How can we constructively interact with Dems who still support the war?

[Zhade]

My poll about shaming war supporters is GONE. Not locked - it just vanished. I realize endless threads about Schiavo and Michael Jackson are important and all, but hey, I guess sharing the truth about the war with DUers who foolishly support it is a bad thing.

So, to avoid THIS thread being shunted into the nether realm without even the decency of a "locking" comment, I ask: how do we deal constructively with those DUers, and by extension liberals and progressives, who still support this illegal war?

Do we shame them with knowledge? Ignore them? Figure them for freepers? Get into their personal reasons and show why they're flawed?

This is a serious question that should not be ignored. Far too many still take little issue with this war, and that sadly includes a lot of people who share most of our other ideals. It needs to be addressed.

Any ideas?

[TheFarseer]

1. I vote

Get into their personal reasons and show why they're flawed. They probably have some reason that they have simply never heard a counter for. Like I said on the other thread, if you still think this war is "just" "defending our freedom" and "worth it" I can't imagine what you are doing on this site.

[Zhade]

2. The hardest is the "for the Iraqi people" argument.

I mean, you know they care, but they're so wrong.

[NMDemDist2]

3. I wonder who you are talking about. I don't see much or really any

support on this message board for the war.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tamarin]

6. Show us the pro war posts please.

[Zhade]

8. That will get the thread locked, or vanished again.

So treat the question as a hypothetical: how do we deal with otherwise good people who support the war?

How do you do it in your daily life, for example?

[Tamarin]

17. Tread carefully and don't belittle them.

I don't have many friends and immediate family who are/were war supporters but there are a few neighbors and far off family members who are Bush supporters. I respect their feelings and just leave them alone. Sometimes my husband comes home from work with Rush Limbaugh-type talking points but I have been reading DU and already know the counterpoint, LOL. He is not a Bush nor war supporter but sometimes he is misinformed.

[Zhade]

31. That's got to be incredibly frustrating!

I know there are a couplefew posters here married to conservatives/b*s* supporters - I have no idea how they manage to keep a happy marriage (assuming it IS happy)!

I couldn't do it.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[EFerrari]

14. Welcome to DU, Tamarin.

:hi:

[Tamarin]

18. Thank You.

I'm one of those people who has been around for awhile but just posts now and then. I love this site.

[EFerrari]

23. Me, too. Nice to see you posting.

:)

[cynatnite]

4. I have never seen a DUer supporting the war.

That's not to say there isn't any...I'm saying that I've yet to see it.

[Jacobin]

21. Before the invasion, a good 25 to 30% were scared shitless of Saddam's

"WMDs" and were for the war.

I remember that clearly

[cynatnite]

22. I didn't think there were WMD

I couldn't see the inspectors lying or being that mistaken since they were the ones in Iraq. Didn't make sense. But the nagging doubts about what they were saying stayed with me.

When Powell spoke at the UN I started believing they were there, but the imminent danger to the US seemed overblown. I still wanted the inspectors to do their job. Do that first and then think about invading. I worried about sending troops in to die for a mistake. After all I thought 9/11 happened because of an intelligence failure.

The fear was there, I have to admit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. You mean like Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Lieberman, et al?

Don't vote for them or any other Democrat who supports the slaughter.

[Zhade]

9. Yeah, but I mean regular people, not elites.

I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with them myself!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I usually send them photos of "collateral damage" and a quote.

From Gandhi:

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

If they can still defend the war, I give it up.

[Lexingtonian]

10. How about giving up all the high horse moralism

and just letting the facts speak for themselves? If you don't like bible thumpers, remember that your behavior is not fundamentally different- all about hypotheticals and a theory.

I know, it's a reflexive defense mechanism for a lot of people to jump for the higher moral ground and throw rocks at those further down. But at this point you're not persuading anyone of anything other than that you're throwing rocks at them.

Let it go. The Iraq problem was an unresolved problem in 2002. I was against the war, but you're not going to get me to want the status quo ante of a low intensity undeclared war lasting more than a decade either.

[Zhade]

11. How is being correct about this illegal war "high horse moralism"?

It's illegal. There was no threat. Decent people shouldn't support it.

If that's "high horse moralism", fuck it, at least I'm moral!

And as far as the sanctions go, we're likely on the same page on that.

[Lexingtonian]

24. that is it exactly

I hate to tell you that in matters of war, the technical matter of "illegal" is beside the point for most people. The true standards for justifiability change with time, and they are extrajudicial.

Technically, Saddam Hussein should not have resisted the U.S. Army advance to enforce UN Resolution whateveritwas. It was illegal for him fight. If he had not fought, the U.S. Army would technically have had to withdraw and leave the Ba'ath government in place once it couldn't find WMDs.

Your problem here is that a large chunk of America saw Iraq, along with a bunch of other countries, as residues of the Cold War and the Soviet Union's efforts and Stalinism itself. In a sense the Cold War is not truly over until every last totalitarian/authoritarian regime propped or created or sponsored by the USSR is overthrown, until every Soviet (aka "Communist" aka Stalinist) dictator is toppled. The so-called Axis of Evil is not what its label says, but to a Cold War electorate defined by Nixon it still represents a historical problem whose resolution is their legacy to the world- the end of a variety of political order that goes back to Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan's Mongols. It's what justifies the suffering and efforts of two generations of Americans in their own eyes. The end of the Asian Hordes, the Asian Face of Russia. It means that white Americans, in turn, adopt the roles and views and recapitulate behavior of the Europeans who fought at Tours and Poitiers, on the Catalaunian Fields, on the Lechfeld, the Crusaders.

That's the big picture that your narrow moralism doesn't account for to your opposition. If you widen it, if you let go of the technicalities, you'd achieve more persuasion.

If you actually found answers, rather than objections, to the real reasons people backed the war/occupation, it would also help. For a lot of Americans, warring Arabs affecting the quality of their day 5,000 miles and two oceans away are signs of the unbearable dissolution of borders and barriers that the Modern world represents. Since they can't beat on their fellow Americans more for the pain of Modernity, someone else must be whipping boy. In turn, Arabs see the same phenomena and convict Americans of the same intrusions and criminality. (Crime, though not statistically very important, spreads across diminishing borders far more quickly than shared humanity does- and the paranoid and xenophobic see it.)

For aging Jewish Americans, Hussein was/is one of the existential threats to Israeli society- and truthfully, almost none of the elder people part of the political power structure of the Arab world who came of age before 1948 really accepts the existence of the State of Israel, whatever the truth of crimes one way or another. (Elderly Israelis are the converse, of course, denying Arabs any legitimacy.)

There's also the way the U.S. failed the Kurds during the Cold War to amend.

So there is a little truth and reality beyond all the standard Right wing and war supporter bullshit, and finding the right response to that little bit is what actually wins the argument.

I just can't agree with your approach. You can't moralize convincingly without an accounting of what the real roots of the problem are. Technicalities only annoy people. Comprehensive analyses and solutions are what they want.

[Vladimir]

28. But Saddam was our guy

not the Soviets', and the US didn't fail the Kurds so much as it provided the weapons that killed them. I mean, if these are people's reasons for supporting the war, then they need a cold bloody dose of reality. Its not so much a big picture as a big charade - and for goodness sake, if people are supporting this war to take out their frustrations about outsourcing and multiculturalism onto a new generation of negroes, then they are truly beyond redemption. But I don't think they are that stupid...

[Zhade]

34. It seems the propaganda machine is so effective, even Dems fall for it.

That's about the only thing I can see explaining why an otherwise good person who shares our ideals would support the war, since most of Lex's points revolve around arguments pumped up by lies and propaganda (Cold War, etc).

(This is not to say Lex is wrong or falling for propaganda, but that some of his arguments rely on citizens falling for the decades of lies in order to make sense of their support for the war.)

[Zhade]

32. "Saddam Hussein should not have resisted..."

If you're speaking of the UN resolutions, he didn't resist. He let the inspectors in. (I may be misreading you, though.)

"So there is a little truth and reality beyond all the standard Right wing and war supporter bullshit, and finding the right response to that little bit is what actually wins the argument."

It sounds almost as if the way to convince them the war is wrong and actually making the world less safe is... to convince Americans to stop being so racist and xenophobic.

Not exactly an easy task.

[Lexingtonian]

42. eh, well,

According to the terms of the armistice, the 1991 war coalition and UN could remove and destroy any wmds at any time and were entitled to use force to do so for that limited objective. That meant sending in a mechanized infantry division if the UN decided it to be appropriate. Hussein claimed to have no wmds after a while, which wasn't entirely true. As it was, they sent in these civilian "inspection teams" for a couple of years, with all the cute hijinx that ensued. The Bush people saw the loophole there- concoct 'evidence', get the UN to send in armored divisions the U.S. volunteered to send. Hussein wasn't going to consent to the de facto occupation of a couple of weeks or months imposed on him- politically it meant instigated and incidental breakdown of his power, and that meant he'd have a revolt on his hands and lose power. He might as well flee the country; in military occupations there are a lot of 'mistakes' and people get killed in ways that can never quite be proven to be murder.

The way to convince people the war is wrong...it depends on whom exactly you're talking about, and what you mean by wrong. For one thing, a lot of people aren't really moralizers. Indies have given up on the war because it's delivering nothing palpable except problems. Moderate Republicans aren't into higher morality; give them a cost/benefit analysis that shows the supposed real benefits ("freedom" and "democracy") are never going to materialize and most of the cost- money and lives- are wasted.

You're not going to convince hardline Republicans. In their eyes conquest and toppling of leaders in the Stalin mold- proof of their own power and historical relevance- is most of what they really wanted. They'll give up support when the situation changes to where Americans are the vanquished- when Bush orders the withdrawal, when Iraqis topple statues of him. But they'll never admit it was truly wrong. They have a might makes right morality- and suffer it, too.

I think you're most upset about some Democrats who can't let go of some fantasy about this war improving things. Like I said, a lot of it is Israelcentric/anti-Arab at bottom and some of it is Middle Eastern utopianism. These supporters are people who don't see that an elder generation or two has to pass away before the feudal and tribal era in the region really ends fully, that conflict with the Modern condition is the source of all the trouble. These supporters also harbor all kinds of fantasies that just coming up with the right -ocracy or -ism and killing off of a few select individual people will settle all the issues. I don't think they can be persuaded in the short term or middle term- it's a willpower and desire thing, and ends only when material failure is great enough to make the fantasy involved impossible. But when pressed carefully and nicely, they'll admit it to be a fantasy, with too much emotional difficulty associated with letting it go.

[Zhade]

43. "That meant sending in a mechanized infantry division if the UN decided.."

There's the rub, and why it's an illegal war: the UN never authorized a second resolution. We illegally invaded. I suppose it's true that many moderates and especially Republicans often ignore legality for what they think is right.

FYI, I was an independent who opposed the war from before we invaded - I didn't "give up on it". So keep in mind that no group is monolithic (and likewise, I will do the same).

[LuPeRcALiO]

13. That way madness lies.

Simply can't be done, unless you want to get Milbanked, so probably the best course is just to expose the lies when they crop up.

[LightningFlash]

15. By getting rid of them.

If John Kerry still supports this war, if Joe Lieberman still supports this war, if these other high dems like Joe Biden still support the war.....

Kick them out by using the power of voting. And mandate no matter what the VVPB backup to ALL machines!!!!

http://www.commoncause.org

[cynatnite]

16. My theory

The one thing I think it's important to keep in mind is that most people cannot comprehend that an administration would outright lie and send troops as a result.

It's a notion that is tough to swallow. We all like to believe that those we admire, like or even respect are at the very least as caring as we are.

No one wants to think that this administration is as bad as many of us know it to be. My mother, RW as she is, but on some things she is fairly liberal on, cannot comprehend at the things bush and his cronies will do.

It would take bush and/or his minions to actually commit these criminal acts in front of them to really believe it. Some people will not take the word of the media, their family or barely their eyes to see the truth.

Unfortunately, there are people, no matter their political belief, who will not acknowledge the truth no matter how it is presented to them.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Define "support for the war"

There are those that "support for the war" because they agree with the Bush's faith-based foreign policy goals for the Middle East. To them we have nothing so say!

Then there are those that "support" the war out of fear of the aftermath, the "we broke we fix it" crowd. To them we can point out that each day we remain in Iraq will only succeed in adding additional names to a marble wall in a future Iraq War Memorial. Our defeat in Iraq is inevitable and irreversible!

[Zhade]

25. Support from beginning to now.

Not talking about "Pottery Barn" folks.

[IndianaGreen]

26. We have nothing to say to these people, Zhade!

Support from beginning to now. Not talking about "Pottery Barn" folks.

They are as ideologically rigid as their counterparts in the GOP!

We are dealing with people whose entire world view is faith-based. It is inconceivable for them to accept facts that challenge their views on any given issue. Just as their Republican counterparts believe to this day that AIDS is Gawd's punishment to gays, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, that the press is liberal, that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale, and that the dinosaurs were contemporaries of Noah and the Flood; these Dems you speak of have convinced themselves that we are in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy.

Our neolibs are cut from the same cloth as their neocons!

[Zhade]

35. It really hurts to think they can't be reached.

To think that they may be against "free trade" and globalization, and for so many leftist ideals, yet cling to their belief that the war is bringing about good results, is like a knife in the heart.

(I'm using a real example of someone on DU, who will remain nameless.)

[IndianaGreen]

46. The belief that America is a benign force in the world is delusional...

at best. Other than our role in defeating Nazi Germany I cannot think of any other US military intervention in the world that resulted in anything but cruelty, oppression, and subjugation of peoples less technologically advanced from us.

Puncturing the rose colored bubble that many have about America can be compared to having an archaeologist discover the actual tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, with his body still inside of it. Think of what that would do to those that believed in Jesus's divinity? The same can be said of those that believe that the US means to do well were they to find out that everything they were taught about America since grade school were falsehoods.

[Zhade]

47. Wow, good analogy.

When you're right, you're right!

[Jacobin]

20. If they've drunk the koolaid, there is a guilt factor that's hard to

overcome.

Those who supported and in some cases strongly supported the invasion know that 1700 americans are dead and 12,000 maimed along with 100,000 plus dead Iraqis, with no end in sight. They know that this will go on as long as we are there, and probably for a time after we leave.

They know there was no reason for the invasion. NO WMDs. They know we have tortured Iraqis, killed and maimed children, women and innocent Iraqis. They know that our soldiers who come home, many of them will be scarred for life and will become non-functioning zombies because of what they did or what they witnessed.

When you have all that on your conscience, even as a passive observer and passive supporter of the invasion, you feel that something good must come of it all. And so, you perserver, you don't retreat, you keep telling yourself and everyone you know that it was "worth it" for all the various, disconnected, made up reasons that you hear every day which have nothing at all for the 'reasons' that we invaded (at least publicly discussed reasons). You don't want people to have 'died in vain', for it have all been for naught, for it even to have made a pretty bad, but at least stable situation, much much much worse. You don't want to believe that you had a hand in a cataclysm of suffering and carnage and death.

I know people get really really tired of hearing the comparisons to Viet Nam. I lived through that and I'm hear to tell you, its the same syndrome all over again. Exactly the same syndrome.

We are in an absolute no-win situation. The reason things are bad is because most Iraqis want us gone. If they wanted us to stay, they would not give the insurgents cover. They would report them, they would cooperate. They don't. It is plain. It is not even worth arguing with anyone about. They don't want us there (except for the puppet government officials who we support and protect from their own countrymen).

I would like to be optimistic. I would like to think that even though Viet Nam was only 35 years ago that some people still remember the ghastly consequences of staying a losing course. I would like to think that congress is courageous and will act like a co-equal branch of government to check what an out of control executive branch does. I would like to think so. What we have is a few congresscritters doing the right thing....I can only hope it will catch on. Bravery and statesmanship in congress now almost seems quaint its so unusual. Unfortunately, only with tens of thousands of dead americans will the truth dawn on the jingoistic population of this country.

I don't know how you talk to these people. They are not well. They are sick inside and are perpetuating the harm they feel guilty about in hopes that they will be proven right. I don't admire them. I don't like them. I don't feel sorry for them.

I just wish they would fucking grow up.

[Sather Gate]

41. "Unfortunately, only with tens of thousands of dead americans

will the truth dawn on these jingoistic folks. Ain't it the truth. I too saw this phenomenon in the VietNam era. The psychology of these well-meaning lemmings hasn't changed since that time. It's built into human nature - the herd instinct. Mavericks don't survive. There are several pertinent differences in the present war. First, there is no draft. They were drafting men into the combat Marines in VietNam. Second, the media is not covering this war the way VietNam was covered. The elites and the military-industrial complex learned their lesson from VietNam, and they will never again allow free-roaming reporters to cover the blood and gore, the atrocities, and the daily lies, and let it get into Joe Sixpack's lving room on the teevee every night. They even created a special propaganda corps to "cover" this war - Faux News - this time. This war, no reporter can cover unless he's "embedded" - "in bed with" the military. In the chaos that has been created, "reporters" do not venture outside their fortified hotels, or, if they have their druthers, the Green Zone fortress. Third, the present group of warmongers are decidedly more messianical than Johnson and Nixon were, and so are their diehard followers. Think "jacobin" and "trotskyite" for the neocons, and think "wacko" for the Christian Right fundies, many of whom thought that this war was going to precipitate the confrontation with the AntiChrist, the Rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ - I kid you not. If it doesn't, they'll just contort Scripture some more to rationalize, and they will never, never stop believing that Dubya is a godly man and God's gift to the world.
So....let the casualties roll up. Let this country spend itself into oblivion. What happened to Rome, will happen to us - at an accelerated pace. The average lifespan of nations is 200 years - I think Max Weber said that.

[Just Me]

27. Dearest Zhade,...

Please, don't beat up on people's confusion or vulnerability or weakness. There are so many GOOD people who work relentlessly to be the best they can be and contribute their best to their neighbors and communities.

IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED AND EXPLOITED!!!!

I sincerely believe that you do NOT comprehend or acknowledge the depth of the betrayal which has taken place against our people. IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT!!!

I beg you, I plead with you to avoid attacking the victims rather than the perpetrators. I beg you to STOP assuming the victims held the knowledge that you have acquired.

If you want a conversation, why not have that conversation begin with confronting the predator? :shrug:

[Zhade]

36. You have a point.

Maybe I don't realize the depth of betrayal because I've known for a long time that this country has done reprehensible things. Being from Native American roots, for example, showed that for me from an early age (my fullblooded maternal great-grandfather was adopted into a white family after his family was killed by the USG, so I knew from as far back as I can recall that the government had committed terrible crimes).

I will take your words with me, and keep them in mind. And you're right - even if I could convince those deceived by the government and its sick allies, my efforts would be better served by going after the criminals in power, not those they betray on a daily basis.

Thanks, JM. I needed to hear this.

[H2O Man]

29. Indeed: how does one remove the rose colored glasses

from those who are good and decent people, but who think that the USA has to remain in Iraq until the problems are "solved"? An interesting question.

To begin, one needs to understand where those shades come from, which allow our friends to have such distorted thinking. In large part, it comes from the combination of the Bush administration's outright lies, and the corporate news media's distortions in reporting the true nature of the war. This is what has created the detached, almost sterile view of the conflict.

There may not be any one single answer. We need to be able to reach people where they are at. Some folks get mad at being lied to by the president. These often include those who used to say, "Well they probably know somethingthat we don't!" In truth, they did -- they knew they were lying outright to the American people.

Others still believe there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. I would love to have a short film clip of Bush, as seen at a press conference (and on Moore's movie) saying he didn't really think much about Usama bin Laden anymore, and put it with him debating Kerry, saying, "I NEVER said that!" The sterile image must be soiled visibly.

The third group says, "Now that we are there, we have to fix it." There is not a single piece of evidence that the violence we started in Iraq would continue if we withdrew. We are the cause of the violence.

The administration has kept the violence in Iraq from our tv screens. We see a burning automobile, but not human suffering. The visual is detached from the audio: the Iraqis are not in a war against automobiles. The wounded Americans are not being repaired in a garage.

I believe that making the war real is the best tactic.

[Zhade]

37. Great post!

I really like the "Iraqis are not in a war against automobiles. The wounded Americans are not being repaired in a garage" bit. You have a way with words.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the war real on a large scale. I fear only the draft will do that.

[H2O Man]

39. It can be hard.

But we have to have the confidence that if we find some points that make people think .... that when they begin to question the war, they will see that this country has been had. Fooled. Tricked. Lied to.

If the administration needed to lie to the American public, and the congress, in order to get support for his war, there had to be a reason. What was it about the truth, that Bush/Cheney had to hide from us?

By asking questions, and getting others to question their previously held assumptions about this war, the support for "staying the course" will fade.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Who are some Dems that still support the war

I'm just curious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Kerry, Clinton(s), Lieberman, Edwards, Bayh, Biden,..

The usual suspects.

[Zhade]

38. Again, I mean in general, not specifically.

Not just talking about politicians, or DUers, but people one meets in everyday life.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Pretty much every Kerry voter I know thinks the war was a bad idea

In fact a lot of Bush voters I know even think the war was a bad idea but still voted for him on stupid logic such as...

"Well Bush got us into this mess, but he can get us out. Kerry will only make the mess bigger."

"Not my kids dieing in Iraq and frankly I don't want my taxes raised."

"Kerry is a flip-flopper and Bush is consistant. Even if he misled us to war, the terrorists know that he is serious."

"Who cares if he misled us to war, Kerry doesn't have a plan and Bush does."

You get the picture

So I don't think that it's a matter of convincing people that the war was wrong at this point, I think that it's a matter of convincing people that the man they elected President is a giant douche who is in no way qualified for the job and that if they want change, they need to get out to the polls in 2006 and 2008 and vote Democrat.

[killbotfactory]

40. I don't know

Whenever I see someone still supporting the war my initial reaction is "What are you fucking retarded?". To me it's like arguing with someone who thinks the moon is actually made of cheese. How the hell do you tackle that kind of ignorance?

[PsN2Wind]

44. Point out to them that

"The war on terrorism" has no definite time limit or even definite locale, so are they willing to subject themselves or their loved ones to the draft, and its possible consequences, to support a war based on "fixed" intelligence.

[LuPeRcALiO]

45. I think you have to assume

that there are many here who have their own reasons for supporting the war that they do not and will not share, so reasoning with them is futile.

Also, their support is usually covert, as seen for instance in their attacks on George Galloway.

[Rex]

49. I don't see any on this board anymore.

No one here supports the war anymore.