 |
| |
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
OK, here I go (an euro opinion):
Revolution: Justified; americans being treated 2nd class and oppressed -->self defence
Barbary Wars: No opinion, heard of it, not more not less
1812: Similar to Barbary Wars, but I'm inclined to call it justified, simply because it was the brits who came across the ocean...
Mexican Wars: Robbery, if you'd ask me
Civil War: Justified, though AFAIK illegal. NTL, every nation has a tendency to confront seperation movements, especially ones with very doubtful ideologies...
Indian Wars: I simply can't believe that 12 people voted Yes. I can justify it partially by saying: "You know, it was the time..." and the indians weren't all nice either but american atrocity in those wars was commiting a genocide "justified with the typical "They breed like rabbits"-type propaganda
Spanish-American War: No opinion
WWI: A generally stupid war, justified for the US as for every other nation: Good reasons combined with commercial, geopolitical etc interests
WWII: Justified, the US lamentably hasitated too long, they should have entered earlier (and Chaplin shouldn't have been called "communist" for his "The Great Dictator"!)
Korea: Justified (UN)
Vietnam: In Vietnam the native populace didn't have much sense for the US actions, so I'd call it unjustified.
Gulf War: Justified. Saddam attacked a souvereign state. (Though I doubt that without oil anyone would have cared, but that's not the topic here...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
It sounds like some of you are having trouble grasping the concept that the ONLY fact even partially justifying World War 2 is Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war first.
However, I vote that it was unjustified, because the United States provoked these incidents - rather, FDR did, in an effort to provoke a war.
Against Japan, FDR slapped them with an oil and scrap metal embargo, and froze (in effect, stole) their assets in the US. This violates every concept of free trade imaginable, and, in my opinion, freezing someone's assets is an act of war.
Against Germany, US destroyers were in action against U-Boats, and guarding British convoys, as well as basically giving war material to Britain and Russia - I'm talking tanks, fighters, military transport, railroad cars, and many other things. Those were all acts of war against Germany. Germany was certainly justified to respond with their own declaration, I think - regardless of the strategic stupidity of that declaration, it was certainly justified.
People go on about how Germany and Japan would have somehow "threatened" the US later on. Come on. Japan couldn't even hold down China, or conquer the whole thing. Virtually the entire Japanese Army was in mainland Asia, most of it in China. They were logistically unable to invade and hold HAWAII, much less the continental US. And Germany?? Sure, without Lend Lease they would've beaten Russia, but they would have had to garrison that country with hundreds of thousands of men, and still fight a constant guerilla war within occupied Russia and PROBABLY an official war with Russian remnants east of the Urals. They MIGHT PERHAPS have been able to invade Britain, following a HUGE naval and air buildup - assuming, of course, they cut back the army, which was not really likely. Most of that vast army would have been needed for garrison and anti-rebel work, from France to the Urals, not to mention Scandanavia. But invade the US? Not a chance. Any talk of this is pure, uninformed nonsense of the first degree. Even assuming they had the men for the job, and a big enough navy to beat the US navy, including aircraft carriers - which they wouldn't have had anytime soon anyway, nor would they have known proper naval tactics, especially regarding carriers - they would NOT have had the logistics to do so. Supplying an army, landing on a hostile shore 4000 miles away with a friendly base no closer than - in an absolute best case scenario for Germany - being Iceland (please don't tell me they could have moved into South America to a large degree, that's also laughable). Come on now.
Not to mention the fact that Germany had NO viable nuclear program in the works - that's a myth, though even before war was declared the US DID have a nuclear program going.
Bottom line - Japan and Germany were no real threat to the US, we committed acts of war against both of them, thus US interference in WW2 was NOT justified.
I'm not gonna get much into the Civil War, except to comment on Hoek's statement about the "elastic clause".
What I'm of course referring to is the 10th Amendment, which basically states any power not granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states and the people. Looking at Article 1 Section 9, the section of the Constitution which lays down restrictions on the states, you can find nothing prohibiting secession. Furthermore, there is no amendment stating the opposite of the 10th - ie that the 10th can also work the opposite way. Therefore, secession MUST be Constitutional.
On the subject of Korea, if you are using the UN Charter as justification for the war, that is ridiculous! The US was never once threatened during that war, nor would it have been by its implications (although implications don't justify a war anyway). It was simply a move trying to counter communism, and sticking our nose in where it didn't belong.
Likewise with the Gulf War. It was fought over oil, and over the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who cares? First off, our ambassador pretty much gave a green light to Iraq in the first place, but more than that, Kuwait is not part of the United States, nor is Saudi Arabia or anyone else in the region (especially not Israel, but that's a different argument). So Sadaam would have controlled 1/3 of the world's oil - I agree, not the best situation, but nothing we can justifiably do about it, either, except encourage both more oil surveying and exploitation at home and search for alternate energy techniques, while just biting the bullet and paying a dictator for oil in the meantime. Oh I forgot, we do that anyway, unless you would consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Liberal Democracy, in which case you are not thinking very clearly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by uh Clem
Here on earth, they don't appear to have ever given the area much priority. The view might have been different from Planet Reagan, however... |
Showing your ignorence again, eh?
Don't you ever tire of making a fool of yourself in these things?
(Yes, I remember the pearl harbour thread)
In your small mind they didn't, but in the real world, not any "planet Reagan" the Soviets expended enormous resources in their Cuban cliant and for their attempts in this region.
The fact that you don't realize it is hardly surprising. 
quote:
Still doesn't indicate how Grenada was justified, unless you think that merely because you participated, that makes it okay. |
Oh, I'm soooo insulted.
I mentioned I was there because many apologists (the Cubans, for example) who insist there was nothing there.
And you can see how the US "occupied" the place.
Still waiting for your explanation on how it wasn't (if you have one, which is becoming increasingly more likely)
quote:
BTW, a lot of governments in that area NEEDED destabilizing. |
This is quite a statement.quote:
Anyone taking up arms against the US-supported death squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala was justified in doing so. |
Maybe they were responding in kind to the Soviet sponcered Sandanistas?
Or are you an old hardliner that STILL thinks those elections wern't rigged?
Oh, and BTW, Grenada is NOWHERE near El Salvador or Guatemala.
Now, do you have a pertinent comment, or just more leftist rantings?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
DF
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
It sounds like some of you are having trouble grasping the concept that the ONLY fact even partially justifying World War 2 is Pearl Harbor, and the fact that Germany declared war first.
|
True.....I cant argue with this
quote:
However, I vote that it was unjustified, because the United States provoked these incidents - rather, FDR did, in an effort to provoke a war. |
Yes we forced the japanese to invade China, Far east and Dutch Indies And we even helped them strap bombs on there Zero's as they took off for pearl harbor (get a clue dude...USA embargo was inevitable). By this logic DF... We are provoking a war with Saddam?
quote:
Against Germany, US destroyers were in action against U-Boats, and guarding British convoys, as well as basically giving war material to Britain and Russia - I'm talking tanks, fighters, military transport, railroad cars, and many other things. Those were all acts of war against Germany. Germany was certainly justified to respond with their own declaration, I think - regardless of the strategic stupidity of that declaration, it was certainly justified. |
Britian wouldnt of lasted into 1943 without those escorts. U-Boats would have had a FEAST (happy month). Stupid on germanys part......glad there stupidity got to them 
quote:
People go on about how Germany and Japan would have somehow "threatened" the US later on. Come on. Japan couldn't even hold down China, or conquer the whole thing. |
Eh? Who are you kidding? Japs had no trouble with the portion they conquered. Chinese wouldnt have lasted had it not been for Lend lease small arms and flying tigers. This statement you have made is not true. Germany could do it in the vast expanse of USSR with ease.
quote:
Bottom line - Japan and Germany were no real threat to the US, we committed acts of war against both of them, thus US interference in WW2 was NOT justified. |
What have you been smoking Moron????? Japanese fleet was 3 times the size of ours! Germany had more troops active in 1941.....then america and Britian COMBINED!
quote:
Likewise with the Gulf War. It was fought over oil, and over the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Who cares? First off, our ambassador pretty much gave a green light to Iraq in the first place, but more than that, Kuwait is not part of the United States, nor is Saudi Arabia or anyone else in the region (especially not Israel, but that's a different argument). |
Again your opinion seems through like noxouis vomit... We had no Idea Saddam was about to Invade Iraq. He had no visible or unusaul troop deployments on the border. And when he did invade.....he did it with less that 60,000 troops. Saddam said..and I quote "We will not use violence to resolve the Kuwaiti Issue" at the time he was credible....
quote:
Not to mention the fact that Germany had NO viable nuclear program in the works - that's a myth, though even before war was declared the US DID have a nuclear program going. |
1943 Germany had half the neccessary materials. Besides, you forget the ONLY reason the we got to the A-Bomb first was because we entered the war in the first place!
So some of you idiots think America shouldnt have intervened in WW2? Let the Fascists overrun Europe and Asia...Russia.....???
Are you kidding me?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
 |
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
Chris: You completely ignore the fact that in Nicaragua, the Sandanistas were supported by the population. Reagan clearly did not understand the lessons of Vietnam. The Sandinistas posed no threat to U.S. interests, and Reagan supporting them by selling weapons to the Iranians is nothing less than treason, for which Reagan should have been impeached and imprisoned. You can not tell me that the terrorists (which they were) in el Salvador and Nicaragua stabilized the region by killing thousands of civilians. This is not "leftist clap trap," it's the truth.
Here's a question: what is the criteria being used for justification. For instance, should morality ever play a role in military action. Call it liberal clap trap again, but I think it should. I think that the fact that the Nazis and the Japanese were evil is enough of a reason to stop them. Both were scars of the human race. The same applies to a number of cold-war actions that we took. Kennan's doctrine of containment was clearly distorted to justify such wide-reaching actions such as Angola, Vietnam, and Nicaragua. Our inability to say, distinguish between Chinese communism and Soviet communism gave us decades of poor foreign policy in Asia.
The numbers for the Phillipine Insurrection are not made up, there were in fact in the hundreds of thousands that we killed. Chris, imperialism is not justified in any sense. It is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. We obtained Hawaii to protect Panama, we obtained the Phillipines to protect Hawaii. To say that they "love" the U.S. now says nothing of our grisly history of death there.
In terms of the Civil War, the idea of secession undermines the whole idea of federalism. All of the southern states were bound by their signing of the constitution to surrender their sovereignty to the umbrella of the federal government. Like it or not, the United States Constitution provides for a federal system. Remember, it was the Articles of Confederation, which failed, that gave states sovereignty.
And if a state can seceed, why can't a citizen seceed? Why can't I declare myself my own country. It would have a population of one, and I would be president.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
[subliminable version of earlier post]
Last edited by uh Clem on 29-11-2001 at 05:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
faded,
quote:
Yes we forced the japanese to invade China, Far east and Dutch Indies And we even helped them strap bombs on there Zero's as they took off for pearl harbor (get a clue dude...USA embargo was inevitable). By this logic DF... We are provoking a war with Saddam? |
Erm, Japanese attacks on China and the Far East weren't justifications for the US going to war with them. And Japan had no other choice, other than national economic stagnation, than attack on the US Pacific Fleet.
quote:
Britian wouldnt of lasted into 1943 without those escorts. U-Boats would have had a FEAST (happy month). Stupid on germanys part......glad there stupidity got to them |
How's this our problem?
quote:
Eh? Who are you kidding? Japs had no trouble with the portion they conquered. Chinese wouldnt have lasted had it not been for Lend lease small arms and flying tigers. This statement you have made is not true. Germany could do it in the vast expanse of USSR with ease. |
All Japan held was the cities and major roads, not the countryside or small towns. They didn't have enough troops.
quote:
What have you been smoking Moron????? Japanese fleet was 3 times the size of ours! Germany had more troops active in 1941.....then america and Britian COMBINED! |
This is irrelevant. They still couldn't invade the US, and a US naval buildup would be enough to check both of them at the same time from every invading, not to mention logistical problems.
quote:
1943 Germany had half the neccessary materials. Besides, you forget the ONLY reason the we got to the A-Bomb first was because we entered the war in the first place! |
Germany was nowhere near an atomic bomb, they were not even focusing on it - Hitler was more interested in other superweapons, such as jet bombers and V-3s. Of course he also put a fair amount of resources into technology to better kill the Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoek
Chris: You completely ignore the fact that in Nicaragua, the Sandanistas were supported by the population. |
I never intended to bring this up, nor did I link it to Grenada, Clem did that.
I still hear that claim today, yet the opposition forces where all nicaraguans.  quote:
Reagan clearly did not understand the lessons of Vietnam. The Sandinistas posed no threat to U.S. interests, and Reagan supporting them by selling weapons to the Iranians is nothing less than treason, for which Reagan should have been impeached and imprisoned. |
This is muddy water, to say the least, to this day, no clear link to Reagan has EVER been established, Teflon President, remember?quote:
You can not tell me that the terrorists (which they were) in el Salvador and Nicaragua stabilized the region by killing thousands of civilians. This is not "leftist clap trap," it's the truth. |
I never brought this up, I was speaking about Grenada, not here, and I never said I supported right wing death squads.
My answer was in responce to the idiotic baiting by Clem, who just shot out a little quip.
quote:
Here's a question: what is the criteria being used for justification. For instance, should morality ever play a role in military action. |
This is another grey area, what morality?
What was perfectly acceptable 100 years ago may not be now, but may again be 100 years from now. It is dangerous to apply current morality to historical situations.quote:
Call it liberal clap trap again, but I think it should. I think that the fact that the Nazis and the Japanese were evil is enough of a reason to stop them. Both were scars of the human race. The same applies to a number of cold-war actions that we took. Kennan's doctrine of containment was clearly distorted to justify such wide-reaching actions such as Angola, Vietnam, and Nicaragua. Our inability to say, distinguish between Chinese communism and Soviet communism gave us decades of poor foreign policy in Asia. |
I don't disagree with this, if you look where I placed vietnam.
quote:
The numbers for the Phillipine Insurrection are not made up, there were in fact in the hundreds of thousands that we killed. |
Sorry, this simply isn't the case, careful study of this campagin bares this out through at least a dozen sources, Aguinaldo's rebels at their height NEVER exceded 40,000 men.
This is confirmed in nemerous sources. His loss rate never exceeded the 3,000 killed near Manilla in the opening phase of this war. It is also a myth that this war was popular with all Phillipenoes, this was FAR from the truth.
"Hundreds of thousands" just doesn't stand up to the light of historical truth, I'm sorry, but that is the way it is.quote:
Chris, imperialism is not justified in any sense. It is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. We obtained Hawaii to protect Panama, we obtained the Phillipines to protect Hawaii. To say that they "love" the U.S. now says nothing of our grisly history of death there. |
Don't remember ever saying it did, but in fact, considering the fracturing in the modern world, it may have been far better than the current situation.
quote:
Originally posted by uh Clem
No doubt. I'm sure you can remember vividly and in detail every slight since the first grade. Not my problem.
Whether the Caribbean and Central America are "nowhere near" each other, I leave to geographers. Certainly the US government has always thought they were close, however, as Castro has been regularly invoked by Washington whenever anybody in the hemisphere has stepped out of line for the past 40 years.
Either way, if someone invades another country, the burden of proof is on him. It's not up to anyone else to demonstrate that it wasn't justified. A warehouse or two (or a hundred) of small arms that may or may not have been fom where the gumment said they were and may or may not have been intended for what the gummint said they were intended for...doesn't cut it. Sorry.
Anyway, that pales when compared to the many millions in military & intelligence aid that the US dishes out to its favorites. |
Oh, I'm so insulted again. 
Just as I suspected, you DIDN'T have an argument, just the normal leftest whine "US dishes out to its favorites".
This is an opinion discusion, if you don't have one, why post?
There are plenty of "US sucks" threads to place that speal in.
I love the part about "leave it to geographers" and the Castro comment is classic, right out of the "Daily Worker".
Bad news, Sunshine, I'm not a rightest, and never have been, I'm a centralist, and have ZERO axe to grind in history.
Wish we could say that about you. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
The only reason one society will tolerate the horror of war with another is economics. Wars fought for political reasons alone are rarely supported by the public, and wars driven by hatred usually have underlying economic factors. Is this 'right'? Is money a 'justifiable' cause for war? It does not matter. It is a fact of life.
Hitler achieved what Europe had tried to prevent for three centuries - a Great Germany, a single German nation. This one fact marked him as a target for the rest of Europe.
Napoleon achieved what Europe dreaded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: French control of the Rhine. Even if he and Hitler had not begun their doomed wars of conquest, they would have always found themselves isolated politically because they upset the economic balance of power.
Even the main causes of the American Revolution and Civil War were economic. American colonists were not 'oppressed' by any srtetch of the imagination. And to say that the Southern States seceded for any reason other than because their wallet was threatened is silly.
No one wants to think money is a justifyable reason to go to war, but society has proven again and again that it believes it is. The Persian Gulf War was supported; the Vietnam War was not. The only difference was that the Gulf War had an economic impact on the public, while politics was the drive behind the war in Vietnam.
In fact, from a moral point of view, Vietnam was as justifiable as any war. There were atrocities committed there that would make any Nazi proud, but the public viewed it as none of our business. If East Germany had invaded West Germany at the same time, the public would have been enraged and we would have fought to the last man. Because of economics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
But my whole point is that economics, money, and especially morals don't justify wars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I agree. There is no justification for war. But it's easy to say that as an individual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Wars don't just happen. They have definate causes. Calling these causes 'justifiable' or 'unjustifiable' is futile. War is not a football game. Words like 'law' and 'rules of warfare' are meaningless when it comes to the systematic and calculated slaughter of human beings. War is the total and fundamental breakdown of law. Only by understanding the causes, justifiable or not, can we prevent the effects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
But what does that have to do with anything? These wars WOULD NOT have happened if Libertarians ran the show.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
No matter who 'runs the show,' as long as one group of people sees itself as different from another, there will always be war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Incorrect. With Libertarians in charge, the US would never have launched the Mexican War, American Indians Wars, War of 1812, US Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War 1, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, or any other peacekeeping exercise be it in Bosnia, Kosovo, wherever. Nor would Panama, Grenada, etc been undertaken.
The Revolution would have been, as would the Barbary Pirates War and probably the French Naval War, and probably the current war against Afghanistan (provided Congress declared war). Entry in World War 2 would never have happened because a Libertarian US would never have provoked Germany or Japan, and traded with both nations as fair and equal trading partners, and would have told Great Britain and Russia where to get off on military assistance.
So your assertion that with Libertarians in charge, war would still happen is incorrect as it concerns the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Please explain. What is your definition of 'Libertarian,' and how would this ideology prevent these wars?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Dale, for a definition of Libertarianism, look to such posters on here as Wraith, Berzerker, and Rex Little, they lay forth the positions far better than I.
FireDragon, your comment in and of itself shows who can and can't discuss things intelligently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Please explain. What is your definition of 'Libertarian,' and how would this ideology prevent these wars? |
David has done yeoman work in this thread, so I'll take this one for him. I'm not going to go into a long discourse on libertarianism (see www.lp.org if you want one), but the relevant point here is that we believe in using the military only to protect ourselves from foreign attack. A libertarian government would not go to war to protect one group of foreigners from another group of foreigners, unless it was obvious that the aggressors meant to attack us next.
I think it's possible that a libertarian government might have gotten the U.S. into WW2; I don't think it's as obvious as David claims that the Axis were no threat to the U.S. But WW1? the Mexican War? Korea, Vietnam, etc.? No way.
Edit: didn't see David's last post when I wrote this. You're too modest, David; reading through this thread I thought I was in the presence of another Wraith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaleC76
|
|
The State of Alabama
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
A point I would like to make is that the Japanese Empire did not attack Pearl Harbor because they thought Uncle Sam wore a funny hat. They attacked because they wanted to establish an economic and political hegemony in the Pacific. The only way for any government, Libertarian or otherwise, to prevent this would be to peacefully surrender that hegemony, a dangerous course of action indeed.
Germany and Japan did NOT have Libertarian governments. They were NOT interested in attacking only when attacked. They were NOT looking for equal trading partners. They were trying to expand their economic spheres of influence at the expense of the other Great Powers, the first ingredient in the recipe for war.
Pacifism is a noble ideal to strive for, but I doubt it is workable in real life. A Libertarian government in power would have to realize that people are as concerned about the economic attacks of other nations as they are physical ones. History has proven this time and time again. A government that ignored that would soon find itself out of office.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-11-2001 03:21
|