Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

anti partisan

(429 posts)
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 02:57 AM Sep 2014

Greenwald: 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)

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Greenwald: Americans overwhelmingly support military action against ISIS (Original Post) anti partisan Sep 2014 OP
Breitbart? Really? 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #1
Ignore if you were being sarcastic. Can't tell with a lot of the poo flung at Glenn. anti partisan Sep 2014 #2
I guess a guy's got to do, what a guy's got to do. 99th_Monkey Sep 2014 #6
On the topic of him being a "libertarian"? Please. anti partisan Sep 2014 #8
That made me smile 4now Sep 2014 #3
Link is just Glenn's own words pasted from Glenn's own blog which was taken down. (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #5
I see the edit. Which point(s) do you disagree with, and why? (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #4
Glenn at his Best...Exposing Hypocrisy. Some Snips from "Intercept" Article: KoKo Sep 2014 #26
Pretty good, though I have a few quibbles Chathamization Sep 2014 #32
Who coulda guessed that GG, Pooty Poot & Breitbart would all be on the same page? Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #7
Post removed Post removed Sep 2014 #9
Are you calling him a troll 4now Sep 2014 #10
No, I'm calling the post a "troll post" because that is quite clearly the objective of said post anti partisan Sep 2014 #11
What is the difference? 4now Sep 2014 #16
A "troll post" is a post created with the intent of trolling anti partisan Sep 2014 #20
Would posting a Breitbart link on a Dem forum be considered a "troll post"? 4now Sep 2014 #21
Oh God, enough pedantic quibbling. Soon I'll have to call the maturity police on you (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #22
I understand that you don't want to answer the question 4now Sep 2014 #24
Yeah, cause its such a tough question. You really stumped me good. anti partisan Sep 2014 #25
Yup...nt SidDithers Sep 2014 #31
It's allowed, if you're a member of a certain clique. Otherwise, it would be zapped pronto. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #12
That's me! But I'm really cute. See below. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #13
Back in the good old days when trolls were trolls and lived happily in troll-land (nt) anti partisan Sep 2014 #14
Still curious why an "anti partisan" likes to hang out on a partisan Democratic website, but alas. Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #15
Most of DU are the good Guys RobertEarl Sep 2014 #17
Right back atcha! When's the last time you picked up one of these? Tarheel_Dem Sep 2014 #19
Partisan can mean many different things in American politics anti partisan Sep 2014 #23
Actually Turbineguy Sep 2014 #18
As one of the comments notes, very simplistic analysis driven by ideology instead of facts. stevenleser Sep 2014 #27
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #28
So what does Greenwald suggest should be done from his ivory compound in Rio? Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #29
Greenwald is a piece of shit used car salesman...nt SidDithers Sep 2014 #30
hahaha treestar Sep 2014 #33
Dead wrong WilliamPitt Sep 2014 #34
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
1. Breitbart? Really?
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:00 AM
Sep 2014

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)
2. Ignore if you were being sarcastic. Can't tell with a lot of the poo flung at Glenn.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:05 AM
Sep 2014

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)
6. I guess a guy's got to do, what a guy's got to do.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:14 AM
Sep 2014

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)
8. On the topic of him being a "libertarian"? Please.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:22 AM
Sep 2014

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.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
26. Glenn at his Best...Exposing Hypocrisy. Some Snips from "Intercept" Article:
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 08:59 AM
Sep 2014

"Does it ever occur to such flamboyant warriors to ask why those sorts of groups enjoy so much support, and whether yet more bombing of predominantly Muslim countries – and/or flooding the region with more weapons – will bolster rather than subvert their strength? Just consider how a one-day attack in the U.S., 13 years ago, united most of the American population around the country’s most extreme militarists and unleashed an orgy of collective violence that is still not close to ending. Why does anyone think that constantly bringing violence to that part of the world will have a different effect there?

(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 people’s lives to do so. Since January, 2009, I’ve 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) It’s easy to understand why beheading videos provoke such intense emotion: they’re 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. It’s true that we usually don’t see that carnage, but the fact that it’s kept from the U.S. population doesn’t mean it disappears or becomes more palatable or less savage.

(8) Here’s 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 anyone’s 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)
32. Pretty good, though I have a few quibbles
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 10:23 AM
Sep 2014

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, I’m not avoiding conscription, I was never asked! – while letting them argue for war. But outside of that there’s also the pretty nasty myth that gets thrown around that war is safe for Americans – completely safe if you’re a civilian, but also supposedly relatively safe for service members.

2. I’m 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 Libya’s degenerated into a hornet’s nest of militant factions vying for power, well, it’s 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.”

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #7)

anti partisan

(429 posts)
11. No, I'm calling the post a "troll post" because that is quite clearly the objective of said post
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:32 AM
Sep 2014

Did you really have to ask that question? Seems a bit superfluous.

4now

(1,596 posts)
16. What is the difference?
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 03:51 AM
Sep 2014

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)
20. A "troll post" is a post created with the intent of trolling
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 04:15 AM
Sep 2014

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.

anti partisan

(429 posts)
25. Yeah, cause its such a tough question. You really stumped me good.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 05:05 AM
Sep 2014

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?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
17. Most of DU are the good Guys
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 04:00 AM
Sep 2014

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.

anti partisan

(429 posts)
23. Partisan can mean many different things in American politics
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 04:57 AM
Sep 2014

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!

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
27. As one of the comments notes, very simplistic analysis driven by ideology instead of facts.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 09:17 AM
Sep 2014

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)
28. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 09:22 AM
Sep 2014

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)
29. So what does Greenwald suggest should be done from his ivory compound in Rio?
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 09:25 AM
Sep 2014

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...

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
34. Dead wrong
Wed Sep 10, 2014, 10:28 AM
Sep 2014

“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 shouldn’t 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.

What’s more, the poll also finds that only 27 percent say the U.S. should become “more active in world affairs.” That’s 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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Greenwald: Americans over...