So real question, are we becoming the party of isolationism?

[Kurska]

The idea of preventing a genocide doesn't even seem to move the needle towards intervening anymore at DU. I really can't forget the posters whose reposes towards "100,000 face death on Sinjar mountain" was "What a tragedy, but not our problem".

Seems kind of sad really, I have no doubt that if Rwanda or the Bosnian slaughter was happening toward we'd have people advocating we stay on the sidelines.

Don't pretend it isn't isolationism, if genocide doesn't move your heart, nothing will.

[CJCRANE]

1. Well, I supported intervention in the original Benghazi crisis.

The one where Gadaffi was advancing on the city saying it was full of terrorists. It turns out he might have been right.

I now regret posting all over DU at the time supporting NATO's action invoking R2P.

In this case I think ISIS could have and should have been stopped a long time ago. Christians and minorities have been massacred in Syria for the last three years and none of our pundits or politicians did anything or said much about it.

[upaloopa]

2. Where are the other countries?

Why is it always our job? There are other countries with the power to stop this.

[The2ndWheel]

6. Because the US won the 20th century

I doubt the governments of the developed world mind that the US is always the one that has to do this kind of job. It allows them to spend their money on their own social programs, and the US government gets to call all the shots and doesn't get punished for it. The US isn't going to get economically sanctioned by the UN any time soon. The carrot of the UN wouldn't work without the stick of the US military backing it up.

[JI7]

3. are you talking about DU members ? because the Democratic Party is nowhere near being

isolationists. and recent events show that.

i do think some on DU who claim to be for peace are actually isolationists.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. I see your point & I've noticed that the new liberalism looks a lot like old school libertarianism.

Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2014, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

That may be good, and it may be the worst thing ever. Time will tell. I remember when liberals cared about innocents, or at least they claimed to. I remember the endless kvetching about US bombs killing children in Pakistan, or Afghanistan. In retrospect, was that genuine concern? Or was it just another club with which to beat the POTUS over the head?

Today's "liberals" sound a lot like this guy, and it's troublesome......

[CJCRANE]

8. The trouble is that the MIC causes problems

which they then have to fix with a military solution.

If we take their toy soldiers (troops) away from them, they may eventually get tired of causing problems.

(Although I'm sure they'll find some other way to mess things up).

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. This isn't about the MIC. It's about this:

You can call it what you want.

[CJCRANE]

13. If we hadn't supported the Syrian rebels

ISIS wouldn't be as strong as it is now.

We could have taken them out when they were crossing the desert.

And we could have done somerthing earlier while they've been massacring christians and minorities in Syria for the last three years. Do Syrian christians count?

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. The operative word here is "invited". We were invited by the Iraqi "government" to assist here.

AFAIK, there was no such invitation extended by the Syrian government.

[leftstreet]

5. LOL The Democratic party is hardly 'isolationist' n/t

[XemaSab]

7. Because "human rights" has been flogged like a rented mule

every time TPTB/BFEE have wanted to accomplish something sinister.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html

[winter is coming]

12. ^^ This. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

9. I'm opposed to US playing Supercop ...

and I vote accordingly.

[Chan790]

15. As is your right...

I despise unconditional isolationist pacifists and likewise vote accordingly.

If asked "Under what conditions would you'd send troops into battle?", you'd answer "None whatsoever, ever. It's never our problem." I think you're unfit to hold elected office at the national level.

Generally, I think people who hold most unconditional positions are demonstrably not contemplative enough to be making decisions of any significant magnitude.

[m-lekktor]

11. you really think we "intervene" for "humanitarian" reasons?

do you fall for this because a DEM is president? smh

[Chan790]

18. Personally I "fall for this"

because traditionally "humanitarian intervention" was a core Democratic tenet. I'm not going to abandon core Democratic tenets simply because the RW has begun to misappropriate and abuse those tenets to advance their agenda.

[BainsBane]

14. How many wars has this administration fought?

and you're talking about a part of isolationsism? I think you mean this site, not the party. It's a serious mistake to conflate the two. DU is not the Democratic Party.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. +1

[AngryAmish]

16. with any luck we will