are there any war democrats out there?

[westsidexview]

how do we handle the threats to our country? there are some people who equate america with imperialism or worse but realistically isn't it our military might that enables our individual political freedoms? and also our military muscle keeps our economy moving. i don't see how we could afford the luxury of an european amish-mentality state.

[MAlibdem]

1. my views...

military force is appropriate to intervene in pressing humanitarian crises.

Also, to support popular democratic uprisings.

I've decided since the Iraq War escalated that pre-emptive wars of "liberation" are not justifiable.

[mhr]

2. Is This The Kind Of War Legacy And Military Support You Want?

'THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS AT THE SKULL & BONES INITIATION...I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING A GOOD TIME. THESE PEOPLE -- YOU EVER HEARD OF EMOTIONAL RELEASE? YOU EVER HEARD OF NEEDING TO BLOW SOME STEAM OFF?'

[Webster Green]

3. Its not the military we object to.....

Its the invasions of other countries without a reason. There are good reasons why many people equate the U.S. with imperialism. Its because we have become imperialists.

[Sugarbleus]

11. Good summary Webster..

I'm not anti war, I'm anti Imperialism in that why do we have to be taking over the whole freaking world. A military should only be for self defense or to help another country when they ask (if it's a righteous cause).

I don't think we should be using our military to drive up the stock for the Carlyle group or Haliburton or any other contractor. Nor should we be going into countries to confiscate their resources. I don't even think we should be trying to remake the face of every other nation in our likeness...just so we can "Pave paradise, put up a parking lot"...I wouldn't want to travel to some exotic country and run smack into a McDonalds, ya know? Screw the global economy thing the way it is now! :puke:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. "our military might that enables our individual political freedoms"?

No. History proves that military might-a la the Roman Empire-actually decreases our freedoms and quality of life. I highly suggest you read Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire" to get some historical background.

BTW it's actually education and the ingenuity that emanates from it that enables a strong economy and freedoms. If we continue to devalue education in this country, we will continue to decline economically.

[loveable liberal]

5. we handle threats to our country by...

voting the drunken, coke head out of office. the threat to our country is a myth. presidunce has ushered in the new form of warfare where civilians are the target now. Theres no threat to world peace anymore other than religious fanatics. Thanks idiot bush*.

[westsidexview]

7. what about 9-11? crazies are bombing ny

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. That was a failure of the Bush Administration to heed warnings

How does this fit into your premise? Do you think we should have a responsive military or one that makes pre-emptive strikes?

[westsidexview]

16. my point is this

9-11 happened. 9-11 happened under bush's watch so he is culpable. yet it has happened. come november a new president will take office and what is he going to do? this problem will not go away when bush leaves even though he is responsible for the mess.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. You said that our military enables the economy and our freedoms

please answer the original point rather than attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

[Mr_Spock]

18. You talk like Democrats have never been in office during wartime

C'mon, what is your point really?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

19. Well, I think we know westsidexview's point

and it's pretty obvious! :boring:

[Mr_Spock]

21. Heck, I don't care what his point is, I'll argue with him. Just wish

he wouldn't beat around the Bush! lol

[Kathy in Cambridge]

22. LOL-these people have an aversion to logic

and cogent responses.

[westsidexview]

33. like anyone has proof logic is logical

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. Did you go to the Yogi Berra School of Reasoning?

[westsidexview]

42. man is a mammal

who cannot understand his own existence. language, laws, logic are all tools he creates to enable his existence but they are not real and in no way true in any sense. the categorical imperative is a device explained by kant and used by many to justify ideas but it is based on circular reasoning. and no assertion can be its own proof.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

46. Then why don't you have a command of reasoning since you can

so aptly define it?

All I'm asking for you to do is explain the background of your ideas. You do not present evidence and argue it. Why are you here anyway?

[westsidexview]

54. with 3 million bits of sensory data coming at you every second

you must filter out most of it. you are simply filtering me out.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

55. I'm highly intelligent and am not filtering you out

you are being intentionally obtuse, as many others on this thread have pointed out already!

[Mr_Spock]

37. Aflac!

Quack!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

38. Tee-Hee

If it quacks like a duck...

[Webster Green]

10. What about Iraq?

Crazies are bombing Baghdad!

[libhill]

24. OK, and?

What the hell did the military do about it? Norad stood down AND they couldn`t even defend the Pentagon, their own f-ing H.Q. I'm impressed.

[seabeyond]

25. we had the world support after 9/11

if we had NO military, the whole world was going after al queda and osb. we are the ones that said screw you all we are going to take em on our way, and dont need yawl...........

[Mr_Spock]

6. Military might and imperialism are two entirely different issues.

We CAN have one without the other. I have always thought we need a strong military to protect us against real threats.

[westsidexview]

9. what about 9-11?

what would a democrat do about 9-11?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salinen]

14. We almost saw what a democrat would

have done. But instead fuckboy pulled the inspectors and declared non cooperation, went to an island with Tony, then proceeded to kill as he is known.

[Mr_Spock]

15. I dunno, you tell me. As an American, I thought going into Afghanistan

was entirely the correct thing to do. We should have also cut ties with Saudi Arabia, disciplined (sanctioned) Pakistan, Iran and Jordan. Why we went into Iraq is entirely beyond me - one of the stupidest blunders in the history of our nation.

[westsidexview]

26. i hate bush for his economic policies and his power-tripping but

he has taken action. i think the iraq invasion was stupid but who knows what the effect has been on those other unfriendly nations. maybe they will think twice about "messing with the US" for fear of george w. bush's american blitzkrieg. truman dropped the atomic bomb. roosevelt approved the civilian bombing campaigns on axis countries in world war 2. would these guys be freepers now because of their war policies?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

30. Are you drinking this evening? You are making no sense.

"i think the iraq invasion was stupid but who knows what the effect has been on those other unfriendly nations."

Iraq did not harbor terrorists. Now Iraq is a HAVEN for terrorists. Yes, we really showed those AY-RABS! And if you think rogue nations and individual terrorist organizations are afraid of our might, think again. We just gave them a reason to unite against us.

This is not conventional warfare like WWII or Korea. Please read a history of Vietnam and a history of modern terrorism.

[westsidexview]

40. when the democrats lose the military

the republicans will turn this country into a fascist state. the war is here. do we just hide are heads in the sand and hope we don't get fucked?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

What do you mean? The military is loyal to country, not a political party

and you can bet that a lot of them aren't happy with Bush.

You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

[westsidexview]

if the anti-war faction of the democratic party rules the day

the military will die as an institution and i think a majority of voting americans don't want that to happen.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. How did you get from the military is the base of our freedom and economy

to the anti-war Democrats? Quite a jump there, pal. And you still haven't explained your original points. :eyes:

[Mr_Spock]

34. No, you don't slaughter thousands of people to make a point that you

are mighty and don't mess with us. That is an entirely indefensible position to be in. The lack of moral rightness has lead to all sorts of war crimes - rape and murder included. you must be morally right to be victorious. Otherwise you have won nothing more than a piece of destroyed land with thousands of dead peoples lives hanging over your head (not mine, thank you very much).

[westsidexview]

45. what about the civil war?

war was hell but it ended slavery.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[westsidexview]

56. that is how you want to label me

it's the if i can't beat um then call them a freeper mentality. in spite of such mental shallowness i feel i can do my part to make sure bush loses in november.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. It has nothing to do with"beating" but "EXPLAINING"

I am interested in hearing some cogent arguments to back up what you've said. Thus far, you're all over the place and have neglected to address your original points. You keep hopping from 9-11 to Iraq to the Civil War. and making some smelly comments, hence my insult. I do apologize for labeling you.

I'm off to bed, and when I wake up, you may no longer be with us. Sweet dreams! :*

[Mr_Spock]

61. Smelly comments - lmao!!

They don't smell so good - they are smelly - yuck :smoke:

[Mr_Spock]

53. You have been drinking.

Even though you are bizarre, let me just say - thank God the union was preserved - even the south has to acknowledge that it was better in the long run that the union was preserved. Now, why are you trying to distract me from Iraq anyway? You can't mix our Civil war with a war of choice in a foreign land.

[jukes]

66. abolition was a by-product

the civil war was fought to determine whether rich industrialist or rich southern agrarians wd wield ultimate power in this country. Any other view is naive.

[Astarho]

47. Or

maybe they will think twice about "messing with the US" for fear of george w. bush's american blitzkrieg.

Or maybe they will see we are not invincible and can be worn down and defeated by a group of people who are trying to defend their country.

[Mr_Spock]

63. Man, sad but true. There is a reason that most folks on both sides

say we MUST stay and we MUST be victorious. Because we have staked our nations future presence on this planet in this stupid god-forsaken war-stupid-thing.

[libhill]

28. Not a blunder

it had been in the works a long time before Bushco took over.

[Mr_Spock]

29. Still a blunder.

Who cares how long they had been planning it.

[libhill]

32. Only in the sense that -

it was a stupid ass thing to do. My point though, is that it was not accidental.

[Mr_Spock]

41. No, it was not accidental. I kept pointing out to people that Bushco

was planning his invasion starting in December 2001. It was all over the news about the plans. Then the joker starts telling us that about all these "WMD's, nukes, mushrooms clouds". I looked at my family and yelled "haven't you been paying attention, he's been planning this for more than a year". "Look into their eyes! Can't you tell that they're lying!!!" I screamed. Nobody would listen. I was right and I AM SAYING I TOLD YOU SO! Fuck all you fools - believe what you want.

[libhill]

43. And

sadly, there are a lot of fools in this country who still take everything Bushco tells them as gospel. How can the American people be so fukkin' stupid? I don't get it, I just don't fucking get it. All I can say is, if Shrub gets reselected, I'm off to Canada. Fuck this place.

[Mr_Spock]

49. I hear ya man. It's either that or... oh, can't say that here - lol

I really, really did try to convince people of the bizarre thing that was happening to them - all along the year leading up the the war. It was like talking to zombies. Heck 9/11 made me homicidal about the Middle East, but I got over it in a couple of months. It was obvious that Dubya had been Jonesin' for Saddam for quite some time - hehe.

[cornfedyank]

20. even al gore could point to a map and say destroy afghanistan

I believe that was said by jon stewert on the daily show.

On edit: and never forget that osama would not have had a place to get started if ron buddy had pledged some of that starwars money to help Afghanistan reopen ancient trade routes. It would have been the right gesture.

[mhr]

27. 9-11 Should Have Been Handled Like The Crime That It Was

Bush, had he been truthful with the American people, could have harnessed all the good will shown us by leveraging the worlds police and intelligence agencies to track down and apprehend the terrorists. Instead, Bush decided to make it a military action and thus alienated the world. In order of action, he should have done the following:

1. coordinated with world's police agencies
2. coordinated with world's intelligence agencies
3. used extradition to dislodge suspects
4. used negotiation with other countries if extradition did not work
5. worked through the UN to coerce recalcitrant countries
6. failing the above, covert action
7. as a last resort, overt military action

Sorry to say but he acted as the dimmest bulb in the pack in handling this situation.

-----------
Never Forget The Face Of American Facsism'THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS AT THE SKULL & BONES INITIATION...I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING A GOOD TIME. THESE PEOPLE -- YOU EVER HEARD OF EMOTIONAL RELEASE? YOU EVER HEARD OF NEEDING TO BLOW SOME STEAM OFF?'

[Djinn]

12. wrong

"isn't it our military might that enables our individual political freedoms?"

I wonder how Canada, New Zealand, France, Sweden, The Netherlands etc etc etc all manage to have the same "freedoms" (and more besides) without having to bomb the crap out of third world countries?

As for what a Democrat would have done abuot 9/11 - no-one can really answer that but I'd hope and presume they'd deal with it the way terrorism is generally dealt with - see Spanish reaction to train bombings, Australian reaction to Bali, US reaction to 1st WTC bombing and the McVey bombing.

[seabeyond]

23. new zealand have individual freedom???????

and their military might. how about japan. hm, and canada, austria, sweden...........

seems to be the majority of our military might has been used to control other countries decision making process, whether we allowed them, or decided they were not in our........OUR......best interest

[DaveSZ]

31. I support war for self defense

WWII and Afghanistan were justified imo.

Iraq, Vietnam, the Contra war, etc. were not.

[seabeyond]

36. i am not anti battle

i was glad we went into kosovo too.

what we have done south of border, and the battles you talk thumbs down

[seabeyond]

39. and gulf war 1

though bush encourage, or allowed saddam to invade, saddam just went too far, and world protested. but i didnt like what saddam was doing to people of kuwait

would have liked to see us get into not thinking of the name of the country, 1 million dead in 3 months?

[leftistagitator]

44. Damn near all Democrats support war if it is necessary.

Obviously most of us didn't see the Iraq war as necessary. The military is needed as an effective deterrent to invasion, as it is for every country, but our military spending levels are getting completely out of control. The US spends more on military spending than all other countries put together and that number is growing rapidly. That kind of government spending will undoubtable help the economy, but I'm not sure it's in our best interest to artificially stimulate the economy in such a way over the long term. At the very least we could shift some of the spending over to constructive projects that have long term benefits to the people. Few countries are so militarized that they NEVER decrease military spending, the typical, and IMO better, route is to maintain the backbone of a military and go into a rebuilding project when conflict appears inevitable. And I wouldn't scoff at the possible military power of the EU, country by country they aren't impressive, but they are heavily interlocked in mutual defense treaties by now, and I know that the UK and France are both nuclear powers. Russia also wants to join their mutual defense pact, which would make for a military alliance that not even we would dare to mess with.

[BOHICA06]

60. But to project power ...

the Europeans, even with Russia, cannot. They have not the airlift or sea-lift capacity. They cannot ensure sea-lane or air corridor security.

So whether to do good - Rwanda or Kosovo - or bad - Iraq, a military must have excess capacity over the primary mission of defense. And to go with that - defensive spending, i.e. French Maginot Line, leads to static thinking and easy defeat.

Reactive growth - to a threat is what we did in WWII and we did it poorly if you consider that neither Japan nor Germany were deterred by our "potential" and it cost 400,000 US lives and millions of others to eliminate the aggressors. Reactive growth depends too much on foresight and wisdom; and with Iraq War you can see we have very little. Also, to ask the public to shift its comfortable tax base to an aggressive spending plan - since Congress would have to do so - is very unlikely and would most likely be too late.

The US military is smaller than the mid-80s or even the mid-90s version. Divisions, Air-Wings, Ships, and bases are greatly reduced - it is where the budget was trimmed in real dollars during Bush I and Clinton.

Finally - the military will accomplish the mission assigned by whatever administration - may the next administration manage it more wisely.

[leftistagitator]

67. It may be a smaller military but it's just as expensive as it ever was

- Defensive spending is the norm, and at most times is the right idea. The lessons of WW2 are many, but one of the most important is that you should not ignore a threat until it is too late. It took 6 years after Hitler rose to power before Europe tried to stop him, and 8 years before we did anything. We had a long time to prepare for War, and there were many opportunities to stand up to Hitler, but we chose not to until it was too late. Thank God for FDR, the only man in our government who took the threat seriously.

- The Maginot Line was an ineffective defensive mechanism, nuclear weapons are not. I defy anyone to find a tactic that renders them useless.

- To a degree they were deterred. Germany and Japan both tried hard to avoid any conflict with us. We eventually forced the issue with the oil embargo on Japan, but our industrial capacity was a terrifying threat to both of their empires. I'm sure eventually they would have done something to us, but for a long time they bent over backwards to avoid confrontation. We were arming their enemies, and we weren't even making them pay for it. We provided escort to munitions convoys. They didn't do anything precisely because they were afraid of our potential.

- The Navy is part of the backbone of the military, and bases and carriers must be maintained. But let's not get too crazy with the projection of power. I don't want to build a world that answers to us, I want a world where the rights and freedom of all nations are respected. The problem with a powerful, expensive military is the constant temptation to use it. I can understand it in the context of the Cold War, and to a lesser degree, the Terror War, but for one it's a drain on our resources, and for two it creates enemies we eventually have to deal with. Saddam, Noriega, OBL, just about every enemy we've had to deal with recently has been part of the legacy of our attempt at psuedo-empire during the Cold War. This may have been necessary, but it does highlight the problems of constant warfare. The only long term solution is a multi-national defense force for all free nations and constant vigilance. But the true version of that won't happen if we are to continue to play the role of Daddy to the world.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2004/03/08/nation_world/news02.prt

[Kathy in Cambridge]

51. I'm going to bed-arguing with Yogi Berra has become tiresome!

:boring: :freak:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. Actually, I'm very left brained

I'm detail-oriented, which apparently you're not. You can't even stick to a point! :eyes:

[sandnsea]

52. The luxury of sanity?

We didn't have this obsession with a global military before WWII. Lots of countries have freedom and don't find the need to have this psychotic obsession with the military that we do either. And there's plenty of productive things we can spend money on that will keep our economy moving.

If you're talking about military muscle that allows us to pressure other countries into trade agreements and the like, that aren't in their best interests; sure, the military is an economic muscle. But that's imperialism in my book.

Being strong enough to deter attacks worked for a long time, but I think we went way overboard. Not only in the amount of weapons we built, but in the weapons we distributed all over the world during the soviet/us proxy wars. Military might as a deterrance didn't work so well on 9/11. It's eerie and I'll never forget it, my daughter asked me in August 2001 if there would ever be a war here in the states. I told her no because there were 2 oceans and nobody would be stupid enough to attack us anyway.

Might never works as well as intelligence, in the long run. We weren't very intelligent about everything we did during the cold war, we're paying for it now. If we don't get a smart policy now, we'll pay for it in 20 years. Brute force, to me, is more of a security blanket than a real method of keeping one secure. I always tell my kids, the best way to stay out of fights is to not invite them by bullying behavior and stay away from people who do. The United States does the exact opposite, we've made ourselves a target and now we're paying the price.

[IrateCitizen]

62. So much ignorance, one hardly knows where to start...

our military might that enables our individual political freedoms

our military muscle keeps our economy moving

european amish-mentality state

Here's a tip, westsidexview -- if you're going to make assertions, provide DATA and FACTS to back them up. Since you have repeatedly refused to do so when challenged, and have instead only sought to divert the discussion to dead-end tangents (like the Civil War), one can only assume that your motives here are less than genuine.

But, to refute your three "assertions" in your initial post...

1. Our military might does nothing to enable our individual political freedoms. An informed and active citizenry enables those -- and the lack of such in the US today is a big reason why our individual freedoms are under unreleting attack. If anything, the encroachment of militarism upon American society has actually contributed to this assault on individual freedoms -- see the "war on communism", "war on drugs" and "war on terror" for exhibits A, B and C.

2. Most economists of a sound mind recognize that military Keynesianism is one of the most inefficient means through which to stimulate the economy. Why? Because at the end of the production, you're not left with anything that provides a lasting use to society as a whole. If you build schools, not only does the actual construction produce a stimulus, but the actual school which is used afterwards does as well over time, by increasing investment in education and therefore increasing the "brain pool". Investment in transportation helps to move commerce and facilitate real economic growth. But when you throw money increasingly at bombs and guns, that's all your left with in the end. They don't serve any lasting use to society as a whole, and they don't create nearly as many jobs as other forms of investment.

3. I have absolutely no idea what "an european amish-mentality state" means. Have you ever even spent any time in Europe? Please define exactly what you mean by this so that I may demolish this "assertion" as well.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jukes]

65. i do not want

prosperity & "freedom" @ the cost of burned, maimed, blinded, or killed non-combatants of darker complexion.


as a child myself, i perpetrated that horror, believing that it was essential to our freedoms.

i was deluded by profiteering, cynical, elitists who cared no more for my suffering than they did for the vietnamese people i damaged.

FUCK this unholy war & the rich bastards feeding us jingoistic bullshit to line their pockets.

this hideous war has ruined our economy & robbed us of what little freedom we had. our only freedoms now are the ability to stay temporarily under their radar (till they steal the next election) and the freedom to watch many of our fellow citizens be driven from their homes, starve, or die for lack of adequate medicinal care.

wars are fought by the working class, to enhance the power of greedy, already too powerful people.

there's only 1 just war; that of resistance by the people against exploitation & tyranny.

[thebigidea]

68. I want endless war! I want to lead the charge along with Bill Kristol!

I'm a war warocrat, war's on my mind. I'm a wartime democrat. You got a war? Give me a slice. Iran? Syria? I'm hungry for more! Give it to me... gimme the war, gimme the oil, gimme the blood. TO WAR!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jukes]

70. kick for the day watch

waiting to see if westsidexview comes up w/ something more valid than killing brown folks that don't wear bostonians protects our freedom to exercise our 1st amendment right freedoms in cattle corrals, not fly in planes for arbitrary & unexplained reasons, or be gitmo'd w/o trial,legal counsel, or actual charges of criminal activity.


westie, i don't think you're a freep; i think you're a libertarian wasting the time of liberals attempting to change the imperialistic doctrines of this country.

i also think you need to toss a willie-p into a bunker, listen to the screams of your victims as they burn alive, & then expound on how valid it is to invade a country that had no intention or capability to harm us, & explain how that protects our "freedoms"; ie, those wonderful freedoms extolled in the "patriot" act.

give us examples, pls, not circular logic that is essentially a revolving door that merely restates your invalid premise, laced w/insults and evasions.

war apologists, in my experience, never lung-shot a 16 y.o. girl & watched her choke on her own blood. they never heard the sonic crack of an AK round passing w/in inches of their empty gourds. they never strip searched a day old corpse in 100+* temperatures w/ their nose stuffed w/vicks in a vain attempt to disguise the awful stench of decayed human flesh.

go peddle your booya bullshit to other people who want to play concrete commando w/o paying the price.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

71. Kick for the anti-troll warriors!

:kick:

[Moderator]

73. Locking.......

Calling someone a troll/freeper/disruptor
or insinuating that someone is a troll/freeper
or disruptor is a rule violation. If you feel
that someone is a disruptor, please use the
alert button so that the moderators can take
care of it.

Thank you.


DU Moderator