Which US Wars Were Justified?

[Seeker]

I would say that the US imperialism of 1941 was morally superior to the Nazi imperialism of 1941...

"It was the British forts built within the territory of the US that were a problem."

If you mean places like Mishelemacklinac (sp?) etc. the fact that the Americans were claiming them doesn't mean they were American. Our side was the proper owner.

[Hoek]

Neither the American revolution nor the Southern secession are revolutions. You should be more careful about your vocabulary. Revolutions imply a grassroots movement that seeks to establish a new authority and restructure the whole government and society by violent means. If you know much about pre-independence American History, you'll realize that the policy of "benign neglect" on the part of the British led to state legislatures that had almost complete authority over the territory. It was only after the French and Indian War that the British attempted to reassert their authority that the colonists "revolted." What they really did was sought to maintain the existing authority by declaring itself independent of Britain. It was the Tories that were the "revolutionaries."

The Civil War was not a revolution either. It used the existing state government structures to build a confederacy, which is not truly a reordering of the social or government structure, it's just withdrawal from a federation, which is not allowed.

David: you contradict your own logic: you use the elastic clause to assert the southern states' rights to seceed, yet you don't apply it to the north asserting federal control. You ignore the fact that the constitution clearly proclaimed that in all cases where there was disagreement between the states and the federal government, the federal government was to take supremacy, and that all southern states had to accept that to be admitted in the first place.

WW2: You seem to be saying that antagonistic actions taken by FDR removes justification for the war. You ignore, however, the threat that fascism posed to American democracy. Hitler's plans were clearly to move on the U.S. with Japan once it had conquered Russia and Britain, and once Japan asserted control over the Asian theatre. Regardless of the security precautions, such as slowing oil to Japan, and others, that FDR took, we still had a right to defend ourselves.

WW1: This was a case, unlike WW1, where Wilson put Germany into a situation where it could not avoid war with the U.S. If, however, you look at what really pushed the U.S. to a declaration of war, was not the sinking of any ship, but a telegraph intercept from Germany to Mexico, trying to convince Mexico to open up a new theatre in North America to keep the U.S. occupied.

UN Mandate: The idea here is to have some sort of principles to guide international peace and security. It does not infringe in our right to self defense, but it does try to put a lid on agression.

Phillipine Insurrection: this was a major undertaking, and it was the worst thing we ever did

Major Indian Wars:

Seminole Wars: 1812-1813, 1817-1818, 1837-1845: these wars were only in order to protect and expand slavery

Plains Wars: 1862-1893: These wars were meant to expand U.S. control of western lands, especially once gold was found in Black Hills.

War of 1812-Indians: Justified to an extent...the Indians were allied with the British

If you include all of the operations involving U.S. troops in the Caribean during the early 20th century, that constitutes a major war.

[Seeker]

"If, however, you look at what really pushed the U.S. to a declaration of war, was not the sinking of any ship, but a telegraph intercept from Germany to Mexico, trying to convince Mexico to open up a new theatre in North America to keep the U.S. occupied."

I cannot agree with this. Read 'Why We Are At War' by Woodrow Wilson, and a few Wilson biographies to find out what was going on behind the scenes.

Although Wilson and the Eastern anglophile elite naturally sympathized with the UK, it was industrialists like JP Morgan who really pushed the US to war.

Wilson depended on the perception of American economic prosperity. His advisors convinced him that this meant war loans and sales of material. He knew that American sale of munitions and underwriting of the Allied war effort were not neutral acts...look at his initial statements regarding such sales in 1914...yet by 1915-16 the whole tone has been reversed and the sales become necessary and even 'a sacred right and duty'. There was no way he could back down from that position, and no way the Germans could allow their blockade to become a farce.

The Zimmerman telegram was not a cause, it was a justification for doing something that was caused by something completely different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Seeker
"It was the British forts built within the territory of the US that were a problem."

If you mean places like Mishelemacklinac (sp?) etc. the fact that the Americans were claiming them doesn't mean they were American. Our side was the proper owner.

The Brits built a fort where Detroit stands today. There quite a few forts built on our side of the border. One of the things the Brits agreed to in the peace treaty was to dismantle them. They were real.

[chequita guevara]

The American Revolution was a both a war of Independence and a revolution. It began as a revolution, initiated by poor farmers and craftsman against the class structure in the colonies. In this sense, it was an extention of the English Revolutionary tendency from the previous century, the Levellors and the Diggers. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers declared independence was to get in charge of this grass roots rebellion.

When George Washington was sent to take command of the rebel army, it allowed Blacks in the army and elected its own officers. Washington put a stop to both, and instituted whipping and execution as punishments.

However, inspite of these acts, and others like them, the colonial system of government (as well as the Parlimentary and monarchal system of England) was overthrown and replaced with a democratic and republican system of government. It was far from perfect, and it could have gone further (and debated doing so--abolition of slavery, extending sufferage to women, etc.)

The Civil War was also a revolution, but not in the way people think. Prior to the war, two classes shared the government of the United States, the Northern bourgeoisie and the Sourth slave aristocracy, with most of the political power being in the latter's hands. The Civil War smashed the power of the slave holders and gave full political power to the Northern bourgeoisie. That makes it a revolution.

BTW, revolutions aren't necessarily violent. The February and October revolutions in Russia weren't violent. In both cases the previous government capitulated without a fight (except in Moscow, where the White guards rebelled and massacred a Red Guard garrison of 500). The Paris Commune revolt was non-violent. Violence in a revolution is often the result of the old order initiating violence (but certainly not always).

[Rex Little]

Hitler's plans were clearly to move on the U.S. with Japan once it had conquered Russia and Britain, and once Japan asserted control over the Asian theatre.

I'm no historian, but it's always been my impression that if the U.S. had been content to allow Germany and Japan to conquer Europe and Asia, they would have been content to leave the mainland U.S. alone. Can anyone cite primary sources which contradict this?

[Faeelin]

[SIZE=1]
I'm no historian, but it's always been my impression that if the U.S. had been content to allow Germany and Japan to conquer Europe and Asia, they would have been content to leave the mainland U.S. alone. Can anyone cite primary sources which contradict this?

How about Mein Kampf, where Hitler talks about world conquest. Here's a quote I remember. "After the Aryan Race has subdued Europe, and Africa, and Asia, the battle of the continents can truly begin."

I suggest that you check a history book before you make yourself look like an idiot.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Faeelin
I suggest that you check a history book before you make yourself look like an idiot.

That was unnecessarily rude.

[Hoek]

I guess you're right about the civil war being a revolution, in ways. The social order was restructured. Most people's definition of a revolution include a reordering of the social structure...such as the French revolution or the Communist revolution in Russia.

No matter what way you want to put it, both the Germans and the Japanese were serious threats to American interests. Any government founded on the superiority of an ethnic group over all other ethnic groups is bound to take aim at a semi-pluralist country like the U.S. The problem with WWI was that we decided to side with our Anglophone roots instead of our German roots. Wilson fixed nationalism with anti-German propoganda, and most things with German implications (like "Frankfurter") were renamed or looked down upon. It was just a bad war. There was also good cause to drop the bomb on Japan, and it is only people who are incapable of more complex thought that can't understand the causes.

[Chris 62]

OK, from the top:

Revolution: Justified
Americans oppressed by home government

XYZ Affair: Justified
Undeclared Navel war with France, 1798

War of 1812: Justified
The real problem wasn't JUST impressment, but Britain's "Orders in council" that made it illeagal to trade with ANY nation not approved by Britain, in order to foster it's continental trade blocade of France.

Barbary Pirates: Justified
First part was in 1805-06, renewed in 1815
North African states acting as pirates defeated by US landing forces, simply USA protecting itself.

Mexican war: Murky
As for the claims that the US "provoked the first shot", it's a matter of conjecture, as the border to the USA was different to what it was to Mexico.
The annexation of California and the territories was part of "manifest destiny", and US claims to this fall under "to the victor goes the spoils". In the modern world unaceptable, to that world, no problem.

Civil War: Justified
The issue of states rigths is still debated, but if the South had the right to leave, the North had the right to hold the country together. States rights is BS, BTW.

Indian wars: Murky
In parts justified, by 19th century standards, but mostly a land grab by USA, with unfair treaties, massacres, and all sorts of horrors by our standards.

Spanish-American War: Murky
Some, like Che, hate this war, but it was really a young Imperial power defeating an older one, (Spain) and the spolis were Spain's possesions in the Americas and the Phillipennes were taken.
Che, ask yourself this: Were they better off under the USA or Spain? An honest answer is USA. Also, those "attrocites" are WAY exagerated, "thousands' is laughable. Revisionist historians are the bane of history, putting up bloatted numbers and other nonsense.
There were no "concentration camps", the first case of this is the Boer war in south africa in 1900, not in the Phillipennes. This insurrection was fought as a conventional military campagin for the most part, not a "Vietnam" style guerrilla war, so spare us this bull.

WWI: Unjustified
There was no VALID reason to select the allies over the central powers, this was the most pointless war in history

WWII: Justified
Anyone who thinks differnetly simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

Korea: Justified
This was a UN intervention, remember?
NOT a civil war, the Soviets trained and led the attack before the Chiese took over in late 1950, and they prolonged the war to suit their own ends, USA was bound by UN and treaty obligations to fight.

Vietnam: Unjustified
LBJ missued Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to suit his own ends, resulted in disasterous war for USA

Grenada: Justified
I was there, the place was a communist munitions warehouse on our back door.

Panama: Justified
THEY declared war, not us.

Gulf war: Justified
Treaty obligations here, so all else about gas is bull.

War on terror: Justified
All I need do is look at the crater where WTC was to know this.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ramo


The Alamo was part of the War for Texan Independence, not the Mexican War. Two different things. Hell, American troops weren't even involved in the War for Texan Independence.

What, the New Orleans Grays don't count?

What about the over 50 people from the British Isles at the Alamo?

Next time yer in SA, look at the Alamo and tell me what the signifigance of all those flags are.


For the record.....

WW1: Unjustified. Had the Germany won, perhaps we would not have seen anguish and blood on the scale of WW2 20 years down the road.

WW2: Justified. But we should have started doing something about it in the early '30's, when Japan began it's expansion.

Phillippine Insurrection: Justified. Had we not taken/kept it, it would have fallen into Japan or Germany's hands.

[chequita guevara]

Chris,
it's not a question of whom those colonies would have been better off under. Spain had been defeated by Puerto Rico and the Philippines and was in the process of losing to Cuba. Puerto Rico had forced Spain to grant it autonomy, Manila was the only part of the Philippines still under Spanish control, and while General Wyler (sp?) was doing some absolutely horrible things to the Cuban people, he was losing the war. Cuba had Spain on the ropes.

Ths US intervened because if they wanted to take those colonies without appearing to be an aggressor, they had run out of time. While the US didn't take formal possession of Cuba, we forced them to accept a Constitution that made them a virtual protectorate. For a long time, the U.S. Ambassador to Cuba was considered more important than the country's own government. And he made sure tha the Cubas gave plenty of consessions to US business interests.

It was an imperialist war from start to finish.

[uh Clem]

Grenada: Justified
I was there, the place was a communist munitions warehouse on our back door.

So?

Only one country has the right to posess weaponry in this hemisphere?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Britain's "Orders in council" that made it illeagal to trade with ANY nation not approved by Britain, in order to foster it's continental trade blocade of France.

Well, if that is a justification, then we should have declared war on France as well... after all, Napoleon had his Berlin Decrees saying the same things as the Orders in Council. I think the justification more comes into play because of the impressment and the British forts issues.

There was no VALID reason to select the allies over the central powers, this was the most pointless war in history

Totally agree with the second part of the statement. But, at that time, I would figure, the Zimmerman note provided a valid reason. And remember, Britain cut the transatlantic cable from the continent, so all the US was getting fed was that the Germans were baby killers and rapists of Belgians.

Ths US intervened because if they wanted to take those colonies without appearing to be an aggressor, they had run out of time.

Bull****! The US government was pushed into the war by the stories in the papers. If you want to blame someone, blame Theodore Herst of the New York World and his yellow journalism, stirring up passions. McKinley wanted no part of the war, but when the New York papers started saying the Spanish blew up 'the Maine', he had no choice. Public opinion would have crucified him.

The only reason a navy was sent to Manilla Bay, was because Roosevelt, before he left as Assistant SecNavy sent them there, without McKinley's knowledge. Hell, McKinley didn't even know where the Philippines WAS!

[Chris 62]

I don't disagree with that assesment, Che, in fact, i quite agree with it.

But it's all about POV.

Did you know that when Dewey left Hong kong bound for Manilla, the British sailors were betting on how badly the US NAVY was going to lose!

At the time, Spain was seen as a graet power, the USA as an upstart, so the war results shocked Europe!

It also seems that those places (Puerto Rico and the Phillipennes) still love the USA connection, 100+ yaers later!
(let's not mention the Cuba thing. )