The last time the Democrats used this much patriotism and flag-waving was when they went antiwar in 2006 and 2008
Especially making we, the disillusioned leftists, very unenthusiastic to vote.
Yes there is an anti-war faction of the party. But the leadership pays no attention to it.
Iraq (1993): Launched cruise missiles into Baghdad, hitting Iraqi intelligence headquarters, in retaliation for assassination plot against President George H.W. Bush.
Somalia (1993): Increased troop deployment for security and stability mission with 35 other nations under U.N. Security Council resolution.
Haiti (1994) Deployed troops for peacekeeping and nation-building mission as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.
Bosnia (1994-96): Launched airstrikes with NATO allies over 18 months, culminating with bombings, artillery attacks and cruise missile strikes against Bosnia Serbs, by request of U.N. Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali and to enforce no-fly zones as authorized by at least three U.N. Security Council resolutions. Deployed troops in year-long NATO peacekeeping mission.
Iraq (1996): Launched cruise missiles at targets in southern Iraq in retaliation against attacks on U.S. jets enforcing no-fly zones to protect Iraqi minorities as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution.
Sudan, Afghanistan (1998): Launched cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation against U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people, including 12 Americans.
Iraq (1998): Launched cruise missiles and airstrikes on a number of Baghdad targets to punish Saddam Hussein for not complying with U.N. chemical weapons inspections as required under U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Kosovo: (1999): Launched airstrikes and cruise missiles over more than three months at Yugoslavian military targets, power stations, bridges and other facilities as part of NATO mission.
moved beyond that to become a progressive party or so we thought....
returned righteous hell upon the heads of those who by choice became our enemies. What's that got to do with meandering around the world bombing nations for doing that which we have rewarded others for doing?
FDR had a hell of a time talking people, especially on the left, into intervening in Europe. I'm sure a large number of the non-interventionists here today would have argued vociferously against military action in Europe even after the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese.
See article on opposition to WWII here:
dramatically escalated the number of advisors there during his presidency but there are a large number of sources that suggest that, if he did not support an out-right pullout after 1964, that he most definitely did not support inserting combat troops into the theater. The best I've been able to discern about JFK is that he simply had not decided what he would do following his all-but-certain re-election in 1964. Note this means he might well have decdied to escalate a la LBJ, but he might equally have sought some sort of implementation of the Geneva 1954 agreement and U.S. exit.
(though Kennedy certainly put us on the track). The point is still the same: Johnson, who brought us the War on Poverty, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Acts ... also brought us Vietnam. The Democrats, in modern times, have never been lacking for war credentials.
Military action against WMD and horrendous carnage, isn't necessarily a full blown war. BUT, nothing has happened yet.
Obama is nothing like Bush. Syria is nothing like Iraq.
People need to step back and see the forest for the trees...
Obama wanted it extended. Try not to rewrite history, Sid.
Is Afghanistan over? My mates still there would certainly disagree.
Now Obama is starting his own.
And I must have missed the news that Afghanistan was over, or even had a definitive date for being over.
This ain't the first time a Democratic admin or Dems in Congress supported war.
I can't believe how incredibly obtuse party loyalists are being
The Democrats annihilated the GOP by speaking out against Bush's wars
In fact, Obama may have campaigned on ending the war in Iraq, but he was quite specific about expanding the war in Afghanistan.
Remember the US strikes against Libya in 2011?
The voting public is sick of war. Dems reaped the benefit of that in the past 2 election cycles.
It will be a lot harder to do that next year, particularly now.
It's not rocket science, though it seems to be beyond your intellectual capabilities. how sad.
Says the same person who swallowed Michele Catalano's bullshit hook, line, and sinker. She played you like a fiddle.
You have no credibility and your predictions are a joke.
Obama launched strikes against Libya in 2011 and it did not hurt is election chances. Obama also expanded the war in Afghanistan and that also didn't hurt Dems in 2012. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party.
I'm supposed to believe that missile strikes against Syria will hurt Dems in 2014 because you say so?
Your credibility is shot, my dear: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023570402
The last war I remember that the Democratic Party, or a majority of it, didn't support from the start was the Spanish-American. Before that, it was, maybe, the Civil War (two Democratic Parties at the time, so it was messy). This is nothing new. Whether it's a wise move remains to be seen.
There's a huge vacuum on the left just waiting to be filled by a viable party that isn't beholden to the 1%. And politics abhors a vacuum, so it's only a matter of time before the new left party picks up the 50% who have stopped voting entirely, Dems acquire the current Republican electorate and the Republicans become a rump party commanding no more than 5-10%. Or should the Republicans move back towards sanity (highly doubtful), the Dems will go the way of the Whigs in the 1850s.
is pretty much what I can see filling that vacuum. It happened in Europe and history has a habit of repeating itself.
while picking up Senate seats and getting more votes for his House candidates.
After a war weary voting public responded to...wrapping up our military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq? And showing thoughtfulness and restaint in our intervention in Libya?
I seem to remember Obama taking on Libya and winning his 2nd term.
The truth is the Democratic Party will be known as the anti- chemical weapon party and the anti-casualties of war party.
I don't understand your thinking.
Half the democrats voted no, all the republicans voted yes.
So at least half the party was anti-war. So yeah, dems are the anti-war party.
Now we will see if we've made any progress since then.
Six (yes, a whopping six) GOPers shot it down in the House. Mine was one of them...
In a bit of a twist, my GOP House member voted nay, but both of my Democratic senators voted yea. Go figure...
Now let us hope at least two thirds of our party vote no.
It sure would be a boost to our sensibilities to see that most of our people are not warmongers, eh?
That little kerfuffle and police riot in 1968 was all about trying to change that fact.