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.
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.
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." [Ã‰omer 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."
Persephone: added offtopic tags and removed unnecessary promotion of external site.
International Level: Politics 101 / Political Participation: 1 0.1%
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.
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!
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 85.4%
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chosen House majority leader
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:
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
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!
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.
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!
|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?|
|Going to war does not enforce our freedom, in fact they are using it to take away that freedom. |
International Level: Envoy / Political Participation: 241 24.1%