Since 1950 - In What Years Were We Not Involved With War? - New England Patriots Forums

***IcyPatriot*** · 09-23-2009, 08:35 PM

In what years since 1950 were we not at war

... either officially or unofficially. War, fighting, actively suffering casualties.

All of it including UN peacekeeping fighting and getting involved in someone else's war?

efin98 · 09-23-2009, 10:27 PM

Technically US has been involved in war since 1950 but if you want to exclude the Korean theatre troops, you have to go all the way back to the 1979 where the US did not have any combat or peace keeping troops deployed...
2003-present in Iraq
2001-present in Afghanistan
1999-present US has been in Kosovo
1995-2004 US was in Bosnia and Herzegovenia
1992-2002 US enforcement of "No-Fly Zone" in Iraq
1994-1995 US was in Haiti
1991-1993 US was in Somalia
1990-1991 Operation Desert Storm
1989-1990 US invaded Panama to retrieve Noriega
1989 US helped repel a coup in the Philippines and had run ins with Libyan Air Force
1988 US deployed troops to Honduras
1983 US invaded Grenada and deployed aircraft to help Chad against Libyan and rebel forces
1982-1983 US deployed troops to Lebanon
1982-1989 US was in a "quasi war" with Iran keeping oil tankers out of danger, which saw US use military force on numerous occasions to drive away gun boats and warships.
1981-present US deployed troops as part of the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai Peninsula
1980 "Operation Eagle Claw" the failed rescue mission to Iran to free the US Embassy hostages

***DarrylS*** · 09-24-2009, 03:55 AM

The whole military industrial complex needs this to happen and continue, it is about the money and it is about the vast and expensive R & D that is involved in weaponry along with the continued development of weapons by many of our defense contractors.. not quite sure it can ever change as it is so institutionalized...

One could argue that it began prior to 1950 as the Berlin Airlift commenced in 1949 and the "Cold War" started almost immediately after WWII... our defense expenditures have always been very expensive.. some might argue that all of this is an entitlement program for the power elite.

In his 1961 Farewell Address, Eisenhower said:

Quote:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

One of my earliest influences on how I view the world, was C. Wright Mills, "Power Elite".. published in 1956.. from Amazon.com

Quote:

First published in 1956, The Power Elite stands as a contemporary classic of social science and social criticism. C. Wright Mills examines and critiques the organization of power in the United States, calling attention to three firmly interlocked prongs of power: the military, corporate, and political elite. The Power Elite can be read as a good account of what was taking place in America at the time it was written, but its underlying question of whether America is as democratic in practice as it is in theory continues to matter very much today.

RATM.. Bulls on Parade, is a very significant piece of music.

efin98 · 09-24-2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

The whole military industrial complex needs this to happen and continue, it is about the money and it is about the vast and expensive R & D that is involved in weaponry..

RATM.. Bulls on Parade.

Right, because none of those missions overseas was about people and countries in need or in chaos...

***IcyPatriot*** · 09-24-2009, 07:47 AM

Both excellant responses ... Our best hope of minimal to no war involvement is Obama. If he does not break the cycle then who will. The UN meetings, meetings in other parts of the world almost always produce the peace rhetoric. But where is it?

Now we expand the list to include Russia, China & North Korea (which does it with arm sales), Iran & Saudi Arabia (funding terrorists), Mexico which is always at war with the drug dealers ... same for Columbia at times.

The list goes on and on. The few countries not involved in all this crap are also among the best places to live and/or vacation. This is a very unscientific post because to really do this subject would take pages and pages of posts. There will never be peace without a significant downsizing of arms sales. How much arms do you need as a country when 19 people with boxcutters attack you and kill 3,000 Americans? But we worry because Obama pulled the missle defense idea off the table.

When I get home later ... I'll add to the thread how much each country has spent in arms since 1950 or as close as I can get to that number.
We know who #1 is - but how far in 1st place are we ... it's very sizable from early research.

alvinnf · 09-24-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Both excellant responses ... Our best hope of minimal to no war involvement is Obama. If he does not break the cycle then who will. The UN meetings, meetings in other parts of the world almost always produce the peace rhetoric. But where is it?

Now we expand the list to include Russia, China & North Korea (which does it with arm sales), Iran & Saudi Arabia (funding terrorists), Mexico which is always at war with the drug dealers ... same for Columbia at times.

The list goes on and on. The few countries not involved in all this crap are also among the best places to live and/or vacation. This is a very unscientific post because to really do this subject would take pages and pages of posts. There will never be peace without a significant downsizing of arms sales. How much arms do you need as a country when 19 people with boxcutters attack you and kill 3,000 Americans? But we worry because Obama pulled the missle defense idea off the table.

When I get home later ... I'll add to the thread how much each country has spent in arms since 1950 or as close as I can get to that number.
We know who #1 is - but how far in 1st place are we ... it's very sizable from early research.

Why would he be our best hope? Rhetoric? 5,000 not 3,000.

***maverick4*** · 09-24-2009, 08:55 AM

The best way to end US military imperialism and killings around the world since WWII, is to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency.

This will force our country to manage spending responsibly, not allowing us deficit spend, and then print monopoly money. Our wars in Iraq and Afganistan are paid for by China, we can't even afford our own wars anymore.

Removing the greenback as reserve currency, thus limiting our military spending, will also mean no more 800B/year spending on weapons and death, and no more 900 US military bases around the world.

alvinnf · 09-24-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverick4

The best way to end US military imperialism and killings around the world since WWII, is to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency.

This will force our country to manage spending responsibly, not allowing us deficit spend, and then print monopoly money. Our wars in Iraq and Afganistan are paid for by China, we can't even afford our own wars anymore.

Removing the greenback as reserve currency, thus limiting our military spending, will also mean no more 800B/year spending on weapons and death, and no more 900 US military bases around the world.

Don't you think we are sort of past that at this point....Good idea a year or two too late.

Stokes · 09-24-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

In what years since 1950 were we not at war

... either officially or unofficially. War, fighting, actively suffering casualties.

All of it including UN peacekeeping fighting and getting involved in someone else's war?

I want to guess before I read the thread, but I'm going to say there wasn't a year.

Aren't we technically still at war with North Korea? There was the armistice, but never a true end to that war, correct? Does that count? Am I missing the point by making this a trivia game?

More seriously I think the lesson that we can learn looking back on our history is that of course all war is bad, but the wars worth fighting are those with a clear objective, a sound military strategy, and a postwar plan. Of those I think #3 is the one most often ignored, even in wars that we'd consider successful, such as WWII or the 1st Gulf War.

***PressCoverage*** · 09-24-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alvinnf

Don't you think we are sort of past that at this point....Good idea a year or two too late.

The dollar will be removed, one way or another, ... whether done willfully, or by the coming collapse.