Do Clinton voters care about war?

[clg311]

"During the last few decades, any semblance of an antiwar movement has withered under Democratic presidents. Not since “hey/hey/LBJ/how many kids did you kill today?” has a warmonger from the left side of the isle provoked ire. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have much blood on their hands, but not enough to push people into the streets. There are encouraging exceptions, as there are to all rules. Code Pink and other activist groups come out and protest Democrats, and don’t seem to have any plans to stop. However, it seems the anti-Iraq, antiwar movement of the early 21st century was a Dubya blip and nothing more. Part of that may be the public’s feeble attention span for atrocities far away. But it certainly appears that another aspect is that polite Democratic wars are easier to accept than grand Republican ones. Even if they both lead to the deaths of innocent people."

http://original.antiwar.com/lucy/2016/05/25/clinton-voters-care-war/

[Maedhros]

1. Only when Republicans are responsible. [n/t]

[elleng]

2. Seems like it.

[BigDemVoter]

3. I prefer Bernie. I will vote for him in California primary.

Nonetheless, I WILL vote for HRC in general election, as it appears she will clinch the nomination. Does that make me an "HRC supporter"?

Of course I care about war, and I am appalled at her vote to authorize GWB's war ON Iraq. However, the choice between HRC and Trump is such a no-brainer that I would be a total fool to not show up on election day and risk having the alternative. It's not even a case of having to hold my nose to vote for her. I will RUN to mail in my ballot to avoid seeing that POS take the oath of office instead.

[pnwmom]

10. +1 nt

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Wars are profit making opportunities

I'll just leave it at that.

[MFM008]

5. IF

You are truly concerned about WAR. Worry about Trump.

[clg311]

6. Clinton is a greater threat. NT

[Nitram]

7. Does "antiwar" mean the country should unilaterally disarm?

Ignore events in other countries and wait for the violence to arrive here? If we were anti-war would we feel we shouldn't interfere with genocide in another country? I'm anti-war, but a Obama so eloquently and thoughtfully explained in Hiroshima, until there is no evil in the world we must be ready to defend ourselves. When terrorists are being trained to infiltrate and attack American targets should we just watch and wait for a direct attack?

[clg311]

9. It means..

You don't attack other countries that aren't a threat to you; which every president has done for 56 years. The terrorist attacks are a direct result of our interventions.

[Nitram]

12. So you would not intervene in another country to stop genocide? That doesn't sound moral to me.

[clg311]

13. Our interventions in Kosovo, Syria, Libya have made the situation worse.

And the so called genocide was overhyped by the media to get us to support reckless interventions. And then the media and then Neo-Cons, Clinton and Obama apologists ignore the destruction we've done to the country we are "helping." Libya is the prime example. Give one example since WW2 where our intervention has made things better?

[Nitram]

14. Why give an example since WWII? WWII is the best exampleof a case where we didn't intervene until

too late. We should have intervened in Cambodia and Rwanda as well. Where did you get the whacky idea that our intervention in Kosovo made their situation worse? You think it was okay that Milošević drove a million ethnic Albanians from the city?

[clg311]

15. We did intevene in Cambodia.

During the Vietnam war then we illegally bombed them in 1969, killing hundreds of thousands and paving the way for Pol Pot. Clinton's criminal intervention and cowardly bombing in Kosovo was based on propaganda similar to Bush's in 2003. See Queen of Chaos by Diane Johnston, a good expose of the crimes of Clinton and Obama.

[Nitram]

16. Very weak attempt at a deflection, clg.

The US sat idly by while the Khmer Rouge killed 1.5 to 3 million Cambodians. It was Vietnam who stepped in and stopped it.

[clg311]

17. Typical warmonder deflection.

Ignoring the US aggression that destabilized Cambodia. And we should thank Vietnam for stopping the genocide. If the US had stepped it would have involved heavy bombing that would have led to more chaos.

[Nitram]

18. The question I raised was whether there were circumstances such as genocide where military

intervention would be justified. Perhaps your ADD got the best of you, but if you can't stick to one question at a time you must not be very interesting in any conversation. But, yeah, go ahead and amuse yourself with your own conversation about a different topic.

[shenmue]

11. Yes

[polly7]

8. No.

They can't even stand others to see the victims of it. Alert, hide ....... poof, no more having to defend it.

Beautiful minds.

[trumad]

19. Clinton voter here!

I love war...nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning along with my eggs and coffee.

Also gonna love seeing these types of posts go bye bye in a couple of weeks.

[Fast Walker 52]

21. that's disgusting... I hope you are joking about loving war

and the overall issue is so important, says much about what kind of country we are.

[trumad]

22. War is cool because you can make great movies later

[Fast Walker 52]

20. most Dems don't apparently care that much, nor do most Republicans

We still have a disturbing pro-war mindset in this country, though maybe it's changing somewhat with the bogus war on terror.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Do Sanders voters?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/11/bernie-sanders-drones-counter-terror