It's certainly not anti-war and hasn't been since the 2006 mid-term elections.
That's when the pretense of ending the Iraq War vanished -- when the American people were told by Nancy Pelosi to give them control of one house of Congress and they would end the Iraq War.
So trusting, the American people gave them control of both houses of Congress.
Instead of ending the Iraq War, they used it to turn out votes in the 2008 election.
This led to a Democratically-controlled Congress and a US president (Barack Obama) who was elected on his promise to end the Iraq War.
In a big middle finger to the American people, the Iraq War continued and continues.
Why is the US-led coalition using white phosphorus in Iraq & Syria? Even relatively minor burns are often fatal https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/iraq/syria-danger-us-white-phosphorus …
Barack left office in January, after two terms as president, and the Iraq War drags on.
(So does the Afghanistan War but he can at least claim he never promised to end that one.)
The Democratic officials didn't just refuse to end the Iraq War, the Democratic Party voters refused to hold them to their promises.
Glen Ford (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) points out, "The U.S. does need a social democratic party, but it must be anti-war, otherwise it commits a fraud on social democracy. The United States is the imperial superpower, the main military aggressor on the planet. Its rulers must be deprived of the political ability to spend trillions on war, and to kill millions, or they will always use the 'necessity' of war to enforce austerity. The 'left' domestic project will fail."
As we stated last week, "Let's be really clear, the left abandoned Iraq and when it did so, it lost it's way."
i'm not comparing incidents, all lives taken is a tragedy BUT if you dont care about deaths in places like Syria & Iraq then i dunno man
We dunno, either.