The Glade 4.0

Which was voted for by both parties enthusiastically...

*back to pretend land!*

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Are you referring to Afghanistan or Iraq?

Yes, when the Bush Administration made invading Iraq a priority and framed it in the context of 9/11, it became politically suicidal for the Democrats to oppose it. Do you honestly think President Gore, with a staff of liberal foreign policy advisors, would have been hell bent on invading Iraq the way Bush and his neocon advisors were?

Since WWII -> Korea -> Vietnam -> Grenada -> Nicaraqua -> Iraq v. Iran -> Iraq -> Africa -> Bosnia -> Afghanistan -> Iraq. Name a five-year span of time in which our armed forces were not actively engaged somewhere in the world @ whatever cost

_________________

Oh we would have had a war after 9/11 regardless, but it would almost certainly have been focused on Afghanistan, not Iraq. That's a very different world (with a much lower price tag and body count) than the one we got with Bush in office. You can't just say war is war and leave it at that. If nothing else, a couple hundred thousand Iraqi civilians wouldn't be dead now (to say nothing of the various knock-on effects, like Hussein being gone, the Arab Spring (arguably), etc.). That's not a minor change in the world. And note that I say this as someone who supported the Iraq war, so it's not a partisan thing on my part.

Find me a war Democrat administrations in power opposed.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

since the executive branch controls the military any wars the executive branch opposes won't be fought and therefor won't exist. You want him to name a war that never existed?

One in which the Democrats were handed and then stopped would suffice as a war to which they were in power and opposed.

I'll be waiting.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Iraq? Afganistan? WW2? WWI?

Again, the point is not that Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-war. The point is that Democrats and Republicans have different foreign policy perspectives and that we therefore get different wars at different times. Yes, once the US is engaged in a war, both parties pretty much line up behind the flag, but the original entry into the war is the issue. In the 1980s, we saw Republicans pushing for intervention against communist movements in Central America and Democrats opposing it. In the 1990s, we saw Democrats pushing for humanitarian interventions in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, and Republicans largely opposing those interventions. Conversely, during the 90s we also saw Republicans pushing for round two against Iraq to depose Hussein and Democrats opposing invasion in favor of containment. And that's why, when 9/11 happened, the Bush administration was hell bent on going after Iraq, while a Gore administration would have been much less likely to do so.

So then if I am right here, the "major" difference is where the civilian casualties occur and "why" we go to war?

_________________

So one is lawful evil and the other is neutral evil? Who gives a flying ****.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Which didn't really involve actual commitment of troops, so much as funding for one side or the other.



Bush was not "Hell bent" to go after Iraq. That came later. Wolfowitz was hell-bent on Iraq. Second, your examples demonstrate clearly that Democrats are far more likely to commit to wars that don't even appear to be about U.S. interests, whereas Republicans pursue military action as an extension of this country's policy objectives.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

the US has no interest in Humanitarian interests?

That isn't what I said.

A war about humanitarian interests in and of themselves is not about U.S. interests without some overriding humanitarian concern. This is a very high bar to meet; high enough that the Rwanda massacres did not meet it, mainly because that humanitarian interests must A) be weighed against the costs and B) be weighed against the ability of the U.S. to achieve anything in that regard. Combat is a very sticky place to get into from a humanitarian viewpoint, even with the best of intentions. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the U.S. is essentially held to a standard of perfection in that regard and isolated incidents like Haditha will be treated as systemic problems with U.S. troops by anyone with an axe to grind.

Certainly, humanitarian interests are to be weighed in any cost-benefit analysis. Any military action that is undertaken should certainly avoid pointless violence that is extraneous to the objectives. However, it is not the job, nor in the interests of the United States, to pursue military objectives solely, or even primarily, because of perceived humanitarian need.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."