Republicans are called war mongerer's, by Liberals. But that just isn't right is it? Would Liberals of today call Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, John Hancock, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. war mongerer's?
Where would America be, if we had never gone to war?
2007-07-18 13:37:45 · 34 answers · asked by xenypoo 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe both Democrats and Republicans view war as the last resort of a Democracy. I believe you would have to be insane not to view it as a last resort (especially if you've been in the military and understand what it's really like). The difference seems to be in the execution.
Once we go to war, a Republican wants to win. A Democrat just wants it to stop.
2007-07-18 13:42:06 · answer #1 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Well actually I'm a canadian liberal, and many of us do call Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Hancock rebels, and when we're being really facetious traitors to the crown(with a good brogue on the leading 'tr')
But to answer your question, the reason we believe bush and other conservative republicans are war mongers is they invaded Iraq based on a mountain of lies. When you start talking about the proof coming in the form of mushroom clouds and your own inteligence service has told you any source talking about uranium is bogus, it comes off as war mongering. And unlike bin laden, rummsfeld has actually been photographed hugging husein. I'm unaware of any proof osama and sadam have ever sat at the same table together. There's cetainly no video tape of them *hugging*(nor is there any indication Hussein was funding or otherwise aiding Alqueada) using these things as an excuse to send thousands of troops into a country and blow it up from the air, I mean OK so it's difficult for me to believe that he's drumming up a war because he likes wars, but what's it really about then? If you're going to lie, spend thousands of american lives and billions of american dollars you must either like war, or have some amazingly compelling secret reasons, eh?
2007-07-18 14:47:26 · answer #2 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Evidence says yes.
Did Lincoln, Eisenhower, Grant or Roosevelt, Washington ever START a war against a country that wasn't attacking us?
2007-07-18 13:43:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think liberals do believe that republicans want war but if we pull out now we won't be able to win and if a liberal wins the 2008 election there not going to take them out of Iraq they say they will but there to chicken to do any thing about it and if there was no war we would not live in a free country and we would be just like iraq
2007-07-18 13:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by Tori 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is a difficult concept to believe and it is clearly not true of all republicans. But for the extremists running our country at the moment the evidence points that way.
To my knowledge the people you named did not illegally invade countries that had not attacked us or our allies in years and were not a threat to us. They certainly did not lie to the US people and congress, and deliberately drive a wedge into the American population in order to fight a war for profit. It is a disgrace and an insult to our country's great past to compare this administration to any of them. Why do you hate America that much to insult our past like that?
2007-07-18 14:03:10 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If George Washington were still alive the liberals would say his war of independence was a complete failure, and then compare him to Hitler.
2007-07-18 13:49:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I've been TOLD by many Republicans that war is great for the economy and for our reputation, and that by not supporting war on principle, I'm a bad American.
So yes, I think this is true of many conservatives - apparently yourself included, judging by your last sentence.
Besides, the wars engaged by the people you're talking about were engaged in the best interest of America.
The war in Iraq is only in the best interest of the Iraqis that Bush likes. Has nothing to do with America, except that we have to stick our face into it.
2007-07-18 13:54:06 · answer #7 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
You're right!
Liberals don't think about terrorism and it's affects on other people, or their own for that matter.
Liberals could care less whether people are being tortured and maimed, and killed by terrorists!
Ya know? One has to wonder if 9/11 even made an impact on them? Ya know it? It's just, It's just really sad, sad, sad!
What will it take to wake Liberal pinheads up??!!!!
Edit:
Kacy H.
You're confused my friend, you do not understand the Ideology of the terrorists, Sure they'll fight us because we are there, that's their goal, to kill, kill, kill BUT,.............Pay attention...IN THEIR(TERRORISTS) MIND, They think, That as long as they are living, they have an obligation to KILL everyone who are not the same religion as they are, which is ISLAMO WHACKOS! They think that they will supposedly get to heaven, by killing. No matter if there a troops there or not. It's that simple. They are CRAZY people!
So, It's extremely critical that we take the fight TO THEM, ON THEIR SHORES or America could be attacked MUCH MUCH WORSE than 9/11!
JR
2007-07-18 13:45:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
well, im not an american, but they sure do seem to love it. Dont know all of the people you listed, but Grant was definitely a racist genocidal maniac.
And where would you be if youd never gone to war? part of Canada. Heck of a lot better place in every way (other than weather) than the US
2007-07-18 13:53:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I can't believe that you could even imply to equate George Bush with any of these Great Americans. As for your argument, we wouldn't be here if we hadn't slaughtered the Indians, does that justify anything.
2007-07-18 13:47:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋