General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald: Americans overwhelmingly support military action against ISIS
Since Glenn is a much more skilled linguist than I, I wonder what the "bombs away Democrats" here have to say to the points he brings up in his article. I don't have much to say because I agree with every point he brought up in his article, just as most 2004-2008 Democrats did, until it became "in" among certain "left-wingers" to support the same sort of neoconservative crap which led people to jump off the Republican ship.
[link:url=http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/lesson-americans-refuse-learn-war/|AMERICANS NOW... OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION (link)]
http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/lesson-americans-refuse-learn-war/
PS: I wish it weren't necessary, but it seems sadly necessary to include a pre-emptive response to "Greenwald is a libertarian!" disinformation-spreading trolls, in Glenn's own words (link)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Hey, I'm a Greenwald guy pretty much all the way,
but this is a little past where I push my envelope.
What ever happened to The Guardian Glenn?
anti partisan
(429 posts)Sorry if you oppose giving the site traffic, but it's just copied and pasted from Glenn's blog, which is no longer with us.
If you would like to try to find it using archive.org for http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/
, be my guest! Breitbart just happened to present it well enough to show what had to be shown.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I wasn't being sarcastic .. at least not on purpose.
I've always been a huge fan of Glenn's.
I guess it's time to just trust whatever he says, whatever the median?
anti partisan
(429 posts)He links (in his article, which Breitbart saved) examples in Greenwald's own writings where he supports every non-libertarian position he contends to hold. When the topic is whether or not someone belongs to a certain ideology, pointing to his own writings is more than sufficient, especially when there is absolutely zilch when it comes to evidence to the contrary. Also, the burden of proof should be on the accuser, but they always try to pass the burden.
4now
(1,596 posts)Nothing against the topic but I could not click that link.
anti partisan
(429 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)(6) When I began writing about politics in 2005, it was very common to hear the chickenhawk slur cast about: all as a means of arguing that able-bodied people who advocate war have the obligation to fight in those wars rather than risking other peoples lives to do so. Since January, 2009, Ive almost never heard that phrase. How come? Does the obligation-to-fight apply now to those wishing to deploy military force to destroy ISIS?
(7) Its easy to understand why beheading videos provoke such intense emotion: theyre savage and horrific to watch, by design. But are they more brutal than the constant, ongoing killing of civilians, including children, that the U.S. and its closest allies have been continuously perpetrating?
In 2012, for instance, Pakistani teenager Tariq Kahn attended an anti-drone meeting, and then days later, was decapitated by a U.S. missile - the high-tech version of beheading and his 12-year-old cousin was also killed by that drone. Whether intent is one difference is quite debatable (see point 3), but the brutality is no less. Its true that we usually dont see that carnage, but the fact that its kept from the U.S. population doesnt mean it disappears or becomes more palatable or less savage.
(8) Heres how you know you live in an empire devoted to endless militarism: when a new 3-year war is announced and very few people seem to think the president needs anyones permission to start it (including Congress) and, more so, when the announcement - of a new multiple-year war - seems quite run-of-the-mill and normal.
(9) How long will we have to wait for the poll finding that most Americans regret having supported this new war in Iraq and Syria and view it as a mistake, as they prepare, in a frenzy of manufactured fear, to support the next proposed war?"
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)1. Chickenhawk was mostly used for those who avoided the draft and advocated war. The volunteer army is somewhat nasty because it gives people an easy out hey, Im not avoiding conscription, I was never asked! while letting them argue for war. But outside of that theres also the pretty nasty myth that gets thrown around that war is safe for Americans completely safe if youre a civilian, but also supposedly relatively safe for service members.
2. Im not so sure you can extrapolate much from Americans thinking that Vietnam/Iraq II/Afghanistan was a mistake. A large part of that regret seems to come from frustration that war is still costly and dangerous for the individuals we send over to fight. Bombing, on the other hand, seems to fade into the background.
3. I doubt this is so much about insecurity to project strength as it is about bored elites that like to play general. Nicholas Kristof is a good example of this he was fiercely advocating for US intervention in Libya, and even, if you believe him, advising members of the Libyan military about whether they should defect right then or wait for US support. Now that Libyas degenerated into a hornets nest of militant factions vying for power, well, its boring so no need to discuss it. On to the next adventure! A lot of the bloodlust in our elites reflect this bored, spoiled rich kid mentality.
Oh, and since this is a Greenwald thread Despite going to meetings for socialists, arguing for greater taxation of the rich, universal healthcare, strengthening social security and saying that Elizabeth Warren is good on domestic issues, Greenwald is a libertarian. Because he is against war and the police state.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,229 posts)Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #7)
Post removed
4now
(1,596 posts)Is that allowed?
anti partisan
(429 posts)Did you really have to ask that question? Seems a bit superfluous.
4now
(1,596 posts)And yes I had to ask that question because name calling on a forum is rather childish and I wondered if that was what you were doing.
anti partisan
(429 posts)A "troll" is a poster whose primary objective is trolling.
Please tell me you understand this. And if childishness is your concern, why do you have a laser focus on my post? Maybe you should check out the post it was in response to. I think the maturity police may need a new chief.
4now
(1,596 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)4now
(1,596 posts)No problem.
anti partisan
(429 posts)Pat yourself on the back a good twenty or so times.
PS: I think I can stump you back. Are people who have numbers in their name followers of Satan?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,229 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,229 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,229 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I can see why smart people would want to be here. I get that some don't want smart people here. Smart makes them nervous and they go off tangent and start acting like heels.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,229 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)Personally, my name just refers to certain partisans with chameleon ideologies that morph to follow certain party leaders. I'll never be anything less than a committed Democrat though, unless the great people of the party completely shift away from populism which hasn't happened yet. And once that happens, you'll have my word that I'll leave this site!
Turbineguy
(37,313 posts)It would be more economical to hire a Mexican drug gang to go after ISIS.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I love the attempt to tie together three different situations and say "Look, they're all the same because US = bad!"
Vietnam was not 'W's Iraq misadventure. And 'W's Iraq misadventure is not the campaign against ISIS. Since Greenwald likes numbering things so much, lets number them.
1. Vietnam war was based on the domino theory that if we didnt stop countries from becoming communist, they all would. Vietnam never said they would attack anyone else and never threatened the US.
2. Iraq 2003 was a lie based on non-existent WMD that the government of Iraq claimed they did not have and were right. Iraq was not posing a threat to anyone, didnt have the capability to pose a threat to anyone, and hadnt had that capability for 12 years since we destroyed it in the first gulf war.
3. ISIS has now overrun large swaths of territory in two countries, openly boasts that their goal is to take over the entire region and actual state armies seem unable to stop them. They also openly brag that they will execute terrorist attacks against the US and the west.
4. Several heretofore states with whom the US has had troubled relationships, are eager to work with us against ISIS because of the threat that ISIS poses.
Not only is Greenwalds analysis completely wrong, it's not even a good try at spin.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Thus it is with Greenwald, a narrow-minded reactionary who is incapable of discussing nuance or even crucial differences between Bush and Obama re: Iraq.
Apparently Grewnwald is unaware that ISIL's enemies already have ground forces in theater.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I'm all ears; since he's always been big on his Obama hatred and short on original ideas...
And Greenwald *isn't* a libertarian?? That's news to me given how much hatred he has for Dem pols and anyone who dares to admit they are a Dem voter...You must not have kept up with all the pimping he's doing for Rand Paul, the Oath Keepers, and other shady characters...Either way, it's not like a breitbart link (lolz) proves your point in the slightest...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
treestar
(82,383 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Almost two-thirds back attacking militants. Public in more hawkish mood, blares the Wall Street Journal about a new poll it released this morning. One prominent WSJ writer tweets: ISIS may have thought video beheadings would reduce Americans desire to act; it seems the opposite happened.
The poll itself does contain some grounds for these conclusions, finding that 61 percent say military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in the national interest.
But half-baked suggestions that Americans want generic action risk being misleading. What actions do Americans actually support? It turns out the WSJ poll also finds that 40 percent say action should be limited to air strikes only and another 15 percent say we shouldnt act at all a total of 55 percent. Meanwhile, all of 34 percent support air strikes and sending in combat troops perhaps higher than one might expect, but still only one in three Americans.
Whats more, the poll also finds that only 27 percent say the U.S. should become more active in world affairs. Thats up from April, but still, it represents barely more than one in four Americans. Meanwhile, 40 percent say we should be less active and another 29 percent say we should maintain our current level of activeness a total of 69 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/10/morning-plum-is-media-putting-thumb-on-scale-for-war/?hpid=z2