Since virtually every war the United States has been in in the last 100 years has been at the behest of a Democrat i.e. WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR and Drop a Nuke Truman), Korean (Truman) and Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson) and since each of those wars has cost us many more that the 3,000 dead in Iraq shouldn't you be supporting a Republican if you are truely for peace ?
2007-01-02 08:43:57 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
BTW I am a Conservative who doesn't think we need to be in Iraq. Those peple aren't worth a single American life.
2007-01-02 08:52:42 · update #1
FDR and prior knowldege of coming attack on Pearl Harbor and had our ships moored in there like sitting ducks. He wanted this attack to happen in order to draw America into a war we didn't want to get involved in.
Kennedy was the one who sent "advisors" in to Vietnam and then commited us to the fight.
2007-01-02 08:58:43 · update #2
I don't understand everything I read
and hear about what's wrong with America
When you don't have a lot of book learnin
there's many things you don't understand
But I know this much, she's like a Mother to me
and I love her with all my heart
And let me tell you this Sir
everything I am or ever hope to be
I owe to her!
2007-01-02 08:48:09 · answer #1 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
WWI: Crazy Germans attacking our cruise liners and bombing Europe because of messed up alliances.
WWII: How can you not justify this? Hitler killing millions of Jews, conquering half of Europe and having his Japanese friends try to take China. The Nuke ended the war faster anyways
Korean: Meh, not really necessary but we saved South Korea from the fate that the North is facing with their Nukes.
Vietnam: Eisenhower started it, he was republican, although I can't say the following Democrats helped the situation.
2007-01-02 16:54:58 · answer #2 · answered by kass9191 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes I remember that rogue FDR (nothing to fear but fear itself) who responded to an attack on our forces by declaring war on Japan, of course he tried to hold out as long as possible, but world circumstances forced his hand, funny you did not point that out, or the fact that President Truman saved countless thousands of lives both Japanese, German, and ours by ending the war early. I fought in Nam and I now disagree with the powers that got us into that conflict as I disagree with President Bush, but that is my right as a voting American. Do you vote?
I am not anti-war, I will fight and defend the principles of this country when attacked any time the country asks, but this conflict in Iraq has now become unrealistic, the country is in civil war, many of our own Generals (I suppose they are now liberals in your mind) are against further involvement, it is time to get out.
2007-01-02 16:53:50 · answer #3 · answered by white61water 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Vienam war was the longest and was started by a Republican. Does not really matter if President was democrate or republican, I can assure you each was was started for reasons other than what was told to the people. Wars are ALWAYS a rich man's was and a poor man's fight.
2007-01-02 17:11:12 · answer #4 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well i guess you like to speak German and watch people boarding train that always return empty. You must like to watch smoking chimmenys in out of the way places that seem to have a lot of people working there but no one leaves.
I wonder what you would do? If just by posting a question in a mass media some goons in black uniforms came and knocked on your door. And you could not say "Where is your warrant?"
2007-01-02 16:53:06 · answer #5 · answered by esteli 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ok...ww1 and ww2 actually saved the world. and created peace Vietnam was a cock up.The war in Iraq will not protect the world like ww1 and ww2 and will not create peace.
so that means that 2 wars led by democrats actully saved the world,the one that the republicans led(iraq) will NOT LEAD TO PEACE!!!
and you may no have wanted to get involved in ww2 but your involvment saved the world.
2007-01-02 17:50:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
... uh... I didn't realize it was a "contest"...
it's American soldiers lives... that's the most important thing here...not mistakes that may have been made in the past...
that doesn't justify anyone else's mistakes...
I don't think I would have supported vietnam either...
you would think you would support anyone who didn't support war... whoever that may be... if you wanted peace...
2007-01-02 17:35:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about us anti-war conservatives? Don't we get a voice?
The political philosophy of a president during wartime does not influence my decision to support them or their party. I disagree with the concept of war in general, partisan politics has nothing to do with it. Grow up, the world isn't just a two-sided pissing contest.
2007-01-02 16:47:52 · answer #8 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sure, if we support peace and IF WE WANT TO LIVE IN THE PAST, we could be republican. But if you endorse peace and you LIVE IN THE PRESENT, then you could very well be democrat.
2007-01-02 16:55:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I've been saying the same thing all along and I await the Liberals inevitable back pedaling.
2007-01-02 16:47:17 · answer #10 · answered by Edward F 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋