Question about ethics of Cold War policy.

[MrFun]

The Cold War has been over since 1991 basically, but we are still faced with "leftovers" from the Cold War, such as North Korea.

But I have a question -- is it/was it ever ethical or morally right for the United States to go to war against a country simply because the country is communist?

The Soviet Union posed a direct threat to all Western nations with its nuclear arms during the Cold War, so I could understand why the United States saw the Soviet Union as a real enemy -- rightfully so. But in my opinion, the morality does not derive simply because the Soviet Union was communist -- but because of it's threat of nuclear weapons.

But with the Vietnam War, could someone explain to me the morality in declaring war on the North Vietnamese?

[David Floyd]

It was morally wrong. Communist countries were no threat to the United States, and only became potential threats once the US started its interventionist foreign policies.

The Soviet Union posed a direct threat to all Western nations with its nuclear arms during the Cold War, so I could understand why the United States saw the Soviet Union as a real enemy -- rightfully so.

The US had nuclear arms as well, and was a direct threat to the Soviet Union. In fact, the US had them first, and as Ramo as pointed out in the past, threatened to use them against the Soviet Union if the SU didn't leave northern Iran. The SU rightfully viewed the US as a threat, based upon their information and the actions of the US.

Not to say, though, that the US was 100% responsible for the Cold War. If both sides had basically ****ed off - that is, if the Soviets had gotten out of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and had never gone into Africa or supplied Vietnam or North Korea or Cuba, and if the US had stayed out of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc., and if both sides had simply dealt with each other as friends rather than enemies, and extended that towards all nations, things would have been a lot better off.

[MrFun]

I agree David -- also, the United States had to be fair, and withdraw their nuclear arsenal in Turkey, in exchange for Soviet Union's removal of weaponry in Cuba.

[Lancer]

We never declared war on North Vietnam. It was a "police action".

[KrazyHorse]

You fought a war against North Vietnam. Whether or not you bothered to admit it to yourselves is your own problem.

[David Floyd]

also, the United States had to be fair, and withdraw their nuclear arsenal in Turkey, in exchange for Soviet Union's removal of weaponry in Cuba.

Oh certainly. If the US can have missiles in Western Europe and Turkey, it is quite inconsistent and frankly idiotic for JFK to have a ****fit over missiles in Cuba.

[Lancer]

Fear caused the Vietnam war. Fear of the spread of communism. If the other guy is knocking out your pawns right and left you might fear losing the king. Ths solution? While he's contemplating his next move you kick him in the nuts under the table and when he doubles over you hit em with the good old right cross.

Trouble is, in Vietnam their balls were hard to find.

[KrazyHorse]

I thought the US had difficulty finding its own balls during Vietnam. At least that's what crotchety old Cold Warhorses claim lost you the war...

[David Floyd]

If the other guy is knocking out your pawns right and left you might fear losing the king.

Again, the US was doing the same, and in fact you could easily argue the US started it.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't forget SA in your list of places the US ****ed around with...

[Japher]

We never declared war on North Vietnam. It was a "police action".

Don't be Silly. If there is more than one battlefield that has the same two sides fighting, then it is a war. Regardless of what congress may say. We all know that.

As for the activities against the spread of communisim being morally wrong:

It was morally wrong. Communist countries were no threat to the United States, and only became potential threats once the US started its interventionist foreign policies.

DF, I thought you felt all wars had at least on amoral side; the one that started it. The only moral war is one in self defense.

You may believe that communist countries were not a threat at the time, but does that mean that one has to wait to be threatened to attack?

I think violent acts against communism were not morally right. Yet, actions to prevent the spread of a "disease" were morally prudent. Vietnam and Korea were morally justifiable in that they attempted to prevent the spread of communism and not smite it were it existed. Similarly, I find that any acts that attempted to do so were with moral justification on our part, and not so on the agressor; those who wished to suppress and force their politics on another nation. Actions such as the Truman Doctrine.

I do, however, feel that actions sence these times have shown us, the US, to be behaving similarly to the communist states of post WWII.

[MrFun]

So then so far, two people argue it is immoral to declare war against country simply because it's communist.

And one person is arguing that it can be morally right.

[Lancer]

Can't recall the US winning many countries over from the communists back then. More than 3/5ths of the world's population was commie and it looked like a fair part of the rest was going to go also. So Kennedy put in troops, advisors he said, and Johnson threw in half a million of them.

Democrats.

[Lancer]

Hey, Mr Fun said we declared war, I corrected him. I'm not supporting the "police action" pov. That one is the BS of Johnson, or one of his silly crew.

[David Floyd]

DF, I thought you felt all wars had at least on amoral side; the one that started it. The only moral war is one in self defense.

My belief is that the only moral wars are those in self defense, but that to be moral those wars also have to be fought morally (ie, no conscription, taxation, price controls, etc.).

You may believe that communist countries were not a threat at the time, but does that mean that one has to wait to be threatened to attack?

Essentially. Attacking people who are not threatening you, with the justification that they COULD become threatening in the future, is immoral.

Yet, actions to prevent the spread of a "disease" were morally prudent.

Except that many of the people (not governments, but people) the US was "protecting" would have preferred communism, instead of their status as a US puppet.

Further, while I agree that communism is a "disease" (as you phrase it), the US and its system of interventions and wars and assassinations and screwing people over was also a disease.

The US really didn't have moral superiority over the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Vietnam and Korea were morally justifiable in that they attempted to prevent the spread of communism and not smite it were it existed.

Even if I accepted that argument, which I do not, Vietnam and Korea were fought using the draft, which by itself makes the war immoral.

Similarly, I find that any acts that attempted to do so were with moral justification on our part, and not so on the agressor; those who wished to suppress and force their politics on another nation. Actions such as the Truman Doctrine.

Are you trying to say that the US did not suppress people and ideas and force its own politics on other nations? If that's your position, that's pretty laughable.