why are so many Republicans pro war happy?

Question

I dont get it the military is for defense not offense i guees. Last time i checked the war is not football so please fill me on this issue of pro war propoganda?

Answer 1

There are many dynamics to this question,
so bear with me as I try to break it all down for you.

A few years ago, even before 9/11,
Bush and fellow neo-cons got together and devised this plan for a "progressive New America"

Rich white men born into money and power that only want more money and power, and to expand Americas power of which they will gain influence money and power even after they get out of office themselves.

That set the ball in motion, for what was intentions all along that bush and this collective group needed just a reason (and not even a good one) to attack Saddam, and remove him from office.

Its there in memos, and is coming out more and more.
Heck memo to tony blair, and even Mexican President recently commented on this.

With Iraq, theres much much oil and influence there.
He who controls the oil, has the power.
AND qwhat is Bush's family business?
OIL

Who funded Bush Jrs first oil company?
Bin Laden Family

Who was Bush SR meeting with the very time of 9/11?
Bin Laden Family

Who was able to get through the no fly regulation america had established after 9/11 and was flown when no one else should have been?
Bin Laden Family.

Lets not even get into 800 Taliban soldiers after 9/11 Helicoptered out of Afganistan and dropped in Pakistan, that was later claled an accident.

This should show a clear pattern of the realtionship between Bush and Bin Laden family for you.
Still tracking?
Good

A sudden left into IRAQ, when a full out attack on those reponsible for 9/11 was required, allowed Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan.

Heck, for 2 months sodliers were not authorized to go into the area of Afgnaistan to cut off Bin Laden when they should have (shows Bin Laden is protected)

And now we have more focus on IRAQ...
Then on those terrorist responsible for 9/11

There was no direct link between centralized Al Queda in Pakistan/Afganistan and Saddam, and
an IRAQI Al QUEDA only established itself AFTER U.S> occurpied the region, and there was mass chaos.

The rise in Al Queda in Iraq is out of a necessity, and they are not as harmful to us as those responsible for the 9/11 attack

So why would Bush stay focues on IRAQ even after promising to go after Bin Laden?
Go back to who funded Bush Jrs first oil company.

See the circle here.

And as far as 9/11.
Well, who profitted most from that?

For an invetment of 100 Million
the owner of the 3rd building #7 made about8 billion dollars.

at first he denied it,
then later said it was ademolition that the firedepartment required.
interesting isnt it?
== = = == =
Theres so many layers to this..but you have totake everything in and study the facts that have trickled.

And any republican who says a 9/11 commission proved this and that..
Well, who funded and choose the 9/11 commission?
George Bush---after 400 Days past...Bush finally alolowed a commission that was underfunded, and under staffed to investigate the 9/11 building

But, magically the evidence..stuff like the actuall metal was disappeared.
Coiuld notbe examined.
Convenient isnt it?

All those that say this is just propoganda...well
any one with normal intelligence would have to question why an investigation was not allowed until after 1 full year
And why was all the evidence cleaned up.

This is the stuff that forces questions to be asked.
All these incinsistencies.

AND furthermore,
why was George Bush Jr so adament about Chenney being with him in the same room, when he was interviewed about this?
Thats unheard of

And now lets add how MANY BILLIONS have been profited by alliances of republicans?
BILLIONS...hundreds of billions.

The more this war goes on, the more people are getting filthy rich.

You wanted to know what this is about..
its about what republicans stand for....
money, power, greed!

Answer 2

The moderate wing of the Republican Party has been the glue that holds the party together (a moderator, if you will) since the 1980s. This group has many members who subscribe to a doctrine of assertive national defense based on cold war idealology that originated from people who broke away from the liberal movement in the 1960s when that group went Marxist. This group was known as neo-conservatives since they were different from other conservatives and were recently called liberals but I personally dislike using that term now since it has degenerated into a slur and has become a nonsense term. As the "glue", they were able to get their agenda put through. This is how we got into the war. The so called pro-war propaganda is merely people stating the obvious that we are already building a new nation in Iraq, no use crying about spilled milk, and that to leave with tail tucked would be disastrous for the USA and western civilization in general.

Answer 3

The answer is very easy and I'm surprised you cant figure this out yourself? It all boils down to this ""Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"" Treating words sometimes avoid war the mere threat of action sometimes avoids the war. Think about it and you mind will expand....

Quote:
"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." Theodore Roosevelt

Answer 4

Our source of "truth" is the news networks. But there really isn't enough interesting news to justify a 24/7 television network. So the owners of the news networks supplement news with basically opinion editorial. Here we have the extremely outspoken and ranting conservatives and sometimes liberals. These characters act like they lust for war with anyone in missile range. They call for death and destruction with a passion that borders on religious fervor. But you have to remember its a TV show. They are entertainers and they exist for ratings to sell air time to advertisers. If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbough or whoever they call an expert today says every republican in the world wants to nuke the planet out of existence, they are just saying it to keep you tuned in so your still watching when the commercial break comes on. We really have no idea what real honest to goodness republicans want because we can't here them over the pundits and the politicians reacting to the pundits.

Added. On Sept. 11th America was attacked. We retaliated by destroying the parties responsible in Afghanistan. Then we attacked Iraq "preemptively” presumably because they were sure to attack us. We may attack Iran in the same fashion because we consider it possible that they may make the means to attack us. For those of you who support this sort of thing, I hope you realize that the same logic applies to most of the industrialized countries on Earth. Is it a merely strong defense to annihilate all of them because they have the means to attack us? If it is then what is your problem with Hitler since he was only doing the same thing and didn’t even attack us?

Answer 5

You poor uninformed finger pointer. I don't know about all of the people you have listed but Toby Keith is a democrat. He is also included in the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

Answer 6

really ? Last time that I checked, it was always a DEM in the white house when "WAR" was declared, I guess the flip flop Dem's are now pointing at themselves, and blaming the republicans AGAIN ! Let see how scarey things get with "Billary" at the helm, we'll be sending "Money" to our enemies, instead of troops, the terrorist's can't wait for the Dems to get in, they know that they are afraid to commit troops, another 911 on the way, lets see how wrong I am !

Answer 7

It's not that we like war, or want to see it happen. Believe it or not we see it as a last resort too. We are just willing to engage in it before it's too late.
Some things are worth defending at ALL costs. I served to defend those who disagree with me too; and wold again.

Answer 8

its a simple concept really...al qaeda kills people, the did in wtc one and two. when we ignore al qaeda as clinton did, they continue to attack, when we attack them, they concentrate on that and dont bomb our homeland. living in peace domestically is the result while we are attacking them in iraq. most people enjoy living their daily lives without fear of bombing. thats why most republicans are happy as the military is ensuring that. sadly this is a concept that most liberal extremists will never understand albeit it is an extremely simple one.

Answer 9

In the nuclear age, you cannot wait for the war to come to you. You have to take precautions.

For example, if a terrorist-supporting nation is about to develop nukes, you have to consider that they might supply terrrorists with nukes, and the latter may try to smuggle one into a large city and set it off.

Stuff like that.

Now, if you want to ignore that threat, just be prepared to accept whatever consequences might arise in the future. Anything can happen, I think.

It's better to be safe.

Answer 10

because a good offense IS the best defense!

read on "Castle Defense strategy" and you will understand its short comings...
example:

Pearl Harbor (we waited to get attacked to respond, over 2,000 dead in one day)

9/11 (we also waited to be attacked, even thought terrorist were attacking us world wide and were saying they wanted to hit us here in the US, cost of lives? too many)

understand?

if you wait to get hit, you may not be able to come up and respond to the attack SPECIALLY in todays nuke world...

so it is always better to take the other guy out before you get hit...!