There are 42 comments.

1. Inactive
   A-Squared

   @ASquared

   8:41 AM EST ⋅ Dec 17, 2015

   RyanFalcone:It wasn’t discussed 25 years ago. That’s cute. There seems to be every indication today that it should’ve been discussed more then instead of less now.

   There are a couple of reasons why it wasn’t discussed as much 25 years ago.

   The most important of which was that politics was said to stop at the water’s edge, ie, when it came to foreign policy, both parties claimed to support a strong America.  Our current President ran (and won twice) on a weak America that should retreat from the threats facing us and surrender to them, so it seems natural that it should be discussed more among the candidates hoping to replace him.

   What continues to bother me about the OP is that he seems to endorse the President’s strategy of weakening America, notably when he hopes that Russia will come to our rescue.  How far we have fallen from defeating the Soviet Union to hoping current strong man in the Kremlin will bail us out of problem that we don’t have the will to solve on our own (while criticizing the Republican nominees for talking about the necessary steps to solve it on our own).

2. Inactive
   Marion Evans

   @MarionEvans

   Post author

   9:53 AM EST ⋅ Dec 17, 2015

   RyanFalcone:There are many millions of people out there arming and training themselves to use very violent tactics to force everyone else (ie. us) to give in to their socio-political demands. They have backed up threats with very effective actions against us. It is one of governments most basic functions to protect us from such actions. It should be discussed in my opinion and peace is an idiotic answer to the conflict that we’ve had forced upon us.

   It wasn’t discussed 25 years ago. That’s cute. There seems to be every indication today that it should’ve been discussed more then instead of less now.

   Don’t know if you are old enough to remember 35 years ago, but the sense of vulnerability felt greater then than now. There was real fear that the Soviet Union was on the march. And we had Iran on top to worry about, and a less than effective President Carter. The point of the analogy is that even under those dire circumstances, there was less chest-thumping and rah rah toughness.

3. Inactive
   Marion Evans

   @MarionEvans

   Post author

   10:33 AM EST ⋅ Dec 17, 2015

   Max Ledoux:These words counts don’t mean much out of context. Did Reagan say, “Peace through strength”? Oh, well, he said “peace” so he must care more about peace than war! No kidding… Nobody likes war. But “peace through strength” is not a hippie saying. Might Bernie Sanders say, “War is not the answer”? He said “War”! They’re only talking about war!

   You have the transcript link. Feel free to scroll through and see how many fall in the category you suggest.

4. Coolidge
   Max Ledoux

   @Max

   9:21 PM EST ⋅ Dec 17, 2015

   Marion Evans:

   Max Ledoux:These words counts don’t mean much out of context. Did Reagan say, “Peace through strength”? Oh, well, he said “peace” so he must care more about peace than war! No kidding… Nobody likes war. But “peace through strength” is not a hippie saying. Might Bernie Sanders say, “War is not the answer”? He said “War”! They’re only talking about war!

   You have the transcript link. Feel free to scroll through and see how many fall in the category you suggest.

   Alrighty, then.

   MR. REAGAN: … I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. Now, I believe, also, that this meeting this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, and that we cannot shirk our responsibility as a leader of the free world because we’re the only ones that can do it. Therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong. We can get into a war by letting events get out of hand, as they have in the last three and a half years under the foreign policies of this Administration of Mr. Carter’s, until we’re faced each time with a crisis. And good management in preserving the peace requires that we control the events and try to intercept before they become a crisis. I have seen four wars in my lifetime. I’m a father of sons; I have a grandson. I don’t ever want to see another generation of young Americans bleed their lives into sandy beachheads in the Pacific, or rice paddies and jungles in the in Asia or the muddy battlefields of Europe.

   Reagan said “peace” 5 times and “war” 3 times, but what was he talking about?

   MR. CARTER: Mr. Stone, I’ve had to make thousands of decisions since I’ve been President, serving in the Oval Office. And with each one of those decisions that affect the future of my country, I have learned in the process. I think I’m a much wiser and more experienced man than I was when I debated four years ago against President Ford. I’ve also learned that there are no simple answers to complicated questions. H. L. Mencken said that for every problem there’s a simple answer. It would be neat and plausible and wrong. The fact is that this nation, in the eight years before I became President, had its own military strength decreased. Seven out of eight years, the budget commitments for defense went down, 37% in all. Since I’ve been in office, we’ve had a steady, carefully planned, methodical but, very effective increase in our commitment for defense. But what we’ve done is use that enormous power and prestige and military strength of the United States to preserve the peace. We’ve not only kept peace for our own country, but we’ve been able to extend the benefits of peace to others. In the Middle East, we’ve worked for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, successfully, and have tied ourselves together with Israel and Egypt in a common defense capability. This is a very good step forward for our nation’s security, and we’ll continue to do as we have done in the past. I might also add that there are decisions that are made in the Oval Office by every President which are profound in nature. There are always trouble spots in the world, and how those troubled areas are addressed by a President alone in that Oval Office affects our nation directly, the involvement of the United States and also our American interests. That is a basic decision that has to be made so frequently, by every President who serves. That is what I have tried to do successfully by keeping our country at peace.

   Carter said “peace” 5 times and “war” 9 times, but what was he talking about?

   MR. CARTER: Well, there are various elements of defense. One is to control nuclear weapons, which I hope we’ll get to later on because that is the most important single issue in this campaign. Another one is how to address troubled areas of the world. I think, habitually, Governor Reagan has advocated the injection of military forces into troubled areas, when I and my predecessors – both Democrats and Republicans – have advocated resolving those troubles in those difficult areas of the world peacefully, diplomatically, and through negotiation. In addition to that, the build-up of military forces is good for our country because we’ve got to have military strength to preserve the peace. But I’ll always remember that the best weapons are the ones that are never fired in combat, and the best soldier is one who never has to lay his life down on the field of battle. Strength is imperative for peace, but the two must go hand in hand.

   Carter said “peace” twice, and “war” not at all, but what was he talking about?

5. Inactive
   Marion Evans

   @MarionEvans

   Post author

   3:06 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

   Max Ledoux:

   Marion Evans:

   Max Ledoux:These words counts don’t mean much out of context. Did Reagan say, “Peace through strength”? Oh, well, he said “peace” so he must care more about peace than war! No kidding… Nobody likes war. But “peace through strength” is not a hippie saying. Might Bernie Sanders say, “War is not the answer”? He said “War”! They’re only talking about war!

   You have the transcript link. Feel free to scroll through and see how many fall in the category you suggest.

   Alrighty, then.

   Reagan said “peace” 5 times and “war” 3 times, but what was he talking about?

   Carter said “peace” 5 times and “war” 9 times, but what was he talking about?

   Carter said “peace” twice, and “war” not at all, but what was he talking about?

   You tell me. The tallies you mention are quite close, whereas in the GOP debate, it was a 10 to 1 ratio. You can’t deny that that kind of ratio is telling. Well, you can if you want but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t have posted if the totals were War 45, Peace 35, or War 25, Peace 30.

6. Coolidge
   Max Ledoux

   @Max

   5:36 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

   Marion Evans: You tell me. The tallies you mention are quite close, whereas in the GOP debate, it was a 10 to 1 ratio. You can’t deny that that kind of ratio is telling. Well, you can if you want but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t have posted if the totals were War 45, Peace 35, or War 25, Peace 30.

   I absolutely 100% deny it. Word tallies are completely meaningless without context. Totally meaningless.

7. Inactive
   Marion Evans

   @MarionEvans

   Post author

   6:53 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

   Max Ledoux:

   Marion Evans: You tell me. The tallies you mention are quite close, whereas in the GOP debate, it was a 10 to 1 ratio. You can’t deny that that kind of ratio is telling. Well, you can if you want but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t have posted if the totals were War 45, Peace 35, or War 25, Peace 30.

   I absolutely 100% deny it. Word tallies are completely meaningless without context. Totally meaningless.

   We do have context. We know that these guys want to sound tough. These aren’t 20-year old peaceniks we are talking about.

8. Inactive
   A-Squared

   @ASquared

   8:19 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

   Marion Evans:

   Max Ledoux:

   Marion Evans: You tell me. The tallies you mention are quite close, whereas in the GOP debate, it was a 10 to 1 ratio. You can’t deny that that kind of ratio is telling. Well, you can if you want but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t have posted if the totals were War 45, Peace 35, or War 25, Peace 30.

   I absolutely 100% deny it. Word tallies are completely meaningless without context. Totally meaningless.

   We do have context. We know that these guys want to sound tough. These aren’t 20-year old peaceniks we are talking about.

   The time to talk about peace through strength is when you are not currently at war.

   We are currently at war (well, at least the Islamist extremists are at war with us).  When you are in a war, the only way to achieve peace is to win the war or surrender.  Which is your preference?

9. Inactive
   Mike H

   @MikeH

   8:31 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

   A-Squared:

   Marion Evans:

   Max Ledoux:

   Marion Evans: You tell me. The tallies you mention are quite close, whereas in the GOP debate, it was a 10 to 1 ratio. You can’t deny that that kind of ratio is telling. Well, you can if you want but I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t have posted if the totals were War 45, Peace 35, or War 25, Peace 30.

   I absolutely 100% deny it. Word tallies are completely meaningless without context. Totally meaningless.

   We do have context. We know that these guys want to sound tough. These aren’t 20-year old peaceniks we are talking about.

   The time to talk about peace through strength is when you are not currently at war.

   We are currently at war (well, at least the Islamist extremists are at war with us). When you are in a war, the only way to achieve peace is to win the war or surrender. Which is your preference?

   There’s another option to ignore it and realize that they can’t do that much damage compared to other everyday risks. It gets so tired how people invoke the word “war” and suddenly all normal logic gets thrown out the window. War is not some special magical state separate from the rest of existence. We can manage the risks of people trying to kill people just as we manage everything else in day to day life.

10. Inactive
    A-Squared

    @ASquared

    8:56 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

    Mike H:There’s another option to ignore it and realize that they can’t do that much damage compared to other everyday risks. It gets so tired how people invoke the word “war” and suddenly all normal logic gets thrown out the window. War is not some special magical state separate from the rest of existence. We can manage the risks of people trying to kill people just as we manage everything else in day to day life.

    So, should we just ignore Iran getting both nuclear weapons and missile technology over the next few years and accept the risk of a nuclear attack?

    For the record, I agree with you that war is not some special magical state separate from the rest of existence.  People are always trying to kill us.  Ignoring them is a bad idea.  I don’t go walking around the south side of Chicago, but I don’t avoid walking on Michigan Avenue either. The point is to be intelligent and not overreact.  But under-reacting can be just as dangerous as overreacting.

    I don’t believe our Government should be “ignoring” the threat of terrorist attack.  Clearly, you (and OP) disagree.

11. Inactive
    Mike H

    @MikeH

    10:36 AM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

    A-Squared:

    Mike H:There’s another option to ignore it and realize that they can’t do that much damage compared to other everyday risks. It gets so tired how people invoke the word “war” and suddenly all normal logic gets thrown out the window. War is not some special magical state separate from the rest of existence. We can manage the risks of people trying to kill people just as we manage everything else in day to day life.

    So, should we just ignore Iran getting both nuclear weapons and missile technology over the next few years and accept the risk of a nuclear attack?

    For the record, I agree with you that war is not some special magical state separate from the rest of existence. People are always trying to kill us. Ignoring them is a bad idea. I don’t go walking around the south side of Chicago, but I don’t avoid walking on Michigan Avenue either. The point is to be intelligent and not overreact. But under-reacting can be just as dangerous as overreacting.

    I don’t believe our Government should be “ignoring” the threat of terrorist attack. Clearly, you (and OP) disagree.

    Well, I don’t think the government is ignoring the threat of terrorist attacks just because they don’t go to war. But I think war would kill many more people (including more Americans) than attempting to manage and accept the baseline threat of at attack. War isn’t necessarily going to reduce the baseline threat either because we don’t know what’s going to come after to replace ISIS if they are successfully defeated. We might kill off a bunch of American solders, innocent civilians, and spend a bunch of money just to see something nearly as bad pop up in a few years or see the actual number of terrorist attacks not decline because there’s a continuous supply of radical groups and individuals who decide to be radical with or without a state-like entity as a symbol.

12. Inactive
    A-Squared

    @ASquared

    2:22 PM EST ⋅ Dec 18, 2015

    Mike H: Well, I don’t think the government is ignoring the threat of terrorist attacks just because they don’t go to war.

    I’m not saying the government is ignoring the threat, but you recommended they ignore it in post #39.

    I disagree that ignoring the threat is a good idea.