Has there been a war in the last 70 years that was worth fighting?

[OddBeMe]

FYI: 2023-70= 1953 after WW2. I’m just looking at the cost of lives, money, ptsd, radicalizing local communities whose families troops have killed…

Iraq

Yes

No

Not sure

[Anonymous]

The cold war. Most of the wars in the last 70 years were fought as part of the overall cold war.

Technically the US hasn't fought a war since WW2, they change the name of war to things like an emergency or crisis.

The US as an empire is currently in a state of perpetual war and foreign regime change against unaligned or vulnerable nations. You might say the war in Afghanistan achieved nothing but in reality it achieved exactly what it was supposed to. Establishing a stable democracy was never even a secondry objective nor was defeating the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even defeat the US they just sat back and waited in Pakistan for the US to leave and used the opportunity to train their soldiers.

Similar story in Iraq. Sadam was always America's boy, put in power by the US at least until he invaded Kuwait. Even the invasion of Kuwait is suspect, did the US government give Sadam the thumps up to invade Kuwait only to later screw him or did Sadam force the US to defend their oil intrests? We no there was WMDs in iraqi now of course 20 years later.

US regime change didn't quite work out in Syria or Libya but it did work out in Egypt, Algeria, Monaco, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon and Oman. Didn't work in Turkey but Edrogan I'd towing the line for now at least. Syria and Libya are examples to the rest of the world not to f with America or side with Russia against them.

Wars are also changing. The War in Ukraine is a US war being fought against Russia using Ukrainian soldiers rather than us military. The US has done this multiple times but this is the first time I think they've found a proxy ally willing to fight. The US is also fighting multiple wars in multiple countries currently using local forces, CIA operatives, Drones and large mercenary armies. At one point in Iraq there were 3 mercenaries for every 1 US soldier. They call them security contractors rather than mercenaries now because it sound more politically correct much like privateer or buccaneer was used instead of Pirate back in the day.

Anyway is any war worth fighting? Your whole standard of living in the US is based on the continued exploitation of the 3rd world, for that to continue these wars will continue.

[OddBeMe]

Very true. Perpetual war is wanted by politicians. I read a book called the Shock Doctrine, which hypothesizes our govt tries to keep us in some form of madness in order to get shady shit done.

[Opinion Owner]

I agree. There is no real left vs right Trump vs Biden etc.

[monorprise]

The cold war really doesn't count because it was never fought. It was just a bunch of posturing that military rivals do in what we call "peace".

It was successfully in that we avoided fighting an actual war it was not successful in that we ended up taking big losses fighting a bunch of pointless little wars in its name, and still have old geysers that don't know whom their wife is thinking we are still fighting it against countries we really need on our side in modern conflicts.

[Opinion Owner]

@monorprise the US fought a few times during the cold war. In korea & Vietnam. Other countries were often used to fight by proxy. It was actually pretty bloody.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise I would say the proxy wars fought count. Vietnam was the Soviets hurting the US and Afghanistan (1980s) that hurt the Soviets.

[Opinion Owner]

True but Vietnam cost the soviets economically along with arming all those proxy wars. Even now there's more Russian AKs outside Russia than in Russia.
US support in soviet-Afgan war was rather limited, stinger missles to neutralise Russian airpower and anti tank rockets. The majority of funds from the mujahadeen actually came from individual Muslims donating money and then weapons purchased from China, training provided in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. The soviets were bled economically, they never modernised their industry. They were trying to produce more and more technically advanced designs with techniques that hadn't changed since the 1940s in 1940s factories which is labour intensive and expensive.

[zagor]

We invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to have GHWB assassinated after the first Gulf War. Of course no history book will say that, but who had the final say in attacking Iraq after 9/11?

[msmissydc]

No offensive war is worth fighting, but nearly every defensive war IS worth fighting. No you can't defend your borders on the other side of the world, but you can help defenders. So to an extend not a single one but also nearly every single one is worth fighting. If you start a war you are destroying lives!!! If you willingly defend your country against an invader that is threatening your freedom it can be worth fighting. Sometimes not fighting is also worth it when you know it would be slaughter and not war.

There are exeptions for me where the official attacker is not what I mean with attacker. If there is a genocidal dictator is slaughtering his own people that is an attack, if people help defending those people even if it may count as the first act in an interstate war I consider it defending.

Thought this need to be carefully used. We all know history is written by the winners. In hindsight nearly every war can be justified and I dont want that at all.

[Anonymous]

Grenada (1983) was a good easy little war, kicking the communist out of part of our back yard.

As was technically the Contras thou we didn't fight that war, it was as important in helping to keep communist at a safe distance.

It becomes harder to justify the further from our shores the war is fought as the military threat becomes less consequential.

You could argue fighting wars to protect Europe was advantageous for European security but really we just turned Europe into a bunch of indefensible freeloading states via military welfare.
Europeans need to provide for their own defense or they are increasingly a liability rather than an ally as they are now.

[NYCQuestions1976]

The first Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the United States operation in Bosnia in 1998. Funny how many Muslims and Arabs around the world conveniently forget the latter, which saved Bosnians (ethnically Muslim) from being annihilated at the hands of the Serbs. These were both clean decisive operations, which should always be the goal. Obviously war is never good. However, if you're going to have a war, whether you're for or against said war, actually "war" and WIN, and don't dick around like your touring a retirement home or looking for your golf ball in the rough.

[Red-Blaze]

Yes
Ukrain to protect there pepole and there land
And thats not the only one

A war to take over or to destroy is not one worth fighting for, for the most
A war to protect may be

I mean it dose depend on what is worth
I mean for the guns manifacture all wars may be worth it

[Dargil]

The Afghanis and Vietnamese just wanted to be left alone. Absolutely nothing was accomplished in either place except enriching defense producers. Afghanistan is still an Islamic hell hole and Vietnam is still a Communist state, although we are burying the hatchet with Vietnam with foreign investment and ASEAN alliance against China.

[blackgaletiger]

It all depends on which side you look at it. From the comfort of our homes and phones we think with the mindset that there is no reason and war is dumb and unnecessary. However, when you see it from the side of the aggressor then there is always a reason. Ideology seems to be the surface reasons but it all comes down to resources. Whether it be a lack of or protecting interests.

[OddBeMe]

True, most Americans, like me, are armchair critics. But I think doing the historical research and learning about the absolute fck ups of Bush’s double wars is valid.

[blackgaletiger]

The more i see politics the more i see that the leaders of a given country do not act alone. I just see them as figure heads. You brought up Bush. To me Bush was just the figure head of the operation not the intelligence of the operation. Congress the CIA and many other groups have a lot of influence behind the scene. The president or prime minister are just their talking piece and someone to take the fall if the operation does not go as planned. The double war was taking advantage of 2 key elements. Destabilizing any Middle East nation that can harm Isreal like Iraq had some intent to and Afghanistan was a complete mess on its own. Nothing to do with the war on terror but having the Soviets Irani and Pakistani influence out of the region which is the ideological part. But also benefiting from the resources that the country had. Opium is huge in the country and pharmaceuticals is a very big business in the US and other first world nations. When we look deeper into reasonings then did they really fuck up or did these nations achieve their hidden quests. Poverty sells and so does war

[OddBeMe]

;ehh, war powers act in America at least was pretty broad. And bush’s voter support after 9/11 was deep. I still blame pelosi and Hillary for voting for Iraq. But make no mistake, Bush W had Iraq in his crosshairs even before 9/11. He spent the entire day of 9/12 asking how Iraq was involved.

[DeeDeeDeVour]

Here's one I easily remembered:

I was in awe of the British when they sent their navy all the way to the frigid South Atlantic to defend their territory, the Falkland Islands, from the Argentinian forces who sneakily invaded the Brits' property. It only took a couple months for the Brits to boot out the Argentinians from the islands.

[stepyo99]

Nope. Even before that, wars in the United States have been fought for worthless causes. General Smedley Butler wrote a book on this called "War is a Racket" back in 1935. There hasn't been a single war since the War of 1812 that has been worth fighting for on behalf of the United States.

[Exterminatore]

Ok. Let me guess. Myself and every other American who fought since the Korean War fought for imperialism then right?


What about Operation Inherent Resolve (war against ISIS), what about the war on terror? Hell, let’s look outside America. What about the war in the Ukraine. They were attacked without provocation and surely the Ukrainians cause is just.

[OddBeMe]

Ok…I’m not going on an anti-troop rant. Isis was a bad guy that needed to be destroyed. But it was created by the US. We wrongly invaded Iraq, destabilized it and caused you to fight the resulting insurgency.

That’s my frickin point. Not worth it. I ain’t a saddam lover but if we left him alone, Arab spring woulda probably taken his ass out for free.

[Exterminatore]

Meh…the thing is we knew he had WMD’s. How many. Very hard to say as during the periods in between the first gulf war and invasion of Iraq we had many, many cruise missile strikes against suspected targets producing WMD’s plus many air strikes and multiple maritime intercept operations to ensure none were coming in or out and to enforce UN sanctions.

For a nearly 13 year period he’d kick the UN inspectors out, we’d mass troops on his borders, he’d let them in, kick them out again, then we’d blow up more stuff.

Ultimately I think we were at greater risk of him selling them to the wrong people, rather than using them on us himself.

I didn’t care for “W” or his administration much but to be fair, after 9-11…. was it worth taking any risk. As far as the insurgents went, they were terrorists, and that’s what we were there to do. Kill terrorists, Iraq just being one part of the war on terror. Perhaps the Arab spring would have taken him out…who knows. Last thing you want is him producing something and selling in to Al Quada or whoever. Not to mention he did violate the no fly zones over 400 times during that period resulting in areal combat and them firing at our planes from the ground almost daily. When was enough enough.

Exit strategy…. yeah we really didn’t have one persey. So kinda silly there. Overall I have to believe we probably did the right thing. I gotta believe the boys died and got wounded for something.

[OddBeMe]

Well…no there was no wmd. And If Bush wanted to stop terror funding then Saudi Arabia shoulda been target numero uno. But no, Bush was in business with the Saudi family (and Bin Laden’s).

All the wmd factories in Iraq were rusted over for at least ten years. Bush and Co lied and spent trillions for Halliburton (cheney’s company) to clean up Iraq.

[Exterminatore]

I agree with Saudi Arabia should have been target number 1. They are the biggest funders of terror. You are also right in saying the cause as to why they were not a target and I consider it reprehensible Bush was more concerned with his profits than national security.

I also agree in that pretty much all of Iraq’s wmd program was destroyed during Operation Southern Watch and various sub operations under that. There were numerous air strikes and cruise missile strikes over the course of that operation that rendered Iraq’s WMD program practically useless.

However we didn’t know for sure if there was more. After 9-11 was it a risk worth taking? No ensuring there weren’t more? He did shoot missiles into Israel during the first gulf war. No reason to believe he wouldn’t target us or them if left unchecked. Due to the nature of world events, probably was better we went in there. They never abided by the terms of the cease fire from the first gulf war from day one which is exactly what kept us there from 95-03 with Operation Southern Watch and the patrolling of the no fly zones.

Probably we should have just done this from day 1 of Desert Storm. Would have saved a lot of money and lives.

[OddBeMe]

You just described the Bush Doctrine. Or the 1% doctrine. “If there’s a 1% chance saddam has wmd we have to treat it as certainty.” Then in that case, all of Africa (where yellowcake uranium is mined) as well Iran and NK we’d be at war with.

Not a good plan.

[RealMarek]

It’s been very very worth it to those on the military industrial complex gravy train and for enforcing the petrodollar system. No number of lives is too much, kind of like what Madaleine Albright admitted when she said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it.”

[Avicenna]

The war the Tutsis fought in 1994 to dislodge the genocidal Hutus from power was. The Falklands War in 1982 was.
The US war in Afghanistan went on way too long and wasn't managed well, but it was a necessary one after the 9/11 attacks.

[Avicenna]

And I should also mention that the current Ukrainian struggle against Russian aggression is, from the Ukrainian perspective, definitely worth fighting since it is for their national survival.

[OddBeMe]

First time a right winger has admitted that about Ukraine.

[Avicenna]

It's statements like that that make me say you live under a rock!

[Jackblue]

The long term effects of the Iraq war might overall demonstrate the positive outcome, as for Afghanistan, we more or less stopped Al Qaeda, as for the cold war whether the left admits it or not communism was as bad as Nazism.

[OddBeMe]

No lefty would say the communist countries weren’t as bad as the Nazis. I honestly just see dictators who didn’t read Marx.

[Exterminatore]

@odd

Yeah, yeah. All that wasn’t real communism because it never brought about the desires utopia.

Aztec sacrifices weren’t real either because they never brought rain.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore no communism wasn’t real Marxism is what I’m saying. Marx actually liked capitalism.

[Exterminatore]

@odd

Not from what I’m aware of. In his first book (forgot the name) he stated speaking of feudalism and it’s injustices, then moved on to capitalism and it’s injustices as he perceived them.

For what it’s worth I don’t favor pure capitalism. You have to mix a small amount in or you simply end up with rule by the rich and powerful. Mind you, I’m no great supporter of socialism but we can take just a few things and add it to the mix.

Food for thought, I haven’t heard of anyone fleeing the horrors of capitalism yet, but have heard of many fleeing communist countries and a few socialist ones, particularly Nazi Germany.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore exactly, that was his point too. He had an economic theory about workers rights. Some I agree, most I don’t. Lenin add communism which turned into a dictator police state. That’s not Marx.

[Jackblue]

Tell me Mr. OddBeMe, do you think that a man who kills millions won't kill his political rivals and make himself into a dictator, they are the first ones to die usually. North Korea in theory is a democracy is actually has opposition parties, they of course never speak out against the ruling party because they are scared to. The question you need to recognize is why does socialism produce dictators and the answer is, when you make promises to people like just take away the possesions of the rich and you will never go hungry or have to toil again and you can't deliver on that promise (and in fact things get worse because the wealthy are just as important to a healthy economy as the poor) you always need a scapegoat as to why that isn't happening, some enemy of the revolution undermining it. An enemy that has to be hunted down and imprisoned or killed.

[Exterminatore]

@jack

And that’s the facts my man. Well stated.

[Jackblue]

@Exterminatore Thanks

[Exterminatore]

@odd

Workers should definitely have rights. I do support labor unions and am in one myself, I do support things like OSHA, and the ADA as it pertains to workers. The bottom line is corporations and most businesses get tax breaks. The reason being because they create jobs. However, since they don’t pay their fair share of taxes there should be no complaints about organizations like I mentioned or legislation that protects workers. They are able to make more profit by not paying their fair share of taxes so they should not see these types of things as unfair burdens. Yet they do.

That’s an example of where socialism is good. Labor unions, government imposed safety restrictions, and legislation to allow all races, sexes and the disabled to work free of interference of their employer are more socialistic in nature and necessary, especially since as stated businesses do not pay their fair share of taxes, and if they create jobs, everyone ought to have a fair shot at getting such a job, keeping such a job, and working a job in safe and fair conditions.

Capitalism without checks and balances results in aristocracy.

However socialism without checks and balances results in no competition, no ability to get ahead for either the worker or company, and no incentive to do so because everything becomes too restrictive to business and a free handout.

A balance is needed to ensure the common man gets a fair deal, and the companies and businesses get a fair deal and then everyone kinda wins. It’s never gonna be perfect, but I think it’s the best we can do.

Can’t have it where a guy works his ass off to have extra where the government takes it and gives it to those not willing to work hard to have extra, yet also can’t have it where those who do achieve monopolize the system to where they control it all and become slave masters.

[OddBeMe]

@Jackblue
“Why does socialism produce dictators.” It doesn’t. The US has socialsm. 75% of Europe has ten times the socialism. And no dictators.

[OddBeMe]

@Exterminatore small businesses create more jobs than big business. Big business takes the tax breaks and buys back its stock.

[OddBeMe]

And I get only silence…

[Jackblue]

When you call the US and Europe socialist you have already conceded the argument. As for small and big businesses there are still millions of small businesses in the US alone, hipsters prefer artisan shops and independent farm to table cafes, big businesses often offer cheaper prices and that is why we need them so those with less money can still buy what they need.

[OddBeMe]

Conceded eh? Even though Europe’s happier and healthier?

And basic percentages, small business is always where the job growth is. Not big business. When politicians tout job reports, most of its small business jobs.

[Jackblue]

You are claiming that everything is socialist.

[OddBeMe]

Basic terms, it’s Government running the economy. As you can hopefully see, democratic socialism is having best of both worlds. “Social” security, fdic insurance, Medicare and then private business chugging right along side.

[Stoner710]

Yes it called the Korean War. It’s been going on since 1950 or would you rather subjugate the south Koreas to Kim Jong Un

[OddBeMe]

No but like Vietnam, I don’t see the point in fighting other peoples wars. We can supply them, like we are with Ukraine.

[Stoner710]

For the most part your right we don’t need to be in other people civil wars, but remember we tried staying out of ww2 and half of Europe was destroyed Europe was getting devastated if it wasn’t for America stepping in Hitler would have won ww2. We weren’t even the world police back in ww2 that was Britten.

Since the British empire fell we very reluctantly became the heirs of the British empire. It been America’s job to bring peace to the world and bring democracy to the countries we are trying to help. There are 2 players who want to take over America’s possession as the world’s police aka an empire. Do you really want China and Russia to be the world’s police? Those are the 2 other options. America never wanted to be and empire we have no choice to be one right now. When America goes isolationist the world becomes 1 followed by 3000 zeros more dangerous. We see that with the coward we have in the White House now.

[OddBeMe]

I’m a big WW2 and WW1 buff. Those were different. In that it was world threatening. I’m not worried about Putin invading Delaware. But Nazis landed on American soil. We arrested the spies ten hours later…

[Stoner710]

Yes they were majorly different, I’d say that fine we gave Germany after ww1 led to the rise of the Nazis in Germany and didn’t help the communist were really violent in the 1920-1930s so they voted Hitler into power. The Korean War was the start of the Cold War. Frankly we should have funded chiang kai shek a lot more before his fall in 1949

[OddBeMe]

Yeah I can see that. That turned into a war again China.

[Stoner710]

Yup and we might be going to war against them against especially if Joe Biden get a second term. We vote as a country vote for Joe Biden we are voting for the destruction of Taiwan and world war 3.

[WalnutButter]

No, but the good news is that Biden is leading us into the last war. The Dems wanted an establishment president and they got one.

[OddBeMe]

What’s the last war?

[WalnutButter]

Lol..

[jshm2]

When war breaks out, all are at fault and must fight to end it. While leaving a path open for peace.

[OddBeMe]

Who determines when war breaks out? What are the traits or signs? Who benefits?

[AngryCarl2]

If you're attacked you have to fight. A more pointed question would be, has there been a war worth starting?

[OddBeMe]

Perhaps but neither the Taliban nor Saddam were responsible for 911. We’d have a better cause invading Saudi Arabia over their Al Quaeda financing.

[AngryCarl2]

The US is a special case. They need to protect the petrodollar and US global hegemony. If America didn't have the global reserve currency it would literally be Venezuela.

[OddBeMe]

Well…yeah we have the economic model of Venezuela. Top five billionaires own the wealth of the bottom 50%.

[AngryCarl2]

Yes but they don't have food stamps in Venezuela. They just let people starve.

[OddBeMe]

They don’t have la WIC down there? Shame…

[exitseven]

I am not sure. I know that there are no wars that the US has been involved in that worth it. They were all just a big waste of American lives.

[Andres77]

May have been an issue that needed to be addressed but they were all bungled.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gg-jvHynP9Y

[CaptainSmartass]

The First Cold War was pretty important. And would have presented many delightful opportunities for the ethically challenged to make a fortune.


Simples...

[AmeerX]

World War 1 on the Ottoman side, WW2 on Soviet side, Cold War on the side of the Soviets especially Afghan war. Iran Iran war too.
I don't find the Arab Israel war to be of useful ends.

[slatyb]

There's one now

[OddBeMe]

True, I guess I was thinking more American wars. But true. Ukraine certainly is in the right.

[slatyb]

Morally it seems very similar US aid to western Europe during WWII and I think we and other NATO nations should vigorously support Ukraine.

[OddBeMe]

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Korea, Cold War, Gulf War 1 and the front end of Afghanistan.

[Siri137]

No there hasn't. War is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Don't ask an Israeli this question.

[OddBeMe]

I would love to ask an Israeli.

[msc545]

That does not make it okay.

[4ngelic]

the one with isis

[OddBeMe]

Yeah…I would say isis is a direct cause of Iraq war. I’m not pro saddam…lord no. But actions have reactions. And we Americans never think two moves ahead.

[Juxtapose]

Absolutely not.

[Juxtapose]

This is why the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army.

[OddBeMe]

I haven’t looked it up but the draft wasn’t in the constitution?

[Juxtapose]

That wasn't until 1863 homie.

[OddBeMe]

Oh you’re right. It was actually the Confederacy that made the first draft. Funny.

[Juxtapose]

Fitting for those slavers.

[Anonymous]

Nope all GOD wars

[OddBeMe]

Please elaborate

[Opinion Owner]

Gold, oil and drugs

[OddBeMe]

Ahh. I like that acronym. Thought I was about to get preached at.

But did we obtain any of that in the last 70 years?

[Opinion Owner]

Afghanistan produces a lot of opium because of the conflict, the Gulf and the Arabian wars were mainly about oil or at least the supply of it to the US

[OddBeMe]

I mean we conquered and then gave it over Iraqi democratic govt that didn’t have any support. Maybe it’d be better if we freakin conquered like the Romans. Gentrify the entire Middle East.

[Anonymous]

Sure

[OddBeMe]

Mho. Hands down.