Does The Democratic Party want to be known as the Anti-War Party?

Does The Democratic Party want to be known as the Anti-War Party?

no, i think they'd like to be known as the "Smart War Fought Alongside Allies Party".

I would have thought that every political party on earth would be anti-war. Being pro-war is a bad platform to run on...

Vietnam was bad. Iraq is bad. We want the troops home and not throw more fresh meat to be slaughtered.

or the
"Let's just destroy everything, so we can look macho Party."

Why is it that everytime we get a good war on some women come along and bother us about starving babies? --Takes all the fun out for us guys who enjoy total destruction and good time killin'.

I want them to be known as the pro-peace party by working with our allies instead of having a unilateralist streak. Also, we should not be supporting oppressive regimes as well. We have an administration that uses the example of Iraq as a humanitarian mission, but opens diplomatic connections with Equatorial Guinea which is rich in OIL!!! Since when did this administration put on an Amnesty shirt???!!!???

I work every day for that to be so.

Clean and concise.

All parties should be pro-peace parties. The democratic party can, and should, lead the way.

As a Democrat I can say that, although there is great debate amongst Democrats about war, sometimes war is actually necessary. What we as a group disagree with is the from of pre-emptive warfare that the Bush Administration engaged in. Iraq was a war of choice, not need. There was no imminent threat. Remember when they warned of mushroom clouds over New York if we didn't get rid of Saddam? It was a lie, based on black (false) propaganda.

that message cuts accross party lines not to mention that it's illegal.

the big tent always has a spot - at least - for the doves though ;->

peace

seriously!

I think that we want to be the party against pre-emptive unilaterial wars that don't protect us from imminent threats. We need to be the party that's willing to use our military forces if necessary and only if necessary.

I don't think so. And I also don't think that there's any indication that we are.

oh great "marine for clark"?

Classic right wing bait, that's what.

Do you want to be known as a pro-war person?

Do you like war, mr. marine?

Do you wage it often?

does that sound Bushian enough?

The 20% left that is anti-war consistently votes democratic or green, so unless the democratic party wants to alienate half its constituents, they better be the anti-war party. Sorry, thems the breaks....

what a dichotomy. Then again, the original post is rather transparent.
Thanks, LT.

a fallacy. We don't still beat our spouses either. The war in Iraq is a stupid adverture for oil, and we are against spilling the blood of our sons and daughters for a coward's oil greed. We would defend our country ourselves and send our sons and daughters if it had an enemy that threatened with more than idle words.

? Did you support the Iraq mess?

ya know?

it be known as the Anti-stupid, unjustified, unecessary, irrational, war party

"smart killing?"

Shows we, like the people of Europe, have learned from History,

Why is this question even being asked on this board?

The question to be asked of the author of this thread is do you want the Democratic party to be known as the pro-war party? This is exactly the element that rode in on the Clark wave that I find questionable. It is almost as if they are searching for the alternative for Bush only because Bush failed in his own agenda and NOT because that agenda is wrong. If Clark ran as a Republican would they be just as comfortable supporting him? Because, it seems they are looking to replace Bush with someone who will do a better job of what he made a mess of--not so much to change policies and ideology.

but, i'm sure some DUer is prepared to lecture me on how much more important political expediancy is than standing up for what is right.

It would be civilized, though, if it did.

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

please review the rules for starting a new thread in GD before starting a new thread in GD. This thread is inflamatory.

Thanks

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.