Yeah. To this day I know some people who deny that Obama and Biden ever declared war without congressional authorization, or started new wars in the middle east.
It is also an empirical fact that predictions are extremely inaccurate, and often grossly underestimated, about the consequences of defeat, defeat understood to include failure to respond in kind when an enemy makes war.
The experience of history generally has been pretty unambiguous, which is why there are so few pacifists.
We are perhaps influenced by a sort of pause: after a more-or-less certain point in history, defeat by a Christian European county or one of its ex-colonial progeny would not generally be accompanied by massive slaughter or enslavement of the civilian population. But as to at least some European countries, and as to some ex-colonies liberated post-World War II, the Twentieth Century put paid to that.
I may add that such restraint was never true of the enemies America (and NATO, if that term is not obsolete) now faces, nor of those Israel faces, nor of those that the Jews and Christians as such face. (One wishes one didn't have to speak of enemies of peoples rather than countries, of course, but here we are.)
There were 150,000 troops in Iraq when Obama took office and they had all been withdrawn by 2011. It seems pretty clear to me that the anti-war movement (which was largely based around Iraq) succeeded in getting its candidate* elected and then that candidate ended the war they were protesting.
*obama made a big deal out of his opposing Iraq unlike Hillary who voted for it, so even within democrats the anti-war side won.
Now you can certainly criticize that Obama and other democrats were hawks on non-Iraq war issues if you want, but it seems obvious to me that the anti-Iraq war movement succeeded in its goal of brining the troops home from Iraq.
I would also note that Donald Trumps criticism of the Iraq war was pivotal in his winning the primary in 2016. He largely followed up that anti-war rhetoric throughout his first term. His recent turn towards hawkishness has proven extremely unpopular and cost him the support of many on his side.
"... The peace movement was not about peace." --- Likewise, the current thing about a river and a sea in the middle east isn't about the middle east, the people, the religions, etc. They just hate the regime. Once Gavin Newsom is President, anti-semitism will likely revert to its historical low class coded behaviour.
If anything it's been the opposite more recently. The anti-war(or at least anti-Israel) protestors were launching huge events during Biden's time. But under Trump, there hasn't been particularly large protests, despite him escalating all the way up to war with Iran!
I do not think Democrats are comparable to Republicans in this. Bush started Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump started the Iran war. Democrats have not been pacifist but they have not expanded warfare nearly as much as Republicans have.
Dems have had every opportunity to escalate and get deeper involved in the middle east but generally have not. At least not to the degree Republicans have.
Remy did a hilarious music video satire of this topic: https://youtu.be/c5wn8zn5fF8
"Those are things I'll protest and scream unless, you know, it hurts my team."
Yeah. To this day I know some people who deny that Obama and Biden ever declared war without congressional authorization, or started new wars in the middle east.
It is also an empirical fact that predictions are extremely inaccurate, and often grossly underestimated, about the consequences of defeat, defeat understood to include failure to respond in kind when an enemy makes war.
The experience of history generally has been pretty unambiguous, which is why there are so few pacifists.
We are perhaps influenced by a sort of pause: after a more-or-less certain point in history, defeat by a Christian European county or one of its ex-colonial progeny would not generally be accompanied by massive slaughter or enslavement of the civilian population. But as to at least some European countries, and as to some ex-colonies liberated post-World War II, the Twentieth Century put paid to that.
I may add that such restraint was never true of the enemies America (and NATO, if that term is not obsolete) now faces, nor of those Israel faces, nor of those that the Jews and Christians as such face. (One wishes one didn't have to speak of enemies of peoples rather than countries, of course, but here we are.)
Have you read Fearon's Rationalist Explanations for War?
I'd be interested to get your take on it
There were 150,000 troops in Iraq when Obama took office and they had all been withdrawn by 2011. It seems pretty clear to me that the anti-war movement (which was largely based around Iraq) succeeded in getting its candidate* elected and then that candidate ended the war they were protesting.
*obama made a big deal out of his opposing Iraq unlike Hillary who voted for it, so even within democrats the anti-war side won.
Now you can certainly criticize that Obama and other democrats were hawks on non-Iraq war issues if you want, but it seems obvious to me that the anti-Iraq war movement succeeded in its goal of brining the troops home from Iraq.
I would also note that Donald Trumps criticism of the Iraq war was pivotal in his winning the primary in 2016. He largely followed up that anti-war rhetoric throughout his first term. His recent turn towards hawkishness has proven extremely unpopular and cost him the support of many on his side.
"... The peace movement was not about peace." --- Likewise, the current thing about a river and a sea in the middle east isn't about the middle east, the people, the religions, etc. They just hate the regime. Once Gavin Newsom is President, anti-semitism will likely revert to its historical low class coded behaviour.
If anything it's been the opposite more recently. The anti-war(or at least anti-Israel) protestors were launching huge events during Biden's time. But under Trump, there hasn't been particularly large protests, despite him escalating all the way up to war with Iran!
I do not think Democrats are comparable to Republicans in this. Bush started Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump started the Iran war. Democrats have not been pacifist but they have not expanded warfare nearly as much as Republicans have.
letting your oppos take the heat for starting what you happily continue is politically opportunistic, not morally superior.
Dems have had every opportunity to escalate and get deeper involved in the middle east but generally have not. At least not to the degree Republicans have.
"Democrats’ war policies were very similar so those of their Republican predecessors, "
JUST so.