Should the Democratic Party be the "anti-war" Party ?

[kentuck]

It seems that we have been at war for so long that we just take it for granted as the norm?

Should that be an issue the candidates should discuss?

Personally, I have always been an anti-war Democrat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. If we are anti war in all cases, what happens during a genocide?

[Angel Martin]

2. in the case of Rwanda, nothing nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. Yes, and what did we learn from not interfering ?

[kentuck]

4. I do not know your age...

But, how many times in your lifetime do you think we should have gone to war? Declared war?

And genocides usually happen during wars.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. let's ask these guys:

[upaloopa]

6. That is too much of an absolute position

We should be against unjust wars and wars of opportunity.

Nothing is so black and white that we can pick one and ignore the other

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. +1

Such an absolutist position would have kept us out of Vietnam and Iraq 1 & 2 but also WW2, which I submit would be difficult to find people whom could make a compelling case for having stayed out of. We need to be smarter about our use of military power IMHO but I doubt that we can totally avoid situations that might necessitate some use of military muscle.

[brooklynite]

7. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party is "pro-war"?

And as an "anti-war Democrat", are you an isolationist, or are we just arguing about where the line is drawn?

[gopiscrap]

8. YES!!!

[CobaltBlue]

11. +1

[That Guy 888]

9. It should be, but too many neocon war hawks smell profits. n/t

[auntpurl]

10. Sometimes war is necessary.

It is not one of my big issues. There are many policies and positions I care about far more.

[LWolf]

12. Ouch.

Here's a prediction:

A crew of neo-liberal Democrats are going to show up and, in their patronizing way, explain why war is essential and why we are just too simple to get it.

For the record, if the Democratic Party wants to retain any semblance of relevance, it should BECOME the anti-war party. I don't think it ever has been that; perhaps, for awhile, less eager for war, but never "anti-war."

I am an anti-war human. And I think I'll put this here again for those ready to defend war.

[SalviaBlue]

15. Right on!

[FLPanhandle]

13. Sometimes Military action is valid

Especially the reasonable threat of military action. The Balkins wouldn't last long as independent states with Putin around without the threat of military action if he invaded.

A black/white position is great for bumper stickers or simple thinkers. The world is too complex for bumper sticker foreign policy.

[ronnie624]

19. But usually it's just blatant, self-serving aggression and violence,

as in the cases of Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Philippines and many others.

And then there are all those covert/proxy wars that cause so many problems for so many people.

An examination of the historical record, strongly suggests that war is rarely "valid", and usually serves the interests of wealth and power.

[lindysalsagal]

14. 3,2,1, "The Pansey Party?" No, I don't think that will fly.

It's too simplistic. But of course, we should be like the Star Trek federation and never instigate conflict.

We've been too guilty of heavy-handed machinations globally to get away with such an elementary school moniker.

[Iggo]

16. Yes.

[cpwm17]

17. Of course!

The anti-war crowd are almost always proven right.

[librechik]

18. Of course we should, say some of the cats, heading off to do just that

All the other cats run away in many different directions to hide.