Question mainly for Democrats

[SPC]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

[SPC]

Uh, if sending troops into Darfur meant 3,500+ troops killed and billions of dollars for an endless quagmire that never gets anywhere and never helps anyone, not a single Democrat would support sending troops to Darfur.

Imagine this. A Democratic President takes office, says there is a genocide in Darfur. He says he has all kinds of secret government evidence showing it. Says this proves we must go to send troops to Darfur. Anyone who opposes this action is called unpatriotic and is accused of not supporting the troops. Once we get into Darfur we find out there was never any genocide going on there. While the regime was not a good one by any means, the purported genocide never happened. However the President says we must continue to "stay the course" and pour blood and money into Darfur because now he's staked his Presidency on it and can't admit he's wrong. This goes on for 4 years. Wouldn't you be pissed?

I get what your saying. But, I don't think we should have our troops in either country. But more to the point. If we pull out of Iraq, there's a great risk that many civilians will be slaughtered. Yet the Democrats don’t seem to care about what will happen to the Iraqis when we leave, but many of them are all gung ho for us to go into Darfur and prevent a genocide from taking place. So, they want our troops out of Iraq which might fall into a genocide when we leave and they want to put them into Darfur to prevent another Genocide. I’m sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. I think we should stop interfering in situations overseas period. What’s the point of pulling out of Iraq if we’re just sending our troops to another area where their presence incites hatred towards America?

I don't think there was a point to go into Iraq, but I don't think there's really a point to go into Darfur either. It sounds harsh, but we're not superman, and if we go around intervening in every area where genocide and human rights violations occur, we'll go bankrupt. I mean, where does it end?

Well, I oppose intervention abroad as well. I'm just saying that the only reason that the parties have switched their traditional positions on intervention abroad with regards to Iraq (with the exception of Dr. Paul), is because that a "neocon" Republican started the War. If it was a Democratic president who started the War, the parties' positions would be back to normal.

[SPC]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

You forgot the Spanish-American War and the Civil War for the Republicans

Well, although both of those wars were unjust, it doesn't really support my argument, because back then, the Republicans were the authoritarian party and the Democrats were the libertarian party.

[SPC]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

You forgot the Spanish-American War and the Civil War for the Republicans

Well, although both of those wars were unjust, it doesn't really support my argument, because back then, the Republicans were the authoritarian party and the Democrats were the libertarian party.

Andrew Jackson sure was libertarian to those Indians.

I was referring to the 1860s through the 1890s. I don't think there's any denying that Grover Cleveland was a libertarian, given his impressive veto record, and that suspending habeus corpus, burning down cities, violating the 10th Amendment as an excuse to go to war, forcing states to ratify the 14th Amendment, stealing an election, impeaching a President for violating an unconstitutional law, or violating the 3rd Amendment during Reconstruction would be cosidered very authoritarian.