Which US Wars Were Justified?

[Seeker]

"Words like 'law' and 'rules of warfare' are meaningless when it comes to the systematic and calculated slaughter of human beings."

I believe Slobo is trying to argue this in court right now...?

[Sikander]

David,

I think your supposition that Libertarians would never have allowed things like the Indian wars is folly. The Indian wars were often spurred on by the aggregated actions of people who might well qualify as Libertarians today. Just because a government holds a certain philisophical bent does not negate the often deeper held feelings of it's leaders and the population at large. In the case of the Indian wars this deeper held feeling was most often the ease with which members of the public could relate to those who shared their color, language and values and the difficulty in understanding the pressures faced by the Indians or their perspective on the issues at hand, not to mention their cultures. Even when the Government of the U.S. tended to agree with the Indian POV and made treaties which obligated it to uphold Indian rights it eventually succumbed to the pressures of the population at large. In the vast majority of instances culture / language / ethnicity will trump ideology in a war for hearts and minds.

You also seem to completely ignore the notion of the balance of power. Even if you consider the notion to be outside the allowable framework of a causus belli according to your philosophy it is nevertheless a potent motivating factor for state action, and with good reason. Like many others you ascribe a level of knowledge to historical decision makers which is unrealistic for them to have had without the benefit of hindsight, and you make statements which even with the benefit of hindsight seem to me to merely be playing the odds, rather than the certainties that you make them out to be. What percentage chance of losing a war (and with it perhaps all opportunity for self rule) is acceptable for a leader to take in order for him to live up to your ideals?


.......

The whole notion of justifying war is interesting and amusing on the one hand, and a bunch of drivel on the other. It is most certainly a moving target as opinions, information and values change over time, and not always for the more intelligent, more authoritative or morally superior I might add. The march of peoples, nations, states, values etc. is not a simple deterministic machine, it is rather a very complex system. Good intentions and actions based on them can have terrible consequences, and evil intentions can likewise have positive side effects. At the end of the day we have no way of knowing whether our particular crusade has saved mankind, damned it or (most likely) had little effect in the long run.

The best I can do is to try and live up to my ideals, and act in the manner it seems to me will have the greatest positive effect for my value system. At least I will have the benefit of feeling personally satisfied with my efforts, unless of course I accidently manage to bring about something opposite to my intentions! I don't expect others to live up to my ideals, though I will try to get them to consider my way of thinking, either to persuade them to change sides or merely for the mutual advantage that a peek into someone else's mindset can bring.

This way of thinking doesn't have the advantage that the gleeming eyed fanatic enjoys in his surety of the absolute righteousness of his cause, but it does confer the benefit of not being too stressful. Taking an hour for lunch just might be the right move (via the butterfly effect) to bring about a golden age for humanity. If nothing else, it's nice to take enough time to chew properly.

I tend to agree with David to the extent that I wish the U.S. would stop playing Robocop around the world. I don't like having to keep an eye on Uzbekistan on the off chance that I may have to send my daughter there to defend a continued U.S. policy of over-extension. I temper my feelings (to the extent that they are tempered) with the realization that I am one of 200 million or so people with a say in the matter. My power is extremely limited which sucks most of the time, but my responsibility for whatever actions this aircraft carrier of state takes is likewise limited. This is good, for even I make a mistake once in a while, and I wouldn't want to bear all of the responsibility when something of the magnitude of U.S. foreign policy goes wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by FireDragon

You, my friend, could only talk intelligently with a discussion group of pigeons.

Apolyton is a group of pigeons?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

What do you mean by "justified" ?

No countries make war just for fun. They have economical purposes.

[Hoek]

Economic reductivism is absolutely wrong. It fails to take into account nationalism, which has been by far the most important justification for war for the last several centuries. It was nationalism, not economic reasons, that the U.S. seceeded from Britain. Nationalism, not the economy caused the Union to fight a war with the South. Your simplification puts a higher premium on amassing material wealth that on fighting for survival.

David: Japan's plans could not have avoided the U.S., regardless of FDR's moves. Their plans to create a pacific empire was clearly in conflict with the U.S. What is your criterion? You seem to think that FDR pushed Japan to war, but you fail to prove that Japan would not have done so sooner or later. Evidence shows that the calculation for bombing Pearl Harbor was that they would have to do it at some point, and that maybe by surprising them, and destroying most of the Pacific Fleet, they could gain a better foothold by which to launch further attacks on the U.S. Additionally, your criteria would seem to disqualify our war on afghanistan since the Taliban were not the actors who attacked us. I support the war, but I also have a broader sense of justification.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hoek
Economic reductivism is absolutely wrong. It fails to take into account nationalism, which has been by far the most important justification for war for the last several centuries. It was nationalism, not economic reasons, that the U.S. seceeded from Britain. Nationalism, not the economy caused the Union to fight a war with the South. Your simplification puts a higher premium on amassing material wealth that on fighting for survival.

I disagree. In both cases, economic factors were primary causes for the wars (which is not to say they were the sole or determinent cause). The Americans revolted because Britain heavily restricted American trade, i.e., only allowed America to trade with Britain (legally, there was quite a bit of smuggling going on), as well as (what seemed to the Americans) unfair taxation. As well, the lower classes revolted (which is what began the war) because of the detrimental economic conditions they faced, having their farms seized because of debts, sick of indentured servitude and slavery, etc.

The same with the American Civil War. The primary issue was which economic system was to rule America, capitalism or slavery. Both systems had fought for decades over economic policies favoring one of the other. Tariffs and government interference in the economy was favor by the capitalists, no tariffs and governmental abstinence from the economy was favored by the slave holders.

Nationalism may have been the rallying cry, but the heart of the matter is always money.

[faded glory]

Che I can no longer let you sit here and spout such lies. There was no class struggle going on during the revolution. The Army never 'Voted' for its general. Before Washington...the army was an undisicplined joke hardly worthy for combat. The Rich preticpated in the revolution as much as the poor....the Loyalists were exception (I assume this is what you meant..but there were loads of poor ones too)


The Civil war WAS NOT fought over cotton you idiot. Have you ever read Lincoln's personal notes on the war? Ever heard about the gettysburg address? His speeches to congress??? I didnt think so......Anyone who would have read this would of known lincoln's hatred for slavery and his firm belief in
ONE AMERICA and ONE AMERICA ONLY. While money probably played a side-show.....if this was the case why did Lincoln order crops and plantations to be burned

Now go away commie and stop lieing to the less educated members of this forum.

[chequita guevara]

I will simply point to your location.

Go read Howard Zinn's, People's History of the United States. Learn something about your heritage. It's a great one of which to be proud. It's all about our struggle for democracy and freedom against those who would see us be slaves.

[faded glory]

Ahh so your opinion is based on some disgruntled americans book?


Well mine is on TRUE history. Go to a library and look up Lincoln's personal notes.

I think everybody here knows who wins this arguement hands down

[chequita guevara]

Have you ever won an argument?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Have you ever won an argument?

No.....I believe this is a first

Cause for celebration.

I think ill go have a victory ciggarrette.

[faded glory]

Why did idiots say the spanish american war was justified? Despite knowing that the Spaniards never attacked us!

(Damn yellow journalists )

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory


No.....I believe this is a first

Cause for celebration.

I think ill go have a victory ciggarrette.

Enjoy your nic stick, but you ain't won yet, Stevie.

[Chris 62]

Stop torturing the boy, Che.

Every war ever fought had economics at it's base.

An excellent book on this is "The rise and fall of the great powers" By Paul Kennedy.

He shows this pattern from 1500 to the present day.

[Xeones]

is it worth being shocked and appalled that 18 apolytoners think the wholesale slaughter of the indians was justified?

it about as justified as i would be to come into your home and do horrible things to your family before killing you all and saying it was my right ... my divine "destiny" even.

please tell me thats actually just 18 people with perverted sense of humor.