Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals did run the War for the USA. Most conservatives were opposed to getting involved because it would give the government too much economic power. As we did not decrease military spending after we WON the war I suppose they had a point.
One of the things you fail to understand about Liberals is we do not consider WAR to be an economic opportunity and when we decide war is needed we do what is needed to WIN the damn thing. Conservatives see war as an extension of business and get involved to make business better for other businessmen.
We were in 'Nam from the end of WW2 to protect the French investors from losing Indochina. They lost anyway but it took millions of lives before it ended. We invaded Iraq to privatize the oil fields and are fighting the Syrian government to force them to allow the building of the Trans Arabian Pipeline so the recently stolen petroleum can be sold by businessmen to Europe for a tidy profit. After all the oil companies have not spent a dime, outside of needed bribes, to get the US to do their dirty work.
Liberals generally do not support out Mideast Wars but most Conservatives think they are great for current and future profits both here and overseas.
No imagination needed. Liberals DID run America during WW2. Crack a history book if you're curious how it was done.
Yes. We can try to imagine what would have happened if mainstream republicans of today had been in power. Would they have spend all their time and energy trying to blame democrats for everything? How many "investigations" would they have conducted over Pearl Harbor in order to blame dems? 100? 200? 500?
Has the definition of liberal changed or is the definition of liberal anti-Semite, pro-segregationist, who interned Japanese-Americans (over 99% of them in spite of no evidence against the individuals).
Well, FDR was president for most of WWII. He was pretty liberal. In fact, if you look at it closely, Sanders and FDR have quite a lot in common. It could reasonably be argued that Sanders is nothing more than FDR .02. So, a liberal was in office during the bulk of WWII.
But you're making the assumption that the mainstream liberal view on current wars would apply to WWII. It wouldn't. Now I consider myself a centrists as much as I can, but when it comes down to it, I'd pick liberal over conservative is most situations. That said, I'm not against all wars, just stupid ones. To compare, I'd oppose WWI but would support WWII. If you look at what's going on the Middle East right now, which war does it compare to better, WWI or WWII?
See, WWII is a pretty straightforward war. It was basically a super villain trying to take over the world, and a bunch of nations team up to stop the bad guys. Granted, the USSR sort of muddies what constitutes as a bad guy, but I'd argue that communism is at least based on a reasonably moral philosophy while fascism is not. Not, I'm not in favor of communism. I probably shouldn't have even added that in since stupid people will just dismiss my whole point if I saw Marx's intentions were good. But who cares what stupid people think; this is for the smart ones and the stupid people can **** and moan about whatever they want.
WWI was not so obvious. It wasn't a triumph of good and evil. It was basically the egos of world powers being in conflict. WWI is also largely not an understood war, so I'll give a brief summary. Austria and Serbia hated each other. This hatred reached a tipping point when a group of Serbians, led by what was essentially the head of the Serbian CIA (not on official government business), assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. Austria was reasonably pissed, and the Serbian government understood and tried and punished all those involved. This wasn't enough for Austria though, so they made a list of demands, most of which were entirely unreasonable, so Serbia offered a reasonable counter proposal, which Austria ignored, and declared war. Germany and Austria were buddies of course, so they were automatically involved. Russia was allies with Serbia (and didn't like the Germans anyway), so they got involved. France had an alliance with Russia, so they got involved too. So while Germany/Austria were on their way to invade France, they went through Belgium, who was allied with the UK, so they got involved. Now, that covers the major players in WWI (minus the US, who frankly was't a major power in the world yet anyway) but this sort of absurdity is basically how every nation got involved. There was no good and evil.
So, what does our Middle East conflict most resemble? Is it really a good/evil thing or just a power play? ISIS is evil, in fairness, and I'm not opposed to getting involved in a war with them but I do have a reasonable hesitation which is that our involvement in the Middle East, which was more like WWI, is a huge part of why ISIS even exists. This makes me think more involvement won't do us much good. This is why liberals oppose so much of the Middle Eastern conflict. Most of it shouldn't involve us in the first place. I mean, if it were about good and evil, we'd have bombed the **** out of Saudi Arabia. There's no good reason to assume we're fighting some moral war. You don't think Nazi Germany had some good resources that would benefit an alliance between the US and the Nazis? But during WWII, we had a moral argument, and now we don't. Plain and simple. This post has gone on long enough so I'll stop here, but I'm sure there's more to be said.
Liberals did run the War for the USA. Most conservatives were opposed to getting involved because it would give the government too much economic power. As we did not decrease military spending after we WON the war I suppose they had a point.
One of the things you fail to understand about Liberals is we do not consider WAR to be an economic opportunity and when we decide war is needed we do what is needed to WIN the damn thing. Conservatives see war as an extension of business and get involved to make business better for other businessmen.
We were in 'Nam from the end of WW2 to protect the French investors from losing Indochina. They lost anyway but it took millions of lives before it ended. We invaded Iraq to privatize the oil fields and are fighting the Syrian government to force them to allow the building of the Trans Arabian Pipeline so the recently stolen petroleum can be sold by businessmen to Europe for a tidy profit. After all the oil companies have not spent a dime, outside of needed bribes, to get the US to do their dirty work.
Liberals generally do not support out Mideast Wars but most Conservatives think they are great for current and future profits both here and overseas.
Lots of simplifications.
#1 Most conservatives and most liberals were opposed to entering the war until Pearl Harbor. Then it was a majority for both.
#2 You say that liberals don't see war for economic profit, but then you point out that we were in Vietnam since the end of WWII for economic profit. That was Truman, a liberal. It is Obama who lied to try and escalate Syria. Wilson invaded half a dozen Latin American countries...for profit. Etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4
