'BalloonGate' shows Republicans are phony at claiming to be anti war

[Benjamin Frank]

They couldn't act any more bellicose and beligerent (and, as per usual, stupid) during this whole non event. "Biden didn't shoot it down fast enough, durrr, durrr, durrr."

[Ferguson97]

They’re not arguing in good faith. If he shot it down sooner they’d say he was putting civilian lives in danger or trying to start a war with China.

[President Johnson]

Republicans also claim they're for fiscal discipline and law enforcement and actually aren't. So this shouldn't be surprising the slightest bit.

[Saint Milei]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

[Vice President Christian Man]

Both parties have hawks and doves but GOP opposition is mainly just another excuse to get mad at the Biden admin.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

Republicans were very frequently the pro-war party such as in the Civil War, the war with Spain, the First World War (Hughes ran a more hawkish campaign than Wilson in 1916), the Vietnam War, and both Iraq Wars.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Republicans also claim they're for fiscal discipline and law enforcement and actually aren't. So this shouldn't be surprising the slightest bit.

Balloongate shows that Communist are bluffing on nuking us if we enter war with Ukraine the real real why Biden doesn't enter the war with ground troops isn't threat of nuked is because American troops will be dying again in combat the lack of response from China short of attacking Taiwan shows that they are bluffing when it comes to nukes, how can Putin nuke us and our subs are right there in Poland to nuke him back if he does hit our Allies

If we give Ukraine a deadline and Russia and threat to use force then we can bargin with Russia but as long as Putin knows we aren't using our troops he will be in Ukraine Russia said they won't leave Ukraine until victory is complete

Everyone doesn't like Troops dying but that's what they do in case they die military victory that's what Putin is doing his military is dying until victory

No one is saying we should put in troops right now but threaten them like BIDEN threatens them with NATO TROOP but he pulled out of Afghanistan and showed Putin weakness

[Middle-aged Europe]

Pubbies are taking criticizing things for the sake of criticizing things to ridiculous extremes.

They're not opposed to shooting it down, but they're opposed to the timing and location... so much hairsplitting should tell you something.

[Saint Milei]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

Republicans were very frequently the pro-war party such as in the Civil War, the war with Spain, the First World War (Hughes ran a more hawkish campaign than Wilson in 1916), the Vietnam War, and both Iraq Wars.

Not sure why you would bring up the civil war. Not really a war where there was a clear division by party lines. The same could be said for the Spanish-American war. Wilson still got us involved in World War I. There were more republicans in opposition. WW2 is dems. Korean War, dems. Vietnam...Dems. First Iraq war, yes. Second was clearly bipartisan. Libya. Syria. Current conflict with Russia. Iran. Truman basically started the Cold War. Wilson also intervened in Haiti and Nicaragua. LBJ with the 6 day conflict. Clinton bombed Afghanis, Yugoslavia, intervened in Haiti, and etc. Kennedy...cuba. The list goes on. The biggest anti-war voices have come from the right


Taft
Buchanan
Paul


Republicans have been elected more than dems when war was an issue.
Eisenhower, Korea
Nixon, Vietnam
Trump, everything
Bush, everything clinton did

[dead0man]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

Republicans were very frequently the pro-war party such as in the Civil War, the war with Spain, the First World War (Hughes ran a more hawkish campaign than Wilson in 1916), the Vietnam War, and both Iraq Wars.

Not sure why you would bring up the civil war. Not really a war where there was a clear division by party lines. The same could be said for the Spanish-American war. Wilson still got us involved in World War I. There were more republicans in opposition. WW2 is dems. Korean War, dems. Vietnam...Dems. First Iraq war, yes. Second was clearly bipartisan. Libya. Syria. Current conflict with Russia. Iran. Truman basically started the Cold War. Wilson also intervened in Haiti and Nicaragua. LBJ with the 6 day conflict. Clinton bombed Afghanis, Yugoslavia, intervened in Haiti, and etc. Kennedy...cuba. The list goes on. The biggest anti-war voices have come from the right


Taft
Buchanan
Paul


Republicans have been elected more than dems when war was an issue.
Eisenhower, Korea
Nixon, Vietnam
Trump, everything
Bush, everything clinton did

even if all that was true, the current Republican's response to the current issue (PRC's balloon) is obviously lame.  Really, nobody looks good here.  The Chinese either can't control a weather balloon or have a garbage satellite system.  Biden/the military thought nobody would notice the balloon.  Instead of bashing Biden for that, they take the "why didn't you shoot it down before it looked at our stuff?" AFTER being given reasonable explanations from the military why that wasn't a good idea.  It's almost like everyone in charge of the two most powerful countries on Earth are run by phuquing morons.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Those phony Republicans. Let's hate on them.

[HisGrace]

China's not going to go to war with us because we shot down a balloon (as evidenced by Biden shooting down the balloon and China not going to war with us) so not sure what this has to do with being anti war.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

Republicans were very frequently the pro-war party such as in the Civil War, the war with Spain, the First World War (Hughes ran a more hawkish campaign than Wilson in 1916), the Vietnam War, and both Iraq Wars.

Not sure why you would bring up the civil war. Not really a war where there was a clear division by party lines. The same could be said for the Spanish-American war. Wilson still got us involved in World War I. There were more republicans in opposition. WW2 is dems. Korean War, dems. Vietnam...Dems. First Iraq war, yes. Second was clearly bipartisan. Libya. Syria. Current conflict with Russia. Iran. Truman basically started the Cold War. Wilson also intervened in Haiti and Nicaragua. LBJ with the 6 day conflict. Clinton bombed Afghanis, Yugoslavia, intervened in Haiti, and etc. Kennedy...cuba. The list goes on. The biggest anti-war voices have come from the right


Taft
Buchanan
Paul


Republicans have been elected more than dems when war was an issue.
Eisenhower, Korea
Nixon, Vietnam
Trump, everything
Bush, everything clinton did

The 1864 Democratic platform was a peace platform even if McClellan was not as determinedly anti-war. There were of course a lot of War Democrats- and many of them joined with the Republicans to support the Lincoln/Johnson Union ticket. The war against Spain led to a number of temporary and more enduring territorial acquisitions. In the debate over these new possessions, the Republicans took the "imperialist" or pro-expansion position and the Democrats were opposed. Theodore Roosevelt was clamoring for US entry into the First World War in 1915 while Wilson was re-elected the following year on the slogan "He kept us out of war!" and the votes of anti-war Germans and Irish. The Democratic Party's later abandonment of opposition to entering the war would cost it heavily in 1920 with the loss of these voters.

The Second World War was a defensive war so there wasn't any political agency there unless we consider not rolling over to the Germans and Japanese to be aggressive. Similarly, to argue that the Cold War was initiated by the United States would require arguing that containment was somehow an aggressive act. Korea and Vietnam were initiated by Democrats but in the case of the latter we know who became associated with continuation of the war and who became associated with the peace movement. Even now I sometimes hear Republicans talk about the left flank of the Democrats disrespected the troops during Vietnam etc. Second Iraq War likewise, with even more initial opposition from Democrats.

Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul may all be anti-war, but they are not particularly prominent to the public nor have they actually prevented any military conflict from starting. Every administration since F.D. Roosevelt has had to be involved throughout the globe so there will be a lot of military interventions in the modern era. The Republican Party remains broadly more in favor of "peace through strength" and similar hawkish sentiments but it has definitely taken an anti-internationalist turn in recent years and is clearly the more anti-NATO party now. But is overall role, historically and at present, has never been that of "the anti-war party."

[Saint Milei]

It's objectively true republicans are historically the anti-war party and republicans today have more anti-war members of congress than democrats lmao

Republicans were very frequently the pro-war party such as in the Civil War, the war with Spain, the First World War (Hughes ran a more hawkish campaign than Wilson in 1916), the Vietnam War, and both Iraq Wars.

Not sure why you would bring up the civil war. Not really a war where there was a clear division by party lines. The same could be said for the Spanish-American war. Wilson still got us involved in World War I. There were more republicans in opposition. WW2 is dems. Korean War, dems. Vietnam...Dems. First Iraq war, yes. Second was clearly bipartisan. Libya. Syria. Current conflict with Russia. Iran. Truman basically started the Cold War. Wilson also intervened in Haiti and Nicaragua. LBJ with the 6 day conflict. Clinton bombed Afghanis, Yugoslavia, intervened in Haiti, and etc. Kennedy...cuba. The list goes on. The biggest anti-war voices have come from the right


Taft
Buchanan
Paul


Republicans have been elected more than dems when war was an issue.
Eisenhower, Korea
Nixon, Vietnam
Trump, everything
Bush, everything clinton did

even if all that was true, the current Republican's response to the current issue (PRC's balloon) is obviously lame.  Really, nobody looks good here.  The Chinese either can't control a weather balloon or have a garbage satellite system.  Biden/the military thought nobody would notice the balloon.  Instead of bashing Biden for that, they take the "why didn't you shoot it down before it looked at our stuff?" AFTER being given reasonable explanations from the military why that wasn't a good idea.  It's almost like everyone in charge of the two most powerful countries on Earth are run by phuquing morons.

Im not going to take advice from the military that's wokefied and being led by Biden. The balloon should be shot down.

[Dr. MB]

I support the glorious balloon as the vanguard of the forthcoming people's war. Chairman Xi will lead the Amerikkkan masses to victory.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I remember growing up in the Bush years and thinking that Democrats were principled in their opposition to war. Then Obama took office and I learned a harsh lesson of the world: the vast majority of people support or oppose war depending on whether they support or oppose the sitting president.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     I remember growing up in the Bush years and thinking that Democrats were principled in their opposition to war. Then Obama took office and I learned a harsh lesson of the world: the vast majority of people support or oppose war depending on whether they support or oppose the sitting president.

Perspective changes once you have seen multiple administrations.

[All Along The Watchtower]

     I remember growing up in the Bush years and thinking that Democrats were principled in their opposition to war. Then Obama took office and I learned a harsh lesson of the world: the vast majority of people support or oppose war depending on whether they support or oppose the sitting president.

I mean, Obama never opposed the war in Afghanistan or the broader "War on Terror" and he was pretty open about this from 2002 onward.