When did so many Democrats become so afraid to act against aggression and threats against freedom?

Question

I have seen a lot of Democrats stating that we should do nothing in regards to Russian aggression and threats against other sovereign nations such as Poland. Now whether you agree with the Georgian situation, whether you agree with the deployment of the missile shield, or not, there can be no doubt that Russia is threatening world peace with boastful bullying tactics which will not bode well for anyone if no one is willing to stand up in defense of freedom.

If Roosevelt had been unwilling to act we might all be speaking German today.

If Truman had been unwilling to act we might all be speaking Japanese?

If Kennedy had been unwilling to act we would have Russian nukes 90 miles off our coast.

I am not advocating going to war with anyone, but we cannot just allow the Russians to bully everyone around them into accepting whatever they deem to be proper. You do not always have to stand tall in life, but sometimes you do have to at least stand up.

Thoughts?

Before the insults begin let me state that I am not applying this statement to all Democrats, just those making these types of statements.

Answer 1

You say you are not advocating going to war while criticizing taking any steps to prevent it.  The alternative to war is peace.  There are two ways to maintain the peace: fighting or diplomacy and fighting is a last resort.  

Who are these democrats that you clam say that we should do nothing.  No one I've heard.  

Answer 2

there is a nice advice for those wanting to change the world - start with urself :)

right now im not talking about u as a person and that u shud defend the weakon the streets, im talking about americans as a nation. its so funny to watch u trying to tell others what to do when u urself break all the rules, including those ones which u want to fight for.. i've said it lots of times and am repeating it once again for those who need to reed smthing more than once in order to understand it.. look at the actions of the US and after that try to analize or even blame others.. take the recent wars :)

Answer 3

The Democrats entered South Korea which was a tie and South Vietnam which was dropped for an eventual lack of interest.  Even the former Yugoslavia conflict is really ongoing with foriegn troops required there to keep the peace.  

Meanwhile the Republicans ran right through Grenada, Panama and the the fourth largest military in the world (Iraq) in a matter of days.  

The Democratic leadership has been lacking for decades and tend to wander like cats so long term solutions are not something they support.  

Answer 4

I know I lisen to some of these idiot who think our military can't do anything because were in iraq we have 1.4 million active duty troops and only 200000 are in Iraq...s.econd these demos think that war is bad for the economy their complete idiots war is good for the ecopnomy ask any economist.......lastly they think its not us who cares thats what we thoguht at the start of ww2 what happened we lost our whole pacific fleet.......this mindset of its not us who cares is very dangeros we need to show the Russians these threats will not be tolrated we should send a message you attack anyone it will be seen as a act of war aginst the US and our allies and we will imdatly declare a state of war aginst Russia there not stupid their only doing this to see what they can get away with if they know the US and NATO will get involved they will back down.....

Lastly I would jsut like to point out that these idiots are the same ones who say the US are the bullies of the world.....last time I checked we wern't threating to invade tyhe entire western world.....

Answer 5

Liberals are naturally dependent people, they want the government to make all their decisions, freedom is frightening to them, that is why they defend Americas enemies and blame America for all problems.

Answer 6

Look dude, take yourself all this partisan garbage back to politics and elections.  

I'm so tired of people asking some question so you can use what people in the military think to bolster your own views.

As for your question:

Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy were responding to attacks on or threats made directly to the US.

Russia is just being Russia.  Overprotective of its periphery due to the fact that other countries used to make a habit of invading and killing millions of Russians.  They are not threatening world peace, they are protecting their interests.  They are acting like any rational state actor would when confronted with this situation.  Reference your own comments on Kennedy.

Now let those of us who are fighting the current wars square them away before you send us on the next d**n fool adventure.

EDIT: Hey, thanks for the reasonable response, man.  Sorry if I sounded like a jerk.

When I was talking about Roosevelt I meant the acts that directly led to war, in my head I was like, "Man, how is he going to NOT fight after Pearl Harbor?"  I see what you mean, yeah, he was definitely on the forefront of recognizing the danger posed by fascism in Europe and the Pacific.

Answer 7

About the same time that Reagan stayed put and the democratic party left him...Now they are so far left that they have left common sense behind, too.

Answer 8

The main principle of democracy is "Your freedom ends where another person’s begins".

If you can not understand this simple thing there will be enemies around you.

Dont justify aggression by talking about democracy. Dont waste this excellent word. Stop bother the rest of world by your "lessons of democracy".

USA NEVER got war with foreign troops on its land. So, who is aggressor here ;)

Answer 9

The Dem's are blogging to find out how to answer your question. I agree with you. The longer we wait to act the worse it gets. I'm surprised that Israel hasn't taken out Iran's nukes yet. They can't wait much longer. The only thing that Russia and the others understand is POWER. Kissing their @ss won't work.Carter tried.

Answer 10

I'm seeing this as a pretty similar situation as the Cold War. We never actually FOUGHT a war with the USSR because we knew their firepower and they knew ours. I don't think that Russia or America wants to risk a nuclear holocaust.

Time will tell. But since we aren't making the "big" decisions and we can't always trust the guys at the top will make good decisions, I say we all start digging bunkers. Make sure to do it in the woods so they won't really attack it (more concerned with cities), and that we bring a lot of firepower to host a civilian-based attack.

Answer 11

"I am not advocating going to war with anyone, but we cannot just allow the Russians to bully everyone around them into accepting whatever they deem to be proper. You do not always have to stand tall in life, but sometimes you do have to at least stand up."

How is it that when Russia decides to protect a minority JUST ACROSS ITS BORDERS from a tyrannical government is bad but when the USA decides to overthrown a tyrannical government on THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD is good?

Let me tell you that I don't support either but if I have to choose one, I'll side with Russia. The USA is the ONLY country who has invaded other countries (excluding border disputes) since WWII. How about that as a threat to world peace with bullying tactics...

The USA government has been bullying other countries around for the last century and more than that. But that's not the main issue.

Let me rephrase your question

"When did american citizens became so afraid to act against aggression and threats against freedom?"

How come the people from the land of the free and the home of the brave is accepting a government so tyrannical and so oppressive that would have made Saddam water his mouth?

Internal checkpoints, secret no-fly lists, seizures without legal procedures, detentions without legal procedures, "free speech zones", fines and regulations, gun restrictions laws, cigarette restriction laws, universal health care.

Your whole life is mandated by the government. Don't do this, do that and, if you want to do something, ask for permission and pay for it.

Look around you. Russia is not your problem, Georgia is not your problem, Iraq is not your problem, Iran is not your problem.

And about your historical facts...

"If Roosevelt had been unwilling to act we might all be speaking German today."

This is ridiculous. Germany couldn't had conquered Europe. The fact is that, by the time of the US intervention, the german invasion was already loosing momentum very fast. The problem with invasions is that you have to leave a population under control or waste land. Waste land produces nothing and productive population under control produces little and requires huge amounts or resources to stay that way. I agree that the outcome could have been a lot worse, Germany would had invaded more territory and the war would had lasted a lot longer. But that allegation is absurd and it has been abused for half a century.

"If Truman had been unwilling to act we might all be speaking Japanese?"

Same here. Besides, everybody ignores the fact the USA commercial embargo to Japan was the main reason they joined the war and accepted an alliance with Germany. Talking about threatening the world peace and using bullying tactics...

"If Kennedy had been unwilling to act we would have Russian nukes 90 miles off our coast."

So, Cuba is entitled to invade Florida to avoid having nukes 90 miles off its coast?

Answer 12

Ho Chi Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, said that the Vietnam War would not be won in the battlefields of Vietnam, but on the streets of America.  Clearly, he knew something most of us didn't.

In 1968, CBS News's Walter Cronkite hosted a special report on the Tet Offensive, in which the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong attacked targets throughout Vietnam and tried very hard to capture the provincial capital of Hue - that would have been like Canada capturing Chicago if it had succeeded.

The Communists failed, after days of bloody and bitterly contested battle.  The remnants of the North Vietnamese invasion force had to slink home, and the Viet Cong were so badly mauled that they did not engage in another major offensive until 1972 - when the South Vietnamese Army finally destroyed them, mostly without American troops on the ground to help.

But Walter Cronkite told us a different story.  He told us that we were mired in Vietnam and that the Communists were going to win - just after they had lost a major series of battles really badly.  

Coming as it did in an election year, Cronkite's false report had the effect Ho Chi Minh was counting on - riots in the streets, more journalists and leftist politicians clamoring for the US to get out of Vietnam, and eventually a betrayal of our allies the South Vietnamese by a Democratic Congress which broke a solemn promise we made, not to send troops to South Vietnam, but just to give them the ammunition, medical supplies, fuel and weapons to defend themselves from North Vietnam.

It is a hard and unpleasant thing to call someone a traitor, but in Walter Cronkite's case, it's impossible to call him anything else.  If his report on the 1968 Tet Offensive did anything, it gave North Vietnam all the aid and comfort Cronkite and the Columbia Broadcasting Network (CBS) could give.  That is the legal definition of treason.

It's called "information warfare," and many members of the Democrat Party have indulged in it since Vietnam, exaggerating news of every setback in conflict against our nation's enemies and minimizing every success story,  The voluntary under-reporting of the success of the US surge in Iraq is just the latest example of the mainstream press' odd tendency to help our enemies and try to convince our citizens that things are much worse than they really are.

It is very unpleasant to have to make the statement, but you have to, that the leadership of the national Democratic Party is playing politics with the war in Iraq; they are helping Al-Qaeda and Iraq immeasurably by propagandizing against our troops and their leadership.

There used to be a saying - "Politics ends at the water's edge."  But Korea was the last war in which our servicemen could count on our nation's politicians to discipline themselves and not say things to embolden our enemies, to make them fight on and kill our troops becaue some of their own politicans were predicting their eventual failure.

There is no excuse for this.  I consider the national Democratic Party responsible to a significant extent for the death of my son in Iraq and the deaths of many of the 4,000 other US troops who died there.  It used to be that when America was at war, when its national leadership spoke about the war, it spoke with one very loud voice, and that voice would be unequivocally supporting our troops and calling for the destruction of the enemy.  

The Democratic Party has very carefully engaged in exactly the opposite course of action since the Vietnam War - when a Republican is in the White House, no accusation of wrongdoing is too farcical or low to utter, and when we are at war with a Republican President, the leadership of the Democratic Party engages in virulent propaganda which favors the enemy and attacks our Commander-in-Chief relentlessly.

A political opposition is essential to the functioning of a democracy.  We need people to question what the leadership of our nation do, even in wartime.  But using the fact that we are at war and that Americans are dying in that war as a chance to make unjustified accusations of the President goes beyond that role and edges toward treason for political profit.

Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and the other members of the Congressional Democratic leadership have chosen to go beyond the role of the opposition party in American politics.  So have many commentators in the self-described "mainstream media."  In the effect they are having on the morale of our troops and of the people back home on whom they depend, there is only one thing we can call them: the Disloyal Opposition.

When they support our troops and our nation at war, I will be delighted to retract that statement.  Until them they have nothing but my bitterest contempt.

Answer 13

Had the world acted in 1933, when Hitler came to power in Germany there would be no WW2. Had the world stopped Hitler when he attacked Austria and Chekoslovakia, millions of lives could have been saved. Appeasement never works.  

Answer 14

You have an inaccurate view of history' I think, if your presentation (or rant) is what you learned.  I also think your view of the current situation is incorrect since I do not regard action in Georgia as a threat to world peace.

I think we need to stop characterizing the nature of events rather than dealing with the actions.  When we won't talk, when we call other people names or judge them, we isolate  ourselves from other leaders and nations.  When we do that we leave others no course of action than to resist or surrender.  Guess which they will choose.  Then we get what  our very frightened citizens fear; resistance to our orders.  In this way we set the stage for what we fear... major conflicts with other sovereign states.  

How problems are defined determines the solutions.  When you call something a "threat to world peace" you begin to define global responses and then you have folks talking nukes.  Look at how many changes have taken place since Obama began advocating talk with the people GW refused to talk with before he arrived on our national stage..  

Rice has done what GW said could not be done because these others were what he called "evil". Obama is quite right to talk until it is clear that some action is required.  We were talking to the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor.  There is no guarantee that talk works but it surely puts you in a better position when the other is clearly a liar and you need the WE to support national actions.

Once we establish that our talk and our actions match up, our talk we'll be much more effective and extreme action may become less necessary because people around the world will know we mean what we say.  It begins with being careful what WE say and how we match what we do with the spoken.

Murky303. "Ike" sent military instructors to Viet Nam to help prepare the South to fight.  JFK called them to return to the U.S.   The first plane load of the recalled soldiers landed in the U.S. the day he was assassinated.  I believe the military-industrial complex "Ike" warned us about was behind his death.  LBJ and his administration greatly expanded our involvement.  The whole domino theory helped to feed this debacle.  The bitter divisions which occured are still with us.I don't think it was party, it was powerful money interests as it still is.  Treason is a much more hard to prove because of witness requirements.  See the Constitution

Blaming Dems for the Iraq war seems at best disingenuous.  

The Congress was Republican and so was the executive branch which declared the war with lies which equaled your story of Cronkite.

Answer 15

To the Keepers of the Russian Conscience:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com... - this is not an american writer.

US Military Doctrine is Escalation of Force. What Russia did was just that. As for Bullying - we do just that financially to everyone else. Which is why we are in Iraq, oil.

Germany - US profiteered from the German War machine - read history.

Japanese mimicked US capitalism, only used military force.

Russia over reached with Cuba, much like US, under guise off NATO - notice NATO does not militarily support US actions.

Standing up means, let Georgia clear the path it soiled. Standing up is forcing government supporting Alternative fuels - all that money - in Iraq, could have yielded returns by now.