Can you be a Democrat or Progressive

[graycem]

in support of the Iraq war? I always thought, maybe mistakenly, that Progressives/Democrats embraced the anti-war philosophy. Am I wrong? Is it a mixture? or something else?

I am having a hard time reconciling the war with Democratic values that I always understood to be true. I am genuinely curious about this.

Help!

Thanks :)

[CBGLuthier]

1. a war? Yes

This war.

HELL NO!

[Vogon_Glory]

2. A War, Yes? THIS War, Certainly Not!

Yes, Democrats are known for supporting wars that are fought for good reasons. World War II was launched for very good reasons: the US was attacked by a racist, militarist empire (Japan) and we went to war to protect ourselves and smash the aggressors. Another racist, militarist regime declared war on us a few days later and we went to war against them and their allies in Italy and elsewhere.

Democrats lined up behind George W. Bush when he went to war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the al Qaeda terrorists based there launched an attack on the continental US on September 11th, 2001. That was a war fought for just, lawful reasons, and Democrats were repaid by the Republicans by being labeled as traitors and unpatriotic.

As for Iraq, that war was wrong. The Iraq war was launched on the basis of hyped and doctored intelligence about alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, stockpiles we American citizen-voters were told were massive and ready to be loosed against America and her allies at a moment's notice.

The Iraq war was launched by the US with scarcely any provocation by Iraq. That used to be considered a war crime, and political leaders who pulled that stuff used to be called war criminals and at least occasionally were indicted and tried in international courts of law. The post-1945 trials at Nuremberg, Germany were one such example.

Moreover, I have been reading some of the articles written by the authors of the US Constitution, the one adopted in 1789 and the one we still live with today. Did you know that the founders feared and dreaded the possibility of a US President launching a war for no good cause? At least one or two of the framers of the US Constitution considered such actions as being "high crimes and misdemeanors," which are considered grounds for impeachment and removal from office in the US Constitution (Article Two, section 4).

Check it out yourself if you don't believe me.

[graycem]

5. Right..

I agree with you, that's why I specifically mentioned the Iraq war. I guess I should go further and say PRE-EMPTIVE war. For any reason. Without an actual attack on the United States or our allies.

I completely agree with you on Afghanistan, and WWII.

But to me, support of the Iraq war, is a crime against our Constitution. I do not understand how anyone can be a democrat or progressive and think this particular war is equivalent to WWII or other, noble causes.

I haven't read articles but I have read the Constitution, that's why I agree with your position. I will have to search them out though just for the read.

Thanks! :)

[Armstead]

3. It's not like there has to be a litmus test

No one is consistently anything.

[graycem]

6. But don't you think

that the Constitution IS the litmus test? Do you agree or disagree with pre-emptive war? Do you agree or disagree that the Constitution basically forbids or at the very least, warns us against, pre-emptive war?

[redqueen]

7. Excellent questions... thank you.

The answer, of course, is no.

[graycem]

15. Thanks :)

and thanks for your answer. I didn't watch it at the time, but I recently watched Senator Byrd's Senate floor debate speech that had aired on C-Span, where he argued the Constitution did not allow us to pre-emptively attack anyone unless there was clearly imminent danger. He stood there shaking, and arguing so passionately against it, and I just was sick that more didn't stand up with him, even though they hadn't bothered to read the report.

[Forkboy]

9. I like you already.

:toast:

[graycem]

12. I like ya' back

:D I lurked for a while before I started participating and everytime I see your posts I try to figure out what your icon is. I still haven't solved it yet though. :P

[Forkboy]

16. It's a silhouette of Godzilla.

:)

[L0oniX]

4. I am against all policy wars and I am anti millitary and I consider myself to be an extreme leftist.

[graycem]

8. How would you feel

about a direct attack on U.S. soil? Like if what they'd said wasn't a lie? What if Iraq or any other nation attacks us here?

I hate all war, but, I do see the necessity to have military to defend ourselves against direct attack.

Thanks for your answers so far.

[Forkboy]

10. That's why I can't ever claim to be a pacifist.

There are things I would fight for.

Oil, however, is not one of them.

[L0oniX]

17. I would defend this country like my own home if another "country" attacked us.

I consider our country's involvement in ww2 to be a matter of self defense. Before Perle Harbor, German U-boats were sinking freighters off our east coast. In fact there were black outs on the coasts so that U-boats would have a harder time seeing ship silhouettes. Eventually the Germans would have forced us to take action in defense of our coasts and merchant traffic. Obviously the attack by Japan was a matter of self defense. The matter of 911 should have been responded to with a police action like as with the previous bombing of the Trade Center buildings. Instead we went off with a knee jerk response and now we are paying dearly for it. We should have built up a spy network over a few years and infiltrated the terrorists organizations and then take them out. It also wouldn't hurt to pull out all our basis that are on Muslim lands so as to not give them a reason to attack us anymore. Why do we have to be the world police?

Hey vote for me. I can do a better job than Bush ...just about anyone could. :evilgrin:

[iiibbb]

11. I'm neither a Democrat or a "Progressive"`

I am a conservative independent.

This "war" is entirely the wrong implementation of a legitimate problem.

The so called "War" on terror (in so much as the use of national military capability to thwart terrorists abroad) is probably justifiable... which is why many Democrats supported what we did in Afghanistan after 9-11.

The "war" in Iraq... never will be justified because it was based completely on willful suppression of any intelligence that didn't support going. I always told my wife that everything about Iraq would be forgivable if WMDs were found. They weren't. The administration has changed our reasons for going/being there 3 times.

So this war will never be justified... even if it contains elements that are it is overshadowed by all the resons we shouldn't have gone... not to mention the fact that it has been so poorly organized.


At the end of the day I wonder if the whole thing wasn't designed to raise the price of oil/energy.


Bush is either an idiot or a evil genius right out of a James Bond movie.

[graycem]

14. I agree

Bush is an idiot. I think he knew he stood to gain, but I think his reasons were different than Cheneys. I believe the greater influence in all of this was Cheney and Rumsfeld, both in ideology and oil. That's why Cheney went over there recently. To help get the oil opened up to the market, and I believe there are something like 6 U.S. oil companies that are either bidding or involved in some way.

I'd seen a documentary quite a while back, I don't remember what it is, but it illustrated the point in outline fashion, that much of our foreign policy, especially in the middle east, has always had an underlying motive of oil. So I believed when they began talking about Iraq, that it was for the oil. Then the more I read, just googling various things, seemed to prove it more and more.

I of course did not have access to the intelligence reports, but all of the Senate and Congress did. It was a noble few who actually read it and voted against it. So I'm just absolutely dumbfounded how so many of our Senators and Congress men and women did not know that it was for oil. Or did they know and think we didn't have a choice because we need it so desperately, and they feel they just couldn't level with the American people? Or if they just went along with it because they owned various investments in defense spending and stood to gain personally?

I'm curious to know what you or anyone else thinks about this.

[bridgit]

13. Not the Iraq war. But Sam Nunn supports Obama and he's been thought among the dem war hawks...

and heavy on defense for a long time now. It would seem the Dem/Pro tags & targets are shifting, and not just the goal posts.