| halogamer1989 said: Montana, GOP conflicts/wars are those of liberation or necessity. Since when is freeing Japan, Germany, Western Europe, Korea, Vietnam (for a time), Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and allowing either democracy (Europe, Germany, Japan), pushing out hegemonic/Communist crazies (Pan, Grenada, Desert Storm, etc) a bad thing. By 2013 we will be fully out of Iraq with small advising contingencies and Afghanistan will be longer but that is a totally different war. (I would encourage you to read the Status of Forces Agreement aka S.O.F.A.) For Afg, think fighting in the "little brother mtns" of Everest and trying to help out different families in an early 1900s WV+different languages customs, alliances, etc.
Edit: Oh and btw, the events leading up to a war are essentially WHY wars are fought. It is called conflict analyzation. If you wanted to convict a serial killer and had know psych background on him it would be detrimental to your case. I hate when libs use the whole red herring/divert the context of the debate to generality BS. |
Wow, talk about the biggest piece of propaganda bullshit ever. Was every war ever started by the Republicans? You mentioned Japan, Germany, and Western Europe. I assume you're referring to World War II, which was basically handled completely by the Democrats (FDR/Truman). Then you mentioned Korea (started under Truman), the Vietnam War (which was so fragmented it's not even worth debating), Grenada (lol), Panama (not really picking on someone our size), Kuwait (great job there, no sarcasm), and Iraq (we seem to have done a fantastic job there, *sigh*). Allowing democracy is another one of those really dumb things you say that don't make sense. "Allowing" democracy? As opposed to saying we wouldn't have allowed it? Democracy is a pro in both parties. You can't argue that the Iraq War ended up well. If we are fully out by 2013, that means the war will have lasted 10 years. That's a very long war, especially for one that achieved its main goals (the fall of Baghdad and the displacement of Saddam Hussein) in less than a month. The war in Afghanistan has been going on since 2001. If it goes on any longer, it will start to rival Vietnam (another drawn out war that didn't do any good). By the way, I'm not interested reading something else so that it can speak for you, nor am I interested in trying to comprehend what the rest of that gibberish is supposed to be. And hey, Halogamer, you still seem to not see the point. The events leading up to a war aren't anywhere near the same as the starting of a war. As another example, the events leading up to World War II took place over several years. However, the war didn't start until 1941. That's how it works. You can't twist that to fit your argument and then complain that I'm using some kind of underhanded liberal tactic when I'm using a very clear set of standards.
Typical Halogamer argument. A bunch of bullshit, gibberish, and Republican angst. It's so annoying to have you posting again.
