Standards For Going To War Depends On Your Political Party

[mudwhistle]

Here are the standards that must be met before we can go to war:

For Democrats:


There must be a threat to our allies, but only socialist nations or nations filled with the oppressed.

It must be humanitarian in nature.

You must never call it a war.

You can go to war for oil as long as your own supply sources aren't at risk.

Any action is acceptable as long as you say it's to save the lives of women and children. Remember this. Men, fuckem. Women and children must be saved at all costs.



For Republicans:

No excuse is good enough.

 

[Late2TheParty]

Here are the rules for going to war. Or anything really.

1) Check Party Affiliation (PA) of sitting President.
2) If PA is opposite yours, decry action. Otherwise support.
3) ???
4) Profit?

 

[The Rabbi]

GOP:
Is it in the national interest, will it strengthen our standing in the world?

Democrats:
Will it make us popular in the New York Times and Washington Post?

 

[rightwinger]

For Republicans:

They must hold mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here are the rules for going to war. Or anything really.

1) Check Party Affiliation (PA) of sitting President.
2) If PA is opposite yours, decry action. Otherwise support.
3) ???
4) Profit?

Thread should've ended here, here's the answer, nothing more to see here.

Both status quo parties love war, as long as the man behind the button shares that particular voter's party affiliation.

 

[mudwhistle]

Here are the rules for going to war. Or anything really.

1) Check Party Affiliation (PA) of sitting President.
2) If PA is opposite yours, decry action. Otherwise support.
3) ???
4) Profit?

Thread should've ended here, here's the answer, nothing more to see here.

Both status quo parties love war, as long as the man behind the button shares that particular voter's party affiliation.

The thread can end once everyone recognizes that pencil-neck twerps that won the election by being anti-war must accept criticism when they discover that war is sometimes warranted.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here are the rules for going to war. Or anything really.

1) Check Party Affiliation (PA) of sitting President.
2) If PA is opposite yours, decry action. Otherwise support.
3) ???
4) Profit?

Thread should've ended here, here's the answer, nothing more to see here.

Both status quo parties love war, as long as the man behind the button shares that particular voter's party affiliation.

The thread can end once everyone recognizes that pencil-neck twerps that won the election by being anti-war must accept criticism when they discover that war is sometimes warranted.

No, Obama was quite clear about even enhancing the world's greatest warmonger's warmongering efforts in Afghanistan. Bush wasn't blowing up enough of Afghanistan or killing enough little afghanis, Obama wanted more and made it clear.

Libya proves he's just another Bush in terms of foreign policy, which is why I don't understand why republicans aren't coming out and cheering Obama for attacking another muslim arab country. If Bush did this you'd be dancing in the streets.

 

[Oddball]

Here are the rules for going to war. Or anything really.

1) Check Party Affiliation (PA) of sitting President.
2) If PA is opposite yours, decry action. Otherwise support.
3) ???
4) Profit?

You're a political genius!

 

[Robert]

One has to laugh at the absolute hypocrisy of the left in regard to Obama and his attacking and killing people who have done nothing to our Nation....We all remember the RAGE of the Left over Bush and his policy....Now we hear absolute silence from the left when it comes to Obama

 

[Oddball]

 

[mudwhistle]

Thread should've ended here, here's the answer, nothing more to see here.

Both status quo parties love war, as long as the man behind the button shares that particular voter's party affiliation.

The thread can end once everyone recognizes that pencil-neck twerps that won the election by being anti-war must accept criticism when they discover that war is sometimes warranted.

No, Obama was quite clear about even enhancing the world's greatest warmonger's warmongering efforts in Afghanistan. Bush wasn't blowing up enough of Afghanistan or killing enough little afghanis, Obama wanted more and made it clear.

Libya proves he's just another Bush in terms of foreign policy, which is why I don't understand why republicans aren't coming out and cheering Obama for attacking another muslim arab country. If Bush did this you'd be dancing in the streets.

We're critical of an ill-conceived war that he won't even admit is a war or admit that it's primary goal is is to replace Gaddafi.