General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWow! The new slur against the anti-war faction on DU is "peace purists"
I would like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. I'm just DISGUSTED!
malaise
(269,328 posts)I am a peace purist
warrant46
(2,205 posts)I only lurked here then and almost everyone thought a War in Iraq was insane.
Where did all those critics go?
go west young man
(4,856 posts)just drowned out by the centrists who believe the current president can do no wrong.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Maybe they have given up or were kicked out ?
go west young man
(4,856 posts)There were some great writers here back then. Some still remain and post great stuff from time to time. Peace Patriot and Time For Change come to mind. The site has definitely changed. Almost all posters here were against war back then. It was what united all of us. Today I see a very different picture. There are a lot of cheerleaders for war on the site. Maybe it's time DU figured out what we really stand for because if "DU" of all places is advocating for war then the NeoCons really have won. Twice.
tinymontgomery
(2,584 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)tinymontgomery
(2,584 posts)I thought the song kind of went along with what you wrote. I've been here since 02 and it has changed a little (some would say a lot), but I still enjoy reading everything. Get most of my news from here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There were also many great DUers who were hysterically witty. I was terrified of Bush supporters back then, but when I found this place and saw how they mocked them, laughed at them, it made me feel so much better.
Most of them appear to have left. Maybe they are right, maybe they don't want to spend their valuable time making the same arguments on DU now, that they made against Bush on DU back then.
I don't recognize this place sometimes. It seems to have been taken over with Right Wing talking points, they don't even use NEW anti-Liberal talking points, they are using the old Bush era anti-Liberal talking points.
If this is the New Democratic Party, then I want no part of it.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)Back at the start of the Iraq War, everyone was on the same page, the focus was laser sharp. Now, everyone seems to have their own agenda and the message hasn't gotten lost under a thousand different voices all screaming for something different.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)The Beatles song is fitting as the site has changed, sadly. It speaks volumes about how far the country has swung to the right when the largest liberal site has loads of posters advocating for war. I would love to see a truly liberal antiwar progressive underground. I think the term "democratic" might be past it's sell by date.
The situation kinda reminds me of how MTV, which was once cool in the early 80's, was alive with new bands from around the globe and it seemed like with Live Aid the world would change for the better, then eventually MTV morphed into an inane spew of bombastic "reality" crapola and self absorbed talentless music. I see DU as similar. It supports my theory that in an unregulated capitalist society the cream doesn't rise to the top. The crap does. Money trumps all. And we all are worse off in the long run.
Ocelot
(227 posts)Since 91% of the American people see through this bullshit, the cheerleaders for a war with Syria belong to the extremist faction, exemplified by the likes of Rumsfeld & Cheney. They're as far-right as far-right can be. And I don't care if Kerry supports them or not... he supported the Iraq war, which was also WRONG.
Obama is the worst Democratic President, ever.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)We had NO real evidence, at that time, that Saddam had any WMDs in Iraq, at all. OTOH, we DO know that Assad HAS resorted to using chemical weapons from time to time(even if AQ and the Salafis have, too, which does seem to be possible, IMO)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)occupies the place, the outrage will go on.
Dropping a few bombs won't really stop much (Ever hear of an Arc Light)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but they have gloriously expensive toys that make people richer.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Blowing up a couple of gas storage sites is not only irresponsible for any one who happens to be the vicinity like children and certainly won't give you "Mission Accomplished"
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)to go in and punish anyone anywhere for a single gas attack?
Our government uses Depleted Uranium. We did this under Clinton, and then under Bush, and now under Obama in Afghanistan.
We use napalm, we use phosphorous. We put people into torturous stress positions until they DIE!
People in Vietnam died of terrible cancers, for years after we left, because of our government's deliberate genocidal use of dioxin and Agent Orange to defoliate the nation of Vietnam. Now depleted uranium is doing that genocidal work, all over the land in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq..
Some 1.4 million people are dead in Iraq, who would probably be alive if we had not had the audacity to keep the MIC and its big wheels for profit churning, while showing the world that we could not only invent reasons for war, our elected officials could extend a war for a decade or more, if they wanted to.
xocet
(3,875 posts)Why Syzygy
(18,928 posts)certainly DID know Iraq had chemical weapons.. HAD being operative. They sold them to Saddam.
Who hasn't used chemical weapons in that area? Please name names of these innocents.
arikara
(5,562 posts)And that's who gets hurt in these stupid wars. Never the creators.
Peace.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Our country needs a Dept. of Peace BIG TIME!
Me too.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)malaise
(269,328 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Wonderful.
Rockyj
(538 posts)No to Military Industrial Complex! No to killing of innocent people!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I guess that's what happens when you don't have facts and want to simply argue.
Response to joeybee12 (Reply #3)
bvar22 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Purist' is so overused that it lacks all grounding in reality. As if any of us was purely anything! It's old, boring, and I'm greatly disappointed in the trope troupe of the Center/Right crowd.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---and the opposite is...war purists?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Warpurist Night was da bomb!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I didn't get to Burning Man & I don't do online warring...(except at DU)
So
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)on 'Walpurgisnacht'.
Maybe I'm too clever for my own good
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/walpurgis+night?show=0&t=1377634514
(See definition #2)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Maybe I should have included a link or something.
Walpurgis Night
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpurgis_Night
HoneychildMooseMoss
(251 posts)"Warpurist Night"
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)They are easy to recognise.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)has a kind of South Park snark to it--I can imagine Cartman doing it.
"La la la...lookin for some online peace lovers to stalk...respect mah authoriteh"
Here we go again.....................................................
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)SaveOurDemocracy
(4,400 posts)Another proud peace purist checking in.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Chickenhawk isn't an epithet to be used exclusively against Republicans anymore. It's for any jerkwad who's cheerleading for yet another useless, destructive war, who's not immediately enlisting in the armed forces to help fight it.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)NealK
(1,898 posts)Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)sending those missiles are going to kill innocent people, Assad knows they are coming and will be in some hidey hole.
Money spent on this shit while we starve ourchildren? Such great values we have. I'll be a 'peace purist' and time and be proud of it.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)How fitting. I can't wait for Lieutenant Spandan and Captain Cesca to show up... it's just a matter of time.
sarge43
(28,946 posts)My apologies to anyone who jumps out of perfectly good aircraft to get shot at.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Corruption Island - where corrupt politicians and warmongers are banished to forever upon conviction
This initially deserted island would be in the middle of the ocean surrounded by 4 battleships. Upon sentencing of the politician, they would be taken to the island by helicopter and the helicopter would hover 50 feet above the island. The highest ranked ultimate fighting champion would be there to help the politician off the helicopter by punching him in the face, knocking the him off the helicopter and if the guy survives the fall he would have to live/survive on the island for the rest of his life.
(Reddit)
------------
Buddhist version--buried up to the neck in quicksand while listening to a thousand dried seed pods rattling in the wind...
Segami
(14,923 posts)Peace purist?......yes!
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)Hate seeing it here
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)to hit the Assad Regime for this postulated chemical weapons use is pretty evident in DU. Even though we don't know if they were actually used or even by whom.
bullsnarfle
(254 posts)the episode where they are being shelled (ours? theirs? who knows...), and Frank Burns is screaming like a little girl as usual, going "We've got to do something...anything!".
Hawkeye looks over at him, disgusted, and says "Oh yeah Frank, that's great...you do 'something' and I'll do 'anything'.
I think about that exchange a lot lately...
rwsanders
(2,618 posts)It changed my mind.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--war lust.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's not a coincidence that it's all the usual suspects who are happily bobbing their heads to the war drum.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)so they anticipate experiencing power vicariously through a proxy: the U.S. military and it's dreamy CIC.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)Imagine if the UK or Germany allegedly used chem weapons on its citizens
The War Pornicators would be strangely silent, unsure how to respond
But since the US tends to war on impoverished un-white people, the drums start beating right away
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)by stoking racist sentiments.
You see, "they" (i.e. Middle Easterners) flew planes into the World Trade Center, so we are going to make "them" pay - by invading Afghanistan, destroying Iraq, threatening Iran, bombing Libya and now bombing Syria.
Wait - what? The people who crashed planes into our buildings weren't from any of those places? Huh. Well, that don't matter. "They" are all the same.
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)The US keeps stoking those fires at home - so the mirrored foreign policy goes down easy
rwsanders
(2,618 posts)I can't say enough about the book "The Imperial Cruise" but there was a strong sentiment at the beginning of the 20th century that still endures that says "they" aren't mature enough to handle democracy, so we must guide them into it until "they" become as enlightened and "civilized" as us.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)MattBaggins
(7,905 posts)He wanted chaos and upheaval so that the Islamic Extremists could gain power.
He knew we would take the rope and hang ourselves.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)...but I'm certain that everything will work out THIS TIME.
pscot
(21,024 posts)back in the day. It's an honorific, though they think it's a slur. Often used by those in no danger of being shot at themselves..
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When did this new slur come about? I haven't seen it anywhere on DU.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Syria's Assad and regime DESERVE everything they're about to get from the U.S. And the West
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023540036
Quoting the entire OP:
"Obama and team have been circumspect about getting involved in this conflict. But when the guy has just gassed thousands of his own people, he has got to go.
People who are not in positions of governance and power can enjoy the luxury of always opposing any interventions. Leaders of powerful nations do not have that luxury.
This is a horrible situation in Syria, and Assad has demonstrated amply why other countries should act to stop the slow bleed of this war where literally any action against civilians is on the table for that dictator.
It's funny to imagine what you peace purists would have said when the U.S. Was about to go to war with Germany and the concentration camps were gassing millions of Jews."
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that that came from one of the sycophants on my ignore list
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)that means everyone who is in support of the intervention of the gassing of children must say it too!!
smh
jesus Christ alrmighty. seriously guys?
meegbear
(25,438 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)Hyperbole much?
This place gets more reactionary every day.
UTUSN
(70,793 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Obama and team have been circumspect about sticking our dicks into a meat grinder. But when the guy has just gassed thousands of his own people, he has got to go. Had he only used an approved weapon like napalm
.
People who are not in positions of governance and power can enjoy the luxury of always declining the chance to kill lots of people for no good reason. Leaders of powerful nations do not have that luxury. They have to recognize that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, even when he is our enemy and engaged in trying to kill us elsewhere.
This is a horrible situation in Syria, and Assad has demonstrated amply why other countries should act to stop the slow bleed of this war where literally any action against civilians is on the table for that dictator. Assad lacks the decency to limit himself to humane methods of warfare, like double-tapping targets with drones in order to take out the emergency medical responders.
It's funny to imagine what you peace purists would have said when the U.S. Was about to go to war with Germany and the concentration camps were gassing millions of Jews--even though we were blind to the Holocaust, were busy turning away Jews seeking asylum here, and went to war for totally different reasons.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)I would disagree with it however simply because any military action that we take, however limited in scope, runs the very real danger of destabilizing the region even more and making the plight of innocent civilians that we are purporting to help even worse.
We need to face the grim reality that sometimes terrible things happen in this word that we simply are not in a position to do anything about.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)but they're not "outragey" enough....
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Do we really want to give them anything that will help them succeed in installing a Holy Republic of Syria? How many innocents will die under that tyranny.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)"It's funny to imagine what you peace purists would have said when the U.S. Was about to go to war with Germany and the concentration camps were gassing millions of Jews."
Godwins Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, youve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Interesting how at one time this...
...would have been construed as "Freeper," with pizza served. Now it's coming from the BOG, supposedly within the party, and evidently it's A-OK.
Marr
(20,317 posts)right-wing jingoism a few short years ago. Now it's just fine and dandy and pragmatic.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)for engaging in constant personal attacks and such.
Not sure if it's the same person, but the resemblance is truly remarkable.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)but it's pretty amazing what some get away with, and for as long as they do (like SouthernYankeeBelle).
Suggesting DUers would be OK with the gassing of Jews is a perfect example as to why I have only four on ignore. Take your chances with me, please.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)there is a lot of this happening here now. DU seems almost purged of the zimmerman apologists/racists though. good job on that team DU.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It was only "hundreds" yesterday. Will it be "millions" tomorrow?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Although there are quite a few comments. I'd hardly classify that as being over run by pro-war types.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Reread the OP.
"Wow! The new slur against the anti-war faction on DU is "peace purists"
I would like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. I'm just DISGUSTED!"
Where, exactly, did I "classify that (DU) as being over run by pro-war types"?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I was just surprised to see a thread with so much activity swirling about - over, what appears to be the sentiment of one or two people.
I just assumed it was a little more widespread since so many seemed to take it to heart.
My apologies.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I'm so sick and tired of seeing the "purist" label being used as a slur here on DU. To see it attached to Peace was TOO MUCH!
NealK
(1,898 posts)Let's stop the U.N investigation, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a Sarin cloud.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)ONE person with TWO recs...
Makes a new slur, doesn't take much to rankle you guys.
Y'all need thicker skin. ya, sound like perpetual victims, really.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)authoritarian nazi-facilitating sycophant to say about this heinous crime.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Wow.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)btw ... this thread isn't about war or the use of chemical weapons ...
This thread is about nothing ... it could not be more of a META thread.
The folks who scream about the evil "authoritarians" are very upset because some one (one of the authoritarians I must assume) came up with the term "peace purist".
And now ... the only thing funnier than the actual topic of the OP, is your post complaining about my the use of ...
... within the thread.
Which earns another ...
... and a bonus ...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...the one who constantly giggles uncontrollably during gruesome violence or rape scenes.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)I must have been 12 years old when my vacation bible school group took a field trip to the movies.
The Late Great Planet Earth was showing.
I kept getting kneed in the chair back and there was a kind of smacking sound.
He was behind me masturbating while Hal Lindsay was connecting the events of Armageddon with the schizophrenic hallucinations in The Book of Revelations.
This may have been my first of many crisis' of faith.
Looking back,I have to wonder if the minister had been molesting his son.
Guess i better sleep with the lights on again tonight lest i hear those disturbing noises and hurt myself running down the hall again.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Name call away. I accept the label with pride. I'm a peacenik from the 60's.
ChazInAz
(2,580 posts)I'm proud of the title. Got my battle scars at the '68 Chicago Democratic Convention, and will always have the same dedication to peace.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Though I am left to wonder -- how many who opposed war under Bush were never our allies, merely unprincipled political opportunists?
Bigmack
(8,020 posts).......
I'm stuck here... Anybody got any good things...?
rurallib
(62,483 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)and some really funny images:
?imgmax=800
Blanks
(4,835 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Just the the attire for commanding dress-up wars fought at a very safe distance.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and the fake uniform. Everything about him was shallow and fake. And for some reason, god only knows, the current POTUS wants to embrace his hated policies.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It comes with the job - there are rules for POTUS that outlast any particular incumbent. One is, don't get in the way of ongoing secret wars and regime changes.
"Now is the time", I guess they've been telling him. What are you waiting for?
rdharma
(6,057 posts)I'm sorry that Syria is being torn apart by a civil war. And I'm sorry that the government has stooped to the use of chemical warfare on their own citizens.
But I'll be damned if I think the US should get involved in this mess.
Our first mistake was supplying the rebels with military hardware and weaponry (effectively taking sides in the conflict).
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)It is easy to tell the "organic" movements - peaceful unarmed demonstrators tortured and butchered while the USA does nothing and the Corporate Press stifles the story - see Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Then there are the "armed" uprisings and arson, combined with slick-propaganda points put together by Billionaire-Think-Tanks that are aired on national and international TV, topped with "covert aid" from "our" (sic - Transnational Corporate) allies coordinated by the CIA (Bengazi).
I think Syria clearly falls into the latter category.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, the casualties are "unfortunate".
Of course, it's pretty difficult to find a war in which both sides had "good intentions".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)They are all about massaging their conscience as a "humanitarian" but or more likely driven by the portfolios.
Now is a great time to by stock in war toys.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Vanden Heuvel and Scahill used it recently, and we all know that Scahill is one of the the BOG's favorite "racists." A quick Google turned this up from 1999:
....
The most tragic aspect of the cruise missile liberals is that they assume every Serb is a supporter of the Milosevic atrocities. Yet only two years ago mass demonstrations in Belgrade came close to overthrowing him. Now the most courageous opponents of his tyranny are in air-raid shelters.
....
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/CruiseLibs.html
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The term probably originated at either free republic or Third Way HQ.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)In an OP with a Godwin co-efficient of zero.
OnlinePoker
(5,730 posts)Except for one guy who has been in favor of bombing Assad since 2007, they are all against any strike. They were also against arming the rebels, but only because they think Obama is a Muslim and wants to create a new caliphate in the Middle East.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)fact the OP has gotten all wrong. I think it is time to stand up to this crap from the crap vendors and war mongers. They want to name call, it should be pointed out and the political cohort of those name callers need to be asked to defend or condemn the crap being done.
People need to be warned about this shit, and those who purvey it need to called out for doing so. If you don't like it, debate me on the merits or start another thread, it is a discussion board.
treestar
(82,383 posts)for the horrid victimization of one other poster using the term "peace purist" to describe anyone who is against any US intervention no matter what is happening in Syria.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)but you got to start a cool new OP!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)exaggeration around here.
Oh the drama.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)so they naturally believe that it bothers us as well.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The transphobes were last week, the pro-war faction this week.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The war drums start beating. Some DU'ers jump on the bandwagon believing that this war is a "good war". A bit later things go sideways, and the supporters either pretend that they didn't support it in the first place, vanish, or claim that there was "no way to know". Either way, everyone swears that they'll never support another war.
And then the drums start beating again, and the whole process starts over.
I am a peace purist. There is no such thing as a good war. The day that you accept war as a viable option is the day that you decide that politics are more important than the lives of human children.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)No different at all. Just unthinking, blindly loyal, belligerent halfwits, attacking anyone who might disagree with Dear Leader as a matter of reflex.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Nevermind, I see it was ONE person (yes , that's everyone whos for some sort of intervention to the gassing of children).
wow, get your feelings hurt much to whine about one person and broad brush an entire group ??
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)above.
edit. I never said all of DU was using this slur.
Just that it was the newest one. Glad you enjoy vaporized humans. you're about to get a lot of them courtesy of the US Military.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)and changed the content of my msg to reflect it
you should take a read :p
Segami
(14,923 posts)iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)well gee golly, that means anyone whos for the intervention of children being gassed must think and say it too!
really you guys? REALLY?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And silence is often definitive.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)against someone gassing children 'pro war' is a joke .... and just as bad/stupid as someone making the phrase 'peace purist'
I guess you know of a way to talk them out of gassing women and children?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And here they are again, not criticizing the verbiage of 'peace purist' but instead advocating military solutions no matter what, no matter where.
Not one of those advocating military action criticized the term 'peace purists'. Many did however, take up the OP's position and defend it.
It is what it is. When you are advocating military action, you are being pro war. Perhaps reluctantly, but nevertheless when you say 'lets' bomb' you are being pro war. If you can't accept that, you should not advocate war.
And here is a bit of information. When I was a child I was in the region for a set of events involving a terror attack that killed mostly children, which was followed by military response by air and on the ground against Syria. I have spent days and nights actually listening to the bombs falling on Syria. As usual the bombs were killing kids who had done nothing to 'revenge' the killing of other kids who had done nothing. A 40 year vicious cycle. 'They killed kids so lets' kills some in return' gets to be old and tired. So I'm not savoring hearing about even more bombs falling on even more kids who did nothing. The bombs 40 years ago did not stop the gassing, did it? The continued conflict, civil and otherwise in Syria did not stop the gassing, did it? And this bombing won't stop it either. You can think that it will, but history does not support that view. If we really want to make change there, we need to commit the entire will of our nation, thousands of troops and billions of dollars, anything less is just another chapter in a sad story filled with dead kids.
I was say, 14 and almost all the deaths on both sides at that time were kids. Not one of the fuckers on either side who killed were kids, they were all adults and all of them claimed they were killing to make peace. 'We are right to do this, because they were wrong to do that!' they announce. Then they do some killing of civilians, children, women, who it's all fodder.
Nevertheless I'm sure you take all of this very seriously and your snarky reductive attitude is intended to make peace and understanding.
I'll never forget the sound of the shelling.
Now tell me of your experiences in the region.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who don't agree with them. I bet if you did a search on any of these posters, you would not find, however, that they have a problem dishing it out, with much worse.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)just because they want action against someone gassing women and children ... which in my opinion is just as bad/stupid as the phrase 'peace purist'..
I suppose theres a way to talk him out of doing it ? because hes listened so far ?
treestar
(82,383 posts)"war perverts"
just like being pro Big Brother for thinking some information should stay classified and that those who know about it with real problems would at first use the channels created in the WPA.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)rules DU these days.
They talk alike, they walk alike, they even sometimes laugh alike! (spin on the old patty duke song)
reminds me of my youth and folks arguing about who was punk enough back when I was into the punk/ska scene
what I love about it is , when each one posts even more upset and angry about this ONE poster who used a silly phrase, they add their own opinions and accusations full of broad brush silliness.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and not the constantly divisive exploitation of the issue. I love nothing about this. At least you admit you dig it, love it in fact. Smiley faces, 'what I love about this' and some 'rofl' emoticons seem to sum up the argument from one side in this discussion.
Hard to believe anyone would type 'what I love about this' about well, this. Allow me to say 'barf'.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)it brings me joy.
I was being sarcastic. I think its moronic.
Yes, our want to stop the gassing of women and children is all about smiley faces and emoticons. glad you've been paying attention.
got any more over the top statements and accusations to make?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Anyone can read them and see how out of place they are in a thread about such a deeply horrific issue.
The way you wave about 'women and children' as banners for your agenda is more of the same exploitation without respect for the intensity of this situation. But as you say, you love it. Smiley face, rofl emoticon, etc.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Roll out the pigs of war. Social media says it's killin time. Yippee! Let's kill some more.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You believe that nothing has really happened in Syria and there really are no chemical weapons there and no such thing was ever used?
If there were, are you saying we should do nothing?
People need to come out and admit it if they think nothing should be done here.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)We relinquished the crown of democratic snobbery when we jumped into made up wars. Were Americans attacked on American soil? Did Obama go to congress and declare war? Do you really have the killing itch that bad?
treestar
(82,383 posts)If that is your standard, then you were all for the war in Afghanistan, right? And for the "War on Terror?"
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)They are fake made up wars. Show me the declaration of war that passed congress. You can't. And the "president can start an war he wants to" resolution was illegal.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Many political decisions I don't agree with are made. I recognize that I don't agree but they still are made under the Constitution and are legal.
Americans were attacked on American soil on 911. Thus by your standard the war in Afghanistan should have been "legal."
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Your statement is somewhere in the loon zone. Start a war, need congress approval and funding. Simple really. Try it.
Or I suppose you're one of those that thinks the president is above the law?
treestar
(82,383 posts)The Constitution is played out in the War Powers act and declarations of war by Congress. Thus it is possible for there to be a "legal" war. The President has his powers in these laws but of course is not above it. Again "the law" is more than just my opinion. I know I can't label a thing "illegal" just because I politically don't agree with it.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I call them the "Cruise Missile Liberals" (read on another blog)
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)we can't feed our poor, but we can afford to bomb the shit out of Syria?
Fuck. that. shit.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Food vs bombs?
I kink it might be a little more complicated than that... thus the "purist" term as being a negative tone.
Save the children? oh.. only the ones over here. I get it now.
"War should always be avoided"... usually comes from the side that lost.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Just.
Yes.
I won't even dignify the rest with a response.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)And I guess you call the Dem leaders like Obama, Hillary and Kerry war criminals too, right? Should we add Roosevelt as a war criminal too?
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)*plonk* into my ignore file.
Wave that right wing teabagger flag, honey!
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Disagreement= right wing teabagger. WTF?
This ISN'T freerepublic. What's differentiates us from them, is we're ALLOWED/SUPPOSED to have different opinions.
What the hell is going on around here?!?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Please, don't forget to post daily describing your heroic acts!
GeorgeGist
(25,327 posts)lark
(23,199 posts)I like peace purist much better than the old label, bleeding heart liberal, or anti-war activist, more succinct and more accurate. Thanks!!
railsback
(1,881 posts)'peace purists' doesn't make sense.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Seems like an effort to marginalize real liberals. Could just be my imagination. I am a NSA critic and war critic. But because I have isolationist tendencies regarding war I'm probably just a paulite who got lost, or at least that's what I would be called by some here.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)trans poutragers and various and sundry other obsessively posting haters.
I expect that's what 50% of DU will consist of for a couple of days now - "peace purists" this, and "peace purists" that.
And next week it will be something else entirely. "Peace purists" will vanish just like all the Manning posts.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)what do you mean?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)over pronoun errors or uncertainty.
It has all vanished today, which I find very curious. Not a single post about Manning or that whole thing that I can see.
It's like somebody said it's time to move on to the next topic to divide Dems.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)have a nice life.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I am referring to the phony outrage by shitstirrers.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that which is not. Two things, what gives you standing to present yourself as the decider of that which is legitimate, and second why don't you give examples of that which in your wisdom is 'legitimate' and that which in the eyes of a straight, cis, professional person is 'phony'. Running about making vague and heavily loaded accusations against unnamed DUers is cowardly and McCarthyite.
I mean, you come on to this thread and bring up Chelsea Manning. What's your motive for that level of off topic ranting? Disgusting behavior.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Pot, meet kettle.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But I will add that your use of "trans poutrage" is disgusting. See, we can do both.
Funny how you always end up opposite the liberal left side of the issues.
NealK
(1,898 posts)WTF?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)'trans poutragers' just wouldn't leave you alone.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Imminent war with Syria is not a worthy topic??!
You have a hang-up.
QC
(26,371 posts)undergoes a right wing takeover.
Peace becomes bad, corporate supremacy becomes sensible pragmatism, blanket surveillance becomes a good thing, etc.
This is a very different DU from the one a few of us joined back in 2001.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)the same thing. I joined SmirkingChimp in 2001 - my sis convinced me DU was better so I lurked until 2002 and joined. Damn I miss the real dems.
Somehow it feels like this place took a right turn, and I feel very much out in the cold.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Some people always seem to think that their little burst of violence is "justified" and certainly when you have a dictator using chemical weapons against his own people, it seems more than justified.
Here's the problem:
We are hardly in a position to make moral judgments in situations like this, especially since OUR hands are dirty.
1) We illegally waged wars of aggression based on laughable justification.
2) We have committed war crimes against civilian populations (torture, murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment). Currently we are STILL illegally detaining innocent people (cleared by law enforcement agencies and the military of any wrong doing) in the Guantanamo concentration camp
3) We have backed various dictators, including Syria's current regime, when it suited our political purposes (see also Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam, Panama, etc).
4) We are selling/supplying weapons to various factions around the world, including material that can be used for chemical/biological weapons.
5) We have been doing this for over a century.
We cannot spend decades causing problems, then solve them in a six week military campaign
Syria's problems are complex and cannot be unraveled by simple air strikes and giving guns to the rebels. In fact "simple" solutions will make the problem worse, and possibly bring us back into a confrontation with Russia.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)WTF?
Just shoot me.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)talk about close-minded
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)They have gone so far around the curve they are joining hands with the EXTREME RIGHT.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"Extreme Left." Please.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)kind of like Abbie Hoffman running scared from "authority".
The extreme LEFT now supports:
1. anti-government rants, see Rand Raul
2. paranoid... everyone is watching you
3. calling out centrist DEMS as "war criminals" and "authoritarians"
4. not wanting to get involved with possible "war crimes", such as the use of chemical weapons on children in Syria -- while at t he same time calling keep who do want to stop the madness as "war mongers"
5. trust Snowden, without ANY ACTUAL facts (SHOW ME THE FACTS, M'AM!) - someone who is now hiding in Russia, but YOU trust him because some journalists "say" he has some evidence, but we can't show it to you right now. We might leak it slowly, you will have to wait for the evidence, but "trust me" - Obama is evil.
The extreme LEFT can't get organized under something coherent, so the rest of "left of Obama Dems" are worried that the "EXTREME LEFT" is going to hand over the next mid-term election to the Rethugs...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Is calling DUers here "facists" against the TOS?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)but then again, extremists always belive they are "mainstream", which is what makes them so extreme.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)moderate nor a dem
Response to Maedhros (Reply #168)
one_voice This message was self-deleted by its author.
RC
(25,592 posts)To bad Liberals and Progressives are not "Real Democrats" around here anymore. You have to be Republican Lite to be a "Real Democrat" now-a-days.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)you just can't recognize there are plenty of DEMS who were against the Bush War, and want out of the Middle East -- but you STILL DON'T let war crimes go unnoticed.
The use of chemical weapons on civilians is universally seen as war crimes.
Just go ahead and admit it, you want to walk away and not do anything about it, or even recognize it even happened.
RC
(25,592 posts)And have helped both sides at one time or the other and sometimes both sides at the same time.
A flow chart of our involvement in the Middle East would make the unraveling of Gorden's knot seem like a simple granny knot. Someone, a couple of days ago posted a flow chart showing that. Hopefully someone will post it again.
If no one is advocating new war, then what is this discussion about?
So this is just a continuation of an existing war, against different a people, in a different country. Got it.
Why have there been rumors of this for a couple of decades then? It seems to be a goal of the Neo-cons, back when.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)If we can locate them, we can destroy them or capture them.
That is NOT advocating war. There is a difference.
RC
(25,592 posts)Put down the kool-aid. None of the ways of dieing in war is good or humane.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)There are numerous ways to make an enemies weapons (or chemicals) unusable.
Or you can sit back and do nothing. It's obvious what your choice is, the rest of the adult world is moving forward with coming up with the best solution.
The use of chemical weapons used on people ANYWHERE in the world is unacceptable. What is wrong with you?
RC
(25,592 posts)How about not killing them in the first place? Ever think of that? The use of war ANYWHERE in the world is unacceptable.
We stir things up, supply one or both sides with war toys and/or destabilize their government, then sit back and poke and prod till things get out of hand, then rush in, pretending to be the good guys in a mess WE created. That is what happened here. If we had behaved ourselves and stayed away in the first place, this would not be happening.
neverforget
(9,437 posts)We're going to hit the delivery systems: artillery and aircraft. Of course in order to do that, you need to take out the air defense systems if we are going to use aircraft to hit these targets. After these strikes are over, Assad is still going to possess chemical weapons.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/26/20198664-us-military-options-in-syria-a-briefing?lite
The best American option would probably be to go after the mechanisms Syria uses to deploy its chemical weapons delivery systems and command-and-control structures.
Even then, Assad knows better than to put chemical weapons stockpiles and delivery systems in the middle of nowhere. He probably has positioned them in strategically tricky places, like close to schools and towns.
That way, an enemy strike would run the risk of harming huge numbers of Syrian civilians, even children, and acts as a deterrent for enemies of the Syrian government.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/27/syria-crisis-military-options-nick-houghton
Nobody in Washington or London is prepared to countenance "boots on the ground", and an air war against Assad's well-equipped jet fighters and anti-aircraft defences is equally unappealing. So strategists have been looking at ways of hitting a limited number of regime targets over a short period with precision missiles and laser-guided bombs.
The hope is that these attacks would deter Assad from using chemical weapons and make it more difficult for him to launch them if he wanted to.
The US is reported to be considering a two-day campaign, according to the Washington Post a timescale that chimes with British hopes that any attacks would be seen as warning shots rather than the first steps in a broader campaign.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)DontTreadOnMe hasn't the foggiest fuckin' clue what he's talking about. People like him make me want to slap some sense into them.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)How long do you have to serve in the military before you have been hit in the head enough that you can't see futility right before you? As we pull out of Afghanistan, the hated enemy the Taliban is moving right back in. A few thousand lives and a few trillion dollars later and we have accomplished nothing.
On to Syria. We are opposing bad guys led by Assad. We are supporting bad guys affiliated with AQ who are sworn to destroy us. So while opposing bad guys who are backed by Iran who also supports Hamas which backs the Muslim Brotherhood which is opposed to Assad, we support and oppose bad guys backed by Iran either directly or indirectly.
Tell me again about these tactics. I think you might have them down, but strategy seems to be lacking. There is no way this ends well no matter what we do. If we weaken Assad we have a another secular state where radicalized people are in charge. If we don't weaken Assad we look impotent as a military power.
It is a lose lose situation for us. If Iran attacks Israel in retribution it is a lose lose for Isreal and Iran. So tell me how this ends well for anyone. Because I just don't see it.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)..and settle for just a limited amount of Collateral Damage, say 100,000 innocent women & children?
[font size=5]But NOOOOOO![/font]
They insist that the death of just one, little, innocent child is TOOOOO much,
like they would even notice!!!
They always have to have it their way.
Damned PURISTS!!!
Won't let anyone have any fun.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"Peace purist."
Well, I guess that's me.
I tend to oppose wars where a) our national survival isn't at stake, and b) where nobody even knows what a "win" would look like. So now we're gonna blow the shit out of some innocent people in the Middle East because someone "gassed their own people?"
If Assad (assuming it was Assad) had used napalm instead of Sarin, would that have been better? It would at least have been on a moral par with what we did in Vietnam.
Syria won't "tit for tat" with strikes against Israel? What's Iran going to do? Sit idly by while their mutual-defense pact partners get blown up? They do have the capacity to do a lot of damage, not just to Israel, but to our Navy, and they may be crazy enough at the top to imagine that Allah will come to their aid.
If Iran retaliates with conventional weapons, will we nuke them? Are they willing to gamble on that? I'm afraid that the Neocon/Israeli "deep plan," which long antedates Obama's Presidency, involves nuking Teheran. That would pretty much leave Israel as King of the Hill in the Middle East--a position they have long coveted, I think.
But then I'm a "peace purist."
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Maybe they're lost? Go find a neocon website to pimp your war fantasies
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Pushing a lauch button is so much easier than diplomacy....I guess we won't be hearing much "n-dimensional chess master" proclamations on this. It appears that Obama's red line in the sand is merely a promise to the MIC that he will defend them from red ink. I wonder how many of the Keyboard Commandos are planning to enlist?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They should enlist or their kids should enlist, they can be part of the first wave. See how enthusiastic they are then.
If this goes badly, does it go as one of those things Obama is powerless to prevent (blame congress)?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Obama will blame progressives for not holding his feet to the fire, and then run the bus over us a few more times. :rolleyes:
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Thats a label I'll proudly wear. And while the prospects of engaging in another quagmire in which there is no winning scenerio are deeply troubling, I am chortling to myself imagining the mental contortions the Personality Cult must be engaging in. They're such good little germans.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)From people who would coin phrases like "The Professional Left"
with a straight face.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I seriously doubt the US getting involved in this conflict will improve the situation. Our nation needs to step back from assuming the position of world police force.
All the people gassed by Assad will be quickly forgotten once the US launches one bomb off course that kills civilians. Then we get to enjoy more wrath of the world.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But do you oppose all wars, or US interventions in matters like this, no matter what?
Isn't it true that if the President decides he's not going to do anything, you will be skewering him for not caring about poor Syrians killed by gas?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)how are you contributing to these U.S. interventions? 101st Chairborne doesn't count.
treestar
(82,383 posts)either its using my tax dollars or even for those who don't pay taxes due to low incomes, it's our elected government.
We seem to believe as a nation, as do other nations, that there are limits on what we will let other sovereign nations get away with without doing some type of thing to discourage it.
We learned from the Nazis and aren't going to allow such a thing to happen again without at least trying. That seems to be our country's position, and it's not a bad one.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Paying taxes is easy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and our country is not run by dictators.
Why aren't we all responsible for what our country does, good or bad?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They need you to justify the invasion of Iraq.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because Iraq was no justified, no intervention is ever justified again, no matter what the facts?
There were no WMD in Iraq. There was not enough proof that there ever was.
But here there are people confirming the use of chemical weapons.
NealK
(1,898 posts)https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/08/27-2
treestar
(82,383 posts)Does not make that war "illegal." It is better to say that you don't agree with the war than to label it "illegal."
Your quote is simply someone's opinion. They haven't even cited what "international Law" they claim is violated.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I bet you were defending the invasion of Iraq. You think Colin Powel providing "proof" in front of the UN isn't more powerful than the crap being thrown around as fact now was?
treestar
(82,383 posts)In fact we are pointing out the difference to you.
There is proof this time and was not that time.
You are opposing intervening where there is proof of WMD, which means you would have opposed Iraq even if there had been WMD and proof of that.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)
in the razing of Fallujah. We have NO MORAL STANDING to lecture anyone. NONE!!! Our former president and vice president should by all rights be in the dock at the Hague right now for war crimes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and these chemicals being used now.
And the situations were entirely different.
It's no excuse for not doing something against using chemical weapons now, though. And is it true if we did nothing now that you would be saying we were wrong for doing nothing?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)don't you get? Or are you saying It's OK when the US does it?
treestar
(82,383 posts)because we once used non-chemical weapons. In fact we are the ones who used nuclear weapons. So forever for the rest of our existence, we are not allowed to have any say in what other nations do.
Are you sure you'd be down with that, because I'm thinking you'd be saying, if we were doing nothing, that we were wrong to do nothing and that Obama wasn't helping these poor people.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)the road in that iconic photo with her skin dripping off of her like wax melting off a burning candle would beg to differ. But just keep telling yourself the U.S. doesn't use chemical weapons.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But then admittedly we used nuclear weapons once. So my question still stands. Are we forever to be hands off when some other country does something like this? And for no other reason than that we dropped an atomic bomb?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Are we to do nothing about chemical weapons being used? And if we in fact did nothing, what would you be saying?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)And if we in fact did nothing, what would you be saying?
treestar
(82,383 posts)What would you be saying if we did nothing about chemical weapons? That we are evil for letting the Syrians be gassed?
It sounds like you are projecting your idea of how a hypocritical Obama basher would react, onto me. I do not appreciate that, thank you very much.
I would not, in fact, think that. The USA shouldn't be running all over the world punishing every wrongdoer and righting every wrong.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Nice!
It's always the people without any skin in the game who are most enthusiastic about going to war.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Don't miss bvar's upthread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3543396
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Isn't it true that if the President decides he's not going to do anything, you will be skewering him for not caring about poor Syrians killed by gas?
No. That is not true. That is just you making shit up and reframing the issue so that you can view it through your "ardent supporter of Obama" perspective in a way that avoids the unpleasant reality of what you are supporting.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I think it's pretty clear that if Obama were doing as you say you want him to do, you would be skewering him for not caring about people being killed by gas.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Everyone of "us" has supported Obama when he has done things we support. Most of us worked for his re-election. Your bullshit framing of us as suffering from "ODS" is dishonest crap that, as I said, makes you feel better about what it is you are doing.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)If I want to skewer the president, I've got plenty of valid ammunition without Syria. Should he decide not to use troops in Syria, I will acknowledge that he did something right, as I have done at least twice since 2009.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you oppose all wars, I suppose that would include the civil war going on in Syria now?
How do you act on that opposition?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I don't act on someone else's civil war by picking a side and joining in. That's war.
If any physical action is required to protect, to evacuate, a nation, it needs to be decided by the UN, and any involvement on any nation's part needs to be directed by them.
I act on my opposition by supporting groups and individuals promoting peace with my voice, my dollars, my votes, and, when possible, my presence. I act on my opposition by opposing warmongers with my voice, my dollars, my votes, and when possible, my presence.
As far as I'm concerned, the only people supporting war should be those who plan to wage it themselves. With their presence at those weapons, on those lines of battle. Supporting wars from a safe distance, supporting putting others at risk, while remaining safely at home, is cowardly and hypocritical, to say the least.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As it is with no US involvement right now.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)what part of "I oppose all wars" you aren't getting.
I'm also unsure of why it is so important to you whether or not I oppose any other nations' civil wars. Those wars are included in "all wars." I'm surprised that you need this to be explained. The term "all" encompasses the whole number of wars.
I oppose all wars.
I support other interventions when needed, but only through the UN. No unilateral policing of the world by the U.S..
QC
(26,371 posts)Yes, that is apparently supposed to be an insult.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)All we're saying is give war a chance.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)But it should be grounds for a hide. Advocating for war should be grounds for a pizza.
Being tolerant and understanding does NOT mean I have to allow WAR & HATE Mongering.
Also notice the language the pro-war/War Purists use. either/or: always/never, all/none. No grey there, just binary thinking.
And their straw-men, such as Comparing this civil war to WWII and the Nazi gassing the Jews. This is Conservative, Republican language. What is it doing on DU?
I find this cartoon most appropriate.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).. checking in with the others.
cer7711
(502 posts). . . and our troops over a hundred miles away came down with a host of degenerative nerve diseases and syndromes? And it took us almost ten years to figure out what had gone wrong and why?
What do we think will happen when we send cruise missiles rocketing into nerve gas munitions stockpiled in heavily-built up areas of Syria?
Look for a similar news story (re: Syrian civilian casualties) ten years hence.
Am I missing something here?
NRaleighLiberal
(60,038 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)rurallib
(62,483 posts)learned plenty from that experience
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)...but using that as a strawman to apply it as something that everyone who is not against action in Syria is labelling you is kind of a dick move.
ONE person said that. There's no "meme". There's no "coordinated effort".
Beat up on the asshole that used the term.... and don't stereotype it and make it look like there's a group of people doing it.
You should be better than that, MNBrewer. Some people agree with action in Syria, others disagree. Do so respectfully whichever side you're on.
UTUSN
(70,793 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Nevertheless, I am very skeptical of wars and the noble reasons given for them. They are usually avoidable and often waged for nefarious reason. All the crap about defending freedom and protecting America didn't disguise the fact that the war against Iraq was pure and simple colonial piracy.
OK, back us up against the wall, we're going to come out fighting. From the perspective of Britain and France, World War II could not be avoided. Yet all wars are stupid wars properly considered. Der Fuhrer's twisted dreams of tall, blue-eyed blond men as a dominant race ruling the world and exterminating inferiors should have been laughed at, not followed blindly.
If I personally decide the US should not send troops or strike Syria from the air, then does that mean I want Assad to remain in power? No. I'd like the Syrian people to overthrow the bastard and if they make a lamppost ornament out of him, I'll shed no tears. I would like to see Assad supplanted with a people's government that builds roads, office buildings and affordable houses; plans for Syria in a post-fossil fuel world; and doesn't meddle in Lebanon and supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As an American, I don't want to see my government engage in "nation building" largely to benefit not the American people but American artificial persons and the corporate royalists who hide behind corporate logos. Why should we even be asked to fight their imperialist wars?
America has had a very poor record in nation building endeavors. I don't think we can do for the Syrian people better than what they can do for themselves. I didn't do it for the Afghans or the Iraqis. Let's learn that lesson and not even try with Syrians or Iranians.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thanks for the heads-up, MNBrewer. Peace must not be cool anymore.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)President Obama for one. As a Community Organizer he certainly saw the travesty that is justice for the poor who can't hope to afford the finest legal council. Yet he has issued about sixteen pardons and commutations during his Presidency. That is less forgiving than anyone who held the office except William Harrison who died shortly after taking the office and didn't have a chance to pardon anyone.
The why is obvious, he is terrified of being labeled Soft on Crime like Dukakis was.
The same is true of the idea of military action. So many of us run to the cameras frothing at the mouths shouting bomb them that I can't tell the difference between our side, and the Republicans. Here on DU, the Hawks pound at their keyboards giving justifications that are as equally lame as the ones given by the Neo-Cons during the Iraq War Debate.
All I want to know is what happened to my Democratic Party? What happened to the Party that told President Ford that we would not go back into Viet Nam even though the North Vietnamese had broken the peace treaty?
On 14 January 1975, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testifies to Congress that the U.S. is not living up to its promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu that we would defend the South if the North attacked.
One week later, after consulting with Congress, President Ford said that there was no way we were going back into Viet-Nam.
A Democratic Congress stopped the war from our point of view, and let the Vietnamese settle their own problems. An outcome we had stalled for over ten years with so many young lives wasted on both sides.
If we had these Democrats in the Congress, not only would we have gone back in, we would have marched north until we occupied the entire nation of Viet-Nam.
What happened to that Democratic Party? What happened to the ones who realized the futility of trying to pick a winner in a civil war? Have we all forgotten the problems associated with an illegal war?
I swore months ago after getting into an argument with a DU user about Syria that I would not post about that topic. To this day, I have not violated that promise. But this is not a post about Syria, this is a question about our party and our values. We stopped standing on principle, and we stopped standing up for core beliefs. Now, we're rushing to the right so fast that my hair is being snatched out of my head by the buffeting wind.
So I'm not talking about Syria, all I want to know is what happened to my Democratic Party?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)on a negotiation table
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I would not be surprised to see any duers using that language to get banned sooner or later. So it is not something to get *that* worked up about in my humble opinion.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It is not like we have the term being thrown around by many duers. One duer posted an OP that used a freeper-like term. It does not mean a DU emergency should happen.
UTUSN
(70,793 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)I do believe that, sadly, some wars are necessary evils. If our nation is attacked by another nation, sure, we go to war. But I don't think we need to go to war with Syria ... not now at least, for sure.
Bake
brooklynite
(95,007 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)I'm proud to say, I've never made a dollar off of peace!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)I'm just smart enough to realize that doing something isn't always better than doing nothing. Sometimes we don't have what it takes to make things better. If I knew we could drop a few bombs and end all the pain and suffering in the world I would be all for it, but it doesn't work like that.
Sometimes bad people do bad things to each other, sometimes entangled alliances and obligations make for no-win situations. First and foremost we need to ask ourselves "will our involvement make things better?" and "how will this benefit us?". More often than not the answers are "no" and "it wont".
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)What, exactly, are we hoping to accomplish?
An end to the fighting? How did that work out in Libya?
Regime change? How did that work out in Iraq?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I've been anti-war my entire life, almost 67 years. In fact, I was raised Quaker/church of the Brethren, so anti-war is in my genes. Participating in another war now is insanity.
frylock
(34,825 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)First that I am a liberal, maybe even of the bleeding heart variety.
Second, that I am a peace purist. I know one thing that the hawks don't. Nobody ever wins a war, nobody, never!
Now I have a badge for each shoulder.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Being referred to as an anti-war activist doesn't quite cover the entire scope of what I believe and want.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)maybe when one calls someone a peace purist, they are required to have a mean sneer on their face, and maybe growl a bit.
Otherwise, it isn't much of a slur.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Or what used to be referred as Republicans. It is the only way to explain Bush backers, the homophobes, the racism, calling what used to be the Democratic Party 'party purists' --'peace purists' is just icing on the cake.
The goalposts are on the move again, and so are the RW talking points. But we haven't moved at all.
It is actually a sign of desperation, ridiculing peace, imagine feeling threatened by peace activists, sad really.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'd like to give peace a chance.
JI7
(89,289 posts)on a discussion about chemical weapons being used on people and whether there should be a response to that.
but it seems like a lot of DU is about that these days.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,384 posts)I know, the White House etc are beating the drums to go to war in support of the Sunni rebels against the Shiite regime.
In Iraq, we helped the Shiites overthrow the Sunnis.
Fair and balanced?
Let's stay the fuck out of there!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)appeasement.
The DUer who first used the phrase has issued a couple specious defenses of his use of the term but has displayed a cowardly refusal to engage most of the DUers who took issue with the use of the term.
Typical of McCartyite bullies and their heirs.
barbtries
(28,824 posts)ok, i'll be all that. i'm a liberal too, so there.
NO MORE WAR
Iggo
(47,597 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Who cares what the chickenhawks say.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I am a peace purist (in regards to Syria), and I am not ashamed to be so labeled.
-Laelth
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They claimed he was going to pull a "Jim Jones" and all of Baghdad was going to be under a green cloud.
As proof of that, they pointed to 9/11 and the pilots flying into buildings. Thus linking the two AGAIN in their rhetoric.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be alerted on.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)happy that I am.
ElsewheresDaughter
(24,000 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Who threw the term together? I rather like it.. Peace Purist. I would wear that badge... So would the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.
LostOne4Ever
(9,302 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)Heiwa shimasu! (Peace!)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)With that said, though, I'm not so gung-ho about this, either. And certainly, I don't want any boots on the ground: if we HAVE to do this, at least let's stick to what we did in Libya......
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)isn't the world's top cop. Syria is a mixed up situation, one group we help today will attempt to stab us in the back during the future. I say we stay the hell out.
lcordero2
(848 posts)People know that war serves to make extremely malicious people rich at
the expense of the population (debt) and at the expense of an opposing
population (resource grab or land grab). These extremely malicious people
also fix taxes so the burden of maintaining civilization doesn't fall on them.
Somehow paying that debt must be pushed to on the lower economic classes.
People that are actually in face to face conflict are not supported. Support
for long term injuries isn't there. These extremely malicious people try to
cut at the support of people that have had long term injuries.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They can call me a "purist" if they want. Their war still sucks!
LostOne4Ever
(9,302 posts)As well as peacenik, liberal, and pacifist.
We should strive for peace!
kpete
(72,056 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)madinmaryland
(64,934 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)I was proved right then. And I am right now.
And so is everyone else - of whatever political stripe - who agrees with me.
A military strike in Syria is madness and will create many more problems than it solves.
Am I the only one who remembers the story of the "Gleiwitz incident?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
Who would benefit most from a US military strike on Syria? Hmmm
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
TomClash
(11,344 posts)And I will feel the pain of war for the rest of my life.
oxymoron
(4,053 posts)May all sentient beings find peace. Namaste
truth2power
(8,219 posts)cry baby
(6,682 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Just a fact.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Anything else is just Imitation Peace.
- Some palates are too unsophisticated to know the difference.....
K&R
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)I am already against the next war.
Brewinblue
(392 posts)for we are pure!!!
donheld
(21,311 posts)Glad to be in that number.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Too much $$$ to leave on the table to NOT start another War!!
TERRA! TERRA! TERRA!
Scared yet??
Cuz they've got a solutiion ...
steve2470
(37,457 posts)GTurck
(826 posts)anti-war to the core of my being.
We have failed as a civilization if the only way we can answer a humanitarian need is with violence.
Our hypocrisy is showing because of the hundreds or thousands we have killed with our bomb and drone attacks when we weren't sure of the target.
NO MORE WAR!
Response to MNBrewer (Original post)
BillyRibs This message was self-deleted by its author.
tblue
(16,350 posts)The arrogance of some people.
niyad
(113,964 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)That's the end all fall back position. If we disapprove of the policy of this administration we must be racists.