Why do Dems oppose war?

The Washington Times ^ | Bob Beckel

[FairOpinion]

I have been a card-carrying liberal Democrat all my life, and proud of it. I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves. From Selma, Ala., to Capetown, South Africa, liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism. From the picking fields of Florida, to support for Mothers of the Missing, liberals have waged war against the oppression of children.

[laredo44]

The wrong reasons? Some sort of wooly-headed warm-and-fuzzy revenger for September 11 - when there appears to be no logical nexus between the two events.

The stated reason for our actions is a war on global terrorism, admittedly precipitated by the 9/11 attacks. There needn't be a nexus between Iraq and the attacks on America to justify this war, merely between Iraq and international terrorism.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Damnit, Old, as I said in post 8
"They're Democrats!"

[Leisler]

You are not a liberal. You are a socialist. You believe that the state is paramount and that rights, liberties and privileges are dispensed by the state, for it's needs and wants.

Lastly, to answer Beckels question in a class way familiar to any Marxist loser, the reason is that the left, the Democrats, don't serve in the military. Just as you don't find them in manufacturing, construction, fishing, engineering and less and less in medicine. I won't mention business and finance. This is because the leftists are not the "doers" of society. They are a symbol manipulating parasitical class that exist off the excess wealth and have entranced themselves by the state's taxing powers to live off the labor of the productive.
.

[cgk]

And to think you missed out on this one.

[PMCarey]

Make no mistake, this is a war on terrorism, no matter whether it is called Al Qaida, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or PLO. And the single most important fact to understand about Middle Eastern terrorism is that 100% of it is state sponsored. There is simply no viable alternative to conquering those terrorist sponsoring states.

Boot Hill gets it.

[KeyWest]

Forget the rants that you cannot be on FR because you are a liberal. Any rational person is welcome, especially a well thought out argument defending your views.

Still not sure why we allow libertarians :)

[sadimgnik]

Still not sure why we allow libertarians :)

---

What .. here on FR, or in general? :-)

And thanks, BTW.

As an aside, Boot Hill said something in his post that I'm gonna have to ruminate on. Hmmm.

Regards

Sadim.

[RWG]

Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himsel...I did not pay much attention to political events in the 80s but at one point after Reagan left office I did watch a documentary that in fact cataloged how Reagan did defeat the evil empire virtually all by himself. It happened when he met gorby in iceland and outfoxed him on point after point until the wall came tumbling down. Without his strength of person there would still be the evil empire to this day. Reagan did defeat the evil empire and almost by himself.

[John Felix]

Your moniker tells it all. In reverse King Midas would take gold and turn it into the worthless. A true socialist's approach.

[weikel]

The only answer to the question he raises, is that the opponents of war are NOT liberals, but a bunch of America hating leftists, calling themselves liberals.

Is there a diffrence?

[AFPhys]

Sadim, I'm going to do something I seldom do here: disagree with nopardons. Although this is a "conservative forum", I welcome others to post respectful opinions, as I do on DUh on occasion. I've never been booted from that forum, either, BTW. Nevertheless, the major point made there is that the disingenuous reason the libs are against this action has everything to do with President Bush, not the situation in Iraq.

Boot Hill's post #39 & laredo's #40 (I recommend these to you, nopardons) keep me from making a long reply to you. This action has everything to do with both international terrorism and human rights. I've personally known more than a dozen Iraqis in my life, and they are good people who have been set upon by an evil terrorist dictator with grandeur in his eyes. Every one of those who were civilian (about half of them) did not wish to return to Iraq, but their family was hostage.

This is a long overdue, just war, and it is being waged for many reasons, and overwhelming hopes.

I have to disagree with nopardons, finally, in that I don't think "all your brains... fell out"... I still detect some hope for you, LOL.

[kcordell]

Bob Beckel was a deputy secretary of State in the Carter administration, national campaign manager for Walter Mondale and a political analyst and columnist. He is currently writing a book on politics

Beckel was also one of Clinton's chief supporters and apologist. Let's not forget his role in Clinton's Impeachment in trying to destroy the reputations of all the Congressmen on the committee.

[MortMan]

Is there a difference anymore?

Actually, to a very small group of Democrats, there is. Evan Bayh is pro-America/pro-troops. Joe Lieberman (of all people) is, as well.

Go figure.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[AFPhys]

Thanks for reminding me... I also intended to respond to this:
Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himself, we should remember that the spark of that fire came from Lech Walesa...

This maroon gets so much fairly right, it is incredible he demeans himself with the disinformation in this paragraph. Walesa was INDEED an important part of nailing the coffin of the USSR closed, but somehow maroon has not absorbed the extremely important role of the Polish-raised pope in that process. Reagan and Thatcher were, however, the engine that drove their self-absorbed militaristism into bankrupting their economy. The combination of Western influence, yearnings for freedom, and inability to match the economic/military engine of the United States and her allies was what sounded the death knell for the USSR. Without the enormous millstone Reagan's military rebuilding forced upon the necks of the USSR it is very hard to say how much longer the collapse of the country would have taken, if, indeed, it had ever come. Those who were closest to the situation in the halls of the Kremlin give the greatest credit, or blame, to Reagan, not Walesa. It is only the conservative-hating liberals who are unable to admit this.

[finnman69]

I am a liberal who opposes your president and my prime minister

GO AWAY!

[Rocko]

Perhaps I'll be able to send this article to a few of my liberal friends, if I have any left! Maybe they'll listen to one of "their own".

[MortMan]

I'm in agreement with AFPhys, Sadim. If we, as conservatives, cannot defend our positions with reason and thought, then we shouldn't be touting those opinions so highly.

[eeriegeno]

It's because a republican is in the White House and partisan politics trumps national security.

For this reason alone the SOB's need to be voted out of office....

[Dr.Deth]

liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism

Author loses all credibility right about here with this pile of bull. Liberals love racism and practice it constantly. By favoring policies to give advantages to their chosen racial (or gender, or sexual orientation) groups, they imply that individuals belonging to those groups cannot compete on a level playing field. More than that, liberals need them to fail, and continue to fail, or their political base evaporates.

Liberals are thus hypocrites; morally and intellectually bankrupt, and will ever be so. Taking that into account, I give this man's argument approximately the weight of the gasoline it would take to drive a flea's moped around a raindrop.