| |
| ▲ | runako 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > long history of more wars from both parties Which wars were started by Democratic presidents in the last half-century? | | |
| ▲ | opo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends on what you call a “war” since the last time the US declared war was in WW II.. In terms of military operations, a partial list would probably include: Democrat Presidents: Bosnia, Haiti, Iran, Kosovo, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Republican Presidents: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Grenada, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Panama, Somalia, Syria, and Venezuela. It is outside the 50 year timeframe, but go back another 10 years and you have Viet Nam which caused more deaths than all the rest combined. | | |
| ▲ | rurp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems balanced when you put them in a simple list like that, so it might not be obvious that the republican started wars cost many, many orders of magnitude more lives and treasure than the tiny actions attributed to dems. | |
| ▲ | runako 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48109360 > go back another 10 years and you have Viet Nam Eisenhower was a Republican when he committed forces to Vietnam. |
| |
| ▲ | ryeats 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Syria, Libya, Kosovo probably more I am just naming the ones off the top of my head. | | |
| ▲ | runako 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "started by" here was used to indicate that there was not already a shooting war in progress. | | |
| ▲ | parineum 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you want to get technical, the US hasn't been involved in a war since WW2. See how annoying that is? No more wars means stop putting Americans at risk to kill foreigners. | | |
| ▲ | runako 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're going to get technical, you need to pick apart the AUMF for Iraq. In any case, I personally don't think the US interventions in Bosnia or Haiti rose to the level of the colloquial understanding of "no more wars." This is to the extent that the public of 2024 was even broadly aware of those interventions. Major point is this: in the last 50 years, every GOP president has started a trillion-dollar boondoggle in the Middle East that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths or more (count is still running in Iran, which the President credibly threatens to nuke every other week). Democratic presidents have initiated e.g. peacekeeping missions or the like with definite endpoints and missions. "Both sides" elides all of this as if they are the remotely equivalent. (I'm on record suggesting that the US military should be reduced to a footprint necessary to defend only the US states and not foreign interests. 75%+ cuts in budget as a start. 11 carrier battle groups to ~4, two per coast. etc.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zulux 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Vietnam. | | |
| ▲ | KptMarchewa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While Kennedy and then Johnson escalated US support to South Vietnam significantly, Eisenhower started it. | | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That was more than a half-century ago. |
|
| |
| ▲ | newaccountman2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There was literally no evidence voting for Trump would have reasonably led to less wars, and enough evidence, in fact, to the contrary. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, MAGA ran on a broad platform of chaos, griefing, and personal vendettas. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and know war was on the agenda. | |
| ▲ | kxkdkdisoskdnen 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | aside from the first term? guy lost his marbles after 2020 but there were no new wars in the first term and that was evidence. turns out he has different handlers this time. and dementia. but there were 4 years with no new wars. I liked that. | |
| ▲ | parineum 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a long history of evidence that voting for establishment candidates leads to more wars and Trump didn't start any new wars in his first term and reduced troop deployments in places where existing conflicts were active so I'm not sure what you mean by no evidence. Supporters were happy about that aspect of his first term. But, like I said, desperate people make desperate choices. If you're a person who feels strongly about something the establishment wing of both parties agrees on, anti-establishment candidates look very appealing, warts and all. |
| |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The famous, Fell for it again™ award, goes to MAGA this time. | | |
| ▲ | delfinom 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, when the rich control both sides and both sides conspire to create drama to continue to control the country as they want....can't really do much. This country is done for. | | |
| ▲ | csoups14 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The rich being in control of both sides does not make both sides equivalent when it comes to impacts on the commoner. The country is done for in large part because too many apathetic people are unable to discern very real differences in their political options, and instead of participating, you eject and poison the well on the way out which is exactly what the "rich" want you to do. You're not high-minded for your stance, you haven't figured out some secret, you're quite literally playing into their hand. Go vote in a Democratic primary and do something useful with yourself. | | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whataboutism at it's finest. If you seriously think Biden was the same as Trump (or Harris would have been worse than Trump) you need a lobotomy (as at least a refresher high school civics course). Seriously, it was (almost) all spelled out in Project 2025. That's what the country wanted and that's what we got/are getting. I hate it, but apparently 51% of voters disagree with me. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I voted for the only candidate (Chase Oliver) that appeared on my ballot that was basically 100% certain to not get us into wars, and I've had absolute vitriol spewed at me (including here on HN) because I was informed it was a default to Trump. There's no way to act where you won't be hated by someone. Even if you stop paying taxes for the bombs someone will scream that you hate old people or the children. | | |
| ▲ | anonymars 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Idealism is for the primaries. You knew with certainty that Chase Oliver wasn't going to win the presidency, which meant you were okay with either of the two candidates that definitely was going to win the presidency | | |
| ▲ | phainopepla2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Only about 20% of Americans live in swing states. So for 80% of Americans, idealism is for the general as well. Or at least it could be | | | |
| ▲ | programjames 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe not this year. The next cycle though will better pander to Chase Oliver voters. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | triceratops 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I was informed it was a default to Trump. Were they wrong? |
|
| |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trump would have had the same outcome if he said "more wars". People voted for the man, not his policies. |
|
