There is no room for hawkishness in the Democratic Party

When we are comparing the various candidates, many supporters say their candidate is fairly liberal on domestic policies but hawkish on the war. A variation also would be "I know my candidate is a centrist, but atleast he opposed the IRW".

People can and do die from conservative domestic policies by lack of healthcare, food, security and etc. Given that there is no such thing a perfect society we can only agree that a more progressive and socially just one is preferable. It is hard from a numbers standpoint to guess at the damage Ronald Raygun did over his two terms in office. Let us compare the immediate, violent and traumatic results that waging war has on people. In the span on a month or so we the United States by direct action killed 6-10,000 people in the Republic of Iraq. We determining how liberal someone is I will give far greater consideration to those you work for peace and oppose war against those you support liberal domestic policies and yet support war.

:shrug:
:)

I am just saying that I have no use for "liberals" such as Kerry or Lieberman if they do not oppose war.

Now I can see Kerry but Lieberman has always been moderate. I was infering to Kucinich yes, :shrug: why not, liberal on the issues, has good ideas, and was anti war from the gitko.

would have gotten us into Iraq in the same way that Bush has done so. And they argue that their hawks (on some levels) for the same reason Kennedy ran as a anti-communist more virulent than Nixon -- ie, so that the Democratic party doesn't lose on the basis of being weak on national security.

lets just say i don't agree with your position.

besides Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, what were so great about those anti-communist adventures?

:)
I like all the Kennedy bros but Bob is my fave.

JFK did not have the correct people in place around him to make the best decisions but he fixed as he discovered it and moved forward. Poor execution doesn't make the concept wrong.

If he had, it would have been WWIII. JFK's advisors underestimated the USSR's resolve. Later, it was discovered that the USSR would have attacked the US if we invaded Cuba.

JFK is an example of how you can surround yourself with all the best people in the world, but, when it comes down to making the smart, compassionate, libereal decision, it matters if you have a good person in charge (Bush and Dean take note).

Our national security really was at stake, very few things after 1945 can be justified.

Japan attacked because we were a threat to them and their quest for gaining resources.

Germany really didn't want to go to war with us. But were obliged to because of their pact with Japan.

They probably wouldn't have been a direct threat to us until about 1945/46 ish. Of course us sending support to Great Britain and the Soviet Union was a threat to them.

But it was a good war by all means. And anyone who would say otherwise should be slapped backwards...in my opinion.

But no wars are really GOOD. They suck to high-heaven and people die.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

one big chess game I guess.

say goodbye credibility !

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

- We don't need that shit around here.

For some reason you seem to think being a hawk is being like Rumsfeldt and Bush.

I want a democratic president that when he HAS to will totally obliterate our enemy, with absolutely no mercy.


Now notice the word "has to"


Bush is not a hawk is a friggin idiot.

If Dean would say that he supports attacking Syria IF we find proof that they are a REAL threat. I will back him up 110%

that hawkish candidates, but more importantly, those that agreed w/whistle ass' war, are being supported.

They, in Kerry's own words, fucked up when they voted yes. It was perfectly obvious in the results of the mid-term.

I left DU after the Night of the Long Knives, because I did not agree w/the rules. I was passionately against the yes voters. Sadly, I was correct.

I will leave the Democratic Party if the only way to stay is to play by the repug rules.

expanded upon, and was also involved in several little dirty wars. LBJ was a hawk. He deepened U.S. commitment in Vietnam. Kennedy was a hawk. He also deepened U.S. commitment in Vietnam, as well as being responsible for things like the Bay of Pigs. Truman was a hawk. He chose to pursue the policy of Cold War, and got us involved in the beginnings of Vietnam and Korea. FDR pushed to get the U.S. involved in WWII, against the wishes of isolationist Republicans. Ditto with Wilson and WWI.

Apparently none of these men were liberals. Or perhaps the current, pansy version of the Democratic Party is an anomaly, and the sooner it begins redefining itself on the issue of national security, the sooner it can get back into power and push a progressive agenda.

What separates JFK from the MIComplex is JFK wasn't willing to use our armed forces as cannon fodder nor murder hundreds of millions of people in a nuclear war, as recommended by the JCS and his Cabinet on more than one occassion.

There is no "received wisdom" on the war. Differing views are accepted on a number of issues, and the war should not be any exception.

Poop!