harmful things to my daughter, sorry, call the morgue, there's one in a body bag here for ya. There is no other action. There will be no dialogue. There will be a swing and a hit and a body hitting the floor.

That goes for anyone under my roof and my protection.

Absolute force absolutely first. No second chances.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

I must irritate the shit out of you, because, someone breaks into my house and starts doing harmful things to my daughter, sorry, call the morgue, there's one in a body bag here for ya. There is no other action. There will be no dialogue. There will be a swing and a hit and a body hitting the floor.

And is that how you think the US government should deal with each and every country where there is some disagreement? Is that how the government should deal with US citizens? For that matter, is that how you'd deal with neighbors over, say, a barking dog?

If a foreign country were to invade US soil [or in your example breaks into your house and molests your daughter], of course we'd kick them out by force. No-one has suggested otherwise. That's quite different from suggesting that we ensure continued access to Middle East oil by making an example of some country in the region so the rest will understand the importance of being cooperative (as in the PNAC document that outlined years in advance the rationale for invading Iraq). Krauthhammer and other conservative commentators consistently disparage every attempt at a diplomatic solution to international issues. They usually don't say right out to go to war, but they exclude every other possible approach. If every attempt to talk, or to recruit other countries to our side of the dispute is ridiculed as weakness, what else is left except military action?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

I must irritate the shit out of you, because, someone breaks into my house and starts doing harmful things to my daughter, sorry, call the morgue, there's one in a body bag here for ya. There is no other action. There will be no dialogue. There will be a swing and a hit and a body hitting the floor.

And is that how you think the US government should deal with each and every country where there is some disagreement? Is that how the government should deal with US citizens? For that matter, is that how you'd deal with neighbors over, say, a barking dog?

If a foreign country were to invade US soil [or in your example breaks into your house and molests your daughter], of course we'd kick them out by force. No-one has suggested otherwise. That's quite different from suggesting that we ensure continued access to Middle East oil by making an example of some country in the region so the rest will understand the importance of being cooperative (as in the PNAC document that outlined years in advance the rationale for invading Iraq). Krauthhammer and other conservative commentators consistently disparage every attempt at a diplomatic solution to international issues. They usually don't say right out to go to war, but they exclude every other possible approach. If every attempt to talk, or to recruit other countries to our side of the dispute is ridiculed as weakness, what else is left except military action?

Don

That is just not true. You might like to have others believe that it applies to conservatives in general, and Krauthammer specifically, but it does not.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wmw999 2,603]

Your house. You locked the doors. There are laws in place. You waited until he actually began to threaten people, instead of just coming in the front door. That makes force very much not the first resort.

What if there's an asshole who lives down the street who everyone wishes would just leave the neighborhood, but he doesn't? You don't invite him to your parties of course. If you're the richest guy on the block, most people will do what you do (unless you're also an asshole).

But here is a situation where two other guys in the neighborhood want to try yet another approach with the asshole, and you disagree -- you think it's time for stronger measures (maybe blocking his driveway, maybe cutting branches of his trees that overhang the fence, maybe setting up a camcorder on his front door all the time -- all the chickenshit stuff that feuding neighbers do).

Sometimes one doesn't have the best possible answer. Sometimes one does. But in a complex multi-party situation, it's a guarantee that the best answer for one party is going to be an awful one for a lot of other people.

I think that it's time for the USA to lead by example, rather than by herding. BTW, just being the richest motherfucker on the block doesn't make an example.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sundevil777 102]

Some would assert that hawkish persons such as Krauthammer do not advocate the use of diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force. I say this is not correct. There are no current "situations" in the world where it has not been used, and used, tried and tried...even for those situations where war was the result.

Some will want to use diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force forever no matter what the response to those efforts, never being able to conclude that it is not going to work.

Some are not able to see the difference, or choose not to see it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wmw999 2,603]

Quote

Some would assert that hawkish persons such as Krauthammer do not advocate the use of diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force. I say this is not correct. There are no current "situations" in the world where it has not been used, and used, tried and tried...even for those situations where war was the result.

Some will want to use diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force forever no matter what the response to those efforts, never being able to conclude that it is not going to work.

Some are not able to see the difference, or choose not to see it.

And a lot of smart people just disagree on the point where you give up on diplomacy and move to force. That's where smart people discuss, and a lot of others just start yelling and name-calling.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Some would assert that hawkish persons such as Krauthammer do not advocate the use of diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force. I say this is not correct. There are no current "situations" in the world where it has not been used, and used, tried and tried...even for those situations where war was the result.

Some will want to use diplomacy/sanctions/alternatives to war/force forever no matter what the response to those efforts, never being able to conclude that it is not going to work.

Some are not able to see the difference, or choose not to see it.

And a lot of smart people just disagree on the point where you give up on diplomacy and move to force. That's where smart people discuss, and a lot of others just start yelling and name-calling.

Wendy P.

Quite right, certain people don't rebut the columns of certain commentators, and instead just call them names such as chickenhawk. It certainly is much easier to do that rather than discuss the merits of changing strategy on the diplomacy vs the use of force. I suppose I'm guilty of calling certain people names such as pacifist.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am