Democrats, Pacifism, and Felons

[Dr.Traveler]

I think portraying pacifism as a trait of just one part is a mistake. Both parties are fairly big tent and have their own share of loonies. There are indeed some fairly vocal pacifists in the Democratic Party, but you also see Republicans absolutely lose it when a Democratic POTUS weighs military involvement. This was seen recently with Libya and Syria. Any suggestion of military intervention by Obama was met with GOP outcry.

Then of course you have the history that weighs against this argument. Woodrow Wilson pulled the US into WWI against the will of the people. FDR actively sought out a confrontation with Germany to enter WWII. Truman waged war in Korea. Kennedy gave the final authorization for the Bay of Pigs and escalated things in Vietnam with LBJ actively fighting the war that resulted. Carter sent US soldiers into Iran. History simply doesn't back up the idea of the Democratic Party being a party of pacifism.

Myself, I believe violence is a last resort when all other options have been exhausted or time simply doesn't allow for another solution. But if you do have to resort to violence, then you should do so without any restraint or compassion. I'm one of those hardcore nut jobs that believes that if you really do have to go to war, carpet bombing and deployment of nukes is an acceptable tactic. War should be waged in a way that it is the most real and effective form of hell imaginable. That truly is the only way to ensure that future generations will seek out peace over war when possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think portraying pacifism as a trait of just one part is a mistake. Both parties are fairly big tent and have their own share of loonies. There are indeed some fairly vocal pacifists in the Democratic Party, but you also see Republicans absolutely lose it when a Democratic POTUS weighs military involvement. This was seen recently with Libya and Syria. Any suggestion of military intervention by Obama was met with GOP outcry.

Then of course you have the history that weighs against this argument. Woodrow Wilson pulled the US into WWI against the will of the people. FDR actively sought out a confrontation with Germany to enter WWII. Truman waged war in Korea. Kennedy gave the final authorization for the Bay of Pigs and escalated things in Vietnam with LBJ actively fighting the war that resulted. Carter sent US soldiers into Iran. History simply doesn't back up the idea of the Democratic Party being a party of pacifism.

Myself, I believe violence is a last resort when all other options have been exhausted or time simply doesn't allow for another solution. But if you do have to resort to violence, then you should do so without any restraint or compassion. I'm one of those hardcore nut jobs that believes that if you really do have to go to war, carpet bombing and deployment of nukes is an acceptable tactic. War should be waged in a way that it is the most real and effective form of hell imaginable. That truly is the only way to ensure that future generations will seek out peace over war when possible.

How about 'domestic violence,' i.e., the death penalty?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How about 'domestic violence,' i.e., the death penalty?

Most of the objections I see from Democrats either spin from religious belief (Catholics), or concerns about the Death Penalty due to racial concerns (the fact a high percentage of death row inmates are minority), poverty issues (the fact a fair number of death row inmates can't afford a lawyer), or procedural concerns (lack of use by prosecution or defense of state of the art scientific methods).

I'll be honest, my principle objection to the Death Penalty is based on the concern I have about the lack of use of up to date scientific methods to prosecute cases. My general opinion is that if you kill someone, your own life is forfeit. However, before we execute someone I want to know, with as much certainty as absolutely possible, that the person actually committed the crime. The criminal justice system is fairly well broken right now, making that level of certainty difficult.