Which US Wars Were Justified?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by uh Clem
So?
Only one country has the right to posess weaponry in this hemisphere?

They were Soviet weapons, guared by Cuban stoogies.
Did you know that the attack force included contingents from all surrounding islands?

Play the baiting game with someone else, silly one sentance quips are just plain stupid.

Or are you unaware that was still the cold war era, and that the Soviets were desparately trying to destabilize the Carribean at that time?

[Wernazuma III]

OK, here I go (an euro opinion):

Revolution: Justified; americans being treated 2nd class and oppressed -->self defence

Barbary Wars: No opinion, heard of it, not more not less

1812: Similar to Barbary Wars, but I'm inclined to call it justified, simply because it was the brits who came across the ocean...

Mexican Wars: Robbery, if you'd ask me

Civil War: Justified, though AFAIK illegal. NTL, every nation has a tendency to confront seperation movements, especially ones with very doubtful ideologies...

Indian Wars: I simply can't believe that 12 people voted Yes. I can justify it partially by saying: "You know, it was the time..." and the indians weren't all nice either but american atrocity in those wars was commiting a genocide "justified with the typical "They breed like rabbits"-type propaganda


Spanish-American War: No opinion

WWI: A generally stupid war, justified for the US as for every other nation: Good reasons combined with commercial, geopolitical etc interests

WWII: Justified, the US lamentably hasitated too long, they should have entered earlier (and Chaplin shouldn't have been called "communist" for his "The Great Dictator"!)

Korea: Justified (UN)

Vietnam: In Vietnam the native populace didn't have much sense for the US actions, so I'd call it unjustified.

Gulf War: Justified. Saddam attacked a souvereign state. (Though I doubt that without oil anyone would have cared, but that's not the topic here...)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Chris 62

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

I like this lind of talk...

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Chris,

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.

FAct remains that we didn't take possesion of Cuba and that the revolutionaries in Cuba were idolized and that we helped them.

And...um...read the Message to Garcia. Would be good for a frowsy socialist to read...

[uh Clem]

are you unaware that was still the cold war era, and that the Soviets were desparately trying to destabilize the Carribean at that time?

Here on earth, they don't appear to have ever given the area much priority. The view might have been different from Planet Reagan, however...

Still doesn't indicate how Grenada was justified, unless you think that merely because you participated, that makes it okay.

BTW, a lot of governments in that area NEEDED destabilizing. Anyone taking up arms against the US-supported death squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala was justified in doing so.

[David Floyd]

It sounds like some of you are having trouble grasping the concept that the ONLY fact even partially justifying World War 2 is Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war first.

However, I vote that it was unjustified, because the United States provoked these incidents - rather, FDR did, in an effort to provoke a war.

Against Japan, FDR slapped them with an oil and scrap metal embargo, and froze (in effect, stole) their assets in the US. This violates every concept of free trade imaginable, and, in my opinion, freezing someone's assets is an act of war.
Against Germany, US destroyers were in action against U-Boats, and guarding British convoys, as well as basically giving war material to Britain and Russia - I'm talking tanks, fighters, military transport, railroad cars, and many other things. Those were all acts of war against Germany. Germany was certainly justified to respond with their own declaration, I think - regardless of the strategic stupidity of that declaration, it was certainly justified.

People go on about how Germany and Japan would have somehow "threatened" the US later on. Come on. Japan couldn't even hold down China, or conquer the whole thing. Virtually the entire Japanese Army was in mainland Asia, most of it in China. They were logistically unable to invade and hold HAWAII, much less the continental US. And Germany?? Sure, without Lend Lease they would've beaten Russia, but they would have had to garrison that country with hundreds of thousands of men, and still fight a constant guerilla war within occupied Russia and PROBABLY an official war with Russian remnants east of the Urals. They MIGHT PERHAPS have been able to invade Britain, following a HUGE naval and air buildup - assuming, of course, they cut back the army, which was not really likely. Most of that vast army would have been needed for garrison and anti-rebel work, from France to the Urals, not to mention Scandanavia. But invade the US? Not a chance. Any talk of this is pure, uninformed nonsense of the first degree. Even assuming they had the men for the job, and a big enough navy to beat the US navy, including aircraft carriers - which they wouldn't have had anytime soon anyway, nor would they have known proper naval tactics, especially regarding carriers - they would NOT have had the logistics to do so. Supplying an army, landing on a hostile shore 4000 miles away with a friendly base no closer than - in an absolute best case scenario for Germany - being Iceland (please don't tell me they could have moved into South America to a large degree, that's also laughable). Come on now.

Not to mention the fact that Germany had NO viable nuclear program in the works - that's a myth, though even before war was declared the US DID have a nuclear program going.

Bottom line - Japan and Germany were no real threat to the US, we committed acts of war against both of them, thus US interference in WW2 was NOT justified.

I'm not gonna get much into the Civil War, except to comment on Hoek's statement about the "elastic clause".

What I'm of course referring to is the 10th Amendment, which basically states any power not granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states and the people. Looking at Article 1 Section 9, the section of the Constitution which lays down restrictions on the states, you can find nothing prohibiting secession. Furthermore, there is no amendment stating the opposite of the 10th - ie that the 10th can also work the opposite way. Therefore, secession MUST be Constitutional.

On the subject of Korea, if you are using the UN Charter as justification for the war, that is ridiculous! The US was never once threatened during that war, nor would it have been by its implications (although implications don't justify a war anyway). It was simply a move trying to counter communism, and sticking our nose in where it didn't belong.

Likewise with the Gulf War. It was fought over oil, and over the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who cares? First off, our ambassador pretty much gave a green light to Iraq in the first place, but more than that, Kuwait is not part of the United States, nor is Saudi Arabia or anyone else in the region (especially not Israel, but that's a different argument). So Sadaam would have controlled 1/3 of the world's oil - I agree, not the best situation, but nothing we can justifiably do about it, either, except encourage both more oil surveying and exploitation at home and search for alternate energy techniques, while just biting the bullet and paying a dictator for oil in the meantime. Oh I forgot, we do that anyway, unless you would consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Liberal Democracy, in which case you are not thinking very clearly.

[David Floyd]

Here on earth, they don't appear to have ever given the area much priority. The view might have been different from Planet Reagan, however...

Although in fairness to the man, he was probably already suffering from Alzheimer's...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Here on earth, they don't appear to have ever given the area much priority. The view might have been different from Planet Reagan, however...

Showing your ignorence again, eh?
Don't you ever tire of making a fool of yourself in these things?
(Yes, I remember the pearl harbour thread)
In your small mind they didn't, but in the real world, not any "planet Reagan" the Soviets expended enormous resources in their Cuban cliant and for their attempts in this region.
The fact that you don't realize it is hardly surprising.

Still doesn't indicate how Grenada was justified, unless you think that merely because you participated, that makes it okay.

Oh, I'm soooo insulted.
I mentioned I was there because many apologists (the Cubans, for example) who insist there was nothing there.
And you can see how the US "occupied" the place.
Still waiting for your explanation on how it wasn't (if you have one, which is becoming increasingly more likely)

BTW, a lot of governments in that area NEEDED destabilizing.

This is quite a statement.

Anyone taking up arms against the US-supported death squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala was justified in doing so.

Maybe they were responding in kind to the Soviet sponcered Sandanistas?
Or are you an old hardliner that STILL thinks those elections wern't rigged?

Oh, and BTW, Grenada is NOWHERE near El Salvador or Guatemala.
Now, do you have a pertinent comment, or just more leftist rantings?

[TCO]

Originally posted by uh Clem


Here on earth, they don't appear to have ever given the area much priority. The view might have been different from Planet Reagan, however...

Still doesn't indicate how Grenada was justified, unless you think that merely because you participated, that makes it okay.

BTW, a lot of governments in that area NEEDED destabilizing. Anyone taking up arms against the US-supported death squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala was justified in doing so.

The medical students were in real danger and this was something discussed at the highest levels. That the situation was degenerating rapidly.

The Navy, USMC and Airborne troops did a spectaclular job of "turning on a dime" and (well...almost) planning out an invasion over a weekend. Panama is often helpd up as an example of a better joint operation...but it had months of intense staff planning.

[faded glory]

DF

Originally posted by David Floyd
It sounds like some of you are having trouble grasping the concept that the ONLY fact even partially justifying World War 2 is Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war first.

True.....I cant argue with this

However, I vote that it was unjustified, because the United States provoked these incidents - rather, FDR did, in an effort to provoke a war.

Yes we forced the japanese to invade China, Far east and Dutch Indies And we even helped them strap bombs on there Zero's as they took off for pearl harbor (get a clue dude...USA embargo was inevitable). By this logic DF... We are provoking a war with Saddam?

Against Germany, US destroyers were in action against U-Boats, and guarding British convoys, as well as basically giving war material to Britain and Russia - I'm talking tanks, fighters, military transport, railroad cars, and many other things. Those were all acts of war against Germany. Germany was certainly justified to respond with their own declaration, I think - regardless of the strategic stupidity of that declaration, it was certainly justified.

Britian wouldnt of lasted into 1943 without those escorts. U-Boats would have had a FEAST (happy month). Stupid on germanys part......glad there stupidity got to them

People go on about how Germany and Japan would have somehow "threatened" the US later on. Come on. Japan couldn't even hold down China, or conquer the whole thing.

Eh? Who are you kidding? Japs had no trouble with the portion they conquered. Chinese wouldnt have lasted had it not been for Lend lease small arms and flying tigers. This statement you have made is not true. Germany could do it in the vast expanse of USSR with ease.

Bottom line - Japan and Germany were no real threat to the US, we committed acts of war against both of them, thus US interference in WW2 was NOT justified.

What have you been smoking Moron????? Japanese fleet was 3 times the size of ours! Germany had more troops active in 1941.....then america and Britian COMBINED!

Likewise with the Gulf War. It was fought over oil, and over the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who cares? First off, our ambassador pretty much gave a green light to Iraq in the first place, but more than that, Kuwait is not part of the United States, nor is Saudi Arabia or anyone else in the region (especially not Israel, but that's a different argument).

Again your opinion seems through like noxouis vomit... We had no Idea Saddam was about to Invade Iraq. He had no visible or unusaul troop deployments on the border. And when he did invade.....he did it with less that 60,000 troops. Saddam said..and I quote "We will not use violence to resolve the Kuwaiti Issue" at the time he was credible....

Not to mention the fact that Germany had NO viable nuclear program in the works - that's a myth, though even before war was declared the US DID have a nuclear program going.

1943 Germany had half the neccessary materials. Besides, you forget the ONLY reason the we got to the A-Bomb first was because we entered the war in the first place!




So some of you idiots think America shouldnt have intervened in WW2? Let the Fascists overrun Europe and Asia...Russia.....???

Are you kidding me?

[uh Clem]

Oh, I'm soooo insulted.

No doubt. I'm sure you can remember vividly and in detail every slight since the first grade. Not my problem.

Whether the Caribbean and Central America are "nowhere near" each other, I leave to geographers. Certainly the US government has always thought they were close, however, as Castro has been regularly invoked by Washington whenever anybody in the hemisphere has stepped out of line for the past 40 years.

Either way, if someone invades another country, the burden of proof is on him. It's not up to anyone else to demonstrate that it wasn't justified. A warehouse or two (or a hundred) of small arms that may or may not have been fom where the gumment said they were and may or may not have been intended for what the gummint said they were intended for...doesn't cut it. Sorry.

Anyway, that pales when compared to the many millions in military & intelligence aid that the US dishes out to its favorites.

[Hoek]

Chris: You completely ignore the fact that in Nicaragua, the Sandanistas were supported by the population. Reagan clearly did not understand the lessons of Vietnam. The Sandinistas posed no threat to U.S. interests, and Reagan supporting them by selling weapons to the Iranians is nothing less than treason, for which Reagan should have been impeached and imprisoned. You can not tell me that the terrorists (which they were) in el Salvador and Nicaragua stabilized the region by killing thousands of civilians. This is not "leftist clap trap," it's the truth.

Here's a question: what is the criteria being used for justification. For instance, should morality ever play a role in military action. Call it liberal clap trap again, but I think it should. I think that the fact that the Nazis and the Japanese were evil is enough of a reason to stop them. Both were scars of the human race. The same applies to a number of cold-war actions that we took. Kennan's doctrine of containment was clearly distorted to justify such wide-reaching actions such as Angola, Vietnam, and Nicaragua. Our inability to say, distinguish between Chinese communism and Soviet communism gave us decades of poor foreign policy in Asia.

The numbers for the Phillipine Insurrection are not made up, there were in fact in the hundreds of thousands that we killed. Chris, imperialism is not justified in any sense. It is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. We obtained Hawaii to protect Panama, we obtained the Phillipines to protect Hawaii. To say that they "love" the U.S. now says nothing of our grisly history of death there.

In terms of the Civil War, the idea of secession undermines the whole idea of federalism. All of the southern states were bound by their signing of the constitution to surrender their sovereignty to the umbrella of the federal government. Like it or not, the United States Constitution provides for a federal system. Remember, it was the Articles of Confederation, which failed, that gave states sovereignty.

And if a state can seceed, why can't a citizen seceed? Why can't I declare myself my own country. It would have a population of one, and I would be president.

[uh Clem]

[subliminable version of earlier post]

[David Floyd]

faded,

Yes we forced the japanese to invade China, Far east and Dutch Indies And we even helped them strap bombs on there Zero's as they took off for pearl harbor (get a clue dude...USA embargo was inevitable). By this logic DF... We are provoking a war with Saddam?

Erm, Japanese attacks on China and the Far East weren't justifications for the US going to war with them. And Japan had no other choice, other than national economic stagnation, than attack on the US Pacific Fleet.

Britian wouldnt of lasted into 1943 without those escorts. U-Boats would have had a FEAST (happy month). Stupid on germanys part......glad there stupidity got to them

How's this our problem?

Eh? Who are you kidding? Japs had no trouble with the portion they conquered. Chinese wouldnt have lasted had it not been for Lend lease small arms and flying tigers. This statement you have made is not true. Germany could do it in the vast expanse of USSR with ease.

All Japan held was the cities and major roads, not the countryside or small towns. They didn't have enough troops.

What have you been smoking Moron????? Japanese fleet was 3 times the size of ours! Germany had more troops active in 1941.....then america and Britian COMBINED!

This is irrelevant. They still couldn't invade the US, and a US naval buildup would be enough to check both of them at the same time from every invading, not to mention logistical problems.

1943 Germany had half the neccessary materials. Besides, you forget the ONLY reason the we got to the A-Bomb first was because we entered the war in the first place!

Germany was nowhere near an atomic bomb, they were not even focusing on it - Hitler was more interested in other superweapons, such as jet bombers and V-3s. Of course he also put a fair amount of resources into technology to better kill the Jews.

[Dis]

I was going to vote for the war on drugs, but that is not an option