Are Republicans pro-war?

Not any more than the Democrats.

I’m not a Republican but I have many friends and a few family members around this country who are. I can tell you that the last thing they want is another war.

The problem is not that republicans are pro-war so much as they are pro-defence contractors. It’s hard to justify spending a trillion dollars or so on defence when you have no one to defend yourself from.

Very possible if Romney pursues the foreign policy he has laid out.

“Defense contractors” don’t have any huge objections to war, other than the reasonable aversion that most normal people have. But they get over that when the contracts are signed and the production goals have to be met.

I think that most republicans I know are not really pro war, they are just black and white kind of people. Most don’t like complicated nuance and don’t see shades of grey. They are absolutists and have a hard time seeing things from other people’s perspective. Things are right or wrong, good or bad, and so if someone is bad it escalates to war faster. It’s harder for them to negotiate because they see compromise as weakness.

You can’t get more pro-war than deliberately planning and starting an unnecessary and unprovoked war.

And conservatives’ current hysterical agitation about Iran is just like their provocations about Iraq ten years ago.

@marinelife That was what I heard in the latest debate.

Pro war? No.

Yes, Republicans are pro-war compared to Democrats.

I know Romney tried to come off as a peacenik in the last debate, but look at his jackass neocon advisors: John Bolton and Dan Senor, , two of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war and occupation.

Both sides are not the same on this issue, @jonsblond, no matter how much it makes you feel special and above-the-fray to say so. There are thousands of dead Americans and more than a hundred thousand dead Iraqis who would be alive today if Democrats were in charge in 2003.

Kennedy and Johnson escalated the Vietnam War. We got into WWII under Roosevelt’s watch. We got into WW1 under Wilson’s watch. They were all Democrats.

@Rarebear, a lot has changed since World War 2, even since Vietnam. Remember when Republicans were the party of civil rights and Democrats were the racist party?

It is fair to say that there have always been strains of isolationism in the Republican party, and you see this in the libertarian-leaning faction of the modern Republican party. But I don’t think this faction is close to being dominant. The only GOP candidate in the ‘12 election to have this sentiment was Ron Paul.

@Qingu Okay, Clinton went to war in Bosnia. Obama continued and escalated the war in Afghanistan.

But overall I agree. I just object to overall generalizations and making the point that both parties will beat the war drums.

Not pro-war, per se. A lot of people feel secure in readiness, though.

In my relatively short life, I have voted for candidates in both parties, including Bill Clinton.

Or not, since I did not cast a vote for president in 08.

Having said that I will not vote for Obama in 12 and I will vote for Romney.

So at least for now that makes me a Republican I suppose.

Having participated in war, I will tell you it is as shitty a business as you could imagine, and with the exception of a few sociopaths that I met there who probably do not vote at all, nobody I met is “Pro-War”.

To be honest, in my opinion it is sort of a silly question for a grown up to ask.

Anyway, it really does not matter who gets elected-the US doesn’t have the money to wage war on any great scale. So when somebody else moves to fill the power vacuum, as they surely will, there won’t be much the US can do about it.

@Qingu Both sides are not the same on this issue. Why don’t you reread what I wrote, hun. I said the Republicans I know do not want war. I did not say anything about both sides being the same. I believe you meant that comment for someone else? The only person who feels special is you. You have no desire to be respectful to those you disagree with. Sad.

I don’t think Republicans are pro war (at least not your average Republican).

But I do think they are far quicker to jump to war than your average Democrat.

America is addicted to war. In my entire life there have only been 5 years of which the US was not at war.

This list is way to long for a country as young as ours.

I believe so. In the Vice Presidents debate, Ryan kept implying that since the leaders in Afghanistan were insisting on making a nuclear weapon, and haven’t listened to the U.N. then war would be the only option left.

Biden laughed and pulled facts that showed Afghanistan can’t create a nuclear weapon.

George W. Bush was on the record saying, “I’m the war president.”
The House of Representatives nearly always approves of anything having to do with “imperializing” another nation. They are also Republican dominated.

Either the Republicans are more brash about going to war because of their, “Faith” and the other countries coming after us or the Democrats are just super subtle about going to and approving of war.

In answer to your question, I would have to say yes. Not because of Romney, he will go whichever way the wind blows, but because of what I consider a basic Republican belief that a war will get us out of the economic doldrums that we are in and that are likely to be exacerbated by their economic plans.

Also, Anti-Abortion laws help a surplus in the lower economic class, in which these citizens are most likely to pick up low wage jobs or join and become grunts (lowest ranking soldiers, sailors, etc) in the U.S. military.

@_Whitetigress Anti-abortion people are all about not murdering babies for the sake of personal convenience. Hardly a pro-war attitude.
This is far too complex an issue to boil it down to your simple either-or, either.

Both World Wars were fought by democratic presidents. Democratic POTUS also governed during Korea and Vietnam.

@bkcunningham All that shows is that we’re the ones who win wars rather than drag them out forever (Nixon in Nam, Bush in Iraq, etc) :P

Both World Wars were fought by democratic presidents. Democratic POTUS also governed during Korea and Vietnam.

If you have to ignore the evidence of the past fifty years, you’re not even trying to make a valid argument.

@tedd Nixon ended the war in Vietnam. Vietnam never would have happened if Truman hadn’t thrown our ally Ho Chi Minh under the bus at the end of WW2 to please the French.

Apparently, that part of history is irrelevant, @WestRiverrat. ~ lol

@WestRiverrat @bkcunningham It was a joke guys… Besides if you wanna get into specifics… The Dems didn’t start any of their wars, they were brought on them by the other powers in the world. And Truman threw HCM under the bus because he was a communist, and we supported whoever wasn’t the communist in every situation… and I highly doubt a Republican in office would’ve done differently (especially since around the same time the Republicans were doing the whole HUAC thing).

If you wanna go tit for tat I would very easily take the war record of the Democrats over the last 100 or so years over that of the Republicans. Or you could just accept the joke and we can all move on with our lives.

Peace, @tedd. I was joking as well, thus the ~. Did you look at the site I linked above? I thought it was pretty neat.

Guys, the question is whether the US will be gifted with yet another war if Romney is President.

@bkcunningham Peace indeed…. yah that’s a pretty neat map. It’s a bit flawed though in that many of those conflicts overlapped several presidencies, took place under the Whigs, or were before the conservative and liberal parties swapped titles.

@tedd, the map shows the overlap of presidencies when you click on the specific conflicts at the end when it reaches the end of the timeline.

ahh, didn’t do that…. cool map either way though