• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which US Wars Were Justifiable?

Which US Wars Were Justifiable When the US Entered Them?

  • Total voters
    56
DVSentinel said:
How was Korea our responsibility, one it was necessary to fight the spread of evil and secondly because we accept joint defense agreements as well as upholding our role in the UN at the time. It was a UN operation, not a strictly US one. What many don't understand is a lot of things, like the expansion of socialism and radical Islam would eventually affect us, especially economically, so it is always better to fight those wars before they get to that point and to fight them on someone else's soil.
Click to expand...

If you believe in a people's right to self-determination then you must accept the choices they make whether you agree with them or not. That has been the great hypocrisy in American foreign policy for decades; conspiring in and participating in civil wars to overthrow democratically elected governments just because we don't like the fact that they were elected. You think its our responsibility to foist democracy upon the world, but what you should understand is that if a nation's populace can't or won't do the heavy lifting in establishing their own democracy then they are not ready for it. American meddling in the affairs of foreign nations has rarely accomplished anything but exacerbation of the existing problem or sowing the seeds for a bigger problem down the road.

You say Korea was our responsibility, but the United States was one of two parties which divided it in the first place. We placed many of the despotic regimes in power and/or supported them in Latin America and the Middle East, only to declare a "need" to depose them decades down the road. We supported the Mujahideen. The United States creates the meat grinder that eats our soldiers alive because of the arrogant attitude that we need to save the people of the world from themselves, but Americans still don't get it. Minding our own business would be the greatest advance in national security in the history of this nation.
 
Last edited:
aberrant85 said:
In my opinion, the policy of containment that resulted after WWII and the wars that America got involved in as a result are similar to the overreaction of US counterterrorism efforts after 9/11. Fighting land wars in Asia because of the ideological threat of Communism seems dumb.
Click to expand...

Only because you are Libbo, which means a type of socialist and a commie lover.
 
Napoleon said:
If you believe in a people's right to self-determination then you must accept the choices they make whether you agree with them or not. That has been the great hypocrisy in American foreign policy for decades; conspiring in and participating in civil wars to overthrow democratically elected governments just because we don't like the fact that they were elected. You think its our responsibility to foist democracy upon the world, but what you should understand is that if a nation's populace can't or won't do the heavy lifting in establishing their own democracy then they are not ready for it. American meddling in the affairs of foreign nations has rarely accomplished anything but exacerbation of the existing problem or sowing the seeds for a bigger problem down the road.

You say Korea was our responsibility, but the United States was one of two parties which divided it in the first place. We placed many of the despotic regimes in power and/or supported them in Latin America and the Middle East, only to declare a "need" to depose them decades down the road. We supported the Mujahideen. The United States creates the meat grinder that eats our soldiers alive because of the arrogant attitude that we need to save the people of the world from themselves, but Americans still don't get it. Minding our own business would be the greatest advance in national security in the history of this nation.
Click to expand...

Overthrow Democratically elected governments? Foist Democracy upon the world? Blah, blah, blah. It is never wrong to fight or kill socialist that won't stay in their own areas and try to enslave others. Hell, if there was any real justice in the world, we could legally rid ourselves of the commie lovers here.
 
DVSentinel said:
Overthrow Democratically elected governments? Foist Democracy upon the world? Blah, blah, blah. It is never wrong to fight or kill socialist that won't stay in their own areas and try to enslave others. Hell, if there was any real justice in the world, we could legally rid ourselves of the commie lovers here.
Click to expand...

The Ghost of Senator McCarthy? Is that you?
 
DVSentinel said:
Overthrow Democratically elected governments? Foist Democracy upon the world? Blah, blah, blah. It is never wrong to fight or kill socialist that won't stay in their own areas and try to enslave others. Hell, if there was any real justice in the world, we could legally rid ourselves of the commie lovers here.
Click to expand...

Veitnam was not our concern. You really think that communist ideology would have surpressed the Vietnamese peoples sense of nationalism, or their desire to be a independent country?
 
aberrant85 said:
For the purpose of this poll, the question is, at the time the US entered into war, was it justifiable to do so, both in its time and in hindsight.
Click to expand...

I voted for four of the options: WWII, The Korean War, and both options for USCW. Why?

1. WWII: We were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on us. We have a right to self-defense.

2. The Korean War: This was a war authorized by the United Nations Security Council of which we were a voting member, and which we voted for. Thus by treaty we were obligated.

3. USCW The South Seceding: The States were correct, the Federation is voluntary and under the 10th Amendment they had a right to try to secede.

4. USCW the North Invading the South: The Federal government has a duty to prevent rebellion.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Veitnam was not our concern. You really think that communist ideology would have surpressed the Vietnamese peoples sense of nationalism, or their desire to be a independent country?
Click to expand...

Keeping people free of the slavery of socialism is our concern.

Contrary to some peoples beliefs, the US cannot exist and remain strong enough to hold off the rest of the world in isolation. We need resources and we have trading partners throughout the world.

Due to Soviet Expansionist policies, it was always know that confrontation between the Free, Democratic Capitalist based west and the Soviet Dictatorship following economic principles of socialism would occur. Besides protecting our allies, we could not ignore the rest of world and hope to survive when the soviets finally arrived in North America. Our economy today, as it has always been has included a large amount of foreign trade. The more peoples that fell to socialism, the less trade we would have.

Do you think that Vietnam was a better place after the socialist took over the country? It's an economic ****hole.
 
My knowledge of Korea is limited, but picked invasion of confederacy and WWII. I'm not into nationalism at all, only human rights. The genocide conducted by the nazis should have been dealt with much sooner, as with slavery in the south. To the extent other military action was a response to military action between 3rd parties, that is usually only playing favorites or trying to enforce "democratic values" on people who could care less. War causes suffering, regardless of which side wins.

The one possible exception on the list, the US entering WWI - and bringing the influenza with them - quite possibly did end that war much quicker. It could have gone on well into the 1920s.
 
aberrant85 said:
Not to diminish them, but those actions were relatively short, with limited ground troops, and few American casualties. All those make them minor military actions in the long list of American wars. And, to be brutally honest, I doubt a majority Americans could even recall them.
Click to expand...

Yes that is also a pattern that I have found. Just went in here, helped with our liberation, and forgotten so quickly. Whom to blame for this: Media or history books of yours?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I voted for four of the options: WWII, The Korean War, and both options for USCW. Why?

1. WWII: We were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on us. We have a right to self-defense.

2. The Korean War: This was a war authorized by the United Nations Security Council of which we were a voting member, and which we voted for. Thus by treaty we were obligated.

3. USCW The South Seceding: The States were correct, the Federation is voluntary and under the 10th Amendment they had a right to try to secede.

4. USCW the North Invading the South: The Federal government has a duty to prevent rebellion.
Click to expand...

From my perspective:

1. The South seceding from the Union was unjustifiable, mainly because slavery is indefensible, even in the 1800's, but also because since Congress is responsible for admitting states to the Union it stands to reason that they must go through Congress to secede. At the very least they could have had plebiscites to decide, but even then by not recognizing slaves no plebiscite would be legitimate. In addition, the threat they perceived was completely hypothetical; Lincoln never declared his intent to end slavery, and they seceded before he was even inaugurated, so there was no present danger to their way of life in the first place.

2. The North had multiple justifications for waging war with the South. First, their forts and federal property were attacked and confiscated by the states. Second, the rebellions were not legal. Third, they had the moral justification for stopping the spread of slavery, and eventually its abolition.

3. The Spanish-American War was essentially a civil war with no clear good side. The US entered the war out of imperialist ambitions, egged on by propaganda and yellow journalism, and justified by the sinking of the USS Maine, despite evidence that it probably was an accident. Therefore it was not justifiable.

4. WWI was initially none of our business, with basically all sides fighting being aggressive and responsible for the conflict. But when democracy was increasingly threatened, and after Germans killed Americans and conspired to bring Mexico into war with the US, we had a justifiable reason to enter the war against it.

5. WWII is the textbook definition of a justifiable war to enter.

6. The Korean war was principally a civil war. True, we backed the South, but the war was fought out of ideology rather than imperative. In addition, fighting a proxy war against China and Russia was un-winnable. Not justified sufficiently.

7. Vietnam was another civil war that we fought in out of an ideological opposition to communism. Unjustifiable.

8. The Gulf War was a war of aggression against Kuwait, not a civil war, and retaliating against Saddam was backed by world opinion. We set attainable goals early on and put in enough troops to attain victory. Despite the national interest of oil muddying the affair, there was plenty of justification for the war.

9. Afghanistan was as justifiable as fighting in WWII. However the war planners botched the execution.

10. The Iraq War was a war of aggression based on faulty evidence that was unwisely believed by a cabal of fanatic ideologues without realistically appraising the national security interests and stability of the region. Unjustifiable.

And for the record:

Revolutionary War, justifiable
War of 1812, justifiable
Mexican-American War, unjustifiable
 
DDD said:
Yes that is also a pattern that I have found. Just went in here, helped with our liberation, and forgotten so quickly. Whom to blame for this: Media or history books of yours?
Click to expand...

It's kinda part of our culture to have little knowledge of what goes on outside our borders. In our media WWII, the Civil War, and Vietnam are the wars we're most conscious about.
 
aberrant85 said:
It's kinda part of our culture to have little knowledge of what goes on outside our borders. In our media WWII, the Civil War, and Vietnam are the wars we're most conscious about.
Click to expand...

So it is media. I knew it. All peace and quiet is not newsworthy, even if was done with your help.
 
aberrant85 said:
For the purpose of this poll, the question is, at the time the US entered into war, was it justifiable to do so, both in its time and in hindsight.
Click to expand...

I would say pretty much all of them were justifiable, with the possible exception of the Spanish-American war and the South's secession.
 
aberrant85 said:
From my perspective:

1. The South seceding from the Union was unjustifiable, mainly because slavery is indefensible, even in the 1800's, but also because since Congress is responsible for admitting states to the Union it stands to reason that they must go through Congress to secede. At the very least they could have had plebiscites to decide, but even then by not recognizing slaves no plebiscite would be legitimate. In addition, the threat they perceived was completely hypothetical; Lincoln never declared his intent to end slavery, and they seceded before he was even inaugurated, so there was no present danger to their way of life in the first place.

2. The North had multiple justifications for waging war with the South. First, their forts and federal property were attacked and confiscated by the states. Second, the rebellions were not legal. Third, they had the moral justification for stopping the spread of slavery, and eventually its abolition.

3. The Spanish-American War was essentially a civil war with no clear good side. The US entered the war out of imperialist ambitions, egged on by propaganda and yellow journalism, and justified by the sinking of the USS Maine, despite evidence that it probably was an accident. Therefore it was not justifiable.

4. WWI was initially none of our business, with basically all sides fighting being aggressive and responsible for the conflict. But when democracy was increasingly threatened, and after Germans killed Americans and conspired to bring Mexico into war with the US, we had a justifiable reason to enter the war against it.

5. WWII is the textbook definition of a justifiable war to enter.

6. The Korean war was principally a civil war. True, we backed the South, but the war was fought out of ideology rather than imperative. In addition, fighting a proxy war against China and Russia was un-winnable. Not justified sufficiently.

7. Vietnam was another civil war that we fought in out of an ideological opposition to communism. Unjustifiable.

8. The Gulf War was a war of aggression against Kuwait, not a civil war, and retaliating against Saddam was backed by world opinion. We set attainable goals early on and put in enough troops to attain victory. Despite the national interest of oil muddying the affair, there was plenty of justification for the war.

9. Afghanistan was as justifiable as fighting in WWII. However the war planners botched the execution.

10. The Iraq War was a war of aggression based on faulty evidence that was unwisely believed by a cabal of fanatic ideologues without realistically appraising the national security interests and stability of the region. Unjustifiable.

And for the record:

Revolutionary War, justifiable
War of 1812, justifiable
Mexican-American War, unjustifiable
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for that analysis. My response?

First we agree on WWII, WWI, Spanish-American War, Vietnam, Iraq II, an your three "for th record" additions; so nothing there.

Next, both the cause of Southern Secession (you allege slavery, but that was not the only reason) and the fact that the South failed to go "through Congress" are irrelevant. There are no Constitutional provisions for seceding. Since the Constitution required ratification by the States, the 10th Amendment allows them the same power to secede. No state needs to ask permission. Northern victory did nothing to alleviate that power either. There was no need for a "plebiscite" either, the people we represented by their state legislatures who voted to secede. The area in Virginia that did not wish to, seceded and because the new State of West Virginia.

Next, it was not the fact that "forts and federal property were attacked and confiscated;" George Washington's crushing of the Whisky Rebellion was sufficient precedent to justify the North's response to the Southern Secession.

As for Korea, the justification was rightly stated; we were guiding members of the UN Security Council and per the treaty rules a majority voted passed with no veto which authorized our action.

IMO Afghanistan could have been avoided by using DELTA and SEAL teams to gut Al Quaeda without invading. We did not need to get involved in Iraq (Gulf War I) since we had no defense treaty with Kuwait. Screw oil and to hell with world opinion!
 
CRUE CAB said:
No, had Hitler not been busy fighting us through out France. He would have had the resources to divert to Russia. Also one of Russia's problems with man power and equipment was the invasion of Finland in 1940 that while Finland and Russia came to a truce.
Russia lost well over 120K men and hundreds of tanks.
Finland lost 11% of her lands and 30% of her assets to Russia, but neither were helpful in fighting the Germans who came within 20 miles of the Kremlin.
Oh, and WWIII? Its already on and been on for 60 years.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union had the beating of Hitler about a year before D-Day opened up the Western front again. The huge defeat at Kursk pretty much painted the writing on the wall for the Eastern front. D-Day and the US involvement swiftened things, no doubt.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
TYou do realize Saddam fought against Al-Qaeda and hated Islamic govs?
Click to expand...
1)Saddam did not fight against Al Qaeda. I have no idea where you came up with that ridiculous lie.

2)Saddam instituted sharia law in Iraq, built mosques with government money, made Quaranic studies mandatory for students starting in the first grade and paid Quran teachers a premium compared to teachers of other subjects, had the phrase "Allah is Great" emblazoned on the official Iraqi flag in his own handwriting, put a Quran written in his own blood on display in a huge government mosque, and basically transformed Iraq into an Islamic State. The facts just don't seem to jibe with your contention that Saddam hated Islamic governments.
 
Muhammed said:
1)Saddam did not fight against Al Qaeda. I have no idea where you came up with that ridiculous lie.
Click to expand...
I meant in rhetoric. I never had to deal with Al Qaeda in his own country.


2)Saddam instituted sharia law in Iraq,
Click to expand...
No.. No no he didnt. Not even close to true. He despised Islamic law and feared it. One of the major reasons to going to war with Iran was because of this.

built mosques with government money, made Quaranic studies mandatory for students starting in the first grade and paid Quran teachers a premium compared to teachers of other subjects, had the phrase "Allah is Great" emblazoned on the official Iraqi flag in his own handwriting, put a Quran written in his own blood on display in a huge government mosque, and basically transformed Iraq into an Islamic State.
Click to expand...
No. All of those dont=Islamic Law.
Might wanna go back and read what Islamic Law is. All of those are more symbolic gestures.

The facts just don't seem to jibe with your contention that Saddam hated Islamic governments.
Click to expand...
Well saying Saddam abolished Sharia Law courts, invaded an Islamic nation on the fear of Islamic Law gainig ground into his country, and didnt rule his country based on Islamic law, i think these facts do "jib with my connection."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom