What I’m getting out of the OP is, “If the Democrats do exactly what the Republicans say, then nobody can blame them when the war in Iraq self-destructs, because nobody is going to blame Bush and his cronies for anything at all. In fact, if the Democrats turn into Republicans, then when the war blows up in our face, it won’t be anybody’s fault at all!”
Yeah, uh. Right.
I think you must be mixing up the notions of “perceived as weak on national defense” and “actually being weak on national defense”.
Never have I seen even the most ardent pro-Democratic champion deny that the Democrats are frequently PERCEIVED or PORTRAYED as being weak on national defense. After all, this theme has been a favorite in Republican political propaganda for decades. Who in this thread, or anywhere else, is denying that such a perception/portrayal exists?
But that’s not the same thing as claiming that the Democratic position actually IS weak on national defense. Which is what Mr. Moto seemed to be claiming when he argued that America needs “two pro-defense parties” (implying that the Democratic Party isn’t currently pro-defense). That’s the claim that many people here are objecting to.
In other words, the disagreement isn’t about whether such a perception/portrayal exists, as you mistakenly suggest, but whether it is accurate.
I do think it’s accurate. You can’t rail against the “military-industrial complex” and run around with bumper stickers along the lines of “It’ll be a great day when the air force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber” without having to to take the consequnces along with the perceived notion of noble battle. I think any logical person would agree that the further left you are, the more anti-war/military you are. And since the left is in the Democratic camp just like the Republicans have the right…the Democrats both benefit and suffer from that particular attitude.
The only people that will not admit that anti-war/military attitudes have a down side are those that feel so strongly that way that they cannot question a tenet so central to their belief system.
I didn’t want to hijack the matter any more, but Al Qaeda was founded in Afghanistan in 1988, while Soviet troops were still in the country, so you’re a little off there. BBC cite. The Taliban was indeed formed about 5 years later. I should hope you’re not implying that the rise of either group had little or nothing to do with Soviet withdrawal.
I saw a bumpersticker the other day saying that we should nuke the middle east until it glows. Does that mean that accusing Republicans of advocating genocide is a reasonable debate strategy?
No, it means that the attitude behind that statement is as naive and shortsighted as the “bake sale” sentiment.
You could extend that argument a little to say that many on the left say the Republicans are too much in favor of the military and national defense…but with the current reality, that is more of an advantage than a detriment.
Why? How have the hawkish actions of the U.S. helped? Is the only solution to our current predicament going to war with yet another county or expanding the war in Iraq? I have yet to hear any convincing arguments why this will help the current situation. Is being “strong on defense” a strategy on to its own? Perhaps there is a strategy that would work that would be hawkish, but being hawkish alone is not a strategy.
The question is not whether or not we should strongly defend our country’s national interests … it is what constitutes its best defense.
Unilateral deployment of military might is not always in our national interest. I feel no shame in being very reluctant to use my big stick even as I recognize the need to hold it close by. I prefer to allow the speaking softly to have a very good chance to work. I prefer having more tools at my disposal other than the big stick alone, rather than believing that defending my country’s national interest only means use a bigger stick and swing it harder.
I’m very curious as to how this meme that “the Left” or “the Democrats” are by definition anti-war/military to the point that it’s something Evil One believes “any logical person would agree” with. In the years leading up to World War II, the Republicans were by and large isolationist, with only a few liberal Republicans backing one wing of the Democrats as wanting to prepare for war. And certainly Kennedy and Johnson could not be regarded as anti-war.
Opposition largely centers in dislike of particular war stances, e.g., Reagan’s support for the Contras and notably these days the war in Iraq, for reasons dissected at length elsewhere.
I do not wish to make it an accusation against Evil One, who may well come by this view honestly, but it’s been my experience that often “lib’rul Democrats are anti-military” is a distortion put out by Republican spinmeisters. (I might note that sometimes Democrats play into this, as by, for example, opposing expensive new materiel such as the B-2 in favor of putting that money towards benefitting the troops.)
This country does have two pro-defense parties. Hell, everybody is pro-defense, aren’t they? Who wouldn’t fight to defend their own country? It’s the pro-offense fuckers we all need to worry about.
oh. uh… it seems i’m a little late with that rejoinder. others have already eloquently expressed the same opinion. never mind… nothing to see here…
Which Democratic Presidents or congressional leaders have done this?
Perhaps Evil One refers to that notorious pinko, Dwight Eisenhower? Certainly, that’s the only president I can think of who spoke out against the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.”
Is that how it worked out for you last November? :dubious:
You can’t be “too much for national defense.” Either you want to defend the nation or you don’t. I don’t know of any Democrats who aren’t for defending the USA. Don’t confuse *a ridiculous and unnecessary buildup of weapons and personnel in order to fatten stock dividends for defense contractors’ stockholders *with national defense. Just who are we defending ourselves from that we need such a massive military?
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. When Japan attacked us and Hitler declared war on us is 1941 we spent a bunch of the national treasure to quickly build up our forces, and then we defeated them.
I suppose we could have invaded Japan and Germany sometime back in the late 18th Century to preemptively avoid their 20th Century evils… but back in the 1770s and '80s we didn’t have any great visionary statesmen like Dubya. (sigh)
C’mon Elvis, that’s not fair. You know the Republicans haven’t had enough time in power to coax the Russkies into abrogating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, and thus trigger a renewal of the Cold War. Once the GOP swings that deal, they’ll be electorally invulnerable. 
Would you like to read more about our brave “freedom fighters”? Go here:http://www.markdanner.com/newyorker/120693_The_Massacre.htm
Don’t go there if you want to sleep tonight.
I was referring to the perception that the Republicans are perceived as stronger on national security issues in a time where national security concerns are more important that usual to the domestic electorate.
In my opinion, the popular perception of anti-war/military behavior from the left began in earnest when opposition to the Vietnam war began to peak in the late 60’s. The idea gained more ground in the 80’s when Reagan began the military buildup…and the left opposed him.
The idea that all “liberals” are anti-military is unfair. It’s a generalization. But it’s a generalization that the left has to live with. Anything they do to feed it will just make it grow.
An obvious attitude like the one I am trying to illustrate would make someone unelectable to national office. That’s part of the problem the Democrats face when they do anything to feed the perception. The last Democratic president widely percived as liberal was elected 30 years ago. We have had a Democrat in the White House 12 years out of the last 40…and Clinton talked (and largely behaved) like a moderate.
Far left liberals are passionate about their beliefs…but their numbers are insufficient to bring them to reality.