Majority of liberals support US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria

[Cali_Democrat]

64% support and 32% oppose airstrikes in Iraq.

54% support and 40% oppose airstrikes in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/september-2014-washington-postabc-news-poll/2014/09/09/e09e1da2-37d5-11e4-a023-1d61f7f31a05_page.html

[LWolf]

1. Depending, of course,

on the definition of "liberal."

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I'm pretty sure every political poll uses self-identification to determine ideology

It's been like that since I can remember.

I'm sure this poll is no different.

[LWolf]

15. Yes.

My point, exactly. Calling oneself a liberal doesn't make it so.

[treestar]

16. you don't get to decide that any more than anyone else

by your standard only 1% of the voters might be considered liberal. When polls are based on your opinion, it will matter.

[LWolf]

66. True.

Of course, that's true for everyone else, which is, again, exactly my point. When nobody gets to decide what a liberal is, pointing out that a certain percent of "liberals" think something is meaningless.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Except when the results support your position ...

then, the polling results are gospel, and for wide and unquestioning distribution.

[LWolf]

116. Of course.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. I must admit ...

when I see a poll that runs counter to my personal position on the issue, my first look is to who did the poll; then, what the poll really said; then, "okay, but I still disagree!"

[LWolf]

128. Me, too. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. No, self-identified liberals is still a perfectly meaningful category.

It's not quite the same thing as "people whose views fit some specific definition of liberalism", but I suspect that for most such definitions there's strongish correlation.

[LWolf]

137. I'm not sure what you think it means.

It could mean that "people with very widely divergent ideas about the meaning of liberal" think something. Which doesn't make the OPs point, making it, in this case, pretty damned meaningless.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Then it would be up to people to make arbitrary determinations

Someone like yourself would designate liberals, conservatives etc.

See the problem there?

That's why pretty much all political polls use self-identification and always have.

[LWolf]

67. I think you just made my point for me.

What is not arbitrary about the poll respondents' determination of "liberal?"

[merrily]

39. Are you seeing that responders called themselves liberal?

Please see Reply 29 and point out where.

[DeadLetterOffice]

58. There's a breakdown by 'ideology'

If you click on 'detailed view' for any given question, there's a drop down menu in the upper right for "show results by" -- 'ideology' is one of the choices, and breaks down into 'liberal,' 'moderate,' and 'conservative.'

What really made my brain hurt was that the more education a respondent had, the more likely they were to support the bombings. I means seriously, wtf?

[merrily]

62. Thank you. Frodo's Pet helped out as well.

I did click on "Detailed View," but did not notice the additional option to click for further info, or I would have clicked again.

Truthfully, I lie to pollsters all the time. I assume that most or all polls are trying to make some rightist point or other and I don't want to cooperate. So, I might well say I supported Obama when I didn't. Not, however, on this particular question.

Also you cannot ever discount the low info factor. I know a Democrat who was graduated summa cum laude from Barnard (history major). Every day, she reads at least two newspapers. She never heard of the DLC and the changes it made in the Democratic Party until I told her a couple of years ago. (In fairness to her, she had noticed a change, just not one she could easily explain or identify. She called one side evil and the other phonies.)

I have one degree more than she does. I, too, was unaware of DLC, New Democrats, etc., until I started posting on DU.

where exactly in newpapers or msm is there a lot of news about the DLC and how far right the Democratic Party has gone since Bill Clinton became President? For that matter, is there a lot of news telling you that every Democrat is not a liberal? They call Obama a socialist and that gets publicized, though.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. "Truthfully, I lie to pollsters all the time."

The fact you admit to lying says much more about you than any poll, regardless of the pollster. If you'll lie about one thing, you certainly won't hesitate to lie about another.

[merrily]

135. If you say that

it must be correct.



And, no doubt, your post means that you can link to numerous posts of mine that contain lies.

If and when you can do that, I might worry about your unprovoked ad hom. Until then, not so much.

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Only you know.

[Tarheel_Dem]

141. Additionally, calling it an "unprovoked ad hom", when you're the one who pointed out that you lie...

occasionally, is the height of chutzpa. If only you held yourself to the same high standard you hold others to, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Honesty matters.

[merrily]

145. "Unprovoked ad hom" means only that you got personal with me

before I got personal with you. So, posting that is simply fact, not the height of chutzpah.

If only you held yourself to the same high standard you hold others to, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

No, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you weren't so desperate to attack my credibility personally. (That desperation on your part is very flattering, so thanks.)

FYI, I hold myself to a higher standard than I hold others. For example, if someone else posted that they lied to pollsters when they suspected pollsters of having a rightist agenda, I would not say they must lie about other things as well. I would probably simply say that I did the same or read the next post in the thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. A lie is a lie, no?

[merrily]

147. Still nothing substantive to say? And still no links?

No one said a lie isn't a lie and no one would say anything that ridiculous. So, please put away your straw man.

BTW, the only way you knew that I am not always honest with pollsters who I think have a rightist agenda is that I was both candid and honest about it. So, honesty is honesty. And anyone who tries to pretend that they've never lied to anyone about anything is a liar. Indeed, "Have you ever lied?" is a test question for veracity. Those who reply in the negative identify themselves as liars.

Maybe the same is true of people who try to discredit someone's credibility by smearing without substance or proof.

Again, your desperation to attack my credibility is both obvious and transparent, as well as flattering. So, again, thanks.

I don't want to seem rude, but you'll just have to excuse me if I don't reply to you any further on this subject unless you come up with something substantive or some links.

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. I understand, I'd give it up too. Your own words betray your ensuing indignant justifications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5582548

C'ya!

[LWolf]

68. Nope.

I'm seeing that the person I responded to claimed that they did.

[merrily]

70. Yes, I saw that, too. Frodo's Pet gave a link where I could see the basis

for the OP's statement, which I appreciated.

[Android3.14]

64. That's the problem with DU

People deciding who is what.

[LWolf]

69. .

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. But you're missing the point ...

since the poll results cut against the DU tide, it is to be questioned and promptly ignored about.

[leftstreet]

3. LOLOL 'Conservative Republicans' support it 88% !!

[whatchamacallit]

23. "This is what real liberals and... erm... real conservative republicans support"

Thanks for nothing.

[merrily]

42. Please point out where you saw "conservative Republicans"

I am looking for that kind of breakdown for the air strike question, but see only all adults vs. registered voters.

It doesn't matter to me that much for other reasons, but I'd like to know what my starting point is.

[FrodosPet]

49. On the question detail page, there is a dropdown next to "Show results by:"

Click that and you can see the results for the various groupings.

[merrily]

50. THANK YOU!

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. of course

[grahamhgreen]

5. How do they support paying for it???

[Terra Alta]

6. not this liberal. nt

[BillZBubb]

7. Are they really liberals? Or LINO's?

Or are the liberals who oppose the bombings LINO's?

[Zorra]

11. They are the liberals who are just slightly to the right of Barry Goldwater liberals. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Love those Barry Goldwater liberals

"Extremism in the pursuit of ISIS/ISIL/IS is no vice!"

[Cha]

8. Thanks, Cali

[cali]

9. Most people can be persuaded of just about anything.

That hardly means that what they're supporting is a good idea. Most Americans- including liberals- supported the IW.

It's just none too swift to use public opinion regarding war.

[FrodosPet]

48. Democracy is not a popularity contest?

The decisions of universal importance should be handled by the educated and enlightened, not by the ignorant masses who are easily mislead?

[cali]

78. the decisions aren't made by the public.

the public elects people to office and they make the decisions.

you didn't realize that?

[FrodosPet]

82. And the people keep deciding to vote for office holders who go to war with their consent

So ultimately, democracy is a popularity contest. The voters, en mass, make the decisions by proxy.

[KurtNYC]

81. yes -- the lesson for the war sellers here is 'beheadings sway public opinion'

They sell this thing the way corporations sell a new smart phone -- with a list of new features and "solutions" that improve on the old one:

- "No Boots on the Ground"
- 'arm the good terrorists to fight the bad terrorists'
- 'get the guys who beheaded Americans;

They tweak the sale pitch slightly for different audiences. For liberals they have thrown in these war features:

- kill the ISIS guys who are abusive toward women
- solve humanitarian crisis through more bombing
- "ISIS banned the teaching of evolution" (which wasn't taught anyway)


Then they take polls like the one in the OP which ask about a fantasy version of war. So, to me, the answers to these poll questions say more about how sold various groups are on the fantasy version of this conflict than how people would/do feel about the actual situation in Syria/Iraq.

[woolldog]

10. I am a liberal.

And I stand with Obama on this.

[MFM008]

24. I do as well

But for a while. A short while.

[Baclava]

12. Probably the same ones that supported airstrikes in Egypt and Libya, right?

[merrily]

31. Good point. "Liberal WAPO" is close to an oxymoron.

But where did WAPO say that? Please see Reply 29.

[J_J_]

14. I trust the corporate media who has been selling this war about as much as I trust the Niger forgery

It's called manufactured consent.

[cali]

25. yesterday someone here told me that

consent can't be wholly manufactured.

[merrily]

37. Hey, if it worked for the Iraq invasion......

[YoungDemCA]

17. Obviously they aren't True liberals

No True liberal would ever support something that a lot of posters on DU oppose.

Just like a True Scotsman would have supported independence...wait, what?

[merrily]

35. You saw the word "liberal," in that story, too? Please point it out.

Please see Reply 29.

[FrodosPet]

52. Did you go to the detail page for the questions?

On the question detail page, there is a dropdown next to "Show results by:"

Click that and you can see the results for the various groupings, such as ideology, party ID, race, sex, age, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/09/09/National-Politics/Polling/question_14549.xml

[merrily]

54. Yes, but I did not initially notice the option to click for further info.

Again, thank you so much.

[customerserviceguy]

18. What was it Pogo said?

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Yeah, it's OK when it's our side that does it.

[morningfog]

19. I'm proud to be in the minority on this.

[merrily]

30. Are you, though?

I don't know yet. Please see Reply 29.

[morningfog]

45. Hm. I see. Looks like the OP just made they up. Edit.

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 08:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Not that it surprises me. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I hadn't clicked on thd link. I had foolishly taken the OP as honest.

Eta: I was mistaken, the results are as stated.

[merrily]

46. I don't know that yet, either. But, I'd like to know, one way or the other.

[merrily]

51. I think this link gets you there.

Frodo posted the info that got me to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/09/09/National-Politics/Polling/question_14549.xml?uuid=YJ3x0DfWEeSgIx1h9_MaBQ

[SidDithers]

56. Detailed view, show results by Ideology...

Now you can apologize to the OP for not being able to sort the results yourself, and for accusing them of making up the data.

Just because you, and certain others, can't figure out how to view the results, doesn't mean that the information is fake.



Sid

[morningfog]

72. Got it.

Again, proud to be in the minority on this.

[SidDithers]

75. And the apology for accusing the OP of making it up?...nt

Sid

[pkdu]

101. Don't hold your breath. Nt

[Number23]

144. Go get'em, Sid

[99Forever]

20. Liberals?

Oh yeah, if you say so.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. I'm Liberal, and I don't say so .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Killers, and those who applaud them, come in all poliical persuasions.

[merrily]

29. Did you see "liberal" in that story? If so, can you point it out to me, please?

[merrily]

55. Never mind. Frodo's Pet provided the info.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/09/09/National-Politics/Polling/question_14549.xml?uuid=YJ3x0DfWEeSgIx1h9_MaBQ

[orpupilofnature57]

26. this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5580740

[merrily]

28. Please point out where the word "liberal" appears in that story.

I missed it, and so did my browser. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but the "find" feature of Mozilla does not work great for me.

Was it in the "detailed view" of one or more responses?

[snappyturtle]

33. Good point merrily. I ran the find feature for liberal...nothing. Randomly

checked details, still nothing. Makes the op title misleading imho.

[merrily]

34. It must be there somewhere in the detailed info. A direct link

to that page would sure have been helpful, though.

So far I see only things like "Democrat" "Republican" "registered voter."

[snappyturtle]

38. Maybe a source link would tell us that only liberals were polled....even then...??? nt

[merrily]

40. Republicans were polled, too.

[snappyturtle]

41. Yes...I need to go back to bed! nt

[merrily]

43. LOL, wish I could, too.

But, I must muddle on, bad eyes, naughty browser and all.

[merrily]

53. For when you wake up again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/09/09/National-Politics/Polling/question_14549.xml?uuid=YJ3x0DfWEeSgIx1h9_MaBQ

Tip of the hat to poster Frodo's Pet.

[snappyturtle]

79. That helps a LOT! Thank you and Frodo too. nt

[merrily]

94. You're welcome.

[cali]

32. Why on earth do people think this is meaningful or persuasive?

As we know, the term liberal means different things to different people. There are folks here who label themselves liberal who support all kinds of things that aren't liberal- from the TPP to war.

[FrodosPet]

59. What are the positions someone is required to hold before they ID as liberal?

People need to be better informed about what they need to think before they are allowed to consider themselves liberal. Only a small number of people have that privilege.

[cali]

77. It really doesn't matter what I think. I'm just pointing out that

there are varying opinions as to what a liberal position is.

I think the real reason the OP is devoid of meaning is that public opinion on such a weighty matter as war, shouldn't be persuasive as to whether or not that war is good policy. After all, most liberals supported the IW.

[FrodosPet]

84. Good or bad is irrelevent

The role of elected officials is to carry out the will of the people, as their proxy. That's why there are two, four, or six year terms, not lifetime ones.

I kinda get what you are saying. They should vote their conscious, not the opinion polls. Unfortunately, you make it sound undemocratic.

Our elected leaders should follow the will of the people. Until the people are wrong.

[cali]

88. actually no. the role of elected officials is vote as they see fit- regardless of public opinion

and I don't believe that elected officials should follow the will of the people. If the people don't like how an elected official votes, they should vote him/her out of office.


Being elected to represent the people is not the same thing as being elected to carry out the will of the people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

140. I'd like to see you make the same argument if the poll results were reversed. Liberals kept....

pointing out that people were against the President intervening in Syria a year ago, and that Congress was listening to the will of the people. Now that the trend lines are moving in the other direction, you think public opinion should be ignored?

[cali]

142. Did I say that public opinion should be ignored? Of course not. this isn't rocket science

elected representatives are voted in to office to... represent the people. NOT to vote their will. That's simply the way a representative democracy works.

I'm incredulous that people like you don't know that. Or not.

[Tarheel_Dem]

143. So, all the crap you said before should now be ignored?

[questionseverything]

106. small sample too

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 4-7, 2014, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York.

[Recursion]

36. We still need obtainable military objectives

Again, I'm not a dove. I was for the Libya intervention. I just don't see a way we can advance American security through this operation.

[merrily]

44. Can anyone, really?

I am a dove and proud to be one, but it's a valid question, anyway.

Look at how we were sold the Iraq invasion vs. what actually manifested.

[hobbit709]

47. Then count me in that minority.

Is this a Lo-Zo poll?

[SidDithers]

57. DU rec for pissing off all the right people...

Especially the ones accusing you of faking the results, because they can't figure out how to sort the data on each question by Ideology.



Sid

[cali]

61. pissing off? sorry, not even a little pissed off.

just bemused that the op thinks this is meaningful. Remember the support for the IW? Yeah, liberals supported that too.

[G_j]

63. so that's the purpose of posting here?

is that why you post here?

[morningfog]

71. He makes no secret about it.

There is a name for posting with that motivation.

[bullwinkle428]

74. Know who's not happy about the air-strikes, Sid? The "moderate rebels" that

we're purportedly helping. Perhaps it's time for an OP on the subject.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/09/23/240813_syrian-rebels-angry-that-strikes.html?rh=1

[DeadLetterOffice]

60. These poll results break my heart.

Amongst all groups, broken down in any of the ways available, the majority of respondents support the bombings, either "strongly" or "somewhat."

And some of the trends are really disturbing -- like, the more educated they had, the more likely poll respondents were to support the bombings. Wtf is THAT about?

We've gotten so used to this shit that we accept it as 'normal.'

Bombing other countries isn't normal. Sending our troops off to fight someone else's religious wars isn't normal. Flipping out over a handful of beheadings while ignoring the daily domestic deaths from malnutrition and poverty isn't normal. Bankrupting the treasury on perpetual war isn't normal. None of this is fucking 'normal.'

Like I said, breaks my heart. I have no solutions -- not to the middle east disasters, not to our government's continued involvement in them, not for any of it. I look at it all and despair of our species.

[pampango]

65. Any self-identified liberal who does not agree with me is not a 'real' liberal. And any poll with

conclusions I don't agree with is a 'flawed' poll by definition.

The fact that the poll shows that self-identified conservatives are much more supportive of airstrikes is not surprising and supports what most of us would expect to see. Conservatives will reflexively support military action while liberals have to be convinced that it is the less of two evils in a particular instance.

[FrodosPet]

91. +1

Unfortunately, seeking peace and preservation of people's safety and culture does not always allow for pacifism.

------------------------------------------------------

George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:

- BRITISH TORY: Britain will come out of this war with reduced power and prestige.

- COMMUNIST: If she had not been aided by Britain and America, Russia would have been defeated by Germany.

- IRISH NATIONALIST: Eire can only remain independent because of British protection.

- TROTSKYIST: The Stalin regime is accepted by the Russian masses.

- PACIFIST: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

All of these facts are grossly obvious if one's emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also intolerable, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial.

[Doctor_J]

73. A big portion would poll in favor of human sacrifices if the president supported them

I used to think that Dems had more principles than repukes - that their beliefs wouldn't change depending on who lived in the White House. The last 6 years have been eye-opening.

[raouldukelives]

76. Eye opening. That's putting it mildly.

For some reason I have an image of Malcolm McDowell in my head.

[pampango]

83. No. Last year polls showed Democratic oppositon to bombing Assad's military.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/09/opposition-to-syrian-airstrikes-surges/

I believe the popular perception was that the president supported bombing Assad's forces. Doesn't seem that had much effect on liberals' support for the idea. It could be that liberals can actually think things through and distinguish between different justifications for bombing.

Conservatives, OTOH, seemed to support bombing by similar percentages last year and now. Apparently they just favor bombing some 'bad guys'. It does not really matter who it is.

[stevenleser]

133. And of course there is no response to your post because it totally defeats their meme.

I, like most Democrats, was against attacking Syria to depose Assad.

[FrodosPet]

87. I take it you are a younger person?

The primary motivators of humans, indeed of all life, are fear and greed. Some people are better at overcoming this than others. But still they exist at some level. If they didn't, we could not survive.

After all, it is greedy to say "I deserve to live and need and to eat this carrot more than it deserves to live a complete life in the ground". And it is fear of death that keeps us from walking out into traffic.

[QC]

92. I thought that personality cultism was more a right wing thing, but

the past few years have shown me I was very, very wrong.

It is very disillusioning, to say the least.

[kpete]

80. BULL

SHIT

[FrodosPet]

89. kpete is a liberal. He is against bombing the Daesh.

Therefore most liberals are against bombing the Daesh.

I suppose it is true that "kpete is a liberal. He is against bombing the Daesh. Therefore most people kpete identifies as liberals, as opposed to people who identify themselves as liberals, are against bombing the Daesh."

[kpete]

130. i am a

she-Liberal

just saying....

peace,
kp

[Autumn]

85. Nice try, spectacular fail. Conservatives and republicans are not Liberal.

Wow

[FrodosPet]

90. So the polling is wrong?

Perhaps it would be wise to set a criteria of required opinions held, answered under oath, perhaps even with the assistance of a polygraph, which allows a person to be objectively identified as liberal, conservative, or centrist.

[Autumn]

93. The devil is in the details of the poll.

Perhaps one should not try to misrepresent the details.

[YoungDemCA]

86. There are so many competing definitions of "liberal"

That arguments over who is a "liberal" and who is not are pretty fruitless.

[dilby]

95. Not this Liberal, the President is so wrong about this.

Scares me to think that people just toe the party line and support anything Democrats due.

[FrodosPet]

97. Tow and Do. Toe is an appendage on your foot, and due is something expected at a certain time

My apologies, but the spelling cop within me was going nuts.

I hope your not too mad at me for pointing out you're spelling error.

[dilby]

99. You should look it up. It's an expression of conformity.

Originating from a foot race where everyone put their toe on the same start line.

[FrodosPet]

100. I stand humbly corrected

I always thought of it like pulling on a rope.

[Puzzledtraveller]

120. It's political tribalism

It has more to do with opposing the other tribe(side) than with defining our own tribe and then living up to the ideals and standards. It is like this on the left and the right. It exists because it appeals to our basest human emotions, needing to be accepted and to be part of a group, and protecting the ego from ever having to accept being wrong from time to time.

[dilby]

131. I agree, I think it's funny how people laugh at sports fans but then act like sports fans

when it comes to politics.

[Kermitt Gribble]

96. Directly related to this poll

Americans Who Have Not Read a Single Article About Syria Strongly Support Bombing It

[Vattel]

98. and we should care why?

[peace13]

102. Yes a liberal dose of killing ought to sort things out!

Killing is never the answer. Who is accountable for the innocents that die in these air strikes.

I am sick and tired of war, killing and 'precise strikes'!

All in favor of air strikes in the name of the USA please feel free to assume the responsibility for death and destruction. Imagine your own homes and families annihilated in such a strike.

Peace talks not war talks. Love not hate. Think about what you are supporting.

I have just one question, how do these supporters of war sleep at night. I truly wonder!

We have been lied into war so many times that only a fool would think that he or she would have the tools necessary to decide that killing is the answer....yet again!

[Thinkingabout]

103. I am liberal, I think all able bodied people should work, I think everyone has a

Responsibility to pay taxes, I don't like wars but know it is a necessity sometimes. I grew up as a liberal, I have lived my life as a liberal but I am not a far left wing.

[BlindTiresias]

108. Not surprised

Considering you literally thought ISIS armies were going to cross the Atlantic and take over the whitehouse.

[Thinkingabout]

109. What are you talking about?

[BlindTiresias]

110. Your completely off threat assessment

Enabling you to be easily swayed despite your supposed "liberalness".

[Thinkingabout]

111. Must be talking about some one else

[BlindTiresias]

114. Nope, I was talking about you

Dishonest liar or senile? Audience, you decide!

[Thinkingabout]

115. Go back and read it again, I said they wanted to fly their flag over the WH.

You added another apparently what you wanted, don't try to add on to what I say if I had wanted to make your statement I would have, I stand by my original statement.

[BlindTiresias]

124. Nice backpeddle

I guess you meant literally they just want to fly their flag in DC for a bit and skedaddle? Just one dude with a ten speed maybe?

[BlindTiresias]

107. So?

According to a Gallup poll in May of 2003 79% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. What the majority believe has zero moral or even rational content.

[Tarheel_Dem]

113. Of course adherents to a certain brand of liberalism have adopted a libertarian flair along the way.

Those are the ones who think the rest of us aren't pure enough. They think because we opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, that we were anti-war. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like FDR, we see the need to be engaged in certain conflicts, and as the last remaining super power, it sometimes falls to us to even the playing field.

[Number23]

117. Nicely said

[flamingdem]

119. It's not like Obama wanted to Tally-ho off into a war

He was hired to be Commander among other things and he's making some of the right calls.

When I think of the scale of murder being carried out by Isis, many hundreds massacred at once, I can see why it's a humanitarian necessity to go. That doesn't mean I'm not cynical too.

It ain't easy but would isolationism serve us in the end? Even Rand Paul isn't sure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. You mean the Rand Paul whose opinion fluctuates with every change of underwear?

[flamingdem]

125. Rand wants to destroy Isis!

.. but not get involved.

nuck nuck nuck .. the Middle East messes up the Libertarians but good at least the power hungry ones.

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. EarlG has Rand and his crusaders figured out.

[flamingdem]

127. That's excellent

I didn't see that crazy randstandian poetry! So zen like.

[JEB]

122. Does a majority of Israelis also support bombing Gaza?

Killing seems to be the only way we handle problems. That and profiteering.

[TBF]

129. Majority of *centrists* support US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria -

there - fixed it for you.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

132. They didn't ask me!

I'm a liberal and I'm not in favor of this............

[TheSarcastinator]

134. Next Up in the Warmonger Bag of Tricks: Ad Populum!

Nice try, but no dice. What else ya got?

[Cha]

139. As do Jimmy Carter, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.. you know "the middle" "Warmongers"..

Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, all well respected leaders, have access and know a hellava lot more about this than those on the internet who can't grasp this isn't being run by the bush-cheney neocon crowd.

"I think we need to attack ISIS. I'm really concerned about them."

"Is the bombing of ISIS justified? I say yes. And I hope President Obama has every possible success in getting allies to join with us, some with ground troops effected inside Syria."

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5566788

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Senator Sanders also said Assad Gassed his own people.. whether the conspiracy theorists around here believe it or not..

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

As do these Middle Eastern Countries..