Which U.S. wars were "justified?"

I was inspired by the thread on whether or not to use the bomb in setting up this thread.

....America has fought a lot of wars in its history, some good and some bad. I want to know which wars YOU felt were good and bad, or in a gray area where, "no maybe not, but we benefitted for the better in them" or "something worse could have happened."

Personally, I believe that the following were justified:

Revolutionary War (can't argue against Independence. No apologies to taking Torie land either.)

Civil War (stop slavery...even if that wasn't the original intent it became one over time....and to preserve the Union.)

World War II (fight back against Japan for attacking us first, and to stop Nazi aggression and genocide.)

Cold War (stop Soviet aggression and tyranny.)

Korean War (North Korea invaded South Korea first.)

First Gulf War (Saddam invaded Kuwait, although it was after he tought that WE wouldn't care if he invaded.)

Afghanistan/Broader "War on Terror." (I believe that religious fundamentalists who knock down our two tallest buildings and want to impose their reactionary 12th Cenutry view on us should be stopped. Note, I differentiate between this and the Iraq War, which was not in our interest.)

I believe that the following were not justified:

Indian Wars (Trail of Tears especially.)

Spanish-American War (the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine was likely a boiler explosion. In terms of the war itself, Spain treated their colonies like shit, so taking them away from the Spanish does not make me upset. My reason for opposing this war has more to do with how we treated the Filipinos and Cubans.)

Vietnam War (Containment gone wrong. Vietnam going Communist by itself did not pose a threat to us.)

Second Gulf War (Bush is liar about Iraq phony WMD threats. Saddam was not trying to invade other countries and was not creating mobile biological labs or drones that could hit the Continental United States
Iraq has also distracted us from the broaders War on Terror.)

Wars that fall into my "gray area."

War of 1812 (while we were not attacked first and some in Congress wanted Canada, the British were treating us like children in the years after the Revolutionary War. Impressing our ships, not cool! Despite this, they did not attack first, but the long-term benefit was an end to direct hostilities)

Mexican War (While many will say that this was nothing more than a land grab by the "Colossus of the North" both countrie's armies were nearly equally matched at the time. It was more analogus to how European wars were from the 1600's to World War I, in that it was a mutual distrust of each other. Also, many Mexicans and people of Spanish discent did not like Santa Anna or being told what to do by Mexico City. For example, the Tejanos in Texas and the Padres and Californios in California, each supported America. Manifest Destiny was one of our desired outcomes, but I do not believe that you can simply say we were praying on weak little Mexico. Also, many Americans thought that we would be lucky if the Mexicans did not take New Orleans)

World War I (Germany did not start this war, but rather it was the inevitable result of decades of arms races and alliances forged by each large power in Europe. Both sides were beligerant, and both sides targeted civilians, in contrast to what Wilson said about it mainly being Germany.) However, the threat of German political dominence throughout the war is uncertain. A Cold War-style conflict between America and Germany could have been the case had the Kaiser prevailed. Competition over colonial expansion would have been a likely conflict. Could we have even gotten along with them? Germany was also acting beligerant against us despite our warnings for them not to, including their violation of the Arabic-Sussex pledge and the Zimmerman Telegram.)

n/t

I'd have to agree on every one except give a solid "justified" to 1812.

all are fought for or about economic gain.

The only war justified to fight is a war against fascism.

Did fighting World War II end fascism? Look who's the POTUS.

More than half of the wars we fought were for good reason against aggressors. Just because America has done some bad things in the past and present does not mean that everything we have done is evil.

Just as an example: World War II

considered by many to be one of the more justified wars to have been fought.

Ask yourself - who supported Hitler and his rise to power?

Why did Japan feel the need to attack Pearl Harbor in the US imperial aquisition of Hawaii?

George Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq is no better/worse than what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

But Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we would not supply them with resources to fund their imperialist incursions further into Asia. And I have no regrets about our conduct towards Japan. Bataan Deathmarch? Rape of Najing? Colonial Oppression towards other Asian countries? What Japan did in Pearl Harbor was worse than what Bush has done in Iraq. That is not to stay that what Bush did is justified in any way.

So here we are talking about economic reasons for killing which is what I said at the start was the reason for these wars.

Japan was threatening corporate America's dreams of imperial acquisitions of the far-east and indochina, while Hitler worked toward corporate America's benefit in acting as a check against communism spreading further west from Russia.

It's always economic benefit that acts as the driving force for these wars.

I guess you think that Iraq is all about the dire threat Saddam was and his WMD's, not Exxon/Mobil's oil under their sand....

bad as Exxon? America has its faults and history of warmongering, but Japan in the World War II-era was one of the most tyrannical nations in history.

Japan's history at that time was one of imperial expansion. The US stood in the way because of it's own corporate interests.

What would the US had done to stop Japan's advance if Pearl Harbor had never been attacked? Would it have created a "Tonkin Gulf-like" incident to check their advance on the natural resources of China and Indochina?

Pearl Harbor was avenged during the war many times over. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barbaric acts of agression meant to put the Soviets on notice. They were not needed to "end the war to save lives" BS.

An island nation only needs to be surrounded and blockaded for victory to eventually occur.

Which would have led to 100,000's of Japanese civilians starving to death anyway. We also would have done more fire bombings.

By your reasoning, then, you would have no problem if some other nation decided to drop nuclear bombs over two of our cities, right?

After all, we, like the innocents dying in Iraq, failed to boot our own fascist thugs out of power even after they illegally and immorally invading another nation, Iraq, despite the fact that that nation represented (in 2003) no threat to us, our allies, or the nations of the region; despite the fact that our USG tortures and kills people in Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and perhaps dozens of other rendition destinations throughout the covert world; despite the fact that we terrorized inncocents in Fallujah, dropped white phospherous on them, bombed their homes into rubble, let their dead rot in the streets to be eaten by dogs, because a number of insurgents seemed to hang there; despite the fact that both our soldiers and their innocents will suffer and die for decades due to our immoral use of depleted uranium -- I mean, the list goes on and on.

I could turn to the American Holocaust in Central America in the eighties, our actions in Greece in the sixties, just about anywhere on the globe, and easily quadruple the cause for vengence against us. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder, and to countless innocents witnessing USG actions over the decades we appear to be the epitome of evil.

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead.
-- Arundhati Roy

It just needs to STOP. We should live the old Buddhist adage, "Cease to do evil; try to do good." If more of us insisted our State adhere to the first clause, there'd be little need for the second.

Kind of like WMD, then liberating Iraqis,

It was always about slavery. The very basis of the states rights dispute were over the question of slavery. the economic differences between north and south were based on the transition from pseudo-feudal economies in the slave states to industrial-capitalist economies in the north (no less exploitative, I might add): slavery, slavery, slavery.

Why did South Carolina and the deep southern states seceede for the reason that Lincoln got elected? Lincoln may not have sought to end slavery overnight, but containing it in the shortterm or ending it in the long run was his hope.

until after the Gettysburg Address,, well after the War of Aggression Started. Sure the Confeds fired on Ft Summer. But the whole dispute could have been resolved with Diplomatic ly,, The south wanted to succeed because they feared abolition,, but they could have been forced to comply with pressure from Europe. Millions Died for what? If they were allowed to succeed, so what , with pressure from the rest of the world Slavery would have stopped probably sooner.

Cotton as a cash-crop started dying out by this period with the arrival of synthetic fabrics. And that is assuming that American economic viablity could have been maintained to lead to the fabric discoveries of the period in synthetics without the south for capital and trade with cotton.

for a replacement for Oil to be a reason not to invade another Country. The English, and the rest of europe were working for Abolish-ion, besides there were many other parts of the world were practicing slavery, South America had cotton too. and they didn't have civil wars to end it.

Bang the War Drum..... Keep banging..

It seems like a rather radical opinion to me.

I'm a former history textbook author so have quite an interest.

I think the preponderance of view would be a gradual manumission around the time Brazil gave up its institution.

Unfortunately I don't remember where.

Even a cursory understanding of politics in antebellum America would tell you that slavery was the KEY issue very early on, and any states rights arguments were simply wedges in the slavery disputes That all this is tied to economics and cultural understandings of race should be fairly obvious. I love how defenders of the slave states have to walk this absurdist tightrope between playing the aggrieved victim and actually decrying slavery. What a farce.

I'm simply offering another solution beside War.. but if your into war I guess you'll end up forcing me to comply with your views.

Supporting a needless unilateral invasion of Iraq does.

Because I must always then assent to coercion, right? I am not "into war." That of course doesn't mean that I assent to whatever slapdash account of history you might happen to paste together. How you draw the one from the other is a giant mystery.

As time goes on, I'm more and more of a mind that secession should be permitted if a 2/3rds supermajority of the people in the seceding state or territory vote for it. After that, they're on their own, imho.

It is extremely unlikely that Germany would have won that war even without American help. More likely that Germany would have succumb to worker revolts and gone communist sooner, along with all of Europe excluding, perhaps, France.

after Germany successfully defeated Russia and shifted it troops to the Western front?

Wasn't Paris only like 70 miles from the front?

The reason why American presence helped win the war was because we were a fresh fighting force that had not endured three years of being battered and taking casualties. Our military was intact as a result, and we were able to fight the demoralized Germans and gave the "knockout punch" to the Germans.

In fact, the American military performed quite poorly in World War I. The demoralization came more from the now endless flood of materials than it did from any difficulty fighting the American troops With the exception of the Marines, who were instrumental in stopping the 1918 Spring Offensive, though breakdowns in German troop discipline was probably the deciding factor, American soldiers were widely viewed as cowards by the French and British on the front.

But without American participation in Muese-Argonne or St. Mihiel, then then Germans would have done better.

responsible for the Armistice deal that was hashed out. Whether it could have been turned back is another story. These are historical undecidables, in any case.

Considering that aside from the weapons the troops were issued most of the really good stuff like tanks and aircraft were borrowed from France and Britain. Our armed forces only really helped in filling the gaps in the trenches and not much beyond that.

That said, it COULD be theorized that the Meuse-Argonne offensive helped win WWII as that was when Patton got his experience actually leading armoured assaults which laid the foundation for the overhaul of doctrine prior to WWII from the Civil War approach of using massed bodies of troops to the more precise methods used in that war up to now.

The war had been stalemated for three years.

Then Russia surrendered freeing a couple million battle-hardened German troops for the western front.

On the way they hit Italy and almost knocked it out of the war.

Without the US involvement I believe Germany wins the war or at least gets a 1918 negotiated peace to their benefit.

Everyone says we won the Korean war.. What the hell did WE win? It's still a divided country.

Imagine if the entire peninsula was ruled by the worst regime on earth, Kim Jong Il's nutsocracy.

Korea? So how much has this so called prosperity for South Koreans cost tax payers of the USA through the years? If we had won the Korean war the entire country would be whole, not North Korea and South Korea!

Especially with the Chinese willing to sacrifice unlimited numbers of men to keep North Korea communist.

South Korea has cost us a lot less than Iraq does now, with a much higher payoff.

Capitalism.. The world sacrificed 2,448,095 soldiers for one half of Korea could have Capitalism...and you say this war had a much higher payoff...

World War II (fight back against Japan for attacking us first, and to stop Nazi aggression and genocide.)

Technically we didn't enter the war because of Nazism - we didn't even know the broad scope of the genocide and death camps until later on in the war when we entered Germany.

I'd agree that it was a "just" war (well, as just as warfare can be).

I'd argue against Afghanistan, however. Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11.. it was a similar situation to Iraq. Sure, the Taliban might have, at once, supported terrorism to an extent, but that doesn't mean we have to declare war on the entire country. It should of been, like Senator Kerry said (and was demonstrated in London), more of a police action where you go and and root out the "bad guys".

That's just my two cents, though.

Our declaration of war was against Japan, but because of their Tripartite Pact, the other two Axis Powers had to support Japan. Also, attacking Germany was needed in order to save the British.

Also, with regard to Afghanistan. It is possible that we could have not gone into Afghanistan and delt with Al Qaida as primarily a police action, but the Afghans were harboring Bin Laden deliberately and working with him logistically. This was also our only chance to kill off Al Qaida as a viable terrorist group, and Bush blew his opportunity as Tora Bora. However, Bush was not truely serious about Afghanistan, as witnesses by our lack of troops there and his cutting of funding in favor going into Iraq.

build a oil pipeline.
When that was done, the Iraq invasion was started.
The idiots in charge really thought it would be easy. Walk in, disband the military so there be no one to fight and pump the oil out. Only when they chopped the head off the Iraqi government, they did not replace it with anything. When any locals tried to fill the power vacuum, they were dealt with. Really stupid.

This administration did not want a police action to go after the perpetrators. It would have been counter productive to their purposes.

of invasion is justified in my mind. Clinton, Gore, Dean, Clark, and Kos have also supported it.

Don't recall reading about it.

And catch up on the bu$h/cheney war.

First of all, there is no pipeline that is anything like what you're suggesting. There *are* pipelines in Afghanistan, but not a field-to-port pipeline that would be suitable for moving oil (or gas) from places like Turkmenistan to the sea. Second of all, it would likely be a gas and not an oil pipeline, should the political situation in Afghanistan ever allow for the construction of such infrastructure. Third, nearly every Western observer of the fossil fuel industry believes that a route through the Caucasus would be preferable to a route through Afghanistan. This was true before the war, and is even more true now. There have been exceptions to this, of course, including some lunatic analysts at Unocal and the (nearly useless) government of Turkmenistan, amongst others. However, there is no economic justification for an Afghan route-to-port.

Out of curiosity, I did google what you suggested, and found that most of the arguments supporting your position come from sites that would get your post deleted were they linked directly, which leads me to suspect that you are suggesting googling, rather than linking directly, as a way around having your post deleted.

with the following exceptions:

World War I: Justified. Germany was the aggressor.

Mexican War: Unjustified. America was the aggressor. Plus, Texas claimed a 50-mile band of Mexican territory and the US supported it.

War of 1812: Unjustified. The War of 1812 was largely an expansionist land-based war against a British-Indian alliance. America grabbed all the territory from the original colonies up to the Mississippi River. The British impressing American sailors was an excuse.

And I've begun to wonder about the Civil War. Slavery was a worthy issue, especially since the Dred Scott decision effectively legalized slaveholding in the North. But the future of race relations might have proceeded faster if the North had allowed the South to secede and find its own solution. After the Civil War, the abolition movement died and racism worsened throughout the whole country for almost a century. Plus the desire to secede should always be given a lot of weight.

World War I: Agreed

Mexican War: This is why I put it in the "gray area." I do not believe that this war is the same as our ill-planned invasions of Latin America in the early 20th Century as both countries were still roughly at par and many Mexicans in the southwest supported it, but Manifest Destiny was also a contributing factor (Polk had been trying to buy the southwest a few years before the war happened.) The border dispute with Texas also dated back to the Lousiana Purchase and the boundaries of Texas were also vague.

War of 1812: America did not "grab" that territory up to the Mississippi. We were rewarded it in the Treat of Paris. Also, the British kept some of their troops there years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Impressing our ships was also Britain's excuse because we had not been able to pay off our debts.

Secession should never be supported. While I hate what our country has done in some cases, I would fight to the death personally to crush ANY secessionist movement had I been alive then. If the south tried to seceede again today I would enlist to stop them. I would also enlist to keep the southwest and Hawaii, even if the reasons why we obtained them were questionable. I want America to remain a large continent-sized superpower. "E plurbus unum" holds true for us as a nation and to divide would be the end of a generally great country (for better or worse America has been on beter behavior historically-speaking than many others). Also, I did point out that in another post that slavery would have ended sometime in the 20th Century had the Confederacy been allowed to go its own way. Also, I doub that race relations would have improved much. Britain and Frenace opposed slavery but they still did it in Africa in the 1880's (forced labor is still the same thing, in my opinion) and the governments were not gungho about making it their top priority.

If American had merely sided with the Texans to secede from Mexico, it could be supported. Instead, Polk had a premeditated plan to annex California, and since Mexico wouldn't sell it he sent troops into internationally recognized Mexican territory (well beyond the Nueces River), waited for the inevitable attack, and invaded and took over a third of the country. That's well beyond anything I consider a gray area. But most of my information is from Zinn's and Loewen's accounts, and thus has a distinct bias.

As fas as the South seceding, I think the country was founded on the right of independence. Self-determination is an important political value. It's not absolute, but it always needs to be taken seriously, independently of the parent company's judgment of the merits (in fact that's kind of the point). The Iraqis, for example, are due independence and self-government regardless of whether we approve of the kind of government they would choose.

That's the argument from political values. Pragmatically, the North had no better luck occupying the South than the US is having occupying Iraq. After slavery was made illegal, the troops stayed for a few years and then left Southern blacks to the mercy of the KKK. The abolitionist movement died, and virtually the entire country became viciously racist with very little hope of change. It took generations for things to even begin to address the issues. This is what imposing order by military force does -- it always ends up exacerbating the problem. I have enough confidence in Southerners to believe that they would have have come around better on their own, and that anti-slavery and anti-racism would have been kept alive in the North.

Actually, slavery is such a serious issue, and has poisoned American law and foreign policy so deeply, that I really wonder whether the US should have become two countries from the beginning.

Mexican War: This is why I don't consider it just. Mexico itself did not pose a military threat. However, I do not put it fully in the "unjust" category party because I don't view Mexico as a "weak" country in the mold of Nicaragua or Haiti during the Teddy Roosevelet and Wilson years. Polk was an idiotic dumbass and a war-mongerer in general and almost had us go to war with Britain over a border dispute regarding Oregon.He didn't look for weak and helpless countries in trying to take their land, but he was willing to pick fights with countries that had comparable military, which is stupidity as far as I'm concerned (also, the anti-war arguement for the Mexican War was that getting new land would spread slavery, not that it was an act of aggression). Mexico's army was also a lot stronger than many people believe. We barely had anything resembling a calvary while they had a firmly established one. Also, many Mexicans in California supported leaving Mexico and supported Fremont when he came. Britain and Russia also had designs on California at the time too. France even tried to invade ALL of Mexico during our Civil War.

I agree that Reconstruction was also a blunder, but I don't see the south instantly "coming to their senses." The Confederacy probably would have become a police state against even whites who would be anti-slavery. For example, southern politicians managed to get a gag law inserted in the mail during the 1830's to restrict anti-slavery content. Anti-slavery ministers and abolitionists were also threatened. Part of me may be pro-self-determination, but another part of me is staunchly anti-secession of ANY kind. As I stated bfore, if there were to be any secession drives in places like the south or even blue states like California, I would volunteer to militarily destroy their movement (what do you think got General Sherman through the Civil War? He wasn't staunchly anti-slavery but he hated secession.) I hate the very idea of America being shrunk territorily and economically (losing the southern states would have been great loss in agriculture for us too.)

in WWI.

I don't see any good guys or bad guys in that war.

WWI was a big bloody mess that set the stage for an even bigger, bloodier mess. But at least the bigger mess was justified in comparison. WWI just seems to be something like what happens when you set off a mousetrap, the two systems of European alliances did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do.

the end of Reconstruction did. When the Republicans sold out and let that program die, they opened the door for 70-odd years of aparthied.

It was like any occupation. Occupiers eventually get tired and go home, leaving resentment. The occupiers want to forget the whole business. Both those things fed racism and Jim Crow in this case.

If the Republicans hadn't made a deal in 1876-7, it might have lasted another 5-10 years max. JMO.

Which was just some stupid terrorist group that wasn't even a major part of the war.

The problem was that none of the major powers really knew what modern warfare was like. Most Europeans still had romantic images of war as being knights on horseback and dueling with swords.

essay questions was "Which of the Great Powers was most responsible for WWI?"

It was a good question because a case could be made for any of 3-4 countries.

I intentionally sat there for an entire class period trying to form a logical argument to blame it on someone besides Germany. The rest of the class was like, "Are you kidding me? Of course it was Germany."

The problem is that people too easily mix up World War I and World War II. Germany was clearly the aggressor in World War II. Of course, France came damn near close to falling under the control of a right wing authoritarian government as well and I have a feeling that such a Government would have been more on the side of Germany than on the side of England.

And then don't forget the fact that our side was allied with China and Russia and Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin are no less guilty of genocide than Hitler, but we didn't exactly stop them from doing it. In a way it's like how we bomb Iraq to "Spread Freedom" but leave Saudi Arabia alone because we need their oil.

World War II was mostly us putting down the greatest immediate threat, which was Hitler. Any long term goals or ideals were secondary.

Austria-Hungray, Russia and Germany.

France was a tougher call.

You had to be pretty creative to blame it on Italy or England.

the pre-WWI period.

If Austria or Germany were responsible, then the US sided against the aggressor.

I never heard of Russia being held responsible for the war. What they do to be considered the instigatior?

The war started because the archduke of Austria was assassinated by a Serbian terorist member of the Black Hand organization named Gabrilo Prinzip. (from memory so spelling?). This was part of a continued effort by Serbian terrorists to do damage in Austria,

The Austrians made demands of the Serbian government to investigate terrorist connections at the highest levels of the Serbian government. Austria prepared to invade if their demands weren't met.

So who's fault was it?

Austria's for going too far threatening to invade Serbia over an assasination.

Russia's for getting involved and saying that if Serbia was invaded, Russia waould declare war on Austria turning a minor brushfire into a major war between Great Powers.

Germany's for giving a blank check to Austria. When Russia threatened Austria, Austria went to its ally Germany and asked what it should do. Germany issued a blank chack telling Austria it must solve the Serbian terrorist problem or it would fall apart as a multi-national empire. If Russia made trouble, Germany pledged to back Austria up.

France for basically the same reason as Germany, telling her ally Russia that if Germany made trouble with Russia, then France would back Russia up.

One cause of war is entangling alliances.

America grabbed all the territory from the original colonies up to the Mississippi River. The British impressing American sailors was an excuse.

All that territory was already part of the US as per the Peace of Paris of 1783. If the war had not happened that wouldn't have changed. By then the US also already had the Louisiana Purchase, the Voyage of Discovery, all of that.

It was just as wrong as any other Indian War or any other war for land.

The sad thing is so many men on both sides had to die, or end up as amputees.

The average Southerner fought because the South was invaded (the media could've called them "insurgents.")

My guess is the average Northern soldier--those who weren't immigrants just off the boat from Ireland or another country, and immediately inducted--if he thought about it at all, thought he was fighting to "Save the Union!" and didn't give a hoot in Hades about freeing the slaves.

Almost every war is caused by a previous war.

That said there are two wars in which I would have participated, albeit with a breaking heart, the Civil War and World War II. Both wars may have been necessary, but neither was "justified," and both were the results of previous wars. The first one, the Civil War, actually settled something and actually did what one of its generals (Sherman) promised it would, when he wrote, "We can make war so terrible that generations will pass before (they) appeal to it again."

Leaving aside the genocidal Indian wars, for a moment, this was nearly true in the United States.

In no case was launching the wars justified. In every case the motives were self-interest, usually of an economic nature. The one possible exception is the Civil War.

In two cases was supporting the war justified:

1. The Civil War. Ended a vile, oppressive, and exploitative system, and practically if not officially was fought for that purpose.

2. World War II. Ended a vast humanitarian catastrophe, deposed genocidal and irrational mass murderers who had no respect for the international order, the primary guarantor of continued human survival.

...that the Korean War prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in South Korea, given what's currently happening in North Korea.

Revolution -- No way. England was a democracy and with our population growth, this problem would have worked itself out without war in another decade or so, either with the colonies gaining representation in parliament or I think more likely increasing autonomy as England wouldn't want to be overwhelmed by colonial voters.

War of 1812 -- no way.

Mexican War -- no way

Civil War -- no way.

Spanish-American War -- not even close

World War I -- none of our business and no good guys and bad guys

World War II -- yes

Korea -- yes

Vietnam -- no

Gulf I -- yes

Gulf II -- no

Are not acts of a democracy. Imposing unfair direct taxes is not the act of a just government. Look at what became the U.S. Consitution versus Britain hodgepodge of laws that existed during the 1700's. While America is not the most liberal country today, it was during the 1790's. Also, another reason I've heard from people about the Revolutionary War being unjust is that Britain offered to help slaves. This was bullshit though. Many of those slaves faced discrimination in Canada and Britain itself, and some were even sold BACK into slavery overseas. In the case of the tories being tarred and feather and having their land taken away, well, you either sear loyalty to the Republic or to the crown. I know that in today's context my comment sounds like something Bush would say, but in the context of the 1770's it is a different story.

Are not acts of a democracy. Imposing unfair direct taxes is not the act of a just government. Look at what became the U.S. Consitution versus Britain hodgepodge of laws that existed during the 1700's. While America is not the most liberal country today, it was during the 1790's. Also, another reason I've heard from people about the Revolutionary War being unjust is that Britain offered to help slaves. This was bullshit though. Many of those slaves faced discrimination in Canada and Britain itself, and some were even sold BACK into slavery overseas. In the case of the Tories being tarred and feather and having their land taken away, well, you either swear loyalty to the Republic or to the crown. I know that in today's context my comment sounds like something Bush would say, but in the context of the 1770's it is a different story.

But in my opinion not enough to justify a war.

I read a wonderful book a few years ago detailing the revolution from the British point of view. It was very enlightening. I'll post a link if I can remember the name.

I've read viewpoints before that included the idea the Revolution was a conservative landowner's movement (which was true to an extent, but the gentry weren't the only ones who hated he British, and the Revolution ultimately produced a liberal outcome.)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I simpley dont know enough about how we got involved with korea to make a valid information. Thanks for the synapsis.

Although the Civil War could've been avoided by letting the south go. Then the northern States could've offered a Cuba style policy for the slaves escaping.

The rest were unnecessary. Especially the notso "cold war".

They sought world domination and didn't exactly show that they were trustworthy in diplomacy.

If the Brits and French had stood up to him when he occupied the Ruhr. The Germans were prepared to scamper out of there at the first sign of resistance. Hell, they wouldn't even have to had shoot at them. Just say that they were going to.

...have done something is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20, and it's impossible to argue that removing Hitler from power in Germany was not completely justified, regardless of what may have come before.

The Second World War. None of the others can really be justified as necessary.

The Revolution wasn't so much about freedom and independence as it was about a small group consisting mostly of wealthy landowners deciding things would be better if they were running the show, and America would be better off today had it never happened...without the Revolution, we'd have gained our eventual independence anyway, along with a parliamentary form of government (which seems to work better than what we have), and the Civil War would never have happened (Britain totally outlawed slavery in 1833, and had we still been a colony at the time, a major casus belli of the Civil War would have been eliminated).

The Civil War may have preserved the Union, but at a terrible price; half a million Americans, North and South, killed in battle, for aims which would most likely have come to pass with time (the Confederacy would have outlawed slavery eventually anyway, and there's a good chance that North and South would have reunited once that happened).

The Korean War was as unnecessary as the Vietnamese War, and the fact that it happened in the first place was our own damned fault for partitioning the country and using South Korea as a proxy in our shadow war against the Soviets (of course, they were doing the same thing with North Korea).

And the Cold War in general was a protracted bout of idiocy on both sides, with dozens of little wars-by-proxy, insane levels of military spending, and utterly psychotic nuclear brinkmanship.

More to say about the others you list as "justified", but I think you get the idea.

The Revolution wasn't so much about freedom and independence as it was about a small group consisting mostly of wealthy landowners deciding things would be better if they were running the show, and America would be better off today had it never happened.

First of all, whether or not the war of Independence was initiated by the wealthy is entirely irrelevant. The underlying ideological foundation upon which the war was fought persists in this country (and others) to this day and is without equal anywhere in the world. The foundations of our Government, regardless of who the individual founders happend to be, are sound. As for being better off today, I highly doubt it. The foundations of American wealth and power in the world today are one and the same as the foundations of our political structure, which is vastly different than what it would be had Britain retained the US as colonies.

without the Revolution, we'd have gained our eventual independence anyway, along with a parliamentary form of government

How can you say that? The eventual breakup of the British Empire came in part because of the events of the first half of the 20th century in Europe, but were certainly due in part to the success of the United States after it freed itself from Britain, and thus becoming a model for future independence from the Empire.

As for the parliamentary system of government working better, I don't think that's a sure thing. In my mind the US model and the UK parliamentary model are roughly equivalent in terms of efficiency and practicality. I'm not entirely sure that Parliamentary government scales up well enough for the US anyway.

and the Civil War would never have happened (Britain totally outlawed slavery in 1833, and had we still been a colony at the time, a major casus belli of the Civil War would have been eliminated).

That's only true if you assume the South wouldn't have rebelled against England anyway in order to retain slavery, which it might well have done.



The Civil War may have preserved the Union, but at a terrible price; half a million Americans, North and South, killed in battle, for aims which would most likely have come to pass with time (the Confederacy would have outlawed slavery eventually anyway, and there's a good chance that North and South would have reunited once that happened).


Now that is certainly a clever position to take. An injustifiable, horrifically amoral crime against humanity "would most likely have" ended... eventually. Not sure when, but it probably would have. What a wonderful attitude towards suffering you have.


The Korean War was as unnecessary as the Vietnamese War, and the fact that it happened in the first place was our own damned fault for partitioning the country and using South Korea as a proxy in our shadow war against the Soviets (of course, they were doing the same thing with North Korea).

Neither war was necessary for the security of the United States, however I don't exactly see a lot of South Koreans itching to live in North Korea these days.


And the Cold War in general was a protracted bout of idiocy on both sides, with dozens of little wars-by-proxy, insane levels of military spending, and utterly psychotic nuclear brinkmanship.

Which was entirely unpreventable due to the invention of nuclear weapons. Not arguing that it was fought correctly, but not fighting it at all would have most likely meant Russian domination of all of Europe, if not the US directly.

First of all, whether or not the war of Independence was initiated by the wealthy is entirely irrelevant. The underlying ideological foundation upon which the war was fought persists in this country (and others) to this day and is without equal anywhere in the world. The foundations of our Government, regardless of who the individual founders happend to be, are sound. As for being better off today, I highly doubt it. The foundations of American wealth and power in the world today are one and the same as the foundations of our political structure, which is vastly different than what it would be had Britain retained the US as colonies.

The "underlying ideological foundation"? The colonists were fighting for "the rights of Englishmen", as they saw it. Influenced, to be sure, by Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, but no more than by Magna Charta and six centuries of common law. And the foundations of American wealth and power have a bit more to do with certain natural circumstances...the most temperate and resource-rich section of a great continent, separated by two oceans from other great nations. Certainly the principles are sound...but without those natural circumstances, and the nineteenth-century drive of "Manifest Destiny" (which is rather contradictory to those same founding principles) the US would never have been as wealthy or powerful a nation.

And the eventual breakup of the British Empire came about not only because of events in Europe, but also because the Empire turned its focus to Asia and Africa, and its strategic aims to the "great game" against Russia (which events are at least as responsible for granting of self-government to Canada, Australia, etc).


An injustifiable, horrifically amoral crime against humanity "would most likely have" ended... eventually. Not sure when, but it probably would have. What a wonderful attitude towards suffering you have.

"Eventually" being once the Confederacy started to industrialise (which, without the Civil War, would have probably been within a decade or so of the 1860's); not to mention that it would've been a necessary move had the Confederacy seriously sought diplomatic recognition from Britain and France. And as far as my attitude towards suffering...slavery was a great and terrible wrong, but nearly a century of Jim Crow and lynching doesn't seem like much of a step up the scale, either.