Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it worth it to try to find "progressive" rationales for the use of U.S. force?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 04:53 AM
Original message
Is it worth it to try to find "progressive" rationales for the use of U.S. force?
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 04:54 AM by Ken Burch
I know whoever we nominate for president for the forseeable future will have to lower her or himself to at least a somewhat militarist foreign policy. This is sickening but unavoidable. To get political power we seem to have no alternative but to somewhat compromise our humanity. THis is a shameful necessity.

But is there any reason for us as ordinary Democrats and progressives to pretend that the use of U.S. force, other than to defend our own territory from attack, would be anything but reactionary and senseless?

Basically, there hasn't been a use of American military might since 1945 that wasn't predominately or exclusively in the service of the rich.

Our guns can't liberate women. Our bombs can't protect the Rainbow or the LGBT community from oppression or persecution. And when we fight for "American interests" we all know those solely mean American CORPORATE interests, never the interests of American workers or the American poor.

So, other than territorial self-defense, should we ever feel obligated to advocate or defend the use of American force at all?

(For example, in Afghanistan, where there is no moral difference between the Taliban and our "allies"?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. It depends on how angry you want to be when it happens.
If you would like to not be enraged, then by all means find rationalizations for the use of force.

On the other hand, you might enjoy the cathartic wash of rage through your system, in which case I would recommend not finding any rationales.

The war machine is hungry and _will_ be fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. The use of FORCE can only be justified by REASON; never by "rationalization". nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Fine, I suppose I should've said reasons.
:eyes:

It's past the editing period on my OP, so, if you were to pretend that I substituted "reasons" for "rationales", what then would your response be?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Please don't think I was attacking you with snarky semantics- that was not my intent at all.
Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sorry. Having established what wasn't your intent, what would your response to my OP be?
I guess I'm concerned that our foreign policy ideas are still derived too much from the "liberal hawks", who are trying to get in touch with their inner "early JFK".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good question. And No.
I was originally going to post some crap about the national guard actually doing its mission at home, but then I realized there's no "force" involved in that - unless they are doing some mission they probably shouldn't be involved in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. As the events that surrounded WW2 are unlikely to.....
..... reoccur,.... just as they did then,.... NO. But I wouldn't call that 'rationalization'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC