Why do Republicans think that Democrats are anti-war?

Question

I think war is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. However, there is time when war is the only answer. I support the Afghanistan war, but not the Iraq war. Plus durning both world wars the president was a democrat.

I did not say Republicans are pro-war, I know a lot who are not. Just that on yahoo answers I see a lot of people putting stuff about Democracts being anti-war.

Answer 1

Republicans created the myth that Democrats are soft on war and defense so they can capitalize the obverse side of the coin. That being, a strong offense is the best defense, even if it's wrong. First rule of politicking: Demonize thine opponents to paint him/her in multiple negative situations.

To call a Liberal a "Dove" is a typical stereotype used by pundits. But, also, by plucking the feathers from the Dove (Liberal) they tattoo the noble "Dove" to be meek and timid. This in turn, metamorphoses a truly sublime symbol of peace into just another piece of meat for the pot.

There are millions of vets who later develop a Liberal bent about going to war. I fit that category myself. I could not with good conscience see Americans once again being lied to and thrown into the breach of death because of political or personal preferences. In other words, a "war of choice."

Afghanistan and Taliban: War of necessity.

Iraq: War of choice.

I, like you, support what we are doing in Afghanistan. The Taliban is probably worst theocratic regime in the world right now. I wholly endorse their termination as soon as possible. We should never have scaled down in Afghanistan.

I believe if we hadn't done that Bin Laden and criminals would have been dealt with by now.

Sadly, Iraq is an arena for an insecure, little, tin horn tyrant to validate his own myopic version of Gworld.

Answer 2

The days of Hawkish Dems are long gone! That was a long time ago. The Dems have been wussy doves since Vietnam. Like going into Iraq or not, we are there and we have to win. Dems have done all they can to sabatoge the president and to hurt the military. They are very anti war. You have got to be kidding me. These are your Dem clowns at work. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry. You think these people have even a remote clue about war? Hillary is more hawkish than any of them, and that is scary. Hillary is a politician though, she thinks talking tough about the war will help her politically in the long run, and she may be right. But she may be wrong. The left wing has taken over the Dem party. The anti war, blame America first crowd. Hillary is an avowed Socialist, and she is perceived as too hawkish for your crowd. And you want to know why Dems are viewed as anti war? Its because they are!
Joe Lieberman just got run out because of his hawkish views. The proof is in the pudding, and there it is!

Answer 3

Hey I'm right there with you brother. If we invested the troops and money into Afghanistan we could help Karzai create a stable Democracy. Karzai wants our help and the Afghans aren't completely crazy people like the Iraqis.

Of course we are anti-war because we don't support the Iraq War.

Maybe I'm not as Liberal as I think I am...because I don't believe in all this spreading Freedom baloney....

Answer 4

Democrats are not anti-war per se. Most democrats are anti-Iraq war for obvious reasons. But certainly all democrats are for the war in Afghanistan, there is no question.

Answer 5

I think everyone must admit that Bush is not an articulate man. Nor is he a man of vision. He has a great deal of trouble trying to get his ideas out to the public and always leaves his audience wondering exactly what is on his mind. This lack of articulation has caused a great deal of confusion in the country, which has led to all these wild notions that Bush is a Nazi warmonger.
I am not a Bush supporter. I never supported the idea of invading Iraq. In gleaming thru several of Bush's speeches, his underlying thought for invasion seemed reasonable: Iraq had in the past used its oil revenue to finance terrorism around the world. We are at war with terrorism. His notion seemed to be to topple the Iraqi government and replace it with a democratic government to deny terrorist revenue to wage their war.
That is certainly logical thinking. However, Bush's lack of vision prevented him from seeing the void in an Iraqi government would open the country to an extremists takeover. Iraq is now in danger of being taken over by a worst group of extremist. If these people take over the oil fields, they would have an unlimited supply of money to send suicide bombers into every shopping mall in America.
Bush's mishandling of Katrina pales in comparison to the bungling in Iraq. His lack of vision has led us into a hornet's nest. We cannot cut and run in Iraq. At this point, we must deny the extremists access to the oil fields. It's likely going to take a larger troop buildup and a draft to raise the army needed.
It's clear that Bush's notion of invading Iraq was aimed at beating terrorism. His lack of vision, however, has led us into a war that is going to cost many more American lives.

Answer 6

When a Party has interests to claim from an Iraq invasion , they will frown to anyone who does not agree with them. Like Bush said " If you're not with the war you are with the enemy" Where is the freedom of choice, speech, belief that Bush says is fighting so hard to get rid of in Iraq, when he accuses his own American people of being anti-patriotic, I thought the fredooms are a proof of how the American people patriotism. Bush needs to go back to school.

Answer 7

'cause the "Party" people have been taught to not think for themselves. so in this case they are once again led by the nose and therefore wrong. even you have learned the Party propaganda and contradict yourself by saying "...avoid at all costs" and then "...war is the only answer". whew!!

actually most Dem's are not "anti-war", i'm sorry to say. like you, most still think even the death and torture by boy-george in Afghanistan is OK. back when the Taliban leaders visited the USA [in early 2001 i think] and were hugged by boy-george, his oil buddies were trying to get an oil pipeline deal thru their country but the Taliban were resisting. then when Osama did what he threatened to do and boy-george let him, the Taliban quickly offered to give him up to the USA. boy-george said "no" and proceeded to waste billions of YOUR money and kill thousands of Afghans. even that war and all of our dead troops was unnecessary. oh by the way, the pipeline is a done deal now...

this "Party" is the party of death. "support the troops"? bulls***!!!

oh yeah, guess what party was the party of appeasement back when Hitler was rising in power? give up? the Republicans and other conservatives like Lindbergh of course. the republicans were, and still are, the party of money and power. wake up and smell the fascism dude.

Answer 8

most likely they are see people who go to war are most likely low income people see theres no rich kinda rich poor any more theres only rich and then poor republicans are for the rich people and democrats are for the poor and about the war going on today our pres got in saying he is a man of god now that he is ot not thats something only they know but to use god to get in then go right to war not so good, war dose not have to happen yes there are bad people out there but when bill was in office was there any prob? no and did the "man" tap all of our phone and e-mails no well at least not that we know about. all i have to say is to live in peace with your self and god if you dont like it start a protest at DC make it public like in the 60s or 70s hey if you do you have to let me play some songs on stage ok ^_^

Answer 9

Not all Republicans believe that, and not all Republicans are as PRO WAR as the current administration is. The problem is this... fight a war that you can win. The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, so why are we there?

Answer 10

No, as plenty as i opt for to verify a woman prez, I received't vote for Hilary because she's specialist-conflict and that i'm no longer. She's a promote-out to the right-wingers. i imagine between the excuses she likes to fix the draft is that she trust which will be honest (to an quantity) because now genuinely those who opt for money enlist (undesirable people strive against and die for rich people, yet hasn't that typically been the case?) A draft may stress maximum to affix the armed forces regardless of their wealth (supposedly).