English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...to put an end to republican's un-necessary wars?

2007-07-29 03:42:50 · 12 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7 in Politics & Government Politics

To all of you that desire to launch a verbal assault on the great American Democrt Presidents, the key words here, are "unnecessary wars."

2007-07-29 04:09:02 · update #1

12 answers

Because rePIGlicans are typical bullies who suck at everything except being bullies and they simply can not provide basic government functions such as:

National Level

- Create jobs
- Reduce crime
- Provide security
- Improve economy
- Fight drug problems
- Ban illegal weapons
- Honor national heroes
- Offer more scholarships
- Offer more students grants
- Provide services for families
- Provide health-care services
- Create opportunities for youth

International Level

- Make more friends
- Improve American image
- Fund humanitarian programs
- Improve international relations
- Encourage bilateral & multinational dialog
- Bring moderates around the world together
- Use dialog when we can & force when when we have to

So when they fail to perform these basic duties and prove that they're incapable of doing so, their approval rating goes down. Then they create these fictitious so called "National Security" issues to improve their approval rating and push themselves towards the next election. They start wars but they can't finish them.

By then, Americans "eventually" recognize rePIGlicans for the incompetent, inefficient, corrupt scum bags that they are and kick them to the curb. Then, the Democratic President is stuck with such unnecessary wars and a horrible economy.

It's the same repetition over and over again.

2007-07-29 04:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was the president when we got into WW1.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the president when we got into WW2.

Harry S Truman, a Democrat, took over as president when Roosevelt died. Continued WW2.

Harry S Truman, a Democrat, was president when we got into the Korean War.

Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, was president when he ramped up the war in Viet Nam.

p.s. Harry S Truman, a Democrat, authorized terroristic warfare (firebombed Tokyo). He also authorized the used of WMDs on Japan (Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

2007-07-29 11:02:57 · answer #2 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1 2

A couple reasons:

Their supporters include defense contractors who stand to make huge profits from a war.

Keeping the newspapers, television and radio full of war news masks the fact that they are neglecting, or worse eroding, domestic programs.

2007-07-29 10:59:11 · answer #3 · answered by frugernity 6 · 2 1

If it was up to the liberals, we would all be smoking pot and hugging a tree somewhere while the nuclear waste settles down.
It takes both parties to run this country.
Remember, together we stand, divided we fall.
I always thought the Democratic party represented peace and love, when lately all they do is spew hate.

2007-07-29 11:28:40 · answer #4 · answered by wishiwas 4 · 1 2

Read much history mo?
Kennedy - Vietnam
Nixon ended it
Roosevelt WWII
Cinton signed the actual authority to oust Hussain (Clinton signs into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.")

2007-07-29 10:52:51 · answer #5 · answered by Libsuc 3 · 2 2

Well let us see. Who sent our soldiers to Vietnam? Kennedy (Democrat) and Johnson (Democrat) Who pull us out because the majority of the people wanted out? Nixon (Republican). And you were saying?

2007-07-29 10:53:21 · answer #6 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1 2

Like Vietnam? ( Started by JFK ended by Nixon)

Your sense of history is poor.

2007-07-29 10:47:36 · answer #7 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 3 2

You read your history book in reverse.... its kind of like playing your tape backwards... you get funny results that way and interpret in a million ways

2007-07-29 10:59:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because they don't have the courage to go for peace themselves, they always leave it up to others so they can turn around and say that their successor is a coward for working for peace.

2007-07-29 10:48:30 · answer #9 · answered by some_guy_times_50 4 · 2 3

Thats actually just a recent thing.

2007-07-29 10:51:56 · answer #10 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers