It is so typical that libs think wars of the CENTCOM nature are won in a month or two.  They are won over a long time and the countries are stabilized over decades.  Lest you forget we were squabbling, sectatarian violence filled states with a week central govt during the Articles of Confederation period and now are the world's superpower. 

Also, have you ever talked to ppl in OEF or OIF?  I have.  It is not AT ALL like the doomsday picture on MSNBC or CNN.  Ask them if they want to go back and most will say "Yes, to finish to job."  Most guys play Halo 3 and play soccer with the Iraqi kids anyway since we are not allowed in the cities without PERMISSION from the Iraqis since.  SoFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreemen  Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that are sore subjects.  That is because they are wars.  This is not like the rebuilding of Germany and Japan so it will not be "quick and easy."

So as for your other point, yes, WWII was fought and won under a two Dem but it was also Roosevelt that allowed business with the Nazis and the Japanese for a substantial amount of time until basically he knew he couldn't play isolationist anymore.  The majority of top brass on he ground were Republicans (Eisenhower).  Ppl forget that Hitler was the leader of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party, something adored by the Western world's liberal academics. 

Please do your research.  I am not telling you what to do or what to say but to be a part of an informed electorate.  I don't care if you are a Dem, Libertarian, etc.  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." 

No.

The first Republican President was Abe Lincoln.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat.

Or more specifically a "Democratic Republican".  Eventually Republican got taken off when it split into multiple parties.

Touche, but still I stand by my point. The ideologies have shifted so much that you really can't compare today's democratic party to the democratic party 200 years ago. Remember the south used to be 100% democrat all the way up until the 60's, and then they all switched and now most are republican to this day.

Halogamer, would you kindly shut the hell up? I'm sick of you sayin that everything you disagree with is just some bullshit that's typical of libs. It's the most annoying thing ever, and it makes you look like a complete idiot. I never said wars were won in a month or two, but when they're over, they're over. They're won when they're won. The Civil War didn't include Reconstruction, just the 4 years of fighting that went on. Going from a colonial era America to a modern superpower wasn't a war, that was just the natural growth of our country. You have the most incredibly odd ideas for what a war are, and it baffles me to how you come up with some of them.

No, I don't believe I've talked to anyone in OEF or OIF, although I wouldn't be surprised if I talked to one of them without knowing it. You can't argue that Iraq somehow turned out well. We went in, had thousands of our soldiers die, killed and/or displaced thousands of Iraqis, spent over a trillion dollars (even a trillion isn't something to be taken lightly), and still haven't done anything substantial with the country. It may, with an optimistic viewpoint, finally see stabilization after half a dozen years of occupation. This could have been accomplished more quickly, and I don't see it being accomplished all that easily anyways. What happens when we leave Iraq? Democracy kicks in, the people are happy, and Iraq is forever a paragon of the Middle East? Do you really believe that some limited occupation will be fruitful for Iraq when the previous years weren't? Rebuilding Germany and Japan is nothing like destroying and then rebuilding Iraq.

Roosebelt did business with the Germans (not sure why you just called them Nazis, take a history class) and the Japanese, but mainly because he had no real reason to do otherwise. As it was seen by Americans for a while, this was yet another European war (similar to WW1). America had never been attacked, and had no reason to get involved. Once America had been attacked, or adequately threatened, they declared war. It didn't matter whether Eisenhower was fighting or not, he wasn't the president. I think some liberals in the west were fond of (and possibly still are fond of) socialist ideas, but Hitler also proposed extreme fascism. Few in the west supported that.

I'm sorry, maybe I will get informed. Maybe I'll get so informed that I'll agree with you on everything, because that's what doing research basically is. Thank god we have geniuses like you around to spew cliches and create nonsense points to frustrate others.

@Kasz  That is inaccurate but close. My party formed from a consolidation of Free-Soilers, Northern Whigs, N Dems, Know-Nothings (not the stupid party but the anti-immigrant/Catholic party), and several anti-slavery movements.  The Dem-Rep party dissolvement is the basis for the modern Dems led then by Jackson and the Whig Party. 

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h141.html

-------

@That Guy  Obama chose to reward Democratic districts under the guise of the ARRA.  AIG was indeed bailed out under Bush and I disagreed with him on that.  Most of this subprime packaging mess came from the Community Reinvestment Act, however (a Dem inititive).  It essentially defined poor and rich areas and basically pushed banks to lend to poor folks to get them into homes, get them a good start, no more discrimination - basically Democratic affirmative action x10.  In the 2000s certain ppl came up with the then bright and risky idea of bundling subprimes and it led to trillions in profits.  However the guys knew it was risky and it led to a collosal bubble.  Now Bush tried to overhaul Freddie and Fannie in 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print  McCain tried to do financial reform in 2005: http://tinyurl.com/5t3jts  Both failed due to the Dems like Dodd and Barney "Elmer Fudd Banking Queen" (sorry couldn't help it) Frank and pals who got SWEET deals from AIG.

Chris Dodd donor info for the 2008 cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&type=C&cid=N00000581&newMem=N&recs=20

Frank donor info for 2008: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000275&type=I

Top industries to donate to them: Hey what do ya know?  Financials and real estate + bailed out banks.  Hmmm.....coincidence?

I would encourage you to read Catastrophe by Dick Morris.  He advised Bill Clinton and takes a no BS nonpartisan look at the leadup to the 2008 mess.  http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophe-Dick-Morris/dp/006177104X/

I never said American democracy was the goal for Iraq and Afghanistan.  I was referring to the overall boots on the ground mission and length thereof.  For the war part, yes, the US was not at war during the AoConf but it had several small scale revolutions that were put down, i.e. Whiskey Rebellion.  That is what I was comparing Iraq c. 2009 to as to a 2050 Iraq.  Will it blossom, maybe.  Will it go to hell, maybe as well.  On that I have a sense of why you are against the wars.  However, you have to look at it from not 1 perspective but from all perspectives including Republican and military.  I do Dem research all the time.  I don't want to argue with anyone but I do want to have a good debate in which ALL can learn from.

Now on the WWII point, let me clarify.  In war, generals and JCOS advise the Pres, not the other way around.  So Eisenhower and US troops (of which my great-grandfather was one - CB WWII) won the war as well as Roosevelt/Truman.  When I said Nazis that is what the Germans were from '33 to '45.  I like debating w/ you Montana as you are kind of like me but from the oppositer side of the spectrum which is OK.  Like I said before I am not trying to recruit you for the GOP

Edit:  Sorry 4 the double.

Not quite.

State transitions in the south from Democrat to Republican aren't quite as long ago as you'd think. It's only been within the past ~20 years that the Republicans have gained a foothold in the South. Not only this, the South has been very balkanized when it's come to presidential elections prior to the shift, as they voted for 3rd parties in 2 elections.

Few examples:

• In 1976, Carter won almost every Southern state, except for Virginia. Nixon won every state north of the Mason-Dixon line, and west and north of Texas.
• In 1968, George Wallace won 4 Southern states (LA, AL, MI and GA)
• Between 1860-1880, Republicans did very well in the South. It was only at and after 1880 that Democrats carried the smaller southern votes.
• Prior to 1860, Democrats did not control the south in any meaningful form. Even in 1860, when Lincoln was elected, the South strongly favored Breckenridge and Bell, rather than Douglas.

I'd argue a lot of the reason the South was so pro-Democrat was that they attempted to create an rasist power base. When the 15th amendment was being adopted, Democrats were fiercely against the bill, having struck down the initial bill in the late 1860's, while Republicans upheld the bill. Odd how the south went Republican during 2 specific times: When slaves were freed, and when blacks got equal rights in the 60's.

When is said "Republican got taken off" I meant that Republican was taken off the name and it became the Democrats.

I know how the republicans were formed.

Actually, Montana isn't from the opposite side of the spectrum. Your very authoritarian and moderately right on economic issues. Montana is right of center, with more libertarian ideologies when it comes to social values (as is Kasz, with myself being extreme right on economic issues, and moderate on social issues). The problem is that we can't really argue from a right/left or lib/conservative standpoint because the fact is that few people truly fit that mold. There are a lot of right-wingers that are more libertarian like the GOP was many years ago before it got its  crazy neo-con streak going. In fact, it may surprise you that at one point, Republicans were non-interventionist.

I am actually very conservative.  I think Keynesian economics is a laughable farce, intrusion except for war surveillance is bad, states should decide what is best not the feds (strong Federalist 45 support), etc.  I tend to favor laissez-faire economics actually.  I am very conservative on social issues but when running for office in the future I would not focus on those (sort of like Bob McDonnell's campaign is doing).  I am not an isolationist in any sense.  I favor preemption only in the case of severe threats to the US.  Anything else I favor CIA Ops/Delta/DEVGRU insertions.  I not for censorship.  110% 2nd Amendment support.