Whatever Happened to the Anti-War Left?


Hello, anti-war Left! I have a couple of questions for you. Let’s start with this:

Do you still exist?

I know that people have been getting out into the streets to protest another insane war, this time in Syria, and I’ve heard some strong rhetoric against war from the likes of well-known left-wingers like, uh… Pat Buchanan and Rand Paul?

Well, yeah… may you live in interesting times!

I wonder what’s up with the anti-war Left. Could they be short of cash?





What’s up, folks? Are you tired? Confused? Split on the issue and / or short of money? Bad weather? Or could it be what most of us strongly suspect…

The President is a Democrat and he won a Peace Prize so you think it’s a humanitarian / philanthropic / spreading peace and democracy mission. Well?

Of course it is. You are still so mesmerized by Obama that you would literally buy the exact story Bush and Rumsfeld tried to cram down your throats because you cannot bring yourselves to believe that this is exactly what’s happened. Obama could copy and paste practically anything Bush ever said, have the grammar and vocabulary corrected, and read it in his best Mussolini pose to thunderous applause, and you know it’s true!

I know it’s true, because I’m watching it happen!

You would never buy into Bush’s “spreading democracy” and “surge” but you have gleefully bought into the “limited operations,” and “kinetic military action” of Barrack Obama because you are precisely THAT gullible.

Because you either believe or don’t really pay much attention to Obama’s miserably lame excuses like “no boots on the ground.” Of course! It’s not a war if there aren’t any boots on the ground. Did you really buy that without reading the fine print or did you just miss it? Boots? Seriously? That’s the level of propaganda necessary to sucker you into selling your souls to His Satanic Majesty?

So Hope and Change has come to America in the form of footwear. Maybe the troops will wear sandals instead of boots. We’ll dress them up like Jesus this time and it’ll be really cool and kinetic and peace-prizey. Maybe it’ll be Kobe’s new sneakers?

Way to hold the President’s feet to the fire!


We all know you Leftists love peace and hate war, so as long as it’s not called a “war,” it’s fine. Of course, you’d never stand for a “police action,” an “escalation” or a “conflict” because those things sound really Vietnamy. “Surges” and “Shock & Awe” operations sound too Bushy, but what about a response? Yes! A “response” sounds very nice indeed, like we’re having a dialogue with someone. That’s why I wake up every day and thank the Lord that Obama’s in charge and he ended all the wars and opens up dialogues, allows voices in Congress “to be heard” and gives “responses” to violations of international “norms.”

To be fair, I guess it’s pretty hard to get worked up over limited operations and kinetic nonlethal lethal military actions that don’t require boots on the ground (or congressional approval.) Those things aren’t catchy and take up too much space on posters. And it’s hard to imagine John and Yoko singing – kinetic military responses are over… if you want it…

What’s even harder to imagine is a Democrat agreeing with the people who have been way out in front on this issue, like Rand and Pat and many other conservatives and libertarians.

They’re screaming the loudest against war, while the other side struggles to muster a whine.











9 thoughts on “Whatever Happened to the Anti-War Left?

  1. jaykirell

    Yeah, there is a difference between a war and a military operation, and whether you’re a flaky anti-war liberal or a loony libertarian conservative non-interventionist, if you can’t recognize the difference it’s probably a good reason no anti-war liberals or conservative non-interventionists have been elected president in over 100 years.

    Past mistakes with military intervention shouldn’t determine the worthiness of a Syrian intervention. I’m as anti-war as anyone, but this (a) isn’t war, and (b) is a response to a chemical weapons attack.

  2. bperet Post author

    jaykirell, I can recognize the difference a war and a military operation, I just don’t believe it. I also don’t believe it’s a “response to a chemical weapons attack” because of the utter lack of evidence regarding Assad’s guilt. It’s the same WMDs script all over again. This time it’s Syria’s turn and the chemical attack took place right on time – not too soon, not too late. Stop being a sucker.

  3. bperet Post author

    But since I’m the flaky loon, jaykirell, would you please break down the difference between a “war” and a “military operation”? Is it really about the boots? Because I strongly suspect that the real difference between the two is wishful thinking and nothing more.

  4. jaykirell

    no, it’s much more than that – although that is generally a component. A war denotes two sides fighting against eachother over an undetermined period in length. A military operation is one side bombarding another from far away, with the attacked nation virtually unable to defend itself. It lasts for a determined length of time and usually involves different mechanics than a war. In a war, the air force and navy would be used to soften up defenses for a land invasion. A military operation would just involve air and artillery to serve a specific operational goal.

    People die in both. But not on the scale of a war.

  5. bperet Post author

    No evidence has been presented, so it’s hypothetical, but in general, it is not our duty to police the world. I would sit down with Syria’s allies like Russia and try to work out a peaceful solution, something Obama is not doing and should. Otherwise, tell me which side we should support militarily? I haven’t seen anything from the opposition that indicates they are better than Assad in the slightest. Have we asked the Syrian people which side the majority supports? Who decides legitimacy? Us? This is the problem getting involved in situations we don’t understand and know little about. I would listen more to the Russians in this case, especially Sergei Lavrov, who has a much better grasp on events in this part of the world than someone like John Kerry.
    What would you do if you were the President and our limited military operations swing the balance of power to the other side and we find (yet again) that we’ve made things worse?

  6. jaykirell

    Russia would block any UN proposal to intervene. Syria would never agree to ICC charges against Assad. The people are getting gassed and fleeing the country in the hundreds of thousands and you want to sit down and have tea with Assad’s biggest enabler. I know Iraq was gigantic illegal clusterfuck, but jeez, chemical weapons change the game, man.

    I would confront whatever actions resulted from our involvement based on what was happening, but until anybody knows what that is, its pointless to argue hypotheticals.

    Things can’t get much worse once you’ve resorted to gassing your own nation.

  7. bperet Post author

    Again, where is the proof that he has gassed his own nation? Who actually used the chemical weapons? Show me where you’ve seen the evidence, not just John Kerry’s opinion.
    And yes, I would sit down and have tea with the Russians while things are going on in another country which aren’t clear and aren’t any of our business.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s