Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:24 PM   #31

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 5,961
Blog Entries: 30

Quote:
Well, unless someone can find the original report I don't think we'll know what their criteria were. Until then, it's all speculation.
I posted the report in the thread. Easily found. It has been updated frequently since 1962 to include the intervening years. It does not include our Indian battles within the definition of "instances of use of united states forces abroad 1792-1962". There is no speculation included in the report. You should read it.
unclefred is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:52 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,645

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclefred View Post
I posted the report in the thread. Easily found. It has been updated frequently since 1962 to include the intervening years. It does not include our Indian battles within the definition of "instances of use of united states forces abroad 1792-1962". There is no speculation included in the report. You should read it.
Ah, I had assumed we were talking about a report in 1962, on Page 1 the report you referenced gave other lists, but none from then. But in any case, by that list nothing happened in 1811...however, interestingly, on page six there is a reference to US cross border raids in Mexico from 1873-1896, so 1892 is included on that list. (As is 1912-1941, on page 9, due to intervention in China during this time frame). And this is a list without reference to the Indian wars and not counting post-WWII occupation forces or 'participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, or routine military assistance'.

If we throw those in it looks like there isn't a single year in our history that we were not engaged in some sort of a military operation.
constantine is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:10 PM   #33

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
If we throw those in it looks like there isn't a single year in our history that we were not engaged in some sort of a military operation.
Shame on us! Protecting our citizens from pirates and Indian attacks.

This has got to be one of the most absurd threads I've ever seen on this forum (and that's saying a LOT )
Rongo is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:56 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,645

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Shame on us! Protecting our citizens from pirates and Indian attacks.

This has got to be one of the most absurd threads I've ever seen on this forum (and that's saying a LOT )
I'd personally consider it a point of honour, not a shame. And we should keep in mind we have a reputation to keep up.
constantine is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:13 PM   #35

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Shame on us! Protecting our citizens from pirates and Indian attacks.

This has got to be one of the most absurd threads I've ever seen on this forum (and that's saying a LOT )
It ranks in the top ten for me as well.
tjadams is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:21 PM   #36

Salah's Avatar
Unchained
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Baltimorean-in-exile
Posts: 18,855
Blog Entries: 165

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
It ranks in the top ten for me as well.
Allow me to 'third' that motion.

My query several pages ago, concerning the purpose of this thread, has gone unanswered, shockingly. I guess as an American I'm just too evil and bloodthirsty to understand. Now if you'll excuse me, I have genocides to commit and babies to eat.
Salah is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:06 AM   #37

ugabug's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Minnesota
Posts: 932

My how this reminds me of this thread.
http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ies-world.html

I guess with the right criteria you can push any agenda.
ugabug is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 12:29 PM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 2,078

Not sure I get any of this.
The OP states that Kennedy was trying to get authorization to invade Cuba.

The US did not actually invade cuba... we facilitated cuban freedom fighters in their invasion. They were cuban nationals... and Kennedy actually got criticized by the military for not allowing US pilots to support them.

Secondly, Bay of Pigs as a covert operation was conceived under Eisenhower, preparations already underway when Kennedy took office... and that it was Kennedy that needed to be convinced that this operation was worth doing.

The report prepared was to convince Kennedy, not congress, which was operating on a domino principle mentality and not adverse to covert operations intended to overthrow regimes.

Further... there is a false equivalency going on in this argument. The notion that establishing a trading fort on the Pacific in that era ( when Native Americans were Not seen as holding any territory with what western powers recognized as sovereign rule ( i.e. many different indian "nations" sharing, or fighting over the exact same territory. )
And then defending themselves from an unexpected attack is not the same as sending a military force to take and hold ground against the will of a recognized foreign power in 1961.

A trading post is specifically and indisputable an aspect of establishing trade relations. Not seen as nor carried out with the intent of an invasion nor to seize territory.

The US did not recognize native claims to sovereignty at this time... and, in fact, had recently PURCHASED this 'territory' from the French.
So, from the perspective of the US government at that time, the expedition was to assert US claim on the area they had already 'legally' annexed. i.e. NOT an invasion.

lastly... the analogy of iran placing a compound in the US is spurious.

Not at all like the situation of Fort Astoria.


A better analogy would to suggest that the US had SOLD Iran, say, the territory of Puerto Rico. And that, upon Iran landing and trying to establish trade relations with the inhabitant of the island, they had been attacked... Not by the US, that had sold the island, but by the Puerto Ricans who had not had a say in the transfer.


Another analogous situation would be the Folks who settled New Amsterdam, after having bought Manhatten island from the indians.... only to find that Other tribes also felt they had claims to the same land and contested the new owner's rights of occupation.

Just because guns go off doesn't make all scenarios equivalent.

What is seen as incursion, in light of today's mores, does not retroactively define the motives nor actions of those who, long ago, saw the world and their intentions in entirely different terms.
sculptingman is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 12:59 PM   #39

Epix's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 630

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
The definition varies depending on who is on the receiving end.
When US troops arrived in Cuba in 1898 the Spanish saw invaders, the Cuban rebels (terrorists?) saw liberators, the thousands of whores in Havana saw customers.
Not all the rebels saw the US has liberators. Afterall, they had been fighting the Spanish for years and were wearing them down. In no time they would have defeated the Spanish. US entry in that war just speeded up events. Those in the US who wanted expansion in US influence kniew that they had to get a foothold in Cuba before Cuba became independent since it would be internationally frawned upon if the US sent troops into an independent Cuba.

The famous Cuban General Antonio Maceo accepted european and US supplies and weapons but he was against US involvement in Cuba. He knew what would happen.

Quote:
His position was, at that time, acquiescent with accepting economic aid and packages with weapons and ammunitions from Europe or even from the United States, but was strongly opposed to acceptance by Cubans in the independence movement for a direct military intervention by the US in Cuba.
Quote:
He recovered from more than 25 war injuries over the course of some 500 military battles, and none of Maceo's wounds diminished his willingness to lead his troops into combat.
Another famous Cuban was Marti

He said the following nine years before the Spanish American war began.

Quote:
In 1889 Marti had written, 'Once the US is in Cuba who will get her out?'. It was not until 60 years later that the Cuban Revolution got rid of US control of Cuba,
Then we have Maximo Gomez who was the top Rebel Commander in Cuba.

Quote:
He adapted and formalized the improvised military tactics that had first been used by Spanish guerrillas against Napoleon Bonaparte's Armies into a cohesive and comprehensive system at both the tactical and strategic level. The concept of insurrection and insurgency, and the asymmetric nature thereof can be traced intellectually to him.
Quote:
He was wounded only twice during 15 years of guerrilla warfare against an enemy far superior in manpower and logistics.
He could have easily become President of Cuba but he hated politics. He was originally from the Dominican Republic.

Anyway, during the war of indenpendence he once commented about if the US recognized the Rebels. He said that " the US recogniton is like rain, if it comes its good and if it does not come its also good".

A few years later just before he was about to invade the Capital City, the US got involved. He was also angry when he was told by US General Shafte not to enter the rebel forces into the city of Santiago de Cuba. After the war he supported for President the candidate which was not supported by the US. But his candidate lost. He later wrote that the US atitude toward there island nation was has if it was a business deal.

So has you can see the really important players were weary of US involvement.

Last edited by Epix; January 17th, 2013 at 01:06 PM.
Epix is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:42 AM   #40
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 446

The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary is usally the legal justification used by Presidents of the United States to intervene into Latin-American affairs. Lets not forget Castro was urging the Soviets to fire the nukes that they did have in place...only 70 miles from the Florida Keys. I do not recall JFK giving the Congress ANY sensative information during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 for fear the hawks in the Congress would force his hand. JFK played the situation deftly and avoided nuclear armageddon.
IKE52 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
1892


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.