So here's something I posted on a different form without researching or doing any fact-checking (that's how I roll, yo~). Thought maybe you guys could enlighten a poor, misguided Canadian such as myself:
"One argument I've always heard from Americans on this forum and others is "I would rather have a Republican President during the war" - this time being the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, this has never made a lot of sense to me so I'm hoping you can clear this up. First, lets look at some history:
World War I - America takes part in an important fight and helps bring peace to Europe. President at the time - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
World War II - Once again, America enters an important fight in the name of returning peace. President at the time - FDR, Democrat.
Cold War - A lot of Presidents throughout this run, but the cold war is most often defined by the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, something that brought the US to the brink of war. President at the time - JFK, Democrat.
Vietnam War - A disaster that history tells us America should never have been involved with. Authorized by Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, who didn't consider Vietnam a priority but was lead by his advisors to war. The war was carried on, championed, and campaign on by Richard Nixon, Republican. For better or worse, this is remembered as Nixon's war and he presided over its worst years while prolonging the failing effort.
And do we have to mention Iraq?
So correct me if I'm wrong - Democratic presidents have handled times of war far better than Republican presidents, but Republican presidents are more likely to go to war, for whatever reasons. How is this a good thing? Could you imagine if George W was in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis? You guys would have entered a 10 year war with the USSR. So is this about job security? Is it about army guys wanting to know there is going to be a heavy demand for their services? Because I don't get it.
War is and should always be a last resort. Look at how FDR, the greatest war-time president you've ever had got into WWII. War shouldn't be a pre-emptive activity for kicks and politics.
Ok, I get it. Republicans are the de facto choice because they're more likely to take america to war for stupid reasons whereas Democrats are more likely to win wars that they entered when all other options exhausted themselves. Explain this to me if I'm missing something.
In Woodrow Wilson's time, Democrat was the predominantly southern party and it only became the "liberal" party we have now after the 1940s. Before then, Republicans were more liberal.
FDR was called a war mongerer at the time and had a fair amount of questionable policies (Japanese internment, heavy censorship, BIG government, etc.)
The Cold War was handled disasterously and JFK was a mediocre-at-best president. He only gets play today because of his popularity and because he's dead, but he was not a good Commander in Chief. You're leaving out important details such as the Crisis should never have occured, Bay of Pigs, etc.
Nixon has a lot of blotches, but his overall foreign policy was liberal- both by today's standards and by the standards at the time. Detente, negotiations with China, SALT, etc.
I'm not saying any of these men were good or bad presidents, but don't paint them by their party affiliation and don't get your ideas about them from the History Channel, because they leave out every important detail not related to HITLERZ WW3 SUPERWEAPONS!!!!
I do not believe that one party has had a particlarly better record on war than another. It's incredibly difficult to compare the personal shortcomings of Wilson (and they were vast) with Bush, as the entire fabric of political life has mutated unrecognizably.
I do give good marks to Truman though for his handling of Greece, Korea and West Berlin.
If you want to make a completely oversimplified comparison like that, I think Hawks vs. Doves would be a better choice. McCain is extremely hawkish, moreso than Bush.
I like how he just made the claim that we must stop Iran from training and deploying terrorists into Iraq, when a report just came out that said the majority of terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, our oil BFF. It's a shame that he's friends with the Daily Show, or else they'd point out what a fucking terrible candidate he is.
On March 20 2008 00:24 MoltkeWarding wrote: I do not believe that one party has had a particlarly better record on war than another.
Exactly what I'm getting at. All I'm saying is that one can make a point against the republicans handling wartimes if he so chooses to slant his findings in his preferred direction for his own reasons and biases. Hence why I've never understood the argument or its purpose as a whole.
And I remain curious as to where this accepted notion of 'republican war prowess' comes from. Is it because 'liberals' can't handle war by default? Or because the hard-assed-ness of conservatives makes them pre-programmed for the task at hand?
While I'm in the mood for insulting presidential candidates and ex-presidents, I'm going to go out and say Ronald Reagan died 30 years too late. Oh, and Jimmy Carter is a 10000000000000x better humanitarian than he was a president.
On March 20 2008 00:24 MoltkeWarding wrote: I do not believe that one party has had a particlarly better record on war than another.
Exactly what I'm getting at. All I'm saying is that one can make a point against the republicans handling wartimes if he so chooses to slant his findings in his preferred direction for his own reasons and biases. Hence why I've never understood the argument or its purpose as a whole.
And I remain curious as to where this accepted notion of 'republican war prowess' comes from. Is it because 'liberals' can't handle war by default? Or because the hard-assed-ness of conservatives makes them pre-programmed for the task at hand?
It's a deep embedded male ego thing as well. Conservative = rigid = strong = man, Liberal = flimsy = weak = woman.
It's also laughable that they keep calling General Patreus a hero. Everyone more respectable than him has resigned because of their disagreements with the war. If you talk to military officers, a lot of them are against it.
On March 19 2008 23:40 Flaccid wrote: So here's something I posted on a different form without researching or doing any fact-checking (that's how I roll, yo~). Thought maybe you guys could enlighten a poor, misguided Canadian such as myself:
"One argument I've always heard from Americans on this forum and others is "I would rather have a Republican President during the war" - this time being the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, this has never made a lot of sense to me so I'm hoping you can clear this up. First, lets look at some history:
World War I - America takes part in an important fight and helps bring peace to Europe. President at the time - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
World War II - Once again, America enters an important fight in the name of returning peace. President at the time - FDR, Democrat.
Cold War - A lot of Presidents throughout this run, but the cold war is most often defined by the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, something that brought the US to the brink of war. President at the time - JFK, Democrat.
Vietnam War - A disaster that history tells us America should never have been involved with. Authorized by Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, who didn't consider Vietnam a priority but was lead by his advisors to war. The war was carried on, championed, and campaign on by Richard Nixon, Republican. For better or worse, this is remembered as Nixon's war and he presided over its worst years while prolonging the failing effort.
And do we have to mention Iraq?
So correct me if I'm wrong - Democratic presidents have handled times of war far better than Republican presidents, but Republican presidents are more likely to go to war, for whatever reasons. How is this a good thing? Could you imagine if George W was in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis? You guys would have entered a 10 year war with the USSR. So is this about job security? Is it about army guys wanting to know there is going to be a heavy demand for their services? Because I don't get it.
War is and should always be a last resort. Look at how FDR, the greatest war-time president you've ever had got into WWII. War shouldn't be a pre-emptive activity for kicks and politics.
Ok, I get it. Republicans are the de facto choice because they're more likely to take america to war for stupid reasons whereas Democrats are more likely to win wars that they entered when all other options exhausted themselves. Explain this to me if I'm missing something.
The first three also had limited political experience
wow, kudos mike huckabee. he really stuck out his neck there.
edit: mccain was very respectful too in his response a few days ago, i don't think anyone looks at guys like huckabee and mccain and says they aren't respectful enough, but yesterday mccain made that comment about how iran is sending over al qaeda into iraq and you just facepalm because if that guy ever gets control of the red button we're all in serious trouble.
Well looks like the party is leaning Clinton's way. Thanks to the ass fuck that is called Pastor Wright, but I'm sure his sermons won't reflect that. And McCain will destroy Clinton come November if things keep going this way.
On March 21 2008 05:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well looks like the party is leaning Clinton's way. Thanks to the ass fuck that is called Pastor Wright, but I'm sure his sermons won't reflect that. And McCain will destroy Clinton come November if things keep going this way.
???
what evidence is there that the party is leaning clinton's way? michigan and florida both shot down their re-vote proposals, obama's speech has been widely accepted by pundits and higher-ups as being a satisfactory response to the wright crisis... clinton is still a huge longshot.
we have to see what happens of course but obama's still in a vastly advantageous position and i don't see any 'swing' to clinton yet.
btw anyone else think tom daschle might be obama's vice presidential pick?
edit: hmm i am seeing some national poll stories saying obama is slipping, i guess that's what you meant. but he's up 3 points in national poll averages so those stories seem to be a bit inaccurate
EPT
![[image loading]](http://image.bayimg.com/dajgiaabd.jpg)
