Is there an anti-war wing left?

[uawchild]

Is there an anti-war wing left in the Democratic Party?

Do so few people care anymore about the wars, military interventions and funding of armed groups that we Democrats just stay silent or worse approve these actions?

Seems that way to me.

[pangaia]

1. Yes. Me for #1.

[840high]

36. #2

[MADem]

2. How many servicemembers were deployed to a war zone under GW Bush?

And how many are deployed today?


There's your answer.

[arcane1]

3. I'm against the Bush/Cheney "War on Terror" fraud no matter who is currently waging it n/t

[uponit7771]

4. Who in the hell is pro war? Really? We just want the right causes fought and not for stupid shit

[maxsolomon]

5. Do you mean a Pacifist Wing or an Isolationist Wing?

I sure as hell was anti-war in 2003. Bush threw our foreign policy in a pit that Obama hasn't finished climbing out of. I approve of climbing out of that pit.

Here's a question for you: do you disapprove of the "military intervention" that France conducted in Mali in 2013, that drove Moktar Bel Moktar and his Islamists out of Timbuktu? the people of Mali sure don't.

Its a matter of where and how. One policy does not fit all conflicts.

That said, I support cutting the DoD by 1/3 to 1/2. Given the GOP's existence, that is a pipe dream.

[mountain grammy]

6. Good answer

and I agree. Sometimes military intervention is necessary, but I would prefer it under the flag of the United Nations.

[uawchild]

11. I mean an anti-war wing

We contained and ultimately prevailed against the Soviet Union and the entire Warsaw Pact militaries without going to war in Europe.

Armed conflict should be an ultimate last resort, not a business as usual policy. Especially when the stakes are so much smaller now then they were when confronting the USSR.

It just seems to be we are much more willing to resort to armed conflict than we should. Too often those armed conflicts leave a huge mess behind with continued strife even after we have left the scene.

[maxsolomon]

14. Who's "we"? Bush? or Obama? or Clinton?

I agree that Bush was much more willing to resort to armed conflict than he should have been.

I don't agree that it has been "business as usual" policy for Obama. He got handed an intractable situation where just walking away from Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a viable alternative. Complete withdrawal was not an option - we can't put the Genie back in the bottle; Bush broke the bottle. He's walked away as much as possible. If you consider the Drone Assassinations "conflicts of choice" I won't argue much.

2 points:
1. The Cold War turning into WW3 was prevented by Nuclear MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction, not an "Anti-War Wing" of the Dems. The proxy wars we conducted instead sure left huge messes, one of which (NK) is still ongoing.
2. As far as I can tell, we've had ONE "Anti-War" President: Carter.

[uawchild]

18. "We" is ultimately the American electorate

Our presidents and other elected politicians are by and large just the mirror of the portion of the electorate that put them in power.

No one man determines policy especially concerning military action. There are the advisors. And other elected officials in their political party. And of course the deep state consisting of vested interests like beaurocrats, the military itself, corporations and the rich. The American electorate is manipulated by all of these, but ultimately it is all of us who are responsible for acquiescing to war and military violence.

[maxsolomon]

30. I reject the concept of Collective Guilt

Like you, I didn't vote for Bush. Like you, I opposed the invasion of Iraq as a response to 9/11. The vocal opposition of the Anti-War Left did not stop that War Crime from occurring. At the time, the Anti-War Left consisted of maybe 10% of the population.

I don't consider that 10% responsible for acquiescing to that War. You do, and that is an Idealist's position. We're not going to agree.

[uawchild]

31. It's not collective guilt

To hold that portion of the electorate that supports military actions responsible.

It is our responsibility as part of the electorate to actively oppose military actions we feel are unwarranted. I feel that is where we, as democrats, have dropped the ball in not being in opposition enough. And as you have pointed out in the case of the Iraq War, a small percentage were active and were out spoken. Not enough people were though.

Sorry if I was unclear but I do think I said "that portion of the electorate " that put them in power. I was not condemning everyone.

[maxsolomon]

32. well, you did say "all".

i don't oppose (all of) our current entanglements, because i understand why Obama is making the choices he's making (today regarding Afghanistan, for instance). even the Drone War.

but, if America had stood by in Libya and Syria (which I presume is the crux of your post), we'd have been accused of ignoring Genocide.

we're standing by while SA destroys Yemen with the weapons we sold them; i consider that ignoring (and abetting) a Genocide.

[uawchild]

34. I take your point, wait do I? I do.

I checked my posts, where did I say "all"? Sorry if I missed it, I will continue to look, I thought I was clear about say things like the portion of the electorate. Please point it out for me if you would. Thanks.


ok found it. I said that we are all responsible when I meant we all have a responsibility to prevent warrantless military action. Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity.

As for Libya and Syria, the thing is is the cure worse than the disease? People can make a point about Syria, but Libya seems to have been completely overblown. We had to intervene we were told because Qadafi was GOING TO kill too many rebels. First, it was a civil war and second, the mess created is worse than the situation under Qadafi. Want to get rid of the evil dictator, then why not blockade his oil shipments to Europe. We could have gotten rid of Qadafi in a year any time we so chose if we used economic pressure. Well, in my poorly informed and idealistic opinion.

[1939]

35. If your measure

is reduction of military forces overseas, Nixon is the champion.

Vietnam 500,000+ to 500 in four years (Jan 69 to Mar 73).

15% reduction in Europe stationed forces.

25% reduction in Korea stations forces.

[Chan790]

21. The way you're defining it? No, there isn't, thank God.

Unilateral, reflexive pacifists are one of the greatest evils of the world.

A person who cannot conceive of a legitimate use (e.g. preventing genocide) of force is an idiot, heartless or dangerously inflexible in their worldview.

They're every bit as bad as those who believe the solution to every problem is military force.

[uawchild]

23. You are misrepresenting my position

Nice straw man post, but I never said military force should never be used

I am simply saying it is being used way to frequently and am disappointed that more people, especially democrats, are not objecting to it all.
But thank you for making me be more clear so as to not be misinterpreted.

In this thread I have already said that military force should be the ultimate last resort, not business as usual. That was posted before your reply, so I guess you did not read the thread before posting. If you had my position should have been pretty clear.

In fact, in the very post you responded to I said the problem is we are resorting to military force more than we should. So, honestly, I have no idea how you could misconstrue my position as badly as you have here. Sheesh.

I definitely do not feel all the wars, military intervention , drone attacks, and funding of armed groups happening RIGHT NOW are morally justifiable. Do you? I hope not.

[silvershadow]

7. There is. It is apparently much smaller now??? nt

[Downtown Hound]

8. In case you weren't aware

Many of the protests against the Iraq War were larger and more frequent than those against the Vietnam War. Sure, there's an anti-war wing. But lots of people here recognize that Bush so screwed the Middle East that we might just have to stay involved for awhile to prevent the region from descending into total chaos.

Also, being against war in general doesn't mean that we think we should allow countries like China to claim vast swaths of ocean that don't belong to them.

The world is more complicated today than it was 20 years ago. But I don't think anyone in their right minds really wants to see more war or doesn't want the current ones to end.

[AntiBank]

9. Count me in......... forever.

[k8conant]

10. Make Love not War!

That's what I said in the 1960s and what I still say today. But I don't know if there's a "wing" anymore.

Also, as my avatar says, "War is not healthy for children and other living things.:

[maxsolomon]

15. And that's what we should have done after 9/11

Drop the Love Bomb (in the form of clean water or power projects anywhere the Muslim World would have us).

We could have bought goodwill instead of raining death.

[davidn3600]

12. It only allowed to exist when a Republican is in office

[jonno99]

13. Protesting is a lot of work!

[Javaman]

16. Me.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

[bigwillq]

17. Me!

There's too much war, too much intervention, too much funding.

I am bigwillq, and I am anti-war.

[Lurks Often]

19. Only when there is a Republican President

[Xolodno]

20. Yes.

And I'm sure some others will say "oh yeah, I'm against war".

But then advocate aiding for or against revolts with deadly weapons. When in doing so would only prolong the suffering, killing etc and the war itself. And of course, its the fault of <insert dictator; rebel leader, corrupt official, etc> when things don't go as planned. As almost they expected the <insert dictator; rebel leader, corrupt official, etc> to say "okay, I give up". These type of people do not yield power and we shouldn't expect them to.

The question's should be, can we make a difference? And if we intervene in some way militarily, what happens if we are successful? What happens if we fail? If you answer those, often the realization is, we can't fix this.

[G_j]

22. was there ever one?

just a handful of individuals over the years.

[stevenleser]

24. Pretty much everyone in the Democratic Party. Of course it depends on how you define

"anti-war"

Certainly no one in the Democratic party is "Pro-war"

[uawchild]

25. Didn't Democrats vote to authorize the Iraq war?

No one is ever pro-war as a philosophical position but it seems we are always driven to it by circumstances, hmmm? There is repeated justification for use of military force even by democrats. The problem is that it's too easy to "justify" military force and much harder to refrain from needless violence.

[stevenleser]

27. No. They voted to give Bush the power to enforce UN resolutions if they were broken.

That's what IWR said. It turns out Iraq wasn't in violation of UN resolutions but Bush went to war anyway.

[uawchild]

29. Thank you for the clarification but still

When they voted was Bush saying Iraq was in violation? And isn't this something of a distinction without a difference? They voted to let Bush use military force if Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions. That is still voting to go to war albeit contingent on that point.

[stevenleser]

33. Even better than that...

... most people thought Iraq was in violation. Moreover, the IWR and UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed around the same time, were sold as efforts to get Iraq to readmit the UN Weapons inspectors who could visually verify what the situation was. And that worked for that purpose. Iraq readmitted the weapons inspectors within 10-14 days after both of these measures passed.

[guillaumeb]

26. No. There are two war parties because war is very profitable.

Presidents from both parties are always willing to use the massive war machine to advance the interests of the US Empire.

Your entire history shows this to be a fact. Perhaps an uncomfortable fact because it exposes the fiction of a "peace loving nation" that US Presidents love to use in speeches. A usage that generally precedes another use of force.

Has there ever been a period in US history where this country has not been at war, whether internally or externally?

[ileus]

28. Only when they're in power...

[MisterP]

37. nope! report for party-betrayal