Yeah, and another quote from Wikipedia:

Here

That's not a war, that's just the events leading up to a war. Your point is moot.

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.

All those were one term wars that were quick and easy... I was talking about the "Quagmire" wars.  The kind poor economys are blamed on

Democrats don't start wars though?

How about Vietnam

Korea

Mexican American War

Bill Clintons 3 wars.

I could go on.  Most are democratic.

Also the Demcoratic party was more or less founded with Thomas Jefferson.  So it's not like there is that much time missing.

But I thought Chavez's socialistic reforms were to bring a new golden age for the averge person in the country?

Hell if you want to be really academic about it the modern Democratic Party was founded by Andrew Jackson.  Talk about your party of peace.  If you talked to Jackson the wrong way he would shoot you.  Ask someone of Native descent what they think of Jackson you should be filled in real quickly about the father of the Dems.  To make it short, they won't even touch $20 bills.

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.

A war is a war regardless. You didn't mention that in your original post, and I'm still going by that criteria. And when I said Democrats didn't start wars, I mainly meant that they don't actually begin wars. They usually join existing wars. Frankly, definitive statements end up wrong from both sides, so I'd rather avoid them.

Vietnam - This war began under Eisenhower, although the U.S. escalated troops under Lyndon B. Johnson. It also carried over to other presidents, so it' a bit of a fragmented war.

Korea - Again, the U.S. (and Truman) didn't start the war. It was already well under way before the U.S. got involved.

Mexican-American War: I'll give you this one, although it was definitely a fruitful war for the U.S.

Bill Clinton Wars - I wouldn't really call any of these wars, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm arguing on the side that Democrats don't really start wars, rather, enter existing wars or conflicts. And I've lot to see you name many more, because there were also several wars started under Republicans. Neither party is innocent, so making definitive statements or saying most wars were started by one party is just not true. Be correct or be fair, it's one or the other. And the Democratic party wasn't more or less founded with Thomas Jefferson, so that's just not true.

How did unemployment get to wars and who was responsible? O_o

Michigan's unemployment rate is 15%. Big deal.

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson a rebublican? I know I know, times were different at the time, but I think that's exactly the point I was getting at.

I think anything ~ 1920's and before really doesn't have anything to do with Republican/Democratic ideologies of today. The doctrine flipflops every once in a while.

So yeah the economy sucks. Mafoo argues that it would have been better for the Government to do nothing AKA Hoover and have it all burn down and fall faster so that we can start over faster.

Its like slowing down a burning building, as opposed to just razing the burning building and laying down the foundation the next day.

I think Obama is in a catch 22 at this point. If Obama had done NOTHING and just let all the companies fail, I'm pretty sure the public would complain about how he's standing by, twidling his thumbs as people are now living on the streets (and Halogamer and CommunistHater would be saying "see? Obama doesn't know what he's doing" and perhaps Mafoo would be the only one that would be happy).

Obama chose to spend money to at least invest into some infrastructure (i.e. discounts for more fuel efficient stuff, a la cash for clunkers) so at the end of the recession we'd be a set up to be more efficient. Also remember that some 40% of the stimulus package is tax cuts, certainly something the right wingers can get behind.

The whole AIG clusterf**k came from a bipartisan effort that was signed by Bush, so lets not lump that into the Obama administration. GM technically was bailed out by Obama, but their bailout was somewhere to the tune of 25 billion (which, admittedly, is still a lot of money) which is dwarfed by the 700+ billion needed to bail out AIG and co.