The rising anti war movement from the right. *POLL Added*

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for majwill24
majwill24

1355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 majwill24
Member since 2004 • 1355 Posts

There is a great article at antiwar.com byJustin Raimondo about the growing anti war/non interventionist movement in the republican party. He also wrote peice about the "isolationist" scare tactic that the elites from the Left and Right always use to tar and feather people who speak out against American interventionism and international meddling.

His article is quite long, so I'll just post a part of it.

Unlike Larison, I am willing to give advocates of withdrawal such as Chaffetz the benefit of a doubt, for two reasons. One, it is clear that a great many conservative Republicans are undergoing a transition: faced with the consequences of eight years ofdangerousanddebilitatingmilitarism, some are beginning to question the basic premises of interventionism, as Chaffetz does with his insistence on limiting the goal of the "war on terrorism" to simply taking out al-Qaeda.

Which brings us to the second reason for cutting Chaffetz a little slack, and that is the political importance of an emerging anti-interventionist caucus in the GOP, especially at the congressional level. The political rationale for Democratic hawkishness isalwaysthat the Republicans will supposedly beat up on Obama and the Democrats in Congress if they show "weakness." With a strong anti-interventionist tendency in the GOP, the Democratic Leadership Council and its "centrist" allies will have to come up with a different excuse.

Yes, it's true that politics in Washington is all about partisanship, and to be against this president and his programs is to at least call into question the conduct and motivating principles of his foreign policy – and anti-interventionists shouldn't hesitate for one moment to take full advantage of this. During the run up to the second world war, Republican opposition to FDR"sstrenuous(albeit largelycovert) attempts to drag us into the European side of the conflict provoked antiwar sentiment on the Republican right. The group that came together to oppose the Rooseveltian program of war abroad and a highly-centralized, semi-socialist state at home – those we call, in retrospect,the Old Right– came from very disparate points on the political spectrum: the Hooverites, Liberty Leaguers, and Taft Republicans on the right, and on the left disillusioned old-fashioned liberals like the journalistJohn T. Flynn, and anti-war, anti-Washington Midwestern progressives, such as SenatorBurton K. Wheeler, of Montana. Together, they built the biggest antiwar movement in American history, theAmerica First Committee, which, at its height, had 800,000 dues-paying members, and a large activist contingent.

This is the model we should emulate when building a contemporary movement against our policy of perpetual warfare. It will take a broad-based coalition, one that spans the political spectrum and allows for a high degree of variety, to stand against the Empire. But if we're going to have our old Republic back, it will be a battle worth fighting.

Avatar image for heysharpshooter
heysharpshooter

6348

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 heysharpshooter
Member since 2009 • 6348 Posts

Wow, this is a serious thread...

If we really cared about ending the war, we would simply hold state by state votes(that hold no power) and vote for or against staying in war. If a majority(and it would be a majority) said come home, the government would be forced to oblige, or face not being re-elected. Our government is no THAT complicated... the people in power WANT US to think its complicated.

Of course, our wars are far more complicated, and just leaving makes little sense. Its a double edged sword really.

Avatar image for -Pro-Link-
-Pro-Link-

6297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 -Pro-Link-
Member since 2006 • 6297 Posts

Wow, this is a serious thread...

If we really cared about ending the war, we would simply hold state by state votes(that hold no power) and vote for or against staying in war. If a majority(and it would be a majority) said come home, the government would be forced to oblige, or face not being re-elected. Our government is no THAT complicated... the people in power WANT US to think its complicated.

Of course, our wars are far more complicated, and just leaving makes little sense. Its a double edged sword really.

heysharpshooter

Indeed..However, I would vote to stay until what we started is finished. Otherwise they'd be in Chaos cause we'd leave them without a government. :P

Avatar image for Ultimas_Blade
Ultimas_Blade

3671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Ultimas_Blade
Member since 2004 • 3671 Posts

Wow, this is a serious thread...

If we really cared about ending the war, we would simply hold state by state votes(that hold no power) and vote for or against staying in war. If a majority(and it would be a majority) said come home, the government would be forced to oblige, or face not being re-elected. Our government is no THAT complicated... the people in power WANT US to think its complicated.

Of course, our wars are far more complicated, and just leaving makes little sense. Its a double edged sword really.

heysharpshooter

This is the price of a Representative Democracy. I for one believe direct democracies would too easily create schisms in the general population. Through representation there is someone to unite a cause or to be angry with when the **** hits the fan.

Avatar image for Democratik
Democratik

662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Democratik
Member since 2009 • 662 Posts
it has more to do with being anti obama the right thinks "hey since they hated bush so much, its our turn!" emotional thinkers. ugh...
Avatar image for Democratik
Democratik

662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Democratik
Member since 2009 • 662 Posts

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

Wow, this is a serious thread...

If we really cared about ending the war, we would simply hold state by state votes(that hold no power) and vote for or against staying in war. If a majority(and it would be a majority) said come home, the government would be forced to oblige, or face not being re-elected. Our government is no THAT complicated... the people in power WANT US to think its complicated.

Of course, our wars are far more complicated, and just leaving makes little sense. Its a double edged sword really.

Ultimas_Blade

This is the price of a Representative Democracy. I for one believe direct democracies would too easily create schisms in the general population. Through representation there is someone to unite a cause or to be angry with when the **** hits the fan.

constitutional democracy is fine. id rather directly vote on issues than people.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

it has more to do with being anti obama the right thinks "hey since they hated bush so much, its our turn!" emotional thinkers. ugh...Democratik

Eh, I think it is more politically motivated than anything else. Bush handed Obama an unpopular war. (maybe two) The right can now use the war to their advantage...

Avatar image for aransom
aransom

7408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 aransom
Member since 2002 • 7408 Posts

it has more to do with being anti obama the right thinks "hey since they hated bush so much, its our turn!" emotional thinkers. ugh...Democratik
No, people on the right see Obama declaring defeat in 18 months and we say, "if we're going to give up anyway, let's bring our guys home now."

Avatar image for clubsammich91
clubsammich91

2229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 clubsammich91
Member since 2009 • 2229 Posts
The only way to peace is a free market system, for example: England and France hate each other and in the past went to war constantly, but now that they are trading goods with each other there hasn't been a single war between the two. Why? Because one country needs the other in order to make money. That's right, I believe Globalization and the want and desire to get rich is helping to keep the peace.
Avatar image for hamstergeddon
hamstergeddon

7188

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 hamstergeddon
Member since 2006 • 7188 Posts
The only way to peace is a free market system, for example: England and France hate each other and in the past went to war constantly, but now that they are trading goods with each other there hasn't been a single war between the two. Why? Because one country needs the other in order to make money. That's right, I believe Globalization and the want and desire to get rich is helping to keep the peace.clubsammich91
That's bull. England and France haven't fought since the downfall of Napoleon in 1812. The reason for that is the advanced politics of alliances, non-aggression treaties, mutual enemies, etc. France and England traded with each other both before and after and between their many and numerous wars. Trade can't stop anything. The wonderful free market isn't the answer to everything.
Avatar image for Ultimas_Blade
Ultimas_Blade

3671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Ultimas_Blade
Member since 2004 • 3671 Posts
[QUOTE="Democratik"]it has more to do with being anti obama the right thinks "hey since they hated bush so much, its our turn!" emotional thinkers. ugh...

Co-signed. I think they feel like a beaten dog out for revenge.
Avatar image for Snipes_2
Snipes_2

17126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 Snipes_2
Member since 2009 • 17126 Posts

No, Anti-War Assemblies never end well.

Avatar image for clubsammich91
clubsammich91

2229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 clubsammich91
Member since 2009 • 2229 Posts

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]The only way to peace is a free market system, for example: England and France hate each other and in the past went to war constantly, but now that they are trading goods with each other there hasn't been a single war between the two. Why? Because one country needs the other in order to make money. That's right, I believe Globalization and the want and desire to get rich is helping to keep the peace.hamstergeddon
That's bull. England and France haven't fought since the downfall of Napoleon in 1812. The reason for that is the advanced politics of alliances, non-aggression treaties, mutual enemies, etc. France and England traded with each other both before and after and between their many and numerous wars. Trade can't stop anything. The wonderful free market isn't the answer to everything.

Those could have all easily fallen apart (as most non aggression acts do) But you can't deny that one country's urge to destroy it's neighbor is far outweighed by it's urge to make cash of that neighbor.


Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

you can't deny that one country's urge to destroy it's neighbor is far outweighed by it's urge to make cash of that neighbor.


clubsammich91

Which isn't always a good thing - e.g. the U.S. - Saddam relationship.