Democratic wars have a more motherly death and destruction aspect to them. Those wars, well, they must be wars to set the children on the right path, you know, for their own good. Keep the family together.
You forgot one important point. You didn’t compare the Democrats with the Republicans. So while the Democrats don’t have the most peaceful of history (though its hardly fair to blame them for something that happened 100 years ago) the Republicans have been much worse. So while Obama has been a let down on with the drone strikes, it is no comparison with actually invading a country with thousands of troops like Bush did. And while Clinton launched strikes too, they are no comparison to what Bush Senior did in the First Gulf War.
Even when Democrats do go to war, like in Vietnam, they have strong support from the Republicans and in fact Johnson feared he couldn’t pull out of Vietnam without losing major support to the Republicans. The vast majority of the opponenets of the Vietnam War (as for most wars) were liberals and Democrats.
True Nixon did eventually leave Vietnam, but not before escalating the war, especially with bombings that inflicted enormous casualties on the civilian population.
As I recall 1974, National Review was apoplectic that the massive democrat majority in Congress cut off all funding for the South Vietnamese, much to the chagrin of Ford, Kissinger and National Review.
Why compare them? That argument isn’t even relevant.
It’s like calling Kim Jong Il a benevolent communist leader because he didn’t kill nearly as many people as Stalin. They are both murderous despots, and both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US wage non-defensive wars.
That’s why we libertarians, by and large, reject the false dilemma of bipartisan politics.
Chance of this? Close to zero. Obama has no intention of destroying the Islamic State anytime soon. If he had, it would certainly not exist as a territorial entity. The airstrikes appear to be the equivalent of fireworks-even if they have damaged ISIS equipment (regarding which I have strong doubts, despite frequent media corroboration), they’ve had as much strategic relevance as the dropping of the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-which is to say, none at all. But it was easy for gullible Americans to believe the Japanese Emperor’s claims they did, just like it’s easy for modern-day gullible Americans to believe ISIS fighters’ claims the airstrikes have some sort of effect on anything. If they do constitute anything, they’re just a little more blood in a sea of it. Obama could destroy the Islamic State as a territorial entity overnight if he wished to. He doesn’t wish to.
Robert, Is the democratic party pro-peace? Even if all republicans were Morlocks it would not matter in the context of the article. Further, how is the number of troops used any kind of criteria for “worse”? The first gulf war was, at least, fought under the guise of protecting a sovereign country from invasion. So I’m not clear why you think that was so much worse than bombing an aspirin factory.
FWIW Grane, I agree with Robert that technically I didn’t fill in the other half of the ledger. If Republicans had taken the US into 3 World Wars, they would clearly be more warlike.
I’m not really sure if you can blame the Democrats for taking America into two World Wars. In WW2, America was attacked first and can’t be blamed starting the war. WW1 is less clear, but there were provocations with Lusitiana and German secret dealings with Mexico.
I think while the voting base of the Democratic Party might be more consistently against foreign intervention, possibly due to clannishness, prioritizing American citizens over foreigners, or having a simplistic “food not bombs” thought process, the two parties behave approximately similarly in Congress and in the White House regarding the matter of foreign military interventions.
You really have shake your head and admire the Democratic Party more and more.
Democratic wars have a more motherly death and destruction aspect to them. Those wars, well, they must be wars to set the children on the right path, you know, for their own good. Keep the family together.
You forgot one important point. You didn’t compare the Democrats with the Republicans. So while the Democrats don’t have the most peaceful of history (though its hardly fair to blame them for something that happened 100 years ago) the Republicans have been much worse. So while Obama has been a let down on with the drone strikes, it is no comparison with actually invading a country with thousands of troops like Bush did. And while Clinton launched strikes too, they are no comparison to what Bush Senior did in the First Gulf War.
Even when Democrats do go to war, like in Vietnam, they have strong support from the Republicans and in fact Johnson feared he couldn’t pull out of Vietnam without losing major support to the Republicans. The vast majority of the opponenets of the Vietnam War (as for most wars) were liberals and Democrats.
True, but Nixon did abandon Vietnam and Eisenhower and Ford had a blind eye to it.
True Nixon did eventually leave Vietnam, but not before escalating the war, especially with bombings that inflicted enormous casualties on the civilian population.
As I recall 1974, National Review was apoplectic that the massive democrat majority in Congress cut off all funding for the South Vietnamese, much to the chagrin of Ford, Kissinger and National Review.
Why compare them? That argument isn’t even relevant.
It’s like calling Kim Jong Il a benevolent communist leader because he didn’t kill nearly as many people as Stalin. They are both murderous despots, and both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US wage non-defensive wars.
That’s why we libertarians, by and large, reject the false dilemma of bipartisan politics.
Don’t worry, Obama will be leading an invasion with thousands of ground troops soon enough.
Chance of this? Close to zero. Obama has no intention of destroying the Islamic State anytime soon. If he had, it would certainly not exist as a territorial entity. The airstrikes appear to be the equivalent of fireworks-even if they have damaged ISIS equipment (regarding which I have strong doubts, despite frequent media corroboration), they’ve had as much strategic relevance as the dropping of the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki-which is to say, none at all. But it was easy for gullible Americans to believe the Japanese Emperor’s claims they did, just like it’s easy for modern-day gullible Americans to believe ISIS fighters’ claims the airstrikes have some sort of effect on anything. If they do constitute anything, they’re just a little more blood in a sea of it. Obama could destroy the Islamic State as a territorial entity overnight if he wished to. He doesn’t wish to.
Robert, Is the democratic party pro-peace? Even if all republicans were Morlocks it would not matter in the context of the article. Further, how is the number of troops used any kind of criteria for “worse”? The first gulf war was, at least, fought under the guise of protecting a sovereign country from invasion. So I’m not clear why you think that was so much worse than bombing an aspirin factory.
FWIW Grane, I agree with Robert that technically I didn’t fill in the other half of the ledger. If Republicans had taken the US into 3 World Wars, they would clearly be more warlike.
IIRC, Lincoln was a Republican.
I was going to object to your snark, but I guess mine was just as bad.
Well since there is a hundred year cutoff the world wars don’t really count.
I’m not really sure if you can blame the Democrats for taking America into two World Wars. In WW2, America was attacked first and can’t be blamed starting the war. WW1 is less clear, but there were provocations with Lusitiana and German secret dealings with Mexico.
Congressional Democrats supported the 2013 fake Syria airstrike proposal more than Congressional Republicans.
I think while the voting base of the Democratic Party might be more consistently against foreign intervention, possibly due to clannishness, prioritizing American citizens over foreigners, or having a simplistic “food not bombs” thought process, the two parties behave approximately similarly in Congress and in the White House regarding the matter of foreign military interventions.
The main reason being that Yasser Arafat didn’t have any cruise missiles, and the EU find it more cost effective to deploy mercenaries.
Tel, given the criteria for winning a peace prize, I don’t think Obama’s record will last too long.