Wars engaged in by Dem/Rep presidents

[John_Mace]

@DinoR

Close air support along with combat air patrols were planned as part of the operation. Carter authorized bombing. It just didn’t happen due to the operation falling apart and being aborted before it could happen.

This statement, assuming the poster was alive in 1979, is false:

Every President in my lifetime has dropped bombs on someone and deployed troops somewhere.

Not sure whey people want to dance around the meaning of “and”, or postulate things that could have happened, but didn’t. The statement is false. Period.

[DinoR]

@John_Mace

Not sure whey people want to dance around the meaning of “and”, or postulate things that could have happened, but didn’t. The statement is false. Period.

I wasn’t arguing that his statement as made was accurate. It’s false. Carter’s approval of the mission that included close air support was not hypothetical though. We don’t have to guess. Carter actually did that. The true statement that every President has committed to deploying troops and bombing in that time frame, while slightly less rigorous, does speak to the general trend.

@Martin_Hyde

You guys are confusing the word “involvement” with “engage in warfare.” No one prior to Johnson waged war in Vietnam as President of the United States.

Whether you want to call it “Warfare” the advisers Kennedy sent were engaged in combat with the troops they advised. 191 were killed in action 1961-1963. US troops were most certainly committed to combat by Kennedy. It wasn’t until Johnson came along that we sent US maneuver units to fight directly. The first Distinguished Service Cross for Vietnam (our second highest award for valor) was awarded for actions taken while Kennedy was still President. The citation for that award paints a picture of what we were already doing before Johnson.

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Keith R. Borck, Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Army, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Chief Warrant Officer Keith R. Borck, while a member of the 93d Transportation Company, distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving an opposing force in the Republic of Vietnam, on 2 January 1963. As an Aircraft Commander, Chief Warrant Officer Borck demonstrated professional skill, decisive leadership, and fortitude on his fourth mission into an assault zone in support of a military operation conducted by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam in defense of their homeland. When his aircraft was struck by automatic weapons fire, inflicting major damage to the aircraft and wounding the co-pilot, he evacuated the crew to a rescue helicopter. As the helicopter attempted to take off, it too was damaged by intense automatic weapons fire which wounded all of the crew members. Chief Warrant Officer Borck voluntarily and bravely exposed himself to the automatic weapons fire while evacuating both crews, placing them in a defilade position, and administering first aid to his wounded comrades. Then, as a second rescue helicopter returned to effect the rescue, it was struck by recoilless rifle fire and crashed. With complete disregard for his own personal safety, Chief Warrant Officer Borck dashed through intense weapons fire, reached the downed aircraft and, while exposed to the onslaught, tore out Plexiglas panels and extricated the crew. For 3 hours they lay in a wet, muddy rice paddy under constant sniper fire. When hostile strafing prevented a third aircraft from effecting the rescue, he led the men to a more protected area and organized a perimeter defense until an aircraft finally succeeded in effecting their evacuation. Chief Warrant Officer Borck’s conspicuous gallantry and extraordinary heroic actions are in the highest traditions of the United States Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the military service.

Kennedy most certainly did order troops into combat. We were fighting, killing, and dying while he was still President. Whether you want to call it warfare, it was not of the same character as something like Lend Lease or advising foreign mlitaries out of contact with the enemy.

[Velocity]

@John_Mace

*“Every President in my lifetime has dropped bombs on someone and deployed troops somewhere.”
*
No bombs were dropped. Maybe that poster wasn’t alive in the 1970s.

Do bombs or lack of bombs really matter? Military force takes many different forms.

[Martin_Hyde]

@DinoR

Whether you want to call it “Warfare” the advisers Kennedy sent were engaged in combat with the troops they advised.

They were specifically sent as advisors and their combat role was limited.

191 were killed in action 1961-1963. US troops were most certainly committed to combat by Kennedy. It wasn’t until Johnson came along that we sent US maneuver units to fight directly. The first Distinguished Service Cross for Vietnam (our second highest award for valor) was awarded for actions taken while Kennedy was still President. The citation for that award paints a picture of what we were already doing before Johnson.

About 130 U.S. servicemen were killed by the Axis prior to December 7th, 1941. Again, no one seriously suggests the U.S. was in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor.

Kennedy most certainly did order troops into combat. We were fighting, killing, and dying while he was still President. Whether you want to call it warfare, it was not of the same character as something like Lend Lease or advising foreign mlitaries out of contact with the enemy.

All advising involves some level of contact with the enemy, but we were not committed to the war as a belligerent party. As for Lend Lease, I don’t know if any are still around but the survivors of the German attacks on the USS Kearney or the USS Reuben James would probably be confused by your statements.

[John_Mace]

@Exapno_Mapcase

In standard English, that construction often is used as a shortening of "any of the following cases, including a, b, and c.

Sorry, but in standard English, and does not mean or. There is a reason we have those two words, and they mean different things. If the poster wants to come back and change his statement, fine. Or, if he was born after Reagan was inaugurated, then that’s fine, too.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@John_Mace

Sorry, but in standard English, and does not mean or. There is a reason we have those two words, and they mean different things. If the poster wants to come back and change his statement, fine. Or, if he was born after Reagan was inaugurated, then that’s fine, too.

In precise formal pedantic English, usually not, although obviously examples can be found that show otherwise.

We’re using standard colloquial English here, however. That’s a rough beast, slouching. Trying to apply formal English standards on it always fail, and there’s abundant evidence to show that as well.

As I already said, I don’t know what ITR Champion meant and your interpretation may be the right one. You simply can’t declare it so and have others believe you.

[marshmallow]

Knock yourself out.

Don’t forget CIA stuff.

Those aren’t complete. You won’t see anything about Jimmy Carter sending large quantities of weapons to Indonesia so they can continue their slaughter of East Timor, for example. There’s a lot of stuff like that during the Cold War and both sides did it.

In modern times you could make the case Republicans are more warlike, seeing negotiations and diplomacy as wastes of time or signs of weakness. It’s not like the Dems are doves, though. At most you could say they don’t want to start big ground wars unless they really need to. Here are some countries Obama has bombed:

Iraq
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Syria
Libya
Yemen
Somalia

Hope he hits BINGO soon.