adrtho, I agree that more than a few Democrats have been fairly belligerent and/or immoral but gotten away with it because people are too stupid to analyse their actions objectively and instead focus on Republicans.

But I think it's very rough to call Wilson, FDR and JFK warmongers.

Wilson had no intention of entering the First World War. By the time of 1917, there was widespread public opinion in the States in favour of entering the war because the Germans had sunk the Lusitania. Congress wanted war. The American people wanted war. They were jubilant when it was declared.

Apparently, after his address to Congress, Wilson went away and cried. Hardly the actions of a warmonger.

The Second World War was actually a kind of war in which there was a moral imperative to fight (unless one is a pacifist like Ghandi and that's a valid and respectable position).

Although the Allies were responsible for gross atrocities against German and Japanese civilian populations (disproportionate to war aims), there was an overall need to fight Nazism and Japanese expansionism.

It was humanitarian to do so. If our governments had intervened in Rwanda in 1994 it wouldn't have been warmongering. It would have been humanitarian intervention, as with the Second World War.

Plus, by the time FDR declared war, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. Most of America wanted war.

As for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say JFK averted nuclear disaster.

"Trump will conquer the Lizard people!!!111"

- MVFC11, 433, other idiots

hairstyle???? :lol:

she move her views left

sure it is...FDR want to go to war in 1939...

Yet again talking shit. In 1939 FDR actually reiterated that the US wouldn't be joining the war effort. When Germany invaded Poland is when he decided to help with manufacturing for the French and British, not send troops in.

:lol:

that because the US people didn't support it,,,,FDR was active moving US to war, long before Japan attack

So FDR is a warmonger because he was opposed to the Nazis?

Shit multi tbh

no...but he was very good at it

FDR was very active in 1930s , he tried repealed the Neutrality Acts , he started builting up US military in 30s, but the US public and U.S. Congress were very much isolationist,,,if it want'ts for FDR , there no way US could have gone from 150,000 men in military, to 14 million in 4 years ...we are all lucky that FDR was a warmonger

richard nixon is look at for being a warmonger, but the Vietnam War wasn't his war..the fact nixon get in the white house and try to win the war is normal


Edited by adrtho: 20/3/2016 02:46:26 PM

Appropriate for the two of you, then.

I want either Trump or Sanders in the White House.

God damnit. Why isn't trump promising world war 3 with Russia, like Hilary and Sanders

Imagine a Republican president visiting Cuba.
Wouldn't fit with the right wing ideology of simplism & demonisation....:lol: :lol: :lol:

US foreign policy is pretty bipartisan, and has largely been so for a long time. The whole left/right wing being pro/anti war is specious. This is especially so when you move beyond rhetoric, and analyse the actions undertaken.

I would look at George W Bush as an outlier, and call out the removal of Saddam as something uniquely "warmongering" in the modern era. Especially in terms of scale.

The Kosovo war under Clinton was done for humanitarian motivations. There was no national strategic interest in being involved. Same with the intervention in Somalia.

Clinton is no more or less a war monger than any other candidate. Sanders would be the only candidate of either party that would be less likely to engage in military actions overseas.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 21/3/2016 09:52:10 AM

I saw a conspiracy about Trump paying people to protest at his rallies.

It would make sense, look at the crowd reactions to protestors being kicked out/assaulted.

Indeed. I find the people protesting loudly and trying to disrupt rallies to be undemocratic.

It's also counter-productive. Every time this happens, Trump comes off looking better :lol:

There is an evil multi-billionaire funding these protests, and it's not Donald Trump.

Pretty pathetic that you have to hide behind a multi to get your point across.

#Diversityisourstrength #letthemin

[youtube]watch?v=42jpuXJPk0w[/youtube]

George soros has a lot to answer for

:lol: Youtube and the Daily Mail.

i love George Soros...i read his book at 17 years old , The Alchemy of Finance, fuck it was so hard to understand, i did learn alot of new big words :lol:

George Soros is old now, i wouldn't listen to much he says today

Edited by adrtho: 21/3/2016 09:20:37 PM

Soros can't die soon enough.

just as reputable as gawker and john oliver

speaking of which, what a depressingly sad little man he is. his latest sketch on trump and the nude pic leaks of his wife from left leaning voters/politicians who likely spoke out on the fappening are disgusting.

why? what has he done that so evil? what, betting that a currency goes up and down? Australia dollars goes up and down all the time

Soros, don't have or never has had any real power

the people? what people? do you mean Republican members? or the non Republican who get a chance to vote ?

as Ted Cruz is putting the proposal up in congress, the people don't get a voted there to

Edited by adrtho: 23/3/2016 03:31:10 AM

but Trump not a Republican....Trump is nothing more then Americans Pauline Hanson

Montana GOP officials fight to 'close' primary, in complication for Trump

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/21/montana-gop-officials-fight-to-close-primary-in-complication-for-trump.html

Trump got no chance to win running as a Republican anyway

if you think Trump got a good chance to win...you should back Trump with money and become rich ..You can get Trump at $5.00 to become US presidents 2016