105
rule (beehaw.org)
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Web_Rand@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I thought it was Republicans that wanted to bomb the Middle East.

[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago

Funny how it keeps happening no matter who is in the white house then.

[-] buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

That part is bipartisan

[-] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago

and Mexico too, Americans are always forgetting about their neighbors smh

[-] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

You need to pay attention to who is saying what. I don't know that Bernie Sanders has ever said "let's bomb the Middle East" and at the same time I don't think Mitt Romney is on the same level as MAGA hats.

[-] randomname01@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago

I get your point, but it’s important to remember that the “acceptable” republicans have very little actual disagreements with the MAGA crowd. The real difference is found in messaging, that’s it.

[-] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, I'd never vote Republican again after the shit show of a Supreme Court they've put together, but there are some Republicans that have stayed fairly center of the aisle but still allow MAGA/teaparty policies to go through.

[-] Web_Rand@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago
[-] Web_Rand@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd never vote for the Democrats after Bush Sr and Bush Jr invaded the Middle East, twice.

#TheRightCantMeme #TheCenterMightBeRight

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah its pretty rediculous. Usually because the democrats don't end the wars instantly when they get into office they put them as being part of it and of course when they do end them they point to all the issues with pullout being because they are somehow incompetent. you know rather than blaming being in the war in the first place.

[-] chadac@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

The main reason is that both Democrats simply inherited a deal for withdrawal before a Democrat became President. For the Afghanistan war in particular, around 80% of troops had already withdrawn by the time Biden was inaugurated. Republicans and Democrats seem to get this confused -- many of the issues with withdrawals were due to Republican predecessors negotiating the deal (especially in regard to Trump), and the successor rarely had the power to significantly change the terms of those withdrawals. In Biden's case, he really did have no choice -- returning troops to Afghanistan at the original number would have been tantamount to re-invasion.

I don't really see a difference in parties when it comes to war. Entering/leaving wars seems to be more motivated by approval numbers rather than some party policy. In the meantime, both sides have been fine with creating their war crime detention facilities or drone striking civilians when we aren't paying attention.

[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

oh I see a big difference. bush years in particular were crazy.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
105 points (100.0% liked)

196

16588 readers
2037 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS