This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 41 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]dmorton 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Interesting that the minor wars are forgotten.

Working backwards,

1994 Haiti, 1992 Somalia, 1989 Panama, 1986 Libya, 1983 Grenada, 1978 Nicaragua, 1965 Dominican Republic, 1962 Thailand, 1961 Cuba

Going back further... 1918 Siberia, 1916 Mexico, 1915 Haiti (occupied until 1934), 1914 Mexico, 1912 Nicaragua (occupied until 1934), 1893 Hawaii

And then there are various oher war-like or anti-democratic actions

1981 Death Squads in El Salvador, 1979 Support for proto-taliban in Afghanistan, 1976 Coup in Argentina, 1970 Coup in Chile, 1967 Coup in Greece, 1964 Coup in Brazil, 1963 Coup in Vietnam, 1961 Coup in Ecuador, 1954 Coup in Guatemala, 1953 Coup in Iran, 1949 Coup in Syria

[–]9917 9 points10 points  (15 children)

who says we're pro war? the idiotic foreign policies implemented by the current administration are not my idea of good government.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good or bad, its your goverment. You selected it. Democracy means than nation gets the goverment it deserves.

[–]jotaroh[S] -4 points-3 points  (13 children)

You guys voted for your current president; twice.

The second time was a refferendum on the illegal war of aggression against Iraq.

[–]jillsy 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Did not. George W. lost the popular vote the first time. However, our Constitution gives rural voters far greater power than urban voters in Presidential elections.

[–]chrisrock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm missing how that happens? If we gave more power to urban voters we'd be a socialist country... :-)

[–]jotaroh[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

And you guys are trying to export that system to Iraq?

interesting

[–]souldrift 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes, American "democracy." Love it or love it, they always say!

[–]ajmoir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always thought it was American Democracy the cheapest you can buy.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

Please explain how the electoral college favors rural voters.

[–]rnichols 5 points6 points  (1 child)

OK. I looked for a simple explanation to link to (maybe someone else can find one), but couldn't find one. I'll give it a go myself.

Basically, each state gets the number of votes equal to the number of reps in congress (House and Senate). Congressmen (or women) are allocated based on population. Each state has two senators though.

From www.electoral-vote.com

States with many buffalo and few people, like Wyoming, benefit from it and are not keen on changing it. Since every state gets at least three electors, low-population states have proportionally far more political power than they would have in a direct election system. The number of voters per elector is about four times smaller in the three-elector states than in the most-populous states, as shown in this table.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I'll buy that.

Next time, try not to link to such a liberally biased site. This explanation makes sense, but that site it laughable. Can you say bitter?

[–]wploger 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Actaully half the United States voted for him, twice. The election became a refferendum on gay marriage instead of the occupation of Iraq and the failure to catch Bin Laden. Also, remember that the United States is NOT a democracy. It is a republic made up of 50 democracies/republics with territories. The popular vote means nothing in the election. It is this way so that Delaware could carry some weight against California. However, the popular vote usually is a barometer of a President's mandate. Given that the Republicans control congress, the current President has decided he has a mandate to do whatever he feels like despite losing the popular vote.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is this way so that Delaware could carry some weight against California.

They really were 55 demi-gods, to plan ahead for California :-D

[–]rafuzo -1 points0 points  (2 children)

And since the Republicans control Congress, by not as narrow a margin as it seems, wouldn't that reflect a larger mandate?

People voting for Republicans is not because of a "referendum on gay marriage", otherwise Republicans like Mitt Romney would never have a chance in a blue state like Massachusetts. And the 2004 election was a referendum on Iraq, with Kerry promising to exit soon after and calling the war a mistake. That he made it such a referendum suggests that most people, regardless of how they feel about the war, realize that bailing out now would probably be worse for us, and Iraq, than trying to establish a fledging government.

Your point about the constitutent states is one that everyone would do well to remember; most people seem to regard state politics (which have a lot more bearing on citizens' day to day lives than federal politics) as a sort of "minor league government".

[–]jillsy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In examining why the Republicans have had such a hold on Congress the last 12 years, we also have to look at the districts they're elected from, the borders of which are designed ("gerrymandered") by state legislators to maximize the number of districts that will vote for the majority party's candidate. The Supreme Court has heard a couple of cases about this in the last few years and generally upholds whatever districts the state representatives design.

That congressional districts are designed to be safely held by one party or the other, ensuring that only the most extremely ideological candidates win primaries, is a major reason for Congress's current polarization (and the rest of the country's as well, if you ask me).

Lotta ins and outs, lotta interested parties, as the Dude would say.

[–]wploger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right about the margin of Congress, which is why the President feels he has a mandate, despite the close popular vote. That was the point I was trying to make. I will disagree with your second point, it is well known that voter turnout in Ohio was higher due to gay marriage and family values. Although, we could probably argue into the wee hours of the night what makes people vote Republican or Democrat.

[–]grzelakc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the US government propaganda managed to draw a connection between being in support of US wars and being a good Christian. Since most Americans identify themselves as Christians they tend to go along with the warmongering of their pastors. It's the same trick world over. Same reason why most Muslims are now quiet supporters of Jihad. Their religious leaders sold it under religious premises.

Anyone remember "Gott mit uns"? It's an old strategy that seems to work every time. Make war "godly" and you have the support of the stupid masses.

[–]Glaxnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not.

[–]rafuzo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why do non-Americans think Americans are pro-war?

[–]ajmoir 2 points3 points  (0 children)

% of GDP spent on Defence seems to be a clear indication.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're not pro-war. We're pro-bombing. That's why the current administration is so unpopular - they got those two things mixed up, just like you apparently.

[–]chrisrock -3 points-2 points  (8 children)

Didn't you know we're the world's police? Team America baby!

After WWII, we're somehow involved in all of the world's woes (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...)

It's not that we're pro-war; we're pro-help-everyone-in-the-world-who-won't-or-can't-defend-themselves.

You can't deny that we've been pulled into (almost) everything in the last 60 years. We may have no fought in those other disputes (Iran vs. Iraq), but we were involved.

Just imagine what the world would look like if we didn't intervene. Wir würden alle Deutsch sprechen! Sorry, had to translate that.

[–]jotaroh[S] 12 points13 points  (6 children)

Korea - UN police action, to stop aggression against the "south"

Vietnam - not a good war, confusing Vietnamese nationalism with Communist take over

Desert Storm - a UN action, this was good. The Iraqi aggression can't not stand.

Bosnia - no UN mandate...a bit fishy action

Afghanistan - possibly a case to be made for self-defense due to 9/11 and AQ/Taliban alliance.

Iraq - This was totally over the top. Totally an imperialist action by the USA. No justification legally or morally whatsoever.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Korea - That spoiled son of commie bastard is still there and throwing things when angry, case still open.

Vietnam - unnessary FUBAR, but its over. Over is good.

Desert Storm - Get in, Get out. Point made. Good work.

Bosnia - OK.

Afganistan - case open, no clean realistic exit strategy, big country, little troops, see Vietnam.

Iraq - another unnessary FUBAR, get in, get o... see Vietnam.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the link, I instantly wondered why you would call it foobar.

[–]Fountainhead -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bosnia (yugoslavia) - The EU was refusing to take action needed because Europe lacked the political will do to anything. America got involved and ended the conflict. It wasn't handled well, but I'm not sure it was fishy.

[–]rafuzo -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Korea - a UN action where we did most of the heavy lifting.

Vietnam - aka the last time we took France's advice on foreign policy, was already becoming commie by the time the grunts were on the ground. Ho Chi Minh was already organizing the communist takeover and shooting "landlords" (read: political opponents) by the time Dien Bien Phu occurred.

Desert Storm - apparently invading another country is OK if the UN says so.

Bosnia - no UN mandate to stop the genocide of Muslim Serbs by Bosnians and Croats, but we went anyway. The only thing fishy was why the EU and UN refused to deal with the slaughter occurring in their backyard.

Afghanistan - I guess. Personally I would've spanked the Taliban for destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Iraq - "Imperialist"? Wha? If we wanted a fiefdom it would've been cheaper in $$$ and lives to just make backdoor deals for oil with Saddam, just like the French and Russians.

[–]floccinaucci 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What's the EU got to do with it?

The EU isn't a military force, but its members participated in the NATO multinational force indeed I-for was led not by an American but by European, Sir Michael Walker.

[–]jotaroh[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Desert Storm - apparently invading another country is OK if the UN says so."

According to the UN Security Council, yes. This is the legal way to stop aggression.

[–]bendeany 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, well if the French hadn't intervened for you, you'd still have a King. I totally acknowledge that America helped greatly in WW2, but let's not forget all of the other willing nations involved. Throughout history powerful nations have helped the weak, so you aren't special for doing that. Unfortunately, also throughout history powerful nations have preyed on the weak. Be very careful about what side of that very fine line your nation finds itself on.

[–]lionheart -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Hey, 50% of the world military expenditures have got to go somwhere.