|
Edited on Wed Dec-02-09 11:56 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
A. Why, elect a Democrat President of the United States.
Based on my observations of the last two Presidencies, as well as the current Democratic administration, I have come to the unavoidable conclusion that the instant a Democrat becomes POTUS, being anti-war seems to suddenly become very popular with everybody, at least moreso than whenever we have a Republican POTUS. I don't think that it is because Democrats have some kind of track record of failure when it comes to military conflicts (after all, WW2 was won within approximately FOUR years under FDR/Truman). No, mostly it seems to be simply because a Democrat has been elected POTUS. :shrug:
Once a Democrat becomes POTUS, the normally "war lusting" corporate media whores whom never hesitate to "cheerlead" for the most recent Republican-initiated military conflict- whether or not it's actually a necessary intervention- suddenly become a LOT more skeptical and cool about the use of military force whenever a Democrat is CIC. For instance, suddenly, according to the press, Afghanistan is now "Vietnam Redux" or "Obama's Vietnam" despite the strenuous attempts by the corporate media whores during the past eight years to avoid any such comparisons in regards to Bush's handling of Afghanistan and his invasion/occupation of Iraq. The corporate media whores never failed to "cheerlead" for nor critically examined either conflict either until several years into them and they mostly focused on Iraq.
The GOP, a party certainly NOT known for harboring "pacifist tendencies" doesn't hesitate to criticize the way a Democratic President handles military conflicts even if there are no American casualties (i.e. Kosovo) and will scream bloody murder and howl for immediate and unconditional withdrawal if and when things go bad (i.e. Somalia) even if it is a conflict that THEY initiated (and, as is often the case, mismanaged) and left for their Democratic successors. Of course, the Republicans simply want the Democrats to fail and, given their usual hypocritical tendencies, I guess that their feelings about a Democrat being the nation's CIC shouldn't really be too surprising.
Even Democrats, many of whom seem to unconditionally support military conflicts initiated by Republicans and/or at least continue unconditionally supporting the necessary funding to keep them going in perpetuity (i.e. Iraq) suddenly seem to find their *courage* (aka "balls") to take on their party leader and decide that we simply can't afford any more funding for a military conflict even if it's something that they (used to) feel should've been done in the first place- and even if there is a revamped strategy and timetable for withdrawal (i.e. Afghanistan).
So, all things considered, it seems to me that all anybody who truly wants our country to be totally be free from further military interventions needs to do is keep ensuring that only Democrats get elected POTUS because then (and maybe ONLY then) EVERYBODY, Democrats and Republicans alike will finally come together and stand UNITED in questioning and opposing ANY and all further military interventions, escalations, war spending, changes in strategy, etc. regardless of their merit and/or need. Whereas, with Republicans in the WH, we will continue getting an endless stream of "wars of choice" and "wars without end" and the merits thereof will NEVER be critically examined or questioned by the corporate media whores or even your Democratic representatives in Congress (with few exceptions) nor will they EVER be defunded or have "strings attached" to further funding thereof.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
