During a war, who do you feel safer with?
 

a dem or a repub? a lot of ppl on the news, etc claim that historically the country feels "safer" with a republican as commander in chief. do you agree with that? if you do/don't, why or why not?

would you have felt better/safer/more at ease after 9/11 if a dem was in office and had responded in a different way?

it's some speculation about how different parties re-act to things.....but in general.

.....hopefully that makes sense :p

party-wise, I don't know, but I sure as hell was glad Bush was in office instead of Gore. Although if it would have been a different Dem that might have been a different story.

it ain't the party...
 

it's the person who's in office that matters.

Re: it ain't the party...
 

I also think that it is the person and not the party.


I don't feel safe with the current president in office. If there are WMD out there, this admin claimed to know where they are and they haven't found them yet. So if they do exist, they are still out there and that makes me feel unsafe.

If they aren't really out there then I still don't feel safe having a president that lies to his people....

But I don't know if they are or aren't out there.

I'd rather not be at war. ;)

I diagree with almost everything Republicans do, so I don't think I can objectively answer that question. Also, I don't feel like I've experienced enough of those wars in the capacity that I could fully comprehend what was going on. I was in 6th grade during Desert Storm, so I don't really remember feeling safe or not...or even really remembering that I fully understood what was going on and what all the issues were. I would have to say I would prefer to have a Dem. in office ANYTIME, especially during wartime.

Yes, I would have felt a lot safer after 9-11 if a Democrat was in office because I believe they would have handled it in a different way than Bush did. I don't feel any safer...so we have a color-code now that everyone ignores because it's always being raised. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? And how did going after Sadaam punish Osama for 9-11? I don't know what a Dem. would have done, or that I would feel any safer, but I know that I don't feel safe under current leadership. Lord only knows when and what "intelligence" we'll get and they'll go blow up another country and be at war again.

But I do have to agree with the previous posters that it's the person and not the party that counts. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats.

You're one of those people that says a million things and doesn't give reasons for them. I mean if you hate war so much what did it matter whether our war on terrorism hasn't shown Osama?

-Rudey

The Vietnam War crossed a couple of Republican and a couple of Democratic administrations. I don't think any of them did a particularly good job, because they didn't allow the military to execute the war. Targets were chosen for political reasons, rather than strategic. We could (would) have won that war had the professional military been allowed to wage it.

I think that President Bush has done a reasonably good job of allowing that to happen in this war -- although I'm still not convinced we should have fought it at all.

I agree, in the long run, that it is the person, not the party that makes the difference.

How do I say a million things and not give reasons for them? Why should I have to justify my opinions to you or anyone else?

And why do we have to wage war or be at war to get rid of Osama or any other terrorists? My reasoning: there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Why should I have to justify my opinions to you or anyone else?

-Rudey
--Thanks for playing the game.

Oh I get it now - you don't like people who oppose you or your opinions. You're one of those people who are ALWAYS right I bet. And if someone says something that you don't agree with, you have to act like a complete jerk because you're not intelligent or mature enough to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE their opinion might be valid or that there is more than one way to think or act.

Boy, you've really put me in my place and exposed me for who I really am.

Dear Lord please let me grow up and be as smart as Rudey one day. Forgive me for being so dumb and silly and allow me to think on my own for once. Amen.

Republican
 

It was the policy decisions, and tolerance of attacks against American targets by the Clinton administration that brought us 9-11. Moral equivication is a hallmark of modern Democratic defense policy, so, without question, I don't just feel safer, but we are all much safer with a Republican administration then what the Democrats have to offer.

Someone who has been to war, regardless of party
 

I'm tired of people who didn't go to war sending others to war. Hiding out in the National Guard (or Oxford - for Rudey) is a chickenshit way to face the draft. IMHO, they have no experience in war, so they have no business sending others into harms way.

And, I happen to know first hand from a DC cabdriver who I don't doubt has al queda connections, if Gore had won the election, 9/11 never would have happened. The Middle East hates the Bush family. And I'm sure a cabdriver of Middle Eastern origin would know those things for a fact, right?;)

i also totally agree that it is the person, not the party.....just asking in general terms......i think you all got that, though, just wanted to make myself clear. :)

so since clinton had even less experience in dealing with a war, he was right in never putting into action the documents he signed about ridding the world of saddam? makes sense...... :not rolling eyes, just raising an eyebrow: that's why the president has advisors and consults with ppl. i'm sure that just b/c a person is the leader of a country, it doesn't mean he has done everything that he needs others to do. and just b/c a man is president, it doesn't mean he is perfect or has all the answers......but if he can get with the right ppl, he can hopefully come up with a solution. there will never be a president that everyone thinks is superman or a genius. clinton was a man-ho, bush is an idiot.....that kind of stuff will go on forever.

i'm trying to take this in the light-hearted way i am pretty sure you meant it.....but just to stir the pot ;)---does that mean we should elect someone under the thinking that he won't upset the terrorists? why do you think middle easterners hate the bush family? b/c they want to stop the terror they cause.

the question is: based on party policies, etc....which is the best to have in office during a time of war?

:)

FDR had no experience in war.

Dear Lord, don't use intelligence in the same post about you and I. You said you don't have to justify yourself - that was your defense of your beliefs so leave mine be.

-Rudey

Re: Someone who has been to war, regardless of party
 

They volunteered for the army and all possible wars.

-Rudey
--And I don't do poor English universities.

You obviously don't know how to read.

Re-read my original post. I mean, seriously READ it...for what it really says and not for what you think I'm saying. I don't understand where you're missing my reasoning. It's all right there in the original post.

Sorry AlphaGamDiva for hijacking your thread. It was a good question. Too bad I don't know how to think or I might be able to give an intelligent answer. :confused:

You don't make sense.

When asked your reasoning since you don't make sense, you tell me you don't have to provide your reasoning.

Now you claim you had reasoning and provided it.

-Rudey
--Like a half eaten Mars bar

The GOP can FUBAR an international situation just as much as Dems. Neither party has ever had an anti-war platform.

Most adults I know felt safer during Iraq War I, but GHWB was a lot more capable than his son.

I would feel safer with a Democrat. I think they would be likely not be over agressive and make things worse and more people join in against us.

What I said was I don't have to justify my opinions to you. Then the next line below that (in the very same post) I said there are other ways to get Osama without having to go to war. I said "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Whatever. If you don't like what I have to say then don't comment on it.

I don't feel safe with Bush in office at all. Regarding the WMD in Iraq and hunting down Sadaam, I think he either relied on false information, which means he's incompetent, or he lied to the country, which is dishonest. Neither of those are traits I think the leader of our country should possess. I think going after Osama (and whoever else was involved in 9-11) was about 1000 times more important than going after Sadaam.

What has Bush or his administration done to improve our country's protection since 9-11? We installed a terror alert system. No one I know pays any attention to that thing anyways because it's stupid. It's just Bush and his butt-monkeys sitting in Washington crying wolf all the time.

I also didn't agree with the way we starting invading Afghanistan shortly after 9-11. War is not the answer. I'm sorry, but that's what I think. War doesn't make me feel safe, whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in office. What was the result of those actions? We now have a country that hates us more than they already did, we pissed off other countries in the process, and we didn't find what we were looking for. There still has been no retribution for what was done to our country on 9-11. There never will be as long as Dubya is in office.

Another reason I don't feel safe is because it seems like Bush is running around waging war and blowing up whoever he feels like. What prevents another country from following his example and attacking us because they heard we're building anti-stupidity missiles? It's almost like he's inviting another country to wage war on us -- just so the next time he drops a bomb it will be justified. Oh wait...I forgot...he was justified for invading Iraq because they have all those WMDs. There's the retardation kicking in again. Forgive me.

It would be interesting to me to see how many wars were started by Democrats vs. Republicans. I can't remember offhand or even if I ever learned such a statistic, but maybe the reason the country feels safer with a Republican in the office during wartime is because a majority of the time the war was started BY the Republican in office. I don't know, just a thought.

And Rudey, if you consider a lost cause someone that doesn't agree with anything you say, then you should have gotten that clue and walked away a long time ago buddy. Sorry to waste your time.

WWI: Wilson (Democrat)
WWII: FDR (Democrat)
Korea: Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam: Kennedy (Democrat) (depending on your idea of "started")
Desert Storm: Bush the Elder (Republican)

Nice try.

I can take a poll of the DC cabdrivers that I ride with in the coming days. I don't know how cabdrivers are in Kentucky (do you have cabs in Kentucky), but in DC they don't hesitate to give their opinion on whatever is on their minds that day. Of course, carrying lobbyists and lawmakers, they probably figure every once in awhile their point of view might be taken seriously.

I just thought it was an extremely random conversation/lecture that I got from this man about 16 months after 9/11.

Like I said, it was just a thought. :D

Maybe that's why people feel safer with the Republicans then, because they aren't the ones going around starting the majority of the wars. I don't know. I would think that most people are probably going to base the answer to this question on their political affiliation.

As I mentioned in my original post, I don't have much experience of being around with all these wars going on. I base my preference only on what I know. I don't think I could sit here and say that I agree or disagree with what went on in, for example, Vietnam, because I wasn't alive during that time and I didn't experience a lot of the things most of the people did then. What you learn in history class is not necessarily the same as being there and experiencing it.

I know that I have a pretty strong opinion about the recent war, and since it was started by a Republican, I don't feel safe with a Republican in office.

ETA: If I had been alive during Vietnam, I probably would have been out there with the best of them, protesting the war. As I mentioned, I do not believe in war. And if a Democrat were in office right now, and they had started this war, I would be screaming for a replacement. Although the replacement would have to be another Democrat, of course. ;)

no, i agree that it is a random conversation.....all i'm saying (in response to the cab driver's thoughts) is what i put in my last post. are we supposed to elect someone who is going to be liked by Middle Eastern peoples/leaders? someone who is going to express concern but not do anything about it? hell, let's just let Middle Eastern countries vote in november.....maybe then they'll be happy.

i think no matter who was president, what happened on 9/11 would've still occured. i think things would have gone differently had gore been president at the time......but i don't think gore being in the presidential role would've been the deciding factor of 1000s of ppl's demise. the attack was against America, not bush. sure, saddam, osama, etc hate the bush family.....but again, think why they do. b/c of papa bush and iraq war #1....and they knew that baby bush would probably attempt to put a stop to their crimes as well. when clinton was elected, saddam celebrated.....he celebrated.....think about that. :eek:

and yes, we have cabs in kentucky. we also have shoes. who'd a thunk? :rolleyes:

Actually, I would argue it this way.

WWI: Kaiser Wilhelm
WWII: Adolph Hitler and Emperor Tojo
Korea: Can't remember who was running N. Korea Then
Vietnam: Eisenhower/Kennedy -- one of each, but they were dumb enough to inherit it from the French.
Desert Storm: Saddam when he invaded Kuwait.

Yes and legally the war in iraq never ended.

-Rudey

I think that history will look kindly upon GHWB. Assembling that coalition was a typr of political genius that is so rare, that it is almost mythological.

Ahem... some corrections are necessary above.

WWI: Kaiser Wilhelm II, along with the Austro-Hungrarian Empire and a few other "interlocking alliances".

WWII: Hideki Tojo was Prime and War Minister during the war. Emperor Showa (Hirohito when he was still alive) was the head of state. While Hirohito was largely a figurehead, many reports have surfaced that he was more invollved in the conduct of the war than once thought. Tojo got strung up after the war; the Emperor Showa continued his reign until the mid-1980s.

Korea: Kim Jong Il's daddy, Kim Il Sung (with more than a little prodding behind the scenes by ol' "Joe [the man of] Steel" (Josef Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, aka Josef Stalin) and Mao Tse Tung (or more familiar in the current Chinese spelling as Mao Zedong).

Vietnam: Nguyen Ai Quoc, better known by his nom de guerre Ho Chi Minh. And yes, we inherited the clusterf*ck from the Froggies.

Gulf War I and II - Saddam al-Hussein al-Tikriti. Rudey's right about the war in I-rack never ending - it was a violation of the terms of the terms of the cease fire and of UN resolutions.

Yeah, I have to admit that all of the names came off the top of my head, and I didn't check them for accuracy.

The point I had hoped to make is that US Presidents, for the most part, didn't "start" most of those wars.

In fact, the two World Wars were being contested long before we joined them.

We finished them, though -- helping our allies.

We won both World Wars with a dem in charge. Think about that. The whole planet went ape shit at the same time, twice, and no battles on U.S. soil. Perl harbor was a sneak attack, not a battle, if you were gonna try to call me out. The point is, the entire world was killing each other, there was battle everywhere, but not here. that is pretty safe.

Ahem... minor correction - the Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands in 1942 - the only piece of the North American continent taken by the Japanese. Not to forget the German U-boat sinkings of merchant ships within sight of the U.S. mainland. The Japanese flew unmanned firebomb balloons that were supposed to land within the continental United States and burn the forests of the Pacific Northwest; only a few did accomplish their mission.

Technically, while Alaska, Hawaii and the Philippines were territories of the United States, they were very much U.S. soil at the time. Granted, there were no battles that took place in the Continental U.S.

Okay fine, but we still kicked their asses back to their own island and off our terrorities, and after the intial invasion were beaten back, its not like the held on to them for very long, otherwise it would have been taught to me in my overly nationalistic elementrary school.

In my opinion, the man in office is more important than the political affiliation of the president. With that being said, I am def. happy that Pres. Bush was the commander and chief. Gore is an unstable man, which he displayed so well in his speech given a few weeks ago. For crying out loud he made Dean's I have a scream speech seem normal. Over the past few years Gore has def. become a raving liberal (after all he endorsed Dean). Bush deserves a little more credit from the American public for serving as president under very difficult times. Pres. Clinton's two terms were mild in comparison to Bush's (Come on, Clinton had enough spare time to get blowjobs from a lousy slut).

http://www.starwars.jp/character/ima...ral_ackbar.jpg

I win, thank you.

This discussion is over.