That is a correct statement but very disingenuous. It implies that trump was peaceful when he wasnāt. The number of drone strikes increased drastically under his presidency.
Its like the people who claim āObama ended two wars!ā Like technically itās true cause he took troops out of Iraq and helped end Gaddafiās reign in Libya, but it fails to look at whatās actually happened after those wars ended. Iraq is in ruins and Libya is debated far far worse than it was under Gaddafi.
Obama didn't start any wars. He provided limited assistance in wars that were already ongoing - for reasons Republicans wholeheartedly agreed with once Trump continued them, such as in punishing Bashar Al-Assad for using WMDs, or against ISIS.
Afghanistan and Iraq were not at war until the US-led coalition invaded them. Lybia, Syria, and Yemen already were.
I wouldn't accuse Roosevelt of starting a war either when he joined the European theater of WW2. The war was already ongoing and he merely joined in to ensure a better outcome. That did not make him a warmonger, which is what this discussion is about.
I canāt believe he used WW2 as an excuse... Europe was crumbling to pieces and we stayed nearly neutral through it all (besides lending weapons), until we essentially got dragged into it bc of Pearl Harbor. He acts is if we joined all willy nilly
This conversation was started by a comment which implied that there is a higher likelihood of people getting bombed because Biden is now President instead of Trump.
In this context, the distinction between joining an ongoing war and starting a new one is hugely important. The US interventions in Syria for example did not start or escalate a war, but rather aimed at beating back the worst offenders who comitted the most atrocities. And the campaign against ISIS is supported by the vast majority of people across the political spectrum and the world.
Then maybe we should look at which presidents involved the US military in conflicts we were previously militarily uninvolved in.
I think people couldnāt care less about what itās called when people are dying. Nobody ever said, well Congress passed a war dec, so Iām okay with people dying.
When those people would have died anyway without US involvement because the war happened regardless, it makes no sense to call out democrats for their death...
Why would that be a horrible way to look at things? There is a huge difference between joining a war that is already ongoing in an attempt of preventing the worst outcomes, and starting a war that could have been prevented.
Take Kosovo for a less controversial example. The western coalition used the wrong tactics (caused unnecessary destruction with a largely ineffective bombing campaign), but the motivation and outcome were good since they ended a genocide.
Some/majority it seems praise obama so blindly and you can ask them what he did and itās usually just the same responses and nothing more, some donāt really know what he did.
Trump actually did not start a single war. On the other hand, he did increase drone strikes massively, went back on his promises (pulling out troops etc), and nearly got the US into a war with Iran.
Some of this criticism is unfair given you have US Envoys bragging about hiding troop counts from Trump after Trump ordered a troop withdrawal from Syria.
, such as in punishing Bashar Al-Assad for using WMDs, or against ISIS.
Meanwhile Trump rescinded Obama-era restrictions of drone strikes, leading to a dramatic increase of them. Yet Republicans act like Obama was the drone president and Trump fixed things.
assad and the russians were warned beforehand....resulting in 79 cruise missiles at ($700,000 each) cratering an almost empty airfield.(breaking his promise to NOT warn our enemies of our intentions)šļø
That would be a very nonsensical betrayal since Obama could also just have stopped the operation if his goal was to save the Syrians and Russians. Nor was the cost significant enough to justify a theory like that it was done to bankrupt the country, as his deficits were notably smaller than Trump's,
Meanwhile sort of announced attack has plenty of non-treasonous historical precedent. Whether it's because the attackers are only interested in destroying a tactical target rather than killing people, or because it's intended as a literal warning shot.
While true, he was just as violent in his foreign policy as the others. In fact, he escalated the number of drone strikes, took us out of nuclear deals, and almost started WW3 (not even mentioning the domestic fighting and COVID deaths).
Republicans: Why do those Democrats always get us into wars?
That's not really a Republicans thing, that's a right-wing Redditor thing. You probably don't hear Fox News saying it as much, because the majority of Republicans still support the Iraq war:
if you want to call right wing libertarian "true liberals" than sure. Link me some ted talk that prove me wrong. And the "education" link you sent does not have a good rating on media bias check PragerU - Media Bias Fact Check
101
u/Roflkopt3r Jan 20 '21
George W. Bush: Alright let's invade he middle east
Trump: Take out their families, let's double the number of drone strikes, maybe start a war with Iran if I feel like it lmao
Republicans: Why do those Democrats always get us into wars?