rod03801:

rod03801: I suspect pictures with short captions will make more of an impression than anything I can say. *sigh*

I'm probably wasting ink doing all of my talkingusing only words.

Iamon lyme: for sure - don't make em mad! But laughter is best. (except there are a few here I do laugh at but it's more like I'm making fun of them!)

Iamon lyme:

The reason why I drew a comparison between war and abortion is because there is an interesting thing that came to my mind.

I noticed that some of the people who detest abortion (pro-life) sometimes also defend the right to own guns, the right to fight pre-emptive wars, and the use of the death penalty. This is more prevalent among what we call the "right wing ".

By the same token, among the "left wing" you will find the "pro-choice" argument among people who want gun control, who protest against pre-emptive wars, and who want to put an end to the death penalty.

It is interesting that on both sides we see people wanting to defend life, whether it be an unborn child, victims of violent crime or both civilians and military involved in a war.

"I believe that we should protect the life of an unborn child, just as much as I believe that the constitution guarantees people's rights to own potentially lethal weapons, and that our nation has the right to fight pre-emptive wars in which thousands of people will die. Furthermore, the state has the right to put an end to the life of a dangerous criminal."

"I believe that we should limit the ownership of lethal weapons only to law enforcement agencies, I believe that we should never fight pre-emptive wars that kill thousands, I believe that it is wrong to kill a criminal regardless of his crimes; but I also believe that a woman's choice takes precendence over the life of her unborn child."

To me this is an interesting contradiction. As with many other aspects of human nature, we are riled by contradictions.

> If you want to draw comparisons between war and abortion you are not
> helping the pro abortionist argument.

Of course it does not help the argument. From my point of view, if you believe in pretecting human life, should you not protect ALL human life? Unborn children, victims of crime, victims of war, prisoners on death row, etc. The truth is tht the situation is never simple and each case is so different.

> Wars are usually fought for one of two reasons. Depending on which side you
> are looking at, wars are fought to get something or to defend something.
> Sometimes both sides are aggressors who are out to get something, but you'll
> never see two defenders going at it... why would they?

Since our mind finds a contradiction between our beliefs and our actions, we must justify ourselves in how we act. We tell ourselves that we are defending something. I am defending an unborn child, I am defending my family from a criminal who broke into my home, I am defending my nation from hostile forces external to my nation, I am defending society from a dangerous criminal, etc. It is the only way that we can justify our actions. To me the contradiction just lies in how we defend one human life, and yet have no problem taking another (or letting somebody else take another on our behalf).

> And since you are comparing abortion to war then let me ask you who you
> believe the aggressor is. Is it the baby, or the adult(s)? What are adults who kill
> babies defending, their right to not take care of a defenseless little person, or
> maybe the abortionist's right to earn a living?

One can make the same argument about a war. When a plane drops a 2,000-pound bomb, can the people on the ground defend themselves? The military might if they have guns aimed at the planes, but what about the thousands who die under the bombs? Can civilians really defend themselves? What about a baby who dies in war because of either bombs, or the destruction of infrastructure such as hospitals, water treatment plants, etc.? In the Gulf War 500,000 civilians died, plus 250,000 Iraqi military. In the aftermath of the war the United nations estimated that a further 1,000,000 prople died because of lack of clean water, hospitals, medicines, etc. War is a terrible thing, and most of the people who die are defenseless, even when the military claims to have "smart bombs" and "satellite guided missiles". The only reason why the military always claims to try to protect civilians is because public opinion forces them to say so.

> Adults can defend themselves if they need to. Babies can't. If you can convince
> me that babies are not completely defenseless and have done something
> (anything) to deserve being killed, then you might have a valid argument.

Of course babies are defenseless, as are many vicitims of violent gun crime. At the time of execution, the prisoner is defenseless. Yes, he has committed terrible crimes and he is being executed for them, but can he really fight the lethal injection and the gas chamber? Somehow we tell ourselves that he is not defenseless and that he deserves to die.

Then does anyone really DESERVE to be killed? If that is the case, who decides? A serial killer is easy to justify. A terrorist is easy to justify so long as we ignore some of the motivations behind his actions (such as western empires invading their countries for the last 400 years.) What about a political prisoner? Is it justifiable to kill a communist? Western empries certaily thought it was justifiable during the Cold War. We all find certain forms of killing justifiable. It is human nature, and our nature is conflicted.

Something that the pro-life people sometimes forget is that the pro-choice people do not go around killing babies willy nilly. Most pro-choice people I have met actually hate abortion, but they justify it in terms of somehow saving a woman's life, and sparing an unwanted child what otherwise would be a bad life. To the pro-life people that is weak argument, but then, if society is going to ban abortion, then society has to provide every tool possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That means solid sexual education since childhood and easy availability of contraceptives. Will all pro-life people accept easily available contraceptives to teenagers and adults alike? Probably not.

Vikings: So your are saying that thanks to the banking crash, various bank frauds and various other white collar crime our countries are screwed up?

Lets not forget, this is a problem that is world wide thanks to the financial institutions. With various banks needing help, or going bust....

.. Over here, the Iceland banks going belly up cost various authorities authorities here millions from lost investments.

.. Shall we blame it all on Obama? Isn't that getting a little cliché?

mckinley: "I still haven't decided who I want for president."..."I said that back in July. Do you have that post saved or something? I had to do a word search. What I meant is self explanatory"

I remembered it was the first thing you said, so I did a search to make sure I wasn't mistaken. The reason I remember it is because to me it means you either voted for Obama four years ago, or four years ago you were not yet old enough to vote. All I know about you is you are old enough to drive and are from the south.

I'm not sure if you are aware of just how self explanatory that statement was. If I had said I don't know who I'll be voting for until I mark the ballot this November, then that too would be self explanatory.

(V): Vikings said something about blaming Obama for Iceland's bank problems ? ?? Seems to me, he was talking about U.S. unemployment. Gets a little dizzy....

Übergeek 바둑이: I was talking about abortion. You seem to want to lump a lot of things together and compare them to abortion, as though they are all the same things. War, guns, death penalty, self defense... you didn't bring up euthanasia, but I suspect you don't have a problem with that.

To say abortions don't just happen willy nilly is naive. Most abortions are not performed because of rape or incest or for the life of the mother, or for any other justifiable sounding reason. Those were the reasons given when pro abortion lobbyists were working to legalize abortion. They even assured everyone that those would be the only reasons someone could get an abortion, and there would be no abortions on demand.

Well what do you know, surprise surprise, the joke is on us... because everyone knows that most abortions are done simply because someone doesn't want a baby. They want to do what it takes to make a baby, but they don't want the baby. And they don't want to simply give the baby up for adoption. That would spare the life of the child, but at the same time would be a terrible inconvenience and emotionally draining.

rod03801: We live in a global economy Rod. One of our banks that the tax payer had to bail out... if it failed.. You'd be feeling the knock on effect as the whole financial system would have collapsed worldwide.

It's called per-spec-tive. Noting that most of your countries depend on their ability to sell on a global market.

Aliens live in a universal economy. It's called fic-tion-al per-spec-tive.

People who don't have much to do and very little money look at this from a per-son-al per-pec-tive.

People like who were active but are now retired see this from an a-mused per-spec-tive.

Iamon lyme: "People like [me] who were active...

Euthanasia.. the ability to end ones life with dignity, rather than in pain and/or various horrible states.

.... we put our pets down out of respect because we think it is wrong to let animals die in pain.

I'm for Euthanasia.. why would I want to die slowly of something like cancer if there was no cure? I and/or others are to treated with less respect than a pet so someone's head doesn't hurt!

.. People saying we should have personal responsibility but continually want to say what others can do with their body.

.. secret world domination in progress, next it'll be a cybernetic implant to make sure you are obeying them!!

Übergeek 바둑이: I know about the various things the "left wing" wants to accomplish. And I know how on the surface they all sound like good things, but frankly I don't believe most "left wingers" even if they are sincere have actually thought any of it through.

The reality of gun control, limiting or banning hand guns, is that you cannot count on criminals to obey any restrictions on gun ownership. Taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens does not take guns out the hands of criminals... empowering criminals by disarming everyone else does not reduce the chance of violent crime occurring. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn't in the minds of (your words, not mine) "left wingers". What do intend to defend yourself with if confronted by an armed bandit in the middle of the night, as you are you are laying in bed in your own home? A pillow? Or perhaps the ability to talk to him using your powers of intellectual persuasion? The best you could hope for is being laughed at before he does what he came to do... and that's assuming he only came to take some of your stuff.

Do Americans now take a responsible person test to make sure they are not nuts then before getting a gun?

Respectful gun owners like those who hunt, think those who idolise guns nuts. It's a tool, to some a necessary part of their livelihood, not a toy to play politics with.

Übergeek 바둑이: If you think sex education is a way to make sex safer for kids then you should talk to their parents, but in my experience the parents are the last people "left wingers" want to talk to. They have to talk to them, but they would prefer only talking to their kids. Kids are the same way... they prefer talking to one another than to adults.

You know what sex education actually does? It encourages kids who are already thinking about sex to go do it, and how many horny teenage boys do you think have the self restraint to stop and put on a condom? Kids are not adults, and you can't expect them to think or act like responsible adults. Unless those adults are "left wingers", then life can be a never ending party as far as those kids are concerned.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh yeah, I almost forgot... abortion is also now seen as a safety net for teenagers who want to have sex, but for some unexplainable reason the contraception didn't work. So there's another "good" reason abortion should be legal and stay that way. Only a "right winger" would want to take away anyone's safety net.

My wife and I both used contraceptives after we were married, so I have no idea except in your own imagination where you get the idea that "right wingers" are against contraception. I remember joking to my wife that we could have named the first three of our kids after the contraception that didn't work. If we had done that then the first one's name would have been The Sponge. The only method that DID work was when we were going at it during that short period of time when she wasn't fertile. So in other words, we could have called our fifth child The Rhythm Method. And YOU want to encourage kids to use birth control?

Hey, Ubber intellect, wake up!!! You're dreaming!!!

Iamon lyme: Re : You know what sex education actually does? It encourages kids who are already thinking about sex to go do it, and how many horny teenage boys do you think have the self restraint to stop and put on a condom?"



Words can not describe how ignorant a statement that is on so many levels.I suppose you never attended any sexual education classes, do you think it's spent going over the Kama Sutra?
Sex education saves lives by discussing birth control and STD's as well as boring stuff like the human reproductive system.I can only hope that you haven't discouraged a child from this education only to have them experience an avoidable event that alters their life (in a bad way) forever.

The Col: "I can only hope that you haven't discouraged a child from this education..."

You are hoping I haven't discouraged a child from what education? From teaching them all about how to have safe sex? Ignorance isn't just about not knowing, it is also about not understanding what you think you know. The word "education" is another one of those magic words that liberals like to use... Education good, ignorance bad. Right wingers bad. Me like education. Me not be ignorant... me have education.

Nazis weren't ignorant either... they knew what they wanted and used "education" of young people as one of their tools for getting what they wanted. So much for the power of yer magic word, eh?

You would have had no success in persuading any my kids to your point of view. I made sure no adult would be able to simply toss out "magic words" to turn their heads. I told them in no uncertain terms, if an adult tells you it's okay to do something you know is wrong, you do not have to believe them or be intimidated by them simply because they are adults... even if that adult is me. It was that last part that made them sit up and take notice, because then it was clear to them that some things are not right no matter who says it.

(V): It's not even worth having a discussion with you. You twist twist twist to the point that looks ridiculous.

You suggested Vikings was blaming Obama for Iceland bank failures. Not even close to what he typed AT ALL.

rod03801: "It's not even worth having a discussion with you."

Half the time it looks like he is tossing words willy nilly out onto the page... and it's supposed to be our responsibilty to make sense of it. I'm not so good at guessing games, that's why I've given up talking to him.

Iamon lyme: Nazis? WTF?

The Col: I'm not calling you a nazi. I suppose I could have used an example that wasn't so emotionally charged, but the example still fits becuase the point was about "education". I forgot how reactive you liberals are. I try telling them one thing and all they can hear is something else.

Tossing out a word like ignorant does not mean you are educated. And being educated does not mean you have been taught well. So try growing a pair (of brain lobes) before reacting instead of reflecting. Think you can do that?

Iamon lyme: The dark ages just called , they want your tude regarding sex education back
We're not living in the 70's anymore bud, you can't just go to a Doc for a shot if you get a sexually transmitted disease, and women actually expect pleasure during a sexual union, the old "in and out" doesn't cut it anymore.Passing your own sexual hang ups onto future adults does them no service both in making educated decisions and having a sexually fulfilling life.I'm very aware that SOME conservatives like to dump on the value of education these days,dumbing down the population does make them more open to propoganda

Iamon lyme: stop talking sense

rod03801: I've tried to tell him the same thing but he can't see it. We say he twists things and he says he doesn't. It is proof that he's clueless on the issues. He can't stay on point and address an argument on it's merits. He has to bring in unrelated points because his arguments can't stand on their own two feet.

The libs are good at this (or bad if you want to be accurate). Instead of talking about abortion and addressing the points being made, they bring in talk about the morality of war. Ignorance runs rampant in liberal thinking.

Iamon lyme: The Col isn't a Nazi but he's pretty close to a Nutzie.

(V): the truth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html

The Col: LOL Hey, the 60's just called, and they want you give their mind altering drugs back... if there are any left to give back.

You and (V) have never missed an opportunity to prove how much you both respect women. So how's that working out for you?

The truth is that Obamas energy policies alone have killed more jobs (by multiple times) than he has created, how many jobs have been lost by the drilling embargo in the gulf, the failure to sign the pipeline, etc... How many jobs have been lost over the price of gas, not to mention the bankruptcies that it has caused

I could really give a flying .... about Iceland

Oh by the way, How about the billions he has given the likes of all the solindras out there just so they can go bankrupt after they donate a chunk back to obamas campaign, which he gets to keep after it is over

Where did the oil rigs go to that were in the gulf, lets see,,,, oh yea, Brazil, and who gains financially from Brazilian oil....... oh yea, George Soros Imagine that

Liberals are the reason that America is experiencing a serious case of butt hurt. We have butt hurt in our economy, taxes, employment, health care, justice, and on and on. This condition is called Demorrhoids.. And it will take some serious ointment to rid us of our case of Demorrhoids..

My butt doesn't always hurt, but when it does...

Iamon lyme:

Ger yer free Obama phone

rod03801: Not even close to what I was saying... Not even close to what I typed AT ALL.

Vikings: in this comment made underneath..

This graph is a very false and misleading way of looking at the improvement under President Obama, and for more reasons than the fact that the biggest gainer on the list, Reagan , had 8 years and a congress more than happy to do the deficit spending--i.e. "stimulus"-- needed to recover, and other reasons that you attempt to "yes" away. This graph disengenuously manipulates the data to Hide the "yes" fact that the Bush Era Jobs Trough Recession was losing us jobs at maximum pace when Obama took office. That massive loss momentum was then turned around under Obama, from losses of 600,000-800,000 a month to GAINS of jobs within one year. For accurate graphs that show the recovery, see the BLS charts below.

160,000 jobs added in a month this month are more than were added in 23 of 24 of Bush2's last 24 months in office from Feb07 to Jan09 (and 14 of those Bush months were jobs loss months).

Total Number Employed (nonfarm) has risen for 22 straight months now (that's 22 months of jobs gains, and 25 months gaining out of the last 29), and is up over 4million since the bottom of the Bush Era Recession Job Trough in late 2009-early2010.

Look carefully at not just the numbers but the graphs at these BLS links to get a visual clue of how Obama's record is one of recovery from one of the the worst jobs recessions in history-- he and the 2009 Congress were handed an economy losing 600,000 to 800,000 jobs a month and in one year had it reversed to gaining jobs, with the AR&R Act of 2009 (Feb09) being an important part of that recovery (and ZERO Republicans in the House voted for it... zero).

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mthSee Less

mckinley: That's a strawman argument.

Artful Dodger: That's a strawman argument.

The cons are good at this (or bad if you want to be accurate). Instead of talking about the points being made, they bring in talk about the morality of religion. Ignorance runs rampant in con thinking.

World War One (The War to End all Wars) - Started by a Liberal Democrat (Woodrow Wilson)
More than 11 Million Dead and Millions .

World War Two - Started by a Liberal Democrat (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
62 Million Dead, Many more Millions Mamed and wounded

Korean War( The Forgotten War) - Started by a Left Wing Liberal Democrat ( Harry S. Truman)
8 Million Plus Dead Millions mamed and wounded.

New-Q-Ler (Atomic)Bombs Dropped on Japan - By a Left Wing Liberal Democrat ( Harry S. Truman)
250 Thousand Dead

Bay of Pigs War/Invasion - Started by a Left Wing Liberal Democrat ( John F. Kennedy)
Lots and Lots Dead and wounded
Building of the Berlin Wall - Allowed to occur by a Left Wing Liberal Democrat ( John F. Kennedy)
Enough Dead

Vietnam War (The Spit on American Soldiers War) - Started by a Left Wing Liberal Democrat (John F. Kennedy)
Millions and Millions Dead and Millions Mamed & wounded.

Democrats, The Party of War.


Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:09:51 PM by Xing Daorong

In uncertain times such as these, when our nation is at war with enemies in two nations, one must wonder what party has the steel to see an operation through properly, and what party would avoid confronting unessecary conflicts. Today it is the Republicans who are largely labeled "warmongers" especially in my home state (NJ) and throughout the Northeast. But side to side, lets see which party really has started or involved us in more wars, we shall start with the hot spot of past military interventions, Latin America.

Republican:

Argentina- 1890 Chile- 1891 Haiti- 1891 Spanish-American War 1898 (Cuba and Puerto Rico seized, Major Military Intervention) Nicaragua- 1898-99 Honduras- 1903 Dominican Republic- 1903-04 Cuba- 1906-09 Nicaragua- 1907 Honduras- 1907 Panama- 1908 Nicaragua- 1910 Honduras- 1911 Cuba- 1912 Panama- 1912 Honduras- 1912 Honduras- 1924-25 Panama- 1925 El Salvador- 1932 Guatemala- 1954-? (Major Covert CIA Military Intervention) Panama- 1958 Chile- 1973 El Salvador- 1981-92 (Major Covert CIA Military Intervention, "Iran-Contra Affair", War against the Sandanistas) Honduras- 1982-90 Grenada- 1983-84 (Operation Urgent Fury, Marxist regime ousted, quick withdrawal, moderate military intervention) Bolivia- 1987 Panama- 1989 (Operation Just Cause, Manuel Noreiga captured, regime ousted, quick withdrawal, major military intervention) Haiti- 2004 (occupation following Aristide's violent overthrow)

Total: 28 Major Military Intervention: 4 Moderate Military Intervention: 1

Republican and Democratic:

Nicaragua- 1912-33 (Major Military Intervention, fight against Nicaraguan insurgents.) Haiti- 1914-34 (Major Military Operation, 19 year occupation of Haiti following revolts) Dominican Republic- 1916-24 (Major Military Intervention,8 year occupation of Dominican Republic) Cuba- 1917-33 (16 year occupation of Cuba, Major Military Intervention)

Democratic: Nicaragua- 1894-96 Panama- 1895 Mexico- 1913 Dominican Republic- 1914 Mexico- 1914-18 (Major Military Intervention) Panama- 1918-20 Honduras- 1919 Guatemala- 1920 Costa Rica- 1921 Panama- 1921 Uruguay- 1947 Puerto Rico- 1950 (Moderate Scale Military Intervention) Cuba 1961- (Bay of Pigs, Major Covert Military Intervention) Cuba 1962- (Cuban Missile Crisis) Panama- 1964 Dominican Republic- 1965-66 (Operation Power Pack, dictator Trujillo overthrown and quick withdrawal, major military intervention) Guatemala- 1966-67 (Moderate Military Intervention) Haiti- 1994-95 (Major Military Intervention, Raul Cedres steps down, Jean Bertrand Aristide installed, quick withdrawal)

Total: 18 Major Military Interventions: 4 Moderate Military Interventions: 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As we can see, the Democratic Party has intervened 10 times less than the Republican Party, but take a closer look. Of the three major American military occupations in Latin America (Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic), all three have been initiated under Democratic president Woodrow Wilson, the War in Nicaragua was over seen by Wilson throughout his whole two terms in office, it was started by Republican president William Taft and seen through one Democratic and two Republican administrations. Four major military interventions occured under the watch of both parties, the Republicans had two fatal faliures in the covert operations, while they had two light successes in Panama and Grenada, although overall the commitment to the wars was minescule. The Democrats had three fatal faliures in the Bay of Pigs, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti and a light success in Guatemala.

Note: Most of these interventions were small scale and around election time violence in many nations.

Onto the rest of the military interventions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: dudewheresmylink; militaryhistory



1 posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:09:52 PM by Xing Daorong

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Xing Daorong


Democratic Party

1831-32 – Falkland Islands
1832 – Sumatra (Indonesia)
1833 - Argentina
1835-36 - Peru
1836 - Mexico.(Moderate Military Intervention)
1838-39 – Sumatra (Indonesia)
1840 - Fiji Islands
1841 - Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group (Pacific Ocean)
1841 – Samoa
1846 - Bear Flag Revolt
1846-48 - Mexican-American War (Major Military Operation, Mexico cedes 1/3 of it's territories)
1849 – Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey)
1852-53 - Argentina
1853 - Nicaragua
1853-54 - Japan (Mathew Perry's "Opening of Japan")
1853-54 - Ryukyu and Bonin Islands (Japan)
1854 - China
1854-58 - Nicaragua
1855 - China
1855 - Fiji Islands
1855 - Uruguay
1856 - Panama, Republic of New Grenada
1856 - China
1857-1858 - Utah War
1858 - Uruguay
1858 - Fiji Islands
1858-59 - Turkey
1859 - Paraguay
1859 - Mexico
1859 - China
1860 - Angola, Portuguese West Africa
1860 - Colombia, Bay of Panama
1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
1866 - Mexico
1866 - China
1867 - Nicaragua (Moderate Military Operation)
1867 - Formosa (island of Taiwan)
1868 - Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata)
1868 - Uruguay
1868 - Colombia
1885 - Panama (Colon)
1888 - Korea
1888 - Haiti
1888-89 - Samoa
1889 - Hawaiian Islands
1893 -- Hawaii
1894 - Brazil
1894 - Nicaragua
1894-95 - China
1894-95 - China
1894-96 - Korea
1895 - Colombia
1895-96 - Venezuela
1896 - Nicaragua
1913 - Mexico
1914 - Haiti
1916 - China
1917 - China
1917-18 - World War I. (Major Military Intervention)
1918-20 - Soviet Union (Polar Bear Expedition)
1919 - Dalmatia (Croatia)
1919 - Turkey
1920 - China
1932 - China
1934 - China
1936 - Spanish Civil War (Abraham Lincoln Brigades)
1941 - Greenland
1941 - Netherlands (Dutch Guiana)
1941 - Iceland
1941 - Germany (Pre-war patrols sent, Moderate Military Intervention)
1941-45 - World War II (Major Military Intervention)
1945 - China (Assistance to Nationalist rebels, Major Military Intervention)
1945-1949 Occupation of part of Germany
1945-1955 Occupation of part of Austria
1945-1946 Occupation of part of Italy
1945-1952 Occupation of Japan
1945-1946 - Phillipines
1945-1949 - South Korea (Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency, Major Military Operation)
1945-47 - China
1948 - Palestine
1948 - Berlin (Airlift)
1948-49 - China
1950-53 - Korean War (Major Military Operation)
1962 - Thailand
1963 - Iraq (CIA backed coup of Iraqi dictator Abdul Karim Qassim)
1964 - Congo
1964 - Brazil
1967 - Congo
1968 - Iraq (CIA backed pro-Ba'ath coup bringing down Arif government)
1978 -- Zaire (Congo)
1980 - Iran (Operation Eagle Claw, ends in faliure)
1980 - Iran (Hostage rescue attempt)
1981 - El Salvador
1981 - Libya
1993-1995 - Somalia (Operation Continued Hope ends in faliure,Moderate Military Intervention, quick withdrawal)
1991-1996 - Iraq (Operation Provide Comfort)
1993 - Macedonia
1994-1996 - Rwanda (Post-genocide)
1994 - Macedonia
1995 - Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force, Moderate Military Intervention)
1996 - Liberia
1996 - Central African Republic
1997 - Albania
1997 - Congo and Gabon (same day)
1997 - Sierra Leone
1997 - Cambodia
1998 - Iraq (Operation Desert Fox, Moderate Military Intervention)
1998 - Guinea-Bissau
1998-1999 - Kenya and Tanzania (post-bombings)
1998 - Afghanistan and Sudan (Operation Infinite Reach, ends in faliure, taking out 1/2 Sudan's medical supplies and missing Osama bin Laden, Moderate Military Intervention)
1998 - Liberia
1999-2001 - East Timor
1999 - War in Kosovo (Moderate-Major Military Intervention)
2000 - Sierra Leone
2000 - Yemen (Post U.S.S Cole bombings)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Republican Party

1861-1865 - American Civil War (Major Military Intervention)
1865-1877 - Post Civil War Reconstruction
1863-64 - Japan
1870 - Mexico
1870 - Hawaiian Islands
1871 - Korea (Minor Military Intervention)
1873 - Colombia (Bay of Panama)
1874 - Hawaiian Islands
1876 - Mexico
1882 - Egypt
1885 - Panama (Colon)
1891 - Bering Strait
1893 - Hawaii
1898-1899 -- Samoa (Samoan Civil War)
1898-99 - China
1899-1913 - Philippines (American-Phillipine War, Major Military Intervention)
1900 - China
1903 - Syria
1903-04 - Abyssinia (Ethiopia)
1904 - Tangier, Morocco
1904-05 -- Korea
1911-12 - China
1912 - Turkey
1922 - Turkey
1922-27 - China (series of small protective interventions)
1932 - China
1950-55 - Formosa (Taiwan)
1954-55 - China
1956 - Egypt
1958 - Lebanon (Moderate Military Intervention, Anti-Rebel Operation)
1974 - Cyprus
1976 - Lebanon
1976 - Korea
1982 - Sinai
1982-1983 - Lebanon (Lebanese Civil War, Moderate Military Intervention)
1983 - Egypt
1983 - Chad
1984 - Persian Gulf
1985 - Italy (Counter terrorism)
1986 - Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon, Libyan infastructure bombed and warplanes downed following discovery of Mohmar Quadahfi's links to terrorist attacks, Moderate Military Intervention)
1987-1988 - Persian Gulf (Operation Earnest Will, Operation Prime Chance, protection of Kuwaiti and American oil tankers, strikes against Iranian military)
1989 - Libya
1989 - Philippines
1990 - Liberia
1991 - First Gulf War (Iraq, Major Military Intervention)
1991 - Zaire
1992 - Sierra Leone
1990 - Saudi Arabia
1992 - Kuwait
2001 - Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan, Major Military Operation)
2002 -- Yemen (UAV strike kills terrorist)
2002 -- Philippines
2002 --Cote d'Ivoire
2003-Present - Second Gulf War (Iraq, Major Military Intervention)
2003 - Liberia
2003 - Georgia and Djibouti
2006 - Pakistan (UAV kills al-Qaeda affiliates)
2006 - Lebanon


2 posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:10:37 PM by Xing Daorong ("All that is nessessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Xing Daorong


Democratic Presidents: 15
Republican Presidents: 18

Military Interventions/Conflicts entered or Started by Democratic Party:

134

**Vietnam is added on due to the authorization of direct military force by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Richard Nixon drew down and withdrew troops but was also involved in the bombings of Vietcong in Laos and Cambodia, Dwight Eisenhower sent "advisors", this is also a direct intervention, 1 point will be added to both sides for good measure.**

Military Interventions/Conflicts entered or Started by Republican Party:

87

Average interventions per Democrat President:

9

Average interventions per Republican President:

5

What President Intervened Militarily More than Any Other?

William (Bill) J. Clinton (21)

Lest the Demorroids think they are the party of peace.

They are the party of

Wow... Thanks Art, so many wars that a nation run by Christians has been involved in.

Unless, another force is pulling the strings......  ..... ......

World War One (The War to End all Wars) - Started by a Liberal Democrat (Woodrow Wilson)
More than 11 Million Dead and Millions .

World War Two - Started by a Liberal Democrat (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
62 Million Dead, Many more Millions Mamed and wounded

I kinda got taught that WWI was started by the assassination of an Arch Duke. but now I know I'm wrong because Republican history now says, blame it on the liberals.

I kinda got taught that WWII was started by Hitler. Even though some historians say it did start with the Japan/Chinese wars.but now I know I'm wrong because Republican history now says, blame it on the liberals.

I wonder now if a guy I watched on youtube had a valid point, regarding the new type of maths. Christian Maths.

How did we manage without it through history?