Obama, Weak and Timid does Nothing

In fairness to JV, who is an unabashed libertarian, he used warmongering correctly.



I looked up the definition, and lo and behold, I am a warmonger. Though I don't necessarily want a direct military assault, I do want some kind of aggressive action (Economic Sanctions, No Fly Zones, etc.) to make Putin think twice about any further conquests.



Warmonger--a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.



You know who else was a warmonger...Captain Moroni. He roused up a whole bunch of people to fight the Kingmen. Warmonger!!! Attaching labels to people is fun. :crazy: :crazy: So, I say it is okay to be a warmonger in certain situations, but it is never okay to be a whoremonger. This was a public service announcement. The more you know... ;)



In all seriousness, I think it is safe to say, no one wants World War III. The real crux of the matter is whether doing nothing will cause World War III, or whether doing nothing will prevent World War III. I think reasonable minds can differ on that point, and as Napolean Dynamite once said, "Yeah, right. Like anyone could even know that." At least I think it was ND.

Ok, fair enough. Let's look at the dictionary definition of: "Warmonger"



Merriam-Webster ~

Warmonger: A person who wants a war or attempts to stir up a war, one who urges or attempts to stir up war.



The Free Dictionary ~

Warmonger: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war, a person who fosters warlike ideas, or advocates war.



I ask the same question JV - who is advocating war in this thread to be labeled a warmonger? I am perplexed.



I went back and read all the posters;

Hawking - nothing advocating war or sanctions.

Snoscythe - no posts advocating war or sanctions.

Cougarfan87 - no posts advocating war or sanctions.

Ddawg (me) - no posts advocating war or sanctions.



Please enlighten me.

Ddawg wrote:
Ok, fair enough. Let's look at the dictionary definition of: "Warmonger"



Merriam-Webster ~

Warmonger: A person who wants a war or attempts to stir up a war, one who urges or attempts to stir up war.



The Free Dictionary ~

Warmonger: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war, a person who fosters warlike ideas, or advocates war.



I ask the same question JV - who is advocating war in this thread to be labeled a warmonger? I am perplexed.



I went back and read all the posters;

Hawking - nothing advocating war or sanctions.

Snoscythe - no posts advocating war or sanctions.

Cougarfan87 - no posts advocating war or sanctions.

Ddawg (me) - no posts advocating war or sanctions.



Please enlighten me.

I like the definitions you found better. They make me seem more peaceful. ;)

Thanks for the definitions. You are right, Capt. Moroni was a warmonger. So was Joshua the great Ephraimite and many others in scriptures. Another was Churchill while Chamberlain was not. I find it hard to disagree with any of the above (except Chamberlain). Most of the time when war erupts it's the result of a series of many mistakes but when you are being shot at you either run or fight back. Jv, What would you do if you were the head of Judah/Israel?

FWIW, in my view, Captain Moroni was not a warmonger--he was not one who sought to stir up or advocate for war. Defending one's liberty, families or faith does not make one a warmonger. I think there is a very big difference between the two. President Bush and VP Cheney were warmongers; Captain Moroni was not. I do not even think Churchill was a warmonger.

BoiseBYU wrote:
FWIW, in my view, Captain Moroni was not a warmonger--he was not one who sought to stir up or advocate for war. Defending one's liberty, families or faith does not make one a warmonger. I think there is a very big difference between the two. President Bush and VP Cheney were warmongers; Captain Moroni was not. I do not even think Churchill was a warmonger.

You're not playing fair. You must read the definitions. :lol: From the one I found almost anyone is a warmonger.



Warmonger--a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.



That isn't to say Captain Moroni didn't have good reason to encourage aggression towards another nation or group--he certainly did. But by that definition he is a warmonger, as anyone would be who advocated fighting for your freedom (George Washington), rather than being a pacifist--such as the Ammonites who laid down their lives rather than fight.



Now, I will admit that I find the definition above wanting. Warmongers, in my mind fit more of the definitions DDawg quoted where there is an implied lust for war for the sake of war or conquering others rather than defending oneself or others.

Ddawg wrote:
Economic sanctions an act of war?



If economic sanctions are an act of war, then does Congress need to approve all economic sanctions?

Yes and Yes. If a foreign navy blockaded Boston Harbor or New York or New Orleans we would consider it an act of war and rightly so.



You guys are so pussy-footed. Who's calling for sanctions? Please. Read the OP. Say what you want the US to do or go home.



You justify sending kids to die (and kill other kids) in the desert based on the same lies the government is telling now but you can't say any more than "the worst thing that can be done is to do nothing." Pathetic.

jvquarterback wrote:

Economic sanctions an act of war?



If economic sanctions are an act of war, then does Congress need to approve all economic sanctions?

Yes and Yes. If a foreign navy blockaded Boston Harbor or New York or New Orleans we would consider it an act of war and rightly so.



You guys are so pussy-footed. Who's calling for sanctions? Please. Read the OP. Say what you want the US to do or go home.



You justify sending kids to die (and kill other kids) in the desert based on the same lies the government is telling now but you can't say any more than "the worst thing that can be done is to do nothing." Pathetic.

...and you think that "nothing" is the right thing to do, that doing "nothing" will prevent "kids from killing kids"? That US isolation will result in the earth being free from war? I say, you need to say how the US doing nothing is the best option or go home. Pathetic

I have to take exception to Moroni was a warmonger. He was not the aggressor. He was defending against the warmongers. Didn't he give them a chance to return home and end the war if they would make a convenent not to return?

jvquarterback wrote:

Economic sanctions an act of war?



If economic sanctions are an act of war, then does Congress need to approve all economic sanctions?

Yes and Yes. If a foreign navy blockaded Boston Harbor or New York or New Orleans we would consider it an act of war and rightly so.



You guys are so pussy-footed. Who's calling for sanctions? Please. Read the OP. Say what you want the US to do or go home.



You justify sending kids to die (and kill other kids) in the desert based on the same lies the government is telling now but you can't say any more than "the worst thing that can be done is to do nothing." Pathetic.

Well, you're mistaken. Sanctions do not take an act of Congress, and they are not an act of war. There are all kinds of sanctions, and are used to put pressure on a country - to encourage them to modify and alter their behavior.



The false argument that you present would be an act of war - a naval, military blockade that is used to impose complete blockage of supplies (military, medical, food), material, and troops from either coming or going. A blockade is a completely different animal than a sanction. Though a naval blockade can impose complete and total sanctions. Not all sanctions are complete and toto. Nor do most sanctions require military force. The fact is, most don't.



Sanctions take many forms. They can be economic, diplomatic, scientific knowledge, technical knowledge, trade tariffs, even sports team sanctions (Jimmy Carter olympic sanctions). The reality is, sanctions are used in lieu of war - as a behavior modifier, or a deterrent to future behavior.



I do think you are confused. First, you called the posters in this thread warmongers. I really didn't see any posts from anyone that justified that. But - anyway -



[quote="jvquarterback"

Now if you war mongerers get your way

[/quote]



Then you flip-flopped and decided the posters here weren't warmongers, but pussy-footed. I looked and can't find any posts from anyone that would make me believe any poster here is pussy-footed.

jvquarterback wrote:

You guys are so pussy-footed.

Then we all become pathetic. 8)

jvquarterback wrote:

Pathetic.

If the shoe fits, I am happy to wear it. I just don't see where any posters here, including myself, have been either warmonger's, pussy-footed, or pathetic. All in all, it doesn't really matter. All good.