09-05-2003 02:54									#211
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And, then there was the Teller amendment:

"In April 1898 Senator Henry M. Teller (Colorado) proposed an amendment to the U.S. declaration of war against Spain which proclaimed that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba. It stated that the United States "hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people." The Senate passed the amendment on April 19. True to the letter of the Teller Amendment, after Spanish troops left the island in 1898, the United States occupied Cuba until 1902."

	09-05-2003 02:56									#212
	Put an end to popups!

Can anyone provide a decent explanation as to why a war of liberation has been turned on its head into an unjust war of conquest? It clearly has been. The question is

Why?

	09-05-2003 03:02									#213
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned Darius, but this war was in fact a popular war.

I didn't say it was unpopular.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Can anyone provide a decent explanation as to why a war of liberation has been turned on its head into an unjust war of conquest? It clearly has been. The question is Why?

Never in my life have I heard the Spanish-American war referred to as a war of liberation, so what can I say? Even if it was called a war of liberation, it obviously wasn't, because the people of Cuba were given relative independence but not freedom, and the people of the Phillippines weren't given freedom nor independence.

Had the two territories been allowed completely free elections and the right to decide their own futures, then it would have been a 'war of liberation'. This is a pretty simple matter.

	09-05-2003 03:21									#214
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 I didn't say it was unpopular. Never in my life have I heard the Spanish-American war referred to as a war of liberation, so what can I say? Even if it was called a war of liberation, it obviously wasn't, because the people of Cuba were given relative independence but not freedom, and the people of the Phillippines weren't given freedom nor independence. Had the two territories been allowed completely free elections and the right to decide their own futures, then it would have been a 'war of liberation'. This is a pretty simple matter.

Message to Garcia.

	09-05-2003 03:22									#215
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When I went to school in the '50s and '60s, I learned that the Spanish had sunk the Maine and that our purpose was to liberate Cuba. We achieved those objectives. Teddy Roosevelt became extremely popular because of the war. His face adorns Mount Rushmore.

His face would not have adorned Mount Rushmore, I guarantee you, if the people of American thought that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

But clearly, history has been rewritten, particularly to defame America's foreign policy and most particularly to defame Republicans. Today, all America's actions are protrayed as evil. Iraq is about oil and imperialism, after all - at least according to one segment of the population.

It appears to me that anti-American and anti-Republican propaganda is being taught as history. The purpose, I submit, is to make good little Democrats out of American kids. But what it also does is inflame the world against us because they truly believe that America and in particular, Republicans, are evil. I have seen such sentiment often expressed here on Apolyton.

	09-05-2003 04:16									#216
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned His face would not have adorned Mount Rushmore, I guarantee you, if the people of American thought that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

Sure. I never said the American people thought it was an unjust war of conquest, I just said that it was an unjust war of conquest.

I don't see how that is anti-Republican or anti-American, however.

	09-05-2003 05:31									#217
	Increase the size of your Attachments

darius, Check out this site. This is the kind of stuff I see posted here about Republicans all the time. I know this site is an extreme form of anti-Republicanism, but you can see the stereotypes that form the underlying basis of humor.

http://www.whitehouse.org

But back to the point at hand. Just how was the Spanish-American war unjust at the time it was declared and fought? What happened years later, where a corrupt "dictator" assumed power in 1950's, does not change the fact that Cuba was in fact liberated from Spain. From 1899-1902, we build roads, schools, hospitals, etc. and brought a lot of America to Cuba. We then held elections and turned the government over to an elected president in a functioning democracy.

Our plans for Iraq are substantially the same. Was the war against Saddam an unjust war of conquest? NO. And neither was our war of liberation of Cuba.

	09-05-2003 06:26									#218
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned darius, Check out this site. This is the kind of stuff I see posted here about Republicans all the time. I know this site is an extreme form of anti-Republicanism, but you can see the stereotypes that form the underlying basis of humor. http://www.whitehouse.org

I know that site, and it's a toilet. What does it have to do with anything?

quote: Originally posted by Ned What happened years later, where a corrupt "dictator" assumed power in 1950's, does not change the fact that Cuba was in fact liberated from Spain.

Cuba wasn't candyland up until Battista. While Cuba was supposedly independent, the Platt Amendment allowed us to meddle in its affairs whenever we chose (in other words, whenever the new government would threaten the security of American businesses). We occupied until 1902, but when Gomez came to power we occupied again from 1906 to 1909. We tried returning Cuba to independence, only to return again in 1912 to put down revolts. From then on the only reason we didn't intervene in Cuban politics is because our businesses there were kept safe all the way up to Castro.

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that for the most part the Cubans were better off under U.S. occupation and under pro-U.S. governments than under Spanish control. However, that does not make a war 'just'. Again, look up the generally accepted definitions of 'just war'; liberation in and of itself wasn't enough. There had to be some sort of wrong suffered by the U.S. as well, and now knowing that the Maine was not attacked by the Spaniards, there was no such wrong.

Finally, what does this have to do with Iraq now? When did I say this war was unjust? This war is just because we have actually been wronged (attack on our Kuwaiti ally, violation of 1991 ceasefire, 1993 WTC attack), whether we 'liberated' the Iraqi people or not. The fact that Saddam wronged us while Spain did not is the main difference (among others) between the Spanish-American war and the war in Iraq.

	09-05-2003 06:41									#219
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ah, but then Kosovo was an unjust war.

Somehow, I think the definition of a just war has to be broadened to "police actions" designed to remove oppressive regimes that are actively killing people, as was the case in 1898 in Cuba.

I do not know how one can distinguish Kosovo from Cuba.

	09-05-2003 06:49									#220
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned Somehow, I think the definition of a just war has to be broadened to "police actions" designed to remove oppressive regimes that are actively killing people, as was the case in 1898 in Cuba.

Wouldn't bother me, but the only problem is that it would give us justification to go to war with around 2/3 of the world's countries at any time of our choosing. What's more dangerous is that other countries could adopt this standard and do the same thing.

A country must be wronged in some significant way in order to start a war. Having liberation alone being a justification is dangerous because everyone has a different definition of liberation.

quote: Originally posted by Ned I do not know how one can distinguish Kosovo from Cuba.

a) The Spanish only killed political dissidents, while Milosevic killed many people because of their ethnicity alone.
b) America has nothing to economically gain from Kosovo, while it did from Cuba. Hence, it's a lot easier to say Kosovo was justified.

	09-05-2003 06:52									#221
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 b) America has nothing to economically gain from Kosovo, while it did from Cuba. Hence, it's a lot easier to say Kosovo was justified.

It's the reverse for me.

	09-05-2003 06:54									#222
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

What do we have to gain from Kosovo? (you might be right, I'm interested)

	09-05-2003 06:59									#223
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 What do we have to gain from Kosovo?

We don't have to gain economically from a war. It's just a nice bonus. We can gain in areas such as national security.

	09-05-2003 07:06									#224
	Support Apolyton

BTW, Do you think that we should have a deal with the new Iraq along the lines of the Platt amendment. That Amendment allowed us to intervene if Cuban democracy was threatened, or they if they were subverted by a foreign power. It also gave us a permanent base on the Island.

We may want to have similar rights in Iraq, at least for a while. I can see us intervening if, let us say, the legitimate government of Iraq is overthrown by a coup or if the government refuses to hold elections or to give power to an election winner.

	09-05-2003 07:24									#225
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc We don't have to gain economically from a war. It's just a nice bonus. We can gain in areas such as national security.

Well I didn't say we have to, I only saying that the lack of economic gain from the war in Kosovo is a distinct difference from the Spanish-American war, in response to Ned's post. You're absolutely correct that it could also be national security.

For that matter, what major effect did Milosevic's antics have on American national security? The only thing that comes close is that it could ignite a larger conflict as Clinton said, but that's not really a direct threat.

quote: Originally posted by Ned BTW, Do you think that we should have a deal with the new Iraq along the lines of the Platt amendment.

No, but that doesn't mean we should just leave either. We should stay and stabilize until we know that a free election would not result in a theocracy or secular dictatorship. If the Iraqis freely elect a theocracy or a secular dictatorship ten years from now, then yes we should leave them be. If the legitimate government in Iraq is overthrown by an armed minority, then we should intervene. Deal with any individual situations on their own.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Amendment allowed us to intervene if Cuban democracy was threatened, or they if they were subverted by a foreign power.

Replace 'Cuban democracy' with 'American businesses'. I have NO problem whatsoever with us having defended our economic interests in Cuba, but I'm still not going to lie that the Platt Amendment was meant to protect democracy in Cuba alone.

	09-05-2003 07:26									#226
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 For that matter, what major effect did Milosevic's antics have on American national security?

None that I can see. That's one of the reasons why I was against the intervention.

	09-05-2003 07:29									#227
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Then why did you say it was reverse for you? We both agree that we had nothing to gain from the war in Kosovo, neither economically nor geopolitically, and I'm guessing you agree that we benefited economically and geopolitically from the war with Spain.

That's really all I was saying, in response to Ned's saying "I do not know how one can distinguish Kosovo from Cuba."

	09-05-2003 07:42									#228
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Darius, I think the presence of the Platt amendment was vital so that business would feel safe in investing in Cuba. If a country is torn by strife and revolution, or is weak and not able to defend itself from a takeover by a foreign power, investment is risky.

Because of the Platt amendment, American capital and investment pored into Cuba. I understand that just before Castro, Cuba had the highest standard of living in Latin America.

A similar guarantee to Iraq could result in a hugh influx of US and European capital.

But there may be a problem in this as well. The presence of too many Western innovations is what caused the Ayatollah to become anti-Shah in Iran. Womens rights were particularly aggravating, IIRC. We may be well advised to keep a low profile for the time being.

	09-05-2003 09:46									#229
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Thank you Spain!

	09-05-2003 10:59									#230
	Remove this text

Ned: just for the sake of discussion, I'll ask you to describe how the war with Spain fulfills ALL of these criteria:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Only 100% will be a passing grade.

	09-05-2003 19:36									#231
	Increase the size of your Attachments

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

All the rest of the points should be self-evident. If you dispute any, let's discuss them furhter.

As to 3), it appears that we sent the Maine to Havana to protect American citizens who were threatened during the fighting in Cuba between the Spanish army and revolutionaries. The Maine blew up. This was our "pretext" for armed invention into the conflict.

Last edited by Ned on 09-05-2003 at 19:44

	09-05-2003 22:38									#232
	Tired of ads?

The explosion of the Maine is the lamest excuse for war in history(change that to American history). No proof was ever found that it was done by the spanish. Our ship was in Havana, which is controlled by the spanish. It blew up, the Spanish did it.

	09-05-2003 23:40									#233
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

gsmoove, talk about lame, think of the Japanese excuse for invading Manchuria? Their railroad blew up. History says that the Japanese themselves blew their own railroad up as a pretext. But I have never seen a documentation of this.

Turning to the Maine, doesn't seem just a bit suspicious that the Maine blew up in Havanna harbor? Hundreds of Americans were killed. This alone suggests that America had nothing to do with sabotaging their own battleship.

Recall also that United States began beating the war drums during World War I when the Germans deliberately sank the Lusitania, killing hundreds of Americans.

Next consider the cause of World War I: the assassination of the Archduke. Here only one Austrian lost his life, but he was an important Austrian

I to go on, but you see the pattern. There is an underlying major cause for hostilities and a spark. The spark provides the legal justification.

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he did so because he said he was protecting the rights of the Tribunes. This however was not the real cause of the war, was it?

	09-05-2003 23:47									#234
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ned, thats why as an afterthought I put American history.

quote: Turning to the Maine, doesn't seem just a bit suspicious that the Maine blew up in Havanna harbor?

Turning to the Maine, it does seem a little bit suspicious, but the evidence was lacking, as opposed to the Lusitania where we were quite certain it was hit by the Germans. During the Maine incident the spark was already lit, we wanted war and lucky for us a reason popped up out of nowhere, nevermind why was the Maine in Havana harbor to begin with, I don't think we were invited and certainly if we were worried about our citizens we could have asked to evacuate them with Spanish assistance.

	09-05-2003 23:47									#235
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned gsmoove, talk about lame, think of the Japanese excuse for invading Manchuria? Their railroad blew up. History says that the Japanese themselves blew their own railroad up as a pretext.

Is anyone here defending the Japanese invasion of Manchuria?

quote: Originally posted by Ned This alone suggests that America had nothing to do with sabotaging their own battleship.

While I wouldn't be surprised if we destroyed our own battleship, I'm not saying that's what's happened. Most believe that it was just a freak accident that was conveniently seized upon.

Long story short, IMO the Maine explosion doesn't fit the 3rd Criterion. I guess you could make the case that at the time, after the inquiry declared it wasn't an accident, the government was justified in going to war. In retrospect, however, when it's been proven more or less that the Maine just had an accidental explosion, it's hard to say. Perhaps the war shouldn't be called unjust, since as far as we could know at the time it was an attack, and it should rather just be called a ****-up.

	09-05-2003 23:50									#236
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Darius, thanks. It is rare on this forum for people to actually listent to someone's else's argument, let alone agree that it might be valid.