Should the Dem candidates be anti or pro war?

[yelladawg]

Should the Democratic candidates for any office be anti or pro war? I asked a similiar question yesterday and was surprised at the answers. Thank you for your replies.

[OneBlueSky]

1. well, I for one will not vote for a "pro-war" candidate . . .

the war in Iraq is illegal, unethical, immoral, and just plain stupid . . . if the eventual Democratic candidate comes out in favor of it, I'll be looking for a third party to support . . .

[pansypoo53219]

6. now that is stupid

that just gives GEORGE the WH again.
if you do not vote for the LESS OF TWO EVILS

YOU WILL GET EVIL

[Paschall]

2. Surprised at the answers?

How so?

I'm surprised by the question. Isn't the answer as obvious as the Quagmire?

[yelladawg]

7. My surprise was...

I was surprised at how many people will support a Democratic candidate who is very supportive of bush and his Iraqi War.

[HFishbine]

3. Pro?

Pro Iraq war? Pro Afghanistan war? Pro war against North Korea? Pro war on drugs? Pro war on poverty?

What mean you by pro-war?

[yelladawg]

8. I should have said pro Iraqi war

Thanks for the correction. I should have said pro Iraqi War.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Muddled question....

I don't think either extreme position is correct, for any party or candidate. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who was anti/pro war in EVERY potential circumstance. I am enough of a realist to know that, sometimes, military action may be required of our country. Hopefully it is rarely done and well considered in advance.

In THIS circumstance with Iraq -- an illegal invasion and occupation of another country, I want the candidate that knew it was wrong from the beginning and would not have taken us down that road.

[pansypoo53219]

5. no issue with a just war

but pro IWaq is a no brainer.
IRAQ WAS NOT AN IMMINENRT THREAT GEIORGE! YOU LIED AND 349 SOLDIERS HAVE DIED!

[w4rma]

9. anti-Iraq war, so neither anti-war nor pro-war.

I supported the first war in Iraq because one of our allies was invaded, and we had a responsibility to defend them. I supported the war in Afghanistan; 3,000 of our people were murdered. I thought we had a right to defend the US.

But in the case of Iraq, the president told us that Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein were about to make a deal. The president told us that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. They told us that the Iraqis were about to get atomic weapons. That turned out not to be true. They told us they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That turned out to be false as well.

As commander in chief of the US military, I will never hesitate to send troops anywhere in the world to defend the US. But I will never send our sons and daughters to a foreign country in harm's way without telling the truth to the American people about why they're going there. And that judgment needs to be made first, not afterwards.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_War_+_Peace.htm

[killbotfactory]

10. I would prefer someone who saw through the BS

And didn't cower in fear of Dubya's alarmist rhetoric and poll numbers. You know, a leader with some cojones and common sense.

[Lady President]

11. Anti-liar / Pro-common sense

First, we need a leader who will be honest with the people and not have a vendetta against any country or leader. Second, we need a leader with some common sense to be able to analyze intelligence documents and understand foreign affairs.

Assuming you mean Iraq in particular... I'm going to be unpopular and say it doesn't matter whether the candidate was for or against the IWR. My favorites have different views on this issue. Bush* lied repeatedly to the Congress and the American people making it impossible to make an informed vote. I don't think any vote would have mattered because Bush* and his cohorts would have made up an excuse to invade.

Currently, we need to focus on how to get the U.N. involved and keep our troops as safe as possible until they can leave.

[Sean Reynolds]

12. There isn't one anti-war candidate running (well, not sure about Sharpton)

Dean, Braun, Kucinich all opposed THIS war but I wouldn't call ANY of them anti-war. Anti-war means you're a pacifist and will never use war as a result to curb ANY problem, whether it be national or international. I can't say where Sharpton stands, but one must believe he isn't 100% anti-war.

I believe both Dean and Braun would use war to fight terrorism, but only with UN support. I feel Kucinich would use war if America was in immediate threat and or attacked by another nation.

[CordeliaB]

14. already involved

Obviously, a great number of people were opposed to the war, even if a number of politicians did not feel able to state it. In my opinion, this is a failing of the current government. Although I may have been anti-war when there was a choice, now I believe that we have a certain responsibility to deal with the situation in Iraq, and to attempt to help the Iraqis to form their own stable government as quickly as possible (without sacrificing quality of governance).

Many of the Democratic candidates have expressed a desire to work more closely with the international community, and I think this is what is at stake now. It's sad that the war in Iraq happened, but I think that the most important thing to address is how candidates plan to deal with the current situation and plan to address future situations like the one we encountered in Iraq.

First and foremost, I think we need to get away from the rhetoric of GWB, which defines threats as black and white (evil or good). It is unsafe (as we have seen) to have preconceptions about regimes. I was incredibly disappointed, while searching Democratic candidate websites to see that Howard Dean (one of the most prominent anti-war proponents) uses just such language on his website, saying "Saddam Hussein's regime was clearly evil" (Securing At Home and Abroad). The Iraqi regime was oppressive and possibly dangerous, but I think we need to keep our objectivity and stay away from fairy-tale terms such as "good" and "evil."

You'll have to excuse if the link doesn't work - I haven't quite figured out everything yet.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Should the Dem candidates be anti or pro genocide?

What about motherhood? Should they be for it or against it?

:eyes:

[Speck Tater]

15. Pro war? Anti war? Which war?

Let's see, pro WW II, Anti-Viet Nam, pro Gulf War I, pro Afganistan, anti-Iraq.

Being uncategorically anti-war is simplistic.

[thentro]

16. the nom. will go to an anti-Iraq war candidate

I think it will be down to Clark and Dean, both who have been against the war from before it was even an issue.

[JohnKleeb]

17. yet Kucinich doesnt have a chance being a liberal I bet

Actually I think Kucinich came out the earliest against the war, but so I am told he doesnt have a chance.

[genius]

18. Anti-occupation. One of the three who opposed the $87 billion

That's Kucinich, Kerry or Edwards.