Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons

DING DING DING DING DING :hand: :0)

.. they think it's alright to collaborate with Russians .. but alliances with AMERICANS of BOTH PARTIES will bring out the daggers .. and of course, racism.

particularly stupid since it always takes both sides to move ahead
 
Syrian_Civil_War_July_16_2017b.png
i recall the FSA was pretty close to Damascus a year or so ago. Russia backed it's proxie. so did Iran, so did we.

You don't understand the concept of a "peace dividend"..
I gave one ex that i thought was pretty advantageous for all involved

But you're not an analyst nor an expert on Russia.

Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong .. or are you 100% sure and there is no possibility that you could be wrong?

What if you're wrong? What if all the people who are analysts and experts on Russia and who recognize the danger Russia presents are right?

What would b the consequences of you being wrong? It would mean that you've spent months and months shilling for a foreign power that is dangerous to the United States and seeks its destruction.

.. just asking.
 
But you're not an analyst nor an expert on Russia.

Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong .. or are you 100% sure and there is no possibility that you could be wrong?

What if you're wrong? What if all the people who are analysts and experts on Russia and who recognize the danger Russia presents are right?

What would b the consequences of you being wrong? It would mean that you've spent months and months shilling for a foreign power that is dangerous to the United States and seeks its destruction.

.. just asking.
appreciate the conversation good brother

of course I could be wrong. I could be 100% under-estimating the malevolence of Putin's intent.
Aside from the fact the status quo serves no-one; not Europe, not the USA, not Russia, I have to believe Putin is a 'rational state actor'. Meaning he understands the world, and is wiling to engage for his best interest, but isn't doing any of this for pure belligerence like N.Korea .

I found the Oliver Stone tapes very interesting. Here was an engaged, worldly Putin who was as comfortable talking about US politics as he was China's or Russia's. In other words, he is sophisticated and realpolitik seems to be his guiiding principle.

we should try to get along in that we respect each other's needs as legitimate.
The pay off could be a Ukraine without war, a greatly lowering of military costs (which we needs for domestic use)
and a re-integration of Russia into Europe,and away from a Sino-Russian block ( this would be playing the Russian card).

Regan gave the template. "Trust but verify". It would take lower level talks dedicated to finding areas we can cooperate on negotiate on. secure those basic interests, and then move on to more arms control.
It's the same thing we did with the Soviet Union

Right now I've never seen such hysteria ( Russiaphobia) where even a dinner meeting w/Putin is cause for alarm.
That is a dysfunctional relationship between the worlds 2 military superpowers.

I'm sure you an see how dangerous that is. Those simple "fly by's could go bad, and lead to a shooting war.

tiem-kich-mig31-nga-chan-sat-thu-san-ngam-p8-my-o-vien-dong.jpg

MIG-21 flyby - USS Donald Cook
 
of course I could be wrong. I could be 100% under-estimating the malevolence of Putin's intent.
Aside from the fact the status quo serves no-one; not Europe, not the USA, not Russia, I have to believe Putin is a 'rational state actor'. Meaning he understands the world, and is wiling to engage for his best interest, but isn't doing any of this for pure belligerence like N.Korea .

I found the Oliver Stone tapes very interesting. Here was an engaged, worldly Putin who was as comfortable talking about US politics as he was China's or Russia's. In other words, he is sophisticated and realpolitik seems to be his guiiding principle.

we should try to get along in that we respect each other's needs as legitimate.
The pay off could be a Ukraine without war, a greatly lowering of military costs (which we needs for domestic use)
and a re-integration of Russia into Europe,and away from a Sino-Russian block ( this would be playing the Russian card).

Regan gave the template. "Trust but verify". It would take lower level talks dedicated to finding areas we can cooperate on negotiate on
Right now I've never seen such hysteria ( Russiaphobia) where even a dinner meeting w/Putin is cause for alarm.
That is a dysfunctional relationship between the worlds 2 militart superpowers.
I'm sure you an see how dangerous that is. Those simple "fly by's could go bad, and lead to a shooting war.

tiem-kich-mig31-nga-chan-sat-thu-san-ngam-p8-my-o-vien-dong.jpg

MIG-21 flyby - USS Donald Cook

I don't agree with your assessment, but I appreciate the response.

This isn't just some benign political argument about ideological differences brother. This has dire consequences regarding the safety and security of your own country.

Yes, you could be completely wrong, and in my opinion you are completely wrong. But that's just my opinion, nothing you'd have to worry about. But if you're wrong .. not sure how you live with that.

Everything could start a shooting war because Russia is an adversary .. not a friend, ally, or global partner. Russia is an adversary that wants to be an adversary.
 
Vladimir Putin will always be America’s enemy

Vladimir Putin is our enemy. Not because we want him to be, but because resentment and hatred of the United States is central to his being. Russia’s president yearns to do us harm.

He blames us for the Soviet Union’s self-wrought collapse. He blames us for Russian stagnation. He blames us for the derelict lot of his drunken, diseased country. And he wants revenge.

Putin has five strategic goals: He wants international sanctions lifted, Europe divided and NATO destroyed. He seeks to restore the empire of the czars. And he wants to humiliate the United States.

Americans and Europeans are targets of a ruthless, audacious and skillful disinformation campaign portraying Russia as a victim, not an aggressor. Not since the heyday of the Soviet-sponsored Ban-the-Bomb movement in the 1950s has Kremlin propaganda thrived so broadly.

We naively insist the truth will prevail. That’s nonsense. Putin knows that big lies work, if repeated until absorbed. And he’s aided by Western stooges who, for money or malice or moral malfeasance, abet Putin in deluding our populations.

The current pro-Putin narrative holds that Russia’s a martyr to Western aggression, that we’ve abused Russia since the USSR dissolved and that NATO’s eastward expansion equals aggression. Then there are the preposterous claims that Russia’s battling Islamist terrorists on behalf of civilization, even as Russian bombs butcher civilians by the thousands.

We can’t polygraph all the pro-Putin voices (although I’d love to, publicly), so let’s look at the facts of what *Putin has done.

He interfered with our presidential election via computer hacking, the use of front organizations and fake news (Kremlin-gate may prove our worst political scandal). His military challenges us in the skies and at sea. In Afghanistan, his agents assist the Taliban. In Syria, his jets target Syrian hospitals, clinics and civilians in a literal “Slaughter of the Innocents” at Christmastide.

He invaded Georgia and Ukraine (the latter twice). He threatens the NATO-member Baltic states and subsidizes Europe’s extremist political parties to radicalize electorates, undercut democracy and realign *nations with Russia.

At home, he suffocated Russia’s nascent democracy, crushed the free press, jailed and murdered his opposition, cheated foreign investors and turned Russia into a gangster state where the czar is the only law.

What of his claim of a vast Western conspiracy to harm Russia?

I served in Washington (traveling often to Moscow) as the Soviet Union died of organ failure. Far from attempting to punish the “new” Russia, we and our European allies fell all over ourselves to indulge Moscow’s whims and encourage investment. Our State Department’s infatuation with the “new” Russia was embarrassingly extreme.

Nor did our goodwill end with the Clinton administration’s witless indulgence. President George W. Bush insisted he’d seen into Putin’s soul and that we could be partners. Putin then embarrassed Bush with glee. Next, President Obama fooled himself into believing he could deal constructively with Putin behind the backs of American voters. He wound up shocked and humiliated.

Putin would be delighted to chump another US president.

Russia’s problems are made in Russia. We’ve tried to help, not harm. But Russians refuse to help themselves, preferring brutality, squalor and hostility to the rule of law and civilization.

As for the upside-down charge that NATO’s eastward expansion signaled aggression against Russia, look at how Putin has treated non-NATO-member Ukraine and you’ll understand why the newly free states of eastern Europe cling to history’s greatest peacetime alliance.

Putin suggests a Russian right to the Baltics and Ukraine, as well as to hegemony in Eastern Europe. Russia has no such rights. Ukraine has not “always” been part of Russia. It was conquered in the 18th century and, ever since, Moscow has tried to crush Ukrainian identity, from czarist-era bans on the Ukrainian language to Stalin’s horrific man-made famine that killed at least 10 million.

Is it any wonder Ukraine doesn’t want the bear back? Or that Ukrainian (and Baltic) partisans continued to fight the Red Army and its commissars after World War II?

In today’s age of cyber-assaults, Russian subversion and Putin’s naked aggression, fear is back. We must decide what we value, either freedom and decency, or foolhardy efforts to make friends of monsters.

To align ourselves with Putin in 2017 would be the equivalent of allying with Hitler in 1937.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/11/vladimir-putin-will-always-be-americas-enemy/

Ralph Peters was a US Army foreign-area officer for the former Soviet Union and Russia.
 
When it comes to this new group, the alliance of Democrats with the most extreme neocon elements is visible beyond the group’s staff leadership. Its board of advisers is composed of both leading Democratic foreign policy experts, along with the nation’s most extremist neocons.

Thus, alongside Jake Sullivan (national security adviser to Joe Biden and the Clinton campaign), Mike Morrell (Obama’s acting CIA director) and Mike McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia) sit leading neocons such as Mike Chertoff (Bush’s homeland security secretary), Mike Rogers (the far-right, supremely hawkish former congressman who now hosts a right-wing radio show); and Bill Kristol himself

kristol1-1500290717-1000x599.png


There is now little to no daylight between leading Democratic Party foreign policy gurus and the Bush-era neocons who had wallowed in disgrace following the debacle of Iraq and the broader abuses of the war on terror. That’s why they are able so comfortably to unify this way in support of common foreign policy objectives and beliefs.

Democrats often justify this union as a mere marriage of convenience: a pragmatic, temporary alliance necessitated by the narrow goal of stopping Trump. But for many reasons, that is an obvious pretext, unpersuasive in the extreme. This Democrat/neocon reunion had been developing long before anyone believed Donald Trump could ascend to power, and this alliance extends to common perspectives, goals, and policies that have little to do with the current president.

It is true that neocons were among the earliest and most vocal GOP opponents of Trump. That was because they viewed him as an ideological threat to their orthodoxies (such as when he advocated for U.S. “neutrality” on the Israel/Palestine conflict and railed against the wisdom of the wars in Iraq and Libya), but they were also worried that his uncouth, offensive personality would embarrass the U.S. and thus weaken the “soft power” needed for imperial hegemony. Even if Trump could be brought into line on neocon orthodoxy — as has largely happened — his ineptitude and instability posed a threat to their agenda.

But Democrats and neocons share far more than revulsion toward Trump; particularly once Hillary Clinton became the party’s standard-bearer, they share the same fundamental beliefs about the U.S. role in the world and how to assert U.S. power. In other words, this alliance is explained by far more than antipathy to Trump

Indeed, the likelihood of a neocon/Democrat reunion long predates Trump. Back in the summer of 2014 — almost a year before Trump announced his intent to run for president — longtime neocon-watcher Jacob Heilbrunn, writing in the New York Times, predicted that “the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”

Noting the Democratic Party’s decades-long embrace of the Cold War belligerence that neocons love most — from Truman and JFK to LBJ and Scoop Jackson — Heilbrunn documented the prominent neocons who, throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, were heaping praise on her and moving to align with her. Heilbrunn explained the natural ideological affinity between neocons and establishment Democrats: “And the thing is, these neocons have a point,” he wrote.

One finds evidence of this alliance long before the emergence of Trump. Victoria Nuland, for instance, served as one of Dick Cheney’s top foreign policy advisers during the Bush years. Married to one of the most influential neocons, Robert Kagan, Nuland then seamlessly shifted into the Obama State Department and then became a top foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign.

As anti-war sentiment grew among some GOP precincts — as evidenced by the success of the Ron Paul candidacies of 2008 and 2012, and then Trump’s early posturing as an opponent of U.S. interventions — neocons started to conclude that their agenda, which never changed, would be better advanced by realignment back into the Democratic Party. Writing in The Nation in early 2016, Matt Duss detailed how the neocon mentality was losing traction within the GOP, and predicted

Misha,

Why are you obscuring the source of your rebleat?
 
so the choice is to get along with Russia, or what?

have you even thought about the what? of course not,
liberals don't think that far ahead, everything is knee jerk for the immediate effect
 
I don't agree with your assessment, but I appreciate the response.

This isn't just some benign political argument about ideological differences brother. This has dire consequences regarding the safety and security of your own country.

Yes, you could be completely wrong, and in my opinion you are completely wrong. But that's just my opinion, nothing you'd have to worry about. But if you're wrong .. not sure how you live with that.

Everything could start a shooting war because Russia is an adversary .. not a friend, ally, or global partner. Russia is an adversary that wants to be an adversary.
adversary, friend, geo-political foe...all these are descriptives without a basis when stripped down issue by issue.
we have a template

The old US/USSR relationship where we confronted Moscow,while at the same time had lower levels talks at all times,and summit breakthroughs.

I would argue that NOT dealing with Putin has given us the state of affairs in the Ukraine.
I don't know if the annexation could have been avoided, but I do know NATO expansion (strategic) coupled with US Euromaiden meddling (tactical) left Putin unsecured in his access to Sevastopol.
Yushchenko had previously threatened to do so. so it wasn't without a precedent

1 thing is clear our meddling caused great problems
just as Putin's meddling in our election caused this hysterical inability to see even small steps as possible and desirable in dealing w/Putin
Add that to Obama's indifference,and a "reset" that didn't change anything -and here we are.

No one is seriously talking about a sudden,complete realignment, but again look at the process that brought us detente' with the USSR.
It was a concerted effort that lasted 30 years surviving president after president.
We confronted Soviet expansion, while at the same time worked towards arms control.
why can't we do the same again?

Even JFK who had to deal with the Cuban missile crisis found summits with Khruschev worthwhile.
we've already seen a ceasefire in Syria - not huge, and not fully strategic, but it exists
and could be the basis for a way forward to end the war.
 
A new government is formed by the victor. Assad is a butcher, and the whole civil war was caused by him cracking down on protests and mutilating and torturing children as an example to the protestors.

Saddam was a butcher, a fellow Baathist butcher at that.

How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out when Obama/Hillary had the brilliant idea to topple the Libyan ruler?

Why should anyone listen to the neocons and their new-found friends on the left, regarding Syria?
 
Vladimir Putin will always be America’s enemy

Vladimir Putin is our enemy. Not because we want him to be, but because resentment and hatred of the United States is central to his being. Russia’s president yearns to do us harm.

He blames us for the Soviet Union’s self-wrought collapse. He blames us for Russian stagnation. He blames us for the derelict lot of his drunken, diseased country. And he wants revenge.

Putin has five strategic goals: He wants international sanctions lifted, Europe divided and NATO destroyed. He seeks to restore the empire of the czars. And he wants to humiliate the United States.

Americans and Europeans are targets of a ruthless, audacious and skillful disinformation campaign portraying Russia as a victim, not an aggressor. Not since the heyday of the Soviet-sponsored Ban-the-Bomb movement in the 1950s has Kremlin propaganda thrived so broadly.

We naively insist the truth will prevail. That’s nonsense. Putin knows that big lies work, if repeated until absorbed. And he’s aided by Western stooges who, for money or malice or moral malfeasance, abet Putin in deluding our populations.

The current pro-Putin narrative holds that Russia’s a martyr to Western aggression, that we’ve abused Russia since the USSR dissolved and that NATO’s eastward expansion equals aggression. Then there are the preposterous claims that Russia’s battling Islamist terrorists on behalf of civilization, even as Russian bombs butcher civilians by the thousands.

We can’t polygraph all the pro-Putin voices (although I’d love to, publicly), so let’s look at the facts of what *Putin has done.

He interfered with our presidential election via computer hacking, the use of front organizations and fake news (Kremlin-gate may prove our worst political scandal). His military challenges us in the skies and at sea. In Afghanistan, his agents assist the Taliban. In Syria, his jets target Syrian hospitals, clinics and civilians in a literal “Slaughter of the Innocents” at Christmastide.

He invaded Georgia and Ukraine (the latter twice). He threatens the NATO-member Baltic states and subsidizes Europe’s extremist political parties to radicalize electorates, undercut democracy and realign *nations with Russia.

At home, he suffocated Russia’s nascent democracy, crushed the free press, jailed and murdered his opposition, cheated foreign investors and turned Russia into a gangster state where the czar is the only law.

What of his claim of a vast Western conspiracy to harm Russia?

I served in Washington (traveling often to Moscow) as the Soviet Union died of organ failure. Far from attempting to punish the “new” Russia, we and our European allies fell all over ourselves to indulge Moscow’s whims and encourage investment. Our State Department’s infatuation with the “new” Russia was embarrassingly extreme.

Nor did our goodwill end with the Clinton administration’s witless indulgence. President George W. Bush insisted he’d seen into Putin’s soul and that we could be partners. Putin then embarrassed Bush with glee. Next, President Obama fooled himself into believing he could deal constructively with Putin behind the backs of American voters. He wound up shocked and humiliated.

Putin would be delighted to chump another US president.

Russia’s problems are made in Russia. We’ve tried to help, not harm. But Russians refuse to help themselves, preferring brutality, squalor and hostility to the rule of law and civilization.

As for the upside-down charge that NATO’s eastward expansion signaled aggression against Russia, look at how Putin has treated non-NATO-member Ukraine and you’ll understand why the newly free states of eastern Europe cling to history’s greatest peacetime alliance.

Putin suggests a Russian right to the Baltics and Ukraine, as well as to hegemony in Eastern Europe. Russia has no such rights. Ukraine has not “always” been part of Russia. It was conquered in the 18th century and, ever since, Moscow has tried to crush Ukrainian identity, from czarist-era bans on the Ukrainian language to Stalin’s horrific man-made famine that killed at least 10 million.

Is it any wonder Ukraine doesn’t want the bear back? Or that Ukrainian (and Baltic) partisans continued to fight the Red Army and its commissars after World War II?

In today’s age of cyber-assaults, Russian subversion and Putin’s naked aggression, fear is back. We must decide what we value, either freedom and decency, or foolhardy efforts to make friends of monsters.

To align ourselves with Putin in 2017 would be the equivalent of allying with Hitler in 1937.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/11/vladimir-putin-will-always-be-americas-enemy/

Ralph Peters was a US Army foreign-area officer for the former Soviet Union and Russia.

absolute hysteria from the neocons who only want perpetual war. Peters is the same asshole Carlson destroyed on his show ( i'll look for the you tube).
It' a regurgitation of demonization of Putin without a policy to deal with Russia.
It wants a Cold war that when pushed to it's limits breaks out into hot spots,
so they can say "see we told you so -you cannot deal with Putin, you can only confront despite risks of war"
in today’s age of cyber-assaults, Russian subversion and Putin’s naked aggression, fear is back. We must decide what we value, either freedom and decency, or foolhardy efforts to make friends of monsters.

To align ourselves with Putin in 2017 would be the equivalent of allying with Hitler in 1937.
the Hitler card. nobody is saing "align " with Russia.detente by definition is co-existing without alignment
Nor did our goodwill end with the Clinton administration’s witless indulgence. President George W. Bush insisted he’d seen into Putin’s soul and that we could be partners. Putin then embarrassed Bush with glee. Next, President Obama fooled himself into believing he could deal constructively with Putin behind the backs of American voters. He wound up shocked and humiliated.
indulgence? We backed Yeltsin because he was a drunken lackey,and we manipulated the Russian election to make sure he won. Nor does Peters mention NATO expansion under Clinton/Bush/Obama.
It's neocon screed. It's saying Putin is unstoppable,and dealing to flesh out conflicts with him is an innate foolish venture .
It's perpetual war as the only way forward.
 
Last edited:
Saddam was a butcher, a fellow Baathist butcher at that.

How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out when Obama/Hillary had the brilliant idea to topple the Libyan ruler?

Who said anything about invading Syria? Not me.

Why should anyone listen to the neocons and their new-found friends on the left, regarding Syria?

I never said I was in favor of aiding Syrian rebels prior to Russia aiding and propping up Assad. I would be more in favor of aiding rebels post-Russian intervention.

The question you have to ask yourself, why is it okay for Russia to intervene and slaughter civilians, but it's criminal for the US to aid in the ousting of Assad?
 
Saddam was a butcher, a fellow Baathist butcher at that.

How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out when Obama/Hillary had the brilliant idea to topple the Libyan ruler?

Why should anyone listen to the neocons and their new-found friends on the left, regarding Syria?

You don't have to listen to them .. you're the opposition.

You don't have to listen to the Clinton/Romney alliance either, no any of the alliances and groups forming to fight Russian interference.

You're the opposition.
 
Saddam was a butcher, a fellow Baathist butcher at that.

How did Iraq turn out? How did Libya turn out when Obama/Hillary had the brilliant idea to topple the Libyan ruler?

Why should anyone listen to the neocons and their new-found friends on the left, regarding Syria?
realpolitik also says Russia is in the driver's seat. what we want is marginal, because we have no viable partners on the ground ( why Trump just ended the policy of arming the "non-Islamic" rebels).

Talking to Putin gave us a small ceasefire.
It's the most significant advance in quelling the war since it started to rage across Syria.
It's the way forward , not confrontation. Syria has had more then enough of powers coming in to battle over it's lands
 
Too much generalization on this thread.

For starters, Congressional Democrats are not "the left," and they weren't in 2003 or for Libya. They're mostly expedient corporate politicians who are afraid of not "looking tough."

The anti-war left is one of the most principled sub-groups in American politics. Every anti-war lefty I know personally has been anti-war and anti-conflict their whole life, whether a Republican or Democrat was President. I always say that I have been against every single war except Afghanistan, and I regret my support for that one. I have a friend w/ a bumper sticker that says "I'm even against the next war." Hillary lost the election in large part because anti-war lefties couldn't stomach her Iraq vote.

But let's also not impugn the current crop of Congressional Democrats without any foundation. Because they want Russia investigated, they're now war mongers who are yearning for Cold War II? Give me a flippin' break. Let me know when some of them start calling for invasion or war.

And last, this one goes out to anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and criticized the left in 2003 for their opposition: shut up. You have not a single leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. You are a hypocrite and partisan, and your support of conflict shifts w/ the political winds & depending on who is in power. Beyond that, the Iraq War is one you do not get a mulligan on. It was an historically epic blunder, and the left warned you about the consequences. We were right, you were wrong. You should permanently recuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy.
 
absolute hysteria from the neocons who only want perpetual war. Peters is the same asshole Carlson destroyed on his show ( i'll look for the you tube).
It' a regurgitation of demonization of Putin without a policy to deal with Russia.
It wants a Cold war that when pushed to it's limits breaks out into hot spots,
so they can say "see we told you so -you cannot deal with Putin, you can only confront despite risks of war"

indulgence? We backed Yeltsin because he was a drunken lackey,and we manipulated the Russian election to make sure he won. Nor does Peters mention NATO expansion under Clinton/Bush/Obama.
It's neocon screed. It's saying Putin is unstoppable,and dealing to flesh oput conflicts with him is an innate foolish venture .
It's perpetual war as the only way forward.

I repeat, you didn't jump on the Putin bandwagon until you joined Team Trump .. and you continue to ignore Putin's LONG history of terror and murder. You gladly speak to the 'horrors' of Hillary Clinton that have no comparison to the absolute terror of Putin, that you won't talk about nor consider.

I recognize this debate is going nowhere between us .. but you should consider that you're not an geopolitical analyst nor Russian expert, and most importantly, what if you're wrong.

You're supporting an ex-KGB agent and a brutal murderer who rules Raggedy Russia with an iron hand .. and who remains an enemy of your own country.
 
Too much generalization on this thread.

For starters, Congressional Democrats are not "the left," and they weren't in 2003 or for Libya. They're mostly expedient corporate politicians who are afraid of not "looking tough."

The anti-war left is one of the most principled sub-groups in American politics. Every anti-war lefty I know personally has been anti-war and anti-conflict their whole life, whether a Republican or Democrat was President. I always say that I have been against every single war except Afghanistan, and I regret my support for that one. I have a friend w/ a bumper sticker that says "I'm even against the next war." Hillary lost the election in large part because anti-war lefties couldn't stomach her Iraq vote.

But let's also not impugn the current crop of Congressional Democrats without any foundation. Because they want Russia investigated, they're now war mongers who are yearning for Cold War II? Give me a flippin' break. Let me know when some of them start calling for invasion or war.

And last, this one goes out to anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and criticized the left in 2003 for their opposition: shut up. You have not a single leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. You are a hypocrite and partisan, and your support of conflict shifts w/ the political winds & depending on who is in power. Beyond that, the Iraq War is one you do not get a mulligan on. It was an historically epic blunder, and the left warned you about the consequences. We were right, you were wrong. You should permanently recuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy.

Very well said.
 
Too much generalization on this thread.

For starters, Congressional Democrats are not "the left," and they weren't in 2003 or for Libya. They're mostly expedient corporate politicians who are afraid of not "looking tough."

The anti-war left is one of the most principled sub-groups in American politics. Every anti-war lefty I know personally has been anti-war and anti-conflict their whole life, whether a Republican or Democrat was President. I always say that I have been against every single war except Afghanistan, and I regret my support for that one. I have a friend w/ a bumper sticker that says "I'm even against the next war." Hillary lost the election in large part because anti-war lefties couldn't stomach her Iraq vote.

But let's also not impugn the current crop of Congressional Democrats without any foundation. Because they want Russia investigated, they're now war mongers who are yearning for Cold War II? Give me a flippin' break. Let me know when some of them start calling for invasion or war.

And last, this one goes out to anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq and criticized the left in 2003 for their opposition: shut up. You have not a single leg to stand on when it comes to this topic. You are a hypocrite and partisan, and your support of conflict shifts w/ the political winds & depending on who is in power. Beyond that, the Iraq War is one you do not get a mulligan on. It was an historically epic blunder, and the left warned you about the consequences. We were right, you were wrong. You should permanently recuse yourself from any discussion on foreign policy.

they say don't "want" war, but they take no steps to separate using Russiaphobia to club Trump,
while calling for improving relations with Putin ( even small steps)

In fact look at the current sanctions sitting in the Senate, and being squashed thru the House.
They are irreparable. They are writing in language that these new sanctions cannot be negotiated by Trump
and Putin NO MATTER WHAT PROGRESS they make in relations!

That is a horrible, historic violation of separation of powers.
It's the legislature determining executive purview of acting as Commander in chief.
 
Who said anything about invading Syria? Not me.



I never said I was in favor of aiding Syrian rebels prior to Russia aiding and propping up Assad. I would be more in favor of aiding rebels post-Russian intervention.

The question you have to ask yourself, why is it okay for Russia to intervene and slaughter civilians, but it's criminal for the US to aid in the ousting of Assad?

We don't need to invade Syria to affect the outcome there.

I asked a simple question and the best you could say was that someone would form a new government when Assad is gone.

The 'someone' would be radical Islamists if past experience is any indicator, at all.
 
Back
Top