• Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans

Oct 27, 2017
6,645
He never wrote support for a war. He wrote about how he used to support the war before he was a writer, but then changed his mind and started writing.
lol, what fucking airtight logic. Who the hell cares what his occupation was when he supported the war in Iraq? The claim that you asked for receipts of wasn't, "Glenn Greenwald, as an internationally known journalist and contributing writer for The Intercept, published op-eds in support of the Iraq war," it was simply that Greenwald supported the war at its outset. Did Greenwald support the war when it started? According to him and you, yes. The end.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,278
I literally knew this was the intercept and Glenn greenwald before I opened up the thread. It’s amazing what bullshit people make up to try and keep themselves relavent.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,557
I literally knew this was the intercept and Glenn greenwald before I opened up the thread. It’s amazing what bullshit people make up to try and keep themselves relavent.
I would hope you have known it was the Intercept before you opened the thread since the words "The Intercept" are in the title!
 
Oct 27, 2017
372
The US is out of Iraq, there is no major security forces in Iraq like there are in Afghanistan. The troops in Syria are not there to prop up a faltering government either, so it's a poor comparison to make.
What? There’s 5500 troops in Iraq and 8000 in Afghanistan. Pompeo was just in Iraq a few days ago

https://www.forces.net/newsoperations/afghanistan/how-many-troops-are-currently-afghanistan

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-mid...ompeo-makes-surprise-stop-in-iraq-11547040468
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,360
Here's the funny thing. The Intercept has been in bidness for five years. The scandal happened two years into operation. Their number of employees and editorial staff isn't meager, but the size and footprint of the operation comes nowhere close to either the Guardian or Der Spiegel, and one would reckon, editorial oversight. Remember that string of synagogue bomb threats in 2017? A good number of them were done by this same journalist they hemmed and hawed over before investigating and firing. Small world.
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2018
211
The US is out of Iraq, there is no major security forces in Iraq like there are in Afghanistan. The troops in Syria are not there to prop up a faltering government either, so it's a poor comparison to make.
I suppose I should have been explicit in stating that I meant any involvement (weapons, boots, political, etc.) and not specifically boots on the ground. Simply packing up and removing troops while still directly and indirectly arming and funding dictators, despots and freedom fighters/terrorist groups is not "leaving" in my opinion.

Yes, there is plans. We aren't front and center in Syria any how.. we are support and had relatively clear objectives... well as clear as you can really get in what amounts to a proxy war.

We have plans in Afghanistan as well, and shit just takes time.. and we are mainly again there for support of the Afghan military.

Just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean people are aimlessly doing nothing over seas. There's a strong argument to the US staying for awhile in support in the fact that leaving opens a vacuum of power for someone else to go in and fuck things up more.
I understand what is going on as well as anyone who has done at least some research. I do, fortunately, also happen to be in contact with a former faculty head from the University of Kurdistan Hewler. As per my response above, when I say "military involvement" I mean any military involvement. The US is still deeply involved in Syria and Afghanistan and somewhat involved in Iraq with literally no exit plan.

"Shit takes time" is a terrible excuse. Might as well completely dehumanize the region and day "so what, people die. They were gonna die anyway." The US entered each of these countries without an exit plan to begin with purely in order to fuel its military industrial complex. Who funds/funded daesh? Saudi. Who supports saudi with arms? No US involvement (both initially and at present) meant/means hundreds of thousands (if not millions) fewer dead and a potentially struggling US war economy.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,578
Democrats aren’t pro-war. Neocons will be dumped like trash after Trump is gone. It’s an enemy of my enemy is a friend thing.

Although many Americans are partisan hacks and blindly follow their party.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,995
The military industrial complex has succeeded when it could convince that America has obligations to wage war on countries that haven’t attacked us, intervene in countries that have atrocities going on that have nothing to do with us (they do but they don’t but they do), and protect countries that actively destablize their neighbors AND fund attacks on us.

Democrats can always be convinced into a war if they think somebody needs saving.
 
Oct 25, 2017
179
This is pretty shocking, Democrats [in public polling] opposing something tied to the Republican president and not wanting to give him credit, with Republicans [in public polling] supporting something tied to the Republican president and wanting to give him as much credit as possible. Definitely means the Democrats are now all gung-ho jingoists and Republicans are peace-loving angels. Couldn't possibly be something that happens with every single issue.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,216
Why is it troubling?

We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
No you fucking don't. Your "responsibility" kills hundreds of thousands of people. So stay the fuck away, you war mongering people. Also lol about stability. You only do what you do to expend your narrow ass national and international economic interests and nothing more.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,216
History constantly repeats. Posters here are, for example, pretending that America cares about "the vulnerable Kurds" meanwhile all the US cares about there are the valuable/strategic gas and oil resources and protecting their assets. People don't realise just how much US investment has been pumped into Kurdistan.

From an outsider's perspective the Democrats are ultimately no different to the Republicans in terms of actual global impact. Their constituents just like to convince themselves they are so that their decision on who to support appears to matter.

Exactly this and this is the thing that Americans will never understand. Republicans, democrats are seen the same for example in the ME because both have garbage policies towards it. There's no difference what so ever in who runs the US for certain regions in the world.
 
Oct 25, 2017
304
No you fucking don't. Your "responsibility" kills hundreds of thousands of people. So stay the fuck away, you war mongering people. Also lol about stability. You only do what you do to expend your narrow ass national and international economic interests and nothing more.
SG-17 is a lunatic. Pay no attention to their posts.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,731
I noticed that in this forum in the threads about the US troops withdrawal, and makes sense Obama killed a bunch of civilians, supported Saudi war in Yemen, etc. and there wasnt a big pushback
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
The article is right. Dems and especially MSNBC are pro-war and that is indisputable. Imagine thinking the US was in Syria out of humanitarian concerns, jesus fucking christ.
I honestly think this is mostly being instinctively against anything Trump say or does. Which is not the worst instinct in the world mind you, but one that leads to tragic conclusions in this particular case.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
Yeah there is a difference between "pull out our troops without any longterm strategy" and "war is good. we need more"
Supporting a useless war reluctantly is still supporting a useless war.
Again, I think it's mostly just assuming that Trump is wrong about anything and being pretty uninformed about Syria rather actually thinking Bolton's bullshit is a smart idea, but the end result is kinda the same.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,776
Sydney
Assuming this poll is accurate, it really does read like Democrats are opposing the Syria withdrawal reflexively because Trump is the one doing it.

Because honestly, they have been incredibly poor at articulating a military strategy for Syria. Hell, they’ve been poor at articulating a desired outcome!
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
Assuming this poll is accurate, it really does read like Democrats are opposing the Syria withdrawal reflexively because Trump is the one doing it.

Because honestly, they have been incredibly poor at articulating a military strategy for Syria. Hell, they’ve been poor at articulating a desired outcome!
That was my first thought, but then I looked at the Afghanistan numbers. While I can sort of accept not understanding exactly what going on in Syria (especially with how poorly this has been reported), opposing withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2019 is fucking unacceptable in my book.
 
Nov 26, 2017
692
Supporting a useless war reluctantly is still supporting a useless war.
Again, I think it's mostly just assuming that Trump is wrong about anything and being pretty uninformed about Syria rather actually thinking Bolton's bullshit is a smart idea, but the end result is kinda the same.
Is it
- thinking he's wrong.
- thinking he's doing it for sinister reasons?
- not trusting him to handle it right?
- fearful of watching Taliban reclaim the country, after family died fighting them.

I think some Democrats knee jerk to "now wait just a second..." mostly due to wanting to be included in the decision and to see options.
 
Dec 26, 2018
1,046
Exactly this and this is the thing that Americans will never understand. Republicans, democrats are seen the same for example in the ME because both have garbage policies towards it. There's no difference what so ever in who runs the US for certain regions in the world.
There's third party involved with America who shapes foreign policy which is outside both the Dems and the GOP's complete influence which is why nothing ever changes too much. That's the military industrial complex, who have more clout on this than whoever is president. Take them out of the equation, and you'll see the change in policy Democrats talk about.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
Is it
- thinking he's wrong.
- thinking he's doing it for sinister reasons?
- not trusting him to handle it right?
- fearful of watching Taliban reclaim the country, after family died fighting them.

I think some Democrats knee jerk to "now wait just a second..." mostly due to wanting to be included in the decision and to see options.
I think big part of it is that Obama supported the war as well. A whole lot of democrats stopped worrying about things like the illegal drone war when he was in office.
I understand why some people are thinking that and I don't think it automatically make them bad people, but man, that approach leads to some bad outcomes.
 
Nov 16, 2017
221
Tokyo
I just don't want the Kurds to fucked over but to be honest, with that one caveat, I agree with Trump on the withdrawal. It's a thankless, expensive job that only seems to make the world dislike the US even more. Obama completely mishandled the Syria situation, now at least the US won't even be involved.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,230
That was my first thought, but then I looked at the Afghanistan numbers. While I can sort of accept not understanding exactly what going on in Syria (especially with how poorly this has been reported), opposing withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2019 is fucking unacceptable in my book.
Allowing the Taliban to return is even more unacceptable.

The Dems don't want to screw over the Kurds or the people of Afghanistan, it's not about being "pro war" it's about not allowing even greater harm to befall them.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
Allowing the Taliban to return is even more unacceptable.

The Dems don't want to screw over the Kurds or the people of Afghanistan, it's not about being "pro war" it's about not allowing even greater harm to befall them.
At some point the US will leave and the Taliban will return, no one has any plan that has a realistic chance of preventing it. It sucks, but sending American soldiers to die in there is not gonna change it. Seriously, people have been dying there for years because no president want the fall of Saigon pictures on their watch and kinda hope the next one deal with that mess. Imagine dying for that goal.

"Don't want to screw over the Kurds" is not a policy, also, not the legal(ish) justification for that deployment, and it's most certainly not a good enough reason to support another Bolton open ended illegal mid-east adventure.
Also, I never got the sense that Democratic voters cared all that much about the Kurds before Trump said he's withdrawing troops (and every pro-war talking head started talking about how awful is the withdrawl from Syria), I would imagine most of them wouldn't have even known about that mission (I know I forgot about it) which further support my theory that this is first and foremost about instinctively assuming that Trump is wrong about everything, which again, not a terrible assumption, just one that I think happened to be wrong on this one case.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
2,959
Allowing the Taliban to return is even more unacceptable.

The Dems don't want to screw over the Kurds or the people of Afghanistan, it's not about being "pro war" it's about not allowing even greater harm to befall them.
We have no capacity to prevent the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan. At some point we need to stop dedicating the resources of the United States military to accomplishing tasks they are incapable of accomplishing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
18,230
At some point the US will leave and the Taliban will return, no one has any plan that has realistic chance to prevent it. It sucks, but sending American soldiers to die in there is not gonna change it. Seriously, people having dying there for years because no president want the fall of Saigon pictures on their watch and kinda hope the next one deal with that mess. Imagine dying for that goal.

"Don't want to screw over the Kurds" is not a policy, and not a good enough reason to support another Bolton open ended illegal mid-east adventure.
Also, I never got the sense that Democratic voters cared all that much about the Kurds before Trump said he's withdrawing troops (and every pro-war talking head started talking about how awful is the withdrawl from Syria), I would imagine most of them wouldn't have even known about that mission (I know I forgot about it) which further support my theory that this is first and foremost about instinctively assuming that Trump is wrong about everything, which again, not a terrible assumption, just one that I think happened to be wrong on this one case.
I think Democratic voters generally care about not making the damage Bush inflicted via the stupid invasion any worse than necessary. Because empathy and all that. And that includes both the Kurdish people and the lack of enough troops sent to Afghanistan in the first place because Iraq siphoned the necessary resources.

The thing is, given the situation, the casualties are coming mostly from the Taliban side. We aren't losing very many of our own troops right now, and that's a big part of what makes the calculus on a pullout so difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...ties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#All_fatalities
 
Oct 31, 2017
1,319
All this talk of it being unnaceptable to let the Taliban return - the Taliban never left. Some were bribed and threatened into lukewarm support for the occupation, such as the so called Northern Alliance in the early days. Others have been biding their time quitely and plenty of areas of the country are under de facto Taliban control even now. The country is likely to essentially collapse whether you leave now or in a decade with some kind of face saving plan.

If you are worried about the consequences of US military action, support bringing as many Afghans who helped you as possible to the US, and more importantly, don't support the next war.

Even when the democrats as well as the repubs tell you it's necessary, and the New York Times publishes heartfelt editorials about the need to flatten another part of the world in the name of Democracy and apple pie.
 
Oct 27, 2017
763
How long have you been in a coma for? He moved to The Intercept eons ago.
Haven't followed him in years no (Although he hasn't been much relevant since Snowden anyway). Just glad to know that major pubs ended up putting him off for his bullshit and now he's stuck writing conservative propaganda.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,816
I think Democratic voters generally care about not making the damage Bush inflicted via the stupid invasion any worse than necessary. Because empathy and all that. And that includes both the Kurdish people and the lack of enough troops sent to Afghanistan in the first place because Iraq siphoned the necessary resources.

The thing is, given the situation, the casualties are coming mostly from the Taliban side. We aren't losing very many of our own troops right now, and that's a big part of what makes the calculus on a pullout so difficult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...ties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan#All_fatalities
I agree that the average Democratic voter doesn't want wars, which is why I'm so frustrated to see so many of them supporting horrible foriegn interventions when it's advocated by "their side".
I mean look at your post, you're advocating a forever war with no goals on the basis that it's mostly brown people that die in it.
I know you don't think that, I know you don't mean it, I know that's not what you want, but that's implication of what you're saying.

The war in Afghanistan is a horrible, expensive mess with no achievable goals (or really any goals outside a vague "not losing"). It is hard to imagine it having a happy ending, but it will end at some point, and the US should be honest with itself about what options it has and try to work toward the least awful one.
 
Oct 13, 2018
208
:Shrug:

I do think a lot of it is just anti-trump sponsored or motivated by aligning with those opposed to Trump's policies, neocon or not.

Ive always been mostly neocon-aligned on foreign policy so to see the Democratic party turn into Hawks again is mildly amusing if it weren't for the fact that the Republican party, whom I trusted to balance Democratic isolationism has basically fallen out of favor with the majority of the R party just as a republican adminstration entered office. So that's great. /S
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,105
Only reason Glenn goes there is as an outlet to spread his views because he's persona non grata in center-left outlets like MSNBC. He goes on Democracy Now! but you conveniently forget that.
Greenwald is a Russian apologist, anti-immigrant, white supremacist defending has-bin.

You are too apparently.
 
Oct 13, 2018
208
Oh, we absolutely should have stayed in Iraq. Obama fucked up on that. Everything in regards to his response on Syria should be prefaced with the context that he fucked up in Iraq so fucking badly he spent the latter term literally attempting to control a demon he signed off in his first term.
 
Oct 27, 2017
494
Oh, we absolutely should have stayed in Iraq. Obama fucked up on that. Everything in regards to his response on Syria should be prefaced with the context that he fucked up in Iraq so fucking badly he spent the latter term literally attempting to control a demon he signed off in his first term.
Iraq was already falling to pieces before Obama decided to pull out. Al-Malaki ensured that with his selfish and petty sectarian campaign, eliminating talented officers from the military and competent bureaucrats. Whether Obama pulled out or not, Iraq was likely going to be in a permanent flux. Bush fatally doomed the country, and Obama merely compounded that fate. I would have preferred the U.S. not leaving and providing some stability, but for more selfish reasons related to ISIS than any illusion that Iraq would be safe as a country.
 
Oct 13, 2018
208
Iraq was already falling to pieces before Obama decided to pull out. Al-Malaki ensured that with his selfish and petty sectarian campaign, eliminating talented officers from the military and competent bureaucrats. Whether Obama pulled out or not, Iraq was likely going to be in a permanent flux. Bush fatally doomed the country, and Obama merely compounded that fate. I would have preferred the U.S. not leaving and providing some stability, but for more selfish reasons related to ISIS than any illusion that Iraq would be safe as a country.
So, you agree with me that Obama should not have withdrawn American troops from Iraq.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,433
I have no way to comment on the validity of this article. All I can say is that the tone of this forum is oddly more nationalistic and patriotic towards military action than previously before. I suppose it was easier to be more idealistic and abstract about peace and no wars when we had the White House and when things weren't as hectic politically. I'm not saying there are any specific policies or initiatives being backed but I've noticed the tonality of the discussion change.