Was WW2 The Last War That The United States Had Any Business Being In?

[NorthwestRider]

Every war since WW2 was for greedy reasons to hijacked other countries natural resources

Yes It Was

Not At All

[OddBeMe]

I’d say yes, since the majority of “wars” after weren’t voted for by Congress.

[The_Other]

Yes... 100 percent.

[nightdrot]

How was the Korean War "greedy"? A basically resource free peninsula, one half of which was attacked by the other half. How was the Persian Gulf War "greedy."? Both states having abundant oil supplies, one the victim of the aggression of the other.

The list goes on. The question suggesting an emotional and shallow grasp of history. It, in any case, being problematic as the relationship between states is far more complicated than simplistic motives of greed.

The First World War was a war of "realpolitik," the competing states seeking to insure their security in a world of shifting alliances. The Second World War and the Cold War were ideological conflicts placing a certain vision of the world against another. Neither was about something so simple as mere greed.

In any case, human beings are imperfect and imperfectible. It may be lamentable, but there it is and no amount of sanctimony will change it. This meaning that there will be an irreducible amount of conflict.

Indeed, the crime on the streets in American cities is more often about greed at the most basic level than was any war in American history. Yet there is no caterwauling about greed and other selfish motives when it comes to crime. Rather there is prattling on about socially deprivation, discrimination, racism, guns, and a host of other "fundamental causes" that are, as often as not, merely excuses or a confusion of symptom and causes.

Given human imperfection, the defining principles of international relations of which war is a facet are summarized thus:

From Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

From John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

... or as Cavour put it when asked what he would do for the revolutionary liberals who helped him to unify Italy: "Astonish them with my ingratitude."

To apply simple formulations and motives as "greed" to something as complex and multi-faceted as the human condition - and by extension international affairs - is simplistic and is apt to cause more problems than it solves. Indeed, it is a silly Utopianism.

Thus the question lends itself to mere speculation. Had the United States stood aside from the Korean War, would the West have assumed the USA would abandon them? If so, who might have won the Cold War and what consequences would have followed? Indeed, had the USA not learned the lessons of Vietnam, what follies would have followed? Indeed, where those lessons were NOT learned - see Afghanistan - what follies followed?

It is easy to castigate abstractly impure motives, harder to judge them in historical context. Harder still to calculate the cost when those complex causes are ignored in the name of abstract moral purity.

[NorthwestRider]

Let me guess, you are a warhawk who loves wasting lives and money on stupid useless wars?

[Avicenna]

You don’t have a monopoly on truth here. Nightdrot is a thoughtful thinker

[nightdrot]

Hmmm.

So you think in caricatures and without nuance, let alone any sense of historical context. Then you supply insults as a substitute.

My views are more complex than you suppose. See also my reply to this question as an example. It was rated Superb and therefore be easy to find: How much war is too much war? ↗

[nightdrot]

@Avicenna Thanks, sir, for your kind comment.

[Avicenna]

You’re welcome

[Stoner710]

No we can be justified for the Korean War by preventing the spread of communism

vietnams same thing even through we lost and look what happened, south Vietnamese people fleeing communism and takes small boats form Vietnam to Indonesia the Philippines Malaysia Australia. Many died at sea or were killed by the Vietnamese communist.

Persian gulf Kuwait asked us to help defend there country, technically that war wasn’t our business but we were helping out a friend.

current Afghanistan people who were hiding in there country attack the World Trade Center and killed up to 5000 people not to mention the people who died form inhaling the smoke,

the wars we’ve been in were perfectly justifiable

[NorthwestRider]

We are only in the Middle East to hijacked their oil and minerals

[Avicenna]

Sure, that’s why we‘ve paid so much money for it and developed fracking so we could be energy-independent

[Stoner710]

Considering under trump got us energy independent no. We went in there to destroy the people who attacked us. You could make the argument the Sadie‘s are after the oil and resources same with China but not the United States

[NorthwestRider]

Then why we did not attack Saudi Arabia if that was the reason? Almost all of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia

[Stoner710]

Except that didn’t happen. The 9/11 attack was from Northern Afghanistan and then they lead into northern Pakistan. Pakistan didn’t want them there in the first place which is why they told us to get them the fuck out. also they were Saudi says sounds on paper but they were working with the Taliban

[45Fstraight]

The Korean war is the first one that came to mind.

When the Bosnians and Serbs were at it, a lot of European's started whining, "Why doesn't America do something?" It was right there in their own backyard and they love to complain about the U. S. getting involved in other nations' conflicts.

[Avicenna]

No, theists other than Gulf War II and our involvement in Syria were justified. That doesn’t mean they were conducted as they should or could have been.

[Avicenna]

The wars

[NorthwestRider]

They were all failures and waste of money/bodies

[Avicenna]

Korean Ear- bloody, but a strategic success since it kept the Koresn Peninsuöa from being entirely Communist
Vietnam War- tactical failure and South Vietnam did. go Commukist, but Indonesia, the Philippines, Sibgapore, Malaysia and Thailand did. not because the Vietnam War bought time for them and all were embarking on strong economic growth by 1875 and were therefor e better placed to fend off Communist infiltration
First Gulf War- a necessity and a success achieved within limited goals
Kosovo War- Limited , and successful because it halted Serbian wars of vonquest for good
Afghanistan- a necessity since the Taliban wouldn’t hand over Bin Laden after huge terror attacks thatcresulted in almost 3000 deaths. Intimately a failure due to an attempt at nation building that was doomed to fail,.
Second Gulf War- a complete disaster since it allowed Iran to gain the upper hand in Iraq

[humanearth]

No businesses always had something to do with all wars. Look at the covid war. Who making billions on it. Drug companies

[KrakenAttackin]

Probably, although Korea had merit.

[ChrisMaster69]

Erm Korea?

[anylolone]

Korean war was one.