Close Topic Options

Are Republicans Warmongers? - Page 2

i think i'll have to stop you on that note of accusing Bush as being "disastrous and ruining U.S. credibility and reputation". Bush is just trying to correct the mistakes of the former president Clinton, so if you want to play this blame game, you might as well start with Clinton, not Bush.


but back to the real topic, i personally agree with nighthawk, if you're to blame anyone for "warmongering" it'd have to be the democrats.

Warmongers Republicans Are

I'm not defending the Clinton administration, but I can't quite figure out how Bush's invasion of Iraq is an effort to "correct the mistakes of former president Clinton." Clinton inherited the situation in Iraq from the first president Bush, who was credited with doing a great job of assemblimg an international coalition (including Arab nations) to expel Iraq from Kuwait. However, that war could have been prevented. Saddam may have thought he was given the green light to invade by Bush's ambassador to Iraq, who told Saddam 8 days before the invasion:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
https://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat...am_glaspie.html

Whether or not ambassador Glaspie's remarks amounted to a green light, the fact is that Saddam indicated his intention to invade Kuwait and the Bush administration gave no indication they would react to it as they did. Had Saddam been warned in no uncertain terms, the war may have been avoided.

Many fault the first Bush with not finishing off the regime of Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war. This is what he had to say in defense of his decision not to go all the way in '91:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

These lessons were ignored by the son, and now we are indeed mired in the occupation of a bitterly hostile land with no exit strategy.

Here's what Nighthawk had to say:

Vietnam was a REAL quagmire and I agree Democrats were to blame, although Nixon continued the war for another 5 years, during which time we suffered about half our casualties.

More recently, I don't think Kosovo can be compared with Iraq in terms of "quagmire." Kosovo is nowhere near as costly in both blood and treasure, and our exit from Iraq is nowhere in sight. Furthermore, the notion that Democrats look at war as a way to "appease" the world community is just plain ridiculous. The first president Bush was every bit the multilateralist that Clinton was, and "appeasement" is a term for placating the powerful in the hope of maintaining the peace, most notably British Prime Minister Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement ceding Czeckoslovakia to Hitler.

The United States projects its power throughout the world with what is now an unrivaled military. We are approaching the point where we spend as much as the rest of the world combined. Normally it doesn't matter all that much whether a Democrat or Republican is at the helm, but currently we have neither (at least in a traditional sense). Our current foreign and military policy is essentially that of the neoconservatives, whose post-cold war agenda is ambitious and very interventionist. Whether or not their agenda for a Pax Americana should be termed "warmongering" is a matter of semantics.

Wars, the rationale for them, how they are conducted, and the administration responsible, need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Applying blanket generalizations to one party or the other clouds these issues much more than it sheds any light.

Are Republicans Warmongers? History & Civil Business Politics

This information comes from an email that was forwarded to me. I haven't checked the details, but they sound quite close.

---

FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
(This one in particular could be wrong, as I think Eisenhower got us into Vietnam, in order to help out one of our allies - France)

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us. (we are STILL there)
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats (and media) are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

---

As for Nixon and Vietnam -
He inherited the quagmire. It was not possible to simply pull out, as that would have left our allies flapping in the wind, and made it extremely dangerous for our troops as they were leaving.

It is now known that we actually won the war in Vietnam at least two times, probably three. We won the Tet Offensive, and Rolling Thunder, for sure. But the State Department wouldn't finish it. I am fairly sure that Rolling Thunder II was also a huge success.

So, once again, the difference in the last three decades has been what the wars were for, and how they were prosecuted. We are still involved in Kosovo, because there was no plan on how to deal with the ground situation, and it was mostly left to the inept leadership of the UN, rather than allowing a military commander to actually do something. In Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we knew what we needed to do, we did it, and we minimized the death and suffering of innocent civilians, and minimized the destruction of infrastructure.

Could we have done as much as we have so far without war? I don't think so. We have wiped out the infrastructure of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and severely disrupted their financial backing.

The Republicans have shown themselves to be remarkably more capable of prosecuting and finishing war than the Democrats.

Page 2 Warmongers Republicans Are

Thanks for providing specifics.

The Japanese attacked us, then Germany declared war on us. We could not have ignored Germany and focused solely on Japan. Nevertheless, FDR most definitely wanted war with Germany but the isolationist mood in America constrained him. Some say he purposely failed to adequately warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack because he needed that devastating blow to rally the nation to war. Much has been written about the intelligence and communications, but I doubt if all historians will ever agree on this one.

It's good to know that we won the war in Vietnam. I've been laboring under the misapprehension that the forces of the north succeeded in their goal of uniting the country under their communist regime.

The Clinton administration disputes that Sudan ever actually offered to hand over bin Laden. Much of the story rests on the credibility of ...

Mansoor Ijaz, now a New York City-based investment banker who traveled to Sudan more than a half dozen times in the mid-1990s, says he repeatedly relayed offers from the Sudanese government to the Clinton White House to share intelligence on bin Laden. In one case, the president of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden and turn over information about global terrorist networks, Ijaz says.
https://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story123493.html

I wouldn't put it past the Clinton administration to blow such an opportunity, if it was indeed offered. This was before we knew what a threat al Qaeda would pose, but it still seems like willful negligence (if true).

Although I am very interested in history, my primary concern is the present and future.

Bush has removed regimes in two countries, but the people in Aghanistan, and especially Iraq have not been liberated from constant danger and from the control of foreign armies. The mission of securing Afghanistan after the rout of the Taliban was given a low priority, and now we find ourselves in two quagmires with the long term prognosis for both countries seriously in doubt.

The breakthrough with Libya was indeed a success, though Bush can hardly be given full credit. Iran cannot be called a success at this time, and Bush's handling of North Korea (perhaps the biggest threat) is deserving of more criticism than praise.

We have paid a considerable price to capture a brutal dictator who did not attack us, and will continue to pay for quite some time.

What was the war in Iraq for? We'll be debating that one for quite some time. We know how it was prosequted -- a quick military victory over a considerably weakened foe, then totally inadequate planning to win the crucial peace. It's difficult to say which is worse -- the decision to start an unnecessary war before we had secured Afghanistan, or the egregious mismanagement of the occupation in Iraq.

In the first gulf war we destroyed considerable ifrastructure in Iraq and followed that with 12 years of debilitating sanctions, resulting in an estimated half million Iraq deaths over that span. In Afghanistan and Iraq we have killed (by most estimates) more than 3 times as many civilians as perished on 9/11. The first gulf war could have been avoided by warning Iraq before it invaded Kuwait. Afghanistan was necessary; Iraq was not.

Afghanistan and Iraq are far from finished. The foreign policy of the current Republican administration is unlike previous Republican or Democratic administrations. The neoconservatives are essentially running the show, and if they have their way we won't be finished with war for quite some time.

Warmongers Republicans Are

To me, it depends on the reason for the war. Usually, there is only one reason I consider justifiable enough for war, and that's freedom. Now, US politics may overuse this word a lot, but considering who we are dealing with (Sadam, who had rulership styles similar in nature to Hitler) I would have to say they are fighting for the freedom of Iraqis. However, that's about the most involvement I think the US should have. As far as Israel and Palestine goes, we shouldn't have even been involved in that, in my opinion. As far as I know, those two groups have practically been raised to fight. A rash generalization, I admit, but considering the length and nature of the conflict it isn't far from the truth, even if it may not apply to all of them. Sad situation, to say the least, and I don't think there's a mediator alive who can end fighting between the two groups.

Are Republicans Warmongers?

The "Catastrophic" Success of the Republican Party:

Victory by any means necessary is their call to arms; corruption, fraud and deceit are their weapons. Florida is but a small cell in an increasingly malignant tumor, and diseased are we all as the cancer slowly killing us awakens once more to destroy the very principles this great nation was founded on.
https://207.44.245.159/article7100.htm

Are Republicans Warmongers - Page 2

A very touchy subject.

In my opinion:

Afghanistan was called for, although I wished we had sent as many to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden as we did for Hussein. I honestly believe that the capture of Bin Laden would have been epic and nothing could compare.

Iraq - Who can say anything negative when our soldiers are there, besides praying for their safe return. The whole thing seems a mess, but you can never leave a mess and hope it works itself out, especially with the kids that will one day wonder what it was the U.S. did for them.

Kosovo - that was an international rescue attempt against genocide - hard to call a war - similar to the first Gulf War.

So in my opinion - I agree that regardless of the political party, at times we seem to jump into a war for our reasons, and others we get into when the whole world says it is an atrocity.

I don't do debates well, so if you disagree - you win. I would just like to see peace and see a civilized world come to agreements at a table instead of behind the crosshairs of a death delivering weapons. The century seems fit for logical and sensible deliberation.

Are Republicans Warmongers Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

I really do not believe that either group lays claim to that of warmongering. Both parties would be perfectly happy with low inflation, an increasing stock market, high approval ratings and low unemployment, without having to throw a war into the picture. America is happiest when we are not at war and are enjoying our excesses. However, with that said, America (democrats or republicans) does not take well to being attacked. The same exuberance that we have for our excesses go into our revenge as well - some presidents just lead the charge more.

Just a thought,

Vincenzo