Which Wars Were Justified?

[GhostWriter16]

Simple: Which wars were "Justified" wars for America to enter into, and how greatly, on a scale of 1-5 (For purposes of the poll, vote yes for a 3, 4, or 5, no for a 1 or 2.)

5. The war was completely justified, and handled ethically in most or all ways.

4. The war was mismanaged, but was morally justified

3. The war was either morally questionable but I lean towards its support, or grossly mismanaged but ultimately a good idea.

2. The war was morally questionable AND grossly mismanaged, or it simply had a very weak moral basis to begin with.

1. The war was blatantly wrong.

?. You don't know enough about this war to say. For this vote, don't check the war in the poll.

As for my opinions:

Revolutionary War: 100% OK. Right to secede is a right. 5/5.

War of 1812: Ditto, we were attacked for refusing to trade. 5/5.

Mexican/American War: We had some moral basis because Texas wanted to secede from Mexico and all but asked for our help. However, the fact that part of the reason Texas wanted to join us so we could have slaves taints it. Also, I don't think we should invade anytime a territory wants to secede from the mother country. In general, these wars should be fought by the Revolutionaries themselves. 3/5.

Civil War: The only "Coup de grace" to this was post 1863 when we were actually fighting to free slaves. But until that point. The war was simply wrong. 2/5 just because of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Spanish American War: As far as I know, the only basis for this was them supposedly sinking our ship. 1/5 totally unjustified.

World War I: A European War. Not our place. And while Germany sinking our ships was extreme, they DID have some justification because we were de facto supporting England. It wasn't like we were just going our merry way and they attacked. 1/5.

World War II: Totally justified, Hitler was a rampage who needed to be dealt with. 5/5.

Korean War: Justified because North Korea was one of the worst countries to live in, and it wasn't a good idea to let South Korea be forced into it. Bad because we grossly mismanaged it (We didn't get rid of NK) AND it was morally questionable (We were supporting a dictator.) 2/5, though it could have been raised to 3 or 4 with proper technique.

Vietnam War: We drafted people to fight a war abroad, only to lose. This by fiat makes it 1/5. Not to mention it was morally wrong (South Vietnam had the WORSE dictator) and mismanaged.

Gulf War: Mismanaged (If we were going to do it, THIS is when we should have kicked Saddam out) but not morally a bad idea (An innocent country was being attacked.) Plus, no draft was used. 3/5 I suppose.

Afghanistan: This was justified, as we needed to catch Osama, but it was probably mismanaged in some ways. 4/5.

Iraq: NOT needed, and mismanaged. 2/5, NOT 1/5 because I do think Bush believed it was a good idea, and there were some benefits, it just wasn't the best thing.

Libya: Speaking against Bush's wars, then starting your own? 1/5.

Poll Coming.

 

[useless]

Way to misrepresent America's involvement in Libya, at least try to be bipartisan; Obama was very hesitant to do anything, at all. It was really Britain, France etc that were trying to get American involved in it, not Obama.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Crap, I forgot to make this an RD thread. Can a mod fix it? And until then, can everyone please keep responses RD standard?

Also, while I frown upon discussing one specific war rather than all the wars together, I STRONGLY frown upon specifically discussing Libya, as it would create an unbalanced discussion, and probably lead to "Do you support Obama or not" which is totally against the idea of this thread.

 

[useless]

I just think, that your view of Libya is extremely simplistic, doesn't take into account what was actually going on, and in the end it is more of a snipe at Obama, in spite of what actually happened. If I recall, Obama didn't initiate it, nor did he even really want to go into it, at all. He didn't start it.

I can only comment on a few wars;

Afghanistan; Mismanaged. American, NATO and Britain will be in it, for along time, I foresee there having to be a coalition between Karzai and the Taliban, to keep a modicum of stability. 1/5

Iraq; A total mistake, entered into it with very little legal or moral justification. Britain's out, but America's still in. Ended up radicalizing alot of Iraqi's, and Al-Qaeda have since taken advantage. 1/5

Libya; I agreed with David Cameron's interventionist role on Libya, it was a golden opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi and help set up a potential democracy. Shame about the issues with the rebels, however. 4/5

 

[GhostWriter16]

I just think, that your view of Libya is extremely simplistic, doesn't take into account what was actually going on, and in the end it is more of a snipe at Obama, in spite of what actually happened. If I recall, Obama didn't initiate it, nor did he even really want to go into it, at all. He didn't start it.

I can only comment on a few wars;

Afghanistan; Mismanaged. American, NATO and Britain will be in it, for along time, I foresee there having to be a coalition between Karzai and the Taliban, to keep a modicum of stability. 1/5

Iraq; A total mistake, entered into it with very little legal or moral justification. Britain's out, but America's still in. Ended up radicalizing alot of Iraqi's, and Al-Qaeda have since taken advantage. 1/5

Libya; I agreed with David Cameron's interventionist role on Libya, it was a golden opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi and help set up a potential democracy. Shame about the issues with the rebels, however. 4/5

Afghanistan was a 1/5 while Libya was a 4/5? I mean, I agree Iraq wasn't great (I think 2/5 fits better than 1/5 though) but both it and Libya were controversial, most of the country was behind Afghanistan (I still think congress should have officially declared the war) but it was definitely a justified war with clearly defined goals (Get Bin Laden, overthrow the Taliban unless they gave him up.) Iraq was considerably more sketchy.

Libya... just seems a lot like Iraq without the WMD reason. While Libya is bad, they aren't exceptionally so like Sudan or NK, they're an ordinary dictatorship. We can't overthrow them all.

And Obama did speak against Bush trying to overthrow the dictatorship in Iraq. I do feel its a double standard.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I disagree on WWI, dommy, I think that the sinking of American ships gives a country a good reason to go to war, the war was stupid in the first place, but we needed to end it.

oh, I don't think that the Lusitania had any weapons on it, and had hundreds of civilians on board.

 

[JollyRoger]

Where is the option for none?

 

[useless]

The thing is, you have to give Obama a bit of leeway, he didn't have much of a choice, France, Britain, in fact the whole world, was pressuring him, he didn't really want to go in, but this was a chance to destroy Gaddafi, and I wouldn't have criticized a Republican president for going in, or hell, even bush. It was an opportunity, that he would of been a fool for passing.

Iraq created more enemies than allies, and radicalized a section of Iraqi society. We may never be able to convince them otherwise, and without Saddam religious tension is on the rise, within Iraq.

Afghanistan is different, it was handled shoddily, the current Afghan government is blatantly corrupt. It's a mess, basically.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Where is the option for none?

not voting

 

[GenMarshall]

All except the Iraq War.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I disagree on WWI, dommy, I think that the sinking of American ships gives a country a good reason to go to war, the war was stupid in the first place, but we needed to end it.

The big difference between WWII and WWI was that the former was actually a war about morals and ethics, world war I was a land grab.

And, while Wilson opposed it, the European, "Morally superior" nations did things to Germany that really makes them partially responsible for Hitler's rise.

Also, Wilson's arrest of protestors makes the entire thing unjustified by definition.

oh, I don't think that the Lusitania had any weapons on it, and had hundreds of civilians on board.

Perhaps not, which MIGHT strengthen the case, but I wouldn't say sinking one ship is morally more wrong than making an entire nation suffer for the decisions of its leaders. Also, how do you know Germany actually ordered that attack? As I recall, Germany still wanted America as an ally.

Also, letting hundreds of thousands of American soldiers die to "Avenge" one-hundred twenty-eight seems a bit wrong. Especially since we partially provoked it in the first place.

And finally, if we had let Europe blow itself up in that stupid war, World War II would never have happened, then the Cold War would never have happened, and then the US would have stayed unquestioned as the #1 superpower without ever really having to fight.

Also, I don't feel we have any "Responsibility" to end a foreign war. Its different if one side has clear moral superiority (World War II) but if its a land grab, let them blow themselves up.

And, if we had traded with Germany AND England, selling weapons to both at fair prices, we'd have made a crapload of money instead of wasting a crapload fighting.

In short, world war I was simply a bad idea.

 

[Hygro]

I disagree on WWI, dommy, I think that the sinking of American ships gives a country a good reason to go to war, the war was stupid in the first place, but we needed to end it.

oh, I don't think that the Lusitania had any weapons on it, and had hundreds of civilians on board.

The Germans weren't the only one sinking our ships.


The only good thing about WW1 was that it was aesthetically the coolest.
(Cut me some slack if you want to take this the wrong way, there's a reason I haven't voted at all since I'm not sure if "war" is a justifiable concept anyway. If I did, the only ones I could possibly consider are the Civil War, WW2, and in third place the Revolutionary War).

 

[GhostWriter16]

The thing is, you have to give Obama a bit of leeway, he didn't have much of a choice, France, Britain, in fact the whole world, was pressuring him, he didn't really want to go in, but this was a chance to destroy Gaddafi, and I wouldn't have criticized a Republican president for going in, or hell, even bush. It was an opportunity, that he would of been a fool for passing.

Iraq created more enemies than allies, and radicalized a section of Iraqi society. We may never be able to convince them otherwise, and without Saddam religious tension is on the rise, within Iraq.

Afghanistan is different, it was handled shoddily, the current Afghan government is blatantly corrupt. It's a mess, basically.

I'd have given Obama more leeway if he hadn't criticized Bush for doing the same darn thing, and built his campaign on promises not to do the same freakin' thing.

 

[useless]

And finally, if we had let Europe blow itself up in that stupid war, World War II would never have happened, then the Cold War would never have happened, and then the US would have stayed unquestioned as the #1 superpower without ever really having to fight.

You can't say that, in a matter of fact way. This is pure speculation, not actual fact.

I'd have given Obama more leeway if he hadn't criticized Bush for doing the same darn thing, and built his campaign on promises not to do the same freakin' thing.

But he didn't man, look at what actually happened, they asked the Arab council, they got legal permission, Bush didn't bother. Bush didn't care. It's not even a war in any sense of the word, America, NATO, Britain etc aided the rebels, sometimes using airstrikes, but beyond that it was really left up to the Libyan people.

 

[JollyRoger]

Spanish American War: As far as I know, the only basis for this was them supposedly sinking our ship. 1/5 totally unjustified.

World War I: A European War. Not our place. And while Germany sinking our ships was extreme, they DID have some justification because we were de facto supporting England. It wasn't like we were just going our merry way and they attacked. 1/5.

Sinking our ships is an attack on us

 

[ZeletDude]

All except the Iraq War.

This, but I included Vietnam too.

 

[Zack]

War of 1812: Ditto, we were attacked for refusing to trade. 5/5.

Your description is extremely misleading and simplified. First of all, the US was the nation who declared war.

Mexican/American War: We had some moral basis because Texas wanted to secede from Mexico and all but asked for our help. However, the fact that part of the reason Texas wanted to join us so we could have slaves taints it. Also, I don't think we should invade anytime a territory wants to secede from the mother country. In general, these wars should be fought by the Revolutionaries themselves. 3/5.

It was pure expansionism.

Civil War: The only "Coup de grace" to this was post 1863 when we were actually fighting to free slaves. But until that point. The war was simply wrong. 2/5 just because of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Why was it wrong?

World War II: Totally justified, Hitler was a rampage who needed to be dealt with. 5/5.

Whatever happened to "European wars are not our place"? And the US had much more to do with defeating Japan than with defeating Germany; that was mainly the Soviet Union.

Afghanistan: This was justified, as we needed to catch Osama, but it was probably mismanaged in some ways. 4/5.

The need to catch one person justifies declaring war on a whole nation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You can't say that, in a matter of fact way. This is pure speculation, not actual fact.

Well, a world war II might have occurred eventually, but Hitler's rise to power would almost definitely not have happened, as eventually a fair peace would PROBABLY have been signed, as neither side had a definitive advantage.

But, in any case, it was Europe's war. While something ridiculously bad (Say, Adolf Hitler) would be justification for intervention, its not something we should do every day, as ANYTIME we go to war weakens us unless we take something from someone else, yet fighting solely for our own benefit is against everything America is supposed to be about.

So, yeah, I can't say definitely that would be the last world war, in fact, it really wasn't the first time. But I can say that things would almost definitely have been different, and that they probably would have been better, if we had stayed out of Europe's War.

 

[useless]

You either stick by your allies, or you don't.

If you don't, don't bother having allies in the first place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who voted "No" on the Revolutionary War???

You either stick by your allies, or you don't.

If you don't, don't bother having allies in the first place.

Well, I do think our list of allies is too long (Is Pakistan really our ally?) but either way, yeah, if someone attacks your allies, you should attack. Not if your allies attack first necessarily (If you're talking about Libya.)

World War I, we weren't really alligned with England, we were sending them weapons, which we never should have done in the first place. It was a stupid war, and we should not have taken sides at all. Doing so made the world a worse place.