Until we DEMAND peace from our leaders, we will have war.

[Bonobo]

If we elect candidates who see war as an extension of policy rather than a solution when there is literally no other choice, we will continue our endless succession of wars.

I don't really think that truth can be avoided, diluted or ignored.

[moondust]

1. You think they care what we DEMAND?

I'm sure you noticed the millions in the streets around the world protesting the impending invasion of Iraq, which turned out to be an epic failure of leadership on a global scale--led by the failed leadership of the United States.

Millions.

[Bonobo]

2. The solution is to demand with our vote.

Once it is clear that war is a non-starter for our party, you will see it fade away along the lines of the expansion of LGBT rights. It will become the default position.

[delrem]

3. If only it were that easy.

None of the $B candidates are even close to understanding what that could mean.

If an election is $B-D vs $B-R, the result will be continued escalation of war, just as is happening today, yesterday, last decade, the decade before that,...
It's a huge nation spanning momentum that has had NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL, reigning it in for decades.
If the election is $M-D vs $B-R, the $B-D people will join the R, though not openly, and will engage in wrecking. Loss of total political power is intolerable to the $Bs.

If in spite of that the $M-D candidate wins, the entire war profiteering bank privateering economy will unite in wrecking that admin. The war profiteers, banking privateers, are totally entrenched - they own the entire US economy. They own the MSM. They own Washington DC. They own the factories producing munitions. They're the recipients of the no-bid gov't war contracts (they *aren't* capitalist!) They won't reassess, rethink, retool for a peace economy. That just won't happen. They will punish their workers and explain that the punishment is forced by the $M-D politics, and they'll wait for the next $B election to push that message home through their MSM.

THEY WON'T ACCEPT SUCH AN ELECTION RESULT. It would be unthinkable.

Hell, DU today is probably more than 1/2 in favor of gung ho escalation of the ME wars, the "War on Terror", and DU would be considered somewhat *progressive* relatively speaking. Certainly the $B-Ds are war mongers, and all their supporters. A big clue to this state of mind is the massive approval for the "bomb the fuck out of them, yah, but no US boots on the ground!" message that's been playing out for the last several years. That seems to be the full extent of US "anti-war" depth.

The US itself is enclosed in a total MSM bubble delivering a "western civilization vs. 7th c. terrorist barbarian mullahs" message of war, which blames the citizens of the ME for the entire fallout of US wars, including the ascendency of mercenary armies of "moderate rebels" and "rag tag armies" run by the US and US proxies, and there is no solid and sustained alternate message. US Americans haven't a clue who they're bombing, but the majority are certain of their moral superiority. They simply point at the production values of a IS beheading video, or whatever is latest, and voila: an excuse to escalate their righteous war "for western values".

It's a situation decades in the making and it can't be fixed simply by an election. The electorate itself isn't capable of reasoning through an alternative to war, to the US war economy.

[Segami]

4. Well then,..

..as Dems, we should be asking ourselves one of many honest questions...