Maybe I missed something...When exactly did Progressivism become Pacifism ?

[jessie04]

I always thought that progressives were for justice and standing up for innocent people and against despotism.

I figured chemical weapons would fit under that definition ..and apparently it's not.

So please tell me, in the future when some dictator uses Biological or nuclear weapons, will that outrage the conscience of progressives ?

Just wondering.

[Electric Monk]

1. Oh, you again. The same guy who posted

this gem last night.

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here....

[jessie04]

3. Yeah...big pattern there.

So, help me to understand.

[HangOnKids]

25. We get that you are trying

The understanding thing is up to you.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. I don't trust the government to do what's right when it comes to military action.

They have a long track record of doing exactly the opposite of what's right.

It's also worth considering why we jump straight to bombing campaigns and missile attacks. Has diplomacy been completely abandoned?

[markiv]

4. the NSA logs all our calls, to make sure we're not helping al quieda (sp?)

i take that as a hint, that we should not help al quieda

which is what a strike on syria will absolutely do

along with restarting a cold war with russia at least, and wwiii at worst

[LittleBlue]

5. I've been staunchly anti-war since Bush began his war of lies

that killed thousands of innocent people to fuel Halliburton profits.

I'll make no apologies for it. You'll not shame me into a war, you shameless warmonger.

[jessie04]

10. Interesting...

Then Kerry, Obama and a whole lot of dems are warmongers too.

You want to call them warmongers on a democratic /progressive site ?

[LittleBlue]

14. You've been here since March 25 and

have seen fit to make multiple threads bashing anti-war progressives.

Sniff sniff. MIRT will get you just like that troll Mjolnir.

[Bonobo]

16. Ha, they finally got Mjolnir? nt

[LittleBlue]

18. Yep

Took a string of transphobic rants but that eventually did him in.

This one is about as subtle as Mjolnir was.

[Bonobo]

19. Any links?

I want the final laugh.

I can't even remember that dumb ass's user name correctly.

He was a stupid as he was obvious.

[LittleBlue]

22. For your gravedancing pleasure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3519395

There were nastier ones right before this, but those were deleted by MIRT.

[Bonobo]

24. Mucho gracias.

I do so little dancing these days, I will enjoy this one.

[Mojorabbit]

28. Oh that just made me smile. nt

[jessie04]

26. Whoa...I haven't bashed anyone , thank you.

Yes, it appears I'm a bit more intolerant in this case UNDER these new circumstances.

So , give me a break.

[hrmjustin]

27. Mirt deals with people under 100 posts.

[LittleBlue]

32. Well the admins or whoever

I'm still transitioning from the tombstone era

[iandhr]

61. So everyone who disagree with you is a troll?

[leveymg]

52. Vietnam was started & fought by liberal Democrats, too. That war almost killed the Party

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

and gave us this guy:



NIXON: He's tanned, rested and ready for '16.

[Ken Burch]

56. Yeah, I'll call them warmongers.

We've had a problem with Dems on this issue in the post-1945 era. Too many of 'em have been obsessed with projecting "toughness" at any cost.

It's not like the post-1945 wars any Dem started were morally superior to anybody else's wars. Or that they made anything positive happen for anyone but the rich.

[demsin06]

6. Vietnam

Easy

[UTUSN]

7. R#5 & K for, labels are cliqueish & exclusionary. "Democratic" is mine. n/t

[JaneyVee]

8. I trust Obama to do the right thing.

[1-Old-Man]

11. I dam sure don't.

[JaneyVee]

13. He's never given me reason not to. Especially with John Kerry's backing.

[1-Old-Man]

9. War-mongering is regressive so pacifism must be progressive

[David__77]

12. Who said it's a question of pacifism? It's a question of national security.

Our armed forces are to defend the sovereignty of the US. So attempt to turn them into a "human rights army" or a "democracy army" is, in my opinion, not progressive, but rather like Bolshevism and ultra-leftism.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. "but rather like Bolshevism and ultra-leftism." - Did you just pull that out of your behind?

Ultra-leftism is in direct opposition to Bolshevism. Ultra-leftists are generally regarded to be anarchists in that they do not support centralized authority. And they most certainly do not support a strong, centralized military force.

Knowing what you're talking about is an important step to consider before sticking your foot in your mouth.

[David__77]

21. I know exactly what I'm saying.

Neoconservative doctrine was developed by people with a background in Bolshevist Trotskyism. That's a documented fact. It has had an influence on "left" forces, originally like the Social Democrats USA and forces around the AFL-CIO international affairs department. They wanted what is tantamount to a global democratic revolution. Forget the "left" or "ultra-left," or "left/right" for that matter, as obviously those categories are pretty malleable. I, for instance, consider anarchism to be "left" or "right" depending on the objective role the are playing politically.

Yes, I think that this is Bolshevist.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. So you admit that your attempt to equate ultra-leftists with Bolshevism was bullshit.

Or are you just trying to move the goal posts?

Ultra-leftists have essentially nothing to do with state-socialism. And they sure as hell do not support state militaries.

Again, you've crammed that foot into your mouth. Take it out before you suffocate.

[David__77]

48. That's what I'd call minutia.

OK, if that's what you think is significant here, I abdicate happily to your superior assessment of what is "ultra-left."

[Gravitycollapse]

55. It's not a minutiae. It reflects very poorly on your general understanding of the subject...

As there is a very clear delineation between ultra-leftist ideology and Bolshevism. So much so that they are fundamentally considered at odds.

So in your attempt to throw down on the subject of leftist ideology and military intervention, you chose to, instead of using an informed argument, name drop two clearly separate ideologies. Which is not unlike the fanatic anti-communists of the middle part of the 20th century. Although, strangely, you seem to have broken through to the peaceful end of the mistaken identity.

[villager]

17. Nuclear weapons? You mean, like we used on Japan?

[GeorgeGist]

20. When did being fully informed ...

stop you from making progress?

[derby378]

23. Even pacifists hate to see people dying from exposure to CBRN agents

They can get furious like anyone else, and maybe they might even approve some limited show of force just to make the chemical attacks stop.

Naturally, I can't speak for all pacifists, and it would probably be wrong to refer to myself as one. I believe in the ideals of pacifism. But I also believe that every human being deserves freedom, respect, and dignity. A chemical weapon strike against civilians is a direct affront to humanity itself. But I think Obama has shown great restraint in a case where we obviously see chemical weapons being deployed as opposed to what Bush 43 did in a case where we all knew there weren't any chemical weapons to begin with.

[AsahinaKimi]

29. Maybe its

Time we Retired our WORLD Cop badge..

1950 – 1953 Korean War
1964 - 1975: Vietnam. .
1965-1973: Cambodia.
1965: Dominican Republic.
1983: Grenada.
1986: Libya.
1989: Panama.
1991: Kuwait/Iraq.
1992-1995: Somalia. .
1994: Haiti.
1995: Bosnia.
1999: Kosovo.
2001: Afghanistan.
2003: Iraq.
2011: Libya.

[truebluegreen]

36. Iran 1953. Guatemala 1954. Chile 1973.

Our excellent adventures abroad have not been limited to overt military action.

There are more but I've had too much vino for the evening.

[SomethingFishy]

30. Yeah you missed the part where

we don't want to bomb anyone except as a last fucking resort. You do realize that Assad is allied with Hezbolla and Iran right? And you know the rebels are backed by Al-Queada right? John McCain went off for a photo op to show us who the good guys were and ended up getting his picture taken with kidnappers. Do you know that in spite of Obama's and Kerry's "certainty" that there are a number of intelligence officials who do not agree with their assessment.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ZHzwo2p8

There is a huge difference between being a pacifist and being sure. If you care so much about justice where were all your posts about Syria two years ago when Assad started killing civillians with conventional weapons?

[jessie04]

35. Granted...you can't weep over every civil war

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

But chems to me are different.

[niyad]

40. what do chefs have to do with this discussion?

[awoke_in_2003]

47. Can't trust those bloody bastards...

with their funny white hats and love of gazpacho

[DevonRex]

33. Apparently 400 dead children in one chemical attack and scores more

burned with a Napalm-like substance are of no consequence. Not to mention the thousand dead adults. Or the ones who lived but will be suffering neurological damage for life.

[neverforget]

38. Maybe we'll kill some more civilians through "collateral damage". They'll be crushed in

collapsing buildings, bodies blown apart, die from trauma, or just a nice neat shrapnel wound to the heart or head. But at least they didn't die from gas, right?

[FBaggins]

34. Maybe since we started using wars as foreign policy...

... rather than self defense?

[Blue_In_AK]

37. I have always been a pacifist.

My progressivism grew out of that, not the other way around.

[Autumn]

39. Some county wants come over to attack my country, this anti war

old lady pacifist progressive is going to become a big old war mongering hawk. But if you can point me out as to when WE were attacked with Biological or chemical or nuclear weapons I sure would appreciate it. Cause I must have missed it.

That's a civil war in Syria. Our country doesn't need to get into it with a military strike. Sure Assad is a nasty person, so is the other side.

[niyad]

41. maybe before this discussion goes any further, you might want to give us your definition of pacifism

not every person has the exact same definition in mind, so knowing yours would be helpful. and, as a matter of curiosity, when did pacifism become a bad thing?

[intheflow]

42. Progressivism has historically been more concerned with domestic issues

than with foreign policy. Issues traditionally near and dear to progressive hearts are things like economic inequality, public education, promotion of science and facts, government corruption, etc. I think it could be argued that progressives are completely in line with that definition of progressivism. The administration is going through constitutional channels, not presenting solid, verifiable facts, engaging in a kind of imperialism. So really, you're completely wrong. If you can cite an instance where progressives of any era readily joined a government action toward invading a country that has not attacked us, I'd be happy to give your post some credence. But I'm sure you can't - because it never happened.

[AgingAmerican]

43. When did the Democratic party become the worlds policemen?

na

[geek tragedy]

44. Progressivism means opposition to any and every use of military force by

the United States. The progressive view was that we should have let Slobo Milosevic run amok without interfering, etc.

[jessie04]

63. It does seem that way.

nt

[kentuck]

45. Since when did it become fashionable to rush headlong into war?

Without all the facts, without patience, without deliberations, and without negotiations? That is not a "pacifist" - that is a reasonable statesman.

[Adrahil]

71. Not an unreasonable position...

But I'd hardly say this is headlong. Assad has been suing chemical weapons in this war for some time. This is just the worst incident. And people have been at toting to negotiate with him for a year. At what point do we stop fretting and do something?

[MotherPetrie]

46. When did supporting warmongering become progressive? Oh that's right, when

A Dem took over the Pentagon.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

58. Yep, 1/20/2009.

If these same events were transpiring in August 2005, how many DUers would be willing to believe and blindly trust the "official story" from Washington?

[rug]

49. When did it become warmongering?

[progressoid]

50. Well, there was this guy...

[Barack_America]

51. For the record, I'm with you.

I've no desire to get involved militarily in Syria, but there are certain things that cannot be challenged without consequence. I believe we have a duty to do something to punish Assad's regime.

[dflprincess]

53. When we punish our own war criminals then we will have the moral authority to punish others

but the current DOJ has gone to court to get Bush, etal immunity for their crimes.

[Barack_America]

59. Who has the moral authority to punish Assad?

Is there anyone left with hands clean enough? Or is it free season for rulers to gas their people at will because there is no one left with the moral authority to do anything about it?

[dflprincess]

60. I don't know - but it's certainly not us

not when our government is in the process of protecting it's own war criminals.

[eridani]

67. Well, we "punished" Saddam Hussein by killing a million Iraqis

How many Syrians did you want to kill to punish Assad?

[Ken Burch]

54. When we realized that war can only have right-wing results from now on.

Truth is, nobody has been liberated by the use of U.S.force since 1945.

[Bigmack]

57. When..? ..

When the brighter among us realized we can't adjust the Middle East wristwatch with a sledgehammer.

[iandhr]

62. THANK YOU for talking sense

I am personally wary of intervening in Syria because I do see what it would accomplish. But some people here are more outraged with the President the with Assad.

[jessie04]

64. Not one person commented on Biologic or Nuclear weapons use ?? why??

nt

[eridani]

65. If you want to stop the use of chemical weapons, stop the US military from using them

Phosphorus and depleted uranium.

[DCBob]

66. Furthermore every Democratic President in history has approved and/or overseen military activities..

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 08:48 AM - Edit history (1)

of some sort during their time in office. Suddenly the left wing of the party now expects the current President to turn all his swords into ploughshares.

[Safetykitten]

68. What will outrage progressives? Other than Costco closing early? Well, this...

engaging in another cycle of war that has not had all the options taken before war is started. WE KNOW the history of doing that gig, this time, let's try exhausting peace possibilities.

Oh, and I am not a progressive. I am far left.

[cali]

69. this is simplistic and none too swift. and that's the kind way to phrase it

For fuck's sake where were YOU when the DNC was a morass of genocide? Clamoring to save people with military action?

[jessie04]

72. Ok...I may hate myself for responding to you but here goes...

Cali....you don't think Chemical weapons is enough. Fine.

Suppose in the future Assad or some dictator uses biologic or nuclear weapons against their own people, would that change your mind?

[sendero]

70. It didn't..

.... it just didn't become stupid either.

What is going on in Syria is not at all clear. Even if the intelligence was a "slam dunk", is this as bad as Rwanda? Is this as bad as North Korea or Burma or any number of fucking shitholes where dictators run amok.

I don't think so.

[99Forever]

73. You did indeed, "miss something."

Apparently, deliberately so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. and what Assad did was nothing compared to Saddam Hussein - yet there were people right here on

this forum who opposed military action against him - for real - I'm not kidding you