Why is being anti-war a political liability?

I ask this because those who oppose the war do far more research refuting the asumptions of the Bush junta then those who tassidly accept the Bush line of "misson accomplished".

If those who supported the Iraq war believe that is was just then why would they be bothered by the stand of a Democratic canidate who is making his opinion known on what according to the pResident is now a past historical event?

What are the psychological factors?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And democrats accuse Republicans of using streotypes. . .

But tell me how?

it's unChristian not to kill on command!

Dems are afraid to be anti-Iraq-invasion because of a physiological condition known as a lack of a spine. ;-)

That is, except for Holy Joe Lieberman, who is rabidly pro-Iraqi-invasion, based on a number of factors, including that of being a crypto-Republican.

when's the last time you heard of anybody who made their fortune in the peace?

But it wasn't solely defense contractors, so bush had to put an end to that.

If Iraq turns into Vietnam II in terms of American casualties (the average American never cares about gooks and sand niggers, pardon the terms), then being anti-war from the beginning is an asset. If it becomes a haven of democracy by November 2004, then it'll be a liability.

Since the former is far more likely than the latter, I'd say that given current information, being anti-war will make a Democratic candidate more electable.

rarely gets you a positive "Gee I want to vote for you" response.

But "While I do not like how we got here, I have a plan for the future" does gather votes.

One MUST leave it to friends to note that the other guy is evil and a liar and can not be trusted and is incompetent.

I suspect that there are many possible plausible explanations, but my offer is limited to one.

Being anti-war is a political liability because in an unreflective macho culture, pointless aggression and belligerence are positively encoded. Anything outside of that is taken for its opposite, which is cowardice and a betrayal of rugged individualism.

Adequate funding for public education would dispel this, I think, but there you are.

I don't think it has to do with stereotypes as it does with the belief that America has a just foreign policy. If I were to believe that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. had a just foreign policy, then I would probably be skeptical of those that opposed it. Since the media is generally pro-government, it is very hard to find differing opinions. Of course they exist (i.e. In These Times (www.inthesetimes.org), ZMag (www.zmag.org), Truthout (www.truthout.org), Democracy Now (www.democtacynow.org) but they aren't as readily available. They also have a tendency to outright contradict what the pro-state press is reporting.

Blaming it on Republicans, southerners, Christians, or WWF fans might make people feel good, but it won't help to advance a sane foreign policy.

Too often the liberal problem sounds weak, because it is not explained well. Part of that is a media saturated with violence, but another part is a failure to explicitly state that Liberal Americans want a safe America just as much as any other American.

Education would help--Americans are prevented from being taught about foreign policy at all--it's just assumed that we always did the moral thing. THis kind of short sightedness keeps us from understanding foreign policy at all.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

war sells

it's 'sexier' than peace
it's more profitable than peace
it's more 'macho' than peace
it's easier for neanderthals to understand than peace
it requires less thought than peace

just my 2 cents

If democrat is "pro-war", war is not an issue in an election against a republican. Democrat voters will move on to another issue to evaluate the candidate.

If the democrat is anti-war, does he pick up any voters? In significant numbers, probably not. In 2004, the democrats are betting that the left wing of the party will support the candidate (instead of bolting to the Greens) because it is the only way to defeat Bush*.

I am not going into the whole history of Liberia/US, so if you do not know what it is look it up.
Same with the Liberia/Al Qaeda connections.
The Dems should be screaming that we are allowing a nation with ties to Al Qaeda to fall into anarchy.

This is a way to use our military in a non-threatening way to the rest of the world and keep ourselves safe from turning Liberia into the West African version of Afghanistan.
And the rest of the world wants us in Liberia.

It is Bush strangely enough who is hesistant about committing to Liberia.

People seem to say something about Liberia, then fade away.

Perfect opportunity to call Bush on his "with us or against us"
mantra.

Why ignore a country with direct ties to Al Qaeda?

They've read their history and they don't want the US's "help"

Why do you believe whatever Karl Rove tells you?

There are ten thousand ways to attack this war.

George, why are our soldiers begging for water and food?

George, what's the exit "stratergery?"

George, if the war lasts two years, excuse me, if the "occupation" lasts two years at one billion dollars a week, do you think one of your rich friends would be willing to fork over an extra dime in taxes to help pay for it?

George, why aren't those people throwing flowers at us?

George, why is the morale of our troops so low?

George, you had a vacation of 35 days. How many days R&R did our troops get?

This is shooting fish in a barrel. Come on, take aim and pull the trigger.

YOU ARE TO BE FRIGHTENED-----that's the order of the day----did you not receive the memo??? That about sums it up.

Either that or some don't realize that politics in wartime is different than politics during times of peace and prosperity.

When the troops came home from Vietnam they were treated horribly. It was an unpopular war and the people vented their frustration on the soldiers. Several decades later it is generally realised that this caused a great deal of emotional turmoil for these men. The attitude turned. We now had to support our troops because we did not want to emotional depression of Vietnam again. The right has spun this support of the troops into support of the war. The more cautiously they force us to step the less strength we can garner. So we are stuck stating we support the troops but not the war. The more conditions we slap on our statements the more diluted they become.

You've probably heard of the national polls they've taken that about 60% of our country believe that the 9/11 terrorists are from Iraq. So, you lose many voters/support if you express disagreement with the war...Kind of depressing, huh?

has pounded into the heads of the American Sheeple that ...

Not Supporting The War Is:
The same as not supporting the troops
Which is the same as wishing harm to our troops
Which is the same as hating America
Which is the same as wanting Osama Bin Laden run for preident as a Democrat

The more the WH and its media continues spew this crap, the unthinkers make more (false) connections on down the list.
I'm pretty sure Hitler used the exact same technique to get Germans to jump on his bandwagon, and squash dissent.

Cheers
Drifter

After all the goal is winning. The only way Republicans have ever one anything, wait a minute name one major victory for the Republicans?

Lincoln did not stop slavery though he was a Republican. The only way slavery stopped was the change of laws started by Kennedy, and having the civil rights laws created by Kennedy which was in turn enforced by the creation of laws like Brown v Board of Education, and having Labor leaders like Ray Corbett the President of the AFL-CIO in New York State organize around civil right issues to stop discrimination in housing and the workplace. Thus it was a a liberal democratic institution that stopped slavery, and was major victory in stopping slavery in the 1960s.

In short Republicans are sell outs. Is it fair to fight a war over a general issue like Terrorism. The world will have terrorists will into the future no matter how many wars we have.

War on terrorism give me a break.

Is it fair to the troops to put them in a shooting gallery for and oil contract gone bad betweeen Cheney and the Taliban?

and they get to decide what is right for people to believe, thus anybody who doesn't further the interests of big business and the MIIC has shit thrown at them.

then opposing those voters may not help you win the election.

Now, if you can get that 70% down to say 40%, anti-war is a political winner.