Why Is It That Almost All American Wars Were Started By Democrats And Liberals?

[D. Stussy]

"Democritus" wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
We could start with the Civil War. The North was more or less laissez-faire
capitalist and Republican as they elected
Abe Lincoln. But it was the South that fired the first shots and they were
an aristrocratic, agrarian state who voted
overwhelminly Democrat in the first federal election after the War which
ended in 1865.

The Mexican and Spanish American wars were started with Republicans in
office. But these wars were short with
the U.S. victorious. These victories were essential to America's growth
eventually making it the wealthiest, most
powerful nation on earth.

In the 20th century America was led into WWI by progressive-Democrat Woodrow
Wilson. Then 23 years later
the U.S. was led into WW II by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. The Korean was
began with Democrat Harry Truman in the
presidency. The Democratic presidencies of JFK and LBJ led the nation into
the Viet Nam morass.

It is true that Rebulican George Bush 41 got Ameica involved in the Gulf
War, and this turned into a mistake even though it
was short and victorious for the U.S. But it really accomplished nothing.
But Bush one was a RINO--"a kinder, gentler America"
and "read my lips, no new taxes".

But Democrat Bill Clinton got America involved in the Serbian war and later
Mogadishu. Nothing was accomplished here either.
It is also fair to indirectly blame Democrat Clinton for the Afghanistan and
Iraq wars as both of these were ultimately caused by 9/11
which was the worst but most effective attack ever on the U.S. civilian
population. The groundwork was done by al Qaeda whiles
Democrat Clinton was president. Because Clinton did nothing to retaliate
against
Muslim Jihadist terrorism, even after atacks on U.S. embassies, the USS
Cole and one of the Wall street towers suffered a Muslim the terrorist
Blind Sheik's attack in 1993, the haulocaust of 9/11 was made inevitable.

Thuus stupid, ignorant, and bigoted U.S. Democrats and liberals should stop
calling the Republican conservatives the "war party".
=====================

Yet, Democrats want to take away the people's guns. Maybe we should let
them, but only from other democrats, so they can't start any more wars. ;-)

[Jeff Strickland]

Post by D. Stussy
We could start with the Civil War. The North was more or less
laissez-faire capitalist and Republican as they elected
Abe Lincoln. But it was the South that fired the first shots and they were
an aristrocratic, agrarian state who voted
overwhelminly Democrat in the first federal election after the War which
ended in 1865.
The Mexican and Spanish American wars were started with Republicans in
office. But these wars were short with
the U.S. victorious. These victories were essential to America's growth
eventually making it the wealthiest, most
powerful nation on earth.
In the 20th century America was led into WWI by progressive-Democrat
Woodrow Wilson. Then 23 years later
the U.S. was led into WW II by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. The Korean was
began with Democrat Harry Truman in the
presidency. The Democratic presidencies of JFK and LBJ led the nation
into the Viet Nam morass.

Technically, it was Eisenhower that first engaged American forces in Viet
Nam. Tehcnically. The distinction may be splitting hairs though because it
is true that our involvement was dramatically increased under JFK and LBJ,
but the "leading the nation into the morass," was the work of Eisenhower.

Post by D. Stussy
It is true that Rebulican George Bush 41 got Ameica involved in the Gulf
War, and this turned into a mistake even though it
was short and victorious for the U.S. But it really accomplished nothing.
But Bush one was a RINO--"a kinder, gentler America"
and "read my lips, no new taxes".

This is absolutely incorrect. 41 did take us into Iraq, kind of.

He really took us into Kuwait to push the Iraqis out, and he was hugely
successful in achieving the stated goal. Freeing Kuwait was not a mistake on
any level, unless you consider it a mistake to not allow the mission goals
to creep to another entirely different mission. The mission of 41, and the
first Gulf War, was to show our allies in the region that thugs like Saddam,
and the Iranians, could not simply take over stuff that did not belong to
them. It was also a stated goal to NOT allow Israel to become mired in the
conflict, despite their obvious interests in doing so. Gulf War I was not
only not a mistake, it was successful by nearly every measure. If you are
going to argue that it was not successful, you must argue a different set of
measurements than the Administration sought to achieve.