It isn't a simple matter of less government spending, therefore less funding for wars. It's thinking that the US should not be interfering in the affairs of other nations, both for practical and ideological reasons.
So morality doesn't play into it at all. Who cares if people are being raped and slaughtered in the streets by some bully who leads a military force (i.e. Kuwait). We should just turn a blind eye because to intervene in these situation would make us "pro-war"? You have a very one-dimensional approach to this issue. Most of these interventions under Clinton were collaborative efforts with the UN, and the goal was not to "start war," but rather to prevent one or to end an already existing civil war that was leading to genocide. The latter can hardly be called "war mongering."
I'm more interested in the fact that you were an irrational jerk when you were a hyper-Republican partisan, which you appear to recognize, and seem to have carried over the same habits despite thoroughly switching political allegiances
Just changing my worldview wasn't enough for me precisely because I was such a staunch defender of an incorrect ideology. I felt I had to do some repenting by arguing against what I used to believe is true. It is very much the same reason why I frequently engage in what LDS defenders like to call "anti-Mormonism." For them, they'd just rather you leave the faith and shut the hell up. They don't want you talking about why you believe Mormonism is false.
And you seem to have trouble understanding that just because I didn't "switch sides" for the reasons you'd prefer, that my conversion is no less sincere or legitimate. My initial conversion from Right Wing ideology began when I realized I was trusting very untrustworthy sources. I was being lied to. It was just the first step to my deconversion and it all revolved around economic issues during the financial collapse in 2008-2009. I gradually became a convert to a Keynesian approach but the issue of war and legitimacy of invasions never really played a factor in any of that. Finding out that I was actively misinforming people with Right Wing rhetoric, was the first thing that gave me cause for pause and I began to reflect on why I believed what I believed. I was a product of a Right Wing propaganda machine and I felt the need to make amends for my stupidity.
That you don't appear to recognize. I would think such a rapid, dizzying switch would cause some self-reflection rather than simply changing what partisan sources you choose to read.
But this isn't true, as you yourself admitted recently. The sources I use typically come from places like, Mediamatters which you already said was light years away from the kind of subjective, craziness that Republicans here typically fall back on.
He was a state senator from Hyde Park. Opposition to the Iraq war in that district was wildly popular while supporting it would be politically dangerous.
Who aspired to expand his career to the national level, which would make his decision to be against Iraq counterproductive.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with a political miscalculation about seeming soft on terror for her anticipated presidential run in the future or the humanitarian argument she has supported in several other analogous instances.
Hillary was on record, several times during the late 90's, speaking on this intelligence that alleged Iraq had a WMD program and posed a threat. It would have been hypocritical for her to do an about face just because a Republican was President.
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq even if the WMD argument was accurate as there still would've been no meaningful threat to the US.
OK now that's just dumb. Obviously you agree with the Paul family on this though I don't understand your reasons.
Iraq would've just been akin to N. Korea, which we are not and should not be invading.
Thanks to Clinton, North Korea had stopped its Nuclear weapons program. Diplomacy worked with N. Korea until Bush screwed it all up. It didn't with Iraq. And Iraq is notorious for its possession and
use of WMDs on innocents. You don't seem to appreciate the finer details that really show just how different these two countries were.
Clinton favors a relatively interventionist approach to the military. She also favored Clinton's various military interventions - Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia ... - whereas Paul would not.
Paul is a lunatic with a twisted sense of morality that is probably tied to a belief that being born American means you're special in the eyes of God.
That's because she's more pro-war as a tool of foreign policy.
No, she is pro-intervention. They call it intervention because it isn't war. Your attempt to equate the two is stunning.
Being more pro-war than someone else means being more willing to start a war.
But in the examples you cite we didn't start war. Did we start the war in Haiti? No. Hell, our troops weren't even opposed by Haitian security forces because Jimmy Carter brokered a deal. We went there to restore a democratically elected leader who was ousted in a military coup. We left within a year.
Did we start war in Somalia or was war already present and we were trying to prevent further genocide? Did we start war in Bosnia or did we intervene with NATO after 37 people were senselessly slaughtered? Did we start war with Liberia or did we go there to evacuate those who were holding up in the embassy? According to your narrow definition, we must have started a war with them and the humanitarian effort to evacuate the defenseless just means we're "pro-war." Sigh!
You know you like to come across as someone who appreciates nuance, but moments like these suggest quite the opposite. You're projecting when you try to paint me as the simple-minded ideologue who only sees black or white. In your world, we're no longer allowed to make distinctions between things like humanitarian interventions and a full blown "war."
The list of reasons a paleolibertarian like Paul would engage in military action are simply much smaller than Clinton's. Like, obviously.
Obviously. That doesn't make either of them pro or anti war.