If you're not anti-war then you're neither fiscally conservative nor pro-life

I tend to agree with this, but I go back-and-forth with some wars. Like, obviously the Invasion of Iraq was incredibly stupid and corrupt, the War in Yemen is brutal beyond justification, and the War in Afghanistan has become a stalemate.

But there are some situations that are legitimately difficult now. For example, are we really able to withdraw from Iraq at the moment without causing more violence? Iran has a very strong inside-outside game in Iraq, and if Iran just takes over the country, that would be all the more power they could draw upon for conflicts moving forward (especially conflicts against Israel).

The Syrian Civil War is a bit of a toughie because it's an avenue for Iran to project power against Israel, and there's the issue of kinda punishing the Syrian government for gassing its people. Most foreign policy experts would agree that allowing a government to use gas bombs sets a bad precedent, but aiding the rebels in their resistance effort creates room for ISIS and Al-Qaeda to spring up. And ISIS, of course, will try to plot terror attacks against all kinds of nearby countries.

And then, there are issues with Islamist insurgencies in Africa and east Asia, and... don't even get me started on Pakistan.

For the most part, I think the best solution is to empower the UN Peacekeeping forces to take over some of these conflicts; it would eliminate the legitimate concerns about oil wars and American imperialism without allowing countries to spiral into instability and violence forever.

"Small government! Fiscal conservation! We can't be spending our hard earned money on welfare that helps the poor or homeless veterans or provides education for children or medicine for the sick!"

"But we can afford to spend nine trillion dollars invading Iraq and Afghanistan even though it's illegal and we can also afford to invade Mali and invade Pakistan and invade Niger and invade Syria and invade Libya and invade Somalia and invade AND blockade Yemen and talk about invading Venezuela and Cuba and Iran and North Korea..."

I’m not anti war..
I’m anti proxy wars by neo cons furthering their global ambitions..

I suppose this all really depends on whatever context you are using. I can think of tons of examples throughout history were going to war was the financially smart thing to do. Some countries are still living of centuries of plunder and loot taken from other places.

I could also give you a few examples where going to war was done in the name of preserving life. all to do with context.

You mean weapons welfare counts as government spending? 😱

[b]gasp[/b] LOGIC.

Get that shit out of here!!

Pro lifers only care about foetuses, once you're born they're fine with you getting killed.

I'm very anti-war.

You're pretty smart for a girl who let Scissorhands finger her vageene.

Conservatives claim to be anti-war, except for the wars they approve of. It’s very convenient.

You're just angry because I blew up your castle.

It really depends. But much of the time it’s just a waste of blood and treasure, yes.

I'm antiwar

Do you mean pacifist? No wars in any circumstance including self-defense?