Leadership And War

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago Misc

Which political parties were responsible for America"s deadliest wars? The history of American war from 1775 to 2006.
There are 50 comments:
Male 2,516
:D
0
Reply
Male 646
:D
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Klaxor: whatever
0
Reply
Male 646
Jendrian, you do realize that the revolution started against Porfirio Diaz. hell the reason that he was popular was because he fought in the war to kick them out. The "French Revolution" happened over a hundred years b4 the mexican one.

I said that you won`t hear Mexicans talking BAD about Diaz.

I never said the US financed or finished the war, instigated - yea.

You sound like one of those Mexican`s whose "proud to be aztec" when chances are, the aztecs either sacrificed your ancestors, or your ancestors joined the Spanish against the Aztecs. I bet that you also believe the lie that Mexico never had slaves.

I`m trying to get you out of your fantasy world. Just suck up your pride and try to take a step out
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Klaxor: oh my god, how many times do I have to repeat to you that I have never said, nor ever implied that the revolution was free from foreign involvement, much less from the US.

Geez, you know what, whatever, believe whatever you want. I`m sure in your history classes Porfirio Diaz was just a footnote (you said he`s not talked about anymore, seriously?)

I`m sure the fact that Porfirio Diaz was a fan of Napoleon and kept on copying both their methods and architecture is something you missed. It`s not like it`s immediately visible every time you visit Mexico City.

You keep saying you`re not trying to claim the mexican revolution, just stating over and over that the US instigated, financed and finished it.

But you know what, whatever, live in your fantasy world.
0
Reply
Male 83
Republicans have nothing better to do huh? GET OVER IT!! YOU LOST!!
0
Reply
Male 646
A coup is a tricky thing to do, especially if you don`t think that your major economic partner will continue to do business with you.

I`m not saying that it wouldn`t have happened without the US ambassador. The general revolt started almost as soon as Madero became president. But the presidential military held against the coup, and it would have held had not it been for the ambassador, who first dealt an armistice, then stabbed the president in the back by dealing with Huerta. "Fanning the flames"

Stop sticking to the idea that Mexican history is free of foreign involvement. Mexico was born out of globalization, right after cortez landed on its shores, and attracted foreign attention for most of its history.
0
Reply
Male 646
First of all, if you think Mexico`s current identity is ideal, then god help you. I would have hoped for something better.

And once again, I`m not "claiming" the revolution. The U.S wouldn`t have wanted it, it was bad for business. But the US (got and private citizens) did plant a lot of the seeds that led to revolution, and fanned the flames.

How do you think Porfirio Diaz increased Mexico`s economy? With Rainbows and Sunshine? He played off of investors, mostly US, who bought up Mexican land for resource development.
Diaz was a popular guy at first, a national hero. Hell, not a lot of people talk bad about him now a days. People revolted because all the money that Mexico was making stayed with a small elite and screwing over the peasantry, not because of "ideals of the French Revolution"

And the "US guy in Mexico" was sent there because of US interests. He was Tafts "best man for the job"
0
Reply
Female 349
0
Reply
Male 2,516
And like I said before: I`m not arguing the facts; I`m arguing your interpretation of them, for example, in your last points you argue that Taft`s messenger sided with Huerta, but after Wilson was elected he sided with the insurgents, yet the war itself didn`t feel a shift. Is it so hard to understand from this simple point that the US`s position didn`t matter all that much?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Klaxor:

1. I`m sure US History hides no facts whatsoever
2. Whatever is relevant for Mexican history from that of the US`s I studied, I just never cared to learn anything else.
3. Are you seriously suggesting none of it would`ve happened without the assistance of Henry Wilson?
4. Are you seriously suggesting Porfirio Diaz brought Mexico`s economy up by selling half of the country? Are you mad?
5. What does this point do? All it does is say "hey, there was a guy from the US in the country"
6. Oh look, an actual war between the US and Mexico, something separate from the war of revolution

Why do I argue those facts? Because you`re claiming the US involvement in Mexico is not only what started, but also continued and ended the war that gave mexicans their current identity. I know the US was there, I`m saying it didn`t play that big a role. Get off your high horse.
0
Reply
Male 459
It was the god damned Democrats that started WWI and WWII?.. Those bastards. the truth is revealed.
0
Reply
Male 646
Do you also believe that the symbol on the Mexican flag is a true symbol of Mexico`s historic past?

Open your eyes.
0
Reply
Male 646
1: I`m Mexican as well, and I studied the history, doesn`t really mean anything either way. A lot of the history that people learn about their own country tends hide a lot of the true facts.

2: US history is more tightly tied to Mexican history than Canadian. Try to take the "big picture view"

3: Henry Lane Wilson was directly involved in planning and assisting the assasination of Madero, leading to Huerta, continuing the revolution.

4. 45% is a big number, that helps to prove my point. Porfirio Diaz sold off all that he could( oil, gold, copper to US interests

5. Henry Lane Wilson was sent to Mexico by Taft to ensure that US interests were upheld, which led to him supporting Huerta (Diaz 2.0) over the populist Madero.

6. Woodrow Wilson then came into power. He hated Huerta and occupied Veracruz (aftermath of the BATTLE of Veracruz)

Why do you want to argue these facts. The US govt has consistently been involved in Mexic
0
Reply
Male 2,516
look, I`m not going to argue on what the facts mean, I`m Mexican, I studied mexican history from the side of the mexican people, and more importantly I have never had the slightest interest in digging into US History.

My comment is very simple: it takes some egocentrism to take credit for somebody else`s battles, and during this conversation you`ve claimed that a US Diplomat instigated the revolution, that US corporations in Mexico played a huge role (45% is a big number), and that the US would`ve ended the war sooner.

Yet you have the nerve to claim you`re not trying to take credit for it.

Like I said before, that`s some gall.
0
Reply
Male 646
Mexico didn`t own US land, US took Mexican land.

Jefferson Davis wasn`t alive during the Mexican Revolution

And the revolution would have ended a lot sooner had not a Mexican general been pushed by what he thought would be American support.

I`m not trying to "claim" the revolution. I`m trying to state that the U.S. has had its hands in many pies over the years, probably more than were shown here, just like every other super power, and we should acknowledge it, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

and I think your confusing the Mexican war for independence with the Mexican revolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
[quote]Except it`s not like the Mexican diplomat whispered in Jefferson Davis` ear "F*ck those guys. We got your back."

And Mexican`s didn`t own 45% of American industry.[/quote]

Given that Mexico owned 50% of US land at some point in history, and that you weren`t there in Jefferson`s office when or if it happened, I find your proposition to have very little value.

You can`t take credit for the Mexican Revolution: I know the US played a small part in it, you don`t need to keep hammering on the facts, but you also can`t claim it. General dissent of the people with the government formed after the independence war and a growing popularity of French revolutionary ideals is what brought upon the Mexican revolution, not Jefferson saying: "we`ll be here if you need us"
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Democrats didn`t start America`s involvement in WW2 ... the Japanese did. o.O

Republicans started the Civil War? Really?

To say this is a narrow perspective that points to useless non-fact is an understatement.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
@TheGuySmiley

This is how we see you:
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]the parties pretty much switched views around the 60`s.[/quote]
Sigh...yet another Democrat lie. Democrats fought to keep slavery; Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws in the south, and a greater percentage of Republicans voted to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

Looking at the black poverty rate, dropout rate, illegitimacy rate, abortion rate, crime rate, murder rate, and incarceration rate, you have to wonder why over 90% of them vote to continue the policies that have put them in their current situation. No matter how bad it gets for them, they just can`t seem to walk away from the Democrat plantation.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Also, a war like Vietnam may have been started by Democrats, but Nixon also escalated it...[/quote]

@Prussia`sFool, that`s just a Democrat lie. By the time Nixon took office, Johnson had escalated our troop level to over 536,000. Nixon started the Paris peace talks 4 days after his inauguration and started de-escalation that year. It`s all here:

http://tinyurl.com/bvrte67
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Why do the Republicans get blamed for the Civil War when it was the Democrats who fired the first shots?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I know Cajun. TheGuySmiley`s got exactly two modes: hardcore Christian evangelising on how God is Love (I mean, hardcore evangelising) on any thread vaguely related to religion, and "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!, DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!, DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!" on any thread vaguely related to American politics.

I honestly have no idea what his M.O. is. Either he`s an expert troll who has us all fooled, or he`s actually a f*cking moonbat.

I suspect the latter.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]"DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!...[/quote]

0
Reply
Male 646
Except it`s not like the Mexican diplomat whispered in Jefferson Davis` ear "F*ck those guys. We got your back."

And Mexican`s didn`t own 45% of American industry.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Klaxor: Fair is fair, I guess Mexicans should take responsibility too for the US Civil war, however small the contribution might`ve been
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Oh FFS.

Smiley, have you forgotten to take your meds again?
0
Reply
Male 1,243
drawman61: good point, which is why all people in that nation should gather on the front lawn of the little white house on the hill and chant "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!" Then grow in numbers, and not stop until they control their government again.
0
Reply
Male 646
"are they really taking responsibility for the Mexican revolution?
Wow, that`s some gall" - Except for the fact that the US ambassador plotted with a Mexican General to overthrow the democratically elected president at the time.

The U.S. has always had it`s nose in other countries business, especially our neighbors down south
0
Reply
Male 2,516
are they really taking responsibility for the Mexican revolution?

Wow, that`s some gall
0
Reply
Male 7,775
Funny thing is, they have convinced you American citizens that they were all wars. Wrong. Many were just American invasions.
0
Reply
Male 296
[quote]I cannot think of a more sad and one-dimensional way of viewing the world. [/quote]

Welcome to typical modern day American way of looking at the world. If its bad, its fault of the other party; if its good, then my party did it. I agree its pretty pathetic, very few of us Americans these days actually look past party lines to view the whole picture. Sometimes I`m honestly embarrassed to be an American.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Remember too, that the political parties have re-aligned multiple times, and there haven`t always been just republicans and democrats.
0
Reply
Male 3,314
Like FoolsPrussia said, not all of these can or should be blamed on one party or the other. WWI, WWII, and the Iran Hostage Crisis would have happened any way, regardless of party.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
What is the point of this? You can`t blame the Civil War completely on Republicans, unless you just think we should have let the southern states secede, and World War 1 and 2 can`t really be "blamed" on Democrats either, even though they got us involved. Also, a war like Vietnam may have been started by Democrats, but Nixon also escalated it, and though Afghanistan was started by Bush, Obama instituted a troop surge.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
those founding fathers have a lot of catching up to do if they want to stay in this race. no wonder no one votes for them or believes in them anymore.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
I think it`s a little more complicated than "who started it"

Not impressed.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Looking through everything - like wars and economic performance - through the prism of the political parties of the presidents is so dumb. Seriously, it is really dumb. I mean, for real. At the very LEAST, you would look at the party of the House and Senate during those events to get a better picture. If you read the constitution, that branch of government is the one that is supposed to have the power to go to war and influence the economy.

I cannot think of a more sad and one-dimensional way of viewing the world.


As a footnote, I don`t know when this was made, but I find it weird that it includes Operation "Secure Tomorrow" in Haiti in 2004, but not the more recent bombings of Yemen, Libya, and Pakistan....regardless of which president was doing it. I don`t think any troops even died in Operation Secure Tomorrow, it`s not really a war.
0
Reply
Male 891
@CrakrJak
I think it`s only because Lincoln was president when it started.
(Who was a Republican. There`s your US History lesson for today.)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Blaming the Civil War on Republicans? WTF!

I`m pretty sure it was the Democrats that started their secession from the union and fired on Fort Sumter in April of 1861, which began the war.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
More political party crap.
0
Reply
Male 210
TTMAN- Really dude? Really?

Not trying to pick on you but I am flabbergasted that people in the US still dont understand the CIVIL WAR and that the parties pretty much switched views around the 60`s.

The Republican Party had been founded as an anti-slavery party. The Democratic Party, in opposition after the Civil War, was limited almost exclusively to southern states. Most southern Democrats were very conservative and remained so until the 1960s.

Many ethnic minorities supported Roosevelt in the 1930s. This voting block became very loyal to the Democratic Party. Kennedy, Johnson and the Democrats championed civil rights in the 1960s. As a result these conservative southern Democrats switched parties and became Republicans.
0
Reply
Male 275
Read: Alot of wars
0
Reply
Male 2,096
Lincoln was a republican and president during the civil war. Sheesh, don`t they teach civics anymore?
0
Reply
Male 2,199
YAAAAY interactivity...
0
Reply
Male 762
How is this determined? Based on the political affiliation of the president? The majority in congress? Kinda a stupid way to look at war. But I guess we should expect this. We are a nation of finger pointers.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
The Republicans were responsible for the Civil War? All they wanted to do was secede from the Union. The Northern states are the ones that wanted to fight over it.
0
Reply
Male 5,013
What about South America?
0
Reply
Male 4,746
I`d hardly say that the Democrat party was "responsible" for the World War II.

0
Reply
Female 8,044
Link: Leadership And War [Rate Link] - Which political parties were responsible for America`s deadliest wars? The history of American war from 1775 to 2006.
0
Reply