Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I know other people have asked this but what exactly makes Clinton a "Hawk"? People keep calling her that, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of explanation, just an assumption it's true. The closet thing I've come to notice is her voting for war in Iraq (something we've gone over enough) and that she would be willing to use military force in some situation.
Does anyone have anything more specific, because otherwise the term doesn't seem to have a lot of meaning.
edited 13th Jul '16 11:31:28 AM by LSBK
To me, the floating of that pick indicates a desire to have a VP who will be a credible voice in combating terrorism and other global threats, increasing her administration's foreign policy focus, which seems odd since she's supposed to have a lot of that already. I would be disappointed if she's picking Stavridis just so she can have an authoritative masculine voice behind her.
edited 13th Jul '16 11:48:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Sarcasm, I know, but Bill can't be VP because he can't be President again.
@LSBK
I asked that myself a few pages back
and the impression I got from the discussion is that there are some who equate "hawk" with "warmonger who will launch a war at the flimsiest excuse" while the general opinion is more that, yes, she's more willing to take a hard-line on military intervention but isn't about to go actively looking for trouble.
Edit: Fixed link.
edited 13th Jul '16 11:49:35 AM by sgamer82
Which is why she should pick Obama instead!
...wait....
Yes, I'm sure there are no problems with that.
edited 13th Jul '16 11:57:05 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
And Cheney turned out to be a demon in human form that we'd have been better off dropping in the river, so...
edited 13th Jul '16 11:58:22 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"With Clinton she's not only less fight shy but she's also more supportive of authoritarian allies than Obama has been. She's more willing to tolerate the kind of crap Turkey, Pakistan, Egpy and other countries with questionable records do.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI won't deny that Clinton isn't more hawkish than some, but to call her a war hawk is a gross exaggeration. Yes, military force remains part of her foreign policy toolbox, but it's far from her go-to default response that many people would have you believe.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
This chickenhawk thing might make sense in a place with conscription and warfare, for example Israel, but not in a place where less than a percent of the population have served in the armed forces.
If you tally up all the members of Congress who voted for Iraq without any military background, you'd have a pretty significant list. The only reasons we care about this particular one are that she's running for President and that the right has a hate-boner for her.
As noted
, requiring military service to be President automatically excludes well over 95% of the U.S. population. Way to support democratic ideals, folks.
Who the blankety-blank cares? It's not like wars are our primary international activity in the current century.
edited 13th Jul '16 12:24:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I'm not really pro labeling Clinton as a warhawk, or chickenhawk. However, she could have served if she wanted to. Born in '47, of age in '65, and women have been able to serve in the USAF since '48.
The math works pretty well.
Edit to respond: Someone above mentioned that she couldn't have served, possibly. I was providing information regarding that statement. You may need to breathe deeper.
edited 13th Jul '16 12:27:09 PM by OblongReality
The thing with Autoritarian regimes is that the US doesn't need them all, Obama rebuilt a lot of the US's image abroad, if Clinton isn't iwlling to even ask authoritarian allies to tone it down some of Obama's work will be undone.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I'll have to watch his TED talk a bit later, do some more Googling, but Stavridis seems like a good pick for Clinton. He's not a hawk, whereas that was one of the things about Clinton which gave me pause.
edited 13th Jul '16 11:25:11 AM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."