Why the dems cannot be seen as the anti-war party

Guys guys guys. For one, the last thing the dems need to be seen as is the anti-war party. To win in 2004 the dems have to demonstrate that they have the compassion to care AND the toughness to govern. Like it or not, we have the strongest, best funded military in the world, and one way or another, it is going to be used. Hell Clinton used it, and it was a good thing he did (except in Somolia).

But I don't think we need yet ANOTHER lesson in how the last anti-war candidate the dems ran, George McGovern, lost in a national landslide, losing 49 states. Now you guys argue he didn't lose it because he was anti-war, but because of Eagleton ect ect ect. But one way or the other, his anti-war nature led the public to believe he was a was a fringe leftist and a radical pacifist. This is the last thing the dems need in 2004. In 2004, the dems need their own vision on National Security, which, despite whichever Poll Gods you believe in, WILL BE THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN 2004. It needs to be something simple. "Opportunity, Responsobility, Security" we need to cry. BUT WE WILL NOT WIN IF WE DO NOT APPEAR STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE. "BUSH LIED" or "NO WMD" or "BUSH SUCKS" will not convince anyone why the dems should replace Bush.

Now this does not mean you stand by Bush shoulder to shoulder. Offering some sort of Clintonesque Multilateralism would be needed. Something empisizing shared committment, shared responsibility, and shared victory. That means, as much as you may not like it, war with Iraq was necessary and it was going to happen at some point. Iraq was left over business from the first Gulf War. Saddam used WMD on his people and on the Iranians, and whether we found WMDs or not, he would have persued them at some point, make no mistake.

And, no, preemption isn't always bad, if it is against an IMMINENT DANGER. Around 1964, Isreal staged a first strike before her neighboring Muslim countries could attack her, as they where about to do. Isreal also preemptively bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1980 (yes Iraq had gone after nukes before). Had they not, Saddam would have had nukes in time for the first Gulf War. If the IAEA is correct, and Iran is trying to develop materials for nuclear weapons, and in some years down the road, if diplomacy has failed, military action might be necessary. I hope, for the sake of all of us, you wont cry "NO WAR" if and when it comes to that.

The Democrats must project an image that is strong on national defense, and we must back that up with politicians who are willing to do what it takes to be strong on defense.

That being said, I think it's good for a candidate to go on record against wars for profit and wars for corporations, like the one we are having in Iraq for Halliburton, Carlyle Group, and Exxon.

-National security will be the main issue in 2004. It doesn't matter what the polls say, this is true because I know it. I have no evidence of this, but I know it, so it must be true.

-the war in Iraq was needed because Saddam was a threat to the US. He was a really bad man. So he would nuke the US. Just because he had nothing to gain doesn't mean he wouldn't. He was a really bad man.

-we're going to need to invade Iran now to prove we aren't pacifists. It doesn't matter that Iran is also no threat and our military can't handle it now, we must prove we aren't pacifists. Unless someone is an insane warmongerer they'll lose like McGovern, period.

:eyes:

Forget the polls! Gore went by polls and he lost the election. The polls where one of his great weaknesses. Polls can't predict the future, and they can't tell you what people would be like in actual campaign mode. Polls saying that PEOPLE THINK TODAY that the economy will be the issue in 2004 proves nothing. The polls said the same thing leading into the 2002 election. Then remember what happened? The second to the last poll had the dems and GOP tied, then the last poll, taken on election day, had the GOP ahead 7 points. National Security was the issue in 2002 and will be in 2004. Tell me, why do you think the economy will be the issue in 2004?

As for Iraq, appeasing threats is not going to show anyone you have the toughness to govern. This is exactly what people don't like about us, that we are the first to take a step back when confronted with threats.

As for Iran, if they do turn out to be a geniune threat, one that is actively going after nukes, and nothing else works, after years of efforts, then, once again, pacifiying the threat will throw the dems back years. Iran is a terrorist supporting country. Unlike Iraq, Iran is a relgious state. What would you suggest exactly? If Iran is going after nuke technology, and will have a bomb by the end of the decade, what would you do instead? Tell me. What is your solution?

Too bad that was a complete failure and we all glow in the dark now. Oh, wait, we don't.

good idea.

OK, you're buying the bullshit Bush is an elected president. strike one.

then for the millionth time: ALL GOP PICKUPS WERE VERY CLOSE RACES, AND THE DEMS HAD MORE VOTES CAST FOR SENATE OVERALL. The GOP got lucky on some close races. That's it. Period.

Now why the economy will be the issue: The likely targets for terrorist attacks are meteropolitan areas which will always vote Democrat no matter what. Also the people there are probably smart enough to realize that Bush hasn't made the nation one iota safer and won't vote for him. The swing states are usually labor heavy states not likely terrorist targets where people losing their jobs and overtime pay will hurt them most.

And we did not need to appease the threat in Iraq. That's because there was no threat. Anyone who's not brainwashed by FAUX knows that Saddam was in no way a threat to the US, and had no reason to bomb the US or back terrorism. The only argument as to why he would is because "he was a really bad man". And if he was a threat, why was the UN so opposed to invading? Fuck the UN, that's what the John Birch Society says, right?

And there's nothing to worry about in Iran, the government is collapsing, the new generation is rising against them and is very pro-US. The regime won't last long.

Tell me, where are we going to get the troops to invade Iran for that matter? You should know how spread out our military is.

>>Terrorist attacks happen in blue cities, not red cities. <<

LOL GOD DAMN that was a dumb thing to say. AS IF people in Kansas City don't care if 50,000 people in New York City are incinerated!

>>People in blue cities are probably smart enough to realize they aren't safer<<

WTF????????? "PROBABLY SMART ENOUGH?!?!?!?!!?"

>>Saddam was no threat"

OH COME ON! He used WMD before. He was known to be developing a nuke program before the first Gulf War, and may or may not have been before the second. This was a Stalinite dictator. A meglamaniac. And you just wanted to ignore him and hope for the best.

As for Iran, it is WAY to early to be going into any more depth on that. No one knows what will happen, but if war does break out, I will count on you to be the first to stick your head in the sand.

then they have every right to defend themselves, no?

LOL.

for terrorists? I agree that Iran having nukes is of concern but wonder how many Arab nations would be creating nukes and nuke programs were it not for the fact that Israel has nukes.

Disarmament of the region would have made better sense.

Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons why are they not allowed to have the same defensive technology? Man, you have so swallowed all these lies.

and therefore the WH, fades with every post. WHY CAN"T IRAN HAVE NUKES???? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND????

outlined wherein they can only prevail by adopting the neo-con war hawk policies of the Bush administration which is exactly what you are arguing for. BTW, do you know a guy named Mobuto?

It was GHWB who put troops in there with no clear mission or exit plan and then passing it on to Clinton. Blaming Bill Clinton for that makes as much sense as blaming Kucinich or Dean for the Iraq mess in 2005, meaning none at all. No wonder that meme is so popular with the freeptards.

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_34.html

Nice post, BB, btw.

I adore the man greatly. It was just too bad that Somalia ever became an issue.

politicize war, don't look at the big picture and think foreign policy is a fucking game that should appeal to the LOWEST common denominator.

We should have never left that region.

Why are they so easy?

thus the tone taken by leadership. It (anti-war) is a moniker that can only hurt in a general election.

the Dems should not run as the anti-war party, but that wasn't really the point of this post...

.

and are ANTI WAR because they possess a pacifistic philosophy ..

But it DOESNT mean we are pushovers ....

I was an ANTI WAR protester this last year, completely against attacking Iraq in 2003, but I supported it in 1990 .....

WHY ? .... because in 1990, Iraq violated an internationally recognized boundary without moral justification, and was subjugating the native population through force ....

In 2003 ??? .... It was the US who violated an internationally recognized boundary without 'moral' justification, and was subjugating the native population through force ....

You imply that ALL democrats are ANTI war, yet nearly ALL the candidates have direct military experience ... whereas the GOP nearly NONE have this .......

BTW: .... McGovern was a military hero, a Bomber pilot in WWII who flew nearly 40 mission over europe ...

So: .... Was McGovern inherently against ALL war in ALL cases ? .... or just against a particular war in a particular case ? ...

You have bought the Right Wing strawman about liberals LOCK STOCK AND BARREL: .. and you are promoting that strawman here and now ...

Democrats, whether liberal or moderate, are AGAINST unjust war, but ready to fight wars that ARE justified, if and ONLY if they are necessary .....

You demean the party by misconstruing its positions ....

We arent against JUST war .... we are simply against UNJUST war, promoted by corporatists who use the blood and treasure of a nation to wrongly prosecute military action for PRIVATE gain, based on a specious and unsupported assertion of 'imminent threat' .....

Honestly: .... why do YOU care anyways ? .... I get the impression you arent voting for Democrats ........

Bravo!

but the dems have to seriously shift direction if they want to win.

As regards your first paragraph, it surpises me that you call yourself CONLAW and conveniently forget that George Bush sent troops tp Somalia. YOur contention that it was a mistake to send troops to Somalia is as politicized as your views on the military. There was recently a series of articles written at the Center for Public Integrity that profiles the illegal arms trade. There is evidence that Bin Laden MADE his jihad money in that section of the world with the illegal arms trade so I disagree that Somalia was a mistake. IF anything, Clinton being so political and pulling the troops out over a handful of deaths was a mistake. Cleaning up that neck of the woods a decade ago would have been the inteilligent thing to do and would have probably saved the 2 million lives that have been lost there and in surrounding areas since that time. It is one of those rare occasions where the argument that war can save lives rings true.

Those of you who pull the mc Govern cannard out conveniently dismiss Nixon's southern strategy as though the war was the only issue.

PREEMPTION is wrong and is a poor policy. Same with our lack of regard for the Geneva convention. We are leaders in the world and by way of example we set the rules for what we can expect. BTW, who sold Saddam those materials for his nukes? YOur whole prmise has more holes than swiss cheeze but keep trolling with all those neo con talking points! :eyes:

You MUST be for war at all times. What crap! They are conning you into believing this garbage. This is how they make their fortunes...by making you believe the fallacy that only warmongers can lead in Amerika. It is well past time we STOP letting the military industrial complex run our country. Americans have been made psychotic by the military industry conning them with imminent threat lies from non-existant boogiemen...commies...terrorists..

War with Iraq was completely unnecessary, completely illegal and completely unethical. We invaded a defenseless nation and murdered her citizens for oil and reconstruction contracts. WE are the bad guys without a doubt.

Please enlighten us as to why being against an un-Constitutional invasion of a sovreign nation based on lies is a bad thing. :shrug:
Do you also think our denying 80 people their due process rights and their lives 25 miles into Syria was OK? :(

or perpetuating a lie on purpose. Somalia was inherited by Clinton from good ol Bush daddy.

Dems are not seen as an antiwar party except for the totally brainwashed superfreak rightists.

We....many of us...supported the incursion into Afghanistan even though other pacifists did not.

I'm a realist and so are many Democrats. Still, that is not what we are debating here.

Almost all senators and reps looking at presidency voted for resolution on Iraq....but the US people in general DON"T like the US going in and kicking ass and losing soldiers' lives for dubious reasons.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Responsible use of force and power is a good platform to run on, and Bush and company have NOT been doing that well.

They lied, people died.

I can't believe you are really a Democrat. Sorry, just the skeptic in me, I guess. I mean it just reads like the Republican line.

Winning is pointless unless what is won is useful. I see no point in becoming a republican in order to win.

The sad thing is that I get the impression something roughly similar to this appeal to be bush-lite is very popular among democrats. I hope that those who are seeking to stop the rape of the planet will find it in themselves to get a backbone and not allow the republicans to define their politics for them.

blah blah blah anti war blah blah, blah blah might blah blah chickenshit blah blah. blah blah blah appear patriotic, blah blah blah. even blah blah blah blah blah false pretenses. blah blah blah red blooded blah blah don't blah pussies blah blah blah killing. blah blah rambo blah shwartzenegger blah blah blah american dream. blah blah blah towelheads blah blah surrender monkeys blah blah fringe extremist liberals who oppose any war at all. blah blah all wars blah blah be supported blah blah blah any reason. blah blah have republicns forever, who support blah blah any reason.

the difference is obvious, as is the choice.

blah blah.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL great, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL too funny!, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL bullsh*t, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, ROFLMFAO! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL knows nothing about the LAW LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, must be a CON, LOL LOL LOL, LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Thanks, (LOL) I needed that! :evilgrin:

I swear I read a thread begun with a first post exactly like this on the old DU before the switchover and Liesgate.

I mean, down to the exact wording.

::::sniff sniff::::

Could that be the plasticene smell of astroturf?

.

"That means, as much as you may not like it, war with Iraq was necessary and it was going to happen at some point."

Pure unadulterated conjecture. Actually I'd say it sounds hysterical too. You're ignoring the facts and playing on emotions.

"Iraq was left over business from the first Gulf War. Saddam used WMD on his people and on the Iranians, and whether we found WMDs or not, he would have persued them at some point, make no mistake."

That's why we should support the UN's weapon's inspector program which you conveniently ignore. Make no mistake, you've been fooled.

"And, no, preemption isn't always bad, if it is against an IMMINENT DANGER."

BINGO! IRAQ WAS NOT AN IMMINENT OR IMMEDIATE THREAT TO US OR ANYONE ELSE! Sheesh.

"Around 1964, Isreal staged a first strike before her neighboring Muslim countries could attack her, as they where about to do. Isreal also preemptively bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1980 (yes Iraq had gone after nukes before). Had they not, Saddam would have had nukes in time for the first Gulf War. If the IAEA is correct, and Iran is trying to develop materials for nuclear weapons, and in some years down the road, if diplomacy has failed, military action might be necessary. I hope, for the sake of all of us, you wont cry "NO WAR" if and when it comes to that."

Blah blah blah? Blah blah, blah, blah blah, Bomb them, blah, Iran, blah blah blah, invade blah blah, regime change, blah blah occupy blah blah.

Apparently International Law has no meaning to you...

Talk about a head in the sand:eyes: