Wide Rift Within the Democratic Party on Foreign Policy

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man, but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Think beyond Iraq.  You are as fixated on the war as you are on President Bush.   

Well, in Afganistan, Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Of course you warmongers don't seem to care.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously the non-military aspect of 'liberal internationalist' imperialism - such as the UN - has been fairly beneficial for the US and the interests of at least its elite.   When this philosophy of international relations has been used to engage in aggressive wars - such as Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., its utility has been very poor. 

I voted that I am a 'leftist anti-imperialist', but I don't think that fits pefectly.  I would prefer the appellation 'McGovern Democrat'.

McGovern is more of a war hero than any of the warmongers.
http://www.law.uc.edu/current/auschwitz050418/index.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Think beyond Iraq.  You are as fixated on the war as you are on President Bush.   

Well, in Afganistan, Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora. Of course you warmongers don't seem to care.

You, unsurprisingly, missed the point of my comment which was: do you on the left have any plan or strategy on how to battle terrorism for the next generation?  This question assumes, of course, that you leftists have the willingness and desire to do whatever it takes to defend this country from those who seek to do it harm........   

Yes, first off

1. Pay atttention to memos titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
2.When you have Osama cornered, don't fight some low level proxy battle like Bush did. If we can afford 200,000 troops for Iraq, we could have afforded a few thousand there.
3. Don't get the whole world pissed off at us. Fighting terrorism works much better when you have the hearts of most individuals. After 9/11, French newspapers ran headlines: "We are all Americans now", and sent a bunch of troops to Afganistan. For some reason we decided to bash France for the next few years.

You are the ones who are soft on fighting terrorism. You enabled an adminstration ignored every pre-9/11 threat, and let Osama get away. Before 9/11, an FBI investigator actually concluded that the "20th hijacker" wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. The signs were all there. But no, this lousy President that you have propped up was on his month long vacation, and he didn't want to piss off his friends in Saudi Arabia.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

These warmongers don't have a clue. If you want a moderate Democrat who has a clue, try Bob Graham. He voted against the Iraq war BECAUSE it would distract from the war on terror.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says "no war ever" or "war always" are both fools. I support a war based on the intentions. For example,

I would have supported WWII. Fasist regime dominating Europe, killing off millions of people, and THEN trying to set up a movement in a America. Obvious threat, take em' out as quickly as possible.

The War in Iraq however had no connection to 9/11 or the Jihad that threatened our people or national intrests. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, and kicked the nessecary ass. Unfortunately, our administration let al-Quaida get away. That is the biggest tradgisty of the fight against terrorism...despite the acts of 9/11, our president and our department of defense let our attackers get away.

"No war ever" is a straw man.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm not a democrat but I think Aericawould be for the best if one of the 2 big parties adopted a foreign policy based on realpolitik. None of this neocon wannabe imperialism or the lefty feel good "save the world" internationalism. America needs realpolitik.

I think most of the Democrats opposed to the Iraq war fall in that catagory. Of course people will straw man them into other postiions, but that's other people using lies, and not our fault.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Liberal internationalist (or interventionist, in my case) but I don't really consider myself liberal on foreign policy at all

Dave

Well you wouldn't be as the term is defined today (although I've always maintained that the vast majority of liberals don't support what conservatives like to call liberal foreign policy, but that's for a different thread).

But as the article defines it, you certainly would be. Traditionally liberal foreign policy supported the idea that the United States has a moral obligation to make the world a better place, while conservative foreign policy traditionally was more focused on the idea that we shouldn't care about anyone else and focus on ourselves.

But the article does make a good point, in that there are essentially two very different types of isolationsists; those who view "Americanization" of the world as doing more bad than good, and the far more common type, which, as I mentioned, basically don't give a damn about what goes on outside of our borders.

Likewise, interventionists can be both those who view the United States as a force for good in the world, or those who want to make the rest of the world more like us so as to better serve our interests.

If you word things like that, I think you'll find a lot of anti-Iraq war people show up in the first interventionist catagory.