SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3412
December 1st, 2014 at 1:24:14 PM permalink
Quote: petroglyph

I realize your list was a list of the years we were in conflict, It seems to me if it were to include the lead up to "war" and the mop up operations as in the occupation of Japan following ww2, the 26 years we had off, were just time to prepare and rearm.

To say the U.S. was at war in Vietnam in 1960 is a significant misstatement. As is the action is Guatemala in 1954. If recent history that many of us have lived through first-hand can be so easily re-classified as "war," that casts serious doubts on more obscure details from more distant times.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3412
December 1st, 2014 at 1:32:45 PM permalink
Quote: petroglyph

I thought Sancho used a def.[Merriams] that included #2, Jew. It seems an impossible task to try and point that out to people who only want to hear "anti-semite" means anti-Jew.

If there is a problem with the semantics, take it up with the lexicographers.
Quote: petroglyph

When I hear the term Anti-semite, to me it is the cruelest of irony's. Not to incite flame but as a percentage the Palestinians are a much higher percentage of "semetic" bloodline than Jews.

Anthropologists, paleontologists, sociologists and other assorted social science "experts" have long discussed this. Meanwhile, the standard American usage remains restricted to the single total definition posted here. Despite the etymology of the phrase and despite the effort to deflect attention from the list of incidents that challenged the sweeping assertion about religious intolerance in Indonesia.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 421
  • Posts: 23261
December 1st, 2014 at 1:33:52 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

To say the U.S. was at war in Vietnam in 1960 is a significant misstatement.



The list is bogus. It lists skirmishes and incidents
as 'wars' when they were not. It was compiled by
somebody with an agenda, obviously.

For instance, this accurate list has 13 wars in the
first half of the 19th century. The other list has
50 in the same period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#19th_century_wars
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3412
December 1st, 2014 at 1:41:04 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

The list is bogus. It lists skirmishes and incidents as 'wars' when they were not. It was compiled by somebody with an agenda, obviously. For instance, this accurate list has 13 wars in the first half of the 19th century. The other list has 50 in the same period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#19th_century_wars

Anybody who thinks that Texas was in the United States in 1844-45 has not studied elementary fundamental history.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 421
  • Posts: 23261
December 1st, 2014 at 2:12:14 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Anybody who thinks that Texas was in the United States in 1844-45 has not studied elementary fundamental history.



Annexation was drafted in 1844 and went into
effect 1845. Close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
petroglyph
petroglyph
Joined: Jan 3, 2013
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 3235
December 1st, 2014 at 6:09:10 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

To say the U.S. was at war in Vietnam in 1960 is a significant misstatement. As is the action is Guatemala in 1954. If recent history that many of us have lived through first-hand can be so easily re-classified as "war," that casts serious doubts on more obscure details from more distant times.



Full Definition of WAR [Mirriams]

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>


It is all semantics Sancho. As I am sure you are aware, the US had advisers on the ground in 1950, build up in 61-2, Gulf of Tonkin 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War, was never declared by congress as such so many still say we were never at "war" with North Vietnam. You are also aware that congress did not declare war with Afghanistan, so how do we want to describe the conflict in Afghanistan?

Declarations of war by congress;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States from link, the longest war the US has engaged in was the war against the Apache indians from 1840 to 1886.
petroglyph
petroglyph
Joined: Jan 3, 2013
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 3235
December 1st, 2014 at 6:19:01 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

Quote: petroglyph

I thought Sancho used a def.[Merriams] that included #2, Jew. It seems an impossible task to try and point that out to people who only want to hear "anti-semite" means anti-Jew.

If there is a problem with the semantics, take it up with the lexicographers.
Anthropologists, paleontologists, sociologists and other assorted social science "experts" have long discussed this. Meanwhile, the standard American usage remains restricted to the single total definition posted here. Despite the etymology of the phrase and despite the effort to deflect attention from the list of incidents that challenged the sweeping assertion about religious intolerance in Indonesia.



"If there is a problem with the semantics, take it up with the lexicographers". You can never trust those lexicographers, they have an agenda. lol

" Meanwhile, the standard American usage remains restricted to the single total definition posted here", I agree, I think? As does the standard American usage of the term "war".

My statement to be clear was not "at" you, it was to BBB. My opinion remains, just that, an opinion. I am stuck with, it and honestly, it has done me no favors.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1236
December 1st, 2014 at 6:44:46 PM permalink
Quote: petroglyph

Full Definition of WAR [Mirriams]

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>


It is all semantics Sancho. As I am sure you are aware, the US had advisers on the ground in 1950, build up in 61-2, Gulf of Tonkin 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War, was never declared by congress as such so many still say we were never at "war" with North Vietnam. You are also aware that congress did not declare war with Afghanistan, so how do we want to describe the conflict in Afghanistan?

Declarations of war by congress;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States from link, the longest war the US has engaged in was the war against the Apache indians from 1840 to 1886.



By that definition, many of those you listed would not be "wars".

Many were Green Beret-type covert action training/advisor type operations, not actually engagement of an enemy. Or Stabilization efforts. But certainly not "openly declared wars".
"Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.” -Thomas Paine
petroglyph
petroglyph
Joined: Jan 3, 2013
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 3235
December 1st, 2014 at 7:14:24 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Quote: petroglyph

Full Definition of WAR [Mirriams]

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>


It is all semantics Sancho. As I am sure you are aware, the US had advisers on the ground in 1950, build up in 61-2, Gulf of Tonkin 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War, was never declared by congress as such so many still say we were never at "war" with North Vietnam. You are also aware that congress did not declare war with Afghanistan, so how do we want to describe the conflict in Afghanistan?

Declarations of war by congress;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States from link, the longest war the US has engaged in was the war against the Apache indians from 1840 to 1886.



By that definition, many of those you listed would not be "wars".

Many were Green Beret-type covert action training/advisor type operations, not actually engagement of an enemy. Or Stabilization efforts. But certainly not "openly declared wars".


ISRAELI QUOTE:

“To paraphrase Karl von Clausewitz, law is used as the continuation of war by other means.”
Editorial, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 15, 2009

I am not certain which you are referring too? Mostly what I have posted are quotes, usually with a links.

You have previously posted your desire for central government [paraphrased], do you support these hundreds of actions, none of which this central planning will commit themselves to, that they are to cowardly to go on record as having said? These seem to me to be the people you want in charge. Everything, a "police action" without any them having to say one way or the other. Often they defer to the United Nations.

Who do you expect to make an decision about armed conflict? These are the very same non committal stooges that you wish to be in control of law enforcement.
petroglyph
petroglyph
Joined: Jan 3, 2013
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 3235
December 1st, 2014 at 7:46:38 PM permalink
Quote: Zuga

Okay so back to the topic shall we then :D

Ukraine crisis only goes to show that it pretty much has nothing to do with Ukraine itself. No one cares about Ukrainian people or "democracy" there, not the USA and West, nor the Russians ( tho one may argue they would care since they are pretty much the same nation ).

This is about NATO ( read USA ) and EU trying to expand to the East, and Russians fighting against it.

So we have two fractions here, one led by the USA ( with their minions in the EU ) always pushing toward East, and then Russia who always had its interest in expanding to the West .

One may also argue that since USA is always defending their national security and protecting its interests outside of the USA borders, that the same right should be given to Russia ( who sees its national interest and security in Ukraine ). Personally I do not agree with any of this...

And also mind that Crimea was Russian province before it was given to Ukraine during the USSR. So again one may argue that the annexation of Crimea is fully legit.

Put all this in perspective along with the fact that USA was/is building that anti-rocket shield in Poland, which Russia sees as another threat and provocation. Imagine Russians placing their anti-rocket shield in Cuba ( again ). How would the USA react now?

The way I see it, no one should claim their right on Ukraine, which should be an independent country. However in this modern age there is no such thing as political, economical, militaristic etc independence ( unless you are a superpower ).



http://www.strategic-culture.org/pview/2014/11/17/kissinger-ukraine-should-forget-about-crimea-and-nato-membership.html

"In his opinion, introducing anti-Russian sanctions was a mistake.

"We have to remember that Russia is an important part of the international system, and therefore useful in solving all sorts of other crises, for example in the agreement on nuclear proliferation with Iran or over Syria," Mr. Kissinger said. "This has to have preference over a tactical escalation in a specific case."

I looked for an article which I didn't find about an agreement not to arm Poland made with the USSR. I can see where Russia thinks the west a constant aggressor.

Are the major powers divvying up the worlds resources between them, regardless of resident populations?

  • Jump to: