• 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
CRUE CAB said:
Bush Sr, not really a Sr, had no adventure in Iraq. He stopped our troops at the Kuwait Border as the Iraq army retreated.
Click to expand...
I see that military history isn't your forte. The fact of the matter is that Bush Sr. invaded Iraq with over 140,000 troops in 1991 including the 1st and 24th infantry divisions, the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions, the 1st and 3rd Armored divisions, etc, etc... And that's just the troops under General Franks' command.
 
Last edited:
Why is not NATO-Serbian throughout the 90's wars there? It was USA lead campaign also!
 
Muhammed said:
I see that military history isn't your forte. The fact of the matter is that Bush Sr. invaded Iraq with over 140,000 troops in 1991 including the 1st and 24th infantry divisions, the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions, the 1st and 3rd Armored divisions, etc, etc... And that's just the troops under General Franks' command.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I should have stated that the UN sanction was to go remove Iraq from Kuwait. Not so much to invade Iraq after their retreat.
Hence Saddams attemted assasination attempt on Bush.
 
I think the USA wars with Serbs throughout the 90s were justifiable also. Was curious why the Op did not put it in the list.
 
Only poorly justified wars from the options were the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Gulf War, and Vietnam War.
 
Muhammed said:
I see that military history isn't your forte. The fact of the matter is that Bush Sr. invaded Iraq with over 140,000 troops in 1991 including the 1st and 24th infantry divisions, the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions, the 1st and 3rd Armored divisions, etc, etc... And that's just the troops under General Franks' command.
Click to expand...

Not yours either, it was Schwartzkopf in 1991.
 
Montecresto said:
None of the above.
Click to expand...

That is an uncommon point of view. Are you asserting that the US should not have entered any of those conflicts (although not sure how that would apply to the Civil War, but likely you have thought that through)?

Are there any Wars anywhere that had been justified?

Just curious.
 
DDD said:
I think the USA wars with Serbs throughout the 90s were justifiable also. Was curious why the Op did not put it in the list.
Click to expand...

A couple reasons:

1. The 10 choice cap on the poll settings, otherwise I would have gone back to the Revolutionary War or French Indian War.
2. It may be a matter of semantics, but some US Military actions are not commonly defined as wars. Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, among others, are in gray areas.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Not yours either, it was Schwartzkopf in 1991.
Click to expand...
My history is on the mark. In Operation Desert Storm Franks commanded VII Corps, the 140,000+ troops that invaded Iraq.

VII Corps consisted of 146,000 American and British soldiers in essentially 5 armored divisions (one was a mechanized infantry division and one was a cavalry division). This consisted of close to 1600 tanks, American and British, and 800 helicopters. Supporting this was its support command and vital logistics support command comprising over 26,000 soldiers and 15 hospitals. In total, VII Corps consumed over 2 million gallons of fuel a day. In 100 hours of rapid maneuver and combat, VII Corps fought several engagements with Iraqi forces. Under Franks' leadership, VII Corps units gained decisive victories at the Battle of Al Busayyah, the Battle of 73 Easting, the Battle of Norfolk and the Battle of Medina Ridge.
Click to expand...
Frederick M. Franks, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
aberrant85 said:
A couple reasons:

1. The 10 choice cap on the poll settings, otherwise I would have gone back to the Revolutionary War or French Indian War.
2. It may be a matter of semantics, but some US Military actions are not commonly defined as wars. Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, among others, are in gray areas.
Click to expand...

Why is it gray areas? Because it was mostly a joint operation and mostly bombing?
 
DVSentinel said:
The Gulf War and the Iraq war can actually be considered different phases of the same war as US troops were never fully disengaged between the two.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that both Bush and Hussein retreated and declared victory after Safwan, the war continued.

And I would add to that, since they were the same war they necessarily started at the same time and had the exact same justification. (Force Iraq to comply with the UNSCRs).

Those who voted for one but not the other have some explaining to do.
 
Last edited:
aberrant85 said:
A couple reasons:

1. The 10 choice cap on the poll settings, otherwise I would have gone back to the Revolutionary War or French Indian War.
2. It may be a matter of semantics, but some US Military actions are not commonly defined as wars. Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, among others, are in gray areas.
Click to expand...

Besides, the first point aside, devaluing the engagement of the the second point as "gray area" undermines the successes and liberation influenced in south Europe. Why would liberation here be less valuable, not worthy of mention, "gray area!"

Soldiers died here too. Yours, NATO's and ours while we fought Serbs!
 
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...

It's worth noting that justifiable and worthwhile are two very different things. Someone may not have a moral problem with a particular war or decision to engage in action but still feel that said conflict/action was not worthwhile for a variety of different reasons.
 
DDD said:
I think the USA wars with Serbs throughout the 90s were justifiable also. Was curious why the Op did not put it in the list.
Click to expand...

I agree, the Bosnian conflict was not only justifiable, but NATO's delayed action in the face of obvious genocide was inexcusable. I only voted for WWII out of all those wars listed, and didn't even consider the Civil War as comparable.

Korea, Vietnam, most of the other wars listed were ideological in nature. Certainly justifications were made for them, but I personally do not believe that at the time (not in retrospect), as the adult I am today and what I have seen over my decades on the planet, I would not support any of them beyond our early invasion of Afghanistan, which turned out to be an inept quagmire and should have been over in months, at Tora Bora, had the Bush administration not withheld troops for his future Iraq invasion and allowed the Taliban to escape into Pakistan due to lack of necessary US troops/armaments at the scene.
 
Out of that list WW2, and the Union fighting the south from seceding. The rest of the Wars were not justified, and most of them were fought for special interest and neo-liberal imperialist means.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Out of that list WW2, and the Union fighting the south from seceding. The rest of the Wars were not justified, and most of them were fought for special interest and neo-liberal imperialist means.
Click to expand...

No, they were fought to slow/halt the spread of socialism and radical Islamics/terrorist. Both are noble causes against evil crimes against humanity.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, they were fought to slow/halt the spread of socialism and radical Islamics/terrorist. Both are noble causes against evil crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's completely true. It's more the story told and not necessarily the reasons. In VN, we have served those people better by allowing Socialism after WWII and become allies, trusting as partners that we could show a better way. Instead we were lazy and poor partners of those who helped us in WWII and denied freedom of choice to a nation's population.
 
CRUE CAB said:
For sure, but they could not take any more from the European theater to send to the Eastern front. Had they been able to, It very well may had turned out different.
I dont minimize the efforts of the Russians in WWII, but to say "they won the war" is just not all true.
The allies let them take Berlin, because the allies knew what hell they would bring with them. And they did. German soldiers were fighting their way out of Berlin to surrender to US troops.
Click to expand...

the fact is that Nazi Germany could not fight a war on two fronts and expect to win.

imagine if the german divisions that had been tasked to fight on the eastern front had been on hand on june 6th 1994. if that had happened, operation overlord would have been compared to galilipoli as the most disastrous attempted amphibious invasions in military history.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, they were fought to slow/halt the spread of socialism and radical Islamics/terrorist.
Click to expand...
The Spanish American war was fighitng the spread of socialism and crazy Islamists? What about WW1? Or the Gulf War?
But fair enough im guessing your thinking of Korea and Vietnam and possibly the 2nd Gulf War... But in Korea how was that our business? And Vietnam? So we go in there because of that scary "domino theory" but quick reference they won and communism didnt spread... So and about those crazy Islamists i mean hell we propped up Islamists in Afghanistan, and currently an Islamic gov is in charge of Afghanistan. But what about the 2nd Gulf War.... You do realize Saddam fought against Al-Qaeda and hated Islamic govs?

Both are noble causes against evil crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...
Give me a break.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The Spanish American war was fighitng the spread of socialism and crazy Islamists? What about WW1? Or the Gulf War?
But fair enough im guessing your thinking of Korea and Vietnam and possibly the 2nd Gulf War... But in Korea how was that our business? And Vietnam? So we go in there because of that scary "domino theory" but quick reference they won and communism didnt spread... So and about those crazy Islamists i mean hell we propped up Islamists in Afghanistan, and currently an Islamic gov is in charge of Afghanistan. But what about the 2nd Gulf War.... You do realize Saddam fought against Al-Qaeda and hated Islamic govs?


Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Ok, so all the ones after WWII.

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.

Also, my personal belief is that it is the duty of the strong to protect the innocent and the weak. I also do not believe that freedoms and opportunities we have here in the US should only be for the US, they should be for all people. So anytime we can help innocent people from falling into the poverty, slavery, fear and torture of socialist systems, we should do it.
 
DDD said:
Besides, the first point aside, devaluing the engagement of the the second point as "gray area" undermines the successes and liberation influenced in south Europe. Why would liberation here be less valuable, not worthy of mention, "gray area!"

Soldiers died here too. Yours, NATO's and ours while we fought Serbs!
Click to expand...

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.
 
DVSentinel said:
Ok, so all the ones after WWII.

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.

Also, my personal belief is that it is the duty of the strong to protect the innocent and the weak. I also do not believe that freedoms and opportunities we have here in the US should only be for the US, they should be for all people. So anytime we can help innocent people from falling into the poverty, slavery, fear and torture of socialist systems, we should do it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom