Deep down do a lot of Republicans want the wars to end as bad as many of us do?

[NNN0LHI]

They just don't want to say it for fear of being painted as weak on defense. And they certainly don't want them to end under a Republican administration. Because if they did end under a Republican administration they won't be able to blame everything bad that happens there after we leave on the Dems.

Anyone else suspect there is a lot of this kind of sentiment among the wing nuts?

Don

[LakeSamish706]

1. You know I think one problem with the Republicans is that we have an extreme fringe Right wing group

that dictates to all Repugs. how they should act. God help those that don't tow the line, they will be out casts for sure. We see this in Congress, day in and day out. I bet that there are some not so bad Repugs. in the group, if they were allowed to voice their true opinions. This makes them sheep for certain, and with that said they do not have a voice of there own. JMHO of course.

[lonestarnot]

25. No. War machines always do better under a pug financially. War is their lifeblood.

Money main line. Dead bodies mean nothing to them. They get off on it.

[area51]

28. +1

The so-called "pro-life" republicans have no interest in saving soldiers' or civilians' lives. They're perfectly fine with wars of choice, as long as they don't have to fight them.

If they were really "pro-life", they'd end the wars of choice, be against the death penalty, and fight for single-payer health care.

[customerserviceguy]

2. I think they do want the wars to end

but they want them to end under Obama so that Democrats look weak. I think they all remember how weak Ford looked when we buggered out of Vietnam, they want Obama to look the same way, so they can say, "We were winning under Bush, and we would have won under McCain, but we lost under Obama."

I think everybody in this country's just as tired of Iraq and Afghanistan as they were with Vietnam. It's just a matter of who gets the blame for it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. If things were worse either place I'd agree with you

Obama seems to winding down both wars responsibly and I'm not sure how he will look weak as long as our withdrawal from Iraq and/or Afghanistan doesn't look like the 1975 "Fall of Saigon".

[customerserviceguy]

15. Frankly, I think both places will go to hell in a handbasket

as soon as we leave. You have Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq, and Taliban vs. everyone else in Afghanistan. The smart ones are keeping their powder dry for the day when we're no longer around to interfere with the revenge some of them have waited centuries for. The really stupid ones are blowing things up right now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Well, we can't stay in either place in perpetuity

and, yes, things might get worse once we leave but we never should've been in Iraq and opened up that can of worms and if Bush hadn't been jonesing to get his war on in Iraq and focused more on finishing things up in Afghanistan, the situation there probably wouldn't be quite as bad (and may possibly be better). Obama is IMHO trying to make the best out of a bad situation but Bush left both areas such a mess, I don't even know if anybody could truly "fix" them.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Agree with all you've said

but there still will be a sorting out of who's the alpha dog in both places. It would have happened in Iraq when Saddam died, anyway. It's just too damn bad that a bunch of Americans died for absolutely nothing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Amen to THAT!

When everybody started talking about invading Iraq in 2002, I had SEVERAL :wtf: moments. I was also convinced that Colin Powell would be able to talk Bush down from this insanity but when he came out in favor of the invasion and did his little UN "presentation" in 2003, I knew that the insanity would prevail.

SH was an evil bastard no doubt about it and sons were psychos but they weren't a threat to us and I had absolutely no idea how we could be so worried about Iraq attacking us when they couldn't even breach the no-fly zones, shoot down our planes, or threaten any surrounding countries. Of course, that's not what it was all about, of course...............

[CrispyQ]

3. I don't think they do.

The elite are happy to tout the need for war, in the name of national defense, as a way to siphon off the treasury. The politicians (not just repubs!) are happy to have the MIC fill their campaign coffers. And the teabaggers, while complaining of big government & entitlements that benefit the People, don't say a word about the money wasted on the two wars.

[Still Sensible]

4. Only at the point that they perceive the

wars--by some turn of events--can be successfully portrayed as Obama's failure and not Bush-Cheney's fault, will republicans in any significant numbers oppose the wars. Unless and until that happens, they have too big a stake. The right wing has too much political posturing vested in being the hawks--and portraying democrats as wimps--and some of their biggest institutional sources of cash are making a fortune.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Well they've been "free" to say it for nearly two years now

now that Obama is POTUS and I haven't seen any indication that their support has waned for either of them but, yeah, I figured that they would NEVER pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan until they were out of office lest they look "weak" or like they "surrendered". Of course, I suspect that many of them probably thought that both wars go down in flames under President Obama and that he'd look bad because they left him THEIR messes to clean up but that, of course, hasn't happened and both wars appear to be on track to end responsibly (as Obama promised). Tom Coburn has suddenly decided that we shouldn't just keep writing "blank checks" for the wars and that we should have to figure out how to pay for them- which is great that he's suddenly decided to become so fiscally responsible-but I haven't heard any Republican other than Ron Paul actually speak out against Iraq and certainly not on Afghanistan- at least not in any significant numbers. Frankly, I think most wingnuts LOVE war-particularly against muslims- and some of them would want MORE wars if they could get them. I think that if Cheney could've found a way to get Bush to bomb/invade, the wingnuts would've eagerly jumped on board with it. Of course, things get topsy-turvey whenever Democrats are in the WH. Whenever Democratic Presidents launch a military operation (i.e. Bosnia), then winguts will suddenly become radical peaceniks and "doves" and unleash all kinds of unpatriotic (according to their personal standards) attacks on our commander-in-chief.

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. Libertarians, yes. But they also want to dismantle the Depts of Education, Energy

as well as the IRS among other lunacy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. I thought that most libertarians believe that the military

is one of the handful of things that they believe the federal government SHOULD do? :shrug:

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. Defending our borders ONLY.

Libs are opposed to foreign intervention.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Oh. O.k.

Gotcha. I'm apparently not very well versed in Libertarianism suffice it to say that I regard them as being *slightly* less insane Republicans, at least in terms of how they approach social issues.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. If you ever meet one, ask them their views on the Air Force

Given that the USAF wasn't in the "original Constitution", you should get an interesting response.

[terrapinwelcher]

23. Ruby, Are You Joking?

Neither were interstate highways or the Food and Drug Administration. There are lots of great arguments to go head to head with the repugs, but yours seems awfully flimsy.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. I am not talking about the GOP. Libertarians are a different breed.

Womens right to vote, civil liberties - there is a host that you can throw at this "Constitution only" crowd.

[terrapinwelcher]

29. You Miss The Point

I am in favor of adhering to the Constitution. It's what makes this country a land of laws that we can live in safely and conduct our lives and business in without worrying so much about legal favoritism. The Constitution is not an all-inclusive document, nor did it ever claim to be. My point is that the FDA is legal under Article 1 of the Constitution. It is not however, called that or even referred to by another name. The USAF is also authorized by Article 1 because it authorizes a Navy and an Army. FYI, the USAF was a part of the Army as the Army Air Corps until 1947 when it became its own branch. But to say that by some twisted logical extension that the USAF is not authorized by the Constitution, you would have to say that federal oversight of telecommunications is prohibited because it is not only not enumerated in the Constitution, but didn't even exist as a technology at the time of its writing. You can't have it both ways. I have seen those sites that attempt to refute so-called "constitutionalists" with this argument, and it is extremely flawed as I have pointed out. We can win our arguments based upon superior ideology. We don't need to resort to gamesmanship that would fail to pass muster with a high school debate judge.

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. No, you miss the point

I am not a Libertarian. I am not promoting a Libertarian view.

[terrapinwelcher]

32. I'm Not Either

So what the hell are you promoting? Do what you damn well please, willy-nilly as long as it agrees with Ruby?

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. I'm not promoting anything. I answered the war question and then

you went off on some incomprehensible rant about nothing.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MerryBlooms]

9. No, I don't think they do.

I think a shitload of them are void of any 'feelings'. No empathy, no nothing, except for how much money ends up in their bank account. I have zero hope for them and have decided the majority of 'them' are now waging a war against the United States and should be treated as enemy combatants. Fuck 'em ... but not in a good way.

[zeemike]

10. Perhaps some do, but not the core of the GOP

The core is authoritarian and look at war and conquest as some glorious achievement. That kind of person does not care how many die as long as they are not the ones having to risk their life to fight it.
the core of the party are sociopaths who do not see or feel any sense of loss and tragedy when others die....they feel noting unless that death enhances their own position in some way...then they feel happy.

[emilyg]

14. Yes.

The ones I know do.

[David Zephyr]

18. I can't answer that question. But I know they like starting wars more than we do.

They jump at just the mention of war.

[terrapinwelcher]

22. Sorry David

We may be anti-war as a voting base, but the records of Truman (Korea), Kennedy/Johnson (Vietnam) and Clinton (Balkans and Somalia) hardly speak well of our party's WH occupants.

[David Zephyr]

24. It's not that clean cut anymore.

I organized and worked against the Vietnam War in the 1960's. So you won't find me defending Democrats who have itchy fingers for war. My brother is seriously suffering with Parkinson's because of Agent Orange right now and can no longer live in his own home. He went to that war under Lyndon Johnson who escalated the shit out of our involvement there.

Truman: Yes. No question. I agree with you.

Kennedy: Now, that's still an open debate on this, because any fair assessment of this shows he more than just signaled he wanted out. And, Kennedy did not start that mess. The Pentagon Papers are very clear as to when that war began...it began under Eisenhower. I am not excusing the novice JFK, but he seasoned very quickly and he deserves a lot of credit. So quickly that he circumvented his Generals during the Missile Crisis (he learned the hard way from trusting Allen Dulles before) looking for a peaceful solution. And he achieved it.

Johnson: Yes. No question.

Carter: You didn't mention him. And President Jimmy Carter deserves to be in this context since he was a Democrat in the White House and, when at least 1/3 of the country was screaming to attack Iran, he did not do it. He was wise not to have, especially in light of this nation's ugly history in 1953 in Iran (Eisenhower).

Clinton on the Balkans: First, I will be candid with you and tell you that Bill did the right thing there.

Clinton on Somalia: Remember, George H.W. Bush mischievously stuck us into that mess just weeks before Bill was sworn into office. Somalia was not started by Bill Clinton, no more than the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was started by Barack Obama(both of these two wars, by the way, I opposed and you can see my posts clear back to 2001 where I was among only a handful here at the DU posted against invading Afghanistan).

Leaving aside Johnson (no argument), Democrats in the White House since Vietnam have been very leary of engaging American troops into hot wars.

Let's not overlook Nixon's involvement in Vietnam along with that of Gerald Ford.

Let's remember Reagan's shit in Central America. His blunder in Lebanon.

Be mindful of Poppy Bush's Desert Storm run by the son of the same man who helped overthrow the Democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953. Or Poppy Bush's invasion of Panama to capture his own former puppet.

And of course, the grand-daddy idiot of all times, George W. Bush, who took us into two stupid wars by fabricating evidence and systematically lying to the American people, never mind scaring them shitless.

History is never black and white. It never will be. But I'm a lot more comfortable knowing a Post Vietnam Democrat is in the White House than a Republican. That said, Obama needs to exit Afghanistan. There's nothing to "win".

[terrapinwelcher]

26. I Don't Think It Was Ever Clean Cut

They all seem to have the same mindset no matter what they profess. BTW, I didn't mention Carter because I was only mentioning presidents who got us into wars. He did have that less than half-assed special ops rescue attempt, but that was about it. I didn't mention the GOP presidents because I was simply pointing out that it's not a one-sided issue. And I agree that Obama needs to bring the troops home. I have been very disappointed with his performance on that issue to date.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. No because they figured out a long time ago that they don't actually have to get killed

They took their cue from John Wayne and Ronnie Reagan and never looked back.

[Mariana]

20. I absolutely think some want the wars to end.

They want to end them by exterminating the populations of the countries involved.

[w8liftinglady]

30. I think if we were closer to a draft...

one thing I noticed as I advocated for wounded and homeless veterans-people are really unaware of how our troops are disregarded and the conditions they endure,as well as the effect these wars have on their home nations.There is a media void when reporting the wars.