An interesting visual. I suspect not all would agree with it.
"Which presidents and political parties were responsible for America’s deadliest wars? To what extent can you blame a president or a political party for choosing to go to war? This map may hold some answers. It illustrates the history of American war from 1775 to 2006. War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn’t be. "
The Lone Railroader said:
An interesting visual. I suspect not all would agree with it."Which presidents and political parties were responsible for America’s deadliest wars? To what extent can you blame a president or a political party for choosing to go to war? This map may hold some answers. It illustrates the history of American war from 1775 to 2006. War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn’t be. "
I didnt get any sound, if any, but to me its kind of a RED HERRING of a graphic as it doesnt clarify whether the standing president at the time of the start of the war was responsible for starting the war or simply responding to attack or influences from outside.
The two biggest wars of this century WW1 and WW2 both Wilson and FDR responded to an outside war. Wilson had to virtually be dragged to into WW1 and Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on America, the graphic doenst show that or any of the causes and relationships as to what led the country into that conflict. The graphic alone might lead on to think FDR started WW2?
Just for some examples
Wars that were responces to attack or influences from outside and who triggered it.
Revolutionar War, England, Washington -F
War of 1812 , England, Madison -D
The Civil War, Internal seperatist attack against the Union, Lincoln -R
WW1, Germany, Wilson -D
WW2, Germany, Japan, FDR -D
Korea, N. Korea aided by Russia and China, Truman -D
Lebenon, Civil War, Reagan -R
Gulf War 1, Iraq , GHW Bush -R
Bosnia, Civil War, Clinton -D
Somalia, Civil War, GHW Bush -R, Clinton -D
Afganistan, Teliban supporting Al Quida, GW Bush -R
Wars that were started by the US
Mexican-American War, Polk -D
Indian Wars, various, most remembered events under Grant -R
Spanish American War, McKinley -R
Phillipine Occupaction, McKinley, T. Roosevelt -R
Vietnam, JFK, LBJ -D
Grenada, Reagan -R
Panama, GHW Bush -R
Iraq, GW Bush -R
Each of these had unique situations leading up to the decision to go to war or to participate in supporting the particular war, as in Lebenon, Somalia or Bosnia.
The graphic alone without any of the supporting history is misleading and in reality rather pointless.
I did like this map though…
http://mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
As I said, not all would agree!
I’m another that doesn’t agree. As Vic said the map does not show who started the wars, and who was stuck with someone elses mess. Also as far as “Republican” or “Democrat” goes, historically they tend to switch back and forth as to their ideology and role in government…which is the more conservative and which is the more liberal.
Because this map is based on an unsound premise I find it as nothing more than a propaganda tool.
Warren
Show your facts or your opinion is just propaganda, also.
And Vic does not show which parties started the conflicts…He just has lists of Foreign or Domestic Wars that were started by us or someone else.
And which did you fight in to protect the U.S. from enemies both foreign & domestic?
List updated, but its still irrelevant as to which party was in office.
Just what are you trying to say? that FDR started WW2 by invading Poland?
See my point?
In the graphic its irrelevant as to which party was in office becasue its give a false impression that less soldiers were killed by Republicans that by Democratic president without pointing out the root causes of said conflicts.
Its called a false premise, and a false ananogy saying: Soldiers die in wars, more soldiers were killed when the Democrats were in office during wartime than Republicans, therefore Democrats kill more soldiers than Republicans. Its a false premise, a false analogy with a false conclusion and a fallacy of aurgument. Its just as simple as that.
For me, Viet Nam era 1962 to 1968…PROUDLY!
What facts do I need to present. The problem is YOUR lack of honest facts… As Vic points out, there is no basis as to why these conflicts started, or who started them. I could just as easily state…and it would be as false as this vid, that it was the Dems that cleaned up the mess made by the Republicans that ran from their responsibilities. Anybody can manipulate facts to show any point…just leave out the ones that show a different point of view…make it lopsided. It then becomes political propaganda. That’s what this vid does. The point of view is unscientific and deliberately manipulated to show a point of view that may not necessarily be true in it’s entirety.
If it isn’t the whole truth, it becomes a lie.
Quite frankly, until the Republican party can tell me how they are going to balance the budget, eliminate our national debt, improve the economic situation for the lower half of the population of the US, eliminate hunger among our children, make affordable medical care available for all, improve our educational system, bring discipline to our youth, get a hand on gangs, repair our crumbling infrastructure and improve our security without infringing on our freedoms, I will listen. Until then, they can go suck an egg.
Warren
As one of those dreadful English baddies , may I point out that you are all beginning to sound a bit “yah boo sucks” ?
It matters not who was in power when a war started ; if there was no justification for whatever war , why did the opposition not end it immediately on being voted in ?
But let me tell you all , whatever the peceived rghts and wrongs , there are a lot of countries in the world who are grateful for the fact that the USA “intervened” ,“started a war” , whatever you like to call it .
I count my country as one of those who are unconditionally grateful .
Other countries will not admit to gratitude because they don’t like the idea that they lost it . Fine , history judges them .
I can understand the reason for the arguments in this thread , war is very emotive . But do not let your emotions cloud the fact that whatever war , the servicemen partaking of it were–are–doing the job asked of them .
They are not politicians , they have their views like all of us . They are , to use that now frowned upon word , “Patriots” .
Never forget that , and do not use these Patriots as a means of winning arguments .
The pre 1776 Redcoats didn’t necessarily agree with having to fight your first real war , but it didn’t stop them doing their jobs . Their descendants are currently allied to the USA in some of the world’s trouble spots
Treat your Servicemen with respect , whether they are serving , ex serving , or simply KIA . Three letters used to disguise the real horror of war .
Don’t demean their memory . They died so’s you could have these discussions . Respect that , at least .
Warren
But can the Democratic Party answer your prayers?
And by what means?..raise taxes?..stop Defense Spending (putting us in a weaker Global Posture)???
There is a price to pay for each and every action.
Vietnam era???..Any time in country?
“But can the Democratic Party answer your prayers?”
They did during WW2
PS …I’m not argueing with anyone, just pointing out that the logic used is flawed and that it contains several falacies.
Lone RRers last comment pretty much sums up what I was beginning to suspect, that no discussion of any kind is going to change his position, so why bother?
Victor Smith said:
"But can the Democratic Party answer your prayers?"They did during WW2
PS …I’m not argueing with anyone, just pointing out that the logic used is flawed and that it contains several falacies.
Lone RRers last comment pretty much sums up what I was beginning to suspect, that no discussion of any kind is going to change his position, so why bother?
Both wars served a good lesson to not go to war unless you plan to win…and win decisively.
The Lone Railroader said:
WarrenBut can the Democratic Party answer your prayers?
And by what means?..raise taxes?..stop Defense Spending (putting us in a weaker Global Posture)???
There is a price to pay for each and every action.
Vietnam era???..Any time in country?
but it’s the only hope I have until we can find some independent politicians that are honest and are there for the country, not what the job can do for them and answer to their own conscience and not some party boss.
When you spend more than you earn something has to give…either cut back on spending or earn more money. It most likely will be more taxes to pay off the financial mess this administration put us in. But then again cutting back on the pork barrel spending and get down to running an honest government would go a long ways too.
I would never say stop Defense spending but if we were not in a war where we didn’t belong we could cut it back quite a bit and be able to finish the job in Afganistan and nail bin Laden as we should have done in the first place. In my opinion, our present defense posture has weakened us both with our enemy and our allies.
I agree that there is a price to pay for every action. The Republicans made the wrong decisions and took the wrong actions. Now they are paying the price!
Viet Nam: I never literally set foot on solid ground.
USAF 3960 Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron (SAC) Anderson AFB, Guam.
I was the Systems Analyst for ECM (B52’s) on combat flight status. My view of Viet Nam was 35,000 feet straight down. I consider myself to be very lucky. I was discharged before they shot down the first B52. And my hat is off to the military on the ground…all branches. That was one tough job.
Warren Mumpower said:Warren,
I would never say [u]stop[/u] Defense spending but if we were not in a war where we didn't belong we could cut it back quite a bit and be able to finish the job in Afganistan and nail bin Laden as we should have done in the first place. In my opinion, our present defense posture has weakened us both with our enemy and our allies.
I spend 15 years on the ground eating, living & fighting alongside and against people in the Middle East. I know how they think. Even the most docile & serine of them believe that Islam will be the only religion on this planet one day. Of course the fanatics among them want that day to be much sooner. This conflict is over 2,000 years old. The U.S. is only a newcomer on the stage.
To paraphrase someone else, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
So you just better pick where you want to stand your ground. Because they WILL follow the troops home to Main Street, USA.
The Lone Railroader said:1,400 years, more or less.
Even the most docile & serine of them believe that Islam will be the only religion on this planet one day. This conflict is over 2,000 years old.
I whole heartedly agree with you there. But there are some Christian fundamentalists that feel the same way. There job isn’t complete until the whole world is Christian…their brand of Christian. Thus, my Egyptian friend that I converse with on a regular basis constantly refers to us as the American Crusaders. One of the really bad problems with our current administration is their failure to understand this very thing. Had they just stayed with Afganistan and got them turned around and more democratic but on their own as a viable nation with Islamic roots…minus the fanatics, it would have been much easier to deal with Iraq in the future. The US as a majority Christian country cannot stay in that area indefinately. Our culture is too different from theirs and “Crusades” don’t work. Our administration also fails to understand that even though Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations may be referred to as “allies” come push to shove there isn’t one of them that wouldn’t stab us in the back. If we go too far over there we would find ourselves having to take on the whole works. If the Israli/Palistinian conflict isn’t resolved soon…and Palistine made an independent country we will never be able or credible enough to help solve any problems in the Middle East. Instead of us going over there and trying to eleminate Islamic Fanaticism we need to put a fence around it, contain it and let those over there that are level headed resolve their own problems. They have a far better insight into it than we do.
Warren
Chris Vernell said:Closer to 3,000 years old. It actually has it's roots in the Ishmael and Issac family history.The Lone Railroader said:1,400 years, more or less.
Even the most docile & serine of them believe that Islam will be the only religion on this planet one day. This conflict is over 2,000 years old.
Warren Mumpower said:
I whole heartedly agree with you there. But there are some Christian fundamentalists that feel the same way. There job isn't complete until the whole world is Christian...their brand of Christian. Thus, my Egyptian friend that I converse with on a regular basis constantly refers to us as the American Crusaders. One of the really bad problems with our current administration is their failure to understand this very thing. Had they just stayed with Afganistan and got them turned around and more democratic but on their own as a viable nation with Islamic roots...minus the fanatics, it would have been much easier to deal with Iraq in the future. The US as a majority Christian country cannot stay in that area indefinately. Our culture is too different from theirs and "Crusades" don't work. Our administration also fails to understand that even though Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations may be referred to as "allies" come push to shove there isn't one of them that wouldn't stab us in the back. If we go too far over there we would find ourselves having to take on the whole works. If the Israli/Palistinian conflict isn't resolved soon...and Palistine made an independent country we will never be able or credible enough to help solve any problems in the Middle East. Instead of us going over there and trying to eleminate Islamic Fanaticism we need to put a fence around it, contain it and let those over there that are level headed resolve their own problems. They have a far better insight into it than we do.Warren
Marvin and Warren.
As Mohammed did not form Islam until about 1400 years ago, how can the current conflict of Christianity/Judaism v Islam, be 2000 years old let alone 3000 years old, if Islam did not exist then?
Sure the conflict goes back before “modern” biblical times, to the time when the Jews were driven out of the lands they occupied.
To my way of thinking all Israel is doing is getting those lands back
That is tough for the Arabs. They will never get any sympathy until Islam starts treating women with respect and dignity and offers them the same “freedoms” women of the West currently enjoy without the interference of Mullahs telling them how to dress, behave and serve their religion.
First, the conflict is not Judaism vs Islam. It’s Jew vs Arab much like the other supposed religous conflicts such as the recent Protestant vs Catholic in Ireland which really had nothing to do with religion. Religion becomes an excuse to continue the conflict and often muddles the core problems. Every Jew in the world could convert to Islam and the conflict would be the same. As far as an Arab is concerned the only good Jew is a dead one…and the feelings of most Israelis towards Arabs are the same.
Things may be different in Australia, but Christian fundamentalism is quite alive here in the US and those churches hold a strong grip on it’s members…and patriarchy is alive and well. While the women may have somewhat more freedoms than fundamentalist Islamic women they still are told how to dress, how to behave and to submit to their husbands…which in some churches amounts to slavery. And you won’t see the men of those churches here either as they are taught that hobbies are “of the flesh” and should be avoided. I had one tell me at one time that I would “burn in hell” because I owned a TV…
Tony & Warren
You are both correct about the extreme factions on both sides oppressing women. And I am aganist it, also.