Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are Republicans Warmongers?

AStevenson
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:15:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

So America is war mongering, regardless of the political party of the president!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:18:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:15:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

So America is war mongering, regardless of the political party of the president!

It's like the two party system is big scam to create the illusion of choice or something.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat. Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war. Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Those are weak examples.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:37:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat. Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war. Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Those are weak examples.

Well, there's John F. Kennedy, with his tough on communism/the USSR policy which nearly ended the world. Literally.

Don't get me wrong, I admire him in many aspects, and also admire many things he did during the CMC. But the fact that he held such a hardline policy of machismo with the USSR could be argued for causing the whole thing in the first place.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:45:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat.

Yeah he is. How do you define "modern"? FDR was not very much later than Wilson.

Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war.

If you dont count the constant provocations the US engaged in sure.

Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Source? Not saying you're wrong, it's just something I havent heard of.

Those are weak examples.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:45:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat. Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war. Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Those are weak examples.

Weak examples of Democrat presidents taking us to war?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:45:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw the answer to the OP is neoconservatives. They've taken over the Republican party though their influence is, thankfully, declining
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:50:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:45:12 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat.

Yeah he is. How do you define "modern"? FDR was not very much later than Wilson.

Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war.

If you dont count the constant provocations the US engaged in sure.

Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Source? Not saying you're wrong, it's just something I havent heard of.

Oh wow, check this out: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... what a douchee

Those are weak examples.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 6:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM, AStevenson wrote:
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.

Johnson started Vietnam, and Nixon ended it, lol.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 7:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:45:12 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat.

Yeah he is. How do you define "modern"? FDR was not very much later than Wilson.

FDR introduced the definition of the modern democrat especially with his establishment of the New Deal coalition,...which still persists today as powerhouse sources of the Democratic electorate. Wilson is no more Democratic in the modern sense, than TR can be called a modern Republican.

Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war.

If you dont count the constant provocations the US engaged in sure.

It was a NET justified war, and brief as well. FDR was no warmonger. Warmongering =/= simply going to war.

Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Source? Not saying you're wrong, it's just something I havent heard of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...


Those are weak examples.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 10:07:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

9oooooooooooo.... Stevenson just got schooled.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:03:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 7:02:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:45:12 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:14:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I agree modern Republicans are war mongers but historically the Democrats have been as bad if not worse. Wilson in WWI, FDR in WWII, Johnson in Vietnam.

Wilson isn't a modern Democrat.

Yeah he is. How do you define "modern"? FDR was not very much later than Wilson.

FDR introduced the definition of the modern democrat especially with his establishment of the New Deal coalition,...which still persists today as powerhouse sources of the Democratic electorate. Wilson is no more Democratic in the modern sense, than TR can be called a modern Republican.

That's an argument for why FDR represents a turning point. There are clear and distinct ideological differences between TR and modern Republicans, are you telling me the same can be said for Wilson and FDR? What specifically changed in the ideology to allow for liberalism to not be pro-war as it was a mere 20 years before FDR under Wilson?

Our involvement in WWII lasted 3 years, and that was by most reasonable measures, a justified war.

If you dont count the constant provocations the US engaged in sure.

It was a NET justified war, and brief as well. FDR was no warmonger. Warmongering =/= simply going to war.

No, but basically begging to be attacked by shipping the Allies war supplies and ideologically and materially supporting the Allies is kind of a provocation. Do you deny?

Johnson was about to pull out of Vietnam in '68, and Republican Richard Nixon disrupted the peace deal while he was running for president.

Source? Not saying you're wrong, it's just something I havent heard of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...


Those are weak examples.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 11:18:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM, AStevenson wrote:
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.

You provided a lot of examples of presidents fueling wars and a lot less of them actually going to war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 12:18:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To quote Robert Nisbet:

"of all the misascription of the word "conservative" ... the most amusing, in an historical light, is surely the application of 'conservative' to the lastnamed [i.e., the budget-expanding enthusiasts for great increases in military expenditures]. For in America throughout the twentieth century, and including four substantial wars abroad, conservatives had been steadfastly the voices of non-inflationary military budgets, and an emphasis on trade in the world instead of American nationalism. In the two World Wars, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, the leaders of American entry into the war were such renowned liberal-progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. In all four episodes conservatives, both in the national government and in the rank and file, were largely hostile to intervention; were isolationists indeed.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
My-Self
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 12:50:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because they like money. You'd do the same thing if you were in their position. $10,000,000 is a lot of money for you to advocate a war, and let generals lead it and poor kids die in it. The Government pays corporations to build the weapons, and the corporations give the government a shitload of money from it; ultimately, it is funded through taxation and inflation, which harms innocent civilians' bank accounts and foreigners' families.
"Genesis could be compatible with anything. Theologians are great at mental gymnastics." ~ phantom
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:19:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:56:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM, AStevenson wrote:
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.

Johnson started Vietnam, and Nixon ended it, lol.

Actually, Democrats in congress ended it. Nixon wanted to keep going.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:25:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.

Going over "serious" wars (though serious is highly subjective) that were to secure an interest over the last 100 years.

Iraq (2003) - Republican
Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq (1991) - Republican
Vietnam - Democrat
Korea - Democrat
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:28:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:25:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.

Going over "serious" wars (though serious is highly subjective) that were to secure an interest over the last 100 years.

Iraq (2003) - Republican
Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq (1991) - Republican
Vietnam - Democrat
Korea - Democrat

Obviously "serious" is subjective, but do you really think Iraq/Afghanistan even register in scope compared with Vietnam and Korea? Moreover those latter wars were fought by neo-conservatives, who really arent too different from liberals
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:30:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:28:32 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:25:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.

Going over "serious" wars (though serious is highly subjective) that were to secure an interest over the last 100 years.

Iraq (2003) - Republican
Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq (1991) - Republican
Vietnam - Democrat
Korea - Democrat

Obviously "serious" is subjective, but do you really think Iraq/Afghanistan even register in scope compared with Vietnam and Korea? Moreover those latter wars were fought by neo-conservatives, who really arent too different from liberals

Although I guess I did say "democrat" not liberal
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:44:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:28:32 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:25:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.

Going over "serious" wars (though serious is highly subjective) that were to secure an interest over the last 100 years.

Iraq (2003) - Republican
Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq (1991) - Republican
Vietnam - Democrat
Korea - Democrat

Obviously "serious" is subjective, but do you really think Iraq/Afghanistan even register in scope compared with Vietnam and Korea? Moreover those latter wars were fought by neo-conservatives, who really arent too different from liberals

They are as serious in terms of fiscal cost. Not so much in cost of american lives.

Also, Neoconservatives are very different from liberals. Unless you squint really hard to where everything is uber basic and blurry, there is little that is the same.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 2:47:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:45:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
Btw the answer to the OP is neoconservatives. They've taken over the Republican party though their influence is, thankfully, declining

I find the prospect of isolationist paleoconservatives taking over the Republican party much more frightening.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 7:58:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 2:47:46 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:45:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
Btw the answer to the OP is neoconservatives. They've taken over the Republican party though their influence is, thankfully, declining

I find the prospect of isolationist paleoconservatives taking over the Republican party much more frightening.

It's a good thing no one is advocating isolationism, the most extreme being advocated in realm of popular politics is non-interventionism.
As isolationism includes protectionism.

As for the non-interventionist part, I find the trillions of wasted money, thousands of dead and injured servicemen and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to be the more frightening part. That is more frightening than the ever elusive boogyman in a cave in pakistan
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:14:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:44:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:28:32 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:25:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:14:48 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:29:16 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Republicans simply do not want to be picked on. If many of today's liberals had it there way, there would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist for flying into multiple building, with our planes, Americans would continue to be held hostage, America would lose any second cold war. Democrats would let America be stepped on while republicans want to preserve the nation from being invaded, nuked, or bombed.

That's interesting considering that virtually all historical examples of America engaging in a serious war to secure its interests occurred under Democratic administrations.

Going over "serious" wars (though serious is highly subjective) that were to secure an interest over the last 100 years.

Iraq (2003) - Republican
Afghanistan - Republican
Iraq (1991) - Republican
Vietnam - Democrat
Korea - Democrat

Obviously "serious" is subjective, but do you really think Iraq/Afghanistan even register in scope compared with Vietnam and Korea? Moreover those latter wars were fought by neo-conservatives, who really arent too different from liberals

They are as serious in terms of fiscal cost. Not so much in cost of american lives.

Sure, but this is attributable to several facts, not least that the tactics have changed to focus on technology that is more expensive than drafting some boys and handing them M16's, and the fact that military spending is and has been for a while basically a sacred cow that wont be cut. Moreover, in terms of cost to GDP ratio, the former wars were far more substantial.


Also, Neoconservatives are very different from liberals. Unless you squint really hard to where everything is uber basic and blurry, there is little that is the same.

well this was actually a slip up on my part. I meant to say in terms of foreign policy
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:14:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 2:47:46 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:45:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
Btw the answer to the OP is neoconservatives. They've taken over the Republican party though their influence is, thankfully, declining

I find the prospect of isolationist paleoconservatives taking over the Republican party much more frightening.

Good thing no one is advocating isolationism
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:04:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM, AStevenson wrote:
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.

Woodrow Wilson ran on staying out of WWI, then after being elected quickly joined the war. FDR entered WWII. Truman was the Korean War. Johnson was the Vietnam War. Nixon negotiated the American exit from Vietnam.

I don't see must of generalization by political Party, but the closest would be that Democrats let things get out of hand. By avoiding small wars, they end up with large ones. For example, doing nothing militarily about Iran is far more likely to result in a larger war than in avoiding war.

The only sure way to avoid war with a militant authoritarian aggressor is to surrender. Is that really a good solution?
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:20:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:04:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/30/2013 6:05:09 PM, AStevenson wrote:
Lincoln went to war with the CSA. McKinley went to war with Spain. Roosevelt funds a Panamanian revolution and sends naval ships. Ike increases our interest in Vietnam. Nixon greatly expands Vietnam. Reagan funds rebels in Nicaragua. Bush goes to war in Iraq. The second Bush goes back to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are Republicans such filthy, dirty, and disgusting warmongers? They should practically write it on their party base.

Woodrow Wilson ran on staying out of WWI, then after being elected quickly joined the war. FDR entered WWII. Truman was the Korean War. Johnson was the Vietnam War. Nixon negotiated the American exit from Vietnam.

I don't see must of generalization by political Party, but the closest would be that Democrats let things get out of hand. By avoiding small wars, they end up with large ones. For example, doing nothing militarily about Iran is far more likely to result in a larger war than in avoiding war.

The only sure way to avoid war with a militant authoritarian aggressor is to surrender. Is that really a good solution?

Roy, with respect, you say you don't think much of generalization and then jump right in to generalize.

However, I do agree with you about "over"-generalization. To generalize all Republicans since Lincoln and then excuse Roosevelt, Wilson, Kennedy and Johnson seems a bit much. What person in their right mind would say that the Civil War wasn't as justified as at least some of the wars Democrats have gotten us into?

On the flip side, you are flat wrong with your blanket statement in the real world.

The only sure way to avoid war with a militant authoritarian aggressor is to surrender. Is that really a good solution?

Khadafi was a militant aggressor. The United States did not declare war and send troops.

Saddam Hussein was a militant aggressor. We could have avoided that war, which has cost thousands of U.S. and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives needlessly because we went to war rather than continue to contain him. [Based on intentionally misleading intelligence IMHO that should be the subject of war crimes tribunals, again IMHO.]

Cheers
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...