Is Obama The First Anti War President That Is Being Forced Into War

Who are the Democratic presidents that started a war?

Started a war or who had a war forced on them? Formally declared war or conducted a war authorised by Congress? A wholly American war or one that was part of a multinational or UN-mandated mission?It’s a bit more complex than the question would suggest… made even more complicated by the unfortunate fact that those presidents involved in the early 19th Century wars tended to be “Democratic-Republican”.So, if we ignore alll those “Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress” (including Korea, Lebanon, Bosnia, Haiti, Liberia, etc.) but include ‘Undeclared wars (Military engagements authorized by Congress)” we arrive at a list of five Democrat Presidents who have either formally commenced a war, or ‘responded to an act or hositility’ with Congressional approval.These are:James K Polk: Mexican-American War (1846–48)James Buchanan: Redress against Paraguay for attack on USS Water Witch (1858)Woodrow Wilson: Occupation of Vera Cruz against Mexico (1914)Woodrow Wilson (again): declarations of war against Germany and various other Central Powers (April 1917)Woodrow Wilson (what a warmonger!) : Intervention in Russian Civil War (1918–1919)Franklin D. Roosevelt: War with Empire of Japan, followed by confirmation of war with Nazi Germany and its allies following their declarions of war on USA (December 1941)Lyndon B. Johnson: Gulf of Tonkin Declaraton against N. Vietnam (1964)

There are a number of Presidents who didn't initiate a war during their tenure. But which ones refused to start a war because they were anti-war?

There are a number of Presidents who didn't initiate a war during their tenure. But which ones refused to start a war because they were anti-war?It was Voltaire who said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” In this case the term “anti-war” requires some attention.On one hand, you could argue that all presidents, with the notable exception of Teddy Roosevelt, were anti-war. Even presidents who led the nation into wars and conflicts generally did not relish the idea of Americans shedding blood on the field of battle. Presidents are charged with defending the people and interests of the United States and out of necessity, real or perceived, have taken the country into war, but that does not make them pro-war.On the other hand, the U.S. has had no pacifist presidents. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, a religious group who are known for their pacifist ideals, but he himself, as we all know, did not share those ideals when it came to committing American troops to battle. Herbert Hoover was also a Quaker and was more demonstrative in his faith. While he was not faced with the question of leading the nation into war, he did commit American troops to removing the “Bonus Army” of 43,000 protesting World War I veterans and their families from Washington D.C., during which which two men died. General Douglas MacArthur used troops, cavalry, and tanks to drive out veterans who were seeking their pensions during the Great Depression, as well as women and children, burning their camps to the ground.Almost every president has led the country during some conflict, major or minor. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, Adams the Fries Rebellion, Jefferson had the Barbary Wars, Jackson the forced removal of the Indians, and so on.Four American presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize and every one of them experienced war or violent conflict during their time as president.I guess another way of asking this question is, has there ever been a U.S. president who gave no order or instituted no action that resulted in someone’s death?I know there are others, but my best guess would be William Henry Harrison, who caught pneumonia giving his inaugural speech and died after only one month in office.

Is Obama in any way responsible for the current situation in Syria and Iraq?

First of all I'd say it is a very foolish president that criticises the intelligence services, the people who you pay to gather dirt on everyone will have their own insurance policy.I think the two countries are different.Syria is a country where the US has no influence and couldn't do anything that could possibly be considered helpful.Part of the difficulty the US has is it just doesn't understand complex battles, there are 4 different armies fighting and none wear white hats.Obama did make two mistakes in Syria. 1) He called removal of Assad without seeing how feasible this was.2) He drew a "line in the sand." It is always silly to make threats, you face ridicule if you backtrack and can be forced into stupid  actions if you don't.For Iraq. I'd first like to address the right wing idea that Obama is weak.Daesh have been fighting US marines for a decade. They really don't give a hoot about US presidents. Having a warlike Republican like Bush in charge didn't stop the Taliban.America certainly had some influence. It could have kept Iraq onside. It fell out with Iraq because Obama chose to protect the private contractors.Obama felt that after leaving Iraq those who were fighting the US would declare victory and stop. Daesh didn't see it this way, they wanted payback.America made a mess of creating a national army (see Vietnam for how Republican Nixon did)Obama doesn't have a clear strategy and is reacting to events. His policy is a shambles, but unlike Bush it isn't an expensive shambles.Obama has continued drone strikes and not closed Guantamo.Obama has failed to prevent Israel being a problem. He has failed to prevent Israel's settlement program making things worse.On Iraq I'd give Obama 1/10 but that is still one more than I'd give Bush.The saddest thing is the US hasn't learnt military action doesn't solve problems. I'd  like to see Hilary Clinton's idea of "smart power" as a doctrine. Stupid power has been a disaster.