Has the US ever spent 10 years Conflict Free?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Cite me for me please where political statements are not allowed in different threads.
Sure you want this to be The Hill?

Really sure?

Header for Chat:

General chat about things unrelated to alternate history. Political discussion is allowed in this forum but the rules of good behavior are still in effect.

Header for pre-1900

General discussion about alternate history scenarios where the divergence from real history occurs before 1900 AD. Post "what if" questions and talk about the results.
 

Greenville

Banned
Sure you want this to be The Hill?

Really sure?

I don't know what this reference is to? The wording of those headers are also very vague. There's no way to make specific differentiations. It only states "NOT debates about present-day politics."

That's not a debate or discussion about modern politics or the ignitions of one, but a opinionated reference or obversation to American foreign policy since its inception.
 
Last edited:
I dont count the occupation of China for the US. Very little combat. Maybe the Shanghai expedition of 1927-28, but the Marines & 15th Infantry barely went beyond riot control.
 
I dont count the occupation of China for the US. Very little combat. Maybe the Shanghai expedition of 1927-28, but the Marines & 15th Infantry barely went beyond riot control.

Yeah I kind of thought that too, but the whole "State Department Troops" mission for the USMC in the Caribbean and Central America took care of that anyway.

In my old job in California I worked with veterans, and we had a 3 page list of US military operations that counted as combat veteran status, with the only blank spot after 1945 being the 1977-79 period (I just remembered US advisors in the Greek Civil War and some US advisors got shot at in Korea before the official start of the Korean War)

The US military saw pretty much continual action somewhere since 1898, with only the brief interval after 1892 and ending in 1898 being a lull before that. The entire 19th Century saw either major wars, significant expeditions or various Indian Wars from pretty much the beginning of when the Army and Navy were formed. Some of them were pretty small but still American troops or sailors were getting shot at somewhere from the beginning of our Republic.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't know what this reference is to? The wording of those headers are also very vague. There's no way to make specific differentiations. It only states "NOT debates about present-day politics."

That's not a debate or discussion about modern politics or the ignitions of one, but a opinionated reference or obversation to American foreign policy since its inception.
You are not going to find a very specific list of exactly what can/cannot be posted. Ian has, very deliberately, left things flexible or, as you put it vague. That is to head off the exact sort of debate that would have resulted from your "where is it written" question if there were pages of specific instructions on what is/is not allowed.

Politics are for Chat.
 
Had the US avoided the S-A War, which is not implausible, you would likely see such a lull before WW1, in which there were many ways in which the US could have avoided that war, as well (including the war never starting in the first place).

Assuming anyone wants to discuss alternate history.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Even if WW I was avoided the U.S.would still have the Vera Cruz Expedition (1914) and the incursion after Pancho Villa's raiders (1916) to fill in those years.
 
Had the US avoided the S-A War, which is not implausible, you would likely see such a lull before WW1, in which there were many ways in which the US could have avoided that war, as well (including the war never starting in the first place).

Assuming anyone wants to discuss alternate history.

It seems likely the US would have gotten involved somehow in the Mexican Revolution but no Spanish American War (and acquisition of the Philippines) means that the Philippine Insurrection and Moro War are out, and its possible no US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion (although unlikely, the Open Door Policy was already firmly established). As to the Caribbean, that is where the butterflies get complicated, as even without Cuba, would the US have allowed the Europeans to intervene in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, while the reasons the various "Banana Wars" happened had little to do with either the Panama Canal or Cuba.

A lot of factors to look at
 
Their are 500 nations that would disagree with your statement, if only they still could.

Sorry, in case it's not clear, was being entirely facetious. Always tweaking the American nose about being the only people who can hear that line about Rome conquering the world by accident and not realize it's meant ironically. Hence labelling things like invading other nations 'interventions' or what have you.
 
Top