# Opposition to the war could cost the Democratic Party. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2007, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094 "2007-02-21T15:28:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/121 "2007-02-24T03:08:01Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] I also feel like offensive and quick strike cababilities (carriers, bombers) prevent mischief before it happens. [/QUOTE] Well, is the cost of preventing mischief more than the cost of responding to mischief? As I alluded to above, I’m not referring to the Cold War. The U.S.S.R. was certainly capable of more than mischief, and I agree that deterrence was a worthwhile strategy. I, frankly, do not see such an opponent in the world today. In conventional war, I think it is far more likely that Russia and China will war before either attacks us; in nuclear war, we still hold deterrence, even against the likes of Iran or North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/122 "2007-02-24T03:48:25Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Well, is the cost of preventing mischief more than the cost of responding to mischief? As I alluded to above, I’m not referring to the Cold War. The U.S.S.R. was certainly capable of more than mischief, and I agree that deterrence was a worthwhile strategy. I, frankly, do not see such an opponent in the world today. In conventional war, I think it is far more likely that Russia and China will war before either attacks us; in nuclear war, we still hold deterrence, even against the likes of Iran or North Korea. [/QUOTE] I agree. I think that we need a standing military that is large enough to deter and flexible enough to react. A smaller force backed with superior technology with tanks in mothballs in case we have to repel a horde or two. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/123 "2007-02-24T04:06:54Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] Are you serious? If you are an educated and intelligent person you know the strategic and economic reasons behind the post WWII buildup of the American military. [/QUOTE] Suppose you tell me what _you_ think the strategic reasons are–since this is a Great Debate and all. I see now that you have laid out many of your reasons, I just hadn’t read them yet. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/124 "2007-02-24T04:14:11Z")
For those of us old enough to remember, the bs being peddled by Moto & Co is exactly the same as what was peddled 40 years ago with Vietnam. The republic survived and prospered once we got that one out of the way. The same will happen again with this one. As for the Presidents involved in that one, LBJ and Nixon are two of the most reviled presidents this country has ever had, and rightly so. Dubya will join their company, as will anyone who allies themselves with him. The difference this time is that there is in fact a real threat, over in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan. What we need is an Administration that recognizes where the real threat is, and recognizes that stretching the military thin by trying to keep a lid on Iraq does nothing for US interests. Or, to put it the way the editorialist in _Barron’s_ put it two years ago, losing slowly is no different than losing quickly. Better to admit the loss and get on to where the real work of defending this country is, rather than continue to indulge the ego and fantasy of this President and his deluded supporters. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/125 "2007-02-24T04:22:59Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] Wealth redistribution and the other ideas of “socialism lite” have been tried before…the more the government interferes the worse things usually get. [/QUOTE] I know barely anything about economics but I know this is wrong. The United States, and just about any other Western, industrialized power, is a mixed economy. Do you wish to purge them of all ‘socialism’? > [@](#): > > Are you serious? If you are an educated and intelligent person you know the strategic and economic reasons behind the post WWII buildup of the American military. That’s the problem ever since the USSR fell – we need an enemy and pronto! Terrorism isn’t sexy although it does scare the crap out of people. China is our frenemy (thanks, Stephen). Hey, maybe Russia will go back to being ruled by a dictator! You can just feel the sunny optimism in wishing hundreds of millions of people can go back to living in an Orwellian society so you can start to feel good about throwing your weight around. I agree with **Evil One** when it comes to the Democrats though. They are more or less screwed as far as I see unless they walk on eggshells and get lucky. Entire books could be written on the reasons why but the American people really have to be persuaded to vote against the Republicans. If anything scary happens, even if it doesn’t make any sense, they’ll just go back and vote for 'em. Just remember, although the Dems did win as a whole the last election they just barely won each seat – and this is, well, after the last years of Bush and his friends. Scary, ain’t it? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/126 "2007-02-24T04:24:33Z")
And, I see that **Frank** has conveyed many of my feelings on why a huge standing military is not needed to defend the USA. The “having a big ol’ military for deterrence” spiel doesn’t work for me. I think we effectively deter just by our huge force potential (made possible by our vast natural resources, state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities and a giant pool of potential fighting personnel). Again–potential enemy invaders (and who are those again?) need look no further than our powerful mobilization and rapid force buildup in WWII to know why we are not to be trifled with even if we don’t have a Cold War-sized standing military. But I suppose if we don’t have 10,000,000 units of every single possible new weapons system, 74 carrier battle groups and 80,000 ICBMs then the terrorists win. Why do I hate America? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/127 "2007-02-24T04:37:56Z")
**Evil One** , I don’t think you noticed in my earlier post where I wrote: > [@](#): > > You do realize how small our military was before WWII, right? It was small because back then, just like in the **post-Cold War** now, we didn’t need a huge military to defend our country (bolding added this time around) I do understand why there was a big build-up after WWII, of course. I just think we should have scaled back after the Cold War ended. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/128 "2007-02-24T13:24:59Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] Because the majority of Americans are not educated on the issues and nuances of current events and politics. [/quote] Ah, yes, your position really is no more than “They’re all just stupid.” Thanks for confirming that. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > We all participate on this board, debating issues in detail that most americans are not interested in or capable of. And yet we still get regular and frequent complaints about the board’s liberal Democratic tilt. Is that view of this board simply false, or could it simply be that intelligent and interested can tend toward what you define as liberalism, at least as or more so than what you define as conservatism? > [@](#): > > The democratic win was in large part because the aftermath of the war was not planned as well as it should have been and things have gone badly since. And yet the people not doing the planning and making things go badly are the “strong on defense” party that right-thinking people should naturally support. Go figure. > [@](#): > > If the Democrats display any of the distasteful stereotypes that burden them, the moderates will abandon them. Here’s a thought for you: If they’re _stereotypes_ as you say, don’t then try to tell us they’re factual. That shit doesn’t work here no matter how often you repeat it. I said that if no attacks happen for the rest of GWB’s presidency and then comes after a democrat is elected to the presidency it would be a disaster for the democrats. Once again, it will be the moderates who will make that happen. If my scenario actually comes to pass, partisans on both sides will simply reverse the arguments they used against Bush and Clinton over 9/11. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/129 "2007-02-24T16:22:32Z")
Oh, just to inject a little more reality into your bubble: [8/06 poll](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_080606.htm) > [@](#): > > Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism? The answer: Democrats 46%, Republicans 38% ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/130 "2007-02-24T17:04:19Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] If a Democrat is elected and another 9/11 scale attack happens **after nothing on Bush’s watch,** the effect on the party will be catastrophic. [/QUOTE] Remind me who the President was when the first 9/11 happened. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/131 "2007-02-24T17:10:02Z")
This’ll play well for the Republicans after bin Laden nukes Disneyland: > [@](#): > > The Army’s highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, “I don’t know that it’s all that important, frankly.” > > “So we get him, and then what?” asked Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the outgoing Army chief of staff, at a Rotary Club of Fort Worth luncheon. "There’s a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today. [Qaeda? Who Gives a Shit?](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301799.html) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/132 "2007-02-24T19:35:46Z")
Here’s what does give me pause- It is my belief that our correct actions in the ME, very heavy handed, acting the part of Rome, etc. plays into the Islamist’s hands. The batle from the Islamist POV is less at this point agianst us, as it is a battle for the soul of the Arab world. Saving it from modernity, saving it from the fate that awaits as she becomes part of the world’s society of societies. Nothing like an infidel in your midst to rally people to the cause. And they know it. A phased withdrawl is not what they want. They know what the reaction to another 9-11 scale attack would likely be … renewed support for aggressively trying to hunt the terrorists down on their turf and escalation in Iraq and Afganistan. We are predictable that way. You see where I am going with this. Any announcement of phased withdrawl needs to be met with an increase in home security … done right. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/133 "2007-02-24T20:10:38Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] This’ll play well for the Republicans after bin Laden nukes Disneyland:[Qaeda? Who Gives a Shit?](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301799.html) [/QUOTE] Can you imagine the furor if a Dem was President, and a high official said that? Drives me batty sometimes. (I know, it’s a short drive. :)) You’d think that the Right wouldn’t let even their own get away with this sort of nonsense. Even if he’s right on one level or another, the fact is, _bin Laden is the man responsible for killing nearly 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001_. Even a dirty fucking hippie like me wants him brought to justice. To quote Humphrey Bogart (as Sam Spade in _The Maltese Falcon_): > [@Humphrey Bogart](#): > > When a man’s partner is killed, he’s supposed to do something about it. It doesn’t make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner and you’re supposed to do something about it. And it happens we’re in the detective business. Well, when one of your organization gets killed, it’s-it’s bad business to let the killer get away with it, bad all around, bad for every detective everywhere. It’s hard for me to break away from the underlying logic of that statement. You can’t go letting people kill your countrymen. They’re you’re fellow citizens, and you’re supposed to do something about it. It’s bad business to let the killer get away with it, bad all around, bad for every American everywhere. The next bin Laden (or maybe the same one, yet one more time) is going to conclude that he can plan another job like 9/11, and even if it succeeds, the Americans will get distracted, and let the trail grow cold, just like they did the last time, while he hangs out in North Waziristan. Maybe we should declare [March 13, 2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html) as “We Don’t Give A Fuck About Bin Laden Day,” and celebrate its anniversary each year with “Where in the world is Osama bin Laden? Oh, that’s right, we don’t give a fuck” parties: > [@](#): > > Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part – deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of – > > THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is – really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. > > Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just – he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is – as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide – if, in fact, he’s hiding at all. > > So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. > > And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means. > > Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? > > THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I – I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. > > But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became – we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we – excuse me for a minute – and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things – part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/134 "2007-02-24T21:05:36Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Remind me who the President was when the first 9/11 happened. [/QUOTE] What is your point? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/135 "2007-02-24T21:21:49Z")
[QUOTE=Evil One] What is your point? [/QUOTE] The point is that 9/11 did, in fact, happen on Bush’s watch, contrary to what you said. ---
**Author:** ![newcrasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@newcrasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcrasher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/136 "2007-02-24T21:59:20Z")
I have it on good authority that another 9/11 will happen sometime later this year. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/137 "2007-02-24T22:14:26Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] The point is that 9/11 did, in fact, happen on Bush’s watch, contrary to what you said. [/QUOTE] But it was somehow Clinton’s fault anyway. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2007, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/138 "2007-02-24T22:47:15Z")
Must be just me, but it appears that **Mr Moto** (and his very loud echo, **Evil One** ) would be perfectly content to live in a nation with a one Party system – Light and Regular. BTW, **Frank** , some rather keen comments on the military and what their role should be overall. You won’t get any arguments from me as your views pretty much reflect my own – or vice versa, not sure who’s older. It’s like this Spanish right-wing obsession with Morocco; they want to make sure we have a super-army that can beat them at least _twice._ 'cause as we all know, once is not enough. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/139 "2007-02-25T00:55:12Z")
[QUOTE=newcrasher] I have it on good authority that another 9/11 will happen sometime later this year. [/QUOTE] My sources suggest somewhere in the August - October period. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094/140 "2007-02-25T02:25:45Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Must be just me, but it appears that **Mr Moto** (and his very loud echo, **Evil One** ) would be perfectly content to live in a nation with a one Party system – Light and Regular. [/QUOTE] Did we have a one-party system in the Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy era? Or was the two-party system strongest then? I don’t for one second want a Democratic party that is like the Republicans. I would like one that is like the Democrats used to be, before the cancer of McGovernism infected the party. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposition-to-the-war-could-cost-the-democratic-party/393094.md?page=8)