American Peace Homepage

January 16, 2003 1:26 PM

American Peace Homepage. "While most people, including most Americans, tend to believe that the United States has largely been a peaceful country until recently, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, the United States has been engaged in military operations for most of this country's history. Of all the things the United States can claim, it certainly has no claim to being a 'peace loving' country. [Visit this site to see] a table containing every year, from 1776 to the present - all of US history. Just click on the year to see who US troops were killing, or threatening to kill, in that year."
posted by Joey Michaels (38 comments total)

So the author is a member of the "Radical Youth Webring" and the "Commie Webring"? I'll still browse through his stuff, but that turns me off immedietly. Two things I don't like: Radicals and Communists.
posted by tomorama at 1:32 PM on January 16, 2003

Hey, cool, that site's part of the commie ring. And the dripping blood graphic is killer. But JM, you forgot the quotes around "Peace"
posted by pardonyou? at 1:36 PM on January 16, 2003

oops.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:37 PM on January 16, 2003

I clicked on that link with a fairly open mind but quickly realized that any point the author of that page was trying to make becomes quite fuzzy if he's going to cite general US involvement in World War II as simply another example of American warmongering.
posted by mathis23 at 1:39 PM on January 16, 2003

And here is a comprehensive timeline of military conflict from the 30th century BC to the modern day. Armed conflict is a constant of human interaction, unfortunately.

And, not to mince words, the assertion that because a nation engages in military action it cannot be "peace-loving" is complete and utter bullshit. I think that most societies and peoples love peace. Unfortunately, often our ideals are at odds with each other, and when diplomacy fails war occurs.

I find more virtue in a man willing to kill, however regretfully, to secure a longer-lasting peace in the future, than a fool who buries his head in the sand in the belief that unilateral weakness will bring about multilateral peace.
posted by jammer at 1:39 PM on January 16, 2003

Heh. Ignore the web ring links if you wish. The information itself is what made this site interesting to me.

And, for the record, I am quoting the site in the link, pardonyou. The fright quotes are the site's, not mine.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:40 PM on January 16, 2003

Something about red text on black just screams "I'm stockpiling weapons in my garage."
posted by bondcliff at 1:40 PM on January 16, 2003

Who said, "Peace is not the same as not-fighting"? Whatever else U.S. foreign policy has entailed over the years, warmongering is probably the least likely term I'd use. I think it would be diffivult to assert that the U.S. Civil War and WWII were fought on the basis of a right-wing agenda.

The American Revolution, on the other hand: a bunch of rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes . . .
posted by vraxoin at 1:41 PM on January 16, 2003

I think it would be difficult to assert that the U.S. Civil War ... (was) fought on the basis of a right-wing agenda.

Like slavery/segregation and "state's rights" for example?
posted by mathis23 at 1:46 PM on January 16, 2003

so what ? 227 years of serving and protecting justice and American interests

Most people that died in those wars were not whites anyways.
posted by bureaustyle at 1:50 PM on January 16, 2003

Like slavery/segregation and "state's rights" for example?

Exactly--those are the things the U.S. was fighting against in the Civil War.
posted by vraxoin at 1:53 PM on January 16, 2003

Fair enough.
posted by mathis23 at 1:54 PM on January 16, 2003

It's interesting and usefull to have a chronicle of what the US what up to, militarily, every single year it has been in existance as a nation - like our incessant military adventures in Latin America.
posted by troutfishing at 2:00 PM on January 16, 2003

GW Bush has the 2003 slot all filled, I bet.....in pen (not pencil).
posted by troutfishing at 2:01 PM on January 16, 2003

Did anyone notice the links for the 1960's always mention Laos but not Vietnam?

But mentioning African Americans in 1967 is a nice touch.
posted by Cyrano at 2:03 PM on January 16, 2003

Time Magazine presents a statistically inaccurate little addendum to this link.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:16 PM on January 16, 2003

The City Council voted 46-1 Thursday against a war on Iraq
posted by bureaustyle at 2:51 PM on January 16, 2003

Commies are so cute.
posted by hama7 at 3:14 PM on January 16, 2003

quite fuzzy if he's going to cite general US involvement in World War II as simply another example of American warmongering.

Precisely. I had to hold down my lunch when I read that.

Kinda makes you embarassed to live in a country so full of freedom that it fosters the worst kind of spoiled brats who think Communism is the answer to anything. Sure buddy. Spend an hour in a Stalin-era workcamp and tell me you won't want to be back home, eating Sour Patch Kids and playing your Playstation in the recliner chair again.

News flash: the world is a violent place, and practically every country in the world has been complicit in it. Right now, it happens to fashionable to cite the US's crimes.
posted by dhoyt at 3:25 PM on January 16, 2003

Where are the flames? Where's the all-caps righteous indignation? It's weird, actually.

If you say calmly; "America's a pretty good country", shrieking harpies come flying out of the woodwork typing hateful and demonic screeds denouncing everything civilized about western civilization.

If you link to letters dripping with blood calling Americans warmongering vampire hypocrites, the response is what? Freakish.

More than many things about America are damn well worth fighting for, and that if it weren't for those American soldiers doing the fighting and dying for American civilians, the concept of "peace" (so cavalierly demeaned here) would be something very different indeed.

American civilians do enjoy peace, and they are not required to fight, precisely because the military is guaranteeing them that option by doing its job extremely well.
posted by hama7 at 3:31 PM on January 16, 2003

Hasn't anybody clued you hippies in yet? War is peace!
posted by Hildago at 3:48 PM on January 16, 2003

If you link to letters dripping with blood calling Americans warmongering vampire hypocrites, the response is what?

Probably because I can't get my panties in a knot when a soldier rescues a kitten from a tree and some whackjob labels it 'warmongering.'

If he wants to lay off the granola and come back with a more reasoned argument, I'd be much more likely to start screaming. And I'd probably be screaming in his favor...
posted by mathis23 at 3:59 PM on January 16, 2003

I guess the difference between the US and the Axis of Evil is that Iraq, North Korea etc only aspire to sacrifice their young men in the quantities the US does. Thats a wholesome thought, sleep easy.
posted by cohiba at 4:08 PM on January 16, 2003

American civilians do enjoy peace, and they are not required to fight, precisely because the military is guaranteeing them that option by doing its job extremely well.

That's right. Our hired killers are better than their hired killers (or at least they're better equipped). Hooah.

Ya know, despite my better judgment, I'm occasionally tempted to tell you folks that think that "more than many things about America are damn well worth fighting for" to get off the computer where you bravely and repeatedly (yet safely and comfortably) call for bloodshed, march down to your local recruiter and raise your right hand.... if what you say is really true about the spinetingling glory of America justifying bloodshed (hint: it does not).

But I won't tell you that. Hell, I don't even wish the stupidity and evil and utter banality of military service on those who could actually use a lesson in the realities of violence, war, and real life.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:21 PM on January 16, 2003

Nice way to call out "chicken hawk" without actually calling it out fold_and_mutilate.

If asked, I will serve. I'm still registered with Selective Service. I haven't been asked, and given that I'm way past prime recruitment age, I'd probably be laughed out of the local recruiter's office should I volunteer. However, if it makes you happy, I'll go if you do.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:35 PM on January 16, 2003

But I won't tell you that. Hell, I don't even wish the stupidity and evil and utter banality of military service on those who could actually use a lesson in the realities of violence, war, and real life.

And in the U.S., you have the ability to choose not to participate in that utter banality. In many other places, you'd be chronicling the stupidity of service while serving it.

I'll take the good ol' U. S. of A. any day.
posted by tomorama at 5:45 PM on January 16, 2003

hama7:American civilians do enjoy peace, and they are not required to fight, precisely because the military is guaranteeing them that option by doing its job extremely well.

fold_and_mutilate:I'm occasionally tempted to tell you folks that think that "more than many things about America are damn well worth fighting for" to get off the computer where you bravely and repeatedly (yet safely and comfortably) call for bloodshed, march down to your local recruiter and raise your right hand...

Yo, foldie: There ARE many things about America worth fighting for. In addition, I am, at this moment, "comfortably & safely" sitting in front of my computer in my modest home. However, I *did* raise my right hand several years ago and continue to serve in the military. While I don't "bravely & repeatedly" call for "bloodshed" in order to experience "spinetingling glory," I am absolutely ready to advance the cause of freedom, capitalism, democracy, and other American values. I am also ready to DEFEND those values, and the people and nation that best embodies them (hint: it's the U.S.A). Further, while there are plenty of folks who believe that America's course is right (re: Iraq, terrorism, Korea, etc) and support the efforts of the President and the military, such beliefs do not require wearing a uniform and marching off to war. There are "warriors" of many stripes.

And the comment about the "stupidity and evil and utter banality of military service"? (rolls eyes)
posted by davidmsc at 5:57 PM on January 16, 2003

I am absolutely ready to advance the cause of freedom, capitalism, democracy, and other American values. I am also ready to DEFEND those values, and the people and nation that best embodies them

See, my problem with this is that our military actions have rarely, if ever, advanced or defended those values. Motivation for war is usually either political or economic, and when it's not, it's not to protect the idea of, say, "freedom" in the abstract, it's to protect our freedom, namely freedom from being ruled by a foreign country, which is of course standard operating procedure no matter what country you're in.

I'm not saying America = bad, just that signing up to serve in the military because you think you're upholding a philosophical principle is a rather naive and completely inaccurate way of looking at the facts. There's nothing that has less to do with principles than war; there's always more to it, and it's got nothing to do with deontology.
posted by Hildago at 6:17 PM on January 16, 2003

I almost have a mind to mirror the content of this site, but with a completely different and much more neutral presentation, just so that the naysayers here would have to comment on the actual content. I don't suppose that would keep people from putting words in the authors' mouths (i.e. "warmongering vampire hypocrites"), but at least it would clear the air of all the "Commies suck"-type comments. Plus, letters dripping blood is just plain tacky.

The thesis of the site is not that Communism is wonderful. It asserts merely that the United States cannot legitimately claim to be a peace-loving country (or at least, to have a peace-loving government) with a history of almost constant warfare and military action behind it. It's in direct response to George W. Bush repeatedly asserting that America is a peace-loving country and that he himself is a man of peace, usually in the same breath as he threatens war or announces the start of one. Does anyone not have to hold down one's lunch while hearing that?

To those who defend America's militaristic past and present as necessary to preserve democracy - exactly how does the 1790-1794 war against the Miami Confederacy fit into that? Or the Mexican War? Or the 1816 raid against the Seminoles in Florida? Or the 1889 invasion of the Kingdom of Hawaii? Or the 1964 invasion of the Dominican Republic? Or...

Face it, the United States government is very quick to resort to killing people and breaking things in order to advance its interests of the moment. There's little grand moral purpose to it. It's called global force projection. It's exercised by political neorealists (cf. Henry Kissinger et al.). They know what they're doing, and everyone who's ever taken a course in international politics knows it too. Obviously, the U.S. government is far from alone in this regard. Yet somehow, some people still believe that the American government only very reluctantly sends in the troops, and of course, only to defend the most unimpeachable universal principles. Like annexing Florida and Hawaii. Or keeping down the price of gas.

One can argue that a war over a commodity is necessary. But don't ever claim that it's noble, because that insults the memory of those who fought and died for genuinely noble causes.

On preview: ditto Hildago.
posted by skoosh at 6:31 PM on January 16, 2003

If cops really liked order and civility they'd stop arresting all those people. And have you seen how doctors have been sewing up wounds and administering medicines, like, every day for as long as I can remember? If they were really pro-health they'd leave those nasty diseases alone. Plaguemongers.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:12 PM on January 16, 2003

Skoosh - you have my vote. nice speech.

Hama7 - "American civilians do enjoy peace, and they are not required to fight, precisely because the military is guaranteeing them that option by doing its job extremely well." - posted by hama7 at 3:31 PM PST on January 16

We don't know what the converse would be, do we? - what would the world be like in the absence of aggressive US force projection? Or if, even better, the US supported international institutions instead of scrapping, as the GW Bush administration has done, an historic number of international treaties?
posted by troutfishing at 8:48 PM on January 16, 2003

We don't know what the converse would be, do we

We'd be speaking German or Russian, for starters.
posted by hama7 at 9:23 PM on January 16, 2003

tech: you're implying that the only choice is between military action and doing nothing. Sure, kicking butt with bombs is satisfying in a instant-results, star-wars movie, chest-thumping kind of way. But I think we're addicted to the thrill.

The slower diplomatic approach, with trade/aid and sanctions as carrot and stick, works when given time (South Africa). Fewer people get killed by the people claiming the moral high ground; maybe more people are killed by the internal strife. At least we keep our credibility and moral suasion for the next time.

In our society, if the cops are trying to stop a gang war, they could come in and start shooting everyone and let God sort out the pieces. But the solution we use is to prosecute only those gang members who actually pulled the trigger. Maybe the gang warfare would have ended earlier with the shoot first-then ask questions method, but would anyone look to the cops for a solution the next time?
posted by mediaddict at 9:26 PM on January 16, 2003

If cops really liked order and civility they'd stop arresting all those people.

Beautifully put, techgnollogic.
posted by hama7 at 1:38 AM on January 17, 2003

Apparently, WWII is still alive and well in this thread, so let us put it to rest. It is possible to support wars and military actions against states or entities that attack or declare war against one's own country, while opposing wars against states that don't. Therefore (for example), one can support American involvement in WWII, or the campaign against al-Qa`ida, while opposing an American-initiated war against Iraq. Or, one can support U.S. involvement in World War II, but oppose the sending of American troops into Greece in 1947.

I notice that those who argue for the endless nobility of American military sacrifice have yet to address the lesser known, perhaps not so noble military actions that I have cited. Also, perhaps there is something in the fact that the lesser known conflicts also seem to be well-represented among those of doubtful nobility. Comments?

tech, I think the cop and doctor analogies are seriously flawed. Both cops and doctors work within rules that preclude self-interested behavior or doing unnecessary harm. The politicians who send in the troops are doing so to advance a national self-interest, i.e. not necessarily the good of all. A cop who shoots someone so his stock prices go up is acting in own interest, and is therefore corrupt. A country that fights a war so that its stock market goes up is acting in its own interest, and is therefore normal. Not a city on a hill, but normal.
posted by skoosh at 4:41 AM on January 17, 2003

For those of you who see the US as evil warmongers run amok: Imagine what the world would look like if the US were truly a dictatorship bent on world domination, in the classic mold of Rome or Napoleonic France. Sure, it doesn't live up to its ideals all the time, but at least it tries on occassion.

For those of you who see the US as pure and noble: Imagine what the world would look like if the US always lived up to its ideals, and never engaged in military activities that are questionable at least, and hypocritical empire building at worst.

In other words, it's not as bad as it could be, but it's not as good as it should be, either.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:05 AM on January 17, 2003

Agreed, GhostintheMachine, and thank you for your even-handedness. One additional observation: I don't think the US has been "a dictatorship bent on world domination" for 227 years, but it's started to look like one since, oh, the 2000 election. Deciding an election on the basis of a stacked court rather than votes? Suspect. And this Administration's apparent determination to ram through its policies (tax cuts for the rich, war with Iraq) without discussion, in the face of widespread opposition both at home and abroad, doesn't do anything to allay my suspicion.

I'm NOT saying America is evil; I AM saying that the Bush Admin.'s policies and attitude to date seem rather UN-American to me. Possibly also dictatorial. Someone should look into it.
posted by Raya at 4:58 PM on January 17, 2003

To equate wars with police activity and medical procedures you must first show that war is done for a larger good.

Then, having done that, you are sort of tied to the problem that it takes two to tango, and both sides of a war are (if what you say is true) acting for the greater good.

And if that's true, then why are they fighting? It must be that, at most, only one of them is right, unless you say that they are both acting for a greater good, but that the greater good is relative. Then you become a moral relativist, which is fine, except it ultimately leads you to say that there's no moral justification for war at all, since everybody is equally right.

So, your options become that nobody in a war is right, or that one side is always wrong (and that the US has been on the right side in every military campaign), or that the reasons we fight wars are completely invalid. In any case you've got a problem on your hands.

My advice: ditch the analogy altogether.
posted by Hildago at 3:39 PM on January 22, 2003