Barbary Wars: Best Historical Argument Against Neocons

[libertythor]

We had two brief wars with a Muslim nation shortly after our independence. They were due to direct provocation on the part of the Barbary States in Northern Africa. The problem was resolved by assuring them that we weren't enemies of Islam.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...oli_%281796%29

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_treaties


Everyone save these links and research more. We have the ultimate historical argument agaist the neocons!!!!!!!

[erowe1]

Actually, it was resolved by us kicking their butts, hence the "shores of Tripoli" line in the marine anthem.

[libertythor]

Yes...but without trying to occupy them. Their butts were kicked...the treaty was made assuring that they and their religion would be respected. Plus they were a threat to the US on the high seas.

We left them alone afterwards.

We never had a problem with the Arab world again: UNTIL.....:eek:

[micahnelson]

No declaration of war either, because we didn't change the regime and involve most of our military.

Sometimes military action is permissible without a declaration of war, but it is limited.

[libertythor]

It was kind of like geting bandits off of the highway. It wasn't even over territory.

Since the high seas comprise a highway for all nations.....