Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With that in mind, what most people would categorize as a DECLARED war would be, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, VietNam War, Gulf Storm, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq....the rest were invasions, incursions or military actions, not full blown wars.....
I think most people would 'categorize as a DECLARED war' one in which, you know, the United States actually declared war.
And there have only been five conflicts in our history in which this has been so:
The War of 1812
The Mexican War
The Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
That list does not include all the others you incorrectly claim were a 'DECLARED war'.
Aside from that, why you would want to limit wars to only those with a formal declaration is a mystery to me, as some conflicts that are clearly wars involve no declarations of such.
PS - You predictably (and unintentionally) make the case that this thread cannot be discussed rationally because certain people will insist on hijacking it for partisan purposes.
I'd be curious to see the major incursion listed by posters in the order of most dubious to least.
1-Iraq II (GWB-Rep)
2-Vietnam (JFK-Dem)
3-Spanish-American War (McKinley-Rep)
4-Desert Storm (GHWB-Rep)
5-Korean War (Truman-Dem)
6-Afghanistan (GWB-Rep)
7-WWI (Wilson-Dem)
8-WWII (Roosevelt-Dem)
Overall score is a draw at 4-4. I have a hard time assigning "credit" to Eisenhower, Nixon, Obama because they inherited a course of action that to some extent they were stuck with regardless of any misgivings. I differentiate between Korea and Vietnam on the basis of the legitimacy of the government we were assisting in each war. The first three IMO are the wars that truly fall into the category of highly questionable. We're talking about a sample size of three here. I don't think you can draw any conclusion on which party has historically been more "war mongering" on that limited basis. If we wanted to limit this to the modern (post WWII era), it would be a draw.
I will say this though: in terms of the negative net long term economic and social impact, Iraq II really stands alone.
Counting both the ones started, and the ones "inherited", the count stands at:
Republican -- 10
Democrat -- 7
Regards as always,
-- Nighteyes
* These conflicts took place in multiple locations on more than one continent
OK, you left out Serbia (Clinton, Dem.) and Somalia/Blackhawk Down (Clinton, Dem.)
I'm sure there are others on both sides that you left out. What about the U.S. Expeditionary Force that intervened in the nascent Soviet Union in 1920?
You see the trouble - we can't even agree on what are "wars".
A small list of other armed conflicts that we should decide to include or not:
Barbary Wars - early 1800s
Samoan Civil War - late 1800s
Philipinne-American War - early 1900s
Pancho Villa Expedition - early 1900s
Panama operation - 1980s
Grenada - 1980s
Bay of Pigs/Cuba invasion - 1960s
Kosovo - 2000
and now Iraq/Syria air campaign
The two party system originated when the Democrat-Republicans were formed during the administration of Federalist John Adams, to provide a platform to oppose his reelection. The elections of 1800, 1804, 1808 and 1812 were Federalist vs Democrat-Republican.
The Federalist party then went out of business and it was all one party with internal rivalries until 1832 when Henry Clay was nominated by the newly formed National Republican Party and the Anti-Mason Party. By 1836 the opposition had fused into the Whig Party and it was Whigs vs Democrats through the election of 1852.
In 1856 the Republican Party was created and ever since it has been Republicans vs Democrats.
Well, OK yeah. But as late at 1860 you had 4 parties that split the presidential vote, each getting over 10%:
Republican
Constitutional Union
Democrat
Southern Democrat
In 1856 you had the "American" party that got 25% of the vote.
in 1852 you had the "Free Soil" party...
and so on....
I submit the 2 party system wasn't stable until after the civil war.
You see the trouble - we can't even agree on what are "wars".
A small list of other armed conflicts that we should decide to include or not:
Barbary Wars - early 1800s
Samoan Civil War - late 1800s
Philipinne-American War - early 1900s
Pancho Villa Expedition - early 1900s
Panama operation - 1980s
Grenada - 1980s
Bay of Pigs/Cuba invasion - 1960s
Kosovo - 2000
and now Iraq/Syria air campaign
And it's hard to find a dividing line that isn't arbitrary.
I tend to think of a war as entailing some sort of major ground action. Yet the air campign in Kosovo/Serbia in 1999 was extensive enough that I'd probably toss it in the 'war' column. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't classify the 1986 on-off bombing raid on Libya as a 'war', as did an earlier poster. And even Grenada and Panama, which featured ground invasions, don't seem all that war-like to me. Perhaps that is because of their brevity, or the relatively light resistance and even capacity to resist. I wouldn't count the NATO intervention in Libya, or the current strikes on ISIS (though I can see the latter having the potential to ultimately be long-lasting and widespread enough for me to call it a 'war' even if it remains a conflict only of air power and 'advisors').
The problem is that for each of the reasons I've outlined above for including or excluding a conflict, I'm sure I could come up with counterexamples.
Further, it seems to me that a great many of these wars/conflicts were more a product of time and circumstance than the 'D' or the 'R' by the name of the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As such, the point (if there indeed is a point) of the exercise strikes me as dubious.
Let's start around the turn of the 20th Century. This is probably not a complete list, but it comes close. My criteria is two-fold. First, American forces deployed onto/over foreign soil. Second, actual combat operations undertaken.:
Spanish-American War* -- McKinley -- Republican
World War I -- Wilson -- Democrat
World War II* -- FDR-Truman -- Democrat
Korean Conflict -- Truman/Eisenhower -- Democrat/Republican
Counting both the ones started, and the ones "inherited", the count stands at:
Republican -- 10
Democrat -- 7
Regards as always,
-- Nighteyes
* These conflicts took place in multiple locations on more than one continent
Some other posters have indicated, correctly I think, that the line between war and armed conflict less than war is tough to draw. I also think it's probably unfair to assign inherited wars to the inheritee, absent circumstances where the inheritee intensified the war (LBJ in Vietnam, Obama in Afghanistan). Building on that, here is my list:
Spanish-American War* -- McKinley -- Republican Philippine-American War -- McKinley -- Republican Mexican Revolution -- Wilson (for amphibious invasion of Veracruz and for pursuit of Pancho Villa in Mexico) -- Democrat World War I -- Wilson -- Democrat World War II* -- FDR -- Democrat Korean Conflict -- Truman -- Democrat Vietnam -- Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson -- Republican/Democrat x2 (Nixon in Vietnam is the toughest. On the one hand, he made distinct efforts to lower US troop footprints. On the other hand, he supported expanding the war effort to target supply lines in Laos and Cambodia. I leave him off, but can certainly understand including him) Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis -- Kennedy -- Democrat Dominican Civil War -- LBJ -- Democrat
I take out the attempted hostage rescue because it was of such a limited character that comparable conflicts would extend this subject infinitely. I take out the Lebanese Civil War because the US involvement was non-military--Reagan withdrew US troops after the embassy bombing. Grenada -- Reagan -- Republican Libya BombingI -- Reagan -- Republican Panama -- GHW Bush -- Republican Iraq War I -- GHW Bush -- Republican Somali Civil War -- Clinton -- Democrat Haiti Invasion to Reverse Coup -- Clinton -- Democrat Bosnian War -- Clinton (NATO bombing in support of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia) -- Democrat Iraq Bombing -- Clinton -- Democrat Kosovo Bombing -- Clinton -- Democrat War In Afghanistan -- GW Bush/Obama -- Republican/Democrat
Iraq War II -- GW Bush -- Republican Drone strikes and Special Operations raids in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya -- W. Bush/Obama -- Republican/Democrat Libya Intervention -- Obama -- Democrat ISIS Bombing -- Obama -- Democrat
I have avoided including most covert coup attempts (except for Bay of Pigs), even though they often involved a substantial military component (training and supplying arms, for example, especially in Latin America).
Are there any takeaways from this list?
There is a bipartisan stretch, from Ford to Carter to Reagan to H.W. Bush and finally to Clinton where we see only small-scale military intervention--or utilizing military force when the opponent is dramatically outmatched. That may have been the lesson of Vietnam.
I did say that my list probably wasn't complete, and I posted my selection criteria. Feel free to make whatever changes to my "starter list" you wish to make.
Last edited by Nighteyes; 09-24-2014 at 04:37 PM..
And it's hard to find a dividing line that isn't arbitrary.
Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Further, it seems to me that a great many of these wars/conflicts were more a product of time and circumstance than the 'D' or the 'R' by the name of the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As such, the point (if there indeed is a point) of the exercise strikes me as dubious.
I agree. I was just trying to 'prime the pump' so we could reach this conclusion without all the - er - um - strife that might otherwise have occurred.
For me, the biggest demonstration of the lessons learned from Vietnam was Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and specifically the "Powell Doctrine." We got in, got it done, and got out again in short order. If I remember correctly there were only 186 American combat deaths during Desert Storm. Considering what all took place, that ain't too shabby...
I think you're misguided in how you worded this question. Wars (and military / police actions) have little to do with individual Presidents political alliances and party 'tags' for who instigates them. It is resource speculators and those who gain exponentially from conflict (international bankers, war merchants) there's an old axiom that profits are greatest when there is 'blood in the streets'. Certain elements guiding the politicians strings are where you need to focus.
It is mostly a function of economic trade, commerce and resources that hold real value (oil, rare earth metals, control of resource supply, et al). Presidents may 'posture' but rest assured the administrative honchos from Goldman Sachs (in conjunction with their friends at the Federal Reserve Bank - banking cartel) have more say than any political 'tag'.
To play on your OP, the 'wars' are started by the international banks and speculators, but the sons and daughters of the working and lower classes take part in them and suffer the majority of the destruction and calamity. Would be funny to send the management structure of the respective Banking firms into a coliseum and let them kill each other.
War is also a great tool used to unify and shepherd a large populace and is frequently used as such... fear, a common enemy (propaganda) etc... it destroys overproduction and production capacity in various regions and creates refugees willing to do anything to survive (depresses labor) spikes in competitive advantage through government spending on the war machine for innovation etc...
You could say War makes the world go around for certain select peoples benefit more than the common person.
Josiah Stamp (1880-1941) President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain speaking at the commencement address of the University of Texas in 1927:
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let them continue to create deposits."
Some more food for thought (digest slowly).
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, has quite aptly said:
"Why of course the people don’t want war …But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voiceor no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
“There is no doubt the war made an enormous difference in the American Economy. Before the war, we had 15%, and maybe, sometime more,unemployed. A very stagnant, unhappy economy and the war- war production –production of munitions, production of armaments – put enormous sums of moneyinto the economy.” – Prof. J.K. Galbraith
“See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” – President George W. Bush, May 24, 2005
"Man aggresses not only out of frustration and fear but out of joy, plenitude, love of life. Men kill lavishly out of the sublime joy of heroic triumph over evil… I think it is time for social scientists to catch up with Hitler as a psychologist, and to realize that men will do anything for heroic belonging to a victorious cause if they are persuaded about the legitimacy of that cause.” - Ernest Becker, Escape From Evil.
“The principal secret of secret intelligence is how to get someone to do your bidding. Money, Sex, Fear, and the desire for revenge all work, but none perfectly or dependably. Ideological conviction is probably the best of all, but it is also the rarest. Holding onto spies once they’ve been recruited is just as difficult… One way or another, they slipped away. When old hands in the game talk about intelligence trade craft… they talk about two things – how to conduct operations… and how to recruit and manage agents.” –Thomas Powers, in his introduction to John Marks’ The Search For The Manchurian Candidate
“Most men are easy prey for propaganda because of their firm but entirely erroneous conviction that it is composed only of ‘lies’ and ‘tall stories’ and that, conversely, what is true cannot be propaganda. But modern propaganda has long disdained the ridiculous lies of past and outmoded forms of propaganda. It operates instead with many different kinds of truths – half truth, limited truth, truth out of context… - Jacques Ellul cited by Konrad Kellen in his Introduction to Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, by Jacques Ellel (1973, Vintage books
Peace and Contentment are anathema to a consumption based economic system
War and Discontentment are catalyzers to a consumption based economic system - me
“If the American people knew tonight exactly how the monetary and banking system worked, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning” – Abe Lincoln
“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce, and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” - James Garfield 20th president, within a few weeks of making this statement he was assassinated.
Historically, War has been an opportunity for lower class to elevate self through servitude as cannon fodder in hopes of bravery courage and heroism and an increased standing in life. For the merchant class to make money in supplying and for the banking finance class to make money from both sides. That is why war is fomented by the financial military banking elites to accrue exponentially greater wealth to themselves than in‘peace time’. - me
"Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A Heinlein
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
