Have the Democrats become the neo-cons, or was the anti-war movement just Democrat partisanship? This link suggests the latter. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/02/democrats_deserted_the_anti_war_movement.html Statistics always have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the contrast is rather vivid. Prior to 2009, Democrats were the mainstays of the peace movement. Now that the mahdi is in charge they dont know anything about it. If Hussein Obama wants to bomb the bloody wogs, its A-OK with Democrats. The pre-2009 "peace movement" never was about peace per se. It was all about mindless hatred of GW Bush.
Yes because we all know George W Bush first term featured his escalation of the Vietnam War. I know you think George W is God, but he certainly did not create the world in Jan 2000
You will not hear charges of chicken hawk anymore from the left. Now they're the ones pushing war, however.
Yup, it's so blatantly obvious that its sickening. Although now I keep seeing the righties doing the same thing! It's like you guys are playing a big game of flip flop. Just hating on whoever is in office if they aren't on your "team".
Id have to agree with your conclusions. Democrats claim everyone is a racist, just cause we refuse to support another illegal invasion of a foreign country. Its pretty sad really...
"...George W is God, but he certainly did not create the world in Jan 2000 " Taxcutter says; If he were god he certainly would not have invented hanging chads in 2000.
there have always been a lot of democrats who support flyby bombings....did righties forget the Clinton years already?
If the defense contractors want war the corporate Democrats will vote for war. In a recent Senate vote to limit welfare for the oil industry 27 Senate Demos voted with all the Repubs to defeat the bill. So why would anyone think there is any difference between the parties except little wedge issues they use to keep small minds spinning.
How safe did that make us? It did not stop the US from being attacked on 9/11. American foreign policy since Reagan brought upon our war on terror. I see little evidence it has changed even with Obama hatred increasing the new found isolationist movement. If Bush was wrong then Obama is equally wrong. If Obama is correct then Bush was also correct. I believe they are both wrong. While I am proud to see the new found isolationists being vocal against more war. I doubt it would be occurring if this were president McCain or Romney doing the same as Obama. It would be the left playing that role, a role in which they are more accustomed but a democrat president seems to change their definition of right and wrong just like the republicans.
we stopped a genocide in Kosovo and removed a leader in libya who had funded terrorism and killed americans comparing that to a decade long occupation in Iraq is just silly
I always forget the RW delusion surrounding the clinton years.....no genocide in kosovo, but the president murdered vince foster lmao
Ha,ha, and the Republican/conservatives are the new "doves" - with the exception of a few hawks, i.e. Graham, McCain, Boehner. And still, most conservatives still want to believe that they were the ones that were against racism? That was another time that the parties flipped, but according to Republican/conservatives, they want to be the side that is right, all the time, even if they were on the wrong side!
If Obama was President in 2001 and Iraq and Afghanistan started under his Presidency, the left's anti-war movement would have never happened.
Kosovo was a success can not argue against that. Libya not so much yes the dictator was evil and had terrorized the world for decades. Not at the time of the attack on libya. He had been cooperating with the US since 9/11. Now Libya is a basically lawless nation that will be a breeding ground for anti-Us extremist. If we are to compare The former leaders of Iraq and Libya Sadam was far worse IMO. It did not take 10 years to defeat Sadam. It was trying to establish a somewhat democratic government. I disagree with both but destroying a government and infasturcture then allowing the law of the jungle to decide future leadership is not a safe action in my opinion. I believe both wars were misguided. Even Afghanistan that at the time in my anger over 9/11 I supported was basically a waste of time.
If, if........If "ifs" and "buts" were "fruit" and "nuts" we'd have a Merry Christmas. If Obama had been President in 2001, Republicans would still be investigating it and the "Truthers" would have a job at Faux News. Also, Iraq would never have happened and Al Qaeda would have been dealt with in Afghanistan right after 9/11 - Obama wouldn't have gone after the wrong country.
when a leader is butchering his own people, at a certain point, you have to decide if hes worth supporting.
How does creating a power vacuum make the US safer? Nations are of little threat against the US military. The terrorist that flourish in such a vacuum are a threat worthy of 12 years of constant wars with no end in sight. Iraq, Libya, Syria, and even Iran are not a threat to the US. The extremist that can easily hide in a lawless nation like Afghanistan are the threat. Cresting more of those areas in the world can only increase danger not make us safer. If you are not willing to finish a fight you should not start one. Using the democrats preferred method of war. Attack and destroy unless they hit us back then run like little girls(my apologies to little girls everywhere) The Somalia syndrome if you will.
I would say we should never support such a leader. Support is far different from fighting a war that will not make us safer. War should only be used a a last resort. A dictator will likely be replaced with another dictator. Syria for a example Assad is likely a boy scout compared to who will follow him.
HUMANITARIAN BOMBING On the second floor of the Serbian Clinical Centre in Belgrade are victims of the Balkan war who will never be mentioned in any NATO briefing. There’s a 14-year-old boy with his head crushed, lying in a coma, eyes half-closed, a fat oxygen tube down his throat. There’s a middle-aged farmer hit in the head by shrapnel and expected to die within a few hours. A little further down the emergency ward is another boy - 13 this time - with his head swathed in bandages, moving in agony, his brain damaged and his right leg fractured by a falling building. They are NATO’s victims. Robert Fisk, "’Collateral Damage’:The Victims You Don’t See on CNN," The Independent, April 2, 1999. Local officials said 50 house were destroyed and 600 others were damaged in Tuesday’s attack on the town of Surdulica.... Local authorities in Surdulica said 11 missiles struck the town. An Associated Press reporter, allowed by Serb police to visit the town, said bodies were blown apart or charred beyond recognition. In one cellar, where 11 people including five children were believed to have been hiding, all that remained were small pieces of burned flesh stuck to bedsheets.... In Surdulica’s Piskavica district, craters 20 feet deep pocked one street. Serb police said shops had once stood there, but they were nowhere to be seen. On a white sheet in the back of an ambulance lay mounds of smoldering flesh, which rescuers said were the remains of four children. "NATO Acknowledges Bombing Serb Town," Associated Press, April 28, 1999. The small craters and mysterious fin-shaped pieces of metal found next to civilian vehicles attacked in Kosovo suggest that they may have been hit by U.S. cluster bombs designed to destroy tanks. Similar evidence has been found at several bomb sites over the past four days, including two roads on which tractors pulling wagonloads of Kosovo Albanian refugees were destroyed during NATO airstrikes Wednesday. The intact bomb remnants, shaped like single fins about two feet long with a one-inch hole at one end, are stamped in two places with the name ALCOA, suggesting that the U.S. aluminum company made them... "The circumstantial evidence points to some kind of cluster bomb," said a U.S. defense expert in Washington, who spoke on condition he not be named. The refugees, at least six of whom were badly burned, may have been the victims of the debut of U.S.-made CBU-97 cluster bombs, guided by infrared sensors and built to spray super-hot shrapnel into tanks, Cook suggested. Paul Watson, "Cluster Bombs May be What Killed Refugees," Los Angeles Times, April 17, 1999. Charred and dismembered corpses, wrecked tractors and a pathetic trail of personal belongings yesterday lay on the Prizren to Dakovica road in southern Kosovo... The most gruesome scene was at the third site. In the village of Bistrazin, six bodies lay cheek by jowl in the grass meadow beneath the road, five of them women. Worse was to come: a head lay further up the meadow, and near it a forearm and hand. On the road itself a half-charred corpse lay slumped across the steering wheel of a smashed tractor, slewed crazily across the shrapnel-pitted tarmac. On its trailer lay an indeterminate number of blackened body parts, and one leg hooked over the back of a trailer. A few yards away pieces of brain tissue lay spattered about across the road. Tom Walker, "Charred Corpses Litter Site of Attack," The Times, April 16, 1999. slobadon moved tanks into the open when our satelites flew over. once they passed he moved his tanks back into the trees, and moved trucks, and tractors pulling wagons of men over the age of 14, into the exact same place the tanks were parked..... Then they waited for NATO bombers to fly overhead 4 hours later...... We killed the very people we were trying to protect.
