NationStates Jolt Archive

We're always involved in something, how long do you think we can stand before we have to go to war.

Of the conflicts the US has been involved in over the last 100 years, which of them did the US actually start? And which of them was the US forced to respond too?

Not sure I like this poll. It's missing 3 and 4 years. I would expect a new war to start with the new presidential election cycle. You need to keep the population in fear. ;)

We're always involved in something, how long do you think we can stand before we have to go to war.
Your thesis contains too many unfounded assumptions. :rolleyes:

I'm not here to write a whole essay on it.

Of the conflicts the US has been involved in over the last 100 years, which of them did the US actually start? And which of them was the US forced to respond too?

Very few. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but that's about it.

I'm not here to write a whole essay on it.
Never said you were. Just pointing out why I didn't participate in your survey. :)

Very few. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but that's about it.

Actually, you can make a case that we started neither! Afghanistan was IN RESPONSE TO a terrorists attack (Sorry for the caps but I want to get that point across). Iraq was a coninuation of the 1991 Gulf War which ended in a cease-fire.

So you can make a case that we didn't start those actions either.

Actually, you can make a case that we started neither! Afghanistan was IN RESPONSE TO a terrorists attack (Sorry for the caps but I want to get that point across). Iraq was a coninuation of the 1991 Gulf War which ended in a cease-fire.

So you can make a case that we didn't start those actions either.

True enough.

you can make a case that we didn't start those actions either.

Ah, but making a case != making a viable (or credible) case.

Ah, but making a case != making a viable (or credible) case.

Don't matter. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 and Iraq was a continuation of the 1st Gulf War. We only had a cease-fire in Iraq not a peace treaty. Any nation that was involved in a cease-fire can go back to war if they so choose.

Presidents like to have little "pet wars" because it gives people something to remember them by. Sometimes they do it on purpose for lack of anything better to do (or lack of interest in other problems), and some are thrust upon them. Anything for the history books. No one wants to be a William Henry Harrison.

Don't matter. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 and Iraq was a continuation of the 1st Gulf War. We only had a cease-fire in Iraq not a peace treaty. Any nation that was involved in a cease-fire can go back to war if they so choose.

1. Afghanistan, the country, did nothing to the US visavi 9/11. The taliban harboured Al Qaida, yes, but the war on Afghanistan is a war started by the US.

2. And breaking a cease-fire that lasted for a decade, for other reasons (whatever reasons the US decides sound good today) than the first conflict was started over and without the backing of the other countries or organisations that supported the original conflict, is starting a new conflict.

Not sure I like this poll. It's missing 3 and 4 years. I would expect a new war to start with the new presidential election cycle. You need to keep the population in fear. ;)

2 years... America has a short attention span... :)

Of the conflicts the US has been involved in over the last 100 years, which of them did the US actually start? And which of them was the US forced to respond too?
Your question is biased, as "forced to respond" can be anything. Grenada and Panama were certainly started by the US, but there's always a excuse to justify them. Iraq 2 the same, even if some say it's a continuation of Iraq 1, there was no conflict and no need to escalate. By intervening in Vietnam the US unnecesarily escalated a conflict, by doing it without clear military and political objectives, it was needlessly lengthened.

Anyway, in any case, the US hasn't started, or intervened in nearly as many conflicts as those mean Europeans. See? I'm an equal opportunity power-basher.

Less than one year!

We can't do much for the next couple years while we're stuck in Iraq.

it all depends on how quickly we can get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan. however we have enough in the reserves to attack two other countries about the size of Saudi Arabia (area not population) but we couldnt support the rebuilding

Anyway, in any case, the US hasn't started, or intervened in nearly as many conflicts as those mean Europeans. See? I'm an equal opportunity power-basher.

Of course they haven't. 230 years of history versus several millenia. :rolleyes:

Of course they haven't. 230 years of history versus several millenia. :rolleyes:
Oh, I was talking about just the past two centuries. Heck! Even if you go back only a couple of decades you'll find Europe with its dirty fingers all over Africa.

Oh, I was talking about just the past two centuries. Heck! Even if you go back only a couple of decades you'll find Europe with its dirty fingers all over Africa.

Again: 230 years of history versus several millenia: The US was nowhere near powerful enough to do as much as Europe did before the first world war. And the Africa issue had been going on for a very long time. It taught Europe something which the US seems to need to learn itself.

Again: 230 years of history versus several millenia: The US was nowhere near powerful enough to do as much as Europe did before the first world war. And the Africa issue had been going on for a very long time. It taught Europe something which the US seems to need to learn itself.

And what is that?

Again: 230 years of history versus several millenia: The US was nowhere near powerful enough to do as much as Europe did before the first world war. And the Africa issue had been going on for a very long time. It taught Europe something which the US seems to need to learn itself.
Read my response again. Realize that I'm talking about recent history.

Again: 230 years of history versus several millenia: The US was nowhere near powerful enough to do as much as Europe did before the first world war. And the Africa issue had been going on for a very long time. It taught Europe something which the US seems to need to learn itself.
The US isn't an "empire" in the classic sense.

Read my response again. Realize that I'm talking about recent history.

How recent is recent? And why are you mentioning Africa, when that clearly falls under "not so recent" when all of the history is considered?

Also America was isolationist for most of that time, which can be argued as a cause of a good few wars

And what is that?

That just because we think that we're the bee's knees, doesn't mean that we are or that others want or should be made to want to be like us.

Also America was isolationist for most of that time, which can be argued as a cause of a good few wars

We were never isolationist. We were non-interventionist. An example of isolationism would be Japan during the time it closed itself off to all Europeans and the rest of the world.

Start or join a war?

Very few. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but that's about it.
And even then, the U.S. had no real choice but to go into Afghanistan.

Ah, but making a case != making a viable (or credible) case.
Yes, but he has made rather credible cases. Are they indesputible (in particular in the case of Iraq)? No. But they are both viable and credible.

1. Afghanistan, the country, did nothing to the US visavi 9/11. The taliban harboured Al Qaida, yes, but the war on Afghanistan is a war started by the US.

2. And breaking a cease-fire that lasted for a decade, for other reasons (whatever reasons the US decides sound good today) than the first conflict was started over and without the backing of the other countries or organisations that supported the original conflict, is starting a new conflict.

1. Afghanistan harbored Al Quida, allowed them to train in their country, and supported them in every way. They would not kick Al Quida out of the country nor turn them over to the US. Therefore, the war in Afghanistan was a direct result of an attack on the US.


2. Iraq clearly refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement. That is why the UN passed so many resolutions. Part of the cease-fire agreement was to allow the UN inspectors to do their job. Also, the firing on allied aircraft in the no fly zone was against the cease-fire agreement. Clearly, Iraq was in violation of the agreement. So the invasion of Iraq is an extension of the Gulf War which came about by Iraq invading Kuwait.

3. The US did have the backing of other countries. We were not the only country that invaded. :headbang:

1. Afghanistan, the country, did nothing to the US visavi 9/11. The taliban harboured Al Qaida, yes, but the war on Afghanistan is a war started by the US.
The de facto government of Afghanistan supported and funded a group that launched a terrorist attack on the United States. You're damn right they started it!

Your question is biased, as "forced to respond" can be anything. Grenada and Panama were certainly started by the US, but there's always a excuse to justify them.

They were responses to the takeover of neighbouring countries by hostile, undemocratic governments. As a direct result of Operations Urgent Fury and Just Cause, over three million people now live in democratic countries who otherwise would not.

Grenada and Panama were certainly started by the US, but there's always a excuse to justify them.

A reason to justify them, not an excuse. :)

One never needs an excuse to do what's right. :)

however we have enough in the reserves to attack two other countries about the size of Saudi Arabia (area not population)

No we do not.

1. Afghanistan harbored Al Quida, allowed them to train in their country, and supported them in every way. They would not kick Al Quida out of the country nor turn them over to the US. Therefore, the war in Afghanistan was a direct result of an attack on the US.

Not by Afghanistan.


2. Iraq clearly refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement. That is why the UN passed so many resolutions. Part of the cease-fire agreement was to allow the UN inspectors to do their job. Also, the firing on allied aircraft in the no fly zone was against the cease-fire agreement. Clearly, Iraq was in violation of the agreement. So the invasion of Iraq is an extension of the Gulf War which came about by Iraq invading Kuwait.

Voilà, la raison/l'excuse du jour!

3. The US did have the backing of other countries. We were not the only country that invaded. :headbang:

Ah, yes the coalition of the bullied. Still not the same coalition as during the first conflict, and without the backing of the organisation that made the first conflict such an international happening.

Also America was isolationist for most of that time, which can be argued as a cause of a good few wars

Please explain how isolationism can be a cause for war? Also, which war or wars were started because of American Isolationist polocies?

We were never isolationist. We were non-interventionist. An example of isolationism would be Japan during the time it closed itself off to all Europeans and the rest of the world.

Wrong. The US at one time perused isolationism.

Come to think of it...how many conflicts did US get themselves into?

No we do not.
Yes, we do. You're just going have to either believe me on this one or not, but this I know for a fact.

Come to think of it...how many conflicts did US get themselves into?
Um ... all of them? :confused:

Not by Afghanistan.

By their actions Afghanistan was complicit.


Voilà, la raison/l'excuse du jour!

No, I did not state a reason or excuse. I stated the facts.

Ah, yes the coalition of the bullied. Still not the same coalition as during the first conflict, and without the backing of the organisation that made the first conflict such an international happening.

A coalition yes. We did not invade alone as you implied in your original post.

Yes, we do. You're just going have to either believe me on this one or not, but this I know for a fact.

I have no idea where you got your facts, however my 26 years in the military gives some credability for my statement. We do not have the people or equipment to engage in another war at this time.

Um ... all of them? :confused:


Somehow I am not surprised.

I have no idea where you got your facts, however my 26 years in the military gives some credability for my statement. We do not have the people or equipment to engage in another war at this time.

And my dad has served 32 Years and my mom 6 and relatives that have served. As for engaging in another war, who said anything about ground troops? We still have the naval and Air strength to do massive amounts of damage to the enemy's infrastructure. Look how long the air war lasted in Gulf War 1 before the 100 hour ground war started.

Somehow I am not surprised.

We got involved in alot of wars New Endenia. Mostly from people who have asked for our help or out of necessity or out of support for our allies.

By their actions Afghanistan was complicit.

No, the country was not complicit, and no, it still did not start the conflict.

No, I did not state a reason or excuse. I stated the facts.

You keep telling yourself that.

A coalition yes. We did not invade alone as you implied in your original post.

This is a thread about the US. And Iraq is overwhelmingly a US war. The coalition is minor and still not the same as the one in the original conflict, and still not backed by the same organisation.

No, the country was not complicit, and no, it still did not start the conflict.

They gave him a launching pad for the attacks. They are therefor complicit in the attacks on 9/11! They harbored Osama Bin Ladin, the person behind the attacks. Therefore they are complicit in the attacks.

You keep telling yourself that.

He did state facts Fass. I suggest you get your head back up where the sun shines.

This is a thread about the US. And Iraq is overwhelmingly a US war. The coalition is minor and still not the same as the one in the original conflict, and still not backed by the same organisation.

It would've been but for Oil-For-Food and the corruption from it.

Very few. The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but that's about it.

In living memory, or in current events?

Guatamala Bannana invasion
Vietnam
The whole mess in Cambodia
Iran-Contra
"Desert Storm"
Two Invasions of Haiti

And of course we engineered the whole Serbian/Albanian conflict through IMF interference.

Ya, we're always up to something.
"perpetual war for perpetual peace"