Poll: Democrat voters now more in favor of wars than Republicans because Trump wants to pull out

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Who is "they?"

The poster was discussing Wikileaks. That's who I was referring to.

I find this argument "If they had something on Trump it would have been released by now" to be a bit naive, if not completely disingenuous.

Still not talking about Congress. Talking about Wikileaks.

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I think you are confusing "military conflicts" with the actual definition of "war" in the context of the United States.

And I think you're confusing the circumvention of checks and balances with justification.

So Vietnam was just a "military conflict"?

Please provide a link to where Congress declared "WAR" on North Vietnam. Or not. That will answer your question.

Didn't know we did drafts for "military conflicts".

a reply to: projectvxn

MY bad.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

No worries.

a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

I think you are confusing "military conflicts" with the actual definition of "war" in the context of the United States.

And I think you're confusing the circumvention of checks and balances with justification.

So Vietnam was just a "military conflict"?

Please provide a link to where Congress declared "WAR" on North Vietnam. Or not. That will answer your question.

Didn't know we did drafts for "military conflicts".

From 1940 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the United States Armed Forces that could not be filled through voluntary means. The draft came to an end when the United States Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military force.

source

The draft from 1940 - 1973 was informed by a perceived military threat to the US, and not enough men volunteering for military service. Yes, the draft expanded during the Vietnam era, to supply US troops to that military conflict. So now you are aware and "know" that the draft has been used to supply US troops in support of military conflicts.

More wars have been instigated by Dems throughout this last seventy years than by Republicans. Often the Dems allow things to get fired up and a Republican president and congress has to deal with the war when they get in power. Liberals are far more war mongers than Conservatives in this country it seems.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Here's what I know. Most people on both sides of the aisle respected and trusted general Mattis. Mattis has reason to believe that now is not the time. Trump didn't listen.

There never is a "time" or maybe in 50 years. Kennedy did not go the way of his trusted Generals that ALL wanted to go full nuke on Russia, so maybe your point you are trying to make is not so good.

One lessen we have learn dealing with the Middle East over the last 15+ years is they are still stuck in a 2000 year old war lord mentality, they do not want democracy and trillions of dollars later we finally get that point. So should we spend another trillion or two? We should let Russia deal with isis in Syria if they grow again and we should support the Kurds and Israeli while letting the chips fall where they may.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

And Afghanistan the polls shows.

I dont know if i said "want more wars", if so that language should have been more precise.

But they are against pulling out of wars they once were fro, and are more militaristic because trump wants to withdraw.

a reply to: knoxie

The thing is that I was never exactly sure what it is we were doing in Syria in the first place. Whose side were we one there? That was never clearly answered, and neither side was actually "good" in any traditional sense of the word. The only ones I might have backed being there to help were the Kurds, but it's been made plain we don't care about them. We aren't there to help them.

So why are we in Syria? No one has ever, ever answered that.

At least when we went into Iraq, the first stated objective was to change the regime, and I could back that so long as I thought were attempting what was done with Japan in WWII -- totally remake everything about the place from the ground up -- but it pretty soon become apparent we had no balls to do that. We were simply going to take it from one set of thieves to give it over to another.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

I’m not sure not wanting to pull out of Syria means that they want more wars. There are a variety of valid reasons why the US shouldn’t pull out, and “because we want more wars” is not one of them.

What was the great reason we entered Syria in the first place and who created the conditions for that?

Let's hear all the valid reasons we should have overthrown Assad and put troops on the ground in a country (Syria) that had never attacked us or our Troops?

To simply state we can't leave because we are there now is not enough.

Whose brilliant Idea was it to destabilize Syrian and Libya in the first place?

I and many other Americans, are tired of being the Policeman of the world.

Never should have been in syria, it was a clown show from the word go.

It's not preventing Russia from having Syria, it was an attempt to grab Syria from Russia and the window has closed.

a reply to: pavil

Precisely.

I notice that there is always some extra "nuance" for war when it isn't for genuine defense.

a reply to: pavil

I think Libya was French and Obama "led from behind" on that one because he knew too many people would rebel if he did what he plainly wanted to do outright.

Now, as to what went on from behind the scenes in the court of the world? Who knows. We very well might have instigated and got Macron to take the drop for it.

a reply to: ketsuko

We are told in syria that we must arm opponents of assad, which includes islamic extremists similar to isis, to fight assad, who is fighting groups like isis, or else isis will grow really strong.

Think about thaat for a moment.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

So now you are aware and "know" that the draft has been used to supply US troops in support of military conflicts.

The semantics are getting exhausting. Yes, words are important, but sometimes they can be sinister. For instance, using military conflict to circumvent checks in power.

When you have a large military force in another country for a long period of time fighting said country.... You can be simplistic in describing what it is, a war.

I get it, war wasn't declared, and that's one of my points, they're illegal and immoral.

Go argue with history, because we call it the Korean war or the Vietnam war.

Go tell the soldiers who served they've never seen war.

Are you helping the debate of morality over war with semantics? No.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ketsuko

We are told in syria that we must arm opponents of assad, which includes islamic extremists similar to isis, to fight assad, who is fighting groups like isis, or else isis will grow really strong.

Think about thaat for a moment.

That goes back to my theory that Obama was intentionally destabilizing the entire Middle East on purpose. Every decision he made there made things worse. If he made some mistakes, that's one things, but he was batting 1,000 on them. You don't do that unless it's a calculated strategy.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: pavil

Precisely.

I notice that there is always some extra "nuance" for war when it isn't for genuine defense.

Thats exactly it.

And now we are seeing the justifications for staying which are being pushed by the left could be used to stay indefinitely in these conflicts.

And ironically, its the exact same justifications the left rightfully decried when Bush was offering them as reasons to attack and stay in iraq.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ketsuko

We are told in syria that we must arm opponents of assad, which includes islamic extremists similar to isis, to fight assad, who is fighting groups like isis, or else isis will grow really strong.

Think about thaat for a moment.

That goes back to my theory that Obama was intentionally destabilizing the entire Middle East on purpose. Every decision he made there made things worse. If he made some mistakes, that's one things, but he was batting 1,000 on them. You don't do that unless it's a calculated strategy.

This is the pattern.

Lie to encourage intervention in these areas in the first place.

And then claim well because we intervened, we now have to stay in these wars indefinitely.

We see it over and over.

But hey, it deosnt matter how many times this happens, some people say we just have to trust the generals and warhawks and keep our mouths shut.

Dtrange to see those voices coming from the left now.

originally posted by: knoxie
you all would leave your allies hanging?

and, essentially give Syria to Russia?

cool.



so, making sure those left behind won't get annihilated is the same as starting new wars in your eyes?

I understand a rational withdrawal, including timing.

But your “give Syria to Russia” is pure propaganda.

Syria was basically already a proxy of Russia, and its ally. Russia’s only naval base outside of forner USSR satellites is there. It was the west that funded and armed proxy war using many foreign militants, in order to regime change Assad and gain more power in the ME. Russia was invited to Syria to help them defend against this, as an ally of the existing gov. That is perfectly legal.

What is not legal is us funding and arming an opposition for regime change.