09-05-2016, 08:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2016, 10:45 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-04-2016, 02:05 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(09-04-2016, 01:41 AM)taramarie Wrote:(09-04-2016, 01:19 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The awakening was a brief though glorious dream time. Eric is in some ways an echo of it. Not a total echo. Most blue boomers aren't into astrology or mysticism. Eric has become something of a hawk of late, which is not representative of the old anti-war hippies. Most blue boomers did grow out of the awakening mood, and got into wives, family, jobs and (shudder) disco. They in time outgrew the disco as well. As much as anyone on this forum, though, Eric might give you some impression of hippie culture. I'm a blue boomer too, though. Not all blue boomers are totally alike. Beware vile stereotypes. Don't judge the United States as a scrambled collection of hateful partisan propaganda.What do you mean by that?
In the slang of the time, a 'hawk' was an advocate for the use of military force. A 'dove' would wish to avoid use of military force. During the awakening, the Establishment believed in the domino theory, that communism had to be resisted everywhere and always, thus they would be the hawks. The young blue boomers were being sent to Vietnam to risk their lives for a corrupt dictatorship. They were for the most part doves.
During the Bush 43 administration there was a debate about the Iraq war. The Republicans leaned 'stay the course,' and would be labeled hawks using the old slang. The Democrats leaned 'cut and run' and would be called doves.
Eric seems to be favoring intervention in Syria of late. Now, Syria is quite different from Vietnam, The hawk / dove debate ought to be framed in a very different way. Still, to the extent he is advocating intervention he is going hawk, while during the awakening your typical hippie would be a dove.
Love, peace and rock and roll.
Depends what one means by intervention. You among others tend to lump things together. I would not favor sending US troops to Syria, unless there's an international agreement even including Russia and Iran to send troops to restore order and set up a new regime. That may happen, given Assad's absolute intransigence; he won't quit until forced to, and until it happens, the civil war will continue; with negative results for the world community and US national security. But the democratic rebels need to be bucked up, and the USA needs to help defeat the IS in the way it's doing. Even Bernie Sanders agrees with the latter point.
Whether anyone should be a dove or a hawk may depend on the situation. Many people in the sixties were doves because Vietnam was an unjustified and unwinnable war. Bush II's invasion of Iraq was much the same. The 60s anti-war movement did foster a more permanent anti-war attitude, and the peace and beyond war movements. Still, each war that comes along is different and demands a different strategy, level of involvement or not, and approach by the USA. I don't know if that's hawk or dove, blue or red, boomer or whatever; those labels mean little in this question.