[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
That’s a strawman??? :eek:
Seriously though, I have a great deal of trouble imagining any Democratic president invading any country militarily as long as economic sanctions and the U.N. exist (barring a direct attack upon the U.S. by the offending country, that is). My guess is that they would try sanction after sanction and diplomatic effort after diplomatic effort, eventually throwing up their hands and saying that we have no right to invade a sovereign country that has not directly attacked us, and that we must be ever vigilant to protect ourselves from further attack…you know, by looking out for suspicious packages and so forth; and besides, we don’t really have sufficient intelligence to know who was really behind the attack, much less to know whether the parties responsible are still in Afghanistan.
I will grant that a subsequent catastrophic attack which engenders overwhelming public demand for an invasion would likely cause one to take place, but then with only a bare minimum of equipment and forces and that we would bail at the first plausible opportunity afterward.
IMO, lefties just find the idea of war (and of the U.S. appearing to throw its weight around) too abhorent to undertake strong military action as long as they can hide behind sanctions and the U.N. and declare they are doing all that they rightfully can to address the situation.
[/quote]
A Democrat won WWI. Two Democrats won WWII. A Democrat dropped two bombs on Japan. A Democrat sent troops to Korea. A Democrat sent troops to Vietnam. Since when are the Democrats afraid to go to war?
Of course Gore would have gone to Afghanistan, it would have been political suicide not to. He wouldn’t have gone into Iraq but there wasn’t a single reason to go into Iraq.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A Democrat won WWI. Two Democrats won WWII. A Democrat dropped two bombs on Japan. A Democrat sent troops to Korea. A Democrat sent troops to Vietnam. Since when are the Democrats afraid to go to war?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I’d say since approximately 1967.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
Name a war since 1967 which was supported by Republicans but not by Dems. The Dems wre almost unanimously behind not only Afghanistan but both Gulf Wars. Even Kerry and Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq. They were wrong, of course, and they have both lived to regret it both politically and possibly emotionally, but they voted thumbs up on the bill which authorized Bush to go to war.
So tell me, upon what are you basing this assertion that Dems are afraid to go to war? If they’re so afraid of it then why do they keep voting for it?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I think he would have used the fact that ObL was not part of the official Afghan government, that official Afghan harboring and support of ObL could not be proven, and that there was no proof ObL was in Afghanistan anyway, in order to avoid undertaking a military invasion of Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]
You’re being blinded by partisanship. Gore wouldn’t have had any choice. Even had he not wanted to invade, which of course he did, he’d have been forced to by the pressure of pretty much every resident of the United States. There was hardly a sane person in the Western world who wasn’t calling for war in Afghanistan.
Your position is utterly preposterous. You need to back off a bit and think about what you’re saying, because it’s almost comical.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, there’s Panama and Grenada – but Congress was not even consulted about those, was it?
[/QUOTE]
Were those really wars?
No, I don’t think Congress was consulted but I remember that Mondale said he suppported Grenada. I don’t remember how the Dems reacted to Panama. I do remember that the media was waving the flag ecstatically.
Well, if Al Gore had been elected president, he would’ve held onto a lot of Clinton’s people who were getting very worried about ObL BEFORE 9/11 and possibly even listened to them… but that’s a whole 'nother story.
I think Al Gore would’ve gone to war in Afghanistan. But let’s listen to what the man himself had to say, hmm? He spoke at Harvard on October 4th, 2001 - three days before the war in Afghanistan began. The Harvard Crimson reports:
(bolding mine)
This says nothing about Iraq, of course, but it’s pretty damn clear what he’d’ve done about Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
You’re being blinded by partisanship.
<snip>
Your position is utterly preposterous. You need to back off a bit and think about what you’re saying, because it’s almost comical.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I think you’re right. :eek:
I just had a lengthy (though respectful, as I’ve come to have a certain regard for Dio) diatribe composed in response to his last post and was about to submit it when I saw your post. And frankly, I’ve begun to fear recently that I’ve become overly biased, overly impatient and too easily annoyed as a result of all the (perceived) ca-ca I see around here. I’ve begun to notice that most of my posts anymore tend to be angry, argumentative and confrontational right off the bat, and that isn’t good. Nor is it fair to those who try to argue their beliefs sincerely and in good faith and expect any disagreement to be argued in the same way. Perhaps I need to take a break from the Pit and GD for a while.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You know, I think you’re right. :eek:
I just had a lengthy (though respectful, as I’ve come to have a certain regard for Dio) diatribe composed in response to his last post and was about to submit it when I saw your post. Frankly, I’ve begun to fear recently that I’ve become overly biased, overly impatient and too easily annoyed as a result of all the (perceived) ca-ca I see around here. I’ve begun to notice that most of my posts anymore tend to be angry, argumentative and confrontational right off the bat, and that isn’t good. Nor is it fair to those who try to argue their beliefs sincerely and in good faith and expect any disagreement to be argued in the same way. Perhaps I need to take a break from the Pit and GD for a while.
My apologies to all.
[/QUOTE]
A wise move, thanks. It does you credit.
One thing I always try to remember is that the strength of my feelings about a certain idea is not necessarily related to the actual truth of said idea.
So I try to keep the emotional heat out of my disputes about ideas, in anticipation of the possibility (experienced quite often) that the actual facts will turn out to run contrary to my feelings and biases.
Good advice, Qadgop. I will try to keep it in mind in the future as that is really the way one ought to go about thinking and posting here. I was aware of it at one time, but somehow it slipped away.
Starving Artist, your last post is an example to all of us who are convinced of a certain position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I’m often guilty of it too (which is why I took years to, but eventually changed my opinion on gun laws in the US).
I’m very impressed with your intellectual honesty here, and my opinion of you has gone up significantly. Fair play to you.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
No doubt about it in my mind.
I voted for Gore, did not care for Bush from the get-go, and identify myself with a fairly liberal political stance. But when Bush moved to go to war in Afghanistan, I recall quite clearly thinking “He’s doing the right thing. Perhaps he won’t be as bad a president as I’d feared”.
Sadly, I was wrong in that opinion about Bush. But he had my agreement (and that of most folks of a liberal bent that I associate with) that war with Afghanistan was necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I thought Bush did the right thing too. In fact the only real criticism I heard at the time was we should have gone in sooner.
[QUOTE=jjimm] Starving Artist, your last post is an example to all of us who are convinced of a certain position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I’m often guilty of it too (which is why I took years to, but eventually changed my opinion on gun laws in the US).
I’m very impressed with your intellectual honesty here, and my opinion of you has gone up significantly. Fair play to you.
:raises a glass to SA:
[/quote]
Thank you very much, jjimm.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You know, I think you’re right. :eek:
I just had a lengthy (though respectful, as I’ve come to have a certain regard for Dio) diatribe composed in response to his last post and was about to submit it when I saw your post. And frankly, I’ve begun to fear recently that I’ve become overly biased, overly impatient and too easily annoyed as a result of all the (perceived) ca-ca I see around here. I’ve begun to notice that most of my posts anymore tend to be angry, argumentative and confrontational right off the bat, and that isn’t good. Nor is it fair to those who try to argue their beliefs sincerely and in good faith and expect any disagreement to be argued in the same way. Perhaps I need to take a break from the Pit and GD for a while.
My apologies to all.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks and nice post.
For what it’s worth, I have resolved for myself to try to remain as unblinking and intellectually honest as possible if any Democrat ever gets back into the White House. If we get President Hillary, I’m going to hold her feet to the fire. As much as we’ve not only criticized Bush but of those we feel have kept supporting him far beyond what ordinary party loyalty and political ideology should have merited, we are going to have a moral and intellectual responsibility to be as objective and honest about the new Dem majority and (if it happens) a Democratic POTUS as we’ve demanded from conservative posters all these years.
Name a war since 1967 which was supported by Republicans but not by Dems. The Dems wre almost unanimously behind not only Afghanistan but both Gulf Wars.
[/QUOTE]
I’m linking a speech by Al Gore in which he describes himself as “one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War…” That would be the 1991 Gulf War.
Now, this is indeed how it played out in the votes, as an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposed the Gulf War. The floor speeches in opposition are embarrassing to listen to today - many predict American military deaths on the scale of Vietnam.
So no, the Dems were not unanimously behind the first Gulf War. Rather the opposite is true.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I’m linking a speech by Al Gore in which he describes himself as “one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War…” That would be the 1991 Gulf War.
Now, this is indeed how it played out in the votes, as an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposed the Gulf War. The floor speeches in opposition are embarrassing to listen to today - many predict American military deaths on the scale of Vietnam.
So no, the Dems were not unanimously behind the first Gulf War. Rather the opposite is true.
[/QUOTE]
