Would you like the Dem party to be seen as the Anti-War/Peace party?

Would you be happy if the Dem party came forth clearly and strongly against aggressive military policy and focused on new and vigorous efforts to find non-violent solutions to conflicts in the world?

Like the one in Iraq. If you even hint at anti-war, all you'll do is promote the idea that the Dems ar whimps!!!! That's what the Pubs have been pushing for years,a nd we're still fighting to overcome that one!

We sure wouldn't want anyone to think we aren't REAL men!!

Through out most of American history it is we who have been the aggressor in international conflicts.

War of 1812, Mexican American, Spanish-American, WWI, Vietnam, Central America, etc.


What was the last good war?

Both the NATO intervention in Kosovo and the UN mission to Sierra Leone were that year, and I would argue both were the right thing to do. I don't know of any since then, although I'm not ruling it out.

The answer should be "Septmeber 2004", though - if the UN, the US, NATO or any other body had attempted to intervene in the Darfur conflict to prevent the human rights abuses I think it would have been a good thing, but - thanks largely to the fact that the US and UK were tied up in Iraq, and had used up any international goodwill they had there - no one did.

Who're terrified of not being perceived as "tough" but fail to see the irony of their weak stance.

Kinda like insecure 14 year old boys getting plastered with tatoos to prove their manhood.

n/t

You do have to protect yourself but not with lies!

Unfortunately we live in a really dangerous time with lots of wackoes running around.

This country should not be known as pro-war or even eager for war, but we should let the world know we are capable of kicking butt and will if necessaey...but only if attacked first....no pre-emptory attacks.

"peace at any cost" meme, but I certainly support an anti-aggressor campaign.

I'd prefer a smaller, faster, more efficient military, capable of handling small brush-fire operations but without the ability to carry out this sort of massive campaign against Iraq. In this new age this sort of war is pretty much unnecessary anyway. Occupation is just too damned dangerous.

Fight smart, not hard, if you have to fight at all.

coalition in the first place.

LBJ began the most progressive administration in American history following his win by one of the greatest landslides in American history running a platform that promised massive progressive and liberal programs and a promise not to escalate the war in Indochina. His base of support did not collapse because he was seen as militarily week. It collapsed because of war. Richard Nixon was not voted in in 1968 because he was going to "stay the course". He was voted in largely because he promised to end the war. Just as earlier Eisenhower was voted in with his promised to go to Korea and make peace.

I am not suggesting that war can never be justified. But let's not fool ourselves; American does not need two hawkish/neocon parties, especially as America grows weary of war. And we simply cannot afford to continue to outspend the rest of the world put together on instruments of war.


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientist and the hope of its children. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

:thumbsup:

The rest will follow.

I only support military action in self defense, like was the case with Pearl Harbor.

...and any party that is seen as "THE anti-war party" will be defeated, period.

A great man, when asked if he was against war, said, "I'd like to be but that is not realistic. Let me just say I am against THIS war." And that is the only rational answer.

I'm not anti-war when I don't think we have a choice. But I do STRONGLY support trying to find ways around military conflict. War should always be the last resort, period.

That's what I'd like to see.

A Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism

http://www.oregonpeaceworks.org/site/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=988&Itemid=82

I just found this site from a nice new DUer and put it in my sig line...

:hi:

Dems should make it known that they won't shirk from that challenge should it arise, but that they will always favor a diplomatic solution when possible. I think in the short term they should run as the anti-Iraq war party because a) that's how most of us feel about Iraq and b) most Americans are coming around to that POV, and I think we could win relatively easily based on a get-out-of-Iraq plan.

This is, of course, assuming we won't have to worry about diebold, but they won't be able to steal the election if it's a virtual landslide in our favor. It would be far to obvious. They know if they get caught in that game they'll be done forever.

Talk is cheap when the bloated military budget is not scrutinized.
I'll beleive the dems have changed when the military is cut down to
the size actually needed to defend the country.

Until you cut the pork-ties to the arms industry, there will be war,
and due the DLC's sleeping around, we get the arms industry's
disease.

When they cut off the budet for the drugs war, then'll we'll see if
they have the maturity to not wage a hateful war against their own kids.
And maybe if they have the balls to do that, other things might be
possible... but the abuse culture is pretty deeply set, sadly.

could exercise greater power in the world today by being an agent of progress. We have the potential to have dispute resolution as a common practice within the context of the UN. Obviously, there are times when the ability to respond militarily is necessary. But the current mess in Iraq is a strong example of the consequences of the misuse of military strength. The NY Times had a few pages of the second 1000 US soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday, along with articles about a few of them. They were betrayed by the administration's lies that brought the nation to war.