Is is a very bad idea to have liberals in power during wartime?

Question

I have seen it over and over and over again on these boards and other places. They are filled with confusion about what it means to win in Iraq. They prattle on endlessly about what it might mean or not mean to win, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, talk it endlessly to death.

They can't even decide what the heck IT MEANS TO WIN much less how to go about it.

I say its a baaaad idea.

FDR would abhor modern "progressives."

He also detained people exactly like Bush.

Don C, SKIPPED again. Whoodathunk.

Answer 1

In this day and age, yes it is unfortunately. Why can't they get men of conviction like FDR in their party? FDR would rise out of his wheelchair and b*tchslap Harry Reid across the face if he were alive today.

Answer 2

FDR was a lefty but not the kind of lefty the Democrats have morphed into. Today's Democrats have more in common with Joe Stalin.
The Democrats did everything they could to lose the Cold War. The Democrats were the best allies the VC and NVA ever had. The Democrats are now supporting Al Qaeda.
There is one misconception about the Democrats that should be cleared up, they aren't Liberal. If you ever looked into a Political Science text book you will find that the Democrats don't fit the criteria for the term. Then glance over to the term "Neo-Marxist" and you will find the criteria that fits them perfectly.
If you want to win the war against Al Qaeda and the rest of those rabid muslim dogs, you don't want a Democrat in the Whitehouse or in the Congress.

Answer 3

No offense.. but hasn't Bush changed the definition of winning several times now? And isn't it the President that has the privilege to make that call? All the Democrats (Congress) have say over is the money. We know what we want... the troops home... we are just trying to do this within the parameters that we have been given by the President... and our ideas have to change because we don't have the power to override his veto... so when an idea is shot down we have to formulate a new one.

Assuming the Democrats hold control of Congress... a Democratic President should actually streamline this war in Iraq.

Answer 4

Revolutionary War- George Washington wasn't the president, but he was in charge. From today's prespective he would not seem liberal, but at the time he was considered very liberal. During the war conservatives were those that wanted to maintain ties to England while liberals were those supporting the war.

War of 1812- James Madison, again not a liberal by todays standards, but he was a strong supporter of the Decleration of Independence, one of the most liberal documents ever.

Civil War- Lincoln, even though he was a member of the Republican Party, he was very liberal. The conservative base hated Lincoln, freeing the slaves was looked down upon by conservative senators and he can probably be best described as a pragmatic liberal.

Spanish American War_ Mckinley was solidly conservative.

WWI - Wilson forms part of liberal trinity with Lincoln and FDR

WWII - FDR, very liberal, to say any different is ridiculous. He implemented social security, huge public works projects, and big government, all things despised by conservatives. Also, don't forget the history of US politics just before we entered WWII. The conservatives in gov't fought with everything in their power to prevent US entry into the war. They called it a European problem and felt that the US had no business taking sides. Everytime FDR supported the allies in some way, conservatives went crazy, lend-lease for example. Don't forget that Wilkie was anti-war and supported an isolasionist policy in the 1940 campaign.

Korean War - Truman, liberal even though many conservatives try to claim him now (even the weekly standard classifies Truman as a liberal so hopefully conservatives will drop this).

Vietnam - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, covers the whole spectrum

Iraq I - George I, conservative

Iraq II - George W, very conservative

This covers most of the wars, as you can see, the majority of US wars during times of liberal presidents. Whether having a liberal or conservative is better, no idea, the best is to have a president with a plan and good advisors, regardless of his political leanings.

Answer 5

OK, since you're so tired of seeing people ask what it would mean to win in Iraq, settle it by telling us what it would mean to win in Iraq. The reason we keep asking is because the people who started the conflict have yet to put forth a definition of victory. Was it the removal of WMD's? That proved to be impossible, as there were none there. Was it the removal of Saddam? Done. Was it the installation of an Iraqi government? Done. Will it be the settling of centuries-old ethnic and religious disputes that our presence has allowed to flare into ceaseless violence? I hope not, because that one isn't going to happen.

Did I miss something? Please, O Wise One, enlighten us and let us know the answer to this great mystery. How will we know when we've won in Iraq?

And if this is what you're basing your belief that liberals shouldn't be in power during wartime, I'm afraid in reality it is more of an indictment of conservatives, who start wars without thinking or planning.

Answer 6

Liberals rather make 'love' than war. The only thing liberals kill are babies and call it legal. What morals and values?????

Liberals will rather give away the company store then defend it. That means they hate America so much that they will give it to the terrorists because it is politically incorrect to defend America. They might hurt some foreigners feelings. I say to much cocaine!

Liberals don't take responsibility for anything they say, think, or do. As long as the elite media covers them, then they think they have done their job. It is all b.s. and this AMERICAN is sick of it.

The Republicans have problems as well, but at least they stand up and fight and defend all the liberal cowards. Now that is a true and honest label. I hope they wear it proudly.

Answer 7

If I recall correctly, true liberals (progressives, social democrats and socialists) were the ones who warned that Iraq would be a bloody, deadly and costly quagmire.

We warned you all NOT TO START THIS WAR!

And yet, you still want to "win"? Do you want the Guinness Book record for blood, lives and tax dollars lost or something? What is with you people? What exactly do you think you will win?

Only by converting Iraqis to secular humanists can the battle of democracy (to borrow a term from Marx) be won in Iraq.

Answer 8

Suppose you tell us what it means to win in Iraq. Because Bush hasn't even told us what that looks like. Perhaps your candidate and your president would have more credibility if they lived in the real world and grew up for a change. The liberal is the best choice because once again they will have to go in and clean up the mess that the GOP left behind just like what happened when Bill Clinton took office. He had to clean up the economic mess and the huge deficits and huge amount of spending that Reagan and Bush left behind.
Conservative does = murderer. That's been proven since Nixon. And,
Conservative = incompetant. Also proven since Nixon and especially with Reagan, Bush Sr. and George W. Bush. These people can't manage their households let alone the largest military and economy in the world without becoming far right loonatic fascists.

Answer 9

Yeah, and the Republicans are very focused, on gays and abortion. They have no idea how to resolve Iraq any more than the Dems. There's gonna be buckets of blood in Iraq whether we stay or go. Does it have to be buckets of American's blood? What is our stake in this really? Besides Bush's "honor" at not having to admit he made a horrible blunder in invading? What defines winning here? How do we go about reaching that goal? Throwing more corpses on the fire is only making it bigger, don't you think we should try something else?

Answer 10

First off, this isn't a war. Secondly, having a conservative in office hasn't proved to a good thing either so they really should stop trying to blame everything on liberals.

Your second point on the definition of "winning" in Iraq is a question I've seen asked hundreds of times and never once seen someone provide an answer to.....and that includes every single member of the Bush administration.

Answer 11

Maybe you should do some research before spouting off. It was a dem president that we had on office during WWII. We won that war remember? What a dufus.