Why must every faction of Progressives attack each other. Bernie Sanders is the most solid progressive I know of, but Code Pink wants to attack him because his Ukraine support isn’t anti-war? I’m anti war. In particular I’m anti the war that Russia started by invading Ukraine. Anti war doesn’t mean just letting the bad guy do whatever they want. If so, then anti-war is pro tyranny, because they always let the aggressor invade.
One of the things that made me really like Sanders when he was first campaigning for president was when I looked up his record on American war and he had a voting record that tended to follow a quote from him that amounted to something like (paraphrasing), “War should be the last resort, but if a war is started, we need to see it fully see it through.”
It’s not like siding with Ukraine and getting into that conflict is supporting warfare. It’s seeking to prevent warmongers from profiting off a senseless war. The idea that abandoning Ukraine to just be invaded and allowing Russia to get whatever they want by force is an, “Anti-war,” stance is fucking absurd.
The issue is that the centrist and right wing media latch on to the narrative of these fringe weirdos and pretend that they represent the entirety of the left wing, even though there are WAY MORE lefties who find them disdainful.
We have less than a dozen morons here. They don’t represent anyone but themselves.
Meanwhile we have entire factions of the Republican party at war with themselves from the Lincoln Project to the infighting in the House just this week.
All of them intend to vote for Trump in November, regardless of legal court findings, if they have any chance to vote form him, through legal means or otherwise they will all do it.
Anti war doesn’t mean just letting the bad guy do whatever they want.
I don’t think that’s what they’re asking:
Yes, Bernie should condemn the Russian invasion, but he should also be calling for a negotiated end to this brutal war
You can push for talks without wanting to immediately give away every possible concession. Personally I’m not seeing this as a plea to
“just [let] the bad guy do whatever they want.”
The issue with any negotiated settlement is that how do you trust Russia to hold up its end of the bargain after 2014? They’ve shown that international agreements mean sweet F.A. to them if it gets in the way of their goals.
The only way we get out of this in the long term to push Russia out of Ukraine, and force an unconditional Russian surrender. That means taking back the Donbas region; that means taking back Crimea.
Because Bernie’s a lukewarm progressive at best nowadays and he’s incapable of actually influencing policy. The Democratic party is stuck in a rut caused by decades of neoliberal policy (which, for example, is why Clinton got so many resources during the Democrat primaries) and refuses to even consider a more radical alternative.
Voting isn’t working to actually institute change in America. Either the country needs to push more power down to the states, or it needs complete electoral reform to remove the FPTP system that got America into this mess.
Yugoslavia was invading Kosovo and commiting ethnic cleansing of Albanians at the time. Agree or disagree with how it was executed, it fits with the idea that he opposes the aggressors in war
The intervention was a key reason the war ended after multiple years of conflict and ethnic cleansing. Are you saying that ending the war caused more ethnic cleansing afterwards than was already happening? That ending war made things less stable?
The intervention also lead to many innocents (like the chinese embasy) being targetted and bombed by US forces.
I do agree that the intervention was likely needed in this case, but that intervention should not have taken the form of carpet bombing as it ended up killing people completely not involved in the conflict; Clinton even apologised for this and recongised it as a negative.
The tensions have never went away however, the campaigns of mass imprisonment have only put it to sleep for a while and if recent tensions are anything to go by, they are likely to escelate again.
My sources on this are reading and being friends with a few people who grew up through this war, it is a harrowing one and I would say that often times its better to have ‘no opinion’ on matters concerning this unless you have personal stakes in it. Thats not directed at anyone in particular, just more towards americans who use this conflict to score cheap points.
The war itself made things less stable and, arguably, more people died as a byproduct of the war than if the war had never happened.
The fact that things recovered (ish) is a convenient coincidence and not the expectation. If you look at other times the US or NATO intervened, you’ll see why it’s not a given that things will be more stable afterwards.
Well we can play “what if” all we want, but bringing it back to the main point of Sanders, you can argue all you want about if it was the correct course of action but his vote was to stop an invading force.
Sure, but that’s a perfectly valid reason for anti-war protestors to dislike him. There’s a belief out there that diplomacy can resolve most conflicts and that military force should only be used after diplomacy is exhausted.
There’s a reason the UN hadn’t yet approved an intervention.
Why must every faction of Progressives attack each other. Bernie Sanders is the most solid progressive I know of, but Code Pink wants to attack him because his Ukraine support isn’t anti-war? I’m anti war. In particular I’m anti the war that Russia started by invading Ukraine. Anti war doesn’t mean just letting the bad guy do whatever they want. If so, then anti-war is pro tyranny, because they always let the aggressor invade.
One of the things that made me really like Sanders when he was first campaigning for president was when I looked up his record on American war and he had a voting record that tended to follow a quote from him that amounted to something like (paraphrasing), “War should be the last resort, but if a war is started, we need to see it fully see it through.”
It’s not like siding with Ukraine and getting into that conflict is supporting warfare. It’s seeking to prevent warmongers from profiting off a senseless war. The idea that abandoning Ukraine to just be invaded and allowing Russia to get whatever they want by force is an, “Anti-war,” stance is fucking absurd.
The left has always had its share of morons.
Well-meaning morons, but morons nonetheless.
The issue is that the centrist and right wing media latch on to the narrative of these fringe weirdos and pretend that they represent the entirety of the left wing, even though there are WAY MORE lefties who find them disdainful.
The left loves nothing more than to bicker over ideological purity.
The right falls in line
False narrative.
We have less than a dozen morons here. They don’t represent anyone but themselves.
Meanwhile we have entire factions of the Republican party at war with themselves from the Lincoln Project to the infighting in the House just this week.
All of them intend to vote for Trump in November, regardless of legal court findings, if they have any chance to vote form him, through legal means or otherwise they will all do it.
I don’t think that’s what they’re asking:
You can push for talks without wanting to immediately give away every possible concession. Personally I’m not seeing this as a plea to “just [let] the bad guy do whatever they want.”
The issue with any negotiated settlement is that how do you trust Russia to hold up its end of the bargain after 2014? They’ve shown that international agreements mean sweet F.A. to them if it gets in the way of their goals.
The only way we get out of this in the long term to push Russia out of Ukraine, and force an unconditional Russian surrender. That means taking back the Donbas region; that means taking back Crimea.
Bernie is smart enough to know that you can’t reliably negotiate with someone as untrustworthy as Putin.
Putin has lied to the world more than enough times that nobody should trust any potential negotiation he is involved in.
Removed by mod
Because Bernie’s a lukewarm progressive at best nowadays and he’s incapable of actually influencing policy. The Democratic party is stuck in a rut caused by decades of neoliberal policy (which, for example, is why Clinton got so many resources during the Democrat primaries) and refuses to even consider a more radical alternative.
Voting isn’t working to actually institute change in America. Either the country needs to push more power down to the states, or it needs complete electoral reform to remove the FPTP system that got America into this mess.
Bernie voted for the bombing of Yugoslavia, he is not a “solid progressive”
Yugoslavia was invading Kosovo and commiting ethnic cleansing of Albanians at the time. Agree or disagree with how it was executed, it fits with the idea that he opposes the aggressors in war
Most of the ethnic cleansing happened as a result of the war. The intervention lead to an intensification of ethnic conflict.
The intervention was a key reason the war ended after multiple years of conflict and ethnic cleansing. Are you saying that ending the war caused more ethnic cleansing afterwards than was already happening? That ending war made things less stable?
The intervention also lead to many innocents (like the chinese embasy) being targetted and bombed by US forces.
I do agree that the intervention was likely needed in this case, but that intervention should not have taken the form of carpet bombing as it ended up killing people completely not involved in the conflict; Clinton even apologised for this and recongised it as a negative.
The tensions have never went away however, the campaigns of mass imprisonment have only put it to sleep for a while and if recent tensions are anything to go by, they are likely to escelate again.
My sources on this are reading and being friends with a few people who grew up through this war, it is a harrowing one and I would say that often times its better to have ‘no opinion’ on matters concerning this unless you have personal stakes in it. Thats not directed at anyone in particular, just more towards americans who use this conflict to score cheap points.
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
https://cpim.org/content/yugoslavia-imperialist-war
This source seems completely unbiased and trustworthy.
Removed by mod
Could it be the openly communist site using inflammatory language to bash an ideological opponent? No, it must be racism
lol
Removed by mod
oh do enlighten us why the Communist Party of India is not a credible source
The war itself made things less stable and, arguably, more people died as a byproduct of the war than if the war had never happened.
The fact that things recovered (ish) is a convenient coincidence and not the expectation. If you look at other times the US or NATO intervened, you’ll see why it’s not a given that things will be more stable afterwards.
Well we can play “what if” all we want, but bringing it back to the main point of Sanders, you can argue all you want about if it was the correct course of action but his vote was to stop an invading force.
Sure, but that’s a perfectly valid reason for anti-war protestors to dislike him. There’s a belief out there that diplomacy can resolve most conflicts and that military force should only be used after diplomacy is exhausted.
There’s a reason the UN hadn’t yet approved an intervention.
Russia is on the Security Council and can veto it…
That’s a fair argument to make
So you are pro genocide?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Modhat:
Unironically don’t assume people’s genders.
Removed by mod