It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How come democrats are known as ``anti-war``?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:11 AM
Judging by history they seem extremely pro-war and pro-interventionist to me.

The Black Hawk War 1831-1832

The first campaign began on the 13th day of June 1831 and ended on the 2nd of July. The second campaign was a brief conflict fought in 1832 between the United States and Native Americans headed by Black Hawk, a Sauk leader. The war erupted soon after Black Hawk and a group of Sauks, Meskwakis, and Kickapoos known as the "British Band" crossed the Mississippi River into the U.S. state of Illinois in April 1832. Black Hawk's motives were ambiguous, but he was apparently hoping to avoid bloodshed while resettling on land that had been ceded to the United States in a disputed 1804 treaty.

^Under Andrew Jackson.

The Mexican–American War

The Mexican–American War (also known as the First American Intervention or the Mexican War) was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution

^Under James K. Polk, more than 13,000 people died during this conflict.

The Second Seminole War

The Second Seminole War, also known as the Florida War, was a conflict from 1835 to 1842 in Florida between various groups of Native Americans collectively known as Seminoles and the United States, part of a series of conflicts called the Seminole Wars. The Second Seminole War, often referred to as the Seminole War, was the most expensive Indian War fought by the United States.

^Another one under Andrew Jackson, with about 1,500 deaths.

United States occupation of Haiti

The United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of then President of the United States Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of US corporations. It ended on August 1, 1934, after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde.

^This one was under Woodrow Wilson, 150 people died.

Mexican Revolution

The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution was varied. The United States relationship with Mexico has often been turbulent. For both economic and political reasons, the American government generally supported those who occupied the seats of power, whether they held that power legitimately or not.

Twice during the Revolution, the U.S. sent troops into Mexico. The U.S. had helped the Mexicans achieve independence and supported Juárez in his overthrow of emperor Maximilian, but also supported dictators like Porfirio Díaz, while its ambassador to Mexico, acting without authority, conspired to assassinate legitimate president Francisco Madero.

^Woodrow Wilson at it again.

Salvadoran Civil War

Beginning with the Carter Administration and continued by the Reagan and Bush administrations, the U.S. sent seven billion dollars of foreign and military aid to El Salvador in ten years.

The silent-partner role of the United States in El Salvador's Civil War became public when a National Guard death squad raped and murdered four American nuns and a laywoman on December 2, 1980; Maryknoll missionary nuns Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Ursuline nun Dorothy Kazel, and laywoman Jean Donovan were on a Catholic relief mission providing food

^U.S involvement was started by Jimmy Carter.

Operation Uphold Democracy

Operation Uphold Democracy (19 September 1994 – 31 March 1995) was an intervention designed to remove the military regime installed by the 1991 Haitian coup d'état, which overthrew the elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The operation was effectively authorized by the 31 July 1994 United Nations Security Council Resolution 940.

^Under Bill Clinton.

World War I

World War I (WWI), which was predominantly called the World War or the Great War from its occurrence until 1939, and the First World War or World War I thereafter, was a major war centered in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. It involved all the world's great powers,

^Under Woodrow Wilson, tons of people died in this war the U.S should have never gotten involved in.

World War II

World War II, was a global military conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers: eventually forming two opposing military alliances, the Allies and the Axis. It was the most widespread war in history, with more than 100 million military personnel mobilized. In a state of "total war," the major participants placed their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities at the service of the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.

^This was another useless war the U.S should have stayed out of, but Franklin D. Roosevelt desperately wanted to join this war.

Operation Noble Anvil

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (code-name Operation Allied Force or, by the United States, Operation Noble Anvil) was NATO's military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999.

^More intervention by Bill Clinton


The NATO intervention in Bosnia consisted of a series of actions undertaken by NATO to establish and then preserve peace during and after the Bosnian War. NATO's intervention began as largely political and symbolic, but gradually increased to include large-scale air operations and the deployment of approximately 60,000 soldiers under Operation Joint Endeavor.

^This intervention started under Bill Clinton.

Operation Eagle Claw

Operation Eagle Claw (or Operation Evening Light or Operation Rice Bowl) was an American military operation ordered by President Jimmy Carter to attempt to put an end to the Iran hostage crisis by rescuing 52 Americans held captive at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran on 24 April 1980. The public, humiliating debacle that ensued damaged American prestige worldwide and is believed by many, including Carter himself, to have played a major role in his defeat in the 1980 presidential election.

^Jimmy Carter's not-so brilliant idea.

Korean War

The Truman Administration was caught at a crossroads. Before the invasion, Korea was not included in the strategic Asian Defense Perimeter outlined by Secretary of State Acheson. Military strategists were more concerned with the security of Europe against the Soviet Union than East Asia. At the same time, the Administration was worried that a war in Korea could quickly widen into another world war should the Chinese or Soviets decide to get involved as well.

^Under Harry S. Truman, I guess there wasn't enough death in WWII for him.

Vietnam War

The U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. The North Vietnamese government viewed the war as a colonial war, fought initially against France, backed by the U.S., and later against South Vietnam, which it regarded as a U.S. puppet state.

^Eisenhower started it, but JFK and LBJ really amped it up. Tons of people died in this useless war.

Operation Restore Hope

Unified Task Force (UNITAF) was a United States-led, United Nations-sanctioned multinational force which operated in Somalia between 5 December 1992 – 4 May 1993. A United States initiative (code-named Operation Restore Hope), UNITAF was charged with carrying out United Nations Security Council Resolution 794: to create a protected environment for conducting humanitarian operations in the southern half of Somalia.

^Continued intervention in Somalia by Clinton.

These are some so-called anti-war democrats beating the war drums before the Iraq invasion:

Lets not forget Obama, he's a war-monger too. I just don't understand how democrats can hold the title of being anti-war when they've gotten us involved in more wars than republicans. I'm not saying republicans are any better though but at least they own up to being scum.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:14 AM
Because it's all a lie. People were tricked and continue to be tricked that the democrat is the "lesser evil" and at least we won't have some crazy religious right inbred to worry about but that is the secret to the democrat's power, the republican is obviously a religious fanatic tyrant, so only the most openly psychopathic will go towards them, but the democrat is the opposite, the CHANGE, he appears as the breath of fresh air, the humanity and love the world so dearly needs. This brainwashing is so powerful it leads to nobel peace prizes for the very same leader who escalates the wars.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:14 AM
The State is pro-war and interventionist. It goes with the territory. Make-believe party affiliation is irrelevant. Support for the State in any capacity is support for war.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:03 AM
And many democrats are also afraid of guns, or any other type of weapons because those make democrats feel bad.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:15 AM
police use the same strategy its called good cop/bad cop, the politicians have PERFECTED it

its call the republican & democratic parties

here is how it goes

they both work for the same boss
they both have the same end agenda
they both pretend to not like and agree with the others practices and strategies
they both take turns being the bad guy and the good guy

once one is seen as the bad group then other takes over as the hero and then too becomes the bad guy over time while the other group the original bad group becomes quiet and waits for the cycle to start all over again making sure to wait years and events later , rinse and repeat
edit on 24-8-2011 by all answers exist because: spelling

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by filosophia
This brainwashing is so powerful it leads to nobel peace prizes for the very same leader who escalates the wars.

There *is* a difference between the two parties, though. Republicans generally *are* blatant, hand-wringing, theatrical psychopaths; whereas Democrats pretend to be sane and civil, while only exercising their rabid, warmongering megalomania behind closed doors.

So in reality, the Democrats are far more dangerous; because at least with the Republicans, you know exactly what you're getting. A blind man could tell that Bush was a complete raving demoniac. He was enthusiastic about it; he made no bones about his evil whatsoever.

edit on 24-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

I think the idea of being referred to as anti-war was targeted specifically towards opposing the Iraq war. Those who opposed the Iraq war were automatically considered anti-war, but no secret was made about Democratic support for Afghanistan or the Balkans intervention during the 90's. That's from what I understand.

While I was marching against the Iraq war, I made no secret about my support for operations in Afghanistan, made no secret about the necessity for was in past (such as world war 2).

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:50 PM
good question with the simple fact when one looks at us history the democrats have more blood on their hands than any republican.

not to mention the only party in this countries history to use nuclear weapons.

the deal here is they get to define what constitutes a war and what gets labeled a war or a police action and who is label "terrorists"

they control the horizontal
they control the vertical

and they constantly take us all to the out limits of insanity and they define what is evil and what is just

the smart people already got off that exit long ago.
edit on 24-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

That's a generalization. I've got a reasonably old semi-automatic pistol at home, I know of many democrats who have their own guns at home. I well and truly believe that you should have the right to own a gun for your own protection or for hunting purposes. It's when folks start advocating that we openly support guns to be sold to minors or convicted criminals, this is where I stand to oppose. It's not about whether any difference will be made in regulating guns, it's about the principal. We should be openly supporting this to happen.

I support responsible gun ownership, do you? Or shall we go back to the wild wild west again?

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by filosophia
Because it's all a lie. People were tricked and continue to be tricked that the democrat is the "lesser evil"

Yep, and members on this forum have been tricked into thinking the Republican party is the lesser evil. People talk about both parties being the same, but at the end of the day, you gotta ask yourself as to whom your supporting and what party they come under?

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by centurion1211

That's a generalization.

Are you saying that only you and the other so-called progressives here are allowed to use "generalizations" such as "the tea party are racists" and countless others as are currently being posted on other threads all over ATS?

On second thought, yes probably you are saying that ...

Of course I support responsible gun ownership. Who doesn't. The difference is in what you and I would call responsible, and I have a feeling that your version would be totally more restrictive.

edit on 8/24/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by centurion1211

That's a generalization.

Are you saying that only you and the other so-called progressives here are allowed to use "generalizations" such as "the tea party are racists" and countless others

Where did I say all tea partiers are racist? That's ironic, you're accusing me of generalizing while doing it yourself in that same post. And if you want my opinion on racism and tea partiers, I believe there are alot of closeted racist in the tea parties, just as there are among the birthers (of whom many are part of the tea parties anyway). I think it'd be impossible to claim that every tea partier is a racist, some are just partisan, some are just disgruntled McCain voters, some are just strongly behind the libertarian ideology.

Of course I support responsible gun ownership. Who doesn't. The difference is in what you and I would call responsible, and I have a feeling that your version would be totally more restrictive.

If you call opposition against gun ownership among minors, murderers/violent offenders and illegal immigrants restrictive then I don't buy your claim that you support responsible gun ownership. And no, I don't believe the gun violence in schools and in public areas are the product solely of lax gun laws and regulation, alot of it has to do with irrisponsible parenting, society's attitude, and just psychologically messed up kids.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:40 PM
This is democracy(dictatorship) what's strange about that?

They made us believe we live in democracy,but really,does this look like democracy to you people?
edit on 24-8-2011 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in