One aspect of the pro and anti war debate that has always bothered me is that, for many people, it often seems to boil down to what political party you support more. Now it's easy for me to sit back and criticize, as I have no particular affiliation, and I understand that many of the reasons why you'd support one party over another can be seen as being enacted in this decision over Iraq, so it may follow naturally. But still, I see this from both sides. Many supporters of the war seem to be so automatically in favor of anything Bush, the administration, and Republicans that it's difficult to take their postures on the war as anything more than an extension of a politically motivated stance. On the other hand, I have also been dismayed to see people with whom I otherwise agree about this war bring up irrelevant notions like " Clinton would never have done this!" , which calls into question their objectivity on an important issue. In fact Clinton is often a key word to me; when either side brings it up, it's usually a sign to me that the discussssion is about to become one of Republican vs. Democrat, rather than pro vs, anti war. I believe that politics play an important role in our society, and love to discuss political ideas and ideals..just not usually along party lines. but to me it's a disservice to either argument, whether it's for or against, if the basis for that argument is the political party you happen to support. We are talking about decisions which affect lives in a much more real and immediate sense than what our taxes are going to be or how much funding goes to our schools, although those are important. But people have died as a result of this war, and whether for or against, that should make the decision transcend political party affiliation, in my opinion. So the question I have is this...and I'm tired of polls too, but I really want people to be able to express themselves as honestly and annonymously as possible if they want to remain annonymous...Did political party affiliation have anything to do with your stance on the war? Please think very carefully before answering...and if you happen to be a hard core Republican, and just happened to also be a hard core war supporter, maybe rethink your complete objectivity...same goes if you coincidentally are a hard core Democrat, and just by chance happen to find yourself opposing the war. I know that there are people in bith these situations who would have had the same stance on the war irrespective of their political origins, but did the party in power in any way influence the degree to which you questioned this war? If you are a Democrat, and are against the war, would you have given Clinton more of a benefit of the doubt? If you are a Republican, and support the war, would you have been as quick to dismiss the criticisms if Clinton had been the one accused of misleading the people, etc.? Please, please, pretty please...be as honest as you possibly can in the poll. Say whatever you want or nothing at all in the posts, but please answer with complete self awareness...if you answer no, be aware that you are saying that political sympathies had absolutely nothing to do with your stance. As an aside, I would be very interested in hearing people for whom this war was a political cross over issue; ie Democrats who support it, and why, and Republicans who oppose it, and why. Also anyone who has changed their opinion one way or another as the war has progressed would be an interesting discussion. Oh, and if you voted for Gore in the last election, or Bush, but maintain that that in no way is indicative of your political bias, please be sure that that is the case when answering.
There are probably none more anti=war than those who are sent to fight them..Republican or Democrat. They just want to win it and go home. That seems to be the big difference from those who do it and those who talk about it. Anti-war activists seem to want the effort to fail, string it out, make it bloody.. Every one else wants it to be quick, successful and as bloodless as possible...party affiliations dont apply.
Anit-war activists dont want it to start in the first place. Once it does, they generally want it to end immediately. That's what being ant-war is. Saying something like, we shouldn't be there, This or that could go wrong, People on both sides are being murdered... is not the same thing as wanting those things to go on. They are reasons to bring the troops home. On another note, I usually vote Democrat. Every Democrat besides FDR brought this country into wars that I was, or would have been, against. Eisenhower. There's you're man. He was probably the most anti-war president we ever had, and a Republican. War has nothing to do with political party. Everything to do with ego, credibility and proving how well hung you are.
I was pro-war because I believe in intervening on the behalf of the people suffering under brutal dictatorships. I was pro-Kosovo, pro-Somalia, and I wish we had kept going in GW1. I also think that we should be going after Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, et al. In many ways I see this as a stance in opposition to the stardard Republican thinking. Then again, I only vote Republican because that is the only party that can keep the socialists, oops I mean Democrats, out of office. My vote doesn't even count because California is slanted way to the left.
I'm an independent who did not vote for Bush, so it hardly played a role in my support. Incidentally, see the Gallup poll I posted in another thread ("WMD? Who cares?"); Gallup polled this exact question (well, not word for word, but close). Support actually *does* run down party lines.
I would have supported a President Gore in the war effort.... and I wouldn't be sniping about ulterior motives either.
I'm a Libertarian. Libertarians are divided about the war. Most of them, however, are against it, as a cornerstone of Libertarian foreign policy is isolationism.
True. He was anti-war while President because he had seen it first hand and knew the tendencies of the military industrial complex.
Good Morning folks. That is so wrong on so many levels. Independent here, with leanings toward the socialist er democratic side (but I did vote for Bloomberg and Pataki). I tend to make decisions on who I vote for by their character and platforms, not party affiliations .
in ANY way?? absolutely...I'm sure it did. But ultimately, I was convinced. You guys have seen my problems with the Republican party here...there are issues where I definitely split with them. But a debate that lasts 7 months or so...yeah, I'm guessing somewhere in there my political affiliation became a factor. But generally...when it comes to military action in a situation like this...I support the administration in power. I did with Clinton, too. Mostly because I assume they know a helluva lot more about the real threats than I do. but given the way it's written..i voted yes
I think it was the right thing for the world, I am a true independent. Fiscally conservative, liberal on people's rights. I think the war was justified for the good of the planet. DD
The most basic reason why there are political parties is that some people think alike and people think alike generally like to band together against those who don't think like them. And it's pretty obvious that people who think alike tend to agree on a lot of issues. So why is it alarming that people are "partisan" on various issues? Also, it is a lot more likely that people vote for somebody they trust, than somebody they don't trust. So it is hardly surprising that people who voted for Bush are more likely to trust him on his decision about the war. This is especially true in this case because there were so much unknown about what was really going on inside Iraq.
I am also a libertarian but I support the war. And I think politics has a great deal to do with it. Every time people start discussing the war Anti-Bush sentiment would come in along side anti-war sentiment which would strengthen my support for the war. I realize that is not being objective or productive and what upsets me about it is that it made it difficult to have a serious discussion about real concerns about the war. There are still real questions that need honest answers from both sides of the debate. But this debate has created so much pain and animosity between friends and family that I don't know if it's worth tackling right now. My solution has been to try to stay out of discussions on the subject. That said, I'm going to get back out of this one.
Mrs Valdaz that was heartfelt and very nice. I too have the same problem. My father was 25 years air force (two tours of Vietnam) and my brother was 10 years (8 months Desert Storm). Them knowing my war stance, discussion is taboo.
