 |
| |
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
The Philippine Insurrection was a guerilla war fought from 1898-1905 and is considered "one of the ugliest wars in American history." After one American regiment was massacred at Samar, the Filipino guerillas stuffed molasses into the disemboweled corpses to attract ants. In response, General Jacob Smith ordered his officers to kill and burn everything they saw, and even told them "the more you kill, the happier I will be." The soldiers burned the villages to the ground, and placed the villagers into "reconcentration" camps, which were similar to the ones in Cuba during the Spanish-American war. Things like famine, brutality, dysentary, and here in the tropical climate of the Philippines...malaria spread like wildfire. Unfortunately, the war never "recivilized" after this point, and atrocities mounted, as guerilla wars often do. Over 5,000 Americans and 200,000 Filipinos died. It did happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
Revolutions are always justified.
French Naval War was justified, it was a war of self-defence.
Pirate Wars were justified. See above.
I would say the War of 1812 was justified, to a point. The impressment issue as well as the construction of a series of forts by the Brits in the NorthWest Territory necessitated the war. However, the war was also intended to be a war of conquest of Canada, which was totally unjustified.
Meixcan American War was unjustified. The US occupied disputed territory and provoked a fight with Mexican soldiers. We attacked Mexico, then annexed half its territory.
Civil War was justified.
Indian Wars were never justified (by our side), even when individual Indians attacked white settlements. That was a matter for territorial police, not the army.
Spanish American War and Wars of Philippine and Puerto Rican Conquest (generally lumped together as one war). Most unjustified war the US ever fought. Spain had already been defeated by three of the four colonies we had taken from them (Puerto Rico had even had its autonomy recognized by Spain). Steve, what Ramo says about the Philippine War is absolutely true. We killed almost half a million Filipinos taking that country. Entire islands were depopulated. Whole new tortures were invented. It was probably the most dispicable act of the US.
WWI, unjustified.
Russian intervention, unjustified.
Latin American invasions, unjustifed.
WWII, unjustified.
Korea, we had no business being there in the first place, let alone foisting a dictatorship on the South against the will of the Korean people. We certainly had no business being involved in the civil war of another nation.
Vietnam, unjustified, see above.
Gulf, unjustified, we have no business propping up vicisous ME kingdoms which practice slavery.
Kosovo, unjustified, we have no business telling a country it can't fight domestic terrorism. Since we ultimately agreed to Milosevic's original conditions (even though we subsequently violated the agreement), not only was the war unjustified, it was totally pointless and caused more misery than it prevented.
Current war, justified so far, though execution leaves something to be desired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Bah, many of you are thinking like 21st century folk! Imperialism was THE justification for many of the wars around the world, as well you know. That includes the Indian wars! In hindsite, they were nothing more than a series of atrocities, but the US government believed that they were justified, AND they wanted the land. It sucks, it was a slaughter, but they were justified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
How can you say world war II was unjustified!!?
Even if FDR knew about Pearl Harbour, fighting against Nazi Germany was the right thing to do, absolutely. |
It was a war between imperialisms. What differentiated Hitler's regime from the other imperialist powers is he did what they had always done to colonial peoples, but he did it to white people. What Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, and Belgium did in Africa (as well as what the US did to the Indians and the Filipinos) was just as horrible and on the same scale as what Hitler did in Europe.
quote:
And Korea...what was the UN supposed to do? Just allow a small people to be overpowered by a larger? |
South Korea was created by the US by conquering the southern part of Korea and foisting a government made up of former collaborators with the Japanese and Korean fascists. The Northern government was the original government of all of Korea. You may not like the DPRK government, but it was the legitimate government of Korea and the Korean war was a civil war between one nation with two states. Yes, the US (with its UN fig leaf) should have sayed out of it from the begining.
quote:
Canadian forts: This 'provocation' was designed to allow Canada to protect the border and co-ordinate with the native allies...it is hard to see how defensive measures can be considered a provocation to attack... |
The forts in Canada weren't a problem. It was the British forts built within the territory of the US that were a problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Revolutions are always justified.
.
.
.
Civil War was justified.
|
Aren't these two statements contradicting one another? If the US had the right to break away from Britain, why didn't the Confederacy have the right to break away from the Union?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SilexMT
|
|
Montréal
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Southern cecession wasn't a revolution. |
It was a war of independence: that's ore or less what secession means, right? (I'm sure that that's the name it would bear in history books if the south had won)
Then again, the american revolution was actually a war of independance too: a true revolution is when the people overthrow their own government, and is way much harder to accomplish than for a overseas colony to gain its independence. But 'revolution' sounds so much more glamorous....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
 |
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
Neither the American revolution nor the Southern secession are revolutions. You should be more careful about your vocabulary. Revolutions imply a grassroots movement that seeks to establish a new authority and restructure the whole government and society by violent means. If you know much about pre-independence American History, you'll realize that the policy of "benign neglect" on the part of the British led to state legislatures that had almost complete authority over the territory. It was only after the French and Indian War that the British attempted to reassert their authority that the colonists "revolted." What they really did was sought to maintain the existing authority by declaring itself independent of Britain. It was the Tories that were the "revolutionaries."
The Civil War was not a revolution either. It used the existing state government structures to build a confederacy, which is not truly a reordering of the social or government structure, it's just withdrawal from a federation, which is not allowed.
David: you contradict your own logic: you use the elastic clause to assert the southern states' rights to seceed, yet you don't apply it to the north asserting federal control. You ignore the fact that the constitution clearly proclaimed that in all cases where there was disagreement between the states and the federal government, the federal government was to take supremacy, and that all southern states had to accept that to be admitted in the first place.
WW2: You seem to be saying that antagonistic actions taken by FDR removes justification for the war. You ignore, however, the threat that fascism posed to American democracy. Hitler's plans were clearly to move on the U.S. with Japan once it had conquered Russia and Britain, and once Japan asserted control over the Asian theatre. Regardless of the security precautions, such as slowing oil to Japan, and others, that FDR took, we still had a right to defend ourselves.
WW1: This was a case, unlike WW1, where Wilson put Germany into a situation where it could not avoid war with the U.S. If, however, you look at what really pushed the U.S. to a declaration of war, was not the sinking of any ship, but a telegraph intercept from Germany to Mexico, trying to convince Mexico to open up a new theatre in North America to keep the U.S. occupied.
UN Mandate: The idea here is to have some sort of principles to guide international peace and security. It does not infringe in our right to self defense, but it does try to put a lid on agression.
Phillipine Insurrection: this was a major undertaking, and it was the worst thing we ever did
Major Indian Wars:
Seminole Wars: 1812-1813, 1817-1818, 1837-1845: these wars were only in order to protect and expand slavery
Plains Wars: 1862-1893: These wars were meant to expand U.S. control of western lands, especially once gold was found in Black Hills.
War of 1812-Indians: Justified to an extent...the Indians were allied with the British
If you include all of the operations involving U.S. troops in the Caribean during the early 20th century, that constitutes a major war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
The American Revolution was a both a war of Independence and a revolution. It began as a revolution, initiated by poor farmers and craftsman against the class structure in the colonies. In this sense, it was an extention of the English Revolutionary tendency from the previous century, the Levellors and the Diggers. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers declared independence was to get in charge of this grass roots rebellion.
When George Washington was sent to take command of the rebel army, it allowed Blacks in the army and elected its own officers. Washington put a stop to both, and instituted whipping and execution as punishments.
However, inspite of these acts, and others like them, the colonial system of government (as well as the Parlimentary and monarchal system of England) was overthrown and replaced with a democratic and republican system of government. It was far from perfect, and it could have gone further (and debated doing so--abolition of slavery, extending sufferage to women, etc.)
The Civil War was also a revolution, but not in the way people think. Prior to the war, two classes shared the government of the United States, the Northern bourgeoisie and the Sourth slave aristocracy, with most of the political power being in the latter's hands. The Civil War smashed the power of the slave holders and gave full political power to the Northern bourgeoisie. That makes it a revolution.
BTW, revolutions aren't necessarily violent. The February and October revolutions in Russia weren't violent. In both cases the previous government capitulated without a fight (except in Moscow, where the White guards rebelled and massacred a Red Guard garrison of 500). The Paris Commune revolt was non-violent. Violence in a revolution is often the result of the old order initiating violence (but certainly not always).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Hitler's plans were clearly to move on the U.S. with Japan once it had conquered Russia and Britain, and once Japan asserted control over the Asian theatre. |
I'm no historian, but it's always been my impression that if the U.S. had been content to allow Germany and Japan to conquer Europe and Asia, they would have been content to leave the mainland U.S. alone. Can anyone cite primary sources which contradict this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
I'm no historian, but it's always been my impression that if the U.S. had been content to allow Germany and Japan to conquer Europe and Asia, they would have been content to leave the mainland U.S. alone. Can anyone cite primary sources which contradict this? |
How about Mein Kampf, where Hitler talks about world conquest. Here's a quote I remember. "After the Aryan Race has subdued Europe, and Africa, and Asia, the battle of the continents can truly begin."
I suggest that you check a history book before you make yourself look like an idiot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
OK, from the top:
Revolution: Justified
Americans oppressed by home government
XYZ Affair: Justified
Undeclared Navel war with France, 1798
War of 1812: Justified
The real problem wasn't JUST impressment, but Britain's "Orders in council" that made it illeagal to trade with ANY nation not approved by Britain, in order to foster it's continental trade blocade of France.
Barbary Pirates: Justified
First part was in 1805-06, renewed in 1815
North African states acting as pirates defeated by US landing forces, simply USA protecting itself.
Mexican war: Murky
As for the claims that the US "provoked the first shot", it's a matter of conjecture, as the border to the USA was different to what it was to Mexico.
The annexation of California and the territories was part of "manifest destiny", and US claims to this fall under "to the victor goes the spoils". In the modern world unaceptable, to that world, no problem.
Civil War: Justified
The issue of states rigths is still debated, but if the South had the right to leave, the North had the right to hold the country together. States rights is BS, BTW.
Indian wars: Murky
In parts justified, by 19th century standards, but mostly a land grab by USA, with unfair treaties, massacres, and all sorts of horrors by our standards.
Spanish-American War: Murky
Some, like Che, hate this war, but it was really a young Imperial power defeating an older one, (Spain) and the spolis were Spain's possesions in the Americas and the Phillipennes were taken.
Che, ask yourself this: Were they better off under the USA or Spain? An honest answer is USA. Also, those "attrocites" are WAY exagerated, "thousands' is laughable. Revisionist historians are the bane of history, putting up bloatted numbers and other nonsense.
There were no "concentration camps", the first case of this is the Boer war in south africa in 1900, not in the Phillipennes. This insurrection was fought as a conventional military campagin for the most part, not a "Vietnam" style guerrilla war, so spare us this bull. 
WWI: Unjustified
There was no VALID reason to select the allies over the central powers, this was the most pointless war in history
WWII: Justified
Anyone who thinks differnetly simply doesn't know what they are talking about.
Korea: Justified
This was a UN intervention, remember?
NOT a civil war, the Soviets trained and led the attack before the Chiese took over in late 1950, and they prolonged the war to suit their own ends, USA was bound by UN and treaty obligations to fight.
Vietnam: Unjustified
LBJ missued Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to suit his own ends, resulted in disasterous war for USA
Grenada: Justified
I was there, the place was a communist munitions warehouse on our back door.
Panama: Justified
THEY declared war, not us.
Gulf war: Justified
Treaty obligations here, so all else about gas is bull.
War on terror: Justified
All I need do is look at the crater where WTC was to know this. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Britain's "Orders in council" that made it illeagal to trade with ANY nation not approved by Britain, in order to foster it's continental trade blocade of France. |
Well, if that is a justification, then we should have declared war on France as well... after all, Napoleon had his Berlin Decrees saying the same things as the Orders in Council. I think the justification more comes into play because of the impressment and the British forts issues.
quote:
There was no VALID reason to select the allies over the central powers, this was the most pointless war in history |
Totally agree with the second part of the statement. But, at that time, I would figure, the Zimmerman note provided a valid reason. And remember, Britain cut the transatlantic cable from the continent, so all the US was getting fed was that the Germans were baby killers and rapists of Belgians.
quote:
Ths US intervened because if they wanted to take those colonies without appearing to be an aggressor, they had run out of time. |
Bullshit! The US government was pushed into the war by the stories in the papers. If you want to blame someone, blame Theodore Herst of the New York World and his yellow journalism, stirring up passions. McKinley wanted no part of the war, but when the New York papers started saying the Spanish blew up 'the Maine', he had no choice. Public opinion would have crucified him.
The only reason a navy was sent to Manilla Bay, was because Roosevelt, before he left as Assistant SecNavy sent them there, without McKinley's knowledge. Hell, McKinley didn't even know where the Philippines WAS!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-11-2001 21:21
on this. Remember the Alamo???? SA tried to reclaim texas
|