General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe'll lose the WH in 2016 if our nominee doesn't run AGAINST Obama's wars.
We had eight years of "force projection" and macho and all the usual bullshit. We're now about to get more of it in Syria.
This will massively split the potential Democratic vote for 2016, unless we nominate someone who is willing to make a clear break and run on a program of NOT GETTING INTO EVERY POSSIBLE WAR.
We can win with a candidate who commits to using force solely for our own territorial defense. We can't win by continuing to be what Phil Ochs called "The Cops Of The World".
Victory depends on building a coalition for healing at home and peace abroad. The world doesn't want us jumping in and trying to sort out everything through death.
And we no longer have the resources to do wars abroad and progressive politics at home.
I really hope our party's leaders accept this. The last time they didn't, we got Nixon.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,622 posts)And how much I hope you're wrong.
We also need to think about 2014; things could derail badly for our Congressional candidates if we get into Syria, and a wider war results.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's not governing like somebody who wants his party to stay in office would govern.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,622 posts)But I can see why you think it.
I have zero good answers...
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Once TPP is passed, the people who appoint the next president probably don't care if R or D.
LukeFL
(594 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)all the enviromental and worker protections his corporate sponsors want eliminated. Then it will pass, thanks to GOP and Corporate Dems.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Does... It's like the left has made pacts with the right.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)with everything he does. And his approval numbers among Democrats reflect that.
It's like you're not even interested in the facts.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His party wants to stop him doing things that only make things worse(such as, any right-of-center policy choice that the guy has ever made).
Let go of the paranoia already.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I still remember back in 2011 when a lot of people on this site were *quite* worried about the Libya conflict not only blowing up into a wider war of its own(which it didn't, despite all the bluster coming from Moscow & Tehran), but that there was a serious possibility of us losing the next election. Well, as we all know. despite the widespread fear & loathing going around, neither of these things happened; even the Benghazi attacks couldn't help RMoney....and the Mormon was one of the *best* candidates the Goopers were willing to put out: if a nuttier guy like Rand Paul runs, there will *have* to be massive amounts of electoral fraud for him to come even close to the White House if we run an even half-decent candidate......
So I wouldn't put too much stock into this: in fact, Libya has oil still, btw......Syria *doesn't*.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Will vote for any repub. besides, this will not be like Iraq because Obama is not bush Syria is not Iraq
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Any Dem that wants to win better start publicly renouncing that shit now.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Despair causes abstentions.
And if that happens(as it did in 1968, 2000 and 2010)it will solely be the fault of the administration and those within it who push for war.
This is why bombing Syria can ONLY be good for the Republicans. If Obama does it, it means he doesn't want his own party to win. He knows that out-of-control militarism is the only thing that can turn voters away from us.
Democrats are SUPPOSED to be the peace party, dammit. It isn't possible to bomb the Middle East and still support anything progressive.
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)...after the limited military action in Libya.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I still was crazy about it. But the objective was somewhat clearer.
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)Have I missed something?
David__77
(23,411 posts)That would require securing those weapons. This is a "shot across the bow" strategy, in the president's own words. What if weapons were used again, and again? We get more slaps on the wrist, which is indeed what he's implying?
Libya is very different from Syria. The UN and NATO were involved in Libya. This is Obama making a decision, with no UN or NATO support. And one that will not protect anyone from anything. The civil war will grind on, and likely escalate.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)currently being used. We can't bomb the weapons sites, that would release the chemicals. Crippling to the point where they can't be used is hard to define.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)it.
David__77
(23,411 posts)Those in congress who oppose this intervention deserve close looks. We need new blood.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Anyone but the hawks.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Please, tell us?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Aghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria...
That's the short list.
And the truth be known, he could have gotten out of Iraq WAY faster.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is the continued drone war, there is the war against civil liberties(I wonder if those who bashed Hugo Chavez on that issue will bash Obama for being pretty much just as bad, btw?)the push for war in Iran(which is half of what the Iran conflict is about), and probably a lot of killing we haven't heard about yet in various black-ops.
Barack Obama was not elected to be just as hawkish as Bush, for God's sakes. Why bother, when we already know that our tactics in the Middle East aren't helping anyone or anything(other than the oil industry)?
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)The person will have all the qualities that will make them palatable to a 2014 audience.