Which Wars Were Justified?

[amadeus]

Ama, thanks for the good reply.

Appreciated, but I'm kind of disheartened when I see that civil discourse is so unusual that it needs complimenting.

Fair enough. I do think its possible to separate feelings in terms of what I THINK the law should be and what it is or was.

Well, I don't know where you would think that I differed here. I would just disagree with you by saying that I don't think secession is or was illegal. Were it illegal, it would still not be wrong for any state to have seceded for any reason.

I think it's worth noting that a lot of secessionist attitude came from, among others, abolitionists and southerners opposed to high tariffs. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, endorsed "disunion" from the U.S. because of the legality of slavery, and I don't think it would have been wrong for them to have seceded if they so chose.

 

[DaveShack]

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Mearsheimer/Walt view?

I see a difference between likely and possible. The article holds the opinion that it was not likely that Saddam would use WMD or pass them along to someone else who would, but the standard that I apply is whether it's possible that could happen.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's possible for any state to use nuclear weapons.

 

[Camikaze]

I see a difference between likely and possible. The article holds the opinion that it was not likely that Saddam would use WMD or pass them along to someone else who would, but the standard that I apply is whether it's possible that could happen.

The UK could possibly use nuclear weapons by the same token. There certainly must be an element of likelihood under consideration.

 

[BvBPL]

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.

Absurd. The CSA prosecuted the war in order to maintain their morally indefensible system of slavery. By pursuing a war to end that abomination, the Union’s part in the war clearly falls into a 4 on your scale.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Absurd. The CSA prosecuted the war in order to maintain their morally indefensible system of slavery. By pursuing a war to end that abomination, the Union’s part in the war clearly falls into a 4 on your scale.

Not quite. I too regard the Civil war as justified, however. The south saw it as maintaining their system but what led up to it was the restriction of the expansion of slavery. Which, I admit, never made much sense to me. The CSA's model of the war was the revolutionary war, in which the north would simply decide the war wasn't worth it. The problem I see is that with a hostile north, the CSA couldn't expand even if the won the war. Because any expansion would be opposed by the north, who could block any expansion. It's one thing to try to defend your territory against an invader when the people don't like the invader. It's quite another to invade another territory where the stronger country (the Union) opposes you and is seen as a benefactor by the people. I've always thought that the point of Jubal Earlyr before the war made sense. The consitution at that point protected slavery and, by going to war, the CSA took the brakes off and allowed slavery to be abolished. It would have taken a lot longer to abolish slavery without the Civil War, if ever.

I went for about half of the wars. Revolutionary war (if not then, it would have come later), Civil War, WWI and WWII and Korea. I think WWII is the most clear. I'm ambivalent about the Mexican American war. It was pretty much a straight-up war of aggression and conquest in the best Civ3 fashion, but it was very important in the U.S. becoming the world power it is. I can't justify the war morally but it was good for the country.

 

[Linkman226]

Korean War: Anything to stop the spread of communism

Vietnam War: Anything to stop the spread of communism (or in this case slow it down)

Gulf War: Required to keep Saudi Arabia on our side and restore Kuwait. Yes it was about oil

Afghanistan: Removal of terrorist training grounds, Taliban could have gone in the direction of an Islamic equivalent of Nazis

Iraq: Prevented Saddam from becoming the next Hitler. Someone like Saddam wanting to have WMD is enough justification. Not to mention we genuinely thought they were further along. I can think of at least one more that should be in this category (should not be allowed WMD), maybe two or three.

Libya: Not sure I'd even count this one -- no ground troops, right?

What irony!

That very attitude led to American support of the green-colored group you mentioned above.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

So... I take it that by "Which American wars were justified", you're asking which wars the US should've been involved in, and which it should've stayed out of? When did WWII or the second Korean War become "American Wars"?

 

[Ajidica]

That very attitude led to American support of the green-colored group you mentioned above.

Not entirely. The mujahideen we primarily supported would go on to make up the Northern Alliance who sort of became our allies in the invasion of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance was generaly 'better' then the Taliban if the right warlord was present. Of the two primary warlords, one wasn't half bad (Doud I believe) but the other one would probably win the 'Sadist of the Year' Award. (One method of execution was lashing people to tank tracks and having the tank drive around.)

Any support going to Taliban-esque groups in the Soviet Invasion likely came from the Pakistani ISI. During an interview with Robert Fisk, bin Laden did mention that his group of mujahideen never recieved any clearly American weaponry, it generaly came from the Saudis.

 

[Linkman226]

Fine. It led to extreme human rights violations and more imperialism.

 

[Hygro]

Not quite. I too regard the Civil war as justified, however. The south saw it as maintaining their system but what led up to it was the restriction of the expansion of slavery. Which, I admit, never made much sense to me. The CSA's model of the war was the revolutionary war, in which the north would simply decide the war wasn't worth it. The problem I see is that with a hostile north, the CSA couldn't expand even if the won the war. Because any expansion would be opposed by the north, who could block any expansion. It's one thing to try to defend your territory against an invader when the people don't like the invader. It's quite another to invade another territory where the stronger country (the Union) opposes you and is seen as a benefactor by the people. I've always thought that the point of Jubal Earlyr before the war made sense. The consitution at that point protected slavery and, by going to war, the CSA took the brakes off and allowed slavery to be abolished. It would have taken a lot longer to abolish slavery without the Civil War, if ever.

This is one of the best posts I've read this past month. I would argue that while if they had split, the North might have prevented westward slavery, the South was ready to go and annex Caribbean states and Central/South American land for their purposes, which would have been harder for the Union to prevent.

 

[choxorn]

Create Multinational Coalition to expel the Evil Armies of Iraq the CSA?

 

[BvBPL]

Some members of the CSA supported annexing Cuba and other Caribbean territories so growth could have gone south. The Arizona territory allowed slaves and sided with the CSA and Southern California was, in 1860, in the process of becoming an independent territory, and it would presumably join w/ the CSA as well. So the idea that the CSA wouldn’t grow seems unlikely to me.

Aside from that, had the CSA succeeded from the North w/o any bloodshed, it might have still been the death knell of the Union as it would have opened the door for succession by any state. The CSA, had it survived, probably wouldn’t have been any more stable in that regard founded it as it was on the basis of succession rights.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The CSA would have been in a poor position to expand, being mostly dirt poor with barely and industry or navy. The south would have had too many domestic and social problems to partake in much foreign adventurism. As such the "golden triangle" more or less just wishful thinking. Either way I always imagined that a post-Civil War Confederate States without the mass emigration of ex-slaves to the Northern cities would eventually become a black majority nation like Jamaica or Haiti maybe with some funky looking yellow, black, green and red version of the Confederate battle flag.

 

[choxorn]

Aside from that, had the CSA succeeded from the North w/o any bloodshed, it might have still been the death knell of the Union as it would have opened the door for succession by any state. The CSA, had it survived, probably wouldn’t have been any more stable in that regard founded it as it was on the basis of succession rights.

Why? Slavery was the only issue anyone ever seriously wanted to secede over.

 

[Hygro]

The CSA would have been in a poor position to expand, being mostly dirt poor with barely and industry or navy. The south would have had too many domestic and social problems to partake in much foreign adventurism. As such the "golden triangle" more or less just wishful thinking. Either way I always imagined that a post-Civil War Confederate States without the mass emigration of ex-slaves to the Northern cities would eventually become a black majority nation like Jamaica or Haiti maybe with some funky looking yellow, black, green and red version of the Confederate battle flag.

The CSA industrialized at a breakneck pace during the war. While its society wasn't as set up as the north for big industry, most of that was simply because before the war they didn't need to be. They had all the potential to be an industrial power waiting in the wings and could have projected force if they wanted to.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Why? Slavery was the only issue anyone ever seriously wanted to secede over.

Is that because no other situation would have arose even if The South had been successful? The bloody end of the CSA would be enough to coerce most groups from seriously considering seceding. And of course after the war, which the CSA fought to preserve slavery, they had to settle into their new-found life of its abolition being excelled.

 

[Tahuti]

Why? Slavery was the only issue anyone ever seriously wanted to secede over.

The civil war wasn't just about slavery. The South seceded from the North because they feared slavery was going to be banned, but the reason why the North cared was because in part because the South (once seceded) had a very open trade policy whereas the North was strongly protectionist. Slavery was just one part in a conflict that was largely fueled by an economic divide of the industrious North vs. the agricultural South.