A dove is someone who opposes the use of military pressure to resolve a dispute; a hawk favors entry into war. Which are you?
Are You A Hawk Or A Dove?
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
I would say a little of both. I would prefer disputes to be handled without violence but I also recognize that in some disputes, violence is inevitable.
VeronicaVice
Official Checked Star Member
Dove; always look for a peaceful resolution first 
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
With a few exceptions, 'military pressure' has almost always been about sending men to die to line some rich folks' pockets. The military industrial complex is one hell of a money-making machine, and all it needs is fresh meat and an insane (at least in the US) portion of our taxes to keep it going.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Agree 100%. If those guys think we won't bring in the forces then they we are at their mercy. Gotta flex your muscles sometimes.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
:sing: I'm a little bit country, I'm a little bit rock and roll...
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
I only believe war is worth fighting for in self defense,rather than someone elses political agenda
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
It depends.
Sometimes the use of military force will only excacerbate a situation.
Other times a peaceful solution is impossible.
I'd say that we should prefer a peaceful solution where possible, but a peaceful solution is often only possible because the enemy knows that you can effect a military solution if necessary.
Sometimes the use of military force will only excacerbate a situation.
Other times a peaceful solution is impossible.
I'd say that we should prefer a peaceful solution where possible, but a peaceful solution is often only possible because the enemy knows that you can effect a military solution if necessary.
:yesyes:
:surprise:
I would add that historically Empires can't seem to go more than a generation (~25 years) without going to war with someone, usually another Empire.
During the Vietnam War era I remember a History or Poli-Sci Professor (Wish I could remember his name or book title) doing the TV rounds talking about a book he wrote on history of war. He said "Of the ~2000 wars that they have good records on, about half started by accident! Usually with tough talk or saber rattling meant to avoid war!
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
I am in the middle.
I am a falcon.
I am a falcon.
I am in the middle.
I am a falcon.
You have got to be 4F.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Not at all.
You are selective. Are you Lurking's other username?
Nope no Dirk here laughing boy.....
The way you have it defined, we can choose between being a limp wristed hippie peace-nick, or a war mongering, bloodthirsty fool who doesn't care about the facts, and instead, just wants an excuse to go to war. Can't there be anything in between?
If I had to define myself, I would say I'm a dove - but a very strong one. I don't want to go to war until the last resort. At the same time, I believe in making sure all my enemies and potential enemies all know that I am more than capable of opening up a huge can of whoop ass on them if they push me too far.
I'm a peacock, captain! You gotta let me fly!
This, 100%. Maintain peace through diplomacy as much as possible, but be prepared to act if shit goes straight to hell.
This, 100%. Maintain peace through diplomacy as much as possible, but be prepared to act if shit goes straight to hell.
Deepcover
Closed Account
Dove; always look for a peaceful resolution first
Same here. One can always use good police work as well...I think.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Neither and both. It depends on the situation. If diplomacy has a chance, I say use that until it has no chance of working. But if the republic's safety and security are truly at risk (not some make believe bullshit like what the neocons gave us with Iraq), then I believe in the concept of "total war" (excluding the use of nuclear weapons). It is the worst kind of war, but history has shown that it is the most effective kind of war. From Julius Caesar to William Tecumseh Sherman, "total war" has worked. And you do what works if you really need something to work - as distasteful as it may be.
IMO, the only ones who have the right idea about U.S. foreign policy, war and the aftermath of war (no nation building!!!) are libertarians (with a small "l").
IMO, the only ones who have the right idea about U.S. foreign policy, war and the aftermath of war (no nation building!!!) are libertarians (with a small "l"
).
