This is not saying however, that I believe Dems are warmongers because there was a need to go to war in these cases, as there is today.
Wilson-WWI (ran for election on peace platform)
FDR-WWII (ran on platform to seek neutrality legislation)
Truman-Korea, not to mention dropping the 2 atomic bombs
JFK-first to commit ground troops to Vietnam
Clinton-"peacekeeping" missions in Somalia and Kosovo
Strange how they come up with these arguments, ain't it?
2007-06-23
15:49:48
·
22 answers
·
asked by
suzyq
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I'm not ignoring the Gulf War or the Iraq War..I'm referring to wars led by Democratic leaders. Nice try at ignoring the question though.
2007-06-23
15:59:00 ·
update #1
Funny how those of you who can't justify calling Reps warmongers are completely dodging the question
2007-06-23
16:07:50 ·
update #2
Because for the people who scream these things, accuracy, fact and history are not important. They yell things that are the most inflammatory, not the most accurate.
Democrats are the only ones (in the world) who have used atomic weapons. They're the only Americans to use internment camps to lock Americans up without any cause or remedy. They fought against freeing the slaves. They tried to defeat the Civil Rights Act.
Are these things germane to today's society and problems? No. But neither is most of the garbage they yell.
2007-06-23 15:58:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Farly the Seer 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
You are comparing apples and oranges. Just because FDR declared war on Japan does not make him a warmonger. I think most Americans would say that the decision to go to war under those circumstances was a justifiable one.
Each conflict should be based on its own merits. It really doesn't matter who is in office. It doesn't matter what other conflicts have happened in the past. What does matter is the following, "Does the situation at hand justify the use of American troops?" There is no need to apply the label of "Warmonger" to it.
2007-06-23 23:02:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pythagoras 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
You have to understand the historical implications before you jump on a bandwagon and distort history with your blind ideology. Wilson adopted an isolationist posture during his early term into office but he was increasingly bothered by advisors of going into Europe after the yellow press kept spoonfeeding the public with these sensationalized reports of the German "Huns" slaying women, children and acting barbarians. Invariably, the consensous for war came when the Germans attacked the British cruiseline The Lusitania and the subsequent Zimmerman Note - those were direct attacks against the U.S. - the same can be said with FDR's case when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
All of these wars that I mentioned above was a defensive measure against an aggressive attack on the US. By failing to understand them you fail to understand the link between the ethics of diplomacy and legislating a legitimate war.
Interesting - most of you people think that going into Iraq was justified by the rationale that Hussien had something to do with 9/11 when that clearly is a faulty premise whereas you completely disregard the fact that the WWI and WWII were legitimate wars because we were faced with an imperialist affront. Do you people pick up a book and read?
Still, I'm baffled how these morons complain about ESR and global warming, lol.
2007-06-23 23:00:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by ibid 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
this question can be simply answered by answering another question...
why did Strom Thurmond switch political parties?
because the dems were moving more peaceful... toward more civil rights and to focus on poverty and education...
the entire north and the entire south changed the way it voted around the same time... do you think everyone in those areas just changed their mind magically?
to the only ones past that... Kosovo and Somalia are clearly not wars or even close and were UN actions... either you weren't alive or don't know what a war is if your using those as examples...
Republicans are constantly crying how Clinton didn't do nearly enough war during his term..
2007-06-23 23:43:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I am a Traditionalist Conservative.... and I am not in any way a "war monger". But, I am for the safety and security of this county at any cost. I feel that a strong offense is the best defense.
If we do not control the Middle East and the insane zealot Dictators that want death to America.... we won't have to worry about political correctness anymore... because we will ALL BE DEAD!
2007-06-24 13:05:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dog Lover 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Because the Politicians and the News Media have succeeded in turning the people, evenly down the middle, against each other. Which is what keeps them all right where they are -running our lives.
2007-06-23 22:58:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by mark623112 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
the human race is all about warmongering, that should be all there is to it, but now civilians like you and me are the target, its mind boggling how many people dont take the times we live in seriously
2007-06-23 23:06:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Doesn't matter whom we vote into office.
The true controlling party runs both sides.
2007-06-23 23:00:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I agree with the poster "U.S. Veteran". Either a war or depression. My Grandma even said that about Republicans.
2007-06-23 23:17:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by GOPanic 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Don't forget LBJ for not ending the war in vietnam!
2007-06-23 22:55:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bunz 5
·
2⤊
2⤋