Are Republicans REALLY the War Mongers? The Numbers Say No

[BluePhantom]

You intend to make the research hard. Why?

Dude it took me days to do all this research. Think it was easy for me? Which military action do you take issue with? I'm happy to start analyzing in detail any one you request. I will give you the specific numbers I came up with, how I found them, and the links to support the conclusion. I will be perfectly happy to do that, and afterwards we can look at another one if you wish.....but you can't expect me to post every single link for every single war and every single element that contributed to it in one shot. The list of links is FAR too long.

 

[Ropey]

It's now all about you is it? You know that this is a history sub-forum. You challenged with a lot of information and no sources.

I don't dispute the post. I dispute your view that your word was and is good enough as a newcomer to stand such a long post of history without one shred of the data dump you used to compile the data into information.

So, continue on. I don't doubt the information is correct, but as a researcher, I find it telling that you did not keep a bio of your data dump links since you are a professional.

Anyway, you are not doing anything against the rules and I personally will not rebut data compiled into information for rebut without proof.

That's just me. Continue on with the others, many of which will allow you to attribute the compilation to your work without any cite of the data sources.

You want me to look for it? You had it.

No thanks, and have a good evening BP.

 

[Toome]

I think someone has trouble understanding certain definitions. I don't think any US President was ever a warmonger. I think each President weighed their decision-making carefully before deploying troops into harm's way.

Unfortunately, there are still a bunch of mental midgets walking around who think wars are like high school football games, and their solution it to politicize it so they can push a certain agenda. Jimmy Carter's response to the Desert One fiasco was characterized as a weakness to our military (even though Carter DID make the decision to send in an untried, unproven military force to do something pretty extraordinary). Bill Clinton's decision to pull US troops out of Somalia is portrayed as a weak decision even though he was not the one who sent them into Somalia, and he was the one who decided to go black (that's the employment of SOF for those of you who don't habla).

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton; however, I have to call it straight. In spite of their political views, I have to give them kudos for certain military decisions. Same goes for Obama, but that's about the ONLY thing I can say in his favor.

 

[rdean]

A little more simpler explanation is that Republicans are seen as hawks while the Democrats are percieved as weak. This simplistic perception leads foreign leaders to shy away from antagonizing Republican led administrations and to disregard Democratic administrations and the result is the Democrats have to go war.

And yet, the US suffered it's worst attacks since Pearl Harbor when Bush was president and Republicans controlled both houses and even the Supreme Court.

Guess that theory was on the level of "intelligent design".

 

[California Girl]

Just a rules note BP...... so you know how things work here and not get your self into hot water with the mods.

you may not quote an entire piece of someone else work....you may quote only parts of them.

And.... you must link to the original.

I don't understand what you mean. I ran all those numbers myself and the analysis was my own. Took me several days.

We're not used to people using logic, information, and critical thought. You're gonna struggle on this board.

 

[California Girl]

A little more simpler explanation is that Republicans are seen as hawks while the Democrats are percieved as weak. This simplistic perception leads foreign leaders to shy away from antagonizing Republican led administrations and to disregard Democratic administrations and the result is the Democrats have to go war.

And yet, the US suffered it's worst attacks since Pearl Harbor when Bush was president and Republicans controlled both houses and even the Supreme Court.

Guess that theory was on the level of "intelligent design".

And that attack... it was planned when the Dems were in charge. Apparently, terrorists don't differentiate between who's in charge here. Color me shocked!

 

[BluePhantom]

I think someone has trouble understanding certain definitions. I don't think any US President was ever a warmonger. I think each President weighed their decision-making carefully before deploying troops into harm's way.

Unfortunately, there are still a bunch of mental midgets walking around who think wars are like high school football games, and their solution it to politicize it so they can push a certain agenda. Jimmy Carter's response to the Desert One fiasco was characterized as a weakness to our military (even though Carter DID make the decision to send in an untried, unproven military force to do something pretty extraordinary). Bill Clinton's decision to pull US troops out of Somalia is portrayed as a weak decision even though he was not the one who sent them into Somalia, and he was the one who decided to go black (that's the employment of SOF for those of you who don't habla).

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton; however, I have to call it straight. In spite of their political views, I have to give them kudos for certain military decisions. Same goes for Obama, but that's about the ONLY thing I can say in his favor.

For the most part I would agree with that but there have been many situations where the use of force (or at least the threat of it) was a significant element in a president getting elected. Take James Polk (D) and the Mexican-American War, for example. Now Polk wasn't exactly saying "elect me and I will attack Mexico" but he was fully clear that he intended to fulfill Manifest Destiny through continued westward expansion using the threat of force. This gave rise to his supporters' slogan of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight". Problem was that Mexico called his bluff. (1)

The Spanish American War is an example where the President (Republican William McKinley) didn't want to go to war but was really pressured into it in large part by a wave of public sentiment that rose due to the yellow journalism of Williams Jennings Bryan (a former Democratic member of the House or Representatives and a candidate for the presidency a couple times). (2,3,4)

You also have situations like Clinton's decision to bomb Afghanistan in 1998 during the Lewinsky scandal which many claimed was a "wag the dog" moment (5). Personally, I don't endorse that theory, BTW.

So I agree with you that it depends on what you define as a "warmonger" but I would argue that president have a vast history of using military action (or the threat thereof) for political purposes.

1. The U.S.-Mexican War . Prelude to War . James K. Polk and the Mexican War: A Policy Appraisal | PBS

2. Leech, Margaret (1986). In the Days of McKinley. The Easton Press. pg. 148

3. American President: William McKinley: Foreign Affairs

4. Propaganda in the Spanish-American War

5. Wag the Dog Back In Spotlight - CNN

 

[BluePhantom]

We're not used to people using logic, information, and critical thought. You're gonna struggle on this board.