4 ms·

The nineties saw the demise of pacifism as a viable mainstream idea as the Democratic party under Clinton wholeheartedly and unconditionally embraced militarism

The nineties saw the demise of pacifism as a viable mainstream idea as the Democratic party under Clinton wholeheartedly and unconditionally embraced militarism. Today there are two parties in the USA, one that loves war and another that loves war even more. The results of this disaster are in the news today.

jacobolus 5y ago
The US and the Democratic party were never pacifist any time during the 20th century (and certainly US foreign policy was not pacifist under Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Carter). Clinton’s foreign policy was not in any way outside of the party mainstream. But under Clinton the US did dramatically cut back on training/arming fascist death squads, and the 90s–2000s were a period of relative peace and prosperity for Latin America, as the US left them more or less alone (the Bush II administration was more worried about fearmongering/warring vs. Muslims, so continued benign neglect of LA). Clinton also presided during a period when the US had less military activity/conflict than pretty much any other time since WWII. Obama didn’t get to make such a choice, having inherited Middle East wars from his predecessor.
- twelve40 5y ago
  > Obama didn’t get to make such a choice There is always a choice, and he made his. Choice to bomb and crush Libya in 2014, which became a stone-age bloodbath ever since, choice to invade and bomb Syria in 2014, choice to continue wasting lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were deliberate decisions, not something inherited from someone.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s foreign policy, but this is a disingenuous, misleading summary which echoes Russian state-sponsored propaganda of recent years.
    - twelve40 5y ago
      What exactly here is misleading? Libya or Syria weren't bombed? What are you even trying to say?

jacobolus 5y ago

The US and the Democratic party were never pacifist any time during the 20th century (and certainly US foreign policy was not pacifist under Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Carter). Clinton’s foreign policy was not in any way outside of the party mainstream. But under Clinton the US did dramatically cut back on training/arming fascist death squads, and the 90s–2000s were a period of relative peace and prosperity for Latin America, as the US left them more or less alone (the Bush II administration was more worried about fearmongering/warring vs. Muslims, so continued benign neglect of LA). Clinton also presided during a period when the US had less military activity/conflict than pretty much any other time since WWII. Obama didn’t get to make such a choice, having inherited Middle East wars from his predecessor.

twelve40 5y ago
> Obama didn’t get to make such a choice There is always a choice, and he made his. Choice to bomb and crush Libya in 2014, which became a stone-age bloodbath ever since, choice to invade and bomb Syria in 2014, choice to continue wasting lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were deliberate decisions, not something inherited from someone.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s foreign policy, but this is a disingenuous, misleading summary which echoes Russian state-sponsored propaganda of recent years.
  - twelve40 5y ago
    What exactly here is misleading? Libya or Syria weren't bombed? What are you even trying to say?