Originally Posted by Snow Fairy Sugar
Bush may be a failbot I'm afraid...he's one big loser. But yeah, as I've pointed out- Democrats usually tend to start the wars.
Warren Harding(Republican) was preceded by Woodrow Wilson(Democratic)- responsible for World War One. "He kept us out of the war!"
Richard Nixon(Republican) was preceded by Lyndon B Johnson(Democratic), Vietnam war guy. And America gained nothing from the war.
Ronald Reagan(Republican) was preceded by Jimmy Carter(Democratic) who was president during the Cold War tensions/unrest in 1979, which soon cooled down under R.R.
George Bush Jr(Republican) was preceded by Bill Clinton(Democratic), guy who was one of the main reasons Middle East was so mad at us, and Al Qaida struck in months. Of course, Bush screwed up America quite a bit, and there is no denying that there are exceptions in both Democrats and Republicans. However military spending's far higher in Democratic controlled Congress...as testified by Congressman Ron Paul.
“That is my sense because the Democratic leaders in the House are proposing no resistance whatsoever, (Congressman) Ron Paul said. “We saw this when a supplemental bill came up and the president asked for $107 billion for the war, the Democrat leadership gave them $162 billion."
There is no way that they made a mistake, and thought 162 billion < 107 billion. Not to mention pro-war stocks climb during Democratic rules.
Besides, look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us...s/06obama.html Change got torpedoed into Clinton era.
And finally...our system is a debt based economic system. While in other countries, more gold/precious metals = more money, American system works on more debt = more money. So until that can be righted, you cannot call debt a bad thing.
your line on wilson is a stickman, or bad wording at best... somtimes its best not to omit words, especially if it completely changes the meaning of the sentence "Responsible for [US involvement in] World War One".
aside from that, wilson was a much more dynamic character than you let on. he initially opposed the war for his first time, and it was only once he perceived that Germany was a threat TO AMERICA due to their unrestricted submarine warfare that he began to advocate for US involvement... that, to me, seems more like a "country first" stance than a blatantly pro-war stance. times were extreme, germany was trying to give mexico incentives to wage war on us.... and even if "mexico sucks", that's still a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY. country-first... I can see it.
ill give it to you that LBJ was a nut. we'd have been much better off if JFK hadn't been shot... but what can ya do?
... but onto jimmy carter. you're blaming HIM, of all people, for the cold war and calling him pro-war? i think the people on the nobel prize committee would disagree, they gave him the nobel PEACE prize you know.. not a war medal. the cold war began at the end of WWII, and MANY republicans such as nixon and ford were presidents during it.
dont even try arguing that the carter doctrine was a "democratic pro-war stance" because the reagan corollary actually EXPANDED the influence of the carter doctrine. you probably know (whether you'd let on or not) that what carter did was state that america would get involved if any outside power tried to control it... this was a strategy to prevent the soviets from getting too much power/oil. reagan then not only supported this, but also pledged to maintain INTERNAL security within the area... not just an indirect protection of the US from russia gaining power.
these policies paved the way for Operation Desert Storm... which occurred during george HW bush's (REPUBLICAN) presidency. yet you blame clinton for the middle east... hmm, a carter/reagan blame seems more appropriate unless you have compelling evidence.
doctrines are a tricky thing though, because even before carter there were the NIXON and EISENHOWER (both REPUBLICANS) doctrines, which had to do with foreign interventionism in the middle east. its just, over time policies become more extreme and "warmaking, spreading our ways..." rather than "peacekeeping, protecting our ways..."
and using an example of that occurrence of war correlates with democratic presidents as proof that democrats cause wars is a fallacy. if something occurs during the time one is president, it does not mean its their fault or it would have happened any other way if the other party was in office.
also saying that because parties have HISTORICALLY acted one way it is proof that the party today acts the same way is untrue. parties are dynamic. i think its a good thing that democrats are now stepping up to the plate and realizing we have gone overboard on interventionism foreign policy. you've heard it before i'm sure, but the republicans generally run with a neo-conservative perspective at this point in time. ron paul "return to the gold standard, recall the troops!" is definitely NOT the norm.
furthermore, clearly you havent read the text of ANY of the supplemental spending bills. yes, on first glance there are more republican who vote against the war spending bills. but to say "that's because republicans are less for war spending!" is a fallacy. if you read ANY year's war bills, you'll see that the democrats have tacked on many MANY amendments. these go to domestic agencies such as the FDA or department of energy, etc. Since the president lacks a line item veto, he's got to approve all that crazy democrat "america-first" spending in order to get a war budget passed at all. despite his proclamations that he'd veto any bill which goes over his asked for amount... the democrats don't allow that, NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FUND HIS WAR, but so he'll fund domestic causes as well.
also, the NY times article on "anti-change" is pop-politics at its finest. most presidents retain some vetted white house officials who KNOW HOW TO DO HIS JOB. however, the article fails to mention several significant matters. These are guys from the white house of Clinton LATE in his presidency, once Clinton got wise and started pulling real public servants into his administration. initially, clinton had picked several inexperienced "friends" of his, and his white house got off to a slow start. eventually, when these guys proved inept, he got people who knew the job and could get things done. obama is not merely saying "ohhh you served with clinton? you're on!", he's picking the BEST of the possible choices... and these guys were used in the late-clinton era? that's not going to affect obama's decision, apparently. however ill tell you this: if mark mclarty (clinton's kindergarten friend and first chief of staff) ends up on obamas team then i'll give in and admit he's not change.
due to your correlating american presidents with WORLD wars rather than noting that the US isnt the only country that affects the world and your belief that other countries still use the gold standard (protip: no govenment currency backs itself with gold anymore), i believe your understanding of foreign policy is significantly flawed. also, i ask that you take a more objective and in depth look at domestic policy rather than just reiterating headlines and paulisms.