Yeah, it gets messier. There was the time they accidentally strafed a US reconnisance ship that was accidentally recording all of their radio transmissions and such while they were fighting in some war or another.
Actually, it appears that the largest war that the U.S. has stayed out of was the Second Congo War, which lasted from 1998-2002. The death toll was 3.8 million.
[QUOTE=MikeS]
[li]The Russian Civil War: Wikipedia says that the United States (among other countries) intervened on the behalf of the Whites. I don’t know what this support amounted to, though, so it might fall under the rules of the OP. [/li][/QUOTE]
Here is a list of US interventions.
The intervention in Russia was pretty much of a fiasco. The troops sat around in the cold and didn’t do anything except create resentment.
The various wars between India and Pakistan have all been pretty violent and the US was never directly involved in that region until recently.
Intervened, yes. Sided, no. U.S. Navy gunboat patrols on China’s Yangtze River were there to protect U.S. lives and interests.
During the Nicaragua Civil War, 1927-1932, U.S. Marines fought against guerilla leader Sandino and his followers.
The Cola Wars?
That was the USS Liberty and the attack was most certainly not an accident.
Dang it, beat me too this one. It is surprising how many people haven’t heard of this war, despite it being the largest conflict since WWII, and quite recent.
Pretty much every panel and investigative body that investigated it said that it was.
Well I was using the word “accidental” with the same tone of irony my history prof used when mentioning the incident.
It doesn’t surprise me much. The media is very good at keeping most people ignorant. Why is it that everyone cares about Terri Schiavo, but not about Africans?
This is reference to the Second Congo War. It’s the “deadliest conflict” since World War II – not the “biggest.” But this is a good time to define “big.” To me, “big” means “logistics.” Everything about a war involves moving stuff (like troops) from point A to point B and beyond.
As for why we don’t get a lot of coverage for African wars? I’d like to reserve comment until we hear from the Europeans about their common knowledge of African wars. I imagine that we’re all very western-centric, and that they don’t know a whole lot more about them (in the popular sense) than we United Statesians and Canadians and Mexicans do.
Personally, when I think of African wars, I think banana republicism or Mogadishu, and until they can grow up and fight wars the western way, there’s no hope. I can’t imagine that an African Colonel Saito would have let a Colonel Nicholson of any nation live more than a couple of minutes.
Actually, I don’t know if the Russo-Japanese War would count, since Teddy Roosevelt helped negotiate the peace terms for that one (and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize).
That was part of the whole Iran-Contra thing, IIRC.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me that the Israelis would have been more than happy to help the various Arab countries continue fighting eachother. As long as Iran and Iraq are fighting eachother, neither one can really pick a fight with Israel.
The J. Wellington Wimpy approach to diplomacy - “Let’s you and him fight”.
Sure it would- since the reason Teddy could get results is because we were so neutral. In this case- “the United States has not supported one side or the other with soldiers, advisors, supplies, or other support in the past 100 years” applies- our President did broker peace, but the USA did none of those things.
I’d say that was the last full scale foriegn war (as opposed to Civil) that the USA didn’t participate in. We also stayed out of the India-Paki ‘wars’ but they were rather short, and limited.
I’m not sure if it’s the biggest per se, but the biggest war tha the US would have been better than an even money bet to have intervened in but didn’t would surely have been the orgy of slaughter that was the Gran Chaco War, Paraguay v Bolivia.
War huh? What is it good for?
mm
Actually, the Gran Chaco wasn’t a war the US was likely to intervene in, even if it was two little guys dooking it out in the “back yard” - simply because two landlocked countries (Bolivia had lost it’ sea corrdor by then hadn’t it?) would have made it logistically difficult to get in and sort it out.
But still, big scrap, lotsa dead, right in the US’s backyard. And over oil, or rumours of oil.
mm
What about the Falkland Island war between Argentina and Great Britain? Did the U.S. stay out of that one?
Well, if ya can’t trust federal government investigative panels, who can ya trust? :dubious:
I’d suggest hitting the survivors’ website again. The quotes from high-ranking American officials who held office at the time seem to suggest no one was under the impression that the attack was anything other than deliberate all by themselves.
In other news, it appears that more than a Single Bullet may have been fired at the JFK motorcade, and that Senator McCarthy might not have a list of names of commies in the Department of the Army after all.