Dems want a war hero, but despise war?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have found it very interesting in the way the Democratic party has tried to make war and violence the centerpiece of this election. That is, the Dems lust for war and violence.

From the "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" line to calling Cheney a draft dodger, the Dems have me very confused. When Clinton, an anti-war activist who revelled in not having served in the military ran against Dole (a WWII war veteran), we were told that military experience isn't important for a commander-in-chief to possess. The Dem position in 1999 was that military experience doesn't matter.

Now, we are told by the Dems that Kerry's experience in Vietnam will make him a better commander-in-chief then Bush; Dems also point out that since Bush was only in the National Guard, he doesn't have the war experience necessary.

Kerry has said that during one gun battle, he chased down a VC sniper (I guess its ok to call North Vietnamese soldiers VC now?) and killed him. To which the Dems raise loud cheers! Bush avoids Vietnam by enlisting in the National Guard, and Cheney (like Clinton) avoids the military altogether; the Dems call them pussies! Right?

Is our post 9-11 nation confused? Or do the Dems believe that a war and violence candidate is needed? Or were they simply trying to find a candidate that has experience in war and violence simply to beat Bush this fall? The left protests war, but champions a warrior?

Is there a bright progressive in the house that can 'splain me? Are the Dems straying right as a party (as far as war and violence are concerned) to simply win an election?

Lastly, if Kerry loses to Bush this November will hindsight show that another candidate might have done better? What if Dean would have been the nominee; would the Dems have been more honest with themselves?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,379 • Replies: 40

No top replies

I sadly agree with you lone.

Kerry's main attraction is that he is not Bush. Dems (and other liberals) have known this since the primaries.

Unfortunately not being Bush is a very good trait right now.

The Democrats could have done much better. This will be evident even if Kerry wins.

0 Replies

oh but ebrown...how much worse if Kerry loses?

0 Replies

I'm having some trouble with the idea that serving in the military makes one a warrior.

My brother has been in the military for 27 years and I don't think of him as a warrior and I doubt he thinks of himself that way either. But yes, he has been to war.

For me to hate war and to love my brother and to care about and support every other soldier doesn't seem contradictory to me at all.

Also, I think Bush is much more the "candidate of war and violence" than Kerry.

But since we are at war, I think the fact that Kerry has some experience in it is an asset for him. If we were not at war, it wouldn't matter - like it didn't matter during Clinton V. Dole.

I do not believe that either party "lusts for war and violence" but I believe there are some within the current administration who do -- as long as it is somebody else doing the dying.

0 Replies

Kerry gives us two pictures of war. When in uniform, he did his duty. Liberals will fight if they see a need to (see WWII, which was fought under a liberal administration). But, Kerry is wise enough to know when it's right to go to war, which is why he protested Vietnam as a civilian and why he denigrates Bush for Iraq.

0 Replies

No matter their politics, I doubt anyone who has ever had to knock on a door and tell a family that their child is dead, as my brother has done, will at all delight in the label "warrior".

You bet I can protest this war, and champion a soldier.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

But since we are at war, I think the fact that Kerry has some experience in it is an asset for him. If we were not at war, it wouldn't matter - like it didn't matter during Clinton V. Dole.

Does the Dem party line say we are at war? They seem to be focusing on domestic issues right now; is this only because they are considered (and consider themselves) 'weak' in this area? The Repubs keep saying the US is at war, and the Dems tend to downplay this.

Many people feel this "war" started when Islamic terrorists bombed the WDC the first time, and fault the Clinton administration because they handled it as a crime.

Quote:

Liberals will fight if they see a need to (see WWII, which was fought under a liberal administration).

I don't think you can compare either party from the 1940's to the parties of today. Dem and Repub and liberal and conservative seem to be much different today then those of the WWII era.....

0 Replies

I don't really know, or care about, the "party line" on either side.

I do remember "Misson Accomplished" but nearly everyday my paper reports more dead soldiers.

Republican? Democrat? Who the hell cares?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Republican? Democrat? Who the hell cares?

Exactly! What bothers me most is how a political party will put their own desire for power ahead of what is best for our nation.....

0 Replies

I think America has gone mad. And with the swaggering of Bush while he declares himself a "war president" (dash for the history books?), and with Kerry trying to assert that Democrats are braver than hawkish Republicans, we have absolute proof of it. It also appears that Americans of our century view war as a great football game; they wave their flags, root for their team to win, feel nobility and exaltation inside their breasts.
I think that Kerry is more knowledgeable than Bush about war, however. His combat experience during Vietnam, and expecially his viewable revulsion about the common, yes, common horrors of tht war, gives him a sense of reality about what war actually is, that few non combatants can have.
He has a healthy restraint about pitching a nation into war, a restraint sorely lacking in Bush. Bush would rather be a player in a history book than consider the dehumanization of the common soldier that accompanies war or the thousands of men women and children (40000 plus in this Iraq war) that have lost their lives, or consider the 7000 who have been injured severely for life in this war.
Bush is SO crazed with ambition to creep into that book, that he has stated and believes that God spoke to him and told him to go to war. (Needless to say, we have thousands of people in jails and mental institutions who are there because they did what God told them to do!)
War is the absolute failure of humanity. It is the failure of nations to achieve peace through diplomacy. At moments, it may be necessary to defend oneself and protect oneself with aggression, which war is. But most wars only spell out huge failure of peace loving rational man and societal mental illness.

0 Replies

I couldn't agree with you more, firenze. I see war in general as a failure, though I understand why it all comes to pass and have sympathies for some sides some times.

And no, I am not for appeasement.

I think most people on earth want to live in peace.

But they want to tweak the boundaries back to when they were here, or there. People want control of their lives.
That usually means controlling their neighbors.

Strength is part of working these things out, but bombs by armies, and explosions by terrorists, should be way at the end of the line.

Discussion and communicaton are shortcircuited.

0 Replies

firenze pensaforte wrote:

I think America has gone mad. And with the swaggering of Bush while he declares himself a "war president" (dash for the history books?), and with Kerry trying to assert that Democrats are braver than hawkish Republicans, we have absolute proof of it.

What scares me the most about Kerry is his determination to be more hawkish then the Repubs. In fact, the way the whole Dem party has beat the war drums has me really worried. Are the Dems trying to prove that they are more war-like because:

They really are? or.....

Are they posing as something they are not, and are trying to get Kerry elected by pretending to be hawks? And if so, what happens when Kerry is elected and he turns out to be extremely weak in the eyes of the fanatical Islamic terrorists?

I think what the Dems are doing is really dangerous. If they try to regain power by posing as warriors, but turn out to be totally overwhelmed by events, the US will be in trouble. If they had nominated Dean or one of the others who are true representatives of their party, we (and the world) would know what to expect, and could adjust/improve our foreign relations as needed. But posing Kerry and the whole party as war-making, military-building, missile-launching, pro-conquest warriors is a big mistake...

0 Replies

Nah, ya missed the point.

Kerry's war experiences were enough to show him, in his words, that we SHOULDN'T go to war unless we absolutely have to. Which is something I want my president to be saying, instead of 'we'll go to war because things MIGHT be a problem later.'

The Dem's aren't running on a pro-conquest platform, they're running on an anti-war platform; nevertheless, Kerry is going to inherit one if he wins, and he has to show that he can handle it.

I'd like to see our future presidents take some classes on strategy and tactics.... Sad

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

What scares me the most about Kerry is his determination to be more hawkish then the Repubs. In fact, the way the whole Dem party has beat the war drums has me really worried. Are the Dems trying to prove that they are more war-like because:

They really are? or.....

A Lone Voice in a previous post wrote:

Does the Dem party line say we are at war? They seem to be focusing on domestic issues right now; is this only because they are considered (and consider themselves) 'weak' in this area? The Repubs keep saying the US is at war, and the Dems tend to downplay this.

I'm confused about your position Lone Voice. What exactly are the Dems doing that is war-like?

0 Replies

Cyclo - Wht the Dems seem to forget, and what candidate Kerry can not make clear, is the Iraq WAS A CURRENT PROBLEM.

No before you go off on your "WMD LATHER", remember that the Iraqi govt signed a cease fire agreement after Gulf 1 which they failed to live up to as evidenced by the 8+ years of continual UN Resolutions confirming their failure.

You fail to remember that it was GW who went before the UN with a last chance resolution to Iraq. Again, Iraqi failed to comply.

Clearly, you can not negotiate with someone like Saddam and it was clear that AFTER 9-11, the US can no longer wait (as you suggest) until AFTER the fact to defend itself.

Yet, the Dems can not be clear as to what their position is and people like yourself fail to remember.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K.

Why are you so quick to label Dems people who 'fail to remember?' Noone failed to remember anything about Saddam. He was hardly a threat to his neighbors, let alone the U.S.... you mention the 'WMD Lather,' as if that dismisses the lies perpetrated by our administration in it's entirety. If the situation was as cut and dry as you say, Bush wouldn't have had to mislead people to gain approval to attack.

Nevertheless; we aren't even discussing the reasons, justifications, predications, or results of the Iraq war in this thread. Look for a thread entitled 'The U.S., the U.N., and Iraq vs. themselves pt. 7' if you want to discuss that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo - Well your post suggested that you want a President who will go to war when necessary. I agree. I also agree that the War in Iraq was necessary. You apparently disagree. Therefore, you and I feel differently regarding what a cease fire agreement means.

To me, a cease fire agreement means the defeated party must "agree" to certain "things" else the conflict must continue.

To you, as cease fire agreement something else.

0 Replies

To me, we discuss things in different groups, called 'threads.'

If you want to argue about the war, go to the war argument thread. This thread is about democratic strategy in the campaign, not why we went to war in Iraq.

k?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, the Democratic stratagy of their Candidate, Kerry, is as confusing as your original post. He has not taken a firm position relative to the Iraqi conflict as his voting record and recent statements suggest.

Therefore, whatever the Party Platform is, Kerry has both sides covered.

0 Replies

Kerry is doing nothing more than showing to that portion of the American voting public that wants a strong leader in event of war, that he can handle that job, as well as all the others that confront the presidency. To show that you have the ability to do something, does not mean that you will exercise that ability. cyclop....has said that well.
WE have loads of petty tyrants around the world who are not friends of ours, that are potentially dangerous. But there are other ways to deal with them, if we have to, other than preemptive strikes against them to make sure they are no future threat. Restraint is the better part of valor.
Now, after 40000 are dead, 7000 injured, and
future casualties on the way with no end in sight,
there is NO proof that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to our country. We have, are and will pay a huge price to rid the world of just one of many punk dictators.
I would say that ANYONE who doesn't consider war as abbhorent and the last step only when necessary, is terribly naive This is not a political choice. It is profoundly an ethical choice.

0 Replies

Dems want a war hero, but despise war?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know