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.
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; bush 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.
Edit- why am I getting downvoted because this idiot has some weird definition of what a progessive is, and discounts Sen Sanders career over one decision he disagrees with that happened 25 years ago. I’m not agreeing with him, I was saying his useage of “solid progressive” is as dumb as his whole argument
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 loves nothing more than to bicker over ideological purity.
The right falls in line
deleted by creator
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; bush 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.
Read “it is from non-white people who don’t share my ideology, therefore I will disregard it”
Could it be the openly communist site using inflammatory language to bash an ideological opponent? No, it must be racism
lol
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.
That’s a fair argument to make
Removed by mod
Lol. A “solid progressive”
Edit- why am I getting downvoted because this idiot has some weird definition of what a progessive is, and discounts Sen Sanders career over one decision he disagrees with that happened 25 years ago. I’m not agreeing with him, I was saying his useage of “solid progressive” is as dumb as his whole argument
Modhat:
Unironically don’t assume people’s genders.