Was there ever a just war or military action by America?

Was there ever a just war or military action by America? I would say yes, but I always read...UNJUST war this and UNJUST war that. I mean


Bosnia...3 way fight- that no way was going to kill any Americans unless we went over there to try to break it up

First Gulf War...One country invaded another...was that America's business, i mean what mid-level country hasn't invaded another one before..all the cool countries do it.

Panama...Some guy was just chillen' in his country, maybe he roughed up one or two people and sold some drugs, but did we have to go blasting rock and roll music like a fraternity party at 3am

Iran hostage crisis..sure it didn't work, but should Carter have said, "You know you were in a sovereign country and if they want to hold you hostage well as long as they are following International Laws and the Red Cross says it's ok, yada yada yada

Korea...same question as the first gulf war

Vietnam...Gulf of Tonkin but we were "this" high in who knows what

WW II...America attacks a Japanese sub in international waters. True that sub was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor but does a Nation A have the right to attack Nation B? Even if Nation B is on it's way to attacking Nation A in an hour or so, or in a year or two years?? Sure Germany declared war on America, but i am sure a diplomatic solution could have reach, did it had to come down to blood shed. I mean the French government and Kennedy was close to the Nazi, so how bad could they have really been.

WW I...Arch Duke someone was killed...this effected American how

Spanish American War...One of American ships blew itself up we had to blame someone and Sadam wasn't born yet, we blames the Spanish. Besides Spain treated it's colonies well. It wasn't like they were fighting for their independence or anything

Civil War...Bunch of people joined a group and then they wanted to leave that same group...peacefully

Mexican American War...Group of people didn't want to belong to one group so the left to join another...peacefully. The group that got dumped invaded the dumpers. America sided with the group that left peacefully and went to war against the side that tried to the dumpers back. America switched up on this idea latter

War of 1812...this one might be America's most legit war. I mean England was drafting Americans out of international waters to fight the French, England was interfering with people making a living-the traders trading with France(some of the stuff we were trading might have helped the French kill some English, but what France does with the stuff is none of anyone's business), last America was mad that England was sticking up for Native Americans when they had the audacity to live on land that America wanted

American Revolution...Taxes got raised


The above list was responcable for killing MILLIONS of Americans and spent billions upon billions of dollars. For what??

DCP in my opinion and I really suggest you need to ignore others more and develop your own opinions, but I say WW2 was just, Bosnia and Kosovo were just.

Each war has to be measured on it's own merits and motives.

Several wars have been entered on mistaken or misleading assumptions.

The first Gulf War when Kuwait was invaded was just.

The second was falsely justified.

US involvement in Vietnam began with good intentions but on misguided assumption that it was part of a global communist conspiracy, when in fact the war in Vietnam was more about a patriotic war of liberation from colonial French rule.

I would say the situation in Iraq is too confused and manipulated from all sides to for anyone there to claim moral ascendency.

5 stars for the above poster. My thoughts exactly.

WWII was fair imho. If someones running at you with a knife, do you have to wait for them to stab you before you defend yourself?

IMHO :

you missed two of the military operations which i believe were actually unjust :

1 - CHINA - the boxer rebbellion / seige of peking

2 - NICURAGUA [ 1930s , not sandanistas / contras ]

there are others , but IMHO those two stand head and shoulders above all others , for the singular reason WHY ?

sure , there were reasons , but none worthy of a causus belli

now to address the merits and demerits of your origional argument

in most of the cases you cite , the consequence of inaction were potentially far worse than the wages of war

vietnam , korea , GW1 : can all be sumerised by the " domino effect "

WWI : the US did not go to war over the assasination of arch duke Franz Ferdinand - in fact NO ONE did - shocking but true

the US entry into WWI was a nesecary evil - the the european powers were in a bloody stale mate .

and the war was escalating to the point that it was inpacting US trade / security [ the total u-bpoat war ]

again - sitting back - would have cost far more american lives and far greater losses in trade than intervention

lastly , for a " just military action " try the campaign against the barbary pritates - one of the first independant military endevours of the USA
what fault do you find with that action - and the justifications for it ?

PS - can you please cite the engagement which upholds your claim :

America attacks a Japanese sub in international waters.

neither DD-139 Ward , nor its ` victim ` were in international waters @ time of engagment - and further more the action occured in the restricted zone

so which engagement are you reffering to ???????????

DCP, I really, really hope that your attitude toward involvement in 'other peoples' buisiness' is different on a personal level than it is on a national one. Let me take the attitude that you seem to have toward America's wars and apply it on a personal scale, if you don't mind? "Oh heavens, there's a woman being raped in the alley by my house! But she's not MY wife or my daughter, so it's not my business!" "Oh look! Those men are breaking into the house next door! But it's not MY house, so it's not my business!" "My neighbor's house is on fire! But it's not MY house, so somebody else can grab a hose, and/or call 9-1-1."

Isn't peaceful non-intervention a great way to a wonderful society?

This is not to say that every war is justified, mind you. I happen to agree with you regarding the Spanish-American War being a created incident, and not really in America's best interest. You might also argue that the American Revolution wasn't 'justified', after all, the American colonies didn't have it that bad, I suppose.

A lot of wars aren't entered into because of direct threats to a country's stability or security. They are entered into because of treaty obligations, or because some things are morally right, regardless of whether they are directly threatening....and sometimes, there are differences of opinion and policy that simply are mutually exclusive...which means that the policies in question must change. If the diplomats can't change them with the pen, sooner or later, the generals will change them with the sword. Not because it's "fun", or because they enjoy it, but because that's what must be done.

Examples of each?

World War II - The USS Ward wasn't in 'international waters' when she opened fire on that submarine contact...they were well within the restricted zone just off the entrance to Pearl Harbor's shipping channel...the sub being there at all, never mind being there submerged, was enough reason for the Ward to sink it. Also. by concentrating on 'who shot first' in this one incident, you're doing a fine job of ignoring the fact that the Kido Butai already had its first wave of planes airborne...unless you wouldn't call an attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet a justification to strike back, the war was, for all intents and purposes underway already. You're also ignoring the entire European theatre. No doubt we had no business going into Gernany and putting a stop to that little slice of hell on earth? You'll have a hard time convincing me that WW II was not only 'justified', but would have STILL been justified even at ten times the cost. It's the classic example of the war that MUST be fought.

Bosnia - I suppose it *might* be possible to stand aside, and watch genocide unleashed...but I hope that it never *is* possible. Again, some things must be done, even if the doing is unpleasant and expensive. The great irony of the Bosnian campaign is that we went there to save the Muslim population from its Christian oppressors...but we're the "Great Satan".

Likewise, Gulf War I / Desert Storm - A country with which we had economic and diplomatic ties was invaded without cause by another country. Whether we wanted to go to war or not, we had no choice...a nation that fails to honor its diplomatic obligations will soon find itself a pariah...not a viable position for a nation that imports the majority of its oil, and trades the majority of its goods to overseas customers.

The American Civil War - The classic example of a war that nobody wanted, but both sides had to fight (see above about mutually exclusive policies). The Southern states didn't exactly leave peacefully...I seem to recall a bit of a dust-up at Fort Sumter? You might take a look at who was shooting at who first. Regardless of the fact that the Southerners fired first, at some point, the dual issues of slavery vs abolition and states' rights vs Federal power were going to be settled. The diplomats couldn't solve them, so the generals had to. Not pretty, not nice...but justified by the simple necessity of some form of settlement.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis - As you point out, it didn't work. A quick look at the casualty list would tell you why. Here's a hint: Compare the number of officers to the number of enlisted men. As for the action, successful or not, being 'justified'...under international law that dates back to before my time (and that's OLD, folks!)...the territory of an Embassy is considered territory of the owning nation. In other words, the minute those Iranians entered the grounds of the Embassy, they had invaded American territory, and thereby justified *any* response, up to and including a nuclear strike. Morally, we had no choice but to try a rescue....you don't leave your own people in enemy hands. Period.

There are plenty of other justified military actions...Ignorant Ape has a fine list in his post. Most wars are about obligation and responsibility. That doesn't make them any less 'in our national interest' than wars waged to defend our physical borders...the 'wars of obligation' are the ones fought to defend the more important borders of our character....the "what" of America, rather than the "where".

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]

[edit on 24-5-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


1 - CHINA - the boxer rebbellion / seige of peking

Boxer rebellion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they want the weak Manchu Dynasty (or is that Japan) to stop being pussy whipped to the white man's burden? So wouldn't that be just because those Europeans were pretty bad people?

ignorant_ape:

1 - CHINA - the boxer rebbellion / seige of peking

How far can one be off?
Read? Try this: edu.Boxer Rebellion

Originally posted by Seekerof
ignorant_ape:

1 - CHINA - the boxer rebbellion / seige of peking

How far can one be off?
Read? Try this: edu.Boxer Rebellion

yes i do read .

please tell me how you believe that the suppresion of the boxers and the subdigation BY FORCE of the imerial chinese authorities in support of draconian european colonial ambition was a " just war "

i opined that the american intervetion in support of european coloniaslism was unjust

and i stick by that view .

what the hell have you read that makes you think that it was just ?

to turn your rude question back on you - do you read ? ?


PS :

read this

were the actions of the european colonial powers just ?

did america take any meaningfull steps to redess these ?

who`s side was america on during the seige of peking ??

final quote :

China suffered a devastating blow to her prestige and power, which allowed foreign nations to consolidate their interests and previous territorial gains.

just ?? i think not

Hey Watch_the _Rocks, somebody short changed me. I am missing one star.

Thanks for that but I didn't intend to exclude WW2 or any other particular war.

My dad was involved in WW2. He escaped just before the fall of singapore as a merchant seaman, then was torpedoed in the Atlantic by U-653. He served in the Mediterranean on an aircraft carrier and was then at Arromanches on D-day. After this he was also at the Westkappelle landings supporting the Arnheim campaign.

I was talking to a young woman about this recently and she said, "Oh that's terrible. Didn't he feel guilty about it?"

A whole generation has grown up which can't tell the difference between a war which is justified and one which is not.

I don't think these youngsters have any concept that somebody had to stop Hitler murdering Jews and enslaving nations like France Poland and Russia. We have a generation now who believe it could have all been averted by diplomacy.

I suppose World War II could have been avoided by diplomacy...there was a LOT more of Europe to sign away in return for "Peace in our Time". What a lot of folks don't seem to realize, for whatever reason, is that diplomacy by itself means absolutely nothing. Diplomacy, by its very definition, implies compromise...the idea that all involved parties are willing to accept solutions that they, individually, find less than optimal, for the sake of a generally acceptable (if imperfect) solution. Now, if one of the involved parties can simply *force* its version of an optimal solution on everyone else, that party has no incentive to participate in 'diplomacy'...why accept a less than ideal outcome, when I can force an ideal one?

Harsh truth: Force without diplomacy is madness. Diplomacy without force is pointless. The words of the diplomats have to be backed with the might of the soldiers.

Harsh truth II: When words and treaties fail to settle an issue, it becomes the soldiers' job to settle it.

Diplomacy never worked, appeasement failed

Diplomacy, by its very definition, implies compromise...the idea that all involved parties are willing to accept solutions that they, individually, find less than optimal, for the sake of a generally acceptable (if imperfect) solution.

I don't think the slaughter of millions of people in concentration camps or the conquest and enslavement of foreign lands is ever anything we should be willing to compromise and that is when war is justifiable.

I'm in perfect agreement, sy. There is no doubt in my mind that that war was very justified, as I said in my initial post to this thread. I was simply pointing out (or at least expressing my opinion that) preparedness for war is an essential part of diplomacy. I hear an increasing number of people who seem to think that chanting "Give peace a chance" is all that's needed to bring peace. My point (perhaps badly expressed) is that there's no point in offering the carrot unless you have the stick...and when the carrot doesn't work, you use the stick, and you use it hard and enthusiastically enough to pound home the message that "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE". Then you pound it again.

A few points DCP, although I think your post is a tad simplistic…

Originally posted by DCP
WW II. [etc] …I mean the French government and Kennedy was close to the Nazi, so how bad could they have really been.

The French Gov was not “close to the Nazis”! Democratic France was defeated by Nazi Germany and the puppet Vichy regime was established. Your comment demeans the large numbers of French killed fighting fascism, before and after they were invaded.

Originally posted by DCP
WW I...Arch Duke someone was killed...this effected American how

How simplistic can you get! The assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand was just the start of a series of events which resulted in the invasion of Belgium and so on.

Originally posted by DCP
The above list was responcable for killing MILLIONS of Americans and spent billions upon billions of dollars. For what??

By my reckoning (mentally calculating), about 1.2 – 1.4 million US soldiers have died in the various wars you state, of which c. 600K were civil war deaths. I may be off in my calculations, but this is not millions!

Furthermore

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
WWI : the US did not go to war over the assasination of arch duke Franz Ferdinand - in fact NO ONE did - shocking but true …the US entry into WWI was a nesecary evil - the the european powers were in a bloody stale mate . ... and the war was escalating to the point that it was inpacting US trade / security [ the total u-bpoat war ]

The European powers were not in a “bloody stalemate”. When the US joined in April 1917 the Central Powers were in a state of collapse, worn out and broken. The US merely reiterated the fruitless struggle the Kaiser was continuing. This is not to diminish the contribution of the US or the sacrifices made, but the Central Powers were a spent force marking time. The US threw in their lot because of Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and a few other reasons.

Regards

Throwing in a new topic for debate along these lines...

What's everyone think of the Falkland's conflict?

I really have limited knowledge of it and im waaay to young to recall anything.

Originally posted by wolf359

What's everyone think of the Falkland's conflict?

am still trying to forget it

but serious reply :

a wholley justified campaign , marred at points by political descisions

there were so many things - which could have been handkled far better - and IMHO it was political , not incompetance in to most cases .

PS - just for the record if believe that the sinking of the Gen. Belgrano was totally justified - it was a great weight of many minds in the task force

plus it forced the remaining argentine fleet - including carrier to fleee to poprt and never re emerge

suprised no one has put this yet but one of the main resons america got involved in ww1 was that germany was sending encrypted messages to mexico, urging them to invade the us. that and germanys use of unrestricted submarine warfare..the lusitania for instance..

in my opinion WWI was one of the few american wars of the 20th century that was just

peace..

Is there such a thing as a "just" war? It is a more complex question than most people realise. With this there are no absolutes as everything is subjective. I believe Ghandi wrote, or is alleged to have written, that the British should have laid down their arms and surrendered to the Nazis because violent action under ANY circumstance is wrong. While personally I don't agree with that, it raises a valid point.

As for can one power involve itself in the affairs of other nations. Well in my opinion it depends on the context. First gulf war, korean war, what's going on in the solomon islands are necessary IMO. 2nd gulf war, vietnam war etc, were huge mistakes. Another thing to consider here is would you be as comfortable if the USA was not the world power and it was China, Russia or even the USSR who were going around policing other nations. Not attacking America, just some food for thought.

So can a war be just? Just to who is what matters. Everyone will differ on their own opinion of how just a war is. But, assuming their is a god, i think that's the only real opinion that matters