Oh yes, certainly. Especially when Democrat presidents abet or start a bunch of wars in the Middle East and North Africa, I'm sure the locals' lives are improved by a wide margin as a result of carpet-bombing their homes and livelihoods to dust.
Huh? Who's George W. Bush? Never heard of him, or this trillion-dollar "Iraq War" thingee. Drone striking an Iranian General? Doesn't ring any bells to me!
If one were to compare the US political system to a dystopian society divided into distinct factions based on how many wars they have started, an interesting outcome rebuking conventional perceptions would have been observed.
It is not about the strong on defense, hawkish Republicans juxtaposed with peace-loving dovish Democrats anymore. Looking back at the past 118 years, there have been some 'divergents' — warmongering Democrats and amicable Republicans. However, more interestingly and surprising for the conventional-minded — the number of the XX century Democratic presidents who kept from starting wars is actually zero.
Since 1900, 35 conflicts have been launched by Republican administrations compared to 23 by Democrats, with 10 (out of 12) GOP presidents launching one or more conflicts, compared to 8 (out of 8) Democrats.
So who started them, and who ended them?
The Korean War began and was fought under a Democrat. It was ended by a Republican.
The Vietnam War began under one Democrat, escalated and spread beyond Vietnam under his Democratic successor, and then under a Republican. It was ended by another Republican.
The Persian Gulf War was entirely a Republican affair.
The Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia were overseen by a Democrat.
The "war on terror" was started by a Republican who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and has continued for nearly 8 more years under a Democrat.
The Democrats are warmongers too. How can you support them?
