i think i'll have to stop you on that note of accusing Bush as being "disastrous and ruining U.S. credibility and reputation". Bush is just trying to correct the mistakes of the former president Clinton, so if you want to play this blame game, you might as well start with Clinton, not Bush.
but back to the real topic, i personally agree with nighthawk, if you're to blame anyone for "warmongering" it'd have to be the democrats.
|i think i'll have to stop you on that note of accusing Bush as being "disastrous and ruining U.S. credibility and reputation". Bush is just trying to correct the mistakes of the former president Clinton, so if you want to play this blame game, you might as well start with Clinton, not Bush.|
|but back to the real topic, i personally agree with nighthawk, if you're to blame anyone for "warmongering" it'd have to be the democrats.|
|The difference in the last 40 years between the two parties has been HOW they look at war. The Democrats look at war as a way to appease and get along with the world community. Therefore, we get involved in REAL quagmires - the Yugoslavia mess, Kosovo, etc., under Democrats. Republicans look at war, see that it is bad, and try to prosecute it in such a way as to get it over with, right now.|
This information comes from an email that was forwarded to me. I haven't checked the details, but they sound quite close.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Thanks for providing specifics.
The Japanese attacked us, then Germany declared war on us. We could not have ignored Germany and focused solely on Japan. Nevertheless, FDR most definitely wanted war with Germany but the isolationist mood in America constrained him. Some say he purposely failed to adequately warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack because he needed that devastating blow to rally the nation to war. Much has been written about the intelligence and communications, but I doubt if all historians will ever agree on this one.
|It is now known that we actually won the war in Vietnam at least two times, probably three. We won the Tet Offensive, and Rolling Thunder, for sure. But the State Department wouldn't finish it. I am fairly sure that Rolling Thunder II was also a huge success.|
... was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
|In the two years since terrorists attacked us|
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
|So, once again, the difference in the last three decades has been what the wars were for, and how they were prosecuted.|
|In Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we knew what we needed to do, we did it, and we minimized the death and suffering of innocent civilians, and minimized the destruction of infrastructure.|
|The Republicans have shown themselves to be remarkably more capable of prosecuting and finishing war than the Democrats.|
To me, it depends on the reason for the war. Usually, there is only one reason I consider justifiable enough for war, and that's freedom. Now, US politics may overuse this word a lot, but considering who we are dealing with (Sadam, who had rulership styles similar in nature to Hitler) I would have to say they are fighting for the freedom of Iraqis. However, that's about the most involvement I think the US should have. As far as Israel and Palestine goes, we shouldn't have even been involved in that, in my opinion. As far as I know, those two groups have practically been raised to fight. A rash generalization, I admit, but considering the length and nature of the conflict it isn't far from the truth, even if it may not apply to all of them. Sad situation, to say the least, and I don't think there's a mediator alive who can end fighting between the two groups. :cry:
The "Catastrophic" Success of the Republican Party:
Victory by any means necessary is their call to arms; corruption, fraud and deceit are their weapons. Florida is but a small cell in an increasingly malignant tumor, and diseased are we all as the cancer slowly killing us awakens once more to destroy the very principles this great nation was founded on.
A very touchy subject.
In my opinion:
Afghanistan was called for, although I wished we had sent as many to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden as we did for Hussein. I honestly believe that the capture of Bin Laden would have been epic and nothing could compare.
Iraq - Who can say anything negative when our soldiers are there, besides praying for their safe return. The whole thing seems a mess, but you can never leave a mess and hope it works itself out, especially with the kids that will one day wonder what it was the U.S. did for them.
Kosovo - that was an international rescue attempt against genocide - hard to call a war - similar to the first Gulf War.
So in my opinion - I agree that regardless of the political party, at times we seem to jump into a war for our reasons, and others we get into when the whole world says it is an atrocity.
I don't do debates well, so if you disagree - you win. I would just like to see peace and see a civilized world come to agreements at a table instead of behind the crosshairs of a death delivering weapons. The century seems fit for logical and sensible deliberation.
International Level: New Activist / Political Participation: 14 1.4%
I really do not believe that either group lays claim to that of warmongering. Both parties would be perfectly happy with low inflation, an increasing stock market, high approval ratings and low unemployment, without having to throw a war into the picture. America is happiest when we are not at war and are enjoying our excesses. However, with that said, America (democrats or republicans) does not take well to being attacked. The same exuberance that we have for our excesses go into our revenge as well - some presidents just lead the charge more.
Just a thought,
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%