When did America become so isolationist and anti-war??

[kentuck]

And it's not just DU...

Most of the polls show a wide majority do not support any bombing of Syria, even though they have seen the pictures of the gassed children and innocent civilians? Why is that?

It seems like everyone is just tired of war...

[mike_c]

1. are we a nation of laws or are we not...?

I'm tired of all the illegal, immoral wars. Just those.

[grillo7]

20. I agree...

I would support a legal, UN-sanctioned intervention with shared responsibility among other nations. I'm not going to support a hasty, illegal, unilateral use of force that has too many potential problems and questionable benefits. There are other options we can pursue first that don't have the potential ramifications of starting further conflict, causing terrorist blowback, killing civilians incidentally, or empowering more of the wrong people in power.

[KG]

2. military bases in damn near every country on the planet. hardly isolationist

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. Well we're broke, and we don't usually make things better.

I've seen horrible pictures from Burma, Rwanda, China, North Korea, etc. Did we start lobbing missiles at them too? Should we have?

Each cruise missile costs 1.4 million and we can't even afford to maintain our infrastructure and provide health care for everyone.

Could also be that we were fucking lied to a decade ago and it cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

We never make things better in the Arab world, never. Maybe we've learned our lesson.

[Hayabusa]

4. February 5, 2003.

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

When Colin Powell lied about WMDs to the UN. At least in my opinion.

[lumpy]

32. Syria has WMDs and have used them on their people and that's no lie.

[GliderGuider]

37. A classic boy who cried "wolf" story

when the wolf does show up in the end, nobody believes him. That's the price of lying about security issues. Eventually people begin to say, "Wolf, my ass. Go back to bed."

On the other hand, the idea of simply NOT killing people for any reason has its own attraction.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Tired of War? Gee, I wonder why

US citizenry wisely choosing to put 'an end to endless war' in the ME.

[Ed Suspicious]

6. They keep telling us how we have not money to support our country. It seems the only way time we

spare no expense is when we're dropping bombs and putting boots on the ground. People are fatigued and it makes no sense to them to here about chained cpi at the same time we're dropping foreign aid bombs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. After the Iraq debacle, it's become much harder to trust or believe

what we are being told about who's the enemy and why we should become involved. This isn't Iraq, and Dick Cheney is out of the picture, but Iraq was such a disaster - I think people will need an awful lot of convincing after having been so egregiously lied to by the Bushies.

[devils chaplain]

8. I think collectively people have decided that...

... meddling in the middle east is more trouble than it's worth. Well-intentioned or not, the end result seems to be just more dead people.

[HooptieWagon]

9. +1

[sendero]

10. You think?

People are starting to figure out that "war is a racket". Yes they are sick of it and for damn good reason.

[bluestate10]

11. The country has always had an isolationist streak. Our country was forced to join

allies in WWI and only entered WWII after being attacked by Japan and having Germany declare war on it. The American public generally prefer to stay out of fights unless we are struck.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I'll take "My Period and Other Things That Shouldn't be too Late" for $500, Alex. n/t

[Hekate]

13. There's always been a strong steak of isolationism in the American character

Of course it's not the only streak in our character, but it is there and sometimes it comes out more strongly than others.

Also, Bush/Cheney broke the piggy bank and left a lot of us disgusted with the whole enterprise -- war weary.

[KittyWampus]

14. When Bush/Cheney lied us into war. It's pathetic though, that so many DU'ers can't even CONSIDER

that maybe, just maybe, Obama and Kerry see a large scale massacres on the horizon.

[HangOnKids]

53. Are Obama and Kerry looking at Iraq?

[DirkGently]

15. Maybe they just want to keep to one at a time?

Technically Iraq is still smouldering, but we're still in Afghanistan.

Maybe people want to limit our trillion-dollar Middle East debacles to just one at a time, instead of double-fisting it?

[TwilightGardener]

16. 1: No one cares. Seriously, no one really cares. Those people die all the time over there,

always getting blown up or killing each other and whatnot, it's not our business....anymore.

2. No one can see why it SHOULD be our business--abstract reasons, such as enforcing international laws and treaties regarding WMD's (which actually is a pretty good reason, IMO), are not going to convince average people.

3. No one is afraid. And no, I don't believe the administration is TRYING to scare us, either. But fear and anger are usually what move us into war or military action, and ordinary people just aren't feelin' it.

[truedelphi]

29. Add to the items you list how many many friggin' households

have endured setbacks the like of which have not been envisioned since the days of the Great Depression, and even John McCain might convince himself that maybe a war we cannot even pay for now is not in our best interest.

Granted that sarin is a cruel and unusual punishment, but so is the "punishment" of having our jobs outsourced, having our schools shut down, our fire fighters laid off, etc.

The school budget for my local district was over 16 million three years ago - it has been cut to the bone this year with a budget of less than 10 million.

Obama said today that the funds exist for this war...

Really, Mr President? I thought that we as a nation were all so broke, that you know, [h2][font color=red]austerity, [/h2][/font color=red]and you know, [h2][font color=red]cutbacks, [/h2][/font color=red]and you know, [h2][font color=red]forget about retiring at 65 you friggin' suckers, because the Federal government needs our Social Security to pay off the Six trillions of dollars of indebtedness our last two wars cost.[/h2][/font color=red]

Ten to twelve millions of America households have been foreclosed upon, some of whom were not even behind in payments! And much of the 50 billion dollar program that Obama has set up to provide homeowners with relief was not available to normal people, as bank officials and mortgage officials made it impossible for HAMP funding to happen, unless you had a Congress critter or two to help you navigate the situation.

But all of these problems can be swept aside, as we need to show the world all about our moral authority! I guess that is the one thing we still have in this nation that we had back in the 1950's when I was a kid. We no longer have the decent educational system I enjoyed, we no longer have libraries that are open, we no longer have community hospitals that are about people's health rather than profit, we no longer have jobs or a middle class, we no longer have our homes, BUT HELL'S BELL'S WE have OURSELVES some outstanding moral authority!

[lumpy]

31. You slobbered a bib full. Your numbers 2 & 3 spell it all out. And it costs money.

[Change has come]

46. 4. We've been bombarded for the last 2 or more years...

with the notion that our country is broke and we must cut Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

5. We have no idea how to deal with the slaughter of American school children (and theater goers, restaurant patrons etc).

The list goes on.

[NightWatcher]

17. our troops are still rotating in and out of Afghanistan

Maybe after we go without a bullshit war for a few decades, we'll feel like fighting when a legitimate conflict comes along.

[wandy]

18. It could be that over ten years of constant war.....

Eight years of BFEE insanity.
Five years of dysfunctional government.
Not to mention thirty years of a slow trickle down decent to near third world country have taken us down a peg or two.

Could it be that we have realized that it is time to take a step back. Rebuild. Care for our own.
Might we have come to understand that military might is hollow if you don't have the material and moral strength to support it.

It would be wonderful to "save the world". Nobel to right every injustice.

A difficult task at best.
Imposable if you can not save yourself.

[bowens43]

24. 10 years?? the US has been at war for nearly 216 of its 237 years

Its time for us to stop

[wandy]

43. Well, yes, thats true..........

It's just that it wasn't always the same "theam". Their were occasional breaks.
Believe it or not their were times when it was the right thing to do.
Reasons other than simply swelling the pockets of the M.I.C.
Our elite weren't constantly demanding that we were "either with us or against us".
It wasn't so important to "watch what you say watch what you do".

As imposable as it may seam we would sometimes walk away from conflict.
Avoiding wars where their was nothing to win but much to loose.

Now we appear to be ready to punish a country for killing it's civilians by killing more of it's civilians.
We are going to bomb chemical weapon factorys.
Bombs explode.
Explosions toss stuff around.
Cars, machinery, bodies, dust, chemicals.

Do we consider that?
No. We only consider profit.

Witch will deplete first.
Our material strength or our moral compass?

[David__77]

19. Why "isolationist?" I think "peace-loving" is more a propos.

...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. What David_77 said

We've been had intervention after intervention in my lifetime, and all of them have been massive disasters.

[leveymg]

21. The costs of Optional Wars are killing America more surely than any potential enemy.

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:19 PM - Edit history (2)

The British Empire overextended itself borrowing to cover the costs of two World Wars, the Soviet Union overextended itself losing the Cold War, and the United States is doing the same thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria will finish the job. We might not even scuttle to the gates of Persepolis.

[Downwinder]

22. Loss of trust.

[Scootaloo]

23. Look at it this way

We're still in Afghanistan, and just left Iraq. And golly gee, didn't they turn out great? We jumped on Libya, and while probably not the worst of ideas all things considered, we didn't do much else and, well, Libya's been decaying since. We keep blowing people up in Yemen and Pakistan, and only pliant dictators and impotent militaries keep us from atching real blowback from that. We have a fifty-year history of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, at all costs, no matter what which, whatever your feelings on Israel, sure as fuck isn't doing any favors for Palestinians or their neighbors - or Israel, in the long run. We tried to get involved in Lebanon, and 280 marines (and 51 french paratroopers) died as an immediate result. We're backing murderous authoritarian regimes such as Sisi, the Sauds, King Kalifah, and Sheikh Salah, while screaming for war against the autocratic-trending but still mostly democratic Iran.

I think it's nothing specific to Syria, it's just that any more shit following this trend would have been the final straw with Americans. The fact that it is Syria, and that the proposed action very obviously can't POSSIBLY make anything better, just deepens the sentiment.

if I thought US action would actually help Syrians, I'd give tenuous support. If someone had asked me two years ago whether or not we should have spoken up for the opposition in Syria, I'd have been for it - before it fragmented into its own warring factions. If we were talking about a Kosovo-style intervention, halting the military options of all involved and imposing peace with an international coalition... well, I'd oppose it, but I'd at least acknowledge it's an option. But just throwing missiles at Syria because suddenly we're obligated to pretend we give a shit, only to forget about them the next day (According to the plan, that is)?

[drmeow]

54. Well said. n/t

[Scootaloo]

58. Like I said, if I thought it would help, I'd be for it

Over in the video forum is a series of footage shot by Robert King in Aleppo, compiled and released by VICE.

Towards the end, a man of the al-Tawhid Brigade of the FSA, Haji Marra has this to say;

First I want to send a message to all the world leaders. They are dead, to be honest. They are without conscience or feelings. Today, it's like the rulers are an example of robot people. He looks at where his interests are and works there. But as for the heart, it's dead. Consciousness, finished. All of the world leaders are shameful. The shame written on their foreheads is because the slaughterhouses are filled with infant and women, who are killed everyday. And they remain silent. But the red line is the chemical weapons. It means, "Bashar, whatever you want to do, go ahead and do it. If you kill 100,000 people, that's not a problem. If you're dropping 100,000 kilos from planes, that's not a problem either." They're giving him the green light. But chemical weapons? "We don't want to see all of the Syrian people go. Just keep 20 or 30 percent of them, that's okay." This in regard to the world leaders.

We're no longer concerned with world leaders. We're sending our message to the people of life, people who have a conscience. We are brothers in humanity. So let's take a stand, a real stand with these people who are daily murdered and slaughtered. He were brought up on horror from when we were young. we were raised on horror. That is the thing we need to break. we want to live like the rest of the people. We ask of God.

I want the US to help the people of Syria. Just as I wanted the US to back and help the people of the rest of the region as they took to the streets for their rights two, three years ago. Instead we took a pass, actively helped suppress the movements in Egypt, Bahrain, and Jordan, made a halfassed attempt to help Libya, and mostly worried over whether there'd be a third intifada.

I do not think that launching missiles at Syria will help the people of Syria. No, it's not a matter of think, I know they will not. They may help the fighters against Assad, but that in itself doesn't mean it'll help Syria - it just means one faction of many will be routed. And we'll be floating in the Mediterranean, our men and women on the boats enjoying their in-ship KFC and pizza hut, while people in Syria keep getting torn apart by fire and metal - so long as it's not death by chemical, our government couldn't care less.

Watch that video. See the footage - the brainless skull of a young man. The blue body of a stillborn premature infant while bombs smack around the hospital. The little girl with her intestines bulging out of her abdomen. Men with their limbs shredded, half of a woman in the street. These are not injuries and deaths caused by chemical weapons, are we going to tell these people that they're not as terrible, that these are acceptable, so long as our comfort zone is not crossed? Because as far as I can tell, that's what this is. it's not about helping Syrians, it's about the United States feeling bad and giving its collective dick a tug so that it feels better.

if the US wants to help, what the people of Syria need are doctors. Food, shelter. Real live political support on the world stage, not platitudes based on some weapons being okay for causing mass death and others not being okay for causing mass death.

If we absolutely must intervene militarily, then it can't be halfassed, it can't be this "throw missiles at it and hope it goes away." approach.

And no matter what, in the end the United States has to give what aid and assistance it can to help Syria out of the rubble. Just like we did in Europe after 1945, and just like we haven't done in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.

[Taverner]

25. Well, some people just don't want to get their war on. Wah.

[Marrah_G]

26. I think it's an improvement

I think everyone on the planet should be anti-war.

[KoKo]

27. The public finally woke up to the Iraq War Lies....

and Wall Street Bailouts and Congress Inaction or Over Reaction on issues that were important to the majority of the "People" has had them paying attention because it's hit them in their lifestyle, pocket books, the welfare of their children going forward and in general screwed up the country. They understand what the 1% is because they know more about how they got to be 99%. They know their lives are not private anymore because of the NSA and the toys they loved and learned to depend on: their cell phones, laptops, skyping, Facebooking are now now one more thing to worry about. Another war...is a step too far.

That's my theory...fwiw

[joshcryer]

28. $6,300 in war debt for every man, woman, and child.

That's when.

[xfundy]

30. Congress has a conundrum.

If they vote to allow strikes or all-out war in Syria, their investors will be happy.

On the other hand, they could vote against Obama's request and make him appear to be "too weak to get a quorum" and attempt to embarrass him worldwide, as they've tried to do repeatedly for years.

This tactic, of course, embarrasses the country, but that doesn't matter to the right wing assholes. They damaged "the office of the presidency" when they impeached Clinton for something most other nations would have ignored or cheered.

Obama's brilliance lies in making the Rs make the choice. It's all in their bloody hands now.

As for the fact that the killing in Syria has been going on for YEARS, almost 100,000 dead, the difference is that now they've used gas rather than guns and bombs. And that rightly gets us upset, but it's simply another weapon among many used in that conflict.

Chemical weapons are already outlawed by International Law. I'm pretty sure killing dissenters of a dictator is outlawed as well. But, since America has pretty much been bankrupted by wars started by Chimpy and continued by Obama, the method bears no higher consideration than the number of dead, by which of the several means it has been done.

[dkf]

33. Iraq/Afghanistan?

[SheilaT]

34. Since when is America supposed to solve all the world's problems?

We can't even take care of our own homeless, provide a decent education for all, and just forget about medical care for our population.

Yeah, better we should go off to kill and main innocents abroad, destroy yet another country. Such a good idea. (sarcasm thingy here, in case you can't tell.)

[doc03]

35. I have been anti-war since the fiasco in Viet Nam n/t

[Brigid]

36. When we went broke.

[Hydra]

51. ^This

If everyone was comfortable and doing well, I think there would be at least passive support. The austerity and hopelessness is making us less enthused for the 1%'s parties.

[Nevernose]

38. I don't think isolationist and anti-war are synonymous

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. The REAL isolationists are the ones who think that America and

only America has the answer to all the world's problems.

[treestar]

41. But yet they really cared about Saddam having WMD

And were willing to jump on less evidence. 911! Terra! We must protect the Iraqis from the evil Saddam!

They cared that Saddam was going to take OUR oil when he invaded Kuwait. That was sickening. Everyone was so happy and excited about going to war against Saddam in Kuwait! We couldn't let him control the world's oil supply, no sir!!!!!!!! They watched the war on TV and talked about it constantly.

Yet have someone actually use chemical weapons and they don't care about the people killed by them. It doesn't affect us! No 911 relationship, which was about us! President not white! Not our problem.

[annm4peace]

42. How can we be called isolationists?

WE HAVE OVER 370,000 MILITARY BASES OVERSEAS!!!!! GEEZZ!

AND IT IS SUCKING UP ALL OUR TAX DOLLARS AND MAKING US LESS SAFE

[frustrated_lefty]

44. We're told to buckle down, tighten our belts,

make "shared" sacrifice, endure cuts to social services, education, and research, the list goes on...

The sequester is necessary we're told.

If we don't have the finances available to take care of things in our own country, maybe it's time to stop engaging in military actions?

[Aerows]

48. But hey, there is always

money to be spent to kill people, and yet there isn't money to be spent taking care of the wounded that come back.

[Dems to Win]

45. You say that like it's a bad thing, to be anti-war. Huh?

Call it Iraq War Syndrome (IWS). Americans reject going to war based on lies peddled by American, Israeli, and/or Saudi 'intelligence' agencies. We're very suspicious, very skeptical.

May we enjoy IWS for many years.

[Aerows]

47. When we squandered our children

and tax dollars on wars that we shouldn't have fought in the first place. Iraq and Afghanistan are two prominent examples.

[MrMickeysMom]

49. You'll laugh perhaps at my reply, ken tuck...

... It's the dawning of the age of Aquarius and we seem to be gathering the steam we need to finally realize that war doesn't work.

Anyway, that's what I think... Remember this from "War Games"?

[Initech]

50. 8 years of solid nonstop protests under Bush paid off.

Except of course for those that be in the military industrial complex that make tons of profit off war, they still refuse to listen.

[Uncle Joe]

52. 200+ Years of War is long enough, don't you think?

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.

[Recursion]

55. About 2005 or 2006

Don't expect it to last forever, though

[Alamuti Lotus]

56. Opposition to arrogant aggression does not make one an "isolationist" or "pacifist"

The bloodthirsty see no difference and feel that "any stick is fit to be a dog with", but there is more to the opposition arguments than these simplistic narratives.

[drmeow]

57. Some of us have always been anti-war

and have always had something of an isolationist streak. Some of us have never trusted the government for shit when it comes to darker skinned people and people with "scary" religions. Some of us have always thought we need to stop imposing our imperialist world vision on the Middle East. Some of us are sick and tired of the US's selective intervention which ignores abuses when it is "in our best interest" to ignore them. Some of us have always wanted US money to be spent here first to help the poor, the sick, and the hungry in this country. Some of us are tired of Israel being treated like the 51st state of the union but with more power than all the other states combined.

[eridani]

59. People are sick of good jobs disappearing, banksters getting off

--and of course imperial overstretch. Most of us can think of lots of stuff we'd rather spend money on.