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.

[NativeSon]

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

Honesty is refreshing.

I am currious as to why you are against "our president" ?

[Protagoras]

Wow, you're really shoveling it this morning, Protagoras.

A shovel is the proper tool for burying trash.

[truth_seeker]

"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."

From what I can recall, the stated reasons for THIS war are Saddam's non-compliance with the 1991 Cease Fire disarmament terms, the risk and fear that his WMD would fall into terrorists' hands, and his general crimes against humanity in terms of brutal dictatorship, eg. torture, etc.

The connection to 9/11/2001 is general: That an adequate defense is to pre-emptively reduce, remove opportunities, for terrorists to obtain weapons, to have nations willing to harbor them, to have sources of finance.

You and I probably agree on 90 percent of this. What happens is this: If there is a conservative in office, the media and his political opponents exploit some of the different interpretations.

It would probably be the same, with opposite parties. In BOTH cases, I am disappointed this takes place, for it emboldens the enemy to fight longer, and costs lives of the good guys.

[kcvl]

Yes...

[Ophiucus]

I can't speak for Bayh but LIE-berman has gone from one end to the other depending on the audience and the latest poll.

[nopardons]

Dear Boot, is correct; as usual. OTOH, you aren't ... concerning poor Sadim. Look carefully at his replies. There is about .005% of hope, that he'll ever manage to learn anything here. Just shy of three years of membership and he's still a Liberal ( and oh SO proud to be one !), who smarmily looks down on most of us here AND President Bush.

[nopardons]

We can and DO defend our positions. Unfortunately, old Sadim " feels that those of us who do so, are idiots and our position meritless...no matter how many facts we use to bolster our position.

My friend AFPhys isn't focused enough to see what's what, in this case, unfortunately and neither are you.

[nopardons]

Exactly so. Which is one of the reasons that Sadim , outing himself, as he has done, is being oh so true to his Liberal calling, in all of its manifistations.

[MortMan]

Pointing out that Sadim feels rather than thinks is fine, and is a valid point. But what I am reacting to is the vitriole in the posts. To be fair, I may be singling you out unfairly, as you seem to have a pretty good grasp on arguing (in the classical sense).

BTW - I've checked some of your other arguments on other threads since I first posted on this one and see that this is not your general style.

See ya 'round.

[nopardons]

HUNH ?

I've been here for a rather long time and my " style " of debate / arguing , changes as needs be. I am not easily pigeonholed, nor do I suffer fools lightly.

[Mr. Mojo]

Having had several painful discussions with some of my closest friends, many of whom I've worked with for 30 years, I come away with the crux of the problem with their argument against this war. They all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil, but believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed by our troops and bombs.

Nonsense. Leftists are against this war for one reason and one reason only: A Republican is in the WH.

[MortMan]

You are not suffering a fool this time. I have also been around a while (not as long as you have), and I am noticing a heck of a lot of vitriole and personal attacks in a lot of different posts (from many different posters). I have responded to a few, trying to reassert the former point-counterpoint argument style that I found attractive in the first place.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm trying to pigeonhole you. I'm not. I just thought that the more personal nature of some of the comments was unseemly. I have noticed your comments on numerous other threads, and in most I have found your selected "style" much less vitriolic.