Btw: just a bit pre- 20th century, even though Republicans (McKinley-R) had the presidency during the Spanish-American War, we didn't annex Cuba (which the US could have done no problemo at the time). The argument that conservatives are imperialists is also pretty flimsy. Puerto Rico and the Philippines weren't exactly profitable ventures on our part but Cuba would have been...
We could have stayed out of all conflicts just as we could have stayed out of both Gulf Wars or any other f'ing conflict. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how Conservatives are war-mongerers. It's complete bullshit. We wouldn't have been involved in either World War if the conservatives would have been in power. They were isolationist at the time (back then conservatism was more libertarian). I'm not saying they were right. History has proven that at least WW2 was a righteous war (WW1 is less defendable as a necessary involvement on the part of the U.S.). I won't even argue that the atomic bombs weren't necessary because I think dropping them saved lives. Just stop with the Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-war BS!
I'm not really sure what to say here. Japan attacked the US in 1941. It was in some ways a response to the oil embargo placed upon Japan as well as our response (Rhetorically) to Japanese atrocities in China. Isolationism really didnt explicitly factor in here.
Korea was a response to our ally being invaded by North Korea. Again, not really something being isolationist or otherwise was related to.
There are different factors in each ideology. Liberalism isnt inherently anti-war, and conservatism isnt inherently pro-war. On balance, in the past 50 years, the conservative movement has been more hawkish than the liberal movement has been. Go back 50 years before that, and it's a lot more balanced.
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
You omitted absolutely vital context. Suggesting that the US involvement in World War 2 was somehow "started by a Democrat" is completely factually incorrect.
Ergo - "largely correct". Democrats have been at the helm of the nation during the major conflict of the last century.
Edit - For the record. I dont blame Republicans for starting Vietnam. Vietnam will always be a black eye on the legacy of Kennedy.
That said, dont gloss over Nixon's part in it. The fact that he tried to ruin the peace talks in 1968 in order to help secure the presidency is absolutely loathsome. There's also his bombing of Cambodia and Laos that cannot and should not ever be overlooked
Cambodia and Laos had ineffective governments that couldn't stand against the Viet-Cong. To hold them to the same standards as legitimate governments would be the same as saying the Soviet Union shouldn't have invaded the Nazi puppet government of Poland to get to Berlin. Sorry, I call BS.
Cambodia and Laos had ineffective governments that couldn't stand against the Viet-Cong. To hold them to the same standards as legitimate governments would be the same as saying the Soviet Union shouldn't have invaded the Nazi puppet government of Poland to get to Berlin. Sorry, I call BS.
Okay - but to your larger point that you think it's BS to say the GOP is pro-war... this was an expansion of a bad war. Hard to defend the GOP here, just like it's hard to defend Kennedy for the beginning.
We could have stayed out of all conflicts just as we could have stayed out of both Gulf Wars or any other f'ing conflict. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how Conservatives are war-mongerers. It's complete bullshit. We wouldn't have been involved in either World War if the conservatives would have been in power. They were isolationist at the time (back then conservatism was more libertarian). I'm not saying they were right. History has proven that at least WW2 was a righteous war (WW1 is less defendable as a necessary involvement on the part of the U.S.). I won't even argue that the atomic bombs weren't necessary because I think dropping them saved lives. Just stop with the Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-war BS!
I'm not really sure what to say here. Japan attacked the US in 1941. It was in some ways a response to the oil embargo placed upon Japan as well as our response (Rhetorically) to Japanese atrocities in China. Isolationism really didnt explicitly factor in here.
Korea was a response to our ally being invaded by North Korea. Again, not really something being isolationist or otherwise was related to.
There are different factors in each ideology. Liberalism isnt inherently anti-war, and conservatism isnt inherently pro-war. On balance, in the past 50 years, the conservative movement has been more hawkish than the liberal movement has been. Go back 50 years before that, and it's a lot more balanced.
Germany didn't attack us in WW2 and yet we primarily focused on them. Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have, just setting the record straight. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that most liberals think the Republicans dropped the atomic bombs. Liberals think the right is stupid, I think both sides are stupid.
We could have stayed out of all conflicts just as we could have stayed out of both Gulf Wars or any other f'ing conflict. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how Conservatives are war-mongerers. It's complete bullshit. We wouldn't have been involved in either World War if the conservatives would have been in power. They were isolationist at the time (back then conservatism was more libertarian). I'm not saying they were right. History has proven that at least WW2 was a righteous war (WW1 is less defendable as a necessary involvement on the part of the U.S.). I won't even argue that the atomic bombs weren't necessary because I think dropping them saved lives. Just stop with the Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-war BS!
I'm not really sure what to say here. Japan attacked the US in 1941. It was in some ways a response to the oil embargo placed upon Japan as well as our response (Rhetorically) to Japanese atrocities in China. Isolationism really didnt explicitly factor in here.
Korea was a response to our ally being invaded by North Korea. Again, not really something being isolationist or otherwise was related to.
There are different factors in each ideology. Liberalism isnt inherently anti-war, and conservatism isnt inherently pro-war. On balance, in the past 50 years, the conservative movement has been more hawkish than the liberal movement has been. Go back 50 years before that, and it's a lot more balanced.
Germany didn't attack us in WW2 and yet we primarily focused on them. Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have, just setting the record straight. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that most liberals think the Republicans dropped the atomic bombs. Liberals think the right is stupid, I think both sides are stupid.
50 years ago was 1968. How many US casualties are attributable to D's over R's since then? I'll bet it's much closer than you think. Yeah, if only Nixon had just dropped everything and got us out if Vietnam just like Obama did in Afghanistan and Iraq, oh wait...
Cambodia and Laos had ineffective governments that couldn't stand against the Viet-Cong. To hold them to the same standards as legitimate governments would be the same as saying the Soviet Union shouldn't have invaded the Nazi puppet government of Poland to get to Berlin. Sorry, I call BS.
Okay - but to your larger point that you think it's BS to say the GOP is pro-war... this was an expansion of a bad war. Hard to defend the GOP here, just like it's hard to defend Kennedy for the beginning.
Trying to win a war is stupid? Oh, sorry I guess we should have been gentlemen and challenged them to a dual.
Germany didn't attack us in WW2 and yet we primarily focused on them. Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have, just setting the record straight. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that most liberals think the Republicans dropped the atomic bombs. Liberals think the right is stupid, I think both sides are stupid.
Germany declared war on the USA on December 11th (not the other way around). I imagine that German subs were immediately given the order to begin shooting and sinking US convoys. That we agreed upon dealing with Europe before Asia was a strategic choice... probably owing to being economically and politically closer to France and the UK than to China.
Germany didn't attack us in WW2 and yet we primarily focused on them. Again, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have, just setting the record straight. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that most liberals think the Republicans dropped the atomic bombs. Liberals think the right is stupid, I think both sides are stupid.
Germany declared war on the USA on December 11th (not the other way around). I imagine that German subs were immediately given the order to begin shooting and sinking US convoys. That we agreed upon dealing with Europe before Asia was a strategic choice... probably owing to being economically and politically closer to France and the UK than to China.
You got me there. That was a moronic decision on Germany's part that made it easier for Roosevelt. The U.S. people, however wanted to kick Japan's was, not Germany.
I'll keep stressing that I'm on Roosevelt's side in this regard though. I'm only arguing that Republicans have cost less US lives than Democrats over our history (disregarding the Civil War which was much more complicated). WW2 was a direct result of WW1 which I think we should have stayed out of. What would've happened without our involvement can definitely not be proved but an argument can be made that WW2 would not have happened at the very least...
50 years ago was 1968. How many US casualties are attributable to D's over R's since then? I'll bet it's much closer than you think. Yeah, if only Nixon had just dropped everything and got us out if Vietnam just like Obama did in Afghanistan and Iraq, oh wait...
This is my last response, then I'm going to bed.
First - I didnt put any words in your mouth. Dont put words in my mouth. The fact of the matter is that Nixon does deserve some blame in Vietnam. How much? I dont know. A lot. Maybe less than Kennedy. Maybe more (Again, those scuttled peace talks...)
Second - It seems like your only point is to snipe at Democrats here because you're mad that some people think the GOP (and therefore, you?) are pro-war? Sorry. I dont really have the will or desire to defend all democrats from you. There are plenty of hawkish democrats. There are plenty of hawkish republicans. You're citing my posts like I'm somehow arguing with you. All I did was offer context.
I'll keep stressing that I'm on Roosevelt's side in this regard though. I'm only arguing that Republicans have cost less US lives than Democrats over our history (disregarding the Civil War which was much more complicated). WW2 was a direct result of WW1 which I think we should have stayed out of. What would've happened without our involvement can definitely not be proved but an argument can be made that WW2 would not have happened at the very least...
This as a hypothetical doesnt really make sense. Of course we cannot know what would have happened if the USA hadnt involved itself in World War 1. Maybe the entente still wins, and WW2 happens anyways? To derive any kind of blame whatsoever on Democrats based on what could have happened is... I dont know, pointless?
Cambodia and Laos had ineffective governments that couldn't stand against the Viet-Cong. To hold them to the same standards as legitimate governments would be the same as saying the Soviet Union shouldn't have invaded the Nazi puppet government of Poland to get to Berlin. Sorry, I call BS.
Okay - but to your larger point that you think it's BS to say the GOP is pro-war... this was an expansion of a bad war. Hard to defend the GOP here, just like it's hard to defend Kennedy for the beginning.
Nixon may have thought that Johnson didn't try his best due to the protests. History may now give him much of the blame, but what if he'd just given up without even trying? Just think of the what-if's if that had happened...
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Vietnam is the real black eye.
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
Nixon didn't try to end anything. He was actively working against peace deals while Johnson was still in office in 1968 (which was basically treason) and then he and Kissinger decided to carpet bomb Cambodia in 1970, dropping more tonnage than in the entire Pacific Theater, and paving the way for the Khemer Rouge. Vietnam only ended once Nixon was forced to resign after being revealed to have been involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Moreover, since the entire party alignment shifted after the Civil Rights Act and most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party (basically, post-Johnson), there has been ONE minor war on your list started by a Democrat (Bosnia/Clinton) that didn't result in a single US casualty. So while historically this is all correct information (and I'm removing WW2 from consideration here because are we really arguing we should have sat that one out??), the last 50 years tell an entirely different tale. The modern political lines were drawn in 1964. Beyond that, Johnson was so reviled even by the left because of Vietnam DESPITE his domestic and Civil Rights victories that he was wasn't even capable of running for re-election a second time. I'd say Johnson was held to account nearly as much as Nixon was.
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Vietnam is the real black eye.
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
Nixon didn't try to end anything. He was actively working against peace deals while Johnson was still in office in 1968 (which was basically treason) and then he and Kissinger decided to carpet bomb Cambodia in 1970, dropping more tonnage than in the entire Pacific Theater, and paving the way for the Khemer Rouge. Vietnam only ended once Nixon was forced to resign after being revealed to have been involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Moreover, since the entire party alignment shifted after the Civil Rights Act and most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party (basically, post-Johnson), there has been ONE minor war on your list started by a Democrat (Bosnia/Clinton) that didn't result in a single US casualty. So while historically this is all correct information (and I'm removing WW2 from consideration here because are we really arguing we should have sat that one out??), the last 50 years tell an entirely different tale. The modern political lines were drawn in 1964. Beyond that, Johnson was so reviled even by the left because of Vietnam DESPITE his domestic and Civil Rights victories that he was wasn't even capable of running for re-election a second time.
U.S. war deaths since 1900.
Wars began by Democrats - 427,029 Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Vietnam is the real black eye.
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
Nixon didn't try to end anything. He was actively working against peace deals while Johnson was still in office in 1968 (which was basically treason) and then he and Kissinger decided to carpet bomb Cambodia in 1970, dropping more tonnage than in the entire Pacific Theater, and paving the way for the Khemer Rouge. Vietnam only ended once Nixon was forced to resign after being revealed to have been involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Moreover, since the entire party alignment shifted after the Civil Rights Act and most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party (basically, post-Johnson), there has been ONE minor war on your list started by a Democrat (Bosnia/Clinton) that didn't result in a single US casualty. So while historically this is all correct information (and I'm removing WW2 from consideration here because are we really arguing we should have sat that one out??), the last 50 years tell an entirely different tale. The modern political lines were drawn in 1964. Beyond that, Johnson was so reviled even by the left because of Vietnam DESPITE his domestic and Civil Rights victories that he was wasn't even capable of running for re-election a second time. I'd say Johnson was held to account nearly as much as Nixon was.
Did the carpet-bombing bring them to the peace table? Seems like it might have. Kennedy began the conflict. Johnson escalated. There is nothing you can say that can refute that. Vietnam is primarily a Democrat war!
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
I added the Spanish-American War in an update since it was close enough to the the 20th century in retrospect. Sorry about that but I did remedy my omission...
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
I didn't say that. My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
I didn't say that. My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Yeah, because the population of the world is what, 5-10 times more? Give me a fucking break. The actual casualty caust of war is at least 10x lower than ever in history. Sorry, I still call bullshit...
in a fucking nutshell, United States upgrades to the dynamics of warfare = fucking hundreds of goddamned thousands of less casualties over the years since WW2. I can't prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt but I will argue anybody who has a semblance of logic. Bring it on!
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
Wow, you're right. That's working out great for Congo without us. I stand corrected...
Well I can also say, the UN's role isn't to fight in conflicts. There are 3 that I can name off the top of my head Bosnia, Congo and Somalia.
What exactly is their role then? The same role as The League of Nations? That worked well for the world. I'm sure Ethiopia, Albania, and Czechoslovakia are praising the role of the L.O.N. in their history...
The U.S. is the only U.N. member with teeth so don't give me any BS about U.N."leadership" in a real conflict. That's an f'ing joke right? When has the U.N. done anything of importance without the U.S. in the lead? Short answer, NEVER! Name one Goddamned time!
Wow, you're right. That's working out great for Congo without us. I stand corrected...
Well I can also say, the UN's role isn't to fight in conflicts. There are 3 that I can name off the top of my head Bosnia, Congo and Somalia.
Bosnia - sort of worked since Serbia wanted to Westernize anyway Congo - no resolution - US interest - negligible Somalia - US interest - marginal - not worth intervention
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
I didn't say that. My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Yeah, because the population of the world is what, 5-10 times more? Give me a fucking break. The actual casualty caust of war is at least 10x lower than ever in history. Sorry, I still call bullshit...
ok, how about this for perspective:
Canada currently has 111,250 total military personnel according to this site.
That is less than the amount of soldiers (170, 000) used to fight in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during WW1 100 years ago. 3600 Canadians died in the three days of the battle. Germany lost 20, 000.
I highly doubt we will ever see those types of numbers again in a single battle. Militaries do not need man power like they use to; therefore statistics such as this:
Wars began by Democrats - 427,029 Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Source- Wikipedia "US War Deaths"
Are misleading since every war started by Republicans happened after 1970 according to your own list (as the Philippine-American War had 6,165 so was probably omitted from the Republican numbers).
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
I didn't say that. My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Yeah, because the population of the world is what, 5-10 times more? Give me a fucking break. The actual casualty caust of war is at least 10x lower than ever in history. Sorry, I still call bullshit...
ok, how about this for perspective:
Canada currently has 111,250 total military personnel according to this site.
That is less than the amount of soldiers (170, 000) used to fight in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during WW1 100 years ago. 3600 Canadians died in the three days of the battle. Germany lost 20, 000.
I highly doubt we will ever see those types of numbers again in a single battle. Militaries do not need man power like they use to; therefore statistics such as this:
Wars began by Democrats - 427,029 Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Source- Wikipedia "US War Deaths"
Are misleading since every war started by Republicans happened after 1970 according to your own list (as the Philippine-American War had 6,165 so was probably omitted from the Republican numbers).
Where has Canada sent that military? Exactly nowhere. Sorry, B.S. Australia or New Zealand since WW2 anybody???
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
I don't think you can compare global conflicts that are WW1 & 2 to self serving wars such as the 2 Gulf ones.
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
We're throwing unmanned missiles against terrorists and/or using technology to reduce our casualties. Apparently you think that's horrible. I guess we should arrange one-on-one ninja battles with swords to settle major differences between philosophies/ideologies. Winner take all!
I didn't say that. My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Yeah, because the population of the world is what, 5-10 times more? Give me a fucking break. The actual casualty caust of war is at least 10x lower than ever in history. Sorry, I still call bullshit...
ok, how about this for perspective:
Canada currently has 111,250 total military personnel according to this site.
That is less than the amount of soldiers (170, 000) used to fight in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during WW1 100 years ago. 3600 Canadians died in the three days of the battle. Germany lost 20, 000.
I highly doubt we will ever see those types of numbers again in a single battle. Militaries do not need man power like they use to; therefore statistics such as this:
Wars began by Democrats - 427,029 Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Source- Wikipedia "US War Deaths"
Are misleading since every war started by Republicans happened after 1970 according to your own list (as the Philippine-American War had 6,165 so was probably omitted from the Republican numbers).
Military spending quite possibly led to lower casualties in both sides. OMG - How is that possible????
Comments
Korea was a response to our ally being invaded by North Korea. Again, not really something being isolationist or otherwise was related to.
There are different factors in each ideology. Liberalism isnt inherently anti-war, and conservatism isnt inherently pro-war. On balance, in the past 50 years, the conservative movement has been more hawkish than the liberal movement has been. Go back 50 years before that, and it's a lot more balanced.
I'll keep stressing that I'm on Roosevelt's side in this regard though. I'm only arguing that Republicans have cost less US lives than Democrats over our history (disregarding the Civil War which was much more complicated). WW2 was a direct result of WW1 which I think we should have stayed out of. What would've happened without our involvement can definitely not be proved but an argument can be made that WW2 would not have happened at the very least...
This is my last response, then I'm going to bed.
First - I didnt put any words in your mouth. Dont put words in my mouth. The fact of the matter is that Nixon does deserve some blame in Vietnam. How much? I dont know. A lot. Maybe less than Kennedy. Maybe more (Again, those scuttled peace talks...)
Second - It seems like your only point is to snipe at Democrats here because you're mad that some people think the GOP (and therefore, you?) are pro-war? Sorry. I dont really have the will or desire to defend all democrats from you. There are plenty of hawkish democrats. There are plenty of hawkish republicans. You're citing my posts like I'm somehow arguing with you. All I did was offer context.
This as a hypothetical doesnt really make sense. Of course we cannot know what would have happened if the USA hadnt involved itself in World War 1. Maybe the entente still wins, and WW2 happens anyways? To derive any kind of blame whatsoever on Democrats based on what could have happened is... I dont know, pointless?
Moreover, since the entire party alignment shifted after the Civil Rights Act and most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party (basically, post-Johnson), there has been ONE minor war on your list started by a Democrat (Bosnia/Clinton) that didn't result in a single US casualty. So while historically this is all correct information (and I'm removing WW2 from consideration here because are we really arguing we should have sat that one out??), the last 50 years tell an entirely different tale. The modern political lines were drawn in 1964. Beyond that, Johnson was so reviled even by the left because of Vietnam DESPITE his domestic and Civil Rights victories that he was wasn't even capable of running for re-election a second time. I'd say Johnson was held to account nearly as much as Nixon was.
Wars began by Democrats - 427,029
Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Source- Wikipedia "US War Deaths"
Besides the Phillipines (which I don't know why you listed, but didn't list the war that caused it, the Spanish-American War) and the Bay of Pigs, which wasn't technically a war, all the wars listed as "minor" took part after the lessons learnt during the Vietnam war and all could be said were launched for selfish reasons except Bosnia, and the US was the aggressor:
Grenada: not selfish, but it was considered a flagrant violation of international law. US was the aggressor.
Gulf War: Oil. US was the aggressor (although Iraq did invade Kuwait first, but they invaded with weapons supplied by the US, so it washes out.)
Bosnia: UN led, not US
Afghanistan: Scapegoat for 9/11
Iraq: Finishing what daddy started... or at least attempting to.
It can also be said that the action of war has changed in the last couple of decades. We're no longer
throwing 45,000 men against each other, we're throwing bombs towards nations that can't bomb us back.
In all the (R) cases above, which happened in the last 50 years, the US was the aggressor. It is why (R) are considered more hawkish when it comes to wars.
My point is you can not compare the death count between wars that happened over 50 years ago and ones that were started in the last 20 years. The way wars are fought have changed.
Congo - no resolution - US interest - negligible
Somalia - US interest - marginal - not worth intervention
How exactly did the U.N. disagree?
Canada currently has 111,250 total military personnel according to this site.
That is less than the amount of soldiers (170, 000) used to fight in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during WW1 100 years ago. 3600 Canadians died in the three days of the battle. Germany lost 20, 000.
I highly doubt we will ever see those types of numbers again in a single battle. Militaries do not need man power like they use to; therefore statistics such as this:
Wars began by Republicans - 5,650
Source- Wikipedia "US War Deaths"
Are misleading since every war started by Republicans happened after 1970 according to your own list (as the Philippine-American War had 6,165 so was probably omitted from the Republican numbers).