Spring Break
The blood thirsty leftists
Ted Hamilton
Issue date: 4/9/09 Section: Opinion
The other day I heard something striking from a socialist - she considers the Democrats to be allies of the anti-war movement. Normally I find most socialist rhetoric to be, at the least, absurd - if not completely insane - but that they consider Democrats to be a friend on this issue?
I see no reason why the term "Democratic Party" should be associated with the term "blood orgy."
Since 2001, the left has tried to come off as the anti-war wing, the party that people should vote for if they are against the United States' military excursions. Sadly, this is not the case and rarely ever has been.
Almost every time our country has been involved in a war during the 20th century, it was during the reign of a person from the Democratic Party. World War I, World War II, the Korean War and a lot of the skirmishes in between all saw United States involvement during a Democratic administration.
Even Vietnam - which many Democrats use to draw comparisons to the Iraq War - was helped along by their adored John F. Kennedy.
No one should forget that George W. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, also had his share of interventions. During Operation Desert Fox - Slick Willy's foray into Iraq - somewhere between 600 and 1,200 Iraqis were murdered by the bombardment. Likewise during Clinton's administration, NATO conducted Operation Allied Force during the Kosovo War in which almost 500 civilians met an untimely end.
This is not to say that the Republican Party are an anti-war bunch - I think the last eight years taught us they are anything but anti-war.
Bush came into office, however, promising a non-interventionist approach - just like Barack Obama. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush criticized Gore by calling his administration too interventionist and that the U.S. needed to "stop extending our troops all around the world."
In the years that followed, it would seem that Dubya changed is mind quite a bit.
Likewise, it is becoming more and more blatantly obvious that Obama is not the anti-war candidate some thought he was. The left's solution to the war seems to be an increase in defense spending coupled with adding 65,000 troops to the Army and trying to recruit 27,000 more marines.
Add those small facts with the Obama administration ordering drone attacks and bombings in Pakistan, and the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together: The Democratic Party, along with their candidate, is the wrong political group to support if you are against the war.
Both of the mainstream parties in the United States use the subject of war as a talking point, nothing more. Throughout the country's history, we have seen countless candidates proclaim to be against nation building and then turn around and do just that. From Woodrow Wilson to Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, politicians from the two major parties have all done a 180 when it comes to their support of interventionist policies.
Maybe Obama has gotten most of his jollies out by bombing Pakistan and escalating the war in Afghanistan while doing virtually nothing to end the Iraq War.
But I doubt it.
Ted Hamilton is a senior magazine journalism major and columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at thamilt2@kent.edu.
I see no reason why the term "Democratic Party" should be associated with the term "blood orgy."
Since 2001, the left has tried to come off as the anti-war wing, the party that people should vote for if they are against the United States' military excursions. Sadly, this is not the case and rarely ever has been.
Almost every time our country has been involved in a war during the 20th century, it was during the reign of a person from the Democratic Party. World War I, World War II, the Korean War and a lot of the skirmishes in between all saw United States involvement during a Democratic administration.
Even Vietnam - which many Democrats use to draw comparisons to the Iraq War - was helped along by their adored John F. Kennedy.
No one should forget that George W. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, also had his share of interventions. During Operation Desert Fox - Slick Willy's foray into Iraq - somewhere between 600 and 1,200 Iraqis were murdered by the bombardment. Likewise during Clinton's administration, NATO conducted Operation Allied Force during the Kosovo War in which almost 500 civilians met an untimely end.
This is not to say that the Republican Party are an anti-war bunch - I think the last eight years taught us they are anything but anti-war.
Bush came into office, however, promising a non-interventionist approach - just like Barack Obama. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush criticized Gore by calling his administration too interventionist and that the U.S. needed to "stop extending our troops all around the world."
In the years that followed, it would seem that Dubya changed is mind quite a bit.
Likewise, it is becoming more and more blatantly obvious that Obama is not the anti-war candidate some thought he was. The left's solution to the war seems to be an increase in defense spending coupled with adding 65,000 troops to the Army and trying to recruit 27,000 more marines.
Add those small facts with the Obama administration ordering drone attacks and bombings in Pakistan, and the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together: The Democratic Party, along with their candidate, is the wrong political group to support if you are against the war.
Both of the mainstream parties in the United States use the subject of war as a talking point, nothing more. Throughout the country's history, we have seen countless candidates proclaim to be against nation building and then turn around and do just that. From Woodrow Wilson to Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, politicians from the two major parties have all done a 180 when it comes to their support of interventionist policies.
Maybe Obama has gotten most of his jollies out by bombing Pakistan and escalating the war in Afghanistan while doing virtually nothing to end the Iraq War.
But I doubt it.
Ted Hamilton is a senior magazine journalism major and columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at thamilt2@kent.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 21
Nikki Robinson
posted 4/09/09 @ 2:05 PM EST
I am assuming that I am the socialist you are referring to at the beginning of your article. However, you completely misunderstood what I was said. Let me clarify because the Democratic party, as you stated, is not an antiwar party and as a former member of the Kent State Anti-War Committee when it first originated I have spent plenty of evenings arguing against the democratic party. (Continued…)
KSAWC
posted 4/11/09 @ 2:41 PM EST
Kent State Anti-War Committee has no political affiliations and would be glad to welcome anybody who is looking for information or ways to oppose the war. (Continued…)
Richard
posted 4/11/09 @ 10:49 PM EST
First, let me say that while I am a member of KSAWC, I do not speak for the group as a whole.
International crimes should be labelled and dealt with as such. (Continued…)
Drew
posted 4/12/09 @ 4:15 AM EST
Now there's some poetry. Very well stated, sir.
More American children will be diagnosed with cancer this year than the total number of terrorism victims for the last two decades; and I have yet to see the federal government throwing a $900 billion+ annual budget at that particular problem. (Continued…)
Mary Jo
posted 4/13/09 @ 10:27 AM EST
Criticism is taken well and was given well, I might add!!
I respond by telling someone how I see something. I always figure open and honest is the way to be. (Continued…)
Mary Jo
posted 4/13/09 @ 11:01 AM EST
Oh Richard, I forgot to include this link to help you research the documentation of UN resolutions to Taliban before, during and after 9/11.
http://www. (Continued…)
Your bloody Valentine
posted 4/13/09 @ 11:53 AM EST
Again, MJo you are prolonging a discussion that is entirely self-serving; the US is an imperialist power that can break international laws while disseminating disbelief in its own objectives. (Continued…)
Mary Jo
posted 4/13/09 @ 11:17 PM EST
I was just reading a story of the Somali pirates threatening to make the US mourn and regret killing the hijacking criminals. All I thought about when I read this was how I bet this anti-war group are going to be so pro-Somali pirates. (Continued…)
Your bloody Valentine
posted 4/13/09 @ 11:47 PM EST
I suggest that you take a breath, mjo, and enjoy the Kent sun. All that obvious anguish of yours - give your readers some credit, even the sympathetic ones. (Continued…)
Your bloody Valentine
posted 4/14/09 @ 12:54 AM EST
I am Your bloody Valentine, sweetheart. It doesn't take drugs to see through the minor "blessed" troubles in your gigantic head.
Post a Comment