Close Topic Options

Are Republicans Warmongers?

There have been many statements made about the US Republican party with one of the more popular ones being 'they are warmongers'. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Warmongers Republicans Are

Bill Clinton did a large amount of bombing while he was in office and he is a democrat. He didn't send in troops but then we hadn't been attacked as we were on 9/11 yet either.

As far as the first Gulf War which was also overseen by a republican, we didn't start that war. It was a UN led war in order to free a country that had been invaded by another country. So, if you think republicans are warmongers because the last two wars have happened with republicans in office, you are definately not looking closely at the facts. In my opinion, of course...

Edited: tenaheff on 21st May, 2004 - 3:50pm

Are Republicans Warmongers? History & Civil Business Politics

Hmmm...I personally think that has nothing to do with a political party itself, but with the individual (President) and the people who are around him. So I don't think it is fair to say that Republicans are warmongers.

Warmongers Republicans Are

Vietnam was "started" by the Democrats. Almost all of the buildup there was by Kennedy and Johnson. It was Republican presidents that got us out.

We got involved in Korea under Truman. He was a Democrat.

We got involved in Kosovo under Clinton. A Democrat.

WWII - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat.

WWI - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat.

Gulf War I - GHW Bush. Republican, the war was in direct response to the unprovoked attack on an ally.

So, who are the warmongers?

The difference in the last 40 years between the two parties has been HOW they look at war. The Democrats look at war as a way to appease and get along with the world community. Therefore, we get involved in REAL quagmires - the Yugoslavia mess, Kosovo, etc., under Democrats. Republicans look at war, see that it is bad, and try to prosecute it in such a way as to get it over with, right now.

Warmongers Republicans Are

The Republican party, and the current president are not warmongers. Does everyone forget about 9-11? Were we supposed to sit on our thumbs and do nothing about it? Do we honestly believe that Saddam had no influence on the terrorist activities that has infested this world? I'd prefer to have a ruling party and president who is willing to take the risks to keep our country safe than have people who will be passive and let shady occurrences pass them by. 9-11 occurred 9 months into Bush' presidency, do we really believe that such a plan took 9 months to concoct and plan? Warmongers, no. Enforcers of freedom is a better description.

Edited: malexander on 28th May, 2004 - 6:25pm

Are Republicans Warmongers?

On the subject of warmongers, I generally agree that historically there has been little difference between Democrats and Republicans. The most wasteful and disastrous war in my lifetime (Vietnam) started under a Democratic president (LBJ). Both political parties are part of the establishment, which includes corporate interests and the military/industrial complex. The Democrats are somewhat more populist and the Republicans cater more to the wealthy, but the two major parties are more like each other than they are to the Green Party or the Libertarians.

I wouldn't characterize either party as "warmongers," but I would say the U.S. is overly militaristic and the war in Iraq is driven more by political, economic, and corporate interests than legitimate self-defense.

Saddam's influence on terrorist activities ... doing something about 9/11 ...

The 2002 NIE report (which greatly exaggerated the threat of Iraq's WMDs) and the recently released reports from Senate Intelligence and the 9/11 Commission all concur that Saddam Hussein DID NOT have an operational alliance with the terrorists and WAS NOT involved in 9/11.

In my opinion...

The greatest success of the Bush administration's propaganda campaign is the lasting impression that Saddam and Osama were conspirators and that the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11.

If the war in Iraq has anything to do with terrorism, it is that it has exacerbated the problem.

The invasion of Iraq had been a major goal of the neoconservatives for much longer than the 9 months the Bush administration was in office. This is no secret; they had been advocating it for years. It had nothing to do with 9/11 except that it gave them the opportunity to implement an agenda which existed long before the attack. They settled primarily on the WMD rationale because it would be the surest way to convince the American people to support a "preemptive" war.

The invasion of Iraq was motivated by many factors -- resolving the situation in Iraq -- acquiring better military bases in the Persian Gulf outside Saudi Arabia -- controlling the world's 2nd largest oil reserves -- profits and advantages for American corporations -- making sure petrodollars weren't replaced by the euro as the primary international currency -- and the neoconservative ideology of transforming the Middle East, protecting Israel, and building a Pax Americana (a supposedly benevolent empire).

The neoconservative ideology and the PNAC agenda are what makes the Bush administration more different and radical than former Republican and Democratic administrations. Members of the Project for the New American Century include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and several other Bush administration officials.

Whether or not using our military might to build a Pax Americana is a practical way to enhance our national security is a subject that should be debated, but it is not the debate we had in the rush to invade Iraq. Instead, Saddam was morphed into Osama and images of mushroom clouds played upon the fears of a misinformed public.

Rather than warmongers, I would characterize the Bush administration as ideological warriors who will go to just about any lengths to implement an agenda they believe in. Unfortunately, this sometimes involves distorting the truth to such a degree that they become victims of their own groupthink and propaganda. The debacle of postwar Iraq is the primary result of their inability to see beyong their own ideology, and I shudder to contemplate another four years under their mendacity and mismanagement.

Are Republicans Warmongers

MartinEden, I believe we have gone offtopic on this issue, but I will respond nonetheless. I am glad you qualified your statements with "In my opinion" because everything that follows is unfounded and has no factual backing. To accuse the President and his administration of belonging to a foundation such as the PNAC without any backing should be considered treason, in my opinion. To continuously accuse the current government of propoganda is also ridiculous; why not go all out and blame Bush for 9-11 as well? For him to have carried out his agenda, 9-11 had to occur in the first place, right? I feel saddened when I listen to Americans such as yourself throw false accusations, and use this as a crutch to vote in someone who no doubt will make a decision today and change his mind about it tomorrow. I will digress for now, because the Architect will probably have my hide for going offtopic as much as I have, but feel free to continue this discussion in a more appropriate board.

Are Republicans Warmongers Politics Business Civil & History

The topic of this thread is:

"Do you believe Republicans are warmongers?"

To me, it seems very on-topic to discuss the members of the current Republican administration who are most responsible for the foreign policy that has led to war.

I did not accuse the presidet of being a member of PNAC. I merely stated the fact that several prominent members of his foreign policy team are. PNAC is basically a neoconservative think-tank on foreign policy. There is nothing controversial about Cheney, Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz, etc. subscribing to the organization or implementing the policies it advocates. I brought it up because it furthers the understanding of the Bush foreign policy.

This February 2003 article provides a good overview:
https://www.makethemaccountable.com/floyd/0...anDominance.htm

If that overview is too "leftist" for you, I suggest you visit the PNAC website. You will probably agree with their views on the application of U.S. leadership and power:
https://www.newamericancentury.org/

I qualified my statements to avoid the previous discussion you and I had regarding statements of opinion and fact. I can assure you I base my opinions on fact and logic, but the time and space for going into every statement at great length is prohibitive.

There are some on the left who believe Bush "let it happen," but I have found their arguments to be illogical and lacking in solid evidence. I must admit that my characterizing as "propaganda" the Bush administration's pre-war hype of the Iraqi threat falls more in the realm of opinion, but considering how false those statements have proven (and how, in my opinion, the evidence available at the time did not justify the hype) I think propaganda is an apt one-word description.

You're certainly entitled to your feelings and opinions. Thankfully, we all have the freedom to express them in our country. Many of the president's supporters have reacted to disagreement with accusations of treason, which saddens me because a healthy democracy depends on a thorough and open debate.

My opposition to Bush is not based on disloyalty to my country or even on partisan politics, but rather on what I have seen to be the dishonest and disastrous policies of the current administration. I do not fully agree with John Kerry, but I do think he will help to restore the U.S. credibility and reputation so badly damaged by Bush. That, of course, is my opinion.