Who said this?:
"We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability-to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."
The dreaded neocons, right? That's why we have to elect Barack Obama, right?
Wrong: it's from the Democratic Party platform.
As John Schwenkler, who brought this to his readers' attention, writes:
That's better, of course, than bombing Iran and agitating for global war with Russia, which is what we get if we get the Maverick. But it's not acceptable by any stretch, and the general silence among the Lefty blogosphere about this issue suggests that there's quite a lot of truth in Joseph's remarks. ... But note well: the acceptability of using military force - costly, dangerous, citizen-killing military force - even when self-defense is not at issue is not being called into question by either of the major parties in the 2008 election cycle.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The government should actually have to convince the American people of the need of a war.
Or maybe Congress should get a backbone.
No one can credibly believe such a man is a warmonger.
Nevermind all the crooning about "Bomb,bomb,bomb Iran"?
I don't remember Ike ever really doing that.
Duh-sciple wrote: I follow a Lord who was not a wuss, but confronted violence by overcoming evil with good.
Beat the swords into plowshares
I respond: John 2:14-16
The common Orthodox icon of the Resurrection depicts Christ standing on the shattered gates of Hades, freeing the pre-Christian saints, as an @$$-whooped and bound Satan watches helplessly.
Blessed are the peacemakers :)
pb
Or maybe Congress should get a backbone.
Well, the thing about our system is that it's designed where wars are impossible to fight without the House, which is supposed to respond pretty immediately to public opinion, and it's even set up where they can't extend the allocation outside their term. This is 'avoided' by us pretending it's actually the president in charge of the war.
Instead of Congress getting a backbone, I suspect it's actually Americans who need to get one and consider the House letting a president wage war the same as one that just went and outright declared war.
Liberals/Democrats are selective pacifists. I remember also during Clinton how all of them from a crying Whoopy Goldberg on down, were begging him to send troops to Haiti to save the whack-job of Aristide. Obama, has said he would invade Pakistan unilaterally, without or without the consent of Pakistan or of the international community. During the 1930s they were pacifists before they were against it. They opposed getting involved in Europe but when Stalin gave the marching orders to the Comintern, the Communist Party USA had no difficulty putting together a "Lincoln Brigade" for Spain. They also declared themselves pacifists and opposed "lend-lease" to England while Stalin and Hitler had a pact. As soon as the pact was broken, and once again they got their marching orders from the Comintern; you couldn't keep them away from recruiting offices.
From Pax Christi to MoveOn.org they are, and have always been selective pacifists, but I guess that, as Al Franken's SNL self-help character "Stuart Smalley" would say, "That's....Ok."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.