Dems WW 1,WW2,Korea, Vietnam,And lesser wars but of equal importance like the Seminole wars to protect settlers from Indian attacks a form of terrorism from1817-1858 with a major battle during 1835-1842 under Andrew Jackson .
Reps Philippine war , Spanish American war ,The banana wars ,and the Barbary war all for trade routes and money .Now we have the oil wars in the middle east under Bush 1-2 for money Again .
Seems like the dems are hard at work defending american values and fighting for freedom while the republicans are still fighting over money and trade .
I am tired of the spin that calls Democrats soft on war and terrorism ,when we have always fought the good fight .Often with much republican decent and lack of support .
2006-11-01 01:58:28 · 23 answers · asked by playtoofast 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Democrats are gonna spank some butt next TUESDAY! hee haw!
2006-11-01 02:02:49 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Zhivago 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Way more complicated than that. WWI and II in particular had much more involved than US politics. They were truly "world" wars with global issues overriding any local national party affiliation. Yet in many ways the "so called" dem wars you mention were also about trade in some fashion. And indeed trade was at issue in the roots of the world wars. Wars in general have a great deal to do with resource allocation and under what kinds of risks are associated with the loss of a resource or the gain of one. Cotton was a big driver in the wars in India (British Empire) and in the American Civil war. Resources that are in demand and limited will continue to underlie the causes of most wars. It has little to do with the party in power in the White House. After the friction of resource limitations - other issues drive the way in which a conflict unfolds - and it can range from family alliances (as in WWI) to Religion (Crusades) to Tribalism (Iraq).
2006-11-01 02:16:35 · answer #2 · answered by Me3TV 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually I think you've just put a perfect light on how both are war mongering profiteers.. the reality is that warring is good for their kinds of economies. this latest project has been a boom time for the energy, military contractors and war manufacturing giants.. hence the baffled silence displayed by our Dem minority. How many times have I wished I could be a senator just to make a stink about how failed this current system is for it's people and the country abroad.. and yet they remain mum? why... because they are getting just as fat as the rightsters.. so while agree with your assertion that Dem's are not soft on war I will differ on the end result.
VOTE ....INDEPENDENT/GREEN/LIBERTARIAN ... there are other choices
2006-11-01 02:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by hardartsystems 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your are living in the past buddy yes the democrats were for freedom around the world John Kennedy once said that no sacrifice is too great in the support of freedom around the world. Let,s look at our modern day democrat,Vietnam democrat cut and run,Iran cut and run Bosnia good job. Somalia cut and run
Republicans Kuwait finish the job, Grenada finish the job,Liberia sent troops in till the OAS replaced them. Afghanistan and Iraq pending will finish the job. If you are looking at the last 100 years you are correct, if you are looking at the last 40 years you are wrong. These modern democrats think that you can talk your way to freedom.
2006-11-01 02:32:32 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the democrats have not had a party since the radical libs took control. the party of FDR is no more! why would you support a so called party that kills innocent babies in the womb but bad mouth our military for defending this great nation and your right to speak freely?? Rest assured..you will get your chance to choose between Islam or freedom if the dems win the majority in the congress and senate this mid-term!! It is a Holy war alright....and if we lose in Iraq.....you might want to find some prayer mats and worry beads!!!!
2006-11-01 02:16:26 · answer #5 · answered by xvet 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since WWII the two parties have switched places. My father is an 80 year old man and started life as a Democrat became a Republican as a grown man, and is now a Libertarian. Most likely the Dem's of yesterday would be Republicans today.
2006-11-01 02:05:01 · answer #6 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree, but it's not always so black and white. I definitely lean towards democratic values/platforms, but that doesn't mean that they're always right.
That being said, republicans are great at spin and they use it to confuse the American people. Somehow W didn't look like a coward for getting out of serving our country in Vietnam and Kerry, a decorated hero, was made to look unpatriotic...how did that happen??? Money. The republicans are backed by big business and the pharmaceutical companies that shovel loads of money their way.
How sad that our country is run by the rich and powerful instead of a government of the people, for the people, by the people that Abraham Lincoln so eloquently described.
2006-11-01 02:05:00 · answer #7 · answered by Rwebgirl 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The Seminole Wars? Seriously? Isn't the appropriate liberal response that whites stole their land and exiled them to Oklahoma...No chance that was about MONEY and land.
Vietnam? Was Jane Fonda and John Kerry prominent Democrats? I thought the lib response was LBJ manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident, akin to Bush and Iraq.
WW2--We were attacked! Again, I thought revisionist history degrading the US was that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed the attack so we would go to war.
Kuwait's freedom under Bush 1 is insignificant. but Vietnam's was significant. Vietnam has nothing!
You missed the talking points memo, but I give you credit for creativity.
2006-11-01 02:07:35 · answer #8 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, because typically those with diverse money artwork very puzzling to handle it. in spite of the indisputable fact that, i'd argue that money buys you time. The saying that "time is money" became coined for a reason.
2016-12-05 10:21:48 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
while the Republicans dragged the country thru the scandal mud over Bill Clinton's personal indescretions they accused him of "wagging the dog" when he went after Osama Bin Laden. they refused to back Clinton as he sought to bring Osama to justice for terrorist activities. their hatred for Clinton far outweighed their concern for America's security and we are paying big time now for the GOP's willingness to put party politics above the job they're elected to do.
we can thank the GOP for the 9/11 attacks and quagmire wars we are now forced to pay for in American blood, reputation and an abundance of taxpayer money. THANKS ALOT Bu$hCo!
2006-11-01 02:12:45 · answer #10 · answered by nebtet 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Agree.
2006-11-01 02:09:09 · answer #11 · answered by Mojo Seeker Of Knowlege 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋