Has any war since World War II that the U. S. has been engaged in really been justified?

[msc545]

I think that World War II was justified on the basis that Hitler absolutely had to be stopped. He had invaded much of Europe and had literally attacked Britain. Probably would have invaded it had the U. S. not intervened.

No war is a good war, but if any war was justified that I can think of, it would be World War II. On the other hand, I cannot think of a single war since that time that has been morally justified. It is also telling that the U. S. has not prevailed in any war since World War II, and there is a rather striking irony in that series of defeats: namely, that if you engage in unjustified war, the will and morale of your soldiers maybe be very low, and that of you opponents very high in comparison. These days, virtually all wars are still won and lost on the ground by soldiers on the ground.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It depends on how much you understand world politics and history. Even then the answers subjective. Were we right to go to Africa and liberate the villagers who were being pressed because slave traders brutalized any tribe they wanted? We saved thousands of little children from being raped and having their skin peeled off like they were fish and then burnt at the stake with gasoline. Just for not being one of them or praying to the wrong rock god.

But we also went there and imposed our values, we brought oil drilling there which created other problems. Things ultimately got better for everyone but many of the changes even for the better were unwelcome.

And that's the morally Grey area a lot of our conflicts exist within. These issues are way more complicated then most want to give them credit for. They just want to pick a side and for one side to be objectively right and the other side to be objectively wrong.

This isn't highschool. It's not an sat question. It's real life. And these are questions people have been trying to answer before writing was invented. So don't feel dumb for not knowing what the answer is. Feel smart for a knowledging how difficult the problems are.

[OneViewpoint]

The wars you're talking about in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's have not been existential wars. They have all been about using the US military as an extension of US economic policy on behalf of corporations and in some cases religious ideology on behalf of our batshit crazy Evangelical Christians who ironically whine about being "Pro Life" constantly. We've used "the commies", "the Muslims", "the immigrants", and the "drug cartels" along with any "dictator" we didn't like in the moment as the boogeymen to fuel these economic wars.

Our dictator buddies until they weren't...

• Shah of Iran - Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
• Saddam Hussein - Iraq
• Manuel Noriega - Panama
• Ferdinand Marcos - Philippines
• Ngo Dinh Diem - President of South Vietnam
• Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte - Chile (military dictator overthrew Allende)
• Idi Amin - Uganda. CIA, UK, and Mossad installed Apollo Milton Obote, the Idi Amin, then Obote again in the 1960's and 70's.
• Mobutu - Zaire

And on and on and on...

[purplepoppy]

There's only three justifications for war. To help an ally who has been invaded, to defend yourself against a military invasion, and to prevent genocide.

The fact you disagree with a countries political system or would like it's resources is never justification.

[msc545]

World war II was, in my opinion, a reasonable war based on the fact that Hitler had taken over most of Europe and was attacking England. It was only a matter of time before he got around to the US and there was no point in waiting and a great danger and waiting for him to arrive.

[jshm2]

Lol, it was the Russians, not Americans, that stopped the Nazis. The Americans actually killed more of their own and Europeans, than they did others. Plus they joined in at the end when most of the real fighting was done.

Americans initially supported the Nazis. But Hitler considered them mixed race mongrels. He would have invaded the USA were it not for the Soviets breaking them first.

The USA thus got left the "title" and never really earned it. Hence it has not won any war or done anything much beneficial since. It will be the shortest lived empire in history. It won by default, and met its end by going into default trying to keep up with real empires.

[msc545]

See my previous comment regarding members of my family in the D-Day invasion. I wasn't there and you weren't there, but at least I heard their stories and I had every reason to believe them. You weren't there at all and you didn't talk to anybody about it. You just have opinions.

[andreasderjuengere]

The U. S. joined ww2 when all was already safe enough.
All wars are justified as long as 'you' are on the winners' side.
They would have lost against Japan, if their nuclear and reckless mass murder would not have helped them out.
Ever since, they avoid 'wars' to not lose one. In doubt, they call it an "operation" and such, to cover up that they basically are just excellently equiped bullies.
The U. S. (as an institution') are a bunch of gunman-troublemakers and saloon brawlers.

[msc545]

You should probably ask the people like members of my family who participated in the D-Day invasion of Normandy just exactly how safe it was. A number of them didn't come back and the ones who did were not in very good shape. I don't think you would have wanted to be there.

[andreasderjuengere]

No intention to disrespect your family members.
However... bullets can fly both directions. What I actually meant: the U. S. had joined when overall victory already was certain. If it comforts you: also among my own relatives there were losses of precious people. Not to mention the emotional emptiness that it caused to my grandpa and grandma. Anyhow... and as I said.. "we" lost, and that justifies "you" to have been right. 🙂 (if it justifies the Americanesian claim for fame is one other topic)

[andreasderjuengere]

Myself: I will not participate in any 'war' - justified, or not. With one exception: don't ever touch someone I love. But that's personal; not political.

[msc545]

I have the same position. I will never participate in any war actually for any reason.

[andreasderjuengere]

So at least you and I have understood something about history 🙂

[msc545]

I think we definitely have. Unfortunately the US government apparently has not or if they have they simply don't care about it or think they are immune to it. I would leave this country if I had the wherewithal to do so.

[lightbulb27]

its all about power and control which is always justified in some way.

if you support cheap drugs, maybe you should have moved to nicaragua long ago before Oliver North and crew were involved.

the us is better than most oreinted on freedom, as long as it benefits us.

if you like north korea you should move there, since they tried to take all of korea.

if you like communist cuba, move there... bay of pigs didn't work out.

If you like venezuela w maduro, move to new york city and enjoy riding the train for free.

If you approve of Saddam using chemical weapons on people, should have moved there.

etc etc..

[exitseven]

We had no business in Vietnam. Our troops had to have one hand tied behind their backs. More Americans were lost in that war than in WW2. We needed to go to the middle east in retaliation to the attack on the World Trade Center but again our military should be allowed to do the job and get out.

[888theGreat]

Korea was a police action , regional war , nope, Vietnam , regional war , nope , Gulf War 1 , Yes because of oil price controls, Gulf War 2 , nope, it was a revenge war , Afgan war , nope , too expensive too just go after one specific terrorist. I only agree with 1st Gulf War.

[msc545]

Arbitrarily relabeling the type of war it was doesn't change the fact that each thing that you renamed was still a war and there was a winner and a loser. The us was never the winner and never prevailed in any of these wars. I don't think they're renaming them changes that fact.

[Hagar88]

Korean war. Defend south korea. Vietnam war. Defend south Vietnam. Gulf war, kick sadam out of kuwait. Afghanistan war, destroy Alqueda in their Afghanistan base. Falklands war.

[Hagar88]

Britain would not have been invade had the US got involved. The nazis had one opportunity to invade Britain in 1940 first by finishing off the BEF at Dunkirk and secondly before the British could make good lost equipment and troop loses in the battle of france. Rather than do that they choose to invade the soviet union. The British Empire actually out produced the Germans in WW2 and saved the Soviets in 1941.

[msc545]

None of those words were justified at all, as they had to do with the U. S. trying to protect cash flow.

[msc545]

Sorry, none of those wars that you mentioned were justified.

[Hagar88]

Not so South Korea was attacked and invaded by North Korea back by the Soviet Union and China but the United Nations sent an army to defend South Korea's sovereignty and democracy. There was literally no benefit to the US and the US was not ready for it and was unprepared. The Vietnam war was the same, defending South Vietnam from the north.
The United Nations in 1991 sent an army at the request of the Kuwaiti government and the neighbouring Arab states to push Sadam out of Kuwait and defend Kuwati national sovereignty. Would have been better to for the US to leave Iraq alone in the gulf war.
On September 11 2001 Alqueda attacked America again in their deadliest attack, they were based in Afghanistan. The US military went in to defeat them and their allies the Taliban.
In the Falklands war the Fascist Argentinan regime seeked to take advantage of the British militaries demilitrarisation by invading Britain's Falklands territories to distract from political and economic problems at home shooting British soldiers and civilians. The British retook their territory back and defended democracy in the Falklands. Nothing really to do with the US.

[msc545]

I'm not interested in your self-serving history lessons.

[Hagar88]

Sorry but history can't be changed to fit your woke world vision.

[msc545]

It's not so much the facts of history as your self-serving interpretations that are not even worth a response.

[Hagar88]

No those are litteraly the facts.
The United States involvement in WW1 & WW2 Europe was as justified as any of the other wars i mentioned. WW1 the US had no real reason to go to war in 1917 other than self interest and in WW2 it was Japan that had attacked the US not Germany, Italy or france.

[RavVid]

The Korean war. North Korea invaded South Korea. Compare and contrast North and South Korea now.

Most of the wars have been about conflicting ideologies. After the fall of the Berlin they did seem foolish if we could be friends.

But not so foolish now with Putin's plan to recapture the USSR and Xi's aggressive positioning to form a new empire.

I'd disagree that there has to be boots on the ground. Embargo's and blockades are more sensible.

[msc545]

The US did not win the Korean war. It was a stalemate and the US had absolutely no business being there despite what North Korea did or did not do. It wasn't our problem until we made it into our problem.

[RavVid]

A good enough win :). I'd agree that the US made it their problem when they didn't need to and has done that repeatedly to it's disservice. Vietnam & Afghanistan most notably.

There have been inverse failures don't forget.

After the USSR fall, the US & Europe thought we could all be buddies by economic integration. That is clearly a bad mistake now. It worked well with Germany and Japan because the US rewrote their constitutions. China hasn't worked out any better and is just more ambiguous is all.

It should be clear to us that autocratic powers will always be in conflict with the West and necessarily the West needs to repulse those powers. It should also be clear to us that boots on the ground is not the best approach.

Economic coercion works just fine. At this point Xi should be rethinking plans to invade Taiwan because his whole strategy is based on the West continuing to buy Chinese junk regardless. Russia seems to assume when they want to go back to normal it will be just the same as it was before Ukraine.

Instead we should impoverish Russia back into serfdom and send China back to the paddy fields.

[msc545]

Instead, we should literally mind our own business and stop fucking around with other countries' internal affairs and economies.

[RavVid]

We may need to agree to disagree. (To be clear I am substituting 'the West' for the US).

I see no reason to accept gray zone operations from minor countries or more significant autocracies except you need to be more careful with the later.

Should we accept Radical Islam and plausible deniability? Gray zone tactics are just as much waging war as any other form and smacking the shit out of national leaders who are hiding behind deniability is an appropriate action.

Barbary pirates depopulated the coast lines of Italy and Spain till the US and Britain decided to not tolerate it anymore.

A damn good bombardment of Algiers in 1816 persuaded the Dey to stop piracy and to release the enslaved people.

I think on your logic that was Britain and US interfering with another countries internal affairs and economy.

Later when Britain acted to stop the slave trade in 1807 and 1833, it was clearly fucking around with other countries internal affairs and economies. (including the US). Nonetheless that has to be one of the best moral decisions ever taken.

[msc545]

I think you're arguing against your own point of view if I understand you correctly. The U. S. has been fucking around with other people's internal affairs and economies ever since it was founded, literally. And then it complains and screams and yells when things like 9/11 happen as if it wasn't provoked. It was sorely provoked.

[RavVid]

The US has indeed spent an impressive amount of time at war with some or other country since it's foundation.

Why I raised the Barbary pirates, was it showed clear morality in smacking the shit out of another country.

If you paid the Dey enough, your ships would not be attacked and your citizens would not be enslaved. There was a pretence that the piracy had nothing to do with the Dey. Except it did because if you paid the Dey enough he would stop it with your ships/citizens.

All this directly applies to Houthis as one of Iran's many proxies.

Most of Islam has nothing to do with the West other than resentment other than the archaic nature of Islam has caused it to be eclipsed when they think the Caliphate should be re-established.

[msc545]

I can understand wanting to do something about the pirates, if they were attacking ships. That makes sense. And after all, the pirates were not exactly a nation.

On the other hand, is there any evidence at all that the Houthis have anything to do with Iran as you stated?

[DrPepper12]

Not one. The war on the poor has been very successful though

[beefcakebradybatson]

Perhaps the Gulf War, but it was over oil, specifically America's ability to steal Arab oil. The others, I can't think of one, and Vietnam was about propping up corrupt Yankee puppet regime.

[msc545]

United States did not win the Gulf war.

[beefcakebradybatson]

I forgot.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

They all can be. There is a lot of misunderstanding

[Staximus]

You're right, all the wars have been bullshit after WW2.

[DryGermanGuy]

The Persian Gulf war to free Kuwait.

[msc545]

That was not a war, that was a series of skirmishes along the border.

[DryGermanGuy]

I would disagree here, given the numbers that were involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

[msc545]

I don't think the numbers are the actual metric you should be looking at.

[Agape93]

Maybe the fact it's called a war, should be the metric.