OK, you want to word this on semantics, I shall revise my original post. But you damn well know that the Gulf War I and Operation Iraqi Freedom were both wars.... not isolated incidents.
Okay, so how about these? --United States Civil War (1861-1865) – United States (The North) vs.The Confederate States (The South), Abraham Lincoln (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution (1893) - Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention, Benjamin Harrison (Republican) --The Spanish-American War (1898) – War with Spain, William McKinley (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War (1898-1899) - Civil War & Foreign Intervention in Samoa William McKinley (Republican) --U.S.-Philippine War (1899-1902) - Colonial War, War of Imperialism, William McKinley (Republican), Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) --Boxer Rebellion (1900) - Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention with the Chinese Government & "Boxer" Rebels, William McKinley (Republican) --The Moro Wars (1901-1913) - Colonial Wars with Philippine Muslim Rebels, Theodore Roosevelt (Republican), William Howard Taft (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution (1903) - Secessionist Revolution & Foreign Intervention with Colombia, Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) --The Banana Wars (1909-1933) - Civil Wars & Foreign Intervention with Various Rebel Groups In Central America, William Taft (Republican), Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), Warren Harding (Republican), Calvin Coolidge (Republican), --The Cold War (1945-1991) - Global Inter-State Cold War with The Soviet Union & Communist China, Harry S. Truman (Democrat), Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican), John F Kennedy (Democrat), Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat), Richard Nixon (Republican), Gerald Ford (Republican), Jimmy Carter (Democrat), Ronald Reagan (Republican), George Bush (Republican) --The Korean War (1950-1953) – War with North Korea & China, Harry S. Truman (Democrat), Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican) --The Second Indochina War "Vietnam War" (1956-1975) – War with North Vietnam & South Vietnamese "Viet Cong" Rebels, Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican), John F Kennedy (Democrat), Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat), Richard Nixon (Republican), Gerald Ford (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Lebanon (1958) - Civil War & Foreign Intervention with no real foe for U.S. Troops landed to support Lebanon Govt., Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican) --The Mayaguez Rescue Operation (News Story 1975) - Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict with Khmer Rouge Guerrillas (the new government of Cambodia), Gerald Ford (Republican) --Iranian Hostage Rescue "Desert One" or "Operation Eagle Claw" (April 25, 1980) - Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict with Iran, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --U.S. Libya Conflict (1981, 1986) – War with Libya, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Lebanon (1982-1984) - Civil War, Foreign Intervention & War with Syria & Various Muslim and Leftist Lebanese Militias, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --U.S. Invasion of Grenada (1983) – War with Marxist Grenadian Faction & Cuba, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --The Tanker War "Operation Earnest Will" (1987-1988) – War with Iran, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --U.S. Invasion of Panama (1989) – War with Panama, Ronald Reagan (Republican) --Second Persian Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm" (1991) – War with Iraq, George Bush (Republican) --"No-Fly Zone" War (1991-2003) – War with Iraq, George Bush (Republican) --U.S. Intervention in Somalia (1992-1994) - Civil War & Foreign Intervention with Various Somali Militias, George Bush (Republican), William J. Clinton (Democrat) --Afghanistan War “Operation Enduring Freedom†(October 7, 2001-Present) - War against Terrorism (The Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization), George W. Bush (Republican) --Third Persian Gulf War "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (March 19, 2003-Present) – War with Iraq, George W. Bush (Republican)
Sure. Your post is filled with many historical errors. Taking the above as they are written, in chronological order: Civil War, Lincoln, Republican. The Indian Wars, 1865-1890. Jackson was long dead. The presidents involved included Andrew Johnson, Democrat; Grant, Republican; Hayes, Republican; Garfield, Republican; Arthur, Republican; Cleveland, Democrat; and Harrison, Republican. McKinley was a Republican , not a Democrat (this is basic - I'd suggest researching before posting) - in fact, he was an indefatigable builder of and strongly ideological loyal Republican. McKinley Bio. He was responsible for both the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. The Banana wars spanned several decades, from the late 1800's to 1935. Perhaps the most noteworthy incidents took place in 1914, when Wilson ordered the occupation of Veracruz. The Mexican regime was toppled, and our relations with Mexico were soured; and post-wwi, with the marine detachment to Haiti; both under Wilson. Wilson was a Democrat, as you post. While it was true that the Boxer Rebellion took place while the Hoover family was in Tianjin, China, and Hoover undertook to effect barricades and other defense measures, he was not responsible for the military response to the situation, McKinley was. The forces sent there were extended from the Spanish-American War and Phillipine-American Wars, under McKinley - a Republican, not a Democrat, as you write in error. Further, Hoover was a Republican, not a Democrat, as you write in error. From WWI on, we are in agreement.
Afraid I have to disagree, Rick. I am not after context, but rather the substance of debates - precisely by what people write. As you can see above Mojo tends to fly off the handle with ill-supported claims, or outright error-filled posts. It is impossible to debate unless what people are actually saying is clarified. We cannot debate if the issue is sent to the purgatory of obfuscation, deliberately or otherwise. Regarding the "white thing," on the other post: Mojo declared his issue was with illegal immigration, not about race, then proceeds apace to lay out, in several posts, how the white race is being screwed. Again, not context - it's what the man writes.
I don't think anyone is after semantics, Mojo. But you write one thing, and when your errors are pointed out by what you write, you pose another definition. This doesn't make for reasonable debates.
I venture to say that WWIII is already over with, and we are approaching WW4. WWIII I see as the cold war. It involved almost the whole world in one way or another, not necessarily through a declaration of war, but regardless, it was there. I encourage ya'll to check out boortz.com for more info on it.
I usually let the errors reside, because I believe most of them will not change. To me, it wouldn't matter if mojo thought it was a racial issue or a matter of illegal immigration (or some weird thing in the middle). What matters to me is whether or not there's any truth to his concerns. Call me odd, but often I read from multiple forums e.g Democratunderground, Freerepublic, and Stormfront. Three different perspectives, with different standards. What's odd is you'll find many racial arguements in Stormfront (because it's a white nationalist forum), but the very bone of some of their arguement aren't moot. They may have an odd way of looking at something (for most of us), but often people just disregard their arguements based on their underling standard...which I don't favor. I think even the worst of standards can reside in people, but that even they can speak to something that's true. JMO. I tend to look at perspectives amorally. I understand what you mean. You're just trying to make sure what he says, is what he means. Some people, unbenonced to themself, say things, but have two different feelings upon it. This maybe the case.
I hear what you are saying, Rick. Yes - get to the heart of the topic, irrespective of how it's couched. I guess I prefer to speak plainly - I am not trying to be holier than thou - and ask the same of people I enter into a dialogue with. Saying one thing, while meaning another, is not something I handle all that well. But you've provided an interesting perspective. Thanks.
To me the ideal forum of ideas isn't built upon a strict moral standard, but upon the practicality of the ideas presented. Say you hear the Democrats and the Republicans discuss an issue, and you toss the morals aside. What are the practical consequences of their desired actions? Morality is vast, and it's beyond Dem or Repubs. I think the most important thing for me, as an individual, was to learn to listen even to those whom hold completely different standards. Morality is religious and dogmatic in a way, while reality is very amoral. Someone can believe in what sounds like a beautiful morality e.g communism, but the praticality of it is unsound. One of my influencers was Ayn Rand, whom said you must discuss things on moral grounds and defeat them that way. I don't agree with her. I think morality is limiting. On single issues, you can gather multiple different people in agreeable movements, just by discussing the practicality or the lack there-of. IMO, America would be much better-of, if it looked at every issue without moral bias, and really questioned the pratical nature of the consequences. Trying to argue morality is a dead-end for any debate, because it's almost impossible for a side to concede. Consequences can be a lot easier to see, and a lot easier to admit to. ------------------------------------------------------ You're trying to have a fully honest debate, but that's incredibly hard in my experience. Even the most honest of people will differ on how that's done. I guess I'm the 'path of least resistance' guy, and would much rather discuss things that can be discussed. I believe it garners more out of it. *shrug*
I hope I haven't conveyed I am talking morality. I am talking duplicity, within a given argument. Purely and simply. "A causes B." "A does not exist." "Did I say A? I meant C causes B." For me, once we all understand what we are talking about, then we can proceed to discuss the practical ramifications of our discussion. I could care less about morality in this context - but let us understand what, in fact, we are discussing.
I know, my rant was sort of a tangent of what I was speaking about,....not necessarily what you were dealing with.