I can't help but wonder would there really be this much of a divide on DU about military action

[liberal_at_heart]

if a republican were in the White House?

[bluestateguy]

1. I supported the Afghan War in 2001

I wanted it to succeed, and I was willing to lay aside my continued anger over the stolen 2000 election to support that mission.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. I remember I was 13 when my brother went over to fight in the Gulf War. I had no idea of the

politics of the Middle East. Sad thing is no one seems to understand the politics of the Middle East. One of the reasons I think any action on our part in the Middle East is doomed to fail.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. As did the vast majority of Americans - at or around 87%, depending on the pollster.

I felt the same way you did, bluestateguy. I was still teed off about the stolen 2000 election, but I was willing to set that aside and support Bush in taking out al-Qaeda's safe-havens within the Afghanistan borders after we were attacked on 9/11. I was vehemently against the invasion of Iraq. Vehemently.

[JoePhilly]

42. Same here. Some on DU live in a fantasy world in which ...

... every Democrat used to be a pacifist ... but then switched when Obama took office.

Which is dumb given he ran on Adding troops to Afghanistan. And we all heard him.

Said he'd go into Pakistan after OBL, as a candidate, and then did.

[Man from Pickens]

60. I did as well

But today, I have the benefit of learning from that experience, and am far, far, more skeptical of getting involved abroad.

Even if the initial reasons for engagement are all the right ones, it seems inevitable that every military adventure gets taken over by military contractors, at which point the goal becomes to keep the contracts flowing and not to achieve the stated objective.

Look at Afghanistan. Nothing at all is being achieved in terms of strategic objectives. We are over a dozen years into it already. Does anybody doubt that if this country were serious about achieving some objective there, it would have done so long ago?

The only way we can call Afghanistan a success is if the goal was to enrich contractors, or to facilitate the opium/heroin trade. I seriously doubt that the nation would have approved of those objectives as valid reasons to go in.

[Purveyor]

3. Certainly you shouldn't even have to ask. If a repuke were facilitating such action

this forum would be at level 3 lockdown (or whatever it is called) due to the high traffic volume.

Hypocrisy...it is our name, indeed.

I applaud those that do voice their opposition regardless of the taunts from the neo-war party contingent that has surfaced within.

[cali]

13. Yes, there would be near universal opposition and condemnation here but

I think it's a bit more than simple hypocrisy. Partisanship isn't only about hypocrisy; partisan dems here have faith in Obama knowing what he's doing- or something like that, and the whole ISIS scare obviously really strikes a chord with a lot of folks.

I don't care about the taunts. I think this is a huge mistake and the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it will be a disaster on many, many levels.

[Scuba]

22. + Eighty Gazillion

[sendero]

32. For me...

... I think that ISIL in Iraq would not have happened if we had stayed out of Iraq as we should have.

That said, I don't believe the US should be any more committed to action than the other players. If you are not worried about your own back yard why should I be?

[Doctor_J]

59. Faith in EVERYTHING he does

partisan dems here have faith in Obama knowing what he's doing

They will get on board with literally anything.

[brush]

56. Dem or repug president, we were going to do something about ISIS

This president's policy should be a surprise only for its restraint. And I say that realizing and acknowledging — unlike some who seem to overlook this or have yet to accept it — the President of the United States is head of the most rapacious, blood-stained, military-industrial-complex-dominated empire in the history of the world, i repeat, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and the forces that wield power within it, even beyond the power of the president, will not be denied yet again a profit-making opportunity. Obama has denied them repeatedly.

Criticize his foreign policy all you want but he has shown remarkable restraint, and courage, in the face of those aforementioned forces, in keeping us out of war in Syria; he played his cards right and got rid of Kaddaffi without sending troops; he let the Egypt Arab Spring play out to get rid of Mubarak without troop intervention, and he openly stated we're not sending troops to the Ukraine.

He has constantly shown his anti-war bona fides and even with this ISIS crisis his reluctance to get into a war is obvious to those who take the time to look and access the situation instead of repeating the far right and/or far left talking points against whatever he does or does not do.

I said all that to say that the President of the United States, and all that that title entails, could hardly keep out of this ISIS crisis and survive. That's right, I said SURVIVE — and I'm not talking about impeachment.

If Barack Obama had went on national TV the other night and said we will do nothing in regard to the current ISIS crisis as it is a matter for Syria and Iraq to solve he would, IMO, be either assassinated or perish in an Air Force One crash or some other "accident" within 6 months.

The MIC and its bought-and-paid-for sycophants (repug and blue dog dem politicians and/or their agents in the field) would see to that. Empire and humongous, humongous profits not gained previously in Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Ukraine are at stake (that's really what it's all about — cries of liberty and justice and threats to the US notwithstanding), and no reluctant-to-go-to-war president will be allowed to stand in the way of yet another oligarchic, coffer-stuffing cash bonanza, especially a black president.

Matter a fact, better make that dead in 3 months instead of 6 because of the black factor.

[jberryhill]

4. Prior to Bush, we were maintaining no-fly zones in Iraq

This contained Saddam's ability to use air power against Kurds and Shiites, and it required regular elimination of anti-aircraft capabilities affecting the zones.

It was a maintenance task that worked, but Bush found it boring.

[JoePhilly]

48. Yea, but bombing never works!!!!!!

At least that's what I'm hearing from DU's self appointed military experts.

I wonder how they feel about Clinton's approach to the situation in Bosnia awhile back. I seem to recall we used airpower, but no US troops then as well.

That must not have worked either. But I'm not sure why none of our DU military experts are bringing it up.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I suspect not, but that doesn't mean that the people who'd be acting differently are wrong now

and would be right then.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Nor does it mean the reverse. nt

[joshcryer]

6. I'm sure Putin supporters would still be for his wars of aggression.

[cali]

15. huh? I'm far from a Putin supporter, I don't support this new war

largely because I believe the chances of success- and my metric of success is a stabilized region with ISIS control rolled back in Syria and Iraq- is vanishingly small. The variables, a weak Iraqi government in its infancy, a very weak Iraqi armed forces and lack of moderate opposition groups in Syria as well as a weak and fractious coalition comprised largely of nations who often work against U.S. interests, doom it to failure.

[joshcryer]

16. I think it's OK to try something and fail, than to do nothing.

There are many failures, many, one may argue even most. Humans are infallible. If you don't try to do good, you are crap. I have failed so many fucking times in life trying to help people out. From trying to fix someones car and making it worse to giving someone rent money only for them to spend it on something else and get evicted anyway.

No one can expect full infallibility, but it is completely heartless to advocate doing nothing, even in the face of potential failure or even blowback.

I have a very relevant anecdote. I steam cleaned my brothers house tonight, the carpet reeked of dog piss from the dog they had. I got about 80% of it out but after 6 hours I gave up. Urine is impossibly difficult to remove from carpet. I fucking failed. But why not spend my time doing something I know how to do (and did professionally at one point)? Because of the potential for failure? Fuck no, you do what you think is right, I saved him hundreds of dollars, it'll smell a lot nicer in a day or two, once things dry.

Yeah, OK, that's not comparable to Presidential level decisions. But Presidents get it wrong, too, and I frankly don't see "do nothing" as an excuse to "don't be wrong." Because, you know what? People like you would say the President was wrong if it really went wrong. Say the entire Kurdish population was wiped out. You wouldn't bat an eye to criticize the President then. And if you did? If you didn't give a fuck if the entire Kurdish population was wiped out? I have no reason to respect your moral or ethical judgement. None.

[cali]

19. It's certainly OK to try some things that may well result in failure. It's NOT OK to start a war

of choice that may well result in failure. Furthermore, I do not advocate doing nothing. I've written several times about that. go find the posts. I'm not doing your work for you.

Your "relevant" anecdote is absurdly NOT relevant. It's so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve comment. That you actually think it's relevant in any way at all, speaks volumes. Embarrassing to see you tout that as relevant. And there is NO danger of the entire Kurdish population being wiped out. that kind of uninformed and hysterical "what if" is so sophomoric as to beggar belief.

Just fuck.

[joshcryer]

21. Logic fail of epic proportions.

"It's certainly OK to try some things that may well result in failure. It's NOT OK to start a war of choice that may well result in failure."

So, only "war of choices" should not be used if there is a potential of failure, full stop, do not pass go. Defending populations against insane murderers, no, fuck that, if there's a remote possibility of failing. Fuck it, let people get beheaded, women raped, masses murdered industry-style. If you don't have 100% guarantee of 100% success and zero potential for messing it up, you should allow it to happen.

You remain the most insulting DUer I engage on a regular basis. Commendable. But despicable. Can't say I missed the timeout.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. Trying to do good is better than doing nothing at all. That is my motto. Even if you fuck up. Even if the results are not to your liking. At least you tried to do good.

Insulting me annoyingly falls flat (couldn't even get a chuckle out of it), as I was explaining a human, individual, experience, and contrasting it to a head of state experience. If an individual can fail, a head of state can fail. The fact that you cannot comprehend this simple contrast is hilarious. Humans are, at their nature, infallible. That goes for heads of state, that goes for anyone. Any actions can be a mistake. The question then is whether your actions intend to do good or not. You appear to think that the only good thing to do is nothing. Which is objectively wrong.

The next time you see a hitchhiker I hope you're not deluded by the "do nothing" concept. It's the weakest, most immoral, unethical position to have. And yet, many Americans and many people hold that totally debased view of society. It is sad.

[Scuba]

23. Not a fail at all. Fact is, bombs are often our first and only option, and they always backfire.

[joshcryer]

27. Yawn.

[cali]

25. let's see: you call me heartless- and yes, that's precisely what you did-

and then complain about me being insulting.

and no, the failure of logic is yours with your comparison of a war of choice to your act of cleaning piss from a carpet.

[Demit]

49. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

That's the answer to your "The question is whether your actions intend to do good or not."

I don't know, in your story of trying to fix someone's car and making it worse, if you actually know anything about cars in the first place. In that scenario, whether you intend to do good is irrelevant. The relevant question is: will your actions make the situation better, or will they make it worse?

Christ, it's a classic theme in comedy, the idiot who's confident he can fix that one little thing then proceeding to break other things out of his ignorance. Or the one who barges in to help and leaves the scene in a shambles.

[davidpdx]

57. So I guess this means you and Cali aren't going to be running mates in 2016?

[Demit]

38. Good job in your last graf! You knocked that strawman out cold.

The bolding is a nice touch. Really draws attention to the fantasy you constructed.

[Savannahmann]

50. Seriously, you're going with the it's better to do something argument?

How many malpractice lawsuits has that approach garnered? When a line of Doctors tell the jury that the wrong thing was done, does the "we at least tried to do something" argument work?

The problem is that once you resort to violence, there is no where else to go except more violence. Let's say you and I are having an argument. I strike you in the eye with my fist. There is no going back and sitting down and attempting to continue the conversation. Violence is considered the last resort for a reason, because once you resort to it, there's no going back. Look at the history of this nation shall we? We bombed Gaddafi in Tripoli in the 1980's. Did we ever restart conversations with him? No, we always left him on a watch list, and never really got friendly with the Libyans again. Viet-Nam, we're still barely speaking to them after fifty years. Cuba? It's been seventy years since the failed bay of pigs invasion, and we're still maintaining an embargo on trade and travel.

[Union Scribe]

7. There are two types of hawks.

The ones who have always been hawks and would pretend to oppose military action if it was a Republican president. And the ones that are for whatever the Democratic president is for, my Dem right or wrong. I can't pick which is worse.

[Puzzledtraveller]

41. I think the latter is worse

Weakens us over time.

[FlatStanley]

8. Nope

[ReRe]

9. NO n/t

[Live and Learn]

12. My opinion hasn't changed.

Against it then, against it now.

[KG]

14. but we'll get it right this time, because obama!

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I suspect there would.

Following Powell's February 5 speech at the UN, most polls, like one conducted by CNN and NBC, showed increased support for the invasion. Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, said the increases in support were "largely" due to president Bush's State of the Union speech in January and to Powell's presentation on February 5, which most viewers felt offered strong evidence for action against Iraq. Bush's approval ratings climbed seven points, and support for the invasion increased by four points. Only 27% opposed military action, the smallest percentage since the polls began in April 2002. The percentage of Americans supporting an invasion without UN support jumped eight points to 37%. 49% of those polled felt that President Bush had prepared the country for war and its potential risks, a 9 point jump from the previous month.[8] A Gallup poll showed the majority of the population erroneously believed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#cite_note-9
(emphasis added)

I know it's wiki, but that's the way I remember the time.

[malaise]

18. You are not alone

Across the globe lots of folks support 'their party' - convictions be damned.

[woo me with science]

44. Well said. nt

[randome]

20. You have cultural PTSD and you need to get over it.

Obama is not Bush. ISIS is not Iraq and/or Al-Qaeda. If you don't think Obama is agonizing over this, you have not been paying attention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[BlueCaliDem]

31. + 1000. Thank you!

But on the other hand, for some, Obama really is Bush - in terms of dislike, even loathing (they can barely hide it these days), ISIS is Iraq - in order to support that personal but false equivalency, and they really could care less that James Foley's and Steven Sotloff's families are agonizing over the senseless and brutal murders of their family members.

[randome]

43. We've heard them cry 'Wolf!' too often.

But that doesn't mean we should ignore the real wolf that is ISIS right now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[NuclearDem]

24. Obama isn't Bush. This isn't 2003.

[Doctor_J]

26. just like with the heritage foundation healthcare scam

That is how the ptb get their shit on. This one is even better since anti war citizens can be safely called racists.

[joshcryer]

30. Objective lies.

[Puzzledtraveller]

40. you are correct

[sendero]

34. Being always every time in every situation...

... against military action is just as stupid as being always for it.

[treestar]

37. +1

[LWolf]

35. Of course there wouldn't.

DU might not be as overwhelmingly against military action as in 2003. It's a more moderate place, having gone more mainstream in '08.

Still, if it were an R in the WH, there would be more unity on every issue.

[treestar]

36. A Republican would be doing different things

And would have different motives for doing it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. Nope, easy as that.

We'd be planning the protests already.

[JoePhilly]

45. Obama said he'd increase troops in Afganistan as a candidate ...

... were folks here on DU asleep.

In 2002 he said ... "“I’m not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Did no one on DU know he said that?

Did they not hear candidate Obama (in a debate with McCain) say he'd send the military into Pakistan, without their authorization, to get OBL? Which is what he then did as President.

I used to think DU was smarter than the right wing. That they listened to what candidates said. That they saw the complexity in the world that the right wing could not see.

Since Obama was elected, its become clear that a large part of DU pays no more attention than some on the right wing do. They hear what they wanted to hear, and ignore the rest.

You can see these folks struggling lately because Warren (their newly found Messiah) supports Obama on how to deal with ISIL. Ouch.

Maybe all of the Warren supporters should start an OP and decide how they feel about her now. Is she really the candidate they want, or just another nasty Obama trying to trick them?

That little discussion might go along way to help to understand the "divide".

[mathematic]

46. Hey maybe that's cuz democrats trust democratic leaders.

If Obama says our best action is to bomb something then I think that he's weighed the evidence, considered all the options, and decided that this was the best action. If Bush said the same thing, I'd think "yeah right." This isn't even a subtle concept.

[NightWatcher]

47. Do you think if a repuke prez had announced on the 9/11 anniv that we were launching more attacks

against a country/group that posed no threat to us, that we would all be rather suspicious and against the military action.

I'm going to answer, Yes. A lot has become acceptable simply because we have a Democrat in the White House. It's a damn shame too.

[KittyWampus]

53. the fact you think many of us find ANYTHING 'acceptable simply because we have a Dem in the WH"

says more about you than anyone else.

[KittyWampus]

51. so you swallow the false equivalency bullshit? Pathetic.

Despite the crap some DU'ers fling about other DU'ers being lemmings blindly following Obama no matter what he does… most of us actually are capable of seeing more than black/white.

Those of us who aren't ideologues see the difference between Obama and Bush, Democrat and Republican.

We can say "no" to military intervention in Syria (most DU'ers did) and "probably yes" regarding ISIL.

[Doctor_J]

58. You mean like yesterday's "Not attacking IS would be just like letting Hitler loose in the 30's"

whopper? No, I don't.

[NYC Liberal]

52. Not all Democrats here are hypocrites as some seem to think.

I absolutely would have supported it under a Republican president. I supported military action in Afghanistan when Bush was president.

[tularetom]

54. Just when I thought we were out...

I assure you I'd be just as opposed to Obama's proposed action if it came from a republican.

[840high]

55. No.