Are Republicans Warmongers? - Page 3 of 6

QUOTE Finding that Iraq indeed had no terrorist - Page 3 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 15th Apr, 2006 - 8:00pm

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?
 

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 
Posts: 43 - Views: 8806
 
?
Poll: Do you believe Republicans are Warmongers?
10
  Yes       33.33%
20
  No       66.67%
Total Votes: 30
Guests Cannot Vote - Join To Add Your Vote! 
Does it seem that each time the Republican party is in power they go to war or is that just a misconception? Are they taking care of unfinished business?
Post Date: 26th Feb, 2005 - 2:26pm / Post ID: #

Are Republicans Warmongers?
A Friend

Are Republicans Warmongers? - Page 3

We were talking about this in my government class the other day, and I would have said no before, but definately no now. Most of the wars our country has been in, the United States was led there by a Democrat. Nighthawk provided quite an extensive list of the Democrats vs. the Republicans that have led the country into war, and most of those were the presidents discussed in my class.

Another thing my professor brought up was the fact that no matter who was in president, we would have gone to war. Whether a Democrat or Republican would have been in office when Pearl Harbor happened, we would have gone to war. Whether Bush would have been in office, we still would have gone to war. I, personally, would rather have had Bush behind the reigns than the alternatives that were presented.

I think people need to look at some of the definitions, per say, that deferentiate between a Republican than a Democrat. There are three things that every president and politician must take into consideration: Order, freedom, equality.

Republicans value order above everything else. That's not saying they don't care about anything else, that just means that they would rather suffer from a little less freedom than to cut back on order. Democrats value freedom above order, meaning they would rather give up a little bit of order to maintain their freedom.

Also, the Republican party values defense, whereas the Democratic party spends more of their time on making changes within the politics of our own nation. I'm not trying to sound like I am bashing Democrats, because there have been Democrats I've prefered over Republicans, that's the generality of the two parties.

So, no, Republicans are not warmongers. Had a Democrat been in office when 9/11 occure, we still would have been in a war. When FDR was in office, he receieved just as much scrutiny as Bush has, and looking back, most people absolutely adored him as a president. I think that once Iraq and Afganistan and all that mess clears up, Bush will be looked upon as the same. Keep in mind that when our country was liberated, we went through a lot of the same things they are going through. The only difference was that our country didn't have a stronger country helping them to get through it. They had to rely on themselves to unite the nation.

Sponsored Links:
16th Mar, 2005 - 1:33am / Post ID: #

Warmongers Republicans Are

All this information about the wars the US has been involved in, why, and who led them has been very enlightening- I never knew some of those facts.

But, my comment is about the first question- "are Republicans Warmongers?"
This may sound odd at first, but just read it and (hopefully) it will all tie together at the end.

Offtopic but,
It was probably the second time I saw the new version of "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" when a particular line really struck me- for those of you not familiar with the story here is the related background information: Theoden, King of Rohan, has basically been brain-washed and is being controlled by "the bad guy." Evil "terroristic" creatures- orcs- are invading his lands near the boundaries. Theoden's nephew, Eomer (who was raised by Theoden, I think), goes to the King, and explains "...If we don't defend our country, Saruman [a "bad-guy"] will take it by force." At this, the king's counselor (and "secret agent" of the enemy), Grima, angrily declares, "That is a lie! Saruman the White has ever been our friend and ally." Eomer replies, "Orcs are roaming freely across our lands. Unchecked, unchallenged, killing at will. Orcs bearing the white hand of Saruman." [Éomer drops a helmet onto the ground, which topples over to reveal the white hand of Saruman.]

Grima quickly changes his tone, arguing, "Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind? Can you not see? Your uncle is weary of your malcontent, your warmongering."


As I mentioned before, when I heard this line, it really struck me because for some reason, my mind put it in the context of the war on terror situation. I realized that the parallels in situation are rather startling. I won't try to explain them all- I frankly don't have the energy to give it credit. But, especially if you are familiar with the story, all you mature and intelligent people here (that is what this place is for after all ;) ) I am sure can draw the parallels yourself. But, my point is, if what Eomer whas doing is warmongering, then yes- I absolutely believe that what the Republicans (as a whole, and some Democrats and others) did is remarkably like what Eomer did- and if that is warmongering, then so be it. However, I really think that most people would not consider Eomer's actions "warmongering," and that those people probably ought to at least reconsider if they think that Republicans are doing anything significantly different.

In fact, it may be worth adding, that after Grima spits out this accusation Eomer is shocked- he had certainly never considered his actions as being "warmongering-" as evidenced by that fact that he is almost at a loss for words for a few moments in his reply opening with "Warmongering?" He has to digest the idea before he can even reply.

Perhaps the Republicans have a right to say the same- "....warmongering?"

*note: all the quotes from "The Two Towers" that I used came from This Site

Message Edited!
Persephone: added offtopic tags and removed unnecessary promotion of external site.


International Level: Politics 101 / Political Participation: 1 ActivistPoliticianPolitics 101 0.1%


Post Date: 16th Mar, 2005 - 1:51am / Post ID: #

Are Republicans Warmongers? History & Civil Business Politics

User Shau Ri, although you are pursuing a point using a movie as a theme for your explanation a lot of it is off topic and quotes from elsewhere. When doing so you must use the various offtopic and quote tags as necessary so that readers do not have to wade through much text to get to the meat of your climax.

Post Date: 16th Mar, 2005 - 11:32am / Post ID: #

Are Republicans Warmongers?
A Friend

Page 3 Warmongers Republicans Are

I have always worked under that opinion that I would rather have an over active President than an under active one. Allot of our Presidents have taken actions that where not popular at the time, but they made the best decision they could. To say that republicans are war mongers would be to say that republicans like and promote war. Both of my parents where in Vietnam, neither of them like war. Neither of them cherish the idea of sending our young men and women off to a foreign country. But they also understand that sometimes it is necessary. They run off the thought that the president can make a more informed judgement of the situation than they can when it comes to international politics. That doesn't make them war mongers, it makes them patriots!

17th Mar, 2005 - 1:43am / Post ID: #

Warmongers Republicans Are

Thanks Konquererz, that was a great message. It made me think a lot more about what the effect of warmongering is.

The concept of "warmonger" implies people who enter into war without concern for the consequences. It implies people who promote war expressly for their own interests, in order to make a lot of money.

Since so many people associate Republicans with money (very falsely these days), that is why a lot of people consider any Republican action that leads to any conflict as being warmongering. The preconception that Republicans are only in it for the money makes it easy for people to claim that any warlike actions taken by Republicans must therefore be warmongering for profit.

At the same time, the preconception that Democrats only do things "for the people" causes people to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The problem with these preconceptions is that they are severely biased. They cause people to make assumptions, that they then "find" evidence for, by picking and choosing what they see. A good example is the continued assertion that the Iraq invasion is "only about getting oil for Haliburton."

So, that is my take on (for today) about the subject of Republicans as warmongers.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


Post Date: 2nd Feb, 2006 - 7:05pm / Post ID: #

NOTE: News [?]

Are Republicans Warmongers?

Breaking News

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chosen House majority leader
From CNN.com

Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 15th Apr, 2006 - 7:26am / Post ID: #

Are Republicans Warmongers?
A Friend

Are Republicans Warmongers - Page 3

As my beliefs and opinions regarding government have changed and grown the last year, I have found that I disagree with some of my earlier statements. I have read this entire thread again in a new light and have several additional comments regarding what has been said, including what I have myself posted.

To quote Nighthawk:

QUOTE
 
FDR... 
led us into World War II. 
Germany never attacked us: Japan did. 
 
Clinton... 
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, 
Bosnia never attacked us. (we are STILL there) 
 
The Democrats (and media) are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... 
 
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. 
 
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. 
 
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida! 


Also said earlier is that Republicans look at war as bad, not good. To this I say several things. That comment implies that Democrats think war is good, that is obviously not the case. To make claim that democrats views on war is only influenced by what is popular and what is not, while republicans base it on what needs to be done is biased and unrealistic in todays political world. Not one of them cares about what we think or Bush would not have gone to war. And don't think Kerry would not have done the exact same thing.

Japan attacked us. Japan was part of the Axis powers and were working together in alliance. An attack by one was an attack by all. FDR knew that and responded by declaring war on the bunch.

Intervention at Bosnia was not a war, it was the prevention of the attempted genocide of an entire race of people. We were preventing a racial cleansing. The leader who did it has since been convicted of war atrocities and put to death.

Your statements regarding "how democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking no longer in Iraq" no longer applies since we are losing more men now than during what was considered the actual war. If our boys are dying daily, its still a war, no matter who its with. This war is unpopular and unwanted even in Iraq now.

As quoted by Malexander:
QUOTE
 
The Republican party, and the current president are not warmongers. Does everyone forget about 9-11? Were we supposed to sit on our thumbs and do nothing about it? Do we honestly believe that Saddam had no influence on the terrorist activities that has infested this world? I'd prefer to have a ruling party and president who is willing to take the risks to keep our country safe than have people who will be passive and let shady occurrences pass them by. 9-11 occurred 9 months into Bush' presidency, do we really believe that such a plan took 9 months to concoct and plan? Warmongers, no. Enforcers of freedom is a better description. 


Finding that Iraq indeed had no terrorist connections and Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other, and no WMD's, and we haven't found the Bin Laden that was promised in Afghanistan, and we are now considering going to war with Iran over nukes that they say they don't have and the government has said there is not smoking gun, has your view changed? With current insurgency in Iraq (the term itself says its the iraq people doing it) and we have no real end in site, where does our freedom get enforced in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan? Going to war does not enforce our freedom, in fact they are using it to take away that freedom.

My earlier comments:
QUOTE
 
I have always worked under that opinion that I would rather have an over active President than an under active one. 
 
That doesn't make them war mongers, it makes them patriots! 

This president is WAY over active and needs to simmer down.

How does all this relate to the question? If America goes to war in Iran, that will make three wars in six years. I can't come out and say that republicans are war mongers, though they have consistently supported unpopular acts of the president. But the president is a war monger. When you consistently think that war can fix the problem, you are a war monger. To every problem so far, the only solution has been restrict freedom and go to war, he is a war monger, and so is any republican party member that backs him. When you go to disagree and say its all to protect our freedom, think of this. No foreign country has taken my freedoms, but through someones actions, my government has, so tell me in what way these wars have in any fashion benefitted the United States of America.

15th Apr, 2006 - 8:00pm / Post ID: #

Are Republicans Warmongers Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

QUOTE
Finding that Iraq indeed had no terrorist connections and Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other, and no WMD's, and we haven't found the Bin Laden that was promised in Afghanistan, and we are now considering going to war with Iran over nukes that they say they don't have and the government has said there is not smoking gun, has your view changed?


It is statements like these that show how much influence the media has on what perspectives most US citizens have on the current war in Iraq. How could you say that Iraq had no terrorist connections when it contained(s) the largest Al-Qaeda training camps? Yes, Saddam and Bin Laden didn't care much for each other but so what? Does that get Saddam off the hook?
No WMD's? Give me a break! There are Iraqi generals who have testified that Iraq and Saddam did have WMD's and they were shipped out the back door to countries like Syria before the war started. If people want to believe Saddam had no WMD's at all, then let them think that. Everyone wants to believe that we would have seen WMD's crossing the borders. WMD's don't have to be huge missiles that can be seen from a mile. You can carry WMD's in a backpack if you have to.
Finding Bin Laden is irrelevant really. If we had found Bin Laden in day 1, would this be over? Not for a long shot. Too much emphasis is placed by US citizens on capturing certain individuals. It's not that simple. The organization and cells are more important, and every day, these organizations and cells are slowly, but surely being crippled. Read my last update in the Post War discussion. Al-Qaeda is falling, and not because of political debates on Capitol Hill, but because of the fine work being done by our boys and girls over in the desert. Don't kid yourselves that diplomacy is the only answer. Diplomacy died a long time ago.
So has my view changed? Absolutely not! Take the blinders off people and open your eyes to what is happening. The Middle East, with the exception of Iran, and possibly Syria and Palestine, aren't going to be ignorant enough to pump their chests in defiance of the US and boldly state they have terrorist training camps and WMD's anymore. It was time for the US to make a strong statement, and that statement was made. You want to know why we have to wage so many wars? Because for 8 years we sat around and watched events unfold under an administration that ignored the signs and warnings until it all erupted and it was too late for diplomacy. Yes, diplomacy probably could have been used, but that was during someone else's presidency.

QUOTE
Going to war does not enforce our freedom, in fact they are using it to take away that freedom.


Do you feel safer walking down the street, of flying in an airplane, or visiting a foreign country? I certainly do. Going to war may not be the obvious choice to enforce liberties, but sometimes it is a necessary choice.

All in my opinion, of course.


International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 ActivistPoliticianEnvoy 24.1%


+  1 2 3 4 5 6 
Sponsored Links:


Comment Add Comment As A Guest
Important Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

# Characters:
0
# Words:
0
# Sentences:
0
# Paragraphs:
0
Reading Time:
0
Optional:
Search

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

 
> TOPIC: Are Republicans Warmongers?
 



International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2021
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,