Why are Republicans more associated with being pro-war? Democrats are at least as bad... (Pelosi, Reid)

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by wade52

And the best part is that none of your conservatard spin alters the fact that over the past quarter century, all wars have been started by GOP presidents. That you'd like to go back two hundred years to try to make a point just smacks of desperation.

Did you notice how many wars were started when the progressive era started? It doesn't appear so...

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

You're looking ridiculous. Bush's War of TERRA received a vote from congress AUTHORIZING the use of force, that is still in effect. That is the same as a declaration of war.

Other congressional authorizations for military action since WWII

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964

S.J.R. 159 September 29, 1983, Lebanon.


H.R.J. Res. 77 January 12, 1991, Iraq

S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001, Afghanistan

H.J. Res. 114, March 3, 2003, Iraq

What Ollie and Reagun did was ILLEGAL what Reagun thinks about the law doesn't define the law. When was the Boland Amendment ruled unconstitutional?

It was not illegal because of the reasons I listed. I didn't say it was ruled unconstitutional, only that it was.

Congress authorizing military action is not declaring war; it's not a formal declaration of war.

And his name is "Reagan."

[wade52]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Did you notice how many wars were started when the progressive era started? It doesn't appear so...

And it doesn't appear that the "subtle difference" between starting a war where none exists or being dragged into a war in progress registers with you.

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by Fleet

It was not illegal because of the reasons I listed. I didn't say it was ruled unconstitutional, only that it was.

Congress authorizing military action is not declaring war; it's not a formal declaration of war.

And his name is "Reagan."

You need to learn about the legal system we ALL live under. Everything is constitutional unless it was specificly RULED unconstitutional. Your OPINION doesn't apply. Reagun violated a law when he sent aid to the contras and when he allowed his administration to peddle drugs on the streets of America.

[VTHokieFan]

FWIW, the OP is an Australian, so he's unbiased.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

FWIW, the OP is an Australian, so he's unbiased.

Yes I'm an uninformed observer. All I know is what I hear on Australia media or what I read online, although I don't really spend time reading up on American politics.

I just find some aspects of your political system peculiar. I think the candidacy for the Republican nominee is kind of amusing to watch, full of strange characters with strange views and even stranger names (seriously, an amphibian and a baseball glove? A guy whose name sounds like some Roman institution? A Mormon? Barack Obama was a weird enough name).

[djacques]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

List those seven when you find time, I'm thinking some of those seven were consensus ideas within the administration already. You cannot even show that FDR saw this memo.

I will find which seven when I have time, but you are making my point. It doesn't matter if they were "consensus ideas" or if FDR didn't see the memo. The reason is that FDR was not an idiot. If he was already adopting policies that a memo suggested were likely to provoke a war, it certainly wasn't because he wanted to pursue peace!

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by djacques

I will find which seven when I have time, but you are making my point. It doesn't matter if they were "consensus ideas" or if FDR didn't see the memo. The reason is that FDR was not an idiot. If he was already adopting policies that a memo suggested were likely to provoke a war, it certainly wasn't because he wanted to pursue peace!

It can just as easily be said those policies were meant to show Japan that the USA wasn't a pushover, diplomacy from strength. Taking a strong, defiant position doesn't mean you are angling for war. Perfect example is Saddam before the last war, he didn't have an active WMD program and wasn't prepared to fight a war on that level, but he needed to create enough doubts about Iraq's abilities to keep his neighbors and the USA from attacking him.

I'm thinking you'd be complaining more about FDR's policies if he took Chamberlin's approach to the axis powers.

Bottom line the USA and FDR were not the aggressors in WWII. That famous FDR "I HATE WAR" speech was not about WWII...

[Old Gringo]

Because all wars started by American presidents in recent history have been started by Republican presidents. And they've had overwhelming congressional support from Republican members.


I like easy questions.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

It can just as easily be said those policies were meant to show Japan that the USA wasn't a pushover, diplomacy from strength. Taking a strong, defiant position doesn't mean you are angling for war. Perfect example is Saddam before the last war, he didn't have an active WMD program and wasn't prepared to fight a war on that level, but he needed to create enough doubts about Iraq's abilities to keep his neighbors and the USA from attacking him.

Actually, a perfect example of how people who go looking for trouble usually find it.

I'm thinking you'd be complaining more about FDR's policies if he took Chamberlin's approach to the axis powers.

It was Chamberlain, you may remember, who made a treaty with Poland and declared war on Germany--and no, that wasn't a good idea at all.

Bottom line the USA and FDR were not the aggressors in WWII. That famous FDR "I HATE WAR" speech was not about WWII...

The USA was not "the" aggressor, there was not one single person or nation you can point to and call "the" aggressor. But FDR was certainly the aggressor vis-à-vis the 400,000 Americans who never came home because he broke his campaign promise to stay out of the war.