How everything that people were against during the Bush administration, especially the Iraq war was suddenly okay once Obama started doing the same things.
Especially his use of drones which during his first 3 months in office he used more drone bombs then Bush did during his 8 years.
They were okay with his kill list, his extrajudicial killings of 3 Americans and not too many people were upset when he stated that "I'm pretty good at killing"
gjohnsit and others wrote many diaries about the illegal wars and people defended Obama.
He wrote one last week about Syria and how the US is arming, training and working with Al Quada and people actually defended them.
People over there keep writing that Obama ended two was and hasn't started any new ones. Good lord, I can't wrap my head around people being that ignorant!
And of course we know that if anyone writes that Hillary is a warmonger they are HR'd into oblivion. They refuse to see that she is a f'cking warmonger and always has been.

I won't be anti "anti-antiwar". I'll just say fuck war. All war. And the capitalist boat it floats in on.

Like Knucklehead says: "I'm already against the next war"

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffett

This is what we must first realize, then accept, and finally engage in.

I read Marx's Das Kapital in English translation on my own in my mid-twenties and understood then that the problem, for people as human beings, is living in a world based on capitalism - the world we are living in right now.

How to defeat the capitalists I don't really have a clue. I get completely lost and frustrated trying to make sense of Marxists debating one another online - while the rich keep winning and getting richer, honest to God by the minute.

So, Al, I'm with you in being against the killing or even harming people kind of war, but I do feel it is imperative to, somehow, defeat this class war, to end capitalism, to stop the literal killing for profit.

I'm not thinking very clearly tonight, but I think it might behoove all of us to realize the one thing that will bring down the wrath of empire like nothing else is challenging its system of capitalism and central banks based on the US petrodollar, whether it's the democratically elected Iranians nationalizing their oil in the 1950s, Saddam Hussein attempting to accept Euros for payment for Iraqi oil in 2002, or Gaddafi trying to establish a pan-African banking system based on gold.

How the hell do we fight that?

A true leftist recognizes class and wars of empire.
A liberal just wants to smooth out the rough edges of the existing system, no matter how bad it is.

at least as Big Al described it. Here are some of my thoughts on some of his comments:

"The anti-antiwar left in this country has been successful in perpetuating the false narratives and lies regarding Obama's illegal wars in Libya and Syria, not to mention Yemen and the War OF Terror, while limiting discussion of U.S. imperialism by focusing on other issues like $15 an hour minimum wage or a .01% tax on Wall Street crimes."

There is a lot to comment about in these few sentences. First, you refer to illegal wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen. Let me comment on each one in turn.

Libya: I agree that this war was almost certainly "illegal." I do note that there was a UN Security Council authorizing force to defend the Libyan citizenry against the use of chemical weapons against the government. However, our intervention and the intervention of our allies went well beyond that.

However, to say that a war is "illegal" does not mean that it is immoral, let alone a war crime (I refer to war crime because you accuse Obama and Clinton as being war criminals, I believe, at least in part, for conducting illegal wars; my apologies if I misunderstood your point). To step into the hypothetical for a moment, I assume that you agree in the abstract that conduct can be both moral and illegal. Certainly Martin Luther King did. I would also think the same basic possibility exists for international matters as well. Let me give you an example of this, though it may not mean anything to you, depending on your age. As you may not know if you are very young (I am 55), Senator George McGovern was one of the leading political figures against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. He was extremely reluctant to use force in general. When he ran for president as the Democratic Party nominee in 1972, his proposed defense spending would have cut such spending by about 40%. Yet, in the late 1970s, he came out in favor of military intervention in Cambodia because the human rights record of the Pol Pot regime was so horrible. I am not saying he advocated unilateral US warfare, but some group of countries to intervene in Cambodia to overthrow Pol Pot and his regime. This intervention would have been illegal. I think it also would have been very unwise. However, I dont think it would have been immoral. Well, the same can be said about intervening in Libya. Colonel Qadaffi (spelling?) was a brutal dictator. Many of his people were rebelling against him. I actually supported that intervention on both humanitarian and national interest grounds as I believe both that the Libyans would be better off living in a democracy and that we in the US will be safer once more Muslims live in a democracy. In fact, I think one of the reasons why we are so hated in that part of the world is our long time attachment to brutal dictators.

True, the situation for the Libyans now is, if anything, worse now then under Qadaffi. However, I think that could have been avoided if we had offered very generous economic aid so they could rebuild from the war's destruction. In my mind, it was Obama's failure to do this that was the real "crime," not the original intervention.

As for Syria, I agree with Clinton that we should have done more to intervene earlier. I would not have put ground troops in Syria under any condition, but there was a point in mid 2012-13 that we could have used air power to intervene and a relatively moderate group lead by former Syrian military personnel would have taken over Damascus. While I think this would not have ended all violence, but I do think much of the tremendous human rights catastrophe that has taken over the country would have been avoided. And I believe, though I assume you will disagree, that those who advocate non-intervention must "own" that this may have resulted in a human rights nightmare that MIGHT have been avoided with such intervention.

As for the drone strikes-To me, this matter rests completely with the quality of intelligence. I believe that if the US knows to a near certainty that certain individuals in a foreign land are training with the specific purpose of carrying out terrorist acts against Americans, that we have a right to attack them. I dont believe that we have to wait until 2 minutes before they set off some bomb in some American city before we strike them. Of course, I dont think such killings should be based on...well he said that he said that he said that he said these groups of people are terrorists so we should kill them. Since I dont know what the standard is in approving a drone strike, I dont know if I supoort or oppose Obama's use of drones.

There are two things that were mentioned in passing that I agree with in criticism of Obama's foreign policy: his policy pertaining to Israel and the middle east and in latin america. In regard to the former, while I am a Zionist, I am very critical of Obama's lack of doing anything real to end Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. He certainly could and should have gone to the UN to declare the settlements illegal and if such activity was not stopped, to impose sanctions against Israel. I believe that this would have been enough to restart the peace process, but if not, then Obama could and should have worked within the UN to draw the appropriate boundries for the Palestinian State. In regard to Latin America, briefly, Obama has stood against ELECTED center-left or leftist governments in Brazil, Argentina, Venazuela and others in favor of right wing governments. Even Bill Clinton, who I dislike greatly, was better in Latin America then Obama.

OK, this has been a bit rushed because I have to go pick up my son from school. I will return later to reply to any comments.

Take a side, any side, and if it becomes popular or they just want to mess with you, they'll jump on board. Anybody can claim to be anything, that doesn't make them so. Plus even sincere people can be left on some issues, right on others.

If they're not ant-war, then on war issues, they're not on the left.