NationStates Jolt Archive

Which war has been America's greatest moral shame?

The United States, contrary to what high school history texts would have us believe, has a blemished, imperfect past. The U.S. has fought wars of aggression, been involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide, and has committed war crimes. Which war, declared or undeclared, was least justified and most morally reprehensible?

All of the above

Which war has been America's greatest moral shame?

Mexican-American War

War Against Native Americans

Spanish-American War

Invasions of Latin American countries (collectively, late 19th and early 2th c.)

Vietnam War

Gulf War

Invasion of Iraq

Other


While I'm tempted to say the current war, it would be unfair to do so, because history has yet to have a chance to assess it. Most unjust has to be the war against the Native Americans. We ourselves broke treaty after treaty. Brought sickness to them. Shoved them from their land into inhospitable environments. It, in reality, was a form of Genocide.

The Civil War.

All except the Gulf War I. I admittedly dont know a whole lot about the wars in Latin America though.

All of the above


They can all be bad but they all cant be Americas MOST unjust war :-P

They can all be bad but they all cant be Americas MOST unjust war :-P

Good point. I'd say either the war on Native Americans, or because it's most recent, the war against Iraq.

They can all be bad but they all cant be Americas MOST unjust war :-P

Sure they can. They could be all on par.

(I'll stop being difficult now :p)

Hard one. I chose the invasion of Latin American countries. Maybe because so many countries had to suffer of the consequences. Mexican-American and Spanish-American I don't know enough about. Natives died mostly because of the diseases, anyway that was the other candidate for me.

Sure they can. They could be all on par.

(I'll stop being difficult now :p)


Then there just is not a most :-P or (as a stats major either your units are too large or your data not complete) because in reality nothing is COMPLETELY equal (they can be close but it is a statistical impossibility like reaching absolute 0 )

Spanish American. That was so stupid that Pulitzer and Hearst caused a war all by themselves. Yellow journalism be damned!

The Civil War.You beat me to it...

Then there just is not a most :-P or (as a stats major either your units are too large or your data not complete) because in reality nothing is COMPLETELY equal (they can be close but it is a statistical impossibility like reaching absolute 0 )

OK, i'll concede that point. Now I thought about arguing further, but eh. I'm tired :p

I voted Vietnam just to be a bit different.

All except the Gulf War I. I admittedly dont know a whole lot about the wars in Latin America though.

American military involvement in Latin America between 1899 - 1933

1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.

1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- November 20 to December 4. U.S. forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.

1902 -- Colombia -- April 16 to 23. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.

1902 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.

1903 -- Honduras -- March 23 to 30 or 31. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortez during a period of revolutionary activity.

1903 -- Dominican Republic -- March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.

1903-14 -- Panama. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21 1914 to guard American interests.

1904 -- Dominican Republic -- January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.

1904 -- Panama -- November 17 to 24. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.

1906-09 -- Cuba -- September 1906 to January 23, 1909. U.S. forces sought to restore order, protect foreigners, and establish a stable government after serious revolutionary activity.

1907 -- Honduras -- March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro Laguna and Choloma.

1910 -- Nicaragua -- May 19 to September 4. U.S. forces protected American interests at Bluefields.

1911 -- Honduras -- January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.

1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortez. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.

1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Canal Zone.

1912 -- Cuba -- June 5 to August 5. U.S. forces protected American interests on the Province of Oriente, and in Havana.

1912-25 -- Nicaragua -- August to November 1912. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.

1913 -- Mexico -- September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.

1914 -- Haiti -- January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently U.S. naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution.

1914 -- Dominican Republic -- June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.

1914-17 -- Mexico. Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Dolphin affair and Villa's raids and included capture of Vera Cruz and later Pershing's expedition into northern Mexico.

1915-34 -- Haiti -- July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. U.S. forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1916-24 -- Dominican Republic -- May 1916 to September 1924. American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1917-22 -- Cuba. U.S. forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the Uni States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.

1918-19 -- Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, U.S. troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and s times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales.

1918-20 -- Panama. U.S. forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.

1919 -- Honduras -- September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.

1920 -- Guatemala -- April 9 to 27. U.S. forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.

1921 -- Panama -- Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.

1924 -- Honduras -- February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.

1925 -- Honduras -- April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.

1925 -- Panama -- October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.

1926-33 -- Nicaragua -- May 7 to June 5, 1926; August 27, 1926, to January 1933. The coup d'etat of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933. Their work included activity against the outlaw leader
Sandino in 1928.

American military involvement in Latin America between 1899 - 1933


Consider me educated :)

OK, i'll concede that point. Now I thought about arguing further, but eh. I'm tired :p

I voted Vietnam just to be a bit different.


Probably a good thing otherwise I will start having to Google for sources :-P lol (I mean it is all stuff I learned in class but I don’t have those books on me and such)

And that takes too much effort … I am supremely lazy

Vietnam for certain. That war literally destroyed Vietnam. With four million dead, it was America's closest approximation to the holocaust.

What are you all talking about? The USA liberated all those people from Communists or their own savagery. It is the Manifest Destiny of the American people to bring civilization, democracy and Coca-Cola to the rest of the world. If the rest of the world doesn't agree, it just shows how badly they need to be liberated! ;)

I voted for the wars against the Native Americans ("Indian Wars"), with Vietnam being a close second. Vietnam was more stupid than unjust (the people wanted a communist government, as signified by the election that immediately preceded said "police action"), but loads of Americans really did believe the domino theory, and the U.S.S.R. and China certainly were a threat, as was Cuba.

The Sioux, Apache, Iroquios, etc. were not a threat. They were just occupying territory that U.S. citizens wanted, so the U.S took it by force.

Listen to "Run to the Hills" by Iron Maiden for an excellent lyrical rendition of this procedure.

I'm a Limey, so I shouldn't really speak about unjust wars (India, Africa, Ireland, to name but a few morally questionable battlegrounds), but there you go.

Which war has been America's greatest moral shame?

The United States, contrary to what high school history texts would have us believe, has a blemished, imperfect past. The U.S. has fought wars of aggression, been involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide, and has committed war crimes. Which war, declared or undeclared, was least justified and most morally reprehensible?

poll options
Mexican-American War
War Against Native Americans
Spanish-American War
Invasions of Latin America (collectively, late 19th, early 20th c.)
Vietnam War
Gulf War (1st)
War Against Iraq

:confused: I don't know where you went to school, but the first 5 were taught as having various degrees of "taint" in my high school history classes in one of the most conservative areas of Texas (Tom Delay is the current rep., to give you an idea) over 15 years ago.

That being said, I voted other: the War of Northern Aggression. This is what directly lead to the downfall of the demoratic USA and the establishment of a more imperialistic USA.

For outright, blatant imperialism, I'd have to say the Mexican-American War. I'm honestly surprised I'm the only one that voted for it.

For greatest moral shame I'm not sure, but for greatest overall shame I'd say the one where Canadian-based forces defeated Michigan with scarecrows, and a buch of crazy maritimers boated down to DC and torched the white house.

poll options


:confused: I don't know where you went to school, but the first 5 were taught as having various degrees of "taint" in my high school history classes in one of the most conservative areas of Texas (Tom Delay is the current rep., to give you an idea) over 15 years ago.

That being said, I voted other: the War of Northern Aggression. This is what directly lead to the downfall of the demoratic USA and the establishment of a more imperialistic USA.

Mmm, it was the South, specifically Texas, that caused the imperialistic war against Mexico. The South also engaged in genocide against the Cherokees... the South was just as brutal and imperialist as any other quarter of the US. America's imperialistic tendencies didn't really get any better or worse due to the Civil War, and at least the negro slaves were freed after the Civil War.

Not sure if you consider the Phillipine-American war to be a part of the Spanish-American war, but I'd say it is a good candidate on its own. I wouldn't say the Spanish-American war was especially unjust, but the followup in the Phillipines truly sucked, especially since the independence movement considered us to be on their side until we back-stabbed them.

Vietnam on the other hand... I don't see how it was particularly unjust. Inept certainly, unjust? We had at least as much popular support as the NVA, both sides fought dirty but the North was definitely dirtier, and *after* we pulled out they killed some 400,000 people in labor camps (oh, and maybe we should count Pol Pot in Cambodia, another 1.6 million, and toss in another 100,000 in Laos). Basically the various Communist governments in Indochina managed to demonstrate exactly how insanely evil they were... which is why we were right to oppose them.

poll options


:confused: I don't know where you went to school, but the first 5 were taught as having various degrees of "taint" in my high school history classes

Taint?

You make my point. These weren't wars with minor taints. The Mexican-American War was a war of aggression and conquest. After Mexico turned down the U.S. offer to buy California and other Mexican land for $25 million, the U.S. invaded and took the land.

Today we would call the 19th century Indian Wars genocide.

In the Spanish-American War the U.S. declared war on Spain after a faulty boiler blew up The Maine in Cuba. Although Spain gave in to every American demand the U.S. still declared war and used the incident in Cuba to take over Puetro Rico and the Philippines.

Did your American history textbook show pictures of the My Lai massacre, the burning Buddhist monks, or the picture of the naked little girl running from her village after an American napalm attack? Any of these images are quickly recalled by anyone who lived through the war, but are rarely shown to American students.

Modern American history is presented to high school students as one long march of progress, with occassional missteps or "taints," such as slavery, genocide, or wars of aggression, which are all depicted as minor deviations from America's true path of righteousness.

Read James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, a review of a dozen of the most widely used American history texts.

Why is the war on terror not on the list?
Talk about a war that isnt justified!

Why is the war on terror not on the list?
Talk about a war that isnt justified!
How is the war on terror not justified?

Why is the war on terror not on the list?
Talk about a war that isnt justified!

I didn't include it because the war on terror is a slogan, not a war. It is a political scam. Terrorism is a tactic (military strategists call in "asynchronous warfare"), not an enemy. You can't wage a war on a tactic. It is like waging war on "blitzkrieg" or a "pincer movement."

Just Bush hyperbole.

I voted for the wars against the Native Americans ("Indian Wars"), with Vietnam being a close second. Vietnam was more stupid than unjust (the people wanted a communist government, as signified by the election that immediately preceded said "police action"), but loads of Americans really did believe the domino theory, and the U.S.S.R. and China certainly were a threat, as was Cuba.

The Sioux, Apache, Iroquios, etc. were not a threat. They were just occupying territory that U.S. citizens wanted, so the U.S took it by force.

Listen to "Run to the Hills" by Iron Maiden for an excellent lyrical rendition of this procedure.

I'm a Limey, so I shouldn't really speak about unjust wars (India, Africa, Ireland, to name but a few morally questionable battlegrounds), but there you go.

y'now? My argument is excactly the same as yours, especially india and africa. but did we go to war with Ireland?

for me it was a tossup between the spanish american war and the vietnam war.

i DIDNT vote for the indian wars or the mexican american war because we GAINED so much from them. so while they were major land grabs at least we got something for our immorality.

the spanish american war had very little justification and very little benefit to us in the long run. maybe if we had kept cuba and made it a state......
we ended up with territories and defacto colonies that compromised our view of ourselves. (the phillipines, puerto rico, the US virigin islands, etc)

vietnam had a twisted justification (fighting the russians by proxy) but NO real benefit to us. win or lose made no difference to us in the long run. this is the mark of a war we should have been involved in.

i suppose ww1 should be there too, it was a stupid war that didnt get the united states much even though it shaped the future of europe.

Did your American history textbook show pictures of the My Lai massacre, the burning Buddhist monks, or the picture of the naked little girl running from her village after an American napalm attack? Any of these images are quickly recalled by anyone who lived through the war, but are rarely shown to American students.

Modern American history is presented to high school students as one long march of progress, with occassional missteps or "taints," such as slavery, genocide, or wars of aggression, which are all depicted as minor deviations from America's true path of righteousness.

Read James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, a review of a dozen of the most widely used American history texts.

Yes, let us look at pictures of burning Buddhist monks. That will obviously show how wrong the war was. Are you somehow unaware that the famous event in which a monk burned to death involved him SETTING HIMSELF on fire. This wasn't a war atrocity, it was some crazy guy trying to protest.


I also think you may want to read that book with a bit of skepticism. You're essentially saying, don't listen to this book you read, listen to this other book you should read.

Revisionist history sucks. In 100 years they'll probably be saying John Stewart's 'Indecision 2000' campaign caused the whole Florida mess.

y'now? My argument is excactly the same as yours, especially india and africa. but did we go to war with Ireland?
You have to go rather further back - to William crossing the Boyne - but yes indeed. And the cruelties of British rule in Ireland may not rival the US against the Native Americans, but kindly consider how many times the Irish rebelled and ask yourself if Mother England has been in the right all this time.

y'now? My argument is excactly the same as yours, especially india and africa. but did we go to war with Ireland?
Technically, we haven't "gone to war" with Ireland for ages, but we (Great Britain) conquered Ireland, and treated it pretty shabbily until it got independence (the Government of Ireland Act of 1920).
Northern Ireland is sort of related, as it was formed by that Act, but the last referendum carried out there said that they wanted to be part of the U.K. still.

I disagree with some of the motives for this post, but I feel that if anything we've done was unjust that it would be the way we treated the Native Americans. Everything else you listed were fine.

Yes, let us look at pictures of burning Buddhist monks. That will obviously show how wrong the war was. Are you somehow unaware that the famous event in which a monk burned to death involved him SETTING HIMSELF on fire. This wasn't a war atrocity, it was some crazy guy trying to protest.

your right, those buddhist monks set themselves on fire, it wasnt an atrocity.

but

THEY WERENT CRAZY

it was their way of protesting the war and it was very effective. they gave their lives for their country and for peace.

The Mexican War 1846 -47 was a land grab pure and simple. Now its benefits were that the US got California, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. But we stripped them from Mexico.

It started because American settlers in Texas revolted in 1836, suffered some terrible losses (see the movie the Alamo for the short version) and then slaughtered a badly led Mexican Army a few weeks later at San Jacinto.

Mexico accepted a treaty of a sort to recognize Texas as nation, but when the British and French started making overtures to Texas, the US hurriedly offered annexation, in spite of warnings from Mexico that it would mean war, and when Texas accepted, the Mexicans massed an army and so did we and not long after, war began.

Many Americans, including Abraham Lincoln, thought the war was morally indefensable at the time it occured. It ultimately led directly to the US Civil War (for a variety of reasons).

Only the various wars with the Indians are even remotely close to the naked aggression here.

Not that I want to give the Southwest back, but then again, immigration may make that a moot point in the next century.

Yes, let us look at pictures of burning Buddhist monks. That will obviously show how wrong the war was. Are you somehow unaware that the famous event in which a monk burned to death involved him SETTING HIMSELF on fire. This wasn't a war atrocity, it was some crazy guy trying to protest.


I also think you may want to read that book with a bit of skepticism. You're essentially saying, don't listen to this book you read, listen to this other book you should read.

Revisionist history sucks. In 100 years they'll probably be saying John Stewart's 'Indecision 2000' campaign caused the whole Florida mess.

I mention these three pictures because anyone who lived through the Vietnam War era would instantly recognize them and be able to recall the power of those images. The self immolation of the Buddhist monk in Saigon is a vivid example of the powerful feeling of opposition to the American support for an oppressive South Vietnamese government. Students may dismiss a protest march, with a bunch of people carrying signs, but setting one's self on fire to make a statement will get people's attention, just as it did in 1963. These photographs are not included in highschool textbooks because those images are powerful indictments of U.S. actions

I agree that one should approach all books with skepticism. However, that doesn't mean that all books should be equally dismissed. Textbooks are written with many agenda's in mind, some of them contrary to the ideals of truth and historical accuracy. That is the point Loemen makes (and documents) in Lies My Teacher Told Me.

I disagree with some of the motives for this post, but I feel that if anything we've done was unjust that it would be the way we treated the Native Americans. Everything else you listed were fine.

It is only historical illiteracy that would allow someone to make, and believe, this statement.

I voted for the Vietnam War, since it was unjust both against the Vietnamese and against the young kids who were drafted to fight them. The U.S. sent, what, 53,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam? That doesn't even include the Vietnamese killed in such insanities as the My Lai Massacre, which was unjust, immoral, and just plain doesn't make sense to most people. Of course, they were doing it under orders, so either they did it or they got thrown in jail. That's a hell of a decision to stick a 20-year-old kid with.

That's not to say that the other wars were not wither unjustified or just plain bad ideas. Fighting the Native Americans was seen at the time as justified for ridiculous racial reasons, and we were dragged into war against Spain by newspaper owners who drummed up public support for a war William McKinley didn't want to fight.

It is the Spanish-American War that is one of a few reasons I believe it's our duty to strike that "freedom of the press" part of the First Amendment and take away the right to publish lies. No, I am not advocating a government-controlled press. I am advocating a truthful, responsible press. Owning a newspaper or TV station does not give a person the right to lie to the public. The law must reflect that.

Mexican-American War - Somewhat unjustified, but the Americans already living in California/Texas were being persecuted pretty badly. I can see people voting for it, but I don't think it's a bad one. The War of 1812 was about as justified.

War Against Native Americans - Not a war. Never declared as a war, and since the Native Americans weren't a soverign nation but rather a bunch of tribes, no foul in my mind. (BEFORE YOU FLAME: This is my opinion. If you want to try to convince me otherwise, please do so in a civilized manner.)

Spanish-American War - Very unjustified. IMHO, the worst of the bunch.

Invasions of Latin America (collectively, late 19th, early 20th c.) - Various. Sometimes justified, more often not. Certainly much less justified than Mexican-American war/1812.

Vietnam War - Mostly unjustified. The whole mess started with Kennedy's misguided attempt to keep France in NATO. (Please see Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" for more detail). The only positive from this one was the "front" shown to China and the USSR that the US was serious about "containing Communism", though that in no way justified it. I put this one just above Spanish-American.

Gulf War (1st) - I'm happy to see no one voted for this one (at least yet!). Of any war since WW2, this one was justified, just as much as the Korean War.

War Against Iraq - Mostly unjustified, but has a kernel of legitimacy about it due to the Oil for Food hoodwink and Saddam's continued floutings of the UN resolutions which were part and parcel of the Gulf War I cease fire. In my mind, slightly more justified than Vietnam, MUCH less justified than Gulf War I or even the Mexican American War.

BTW:
I've noted that the War of 1812 was pretty much unjustified. T
The Civil War cannot be unjustified, as the Union was fighting to preserve itself.
I also consider the Boxer Rebellion as a key piece of unjustified US action, albeit with a horde of European nations.

US interventions in Latin America 1846 - 1996

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

since that at least Venezuela, Nicaragua and Colombia have enjoyed US interventions in their countries.

I voted for the Vietnam War, since it was unjust both against the Vietnamese and against the young kids who were drafted to fight them. The U.S. sent, what, 53,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam? That doesn't even include the Vietnamese killed in such insanities as the My Lai Massacre, which was unjust, immoral, and just plain doesn't make sense to most people. Of course, they were doing it under orders, so either they did it or they got thrown in jail. That's a hell of a decision to stick a 20-year-old kid with.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html puts US Vietnam dead at about 47,500.

As a point of comparison, the British suffered 58,000 casualties in ONE DAY at the Battle of the Somme. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm

My point? Deaths do not make a war just or unjust, the causes for the war and its handling do. The firebombing of Dresden in WW2 was much worse than My Lai in terms of people killed, but I wouldn't call it immoral.

That said, I like your POV.

I think the only one listed that was not reprehensible was the, what shall we call it? The "1st Gulf War"? For that, we (and the rest of the REAL international coalition) were expelling an invader from a sovereign nation, and we stopped when we finished that task.

I selected the Mexican American war, because the history I've read on that one tells me it was pure and simple a land-grab by the US. The bulk of the rest were more for political reasons, power, influence in a given area. Although this one (the invasion of Iraq), IF in fact it is motivated mostly by oil and money, could well "take the cake"

I didn't include it because the war on terror is a slogan, not a war. It is a political scam. Terrorism is a tactic (military strategists call in "asynchronous warfare"), not an enemy. You can't wage a war on a tactic. It is like waging war on "blitzkrieg" or a "pincer movement."

Well, "War on Terror" is a politically correct way of saying "War on Islamist Terrorists" (btw, islamist=someone who believes in islamic religious government). Not mentioning Islam the religion is necessary in order to not piss off allies.

As for fighting an abstract... it's been done. The British Navy successfully fought a "War on Piracy", didn't it?

As an American Indian myself(Cherokee), I have a rather unique insight on that war. And let me tell you, mostly it was neither unjust, or uncalled for. Do you have any idea how many innocent civilians, innocent families,, were raped, mudered, scalped, and tortured, by the indians? Any race of people that saw this as acceptable, deserved what they got. Every action was justified, well, almost, some was overreaction, but not much.

Free speech is a gift, that some people shouldnt use, theres too many fuktards in the world, that think thier opinion matter, guess what peanut, you and your tree hugging, human rights activist, lunatic, hippy friends are the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes. The only people in the world that have directly hurt me, are those people.

I swear, people must think its trendy to protest something, though they have no idea what they are protesting:

Blahh Blahh Blahh Blahh Bush
Blahh Blahh Iraq Blahh Blahh
Oil Blahh Blahh Blahh Blahh
Blahh Blahh Bush Senior Blah

Ahh STFU. Dont like it, go live in another country, one of those pansy ones, like France, or Britan(What happend to you guys, you used to be cool). You want my opinion? US needs to drop out of the UN, screw those weenies.. "Oh Iraq wont let us inspect for weapons... Lets leave it to the US to fix it, then we can whine and complain at them because we screwed up" We need to leave the UN, and just take over. Set up our own deal, with Australia, Isreal and Germany, maybe China and Japan too. Annex Mexico and Canada, and then just say fuk the world, we dont need those loosers. Change a few laws, auch as, Freedom of Speech is a good thing, as long as you not a fuktard. You wanna be an American? you gotta learn english.

Grow up world, if it wernt for us, most of you would be speaking german, and japanese right now, though for those in the business world, those are important languages to learn... =/

:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:sniper:

I'm afraid World War 3 will top this list when it comes.

I didn't see the Native American choice. Native Americans least justifiable followed by an Iraq/Vietnam tie.

The most unjust war is the war on drugs. Very oppressive and very unforgiving.

When has the US NOT been at war??!

http://americanpeace.eccmei.net

check it out...

As an American Indian myself(Cherokee), I have a rather unique insight on that war. And let me tell you, mostly it was neither unjust, or uncalled for. Do you have any idea how many innocent civilians, innocent families,, were raped, mudered, scalped, and tortured, by the indians? Any race of people that saw this as acceptable, deserved what they got. Every action was justified, well, almost, some was overreaction, but not much.

What an enormous load of Buffalo crap. Talk about blaming the victim. The atrocities committed against the Native Americans are too long to list, but on the issue of scalping that practice was widely popularized by Europeans and Americans. While the practice did exist among Native American tribes it was Columbus who instituted a policy of paying for Indian scalps. This practice was continued by the colonial and United States governments, which paid bounties for the scalps of Native Americans - men, women, and children.

I refer you to the example of Col. John Chivington (he was also a minister) who delighted audiences with a traveling display of the scalps (and even the pubic scalps of women) of over 100 Indians he butchered at Sand Creek, Colorodo. In 1864 600 Southern Cheyennes and Arapahos peacefully camped outside of Fort Lyon, seeking asylum under a white flag of truce. Col. Chivington and 700 troops rode into the camp and proceded to massacre men, women, and children.

An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated.

When asked about his practice of killing infants and children Chivington replied, "Nits become lice."

The Spanish American War was started when Pulitzer made up a story concerning Spanish terrorists from Cuba blowing up the USS Maine (which blew up due to poor maintenance on our part). The first battle in the War consisted of American conquering the Philippines. Need I say more?

The most unjust war is the war on drugs. Very oppressive and very unforgiving.


A voice of sanity! Stop it! Aaaargh....my ears are bleeding!!! Aaaarg!

:headbang:

You wanna be an American? you gotta learn english.


Did anyone else catch the powerful irony in this statement?

The Civil War.
I'll burn a confederate flag in your honor Rebel.

I'll burn a confederate flag in your honor Rebel.


Aww Confederate bashing...how quaint... :p

Did anyone else catch the powerful irony in this statement?

Excellent point, Sdaeriji. If we truly wished to learn an "American" language we would study Algonquin, Sioux, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, Navajo, Inuit, etc.

Why jsut the US why not the unjust wars and conquests of other countries: Such as France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Austria, Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, China, Japan, and oh pretty much every country in existence, except for, maybe Switzerland and Tibet (but I don't know these countries histories all that well, so I may be wrong).

Every country has had a war which at the time seemed justified or just happened or was led by a crazy leader.

Excellent point, Sdaeriji. If we truly wished to learn an "American" language we would study Algonquin, Sioux, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, Navajo, Inuit, etc.


Yesterday...all my troubles seemed to far away....

If we truly wished to learn an Italian language, we'd learn Etruscan! Yeah! Sock it to 'em!

Excellent point, Sdaeriji. If we truly wished to learn an "American" language we would study Algonquin, Sioux, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, Navajo, Inuit, etc.

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the person's post that contained that statement would make an English professor cry.

Yesterday...all my troubles seemed to far away....

If we truly wished to learn an Italian language, we'd learn Etruscan! Yeah! Sock it to 'em!

"They're still there, he's all gone" Bruce Springsteen

The Eutruscans aren't around anymore, but the Native Americans are still here.

Has it occured to anyone that the entire history of human existance and the spread of culture and technology has been one of human conquest? Sure, we think ourselves enlightened today, but our great-grandchildren might consider us a tad barbaric?

Has it occured to anyone that the entire history of human existance and the spread of culture and technology has been one of human conquest? Sure, we think ourselves enlightened today, but our great-grandchildren might consider us a tad barbaric?

I think that's occurred to most all of us.

Has it occured to anyone that the entire history of human existance and the spread of culture and technology has been one of human conquest? Sure, we think ourselves enlightened today, but our great-grandchildren might consider us a tad barbaric?

Certainly conquest has been part of the spread of culture and technology, but I would argue that other forms of cultural diffusion have contributed much more. Traders, explorers, and missionaries have done far more to spread culture and technology than the destructive act of war.

Alright then. I won't dwell on the conquest of American Indians, Etruscans, Gauls, Normands, Britians, or even Celts.

The Spanish American War started because of totally trumped-up allegations. The Maine has never been adequately explained, but it looks like we blew it up ourselves to create a "provocation".

That war began the great American traditions of jingoism and yellow journalism which are obviously still alive and strong today.

The long conquest of North America from the Native Americans ("Indians") by newer Americans of European descent ("settlers") produced a vast number of atrocities on both sides. The term "Indian massacre" has been used to label both the massacre of settlers by Native Americans and the massacre of Native Americanss by settlers. These were a common part of the ongoing conflict that existed at the zone of contact between the two peoples.

How many people died in these massacres overall?

In the book The Wild Frontier: Atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee, William M. Osborn tallies every recorded atrocity in the area that would eventually become the continental United States, from first contact (1511) to the closing of the frontier (1890) and determines that 9156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans, and 7193 people died from atrocities perpetrated by the settlers. Osborn defines an atrocity as the murder, torture or mutilation of civilians, the wounded and prisoners.

While this definition encompasses most of what the average person would consider an atrocity, different definitions would obviously produce different totals. For example, Osborn does not count Native American deaths on the Trail of Tears (because these were allegedly unintentional), but he does count several episodes of post-mortem mutilation, even of combatants killed in open battle. Osborn's exact total of 16349 killed on both sides can therefore be disputed.

If we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival). There it was calculated that some 30,000 to 45,000 Native American men, women, and children died at the hands of whites in formal wars, 1775-1890, while some 14,000 white men, women, and children died at the hands of Native Americans. In addition to these, some 5,000 whites and 8,500 Native Americans were killed in smaller, unofficial fights between individuals up and down the frontier.

Neither side stands out as being more merciful or humane than the other. Many Native American cultures ritually torture prisoners of war, while whites often tortured their prisoners for sport. Both sides collected scalps and scrota as trophies. Both sides raped. Both sides would promise safe conduct to defeated enemies or non-combatants, and then massacre them as soon as they let their guard down. Both sides attacked easy targets (such as peaceful -- even friendly -- villages and settlements) as retaliation for hostile acts by totally unrelated war bands and militia units.

Here is a list of the larger or more widely known massacres of the North American conflict:
1610 - 1622 - Deliberate genocide of Powhatans by London Virginia Company. It involved the manipulation of English Law by Sir Edward Coke a prominent jurist whose writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for some 300 years. There were two Anglo-Powhatan Wars accompanied by racist polemics preached by associates of the Company in London.
March 22, 1622 - Jamestown Massacre - Powhatans kill 347 English settlers throughout the Virginia colony as retribution for the massacre of Powhatans by settlers.
May 26, 1637 - English troops attacked a large Pequot village on the Mystic River in what is now Connecticut. The village was set on fire and the women and children were killed as they attempted to flee. One white observer later wrote: "it was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the steams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof," William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, page 296. In this and the succeeding campaign about 700 members of the tribe were killed including men taken captive. The tribe was disbanded and the survivors adopted by neighboring tribes.
1777 - deliberate devastation of Six Nations as British allies (estimated killed?)
1778 - Wyoming Valley Massacre - Iroquois kill 360 settlers.
1778 - Cherry Valley Massacre, New York - over 30 settlers killed.
April 22, 1818 - Chehaw Affair - 7 men killed (estimates from 7-40 killed), United States troops attack non-hostile Native American civilian settlement during First Seminole War
1832 - Black Hawk War - 850 men, women, children killed in war many at Bad Ax Massacre, Bad Ax Wisconsin by United States militia and Native American allies
1838-1839 - Trail of Tears - 4,000 Cherokees, mainly died from disease and exposure during forced relocation. (see Indian Removal)
1854 - Kaibai Creek, California - 42 Winnemem
1855 - Grattan Massacre, Brule Sioux in Nebraska Territory.
March 3, 1860 - Eureka, California - 80-100 men, women, children, Wiyot tribe killed by local hooligans
January 29, 1863 - Bear River Massacre - fewer than 250 killed
April 24, 1863 - Keyesville Massacre - Keyesville, California - 53 military age men, Tehachapi tribe
November 29, 1864 - Sand Creek Massacre - Sand Creek, Colorado - ca. 163 Cheyenne men, women, and children killed by Colorado militia.
November 27, 1868 - Washita Massacre - Washita River, Oklahoma - 100 people killed; this is often considered a battle, not a massacre
January 23, 1870 - Marias Massacre - 200 Piegans, mainly elderly, women, and children
December 29, 1890 - Wounded Knee Massacre - Wounded Knee, South Dakota - 300 (est.) people killed.
(Wikipedia Article)

The trail of tears disturbs me though, because the Cherokee were a peaceful people, that was unnecessary.

Though all this, the main aggresser was Britan, and since Columbus allegedly paid for indian scalps, well, thats the Spanish. Then of course spanish conquistadors hit mexico, they did more killing there then anyone 200,000+ Aztec's died.

Certainly conquest has been part of the spread of culture and technology, but I would argue that other forms of cultural diffusion have contributed much more. Traders, explorers, and missionaries have done far more to spread culture and technology than the destructive act of war.

Hmmm...I might argue the opposite- that conquest has done more, quicker, than trade. But I think the more modern the period in question, the more correct you are, and the less correct I become.

Grow up world, if it wernt for us, most of you would be speaking german, and japanese right now, though for those in the business world, those are important languages to learn... =/


Oh, dude, you are so wrong at so many levels I'm not even going to bother. Just to point out that we speak English now, no different to having to learn German or Japanese. An Empire is an Empire is an Empire.

Alright then. I won't dwell on the conquest of American Indians, Etruscans, Gauls, Normands, Britians, or even Celts.

Don't get me wrong, war has been a powerful force for altering the cultural landscape. However, it is interesting that the examples you mentions mostly consist of one civilization supplanting another. Hardly a contribution to culture or technology.

However, if you look at examples such as the trade between the Italian city states and the Arab Middle East, or the Arab and Indian traders along the Eastern coast of Africa, or the Buddhist missionaries from China who traveled to Korea and Japan, you see examples of both culture and technology being spread from one civilization to another, in some cases blending to form an entirely different society.

"They're still there, he's all gone" Bruce Springsteen

The Eutruscans aren't around anymore, but the Native Americans are still here.

The Etruscans aren't here anymore because that was millenia ago, and if we're still around and kicking a few hundred years from now, the American Indian won't be around either.

Why jsut the US why not the unjust wars and conquests of other countries: Such as France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Austria, Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, China, Japan, and oh pretty much every country in existence, except for, maybe Switzerland and Tibet (but I don't know these countries histories all that well, so I may be wrong).

Maybe you should start a "More unjust war overall" thread. This is for US wars only.

Don't get me wrong, war has been a powerful force for altering the cultural landscape. However, it is interesting that the examples you mentions mostly consist of one civilization supplanting another. Hardly a contribution to culture or technology.

However, if you look at examples such as the trade between the Italian city states and the Arab Middle East, or the Arab and Indian traders along the Eastern coast of Africa, or the Buddhist missionaries from China who traveled to Korea and Japan, you see examples of both culture and technology being spread from one civilization to another, in some cases blending to form an entirely different society.

Very interesting. It makes me want to study anthropology. And certainly trade had a farther geographic influence....Italy never conquered China.

However, when a people are conquered, I don't believe their whole culture is supplanted...some is absorbed, some is discarded.

Teradokistan, does your attempt to show that poor whites suffered at the hands of the oppressive Naive Americans include incidents where whites gave Indians infected blankets from smallpox wards?

Do you take into account that Native Americans were the defenders, whereas the Europeans, and later Americans, were the aggressors? Or that Native Americans tried repeatedly to reach accords and signed treaties with Americans to co-exist, which in almost every case were later violated?

[QUOTE=Ogiek]Teradokistan, does your attempt to show that poor whites suffered at the hands of the oppressive Naive Americans include incidents where whites gave Indians infected blankets from smallpox wards?[QUOTE]

I've heard this allegation, but I've never seen any evidence that smallpox was intentionally spread among the American Indian population...

[QUOTE=Ogiek]Teradokistan, does your attempt to show that poor whites suffered at the hands of the oppressive Naive Americans include incidents where whites gave Indians infected blankets from smallpox wards?[QUOTE]

I've heard this allegation, but I've never seen any evidence that smallpox was intentionally spread among the American Indian population...

WAIT!

To quote The Straight Dope

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

Full link right here http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

Teradokistan, does your attempt to show that poor whites suffered at the hands of the oppressive Naive Americans include incidents where whites gave Indians infected blankets from smallpox wards?

Do you take into account that Native Americans were the defenders, whereas the Europeans, and later Americans, were the aggressors? Or that Native Americans tried repeatedly to reach accords and signed treaties with Americans to co-exist, which in almost every case were later violated?

No, it does not take smallpox into account, though that wasnt government sanctioned, if it even happend, so that isnt brought into account. And those violated treaties, they were broken by both sides. The young men of many indian tribes, could only become men by killing, they couldnt care less if there was a treaty or not. That why treaties were broken, one tribes breaks the treaty, and an indians an indian, so all were broken.

No, it does not take smallpox into account, though that wasnt government sanctioned, if it even happend, so that isnt brought into account. And those violated treaties, they were broken by both sides. The young men of many indian tribes, could only become men by killing, they couldnt care less if there was a treaty or not. That why treaties were broken, one tribes breaks the treaty, and an indians an indian, so all were broken.

I think people tend to romanticize American Indians, like they do family farmers, cowboys, etc, etc, etc.

I was once told by my wife that cancer didn't exist among indians, even though they smoked tobacco. Mmmmhmmm...okay honey...

I was once told that as a husband that I could be right or I could be happy, but I couldn't be both.

1812

I completely agree that military conquest has been the foremost of the driving forces of military advancement.

However, I feel that in this modern age money has and will be a much greater.

Look what the private sector has done with technology, medicine, transportation, etc.


And excellent point made by Liberal Libertarianism (only his/her second post, too). The war on drugs has accomplished nothing but persecuted a great deal of people who have never hurt anyone.

Here is an interesting email thread on the alleged intentional spreading of smallpox to native american tribes

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~west/threads/disc-smallpox.html

I agree that Indians have been romanticized and reduced to a historical people (as if they don't still exist). Certainly, there were tribes that engaged in atrocities, such as scalping or even cannibalism.

However, to return to the original topic of this thread there can be little doubt that morally the European and American extermination of the Native American population is difficult to justify as anything other than a naked land grab

However, to return to the original topic of this thread there can be little doubt that morally the European and American extermination of the Native American population is difficult to justify as anything other than a naked land grab

I agree...but it shouldn't be looked upon any more harshly than every other conquest throughout the ages.

WAIT!

To quote The Straight Dope

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

Full link right here http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html


Is'nt this a thread about US wars? Who gives a rats ass about what the English, and the French did to eachother, and to the Indians.

I don't think that displacing a 100 thousand indians to make room for hundreds of millions of people is such a bad thing, hell I know I wouldnt want to be running around in a loin cloth still.

And your forgeting, that most of the land was auctually bought, or negotiated for. It wasnt the US vs. the Indian, it was the French, Spanish, and English vs the Indian, with the US buying territory from them

Is'nt this a thread about US wars? Who gives a rats ass about what the English, and the French did to eachother, and to the Indians.

I don't think that displacing a 100 thousand indians to make room for hundreds of millions of people is such a bad thing, hell I know I wouldnt want to be running around in a loin cloth still.

And your forgeting, that most of the land was auctually bought, or negotiated for. It wasnt the US vs. the Indian, it was the French, Spanish, and English vs the Indian, with the US buying territory from them

I'm not defending the position that the US intentionally gave smallpox to the natives, just pointing to what's out there....

Is'nt this a thread about US wars? Who gives a rats ass about what the English, and the French did to eachother, and to the Indians.

HEY! Since when has it ever mattered what the thread is titled? :p

I don't think that displacing a 100 thousand indians to make room for hundreds of millions of people is such a bad thing

By your logic there would be nothing wrong with 1.2 billion Chinese displacing 300 million Americans, since morality is merely a matter of expedency and numbers.

I'm not defending the position that the US intentionally gave smallpox to the natives, just pointing to what's out there....

Which is irrelevent in this thread, it wasnt the US doing it.

Which is irrelevent in this thread, it wasnt the US doing it.

You complain way too much. The point is that it is the only known documented evidence that the practice was considered. It states nothing about whether it was carried out, or even whether it was effective. It actually bolsters your case, and that's the relevence. :rolleyes:

By your logic there would be nothing wrong with 1.2 billion Chinese displacing 300 million Americans, since morality is merely a matter of expedency and numbers.

Yes, by my logic, that would be true, and ya know, its slowly happening. Though if they tried it, a whole LOT more of them whould die then us. And they would end up with a nuculer devastated wasteland.

Yes, by my logic, that would be true, and ya know, its slowly happening. Though if they tried it, a whole LOT more of them whould die then us. And they would end up with a nuculer devastated wasteland.
Doubtful. I think that when the Chinese decide to displace you there will be too little the US will be able to do. In fact, it'll happen so slowly that you'll wonder how it was at all possible. It might even be that by that time it will be the US asking China to intervene.

Basically the various Communist governments in Indochina managed to demonstrate exactly how insanely evil they were... which is why we were right to oppose them.
Opposing them by killing millions more people? They probably would not have killed all those people if the French had just been allowed to end the war, rather than let Americans continue it. I'm not justifying their actions, I'm just saying that they probably wouldn't have carried them out if they were not in an international war. You can't count the Khmer Rouge because they came to power after the Vietnam war ended. Without US involvement they probably would not have come to power at all.

Any war the person who wins decides whats just and unjust.

A bit of Colonial American History:

The British were the ones who officially colonized America and took the first land away from the Native Indians
The British were the ones who sent Americans to fight the French and Indian War
The BRITISH were the ones who decided the use the Indians for their own needs by giving them weapons to stop the Americans following the Revolutionary War


If you abuse a baby all throughout it's childhood, chances are that the baby will continue to abuse other people.

I understand that we've made some pretty sick decisions with Native Indian rights, but I really want people to understand that the British were the ones who started this whole mess.

Ahh STFU. Dont like it, go live in another country, one of those pansy ones, like France, or Britan(What happend to you guys, you used to be cool). You want my opinion? US needs to drop out of the UN, screw those weenies.. "Oh Iraq wont let us inspect for weapons... Lets leave it to the US to fix it, then we can whine and complain at them because we screwed up" We need to leave the UN, and just take over. Set up our own deal, with Australia, Isreal and Germany, maybe China and Japan too. Annex Mexico and Canada, and then just say fuk the world, we dont need those loosers. Change a few laws, auch as, Freedom of Speech is a good thing, as long as you not a fuktard. You wanna be an American? you gotta learn english.
Fascist.

Any war the person who wins decides whats just and unjust.
That's right, the winners write history. Their morals only apply to atrocities committed by official enemies, not to atrocities committed by themselves. Universality goes out the window. You should read Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky (yeah, he's a lefty, but give it a chance). It's all about this.

That's right, the winners write history. Their morals only apply to atrocities committed by official enemies, not to atrocities committed by themselves. Universality goes out the window. You should read Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky (yeah, he's a lefty, but give it a chance). It's all about this.


Ahhh...Noam...I miss the days when he was a linguist...

All of America's wars have been justified under the #1 Rule in de facto international politics.

The genocide of the Native Americans, definately. All war is wrong, but that one was truly terrible.

The genocide of the Native Americans, definately. All war is wrong, but that one was truly terrible.


Some war is right.

your right, those buddhist monks set themselves on fire, it wasnt an atrocity.

but

THEY WERENT CRAZY

it was their way of protesting the war and it was very effective. they gave their lives for their country and for peace.

I'd debate their effectiveness. To an American such behavior is just considered "weird" and puzzles us. We watch incidences like self-lit monks as strange and bizzare, because it is something that would rarely happen in an individualistic Western culture.

A bit of Colonial American History:

The British were the ones who officially colonized America and took the first land away from the Native Indians
The British were the ones who sent Americans to fight the French and Indian War
The BRITISH were the ones who decided the use the Indians for their own needs by giving them weapons to stop the Americans following the Revolutionary War


If you abuse a baby all throughout it's childhood, chances are that the baby will continue to abuse other people.

I understand that we've made some pretty sick decisions with Native Indian rights, but I really want people to understand that the British were the ones who started this whole mess.


such behavior was also perfectly acceptable to people in the 1700's and 1800's. This is because they were so damn assured of their superiority. Now we have a more enlightened approach to the world. But we still need to keep in mind that people were dumber in the past.

I'd say the wars against the Native Americans. It's unjust, but it's just the way things go. Most nations at the time would've wanted to do the same thing. However if you consider the way today that we let these Native Americans live in the US in peace it isn't too bad.

Somebody said WW1 was unjustified. I disagree, it may have been unjustified, but not on the US's side. The Germans said they would stay neutral with the US but sunk American trading ships.

Vietnam wasn't entirely unjust as corrupt Communists were trying to take over.

The war in Iraq today is not as unjust as most people think. The US did all it could to avoid trouble in Iraq. Flawed information party led to it, but that's just a mistake. The flawed intelligence came from more sources than the US. The US is also being as humane as possible to Iraqi civilians.

the war of independence Rule Britannia

Umm...my best friend just died in the Iraq War. You are patronizing his death by making a mockery of all brave young Americans who have died in these wars. He was a soldier, he did what he was told. He was an incredible patriot--more than any of you could ever hope to be for your respective countries. His buddy came home and we talked, and he was met at his HOME by anti-war protesters. He does not know what he did wrong. His buddy just died before his eyes, and people are calling him a warmonger, coward, traitor, and every other name they can think of. They talk bad of my deceased best friend, who never had once spoken badly of anyone. You are all making mockeries of people just like him, and their deaths. I do not blame the US government for his death, I blame the f**king p*ssies who planted the roadside bomb to blow up his Humvee. Please think before you type something anti-American next time.

The Mexican-American war was, being little more than a land-grab. At least the Indian wars and the Latin American ones sometimes had justification. I'm also surprised, btw, that no one included the Phillipine insurgency. We had no reason to be there for as long as we were. It was even far deadlier for us than the current war.

Anyone remember Clintion bombing Sudan with more bombs that ever were used in a previous war? Charges of a WMD factory, which turned out to be an Aspirin factory. Yet everyone seems to forget that, and blame Bush for doing almost the same thing. Iraqis, apparently, rank higher on the sympathy scale than Sudanis. Why?

War is never justified, it is instead a means to an end when all else has failed and there can be no more negotiations. They were being *ssholes, so the USA sent their military in there to bust some heads. A lesson to learn for the rest of the world, quit being *ssholes or the USA will invade your country next!

Umm...my best friend just died in the Iraq War. You are patronizing his death by making a mockery of all brave young Americans who have died in these wars.
Sad as that may be, that war is still unjustified. And I don't say it to belittle the young men and women who have decided to serve their country. The real mockery is what the US government has made of the reasons for this war and the use it has made of these young men and women.

True, your friend was killed by a roadside bomb, but he wouldn't have if his commander in chief had chosen a wiser, less rushed path of action.

Pity, such a waste of good life.

The Mexican-American war was, being little more than a land-grab. At least the Indian wars and the Latin American ones sometimes had justification. I'm also surprised, btw, that no one included the Phillipine insurgency. We had no reason to be there for as long as we were. It was even far deadlier for us than the current war.

The Philipines! Spanish-American War resulted in our occuping that country. For quite a while there were savage acts by both the Philipines and Americans both. Course, you can't beat American brutality and we managed to beat down the people who had no desire to be occupied by another power after being ruled by Spain. Iraq II, War of 1812, Mexican-American War and Vietnam were bad enough but... well how can you pick? World powers are always aggressive.

The Philipines! Spanish-American War resulted in our occuping that country. For quite a while there were savage acts by both the Philipines and Americans both. Course, you can't beat American brutality and we managed to beat down the people who had no desire to be occupied by another power after being ruled by Spain. Iraq II, War of 1812, Mexican-American War and Vietnam were bad enough but... well how can you pick? World powers are always aggressive.
Well, I do believe that the Geneva Conventions are too restrictive, to give you an idea on my war philosophy. I just feel that before anything happens, a reason is needed. Today, reasons aren't hard to find in this global society. Back then, there weren't. Besides, the Mexican-American war wasn't about defense, resources, money, or even power. It was simply a land grab.

Umm...my best friend just died in the Iraq War. You are patronizing his death by making a mockery of all brave young Americans who have died in these wars. He was a soldier, he did what he was told. He was an incredible patriot--more than any of you could ever hope to be for your respective countries. His buddy came home and we talked, and he was met at his HOME by anti-war protesters. He does not know what he did wrong. His buddy just died before his eyes, and people are calling him a warmonger, coward, traitor, and every other name they can think of. They talk bad of my deceased best friend, who never had once spoken badly of anyone. You are all making mockeries of people just like him, and their deaths. I do not blame the US government for his death, I blame the f**king p*ssies who planted the roadside bomb to blow up his Humvee. Please think before you type something anti-American next time.

Those protesters who felt that the soldiers were at fault were idiots, a**holes, and do NOT represent all anti-war protesters. That he saw his buddy die before his eyes is exactly the sort of horror a responsible protester wants to prevent. It's not anti-American to oppose the war. On the contrary, I oppose the war specifically because it is a war that has killed tens of thousands of people like your friend and because it improves terrorist organizations' capacity to hurt us. Don't be angry with me.
As for our checkered past--dont just blindly wave the flag and willfully ignore our past mistakes. It is foolish to deny the faults of one's country--then we cannot learn from them. So don't call me anti-American for hoping we remember the evils in our past. I don't want us to repeat them. And don't call me anti-American for wishing this war in Iraq had never happened. When I wish that, I'm wishing your best friend was still alive.

Well, I do believe that the Geneva Conventions are too restrictive, to give you an idea on my war philosophy. I just feel that before anything happens, a reason is needed. Today, reasons aren't hard to find in this global society. Back then, there weren't. Besides, the Mexican-American war wasn't about defense, resources, money, or even power. It was simply a land grab.

I know. That's why when I see these Alamo movies I have to laugh. A heroic last stand? Texas revolted against the Mexican government out of greed. Mexico was pretty simple in it' request for the American settlers: pay taxes to Mexico(d'uh), become Catholic and NO slavery. The Texans of course instantly started breaking all three and wanted the land for themselves. Santa Anna wanted to put down an armed revolt against his country. Can't even get started on the conquering in the Spanish-American War.

I know. That's why when I see these Alamo movies I have to laugh. A heroic last stand? Texas revolted against the Mexican government out of greed. Mexico was pretty simple in it' request for the American settlers: pay taxes to Mexico(d'uh), become Catholic and NO slavery. The Texans of course instantly started breaking all three and wanted the land for themselves. Santa Anna wanted to put down an armed revolt against his country. Can't even get started on the conquering in the Spanish-American War.
Well that part was obviously justified, as we had to protect those that wanted to be in our Union. But we should've gone no further than Texas, and certainly not all the way to Mexico City.

Well that part was obviously justified, as we had to protect those that wanted to be in our Union. But we should've gone no further than Texas, and certainly not all the way to Mexico City.
Especially considering that it was the Texians who had entered Mexican territory, or disputed at the very least, and that Mexico was not in any shape to plan an invasion, having just fought a war against France.

Which war has been America's greatest moral shame?

The United States, contrary to what high school history texts would have us believe, has a blemished, imperfect past. The U.S. has fought wars of aggression, been involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide, and has committed war crimes. Which war, declared or undeclared, was least justified and most morally reprehensible?

A tie between every war we fought after the War for Independence. However, I highly respect the brave men who fought these wars.

Especially considering that it was the Texians who had entered Mexican territory, or disputed at the very least, and that Mexico was not in any shape to plan an invasion, having just fought a war against France.
You're thinking of a border dispute they had. The Mexicans wanted the border to be at the Nuaces River, the Texans wanted it at the Rio Grande. Perhaps they did go south of there by themselves, but they probably should have only to destroy the Mexican armies threatening their sovereignty.

I doubt that any country has a perfect record. Of course we could really use a president to make our country loved again like it was right after WWII. Wouldn't that be nice? People around the world waving American flags? Just a dream? No anti-America demonstrations....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teradokistan
You wanna be an American? you gotta learn english.

Did anyone else catch the powerful irony in this statement?

Yes, but the deeper irony is that he's technically correct.
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry about that.

I doubt that any country has a perfect record. Of course we could really use a president to make our country loved again like it was right after WWII. Wouldn't that be nice? People around the world waving American flags? Just a dream? No anti-America demonstrations....
That was because half of the world was too poor, uneducated, or oppressed to even know that America existed. The world was certainly far worse then than it was now.

That was because half of the world was too poor, uneducated, or oppressed to even know that America existed. The world was certainly far worse then than it was now.

I suppose the idea that America was a beacon of democracy when it first formed? Inspired the French Revolution among others?

Definetly against the Native Americans.

Spanish-American was justified by the torpedo attack against the USS Maine.

Vietnam just dragged to far and was never ment for us to win thanks to the enemy getting the congress and media on there side, sounds similar to todays war with the anti war sediment in the media.

Mexican war, I still say we shoudl have annexed Mexico, same with the war of 1812 except We should have annexed Canada.

Iraqi war is perfectly justified in my opinion, wether you agree with it or not it's time to let the history books decide wether it was worth it or not.

The first gulf war was by far justified, Iraq invades another country, hell even the U.N. approved of that.

I don't know much abaout the central america wars though.

That was because half of the world was too poor, uneducated, or oppressed to even know that America existed. The world was certainly far worse then than it was now.

Western Europe thought we walked on water after helping beat Hitler.

Re: AcCreon

A few notes about your understanding of history:
There was no torpedo attack against the Maine--it has since been proven to have been an accident aboard the ship not due to hostile action. So no, it was not justified.

Annexing Canada: impossible. We didn't control it militarily. We tried repeatedly to invade it and repeatedly failed.
Annexing Mexico: we took half of it. You aren't satisfied?

Vietnam: do a little more research as to why we couldn't win and you might find that the US mission was doomed from the start regardless of the media and congress (note that congress gave the president a blank check to go to war after Tonkin and the media was pretty gung-ho about the whole thing until Tet, at which point it had become obvious to practically every front line commander that it was a lost cause). After all, we were making an armed incursion (translated: invasion) into South Vietnam in violation of the democratic process that had elected Ho Chi Minh. That's not the way to win hearts and minds.

I certainly do agree about the first gulf war though. Pretty much everyone in the world did then, too.

Re: AcCreon

A few notes about your understanding of history:
There was no torpedo attack against the Maine--it has since been proven to have been an accident aboard the ship not due to hostile action. So no, it was not justified.

Annexing Canada: impossible. We didn't control it militarily. We tried repeatedly to invade it and repeatedly failed.
Annexing Mexico: we took half of it. You aren't satisfied?

Vietnam: do a little more research as to why we couldn't win and you might find that the US mission was doomed from the start regardless of the media and congress (note that congress gave the president a blank check to go to war after Tonkin and the media was pretty gung-ho about the whole thing until Tet, at which point it had become obvious to practically every front line commander that it was a lost cause). After all, we were making an armed incursion (translated: invasion) into South Vietnam in violation of the democratic process that had elected Ho Chi Minh. That's not the way to win hearts and minds.

I certainly do agree about the first gulf war though. Pretty much everyone in the world did then, too.

If Eisenhower had only helped the French when they requested it, than maybe things would have been different, since we went in there a decade later anyway.

You're thinking of a border dispute they had. The Mexicans wanted the border to be at the Nuaces River, the Texans wanted it at the Rio Grande. Perhaps they did go south of there by themselves, but they probably should have only to destroy the Mexican armies threatening their sovereignty.
Mmmh... the official recognized border was at the Nueces. Texas claimed parts of Coahuila and Nuevo Mexico, a position that had no legal support and that Mexico wasn't going to stand for. By this time the Mexican Congress still didn't recognize Texas independence. The incursion of Texas Rangers into Mexican territory was not the first act of provocation. However it was this particular one that prompted the US Congress to declar that American blood had been spilled on American soil (in spite of Lincoln noticing the fact that the fight had taken place in Mexican territory).

However, just like in the case now with Iraq, the plans had already been made and all that was needed was a timely excuse, no matter how weak. And the US invaded Mexico. The thing was such a blatant landgrab that a whole regiment of Irish fighter turned coat and fought for Mexico, recognizing the same situation that they had lived in Ireland with the British.

In the end, the US took control of the whole of Mexico quite easily and discussions were around how much territory the US should take. There were three camps, the one that proposed taking only the Northern Territories, or all the way to San Luis Potosí, or the whole thing (which more than a few Mexicans supported, by the way). In the end it was decided that letting all those Mexicans into US society would not be good and the first option prevailed.

Yes, but the deeper irony is that he's technically correct.
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry about that.
But he is not really correct. The US doesn't have an official language and it's not mandatory to learn English to be a citizen. The US government can't force you to speak a particular language.

Of course, there are practical reasons to do so, but that's only it.

Mmmh... the official recognized border was at the Nueces. Texas claimed parts of Coahuila and Nuevo Mexico, a position that had no legal support and that Mexico wasn't going to stand for. By this time the Mexican Congress still didn't recognize Texas independence. The incursion of Texas Rangers into Mexican territory was not the first act of provocation. However it was this particular one that prompted the US Congress to declar that American blood had been spilled on American soil (in spite of Lincoln noticing the fact that the fight had taken place in Mexican territory).

However, just like in the case now with Iraq, the plans had already been made and all that was needed was a timely excuse, no matter how weak. And the US invaded Mexico. The thing was such a blatant landgrab that a whole regiment of Irish fighter turned coat and fought for Mexico, recognizing the same situation that they had lived in Ireland with the British.

In the end, the US took control of the whole of Mexico quite easily and discussions were around how much territory the US should take. There were three camps, the one that proposed taking only the Northern Territories, or all the way to San Luis Potosí, or the whole thing (which more than a few Mexicans supported, by the way). In the end it was decided that letting all those Mexicans into US society would not be good and the first option prevailed.

Regardless, the war should never have occured. Greedy people trying to get more land for the Manifest Destiny belief. Hey, all that land, Mexicans really aren't using it... they refuse to sell it? Fine, let's take it! Just need an excuse... Oh! Texas! Support them from the evil Mexicans and there we go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
Yes, but the deeper irony is that he's technically correct.
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry about that.

But he is not really correct. The US doesn't have an official language and it's not mandatory to learn English to be a citizen. The US government can't force you to speak a particular language.

Of course, there are practical reasons to do so, but that's only it.

That's right, but many Americans harbor that belief all the same.
That's why I said it's a deeper irony -- he's not only not really correct, but he's so *sure* he's correct in what isn't really correct...

Umm...my best friend just died in the Iraq War. You are patronizing his death by making a mockery of all brave young Americans who have died in these wars. He was a soldier, he did what he was told. He was an incredible patriot--more than any of you could ever hope to be for your respective countries. His buddy came home and we talked, and he was met at his HOME by anti-war protesters. He does not know what he did wrong. His buddy just died before his eyes, and people are calling him a warmonger, coward, traitor, and every other name they can think of. They talk bad of my deceased best friend, who never had once spoken badly of anyone. You are all making mockeries of people just like him, and their deaths. I do not blame the US government for his death, I blame the f**king p*ssies who planted the roadside bomb to blow up his Humvee. Please think before you type something anti-American next time.

I don't know you, I don't judge you...or your friend. However, I do know people in the peace movement, because I am part of it and I do not believe that your friend was called "warmonger, coward, traitor, and every other name" by people in the peace movement. The folks in the peace movement have been incredibly sensitive to the service of individual soldiers.

As far as I am concerned this is no different than the MYTH of 1960s peace protesters spitting on returning GIs (never documented at the time). It is used to try and put those who support peace on the defensive. Why must those who ask why our government is sending young men to be killed have to prove our patriotism, while those who put Americans in harm's way under false pretenses (and who did not serve themselves) are granted an automatic pass on their patriotism?

I'm sorry about your friend, but I do not apologize for pointing out that it is my government that is acting contrary to American values, nor will I be intimidated into shutting up by people who would use the death of American soldiers to force critics of the government into silence or complience.

a few myths have emerged in this thread..

the US government never had an official policy calling for exterminating the Indians. It had a policy of removal to west of the Mississippi prior to the Mexican War, confinement to specific areas until after the Civil War, and confinement to Reservations post Civil War. After that the policy was to attempt intergration or basically ignore them (most peoples view). It wasn't well handled, bungled a lot, and a lot of blood was spilled. The primary motivators behind pushing out the Indians were CIVILIANS, gold miners when gold was found, the railroads, the list goes on and on, and generally some settlers or other civilians would encroach, the Indians would kill a few, and the Army would put down (eventually) the resulting fighting. You want to know what the Army thought and how it acted? Watch the old movie Cheyenne Autumn, exceptionally good history at times (at least the feel and the feelings of those involved). Or read more books

The Vietnam War was supposed to be a crusade to stop Communism because many American voters and policy makers that the Communists were a monothlic alliance, and honestly believed that if Vietnam fell, Thailand and Southeast Asia were next. History will judge I suppose the accuracy of that but the facts are that except for Indonesia, Southeast Asia managed to become stable both economically and politically while all that was going on.

The American interventions in the Caribbean and Central America were penny ante compared to everything else discussed, and the primary American motivators in that area were Corporations, not the US Government, and the US under FDR did apologize prior to World War II. Post War efforts there have been more in the nature of military aid and some advisors, and occasionally dirty tricks (Chile comes to mind here) but do not qualify as a war, just not a very good neighbor foreign policy.

The War of 1812 was fought for a number of different motives, including grabbing Canada, but also because British warships routinely stopped and searched American merchant ships (and on one occasion in 1807, fired on and forced the surrender of an American warship) and removed American citizens and Resident Aliens of the US from those ships and forced them into the service of the RN. Now Britian was fighting for its life, and in the long run can be excused somewhat, but in American eyes, that and the fact that the British were supporting Indians that were fighting Americans in the Northwest Territories (current Midwest) was grounds for justification in calling it the Second American Revolution. One thing is for sure, the British took the US seriously after that.

Which leaves Mexico, and the Mexican War was primarily justified by the Manifest Destiny, and made palatable by Mexican massacres of Americans (Texians as they were called at the time, but Americans none the less) at Goliad and the Alamo, and later on in a couple of other incidents that you have to be a real student of Texas history to ever even heard of. Plus it kept the British from converting Texas into a British Ally. But many Americans at the time condemned the war as a land grab, including Whitman and Lincoln and a Lieutenant in the US Army named Sam Grant (he became a noted General in the Civil War)

so my vote rests with the Mexican War still.

the two Gulf Wars, one was obviously justified even by other Arab States, and this one was meant well, but stupid policy (hopefully a salvagable one but we will see)

Most unjust is against native americans. The american revolution deserves a special place, however. "Damn our great lives, our low taxes and high oppertunities, our being defended by one of the strongest nations in the world and part of a great empire. They want to tax us for a small percentage of the cost of defending our nation! Revolution!"

(Please dont flame me about the real reasons, i understand that it was about representation, etc. I still think it was an idiotic war, though.)

a few myths have emerged in this thread..

the US government never had an official policy calling for exterminating the Indians. It had a policy of removal to west of the Mississippi prior to the Mexican War, confinement to specific areas until after the Civil War, and confinement to Reservations post Civil War. After that the policy was to attempt intergration or basically ignore them (most peoples view). It wasn't well handled, bungled a lot, and a lot of blood was spilled. The primary motivators behind pushing out the Indians were CIVILIANS, gold miners when gold was found, the railroads, the list goes on and on, and generally some settlers or other civilians would encroach, the Indians would kill a few, and the Army would put down (eventually) the resulting fighting. You want to know what the Army thought and how it acted? Watch the old movie Cheyenne Autumn, exceptionally good history at times (at least the feel and the feelings of those involved). Or read more books

The Vietnam War was supposed to be a crusade to stop Communism because many American voters and policy makers that the Communists were a monothlic alliance, and honestly believed that if Vietnam fell, Thailand and Southeast Asia were next. History will judge I suppose the accuracy of that but the facts are that except for Indonesia, Southeast Asia managed to become stable both economically and politically while all that was going on.

The American interventions in the Caribbean and Central America were penny ante compared to everything else discussed, and the primary American motivators in that area were Corporations, not the US Government, and the US under FDR did apologize prior to World War II. Post War efforts there have been more in the nature of military aid and some advisors, and occasionally dirty tricks (Chile comes to mind here) but do not qualify as a war, just not a very good neighbor foreign policy.

The War of 1812 was fought for a number of different motives, including grabbing Canada, but also because British warships routinely stopped and searched American merchant ships (and on one occasion in 1807, fired on and forced the surrender of an American warship) and removed American citizens and Resident Aliens of the US from those ships and forced them into the service of the RN. Now Britian was fighting for its life, and in the long run can be excused somewhat, but in American eyes, that and the fact that the British were supporting Indians that were fighting Americans in the Northwest Territories (current Midwest) was grounds for justification in calling it the Second American Revolution. One thing is for sure, the British took the US seriously after that.

Which leaves Mexico, and the Mexican War was primarily justified by the Manifest Destiny, and made palatable by Mexican massacres of Americans (Texians as they were called at the time, but Americans none the less) at Goliad and the Alamo, and later on in a couple of other incidents that you have to be a real student of Texas history to ever even heard of. Plus it kept the British from converting Texas into a British Ally. But many Americans at the time condemned the war as a land grab, including Whitman and Lincoln and a Lieutenant in the US Army named Sam Grant (he became a noted General in the Civil War)

so my vote rests with the Mexican War still.

the two Gulf Wars, one was obviously justified even by other Arab States, and this one was meant well, but stupid policy (hopefully a salvagable one but we will see)

Why did the british start seizing american ships and the like? Maybe because we embargo'd them, in a time they were desperate for materials, etc. 1812 is probably third most unjustified, and recieves the special title of being most pathetic war. The war that we couldn't win even with the french doing the most work against britain.

Why did the british start seizing american ships and the like? Maybe because we embargo'd them, in a time they were desperate for materials, etc. 1812 is probably third most unjustified, and recieves the special title of being most pathetic war. The war that we couldn't win even with the french doing the most work against britain.

apparently you need a more in depth look at American History....Jefferson ordered the embargo BECAUSE the British were seizing American ships.. and the embargo did more damage to the US economy than the British one (smuggling was widespread as well)

The US Army defeated an invasion of New York at Lundys Lane, and the US Navy defeated then British at Lake Champlain, and the US Navy defeated the British at Lake Erie.. without the Lakes, the British couldnt push into the US. The British captured Washington, burned it down, but were defeated by American militia at Baltimore and withdrew as they couldn't stay (losses too heavy) and the British were defeated (in fact, suffered horrible losses) attacking New Orleans and forced to retreat (although the war was technically over at that point)..... and one reason Wellington had so much trouble at Waterloo ("A damned close run thing" was his quote) was because many (most in fact) of his best troops and division commanders were in North America having just lost to the US.... the war ended as a draw as the British Public didn't like it, and neither did the American public

Of course the US messed up badly and could have taken Canada if leadership and training had been there in 1812, but it wasn't and we learned ... which is why 1814 went so well (basically) for the US and the war ended in a draw instead of the partition of the US and reincorporation of New England into the British Empire (a real concern at the time).

The timing was suspect for starting the war though, the US believed that the French would win in Russia (oops, but so did others too) and that was the only reason we thought we had a chance. Perhaps something could be learned from jumping to conclusions like that in our current policy.... but it doesnt seem to have remembered in Washington (odd considering the President lives in a building burnt out by the British because of a miscalculation in American policy)

The American Revolution.

All well and good to soft-pedal Indian atrocities on the frontier. Given what they had to deal with, however, one understands somewhat why the settlers had a "shoot to kill" relationship with the lot.

The War of 1812, although called the Second American Revolution at the time, was instigated by expansionist American politicians and speculators in the West and South who hoped to gain new territory. Western politicians, such as Henry Clay, coveted Canada and Southern politicians wanted Spanish Florida. The close vote for war (79-49 in the House and 19-13 in the Senate) showed the country was divided about the wisdom of venturing "once more into the breech" with Great Britain.

Although the War Hawks of the time were chanting "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights," it was not the seafaring New England states, nor the commercial Mid-Atlantic States, who wanted the war (Mass., R.I., Conn., N.Y., N.J., and Delaware all voted against the war declaration). It was the landlocked states who were screaming loudest about maritime rights, in the hopes that a second war with Britain would open up new territories for expansion.

At best the War of 1812 was a "tie," although when considering the failed American invasion of Canada, the British destruction of the American capital, and the fact that Britain had repealed the onerous Orders in Council (ostensibly the cause of the war) two days before Congress declared war, it could be argued that the war was actually an American loss. Only Andrew Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans (two weeks after the war was over) gave Americans at the time the impression that the war ended victoriously.

apparently you need a more in depth look at American History....Jefferson ordered the embargo BECAUSE the British were seizing American ships.. and the embargo did more damage to the US economy than the British one (smuggling was widespread as well)

The US Army defeated an invasion of New York at Lundys Lane, and the US Navy defeated them at Lake Champlain, and the US Navy defeated the British at Lake Erie.. without the Lakes, the British couldnt push into the US. The British captured Washington, burned it down, but were defeated by American militia and Baltimore and withdrew as they couldn't stay (losses too heavy) and the British were defeated (in fact, suffered horrible losses) attacking New Orleans and forced to retreat (although the war was technically over at that point)..... and one reason Wellington had so much trouble at Waterloo ("A damned close run thing" was his quote) was because many (most in fact) of his best troops and division commanders were in North America have just lost to the US.... the war ended as a draw as the British Public didn't like it, and neither did the American public

Of course the US messed up badly and could have taken Canada if leadership and training had been there in 1812, but it wasn't and we learned ... which is why 1814 went so well (basically) for the US and the war ended in a draw instead of the partition of the US and reincorporation of New England into the British Empire (a real concern at the time).

The timing was suspect for starting the war though, the US believed that the French would win in Russia (oops, but so did others too) and that was the only reason we thought we had a chance. Perhaps something could be learned from jumping to conclusions like that in our current policy.... but it doesnt seem to have remembered in Washington (odd considering the President lives in a building burnt out by the British because of a miscalculation in American policy)

You need a refresher course on american history. The whole reason for the embargo was because both britain and france wouldn't let america trade with the other nation. America wanted to force one of them out of this position, and created the embargo. The British got pissed, and started fucking with out ships.

America had some victories in the war of 1812, but how did the war end? American leadership knew the british were about to be done with the napoleonic wars and be able to concentrate on them. At the end of the war, the british navy were blockading our coast and we suffered horribly for that. We were losing at the end, and we saved some face at the end.

There was some impressement before 1807, but it was hardly the reason for either the embargo or the Nonimportation acts.

There was some impressement before 1807, but it was hardly the reason for either the embargo or the Nonimportation acts.

You are out on a limb on this one, Chellis. Jefferson did impose his "Dambargo," as it was derisively called by New England shippers who got around it by smuggling, because of British (and French) Impressment, as well as the British Orders of Council. Anger against the Embargo reached such a fevered pitch that Congress rescinded it and replaced it with the Nonintercource Act (I think that is what you were referring to).

You need a refresher course on american history. The whole reason for the embargo was because both britain and france wouldn't let america trade with the other nation. America wanted to force one of them out of this position, and created the embargo. The British got pissed, and started fucking with out ships.

America had some victories in the war of 1812, but how did the war end? American leadership knew the british were about to be done with the napoleonic wars and be able to concentrate on them. At the end of the war, the british navy were blockading our coast and we suffered horribly for that. We were losing at the end, and we saved some face at the end.

There was some impressement before 1807, but it was hardly the reason for either the embargo or the Nonimportation acts.

a few minor points of contention.... the British public, taxpayers especially, were sick of paying for over 20 years of war and were not willing to tolerate further war with the US. US Privateers inflicted sizeable shipping losses on the British, raising insurance rates and other expenses and making the war even more expensive. The failed invasion of New York and the Defeat at Baltimore made it clear that the British couldnt reconquer North America or fatally weaken the US by inflaming seperatism (public feeling for the war went up in New England after the burning of Washington, ending the threat of Secession although the US still was going broke too)

and Wellington point blank told the British government that the whole affair was pointless and to end it.... Treaty of Ghent occured shortly after

Yep, a Draw.... but for the US, it gained respect from the British (Frigate victories at sea, victories on the Lakes, and land fighting in New York and Maryland) as it proved the US was a serious force to be reckoned with and could not be treated with contempt.... the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 was supported by the British (the real enforcers until the 20th Century) because of respect for the US.

And there was a lot of impressment of American sailors (and just about anybody else the RN could catch at times) during the entire Napolonic Period, especially in the mid war period (1806 - 1812) because it didn't look like the British could beat Napoleon and the war was dragging on and on.

You also leave out the British support for the Indians in the Northwest Frontier, including providing them with weapons and support, and the fierce and bloody nature of frontier warfare. Is it any wonder feelings in the western (at that time) states were for driving the British out?

The British refused to accept American soveriegnity of the Northwest Territory and tried to drive us out using the Indians, and that was a major contribution toward Western Anti British feeling. They supported Tecumseh who was trying to create an Indian Nation there.... something the US could not tolerate.

The US had legimitate reasons for going to war with Britian, and in the long run, the war made the US stronger, improved our standing in the world and was worth the cost. Not something all US military interventions can claim and even some of our wars.

1812 is way down the list as far as unjust wars go....

the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 was supported by the British (the real enforcers until the 20th Century) because of respect for the US.

Your arguments are well made and I won't quibble with any...except this one small point.

The Monroe Doctrine, which should more aptly be named the Adams Doctrine after Secretary J.Q. Adams, was a marvelous diplomatic slight of hand with which the British were forced to go along. British foreign secretary George Canning suggested the U.S. join Britain in warning Europeans (i.e. Russia) to keep their hands off of Latin America. Britain's reason for approaching the U.S., whose fleet they did not need, nor respect, was they feared the U.S. would one day get around to grabbing Cuba and thereby threaten British interests in the Caribbean.

Adams figured the British fleet would never allow European intervention in the Western Hemisphere anyway, so why be the "cockboat following in the wake of the British Man o' War." He got Monroe to declare his famous doctrine stating that colonization was at an end in the Americas and any threat to countries in the Western Hemisphere was a threat to the United States. The British were peeved at the cheek of the American upstarts, but since no Europeans were intervening in the Americas there was no need to test the doctrine. It was promptly forgotten until Polk revived it a quarter century later.

It wasn't respect that led to the Monroe Doctrine, but rather American diplomatic legerdemain.

I like how "War against Native Americans" is lumped into one. As if it was a single campaign against one tribe....but, whatever....

I like how "War against Native Americans" is lumped into one. As if it was a single campaign against one tribe....but, whatever....


All tribes collectively faced the same threat and, to the American government and settlers, were seen as one problem to be gotten rid of. A good example is the Cherokee tribes of the southern Appalachian region. They developed a writing system, instituted American farming practices, built conventional towns and elected leaders. However, in the end, they were still seen as just Indians taking up space that white settlers wanted and were moved to Oklahoma.

There were many campaigns against many tribes, but the impact was devastating for all Native Americans. I included it because most Americans don't even think of the wars against Native Americans as wars in which the U.S. has been involved.

I'm surprised no one has voted for the first Gulf War, considering at least 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, with the total including 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.

What would the media make of an enemy who killed over 30,000 American children? When did American lives become worth more than the lives of other people?

Although the Gulf War is probably best remembered for its use of targeted "smart bombs" and computer guided missiles, the reality is that only 3% of the 88,500 tons of explosives used by U.S. forces were "smart bombs," and 20% of them missed their target. Once considered a war crime, somehow the wholesale bombing of cities and civilians has become an acceptable fact of modern war.

I'm surprised no one has voted for the first Gulf War, considering at least 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, with the total including 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
The first Gulf War is seen as unjust because Saddam really did invade another country and there was a UN resolution backing the use of force. Of course there were tragic consequences and the civilian population was affected, but that happens in every war; it doesn't make it less just.

Whether the US could have avoided the whole situation by warning Saddam before hand (when he asked for permission to invade) and should have not supported Saddam before, is matter for another discussion. But the war was just.

Why isn't Lincoln's war to prevent southern independence on the list?

Of course there were tragic consequences and the civilian population was affected, but that happens in every war.

If that is the case then what is the moral argument against terrorists killing civilians? At what point do we say that the military has crossed the line of acceptable collateral damage? How do you argue that the September 11 attacks or suicide bombers are immoral if you accept such wholescale killing of civilians on the part of the military?

Why isn't Lincoln's war to prevent southern independence on the list?

Give me a break.

If that is the case then what is the moral argument against terrorists killing civilians? At what point do we say that the military has crossed the line of acceptable collateral damage? How do you argue that the September 11 attacks or suicide bombers are immoral if you accept such wholescale killing of civilians on the part of the military?
Oh, I wasn't talking about the tactics, just the war itself. The often mentioned difference is that terrorism deliberately targets the civilian population, but all wars have civilian casualties, either by the combats themselves or the consequences of war. Thus using a war or the threat of a war as a means of political pressure becomes an act of terrorism itself.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the tactics, just the war itself. The often mentioned difference is that terrorism deliberately targets the civilian population, but all wars have civilian casualties, either by the combats themselves or the consequences of war. Thus using a war or the threat of a war as a means of political pressure becomes an act of terrorism itself.

So, do you mean to say that intent does not matter? It's no different whether a government incidentally kills civilians or whether a person straps C-4 to themselves and blows himself up in a movie theater? While you could say that the civilians are dead in either case, surely there must be a moral difference.

So, do you mean to say that intent does not matter? It's no different whether a government incidentally kills civilians or whether a person straps C-4 to themselves and blows himself up in a movie theater? While you could say that the civilians are dead in either case, surely there must be a moral difference.
They both know they're going to kill civilians, they both want to force their opinions upon other people in a violent manner, they both believe their actions are right and justified. The only difference is that a military attack is frequently announced, but at the same time the scale of destruction is vastly superior.

Moral difference? I don't know if there's any. Wanting democracy is all well and good, but achieving it through bombing, not so much. Wanting the end of foreign intervention in your country to promote an autoctonous government is also good; kidnapping of aid-workers, not good.

They both know they're going to kill civilians, they both want to force their opinions upon other people in a violent manner, they both believe their actions are right and justified. The only difference is that a military attack is frequently announced, but at the same time the scale of destruction is vastly superior.

Moral difference? I don't know if there's any. Wanting democracy is all well and good, but achieving it through bombing, not so much. Wanting the end of foreign intervention in your country to promote an autoctonous government is also good; kidnapping of aid-workers, not good.

The intent of a government to avoid civilian casualties and the intent of terrorists to inflict civilian casualties is a difference that cannot be easily brushed off. The opinion that is being forced in Iraq is that Iraqis have a right to an opinion and that should be reflected in some sort of popular government. Aside from attacking American soldiers trying to guarentee that right, terrorists are targeting mostly civilians who simply happen to agree or civilians who are in the wrong place. wrong time. To say there is no moral difference seems a bit myopic.

The intent of a government to avoid civilian casualties and the intent of terrorists to inflict civilian casualties is a difference that cannot be easily brushed off. The opinion that is being forced in Iraq is that Iraqis have a right to an opinion and that should be reflected in some sort of popular government. Aside from attacking American soldiers trying to guarentee that right, terrorists are targeting mostly civilians who simply happen to agree or civilians who are in the wrong place. wrong time. To say there is no moral difference seems a bit myopic.
Does the government look to minimize civilian casualties or to remain below a certain "acceptable" number? Because if minimizing civilian casualties was really the objective, there would have been much less aerial bombardment and certainly no "let's bomb the restaurant where Saddam was having dinner an hour ago".
Iraqis have a right to an opinion, but I wonder what will happen if suddenly this opinion doesn't run along the lines of the US opinion. If this opinion is that the US should stop support for Israel, remove its troops from the Middle East and get cozy with Iran. Just wondering.
As I said, wanting democracy for a region is good, forcing a brand of democracy through bombs and occupation, not so much. And soldiers are seen as instruments of this occupation, no matter how good their intentions. And those who help them are seen as collaborators. Bystanders in their eyes become martyrs, what the US military call "collateral damage".
See. It's not as easy as saying "this are the good guys and this are the bad guys". This isn't a Western after all.
Again. Is there a moral difference? I don't know.

Does the government look to minimize civilian casualties or to remain below a certain "acceptable" number? Because if minimizing civilian casualties was really the objective, there would have been much less aerial bombardment and certainly no "let's bomb the restaurant where Saddam was having dinner an hour ago".

Well, if you feel that instead of aerial bombardment we should try other methods, feel free to head on over to Iraq and go door-to-door asking people if they have illegal weaponry or if they plan on blowing stuff up any time soon. You might be pretty alone though.

Iraqis have a right to an opinion, but I wonder what will happen if suddenly this opinion doesn't run along the lines of the US opinion. If this opinion is that the US should stop support for Israel, remove its troops from the Middle East and get cozy with Iran. Just wondering.

I think our governement tries not to make policy decisions based on the ravings of an angry group of extremists who claim to represent a country. Plus, most Iraqis are Shiites. Iranis are Sunnis. They dont get along too well.

As I said, wanting democracy for a region is good, forcing a brand of democracy through bombs and occupation, not so much.

We are forcing a temporary democracy on them. If they choose a Islamic theocracy, that's too bad for us. Free elections y'know?

And soldiers are seen as instruments of this occupation, no matter how good their intentions. And those who help them are seen as collaborators. Bystanders in their eyes become martyrs, what the US military call "collateral damage".

But does that make them any more right? I'd say that actively pursuing civilian deaths like the insurgency in Iraq and terrorists worldwide do are far worse than any government that kills civilians unintentionally.

See. It's not as easy as saying "this are the good guys and this are the bad guys". This isn't a Western after all.
Again. Is there a moral difference? I don't know.

Oh, but it is a right vs. wrong. Extremist religious groups who claim to represent Islam as a whole, and even convince Muslims that they do, vs. the rest of the world. Killing and oppression vs. steps towards freedom (with many errors along the way). Its not black and white, but its not all gray either.

Does the government look to minimize civilian casualties or to remain below a certain "acceptable" number? Because if minimizing civilian casualties was really the objective, there would have been much less aerial bombardment and certainly no "let's bomb the restaurant where Saddam was having dinner an hour ago".

Isn't this just a question of symantics? While it sounds high and mighty to state that one civilian casualty is unaccetable, the reality is that they will happen with the best of intentions. "Target C is at the car wash. To take him out, we may kill 3 civilians. Is that acceptable?" Saying there is some sort of acceptable level of collateral damage is just acknowledging the realities of the situation.

Iraqis have a right to an opinion, but I wonder what will happen if suddenly this opinion doesn't run along the lines of the US opinion. If this opinion is that the US should stop support for Israel, remove its troops from the Middle East and get cozy with Iran. Just wondering.

I fully anticipate (and I think most people do) whatever democratic state formed in Iraq to be against US support of Isreal. I honestly don't believe what we're interested in is a puppet regime. Due to the demographic of Iraq, coziness with Iran is a possibility, but I don't know HOW cozy they could get.

As I said, wanting democracy for a region is good, forcing a brand of democracy through bombs and occupation, not so much. And soldiers are seen as instruments of this occupation, no matter how good their intentions. And those who help them are seen as collaborators. Bystanders in their eyes become martyrs, what the US military call "collateral damage".
See. It's not as easy as saying "this are the good guys and this are the bad guys". This isn't a Western after all.
Again. Is there a moral difference? I don't know.

Obviously democracy was not going to come to Baghdad via popular revolt. The US let the Shiites down in 91 when we did not come to their aid. Similar negligences were made in the Kurdish situation. And in the future, it certainly make more sense to support democratic revolutions, and with more than mere lip service if possible. I don't believe that this is as easy as saying "We good, they Bad" but I certainly don't think it is as gray as saying that there is no good and no bad.

Well, if you feel that instead of aerial bombardment we should try other methods, feel free to head on over to Iraq and go door-to-door asking people if they have illegal weaponry or if they plan on blowing stuff up any time soon. You might be pretty alone though.

Typical extremist response: It's black or white, it's all or nothing, One or zero, I'm right you're wrong. Well, it's not like that, you know?
Less aerial bombardment mean more ground forces. Governments are usually not too concerned with minimizing civilian casualties, but the casualties of their own military. That's why they order aerial assaults that they know will produce more civilian deads but will make it much easier for their own. What are the moral grounds?


We are forcing a temporary democracy on them. If they choose a Islamic theocracy, that's too bad for us. Free elections y'know?

I know. That's why I wonder how free they will be and how free they will remain along the road. I'm not only thinking this coming January.


But does that make them any more right? I'd say that actively pursuing civilian deaths like the insurgency in Iraq and terrorists worldwide do are far worse than any government that kills civilians unintentionally.

I'm not condoning anyone. Or saying the terrorists are right and goverments wrong. From my point of view using violence to accomplish an objective is wrong. And using methods of economic pressure that you know will affect the civilian population of a country or threatening with the use of force, is violence.

Even if the objective is a noble one and the oucome desirable, the use of violence is wrong and should be avoided. Sometimes you don't have other choice but to use violence and then you have to look at the justifications and reasons for making that choice. The problem with justifications is that they depend a lot on each particular point of view. The US feels it was justified to go to war with Iraq even if that killed a few civilians, the terrorist feel they are justified to plant roadside bombs or blow themselves up in front of a police station even if that kills a few civilians.


Oh, but it is a right vs. wrong. Extremist religious groups who claim to represent Islam as a whole, and even convince Muslims that they do, vs. the rest of the world. Killing and oppression vs. steps towards freedom (with many errors along the way). Its not black and white, but its not all gray either.
And how did Islamic extremists obtain so much power and influence? Why are muslims in some regions so despaired and hopeless that they feel they need to follow these extremists? Events don't exist in isolation. One right can generate a hundred wrongs, right can come out of a wrong, what seems wrong now may end up being right after 100 years, and viceversa.

I only wish things were as simple as that.

America’s greatest shame was allowing Mexico and Canada to exist, and not absorbing them.

Isn't this just a question of symantics? While it sounds high and mighty to state that one civilian casualty is unaccetable, the reality is that they will happen with the best of intentions. "Target C is at the car wash. To take him out, we may kill 3 civilians. Is that acceptable?" Saying there is some sort of acceptable level of collateral damage is just acknowledging the realities of the situation.

And that's better than not caring for how many civilians you are going to take. But still doesn't make a war moral (morality being the point of our discussion) since you know you are going to kill civilians.


I fully anticipate (and I think most people do) whatever democratic state formed in Iraq to be against US support of Isreal. I honestly don't believe what we're interested in is a puppet regime. Due to the demographic of Iraq, coziness with Iran is a possibility, but I don't know HOW cozy they could get.

I just wonder how free Iraq will be, that's all. Perhaps not a puppet regime, but certainly restrictions on who they can make friends with. Tied to trade and aid money to enforce them. It's possible but I'm willing to concede the benefit of the doubt.


Obviously democracy was not going to come to Baghdad via popular revolt. The US let the Shiites down in 91 when we did not come to their aid. Similar negligences were made in the Kurdish situation. And in the future, it certainly make more sense to support democratic revolutions, and with more than mere lip service if possible. I don't believe that this is as easy as saying "We good, they Bad" but I certainly don't think it is as gray as saying that there is no good and no bad.
Oh, there's good and bad. The problem is that they intermingle and it's almost impossible to separate them. The US is a curious example because, in spite of it being a Christian country, people generally disregard the warning "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".
Democracy was not going to come through popular revolt any time soon in Iraq. And even with a successful revolt in 91 they may have ended up with a non-democratic government. But the US invasion does not ensure democracy either. In fact it may be setting the conditions for a bitter civil war, perhaps not now, but 5 or 10 years from now, or for a very limited democracy that would still not guarantee equal rights and freedoms for all Iraqis. A lot will depend on political decisions during the following year. So, let's hope.

America’s greatest shame was allowing Mexico and Canada to exist, and not absorbing them.
The first one they couldn't, the second one they thought impractical.

Between 14,000-16,000 civilians have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). One of the latest justifications for the war is that we went in to protect the civilian population from Saddam Hussein. At this rate the U.S. will surpass Saddam as the greater killer of Iraqi civilians.

In the years since the fall of Saigon, over 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed or injured by landmines and unexploded ordnance (explosives) left behind from that conflict. There are still 3.5 million landmines scattered around the country left from the "American War" as the Vietnamese call it.

Yes, civilians are killed in war, but to simply dismiss this as a fact of war is to conveniently sidestep the moral issue of a nation's responsibility to avoid civilian casualties. Are the 14,000+ Iraqi civilians killed less important, or less innocent, than the 3000 Americans who died on September 11? Do we just wash our hands of our moral responsibility for the millions of landmines that kill Vietnamese children every month?

When did such large civilian casualties become an accepted fact of war?

And that's better than not caring for how many civilians you are going to take. But still doesn't make a war moral (morality being the point of our discussion) since you know you are going to kill civilians.


That however is premised upon the position that war ceases to be moral at the point of civilian death. Very few things could be considered moral if the standard of proof is that death of the innocent is a consequence. I suppose then, in my opinion, war in and of itself is morally neutral.

I just wonder how free Iraq will be, that's all. Perhaps not a puppet regime, but certainly restrictions on who they can make friends with. Tied to trade and aid money to enforce them. It's possible but I'm willing to concede the benefit of the doubt.


Oh, there's good and bad. The problem is that they intermingle and it's almost impossible to separate them. The US is a curious example because, in spite of it being a Christian country, people generally disregard the warning "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".

I'm not sure of one government who actually adheres to that piece of advice, and certainly as a more libertarian individual, I would agree. Secondary consequences of any action are always unforseen...


Democracy was not going to come through popular revolt any time soon in Iraq. And even with a successful revolt in 91 they may have ended up with a non-democratic government. But the US invasion does not ensure democracy either. In fact it may be setting the conditions for a bitter civil war, perhaps not now, but 5 or 10 years from now, or for a very limited democracy that would still not guarantee equal rights and freedoms for all Iraqis. A lot will depend on political decisions during the following year. So, let's hope.

I totally agree with you that democracy forming in Iraq is at best a roll of the dice. I also think that the handling of the aftermath of the invasion has decreased the odds. Civil war is certainly a possiblity. As we all know, democracy is provides a very limited guarentee of liberty. I prefer a benevolent dictator, but liberty-loving dictators are hard to come by.

So I guess the question is- if civilian casualties precludes war as an appropriate measure to take against regimes that are totalitarian and to a degree hostile to the West, what is the alternative? When does a nation state cross the boundries of what is acceptable to the international community? How brutal must a state be or how dire must a situation be before enough is enough?

This is a serious question, not to be derailed by deconstruction of words or clever use of symantics.

Thank You :)

The war in Iraq today is not as unjust as most people think. The US did all it could to avoid trouble in Iraq. Flawed information party led to it, but that's just a mistake. The flawed intelligence came from more sources than the US. The US is also being as humane as possible to Iraqi civilians.

Oh come one now. Do you really believe that? I can assure you that I knew the WMD was BS before the invasion began. I thought we might find limited amounts of chemical weapons like mustard gas, but that would've been a really stupid reason to go to war. I was relieved when Saddam agreed to let in inspectors, but was dissapointed when it was clear that Bush was still pushing for war. Having listened to people who knew what the hell they were talking about like, Scott Ritter and Col. David Hackworth, I sure as hell wasn't worried about SH being a threat. If I knew it was all BS, I can't possibly believe the administration was fooled by faulty intelligence.

Umm...my best friend just died in the Iraq War. You are patronizing his death by making a mockery of all brave young Americans who have died in these wars. He was a soldier, he did what he was told. He was an incredible patriot--more than any of you could ever hope to be for your respective countries. His buddy came home and we talked, and he was met at his HOME by anti-war protesters. He does not know what he did wrong. His buddy just died before his eyes, and people are calling him a warmonger, coward, traitor, and every other name they can think of. They talk bad of my deceased best friend, who never had once spoken badly of anyone. You are all making mockeries of people just like him, and their deaths. I do not blame the US government for his death, I blame the f**king p*ssies who planted the roadside bomb to blow up his Humvee. Please think before you type something anti-American next time.

I'm sorry for the loss of your best friend. I wish I could tell you how bad I feel, but mostly I feel numb. We've lost a lot of good people, and I can't cry for each of them. That's just how I deal with this stuff, I go numb. Anyway, it's also sad what's happend to your friend's friend. He shouldn't be treated that way, but he should understand what's going on. In a sense, protesting to soldiers is legitimate, since the war could not be waged without them, but it's rather unproductive and pointless. They're just upset and the President isn't available for their comments.

Yeah, I'm one of those people who think this war's unjust, and I thought so before it started. I never wanted this to happen. I didn't want your friend to die. I was a soldier once, too. I try to check the list of who we've lost every once in a while to see if anyone I know has died. So far, nobody I ever knew is on that list. When anyone dies in defense of themself, their family, or their country it's sad but heroic. However, when someone dies in a war that never needed to be fought, it's just sad. Sorry.

Assuming that official American support, military pilots, and equipment counts, it's definitely East Timor. It was invaded by Indonesia for expansionist reasons. The war was supported by the US government which gave weapons, cash, bombers, pilots, etc. to the invaders, mostly due to the fact that a socialist party member had been elected by the people of East Timor. Result: massive civilian deaths, human rights violations (rape, suppresion of any dissent, etc.), with the US knowing quite well what was going on there. Especially immoral on the backgroung of the Gulf War- Kuwait had just been invaded. East Timor had been getting the snot kicked out of it for several decades.

So I guess the question is- if civilian casualties precludes war as an appropriate measure to take against regimes that are totalitarian and to a degree hostile to the West, what is the alternative? When does a nation state cross the boundries of what is acceptable to the international community? How brutal must a state be or how dire must a situation be before enough is enough?

This is a serious question, not to be derailed by deconstruction of words or clever use of symantics.

Thank You :)

You have correctly identified the problem - when is war, especially brutal modern warfare with its high civilian casualty count, an acceptible solution to an international problem? Given the deadly advancements in military technology how much longer can the world community allow war?

Certainly we can agree that war must be the absolute last option. I think reasonable people can also agree that the most recent war against Iraq did not meet that criteria. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction why were strategically pinponted military strikes not an option? There certainly were options between doing nothing (which is not what was happening anyway) and all out war.

Of course that would not have allowed George W. Bush to personally go after Saddam Hussein, which is increasingly looking like the real reason for the war. Given the personal nature of this particular conflict it now appears that 1,000+ American soldiers and 14,000+ Iraqi civilians were the casualties of history's most expensive mob hit.

You have correctly identified the problem - when is war, especially brutal modern warfare with its high civilian casualty count, an acceptible solution to an international problem? Given the deadly advancements in military technology how much longer can the world community allow war?

I'm not sure how we can prevent war, except by going to war, which makes no sense. Also, I would argue that if you consider war over the past 30 years as "modern" it is becoming less deadly to bystanders, not more (see Dresden, Germany).

Certainly we can agree that war must be the absolute last option. I think reasonable people can also agree that the most recent war against Iraq did not meet that criteria. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction why were strategically pinponted military strikes not an option? There certainly were options between doing nothing (which is not what was happening anyway) and all out war.

We can agree that war must be the last option, but there will forever be people who say "give sanctions one last try", "give resolutions one more try", "allow inspectors to do their jobs". One more one more try. Give it another another chance. Sooner or later we have to say enough already. When do we hit that point?


Of course that would not have allowed George W. Bush to personally go after Saddam Hussein, which is increasingly looking like the real reason for the war. Given the personal nature of this particular conflict it now appears that 1,000+ American soldiers and 14,000+ Iraqi civilians were the casualties of history's most expensive mob hit.

True, a mob hit would've been much cheaper in lives and treasure.


***Aside to the Iraqi civilian casualties. How do they define 'civilian'?

If that is the case then what is the moral argument against terrorists killing civilians? At what point do we say that the military has crossed the line of acceptable collateral damage? How do you argue that the September 11 attacks or suicide bombers are immoral if you accept such wholescale killing of civilians on the part of the military?

its all about intent.... the difference between murder and manslaughter is the similar. Murder is planned, even if at the spur of the moment. Manslaughter is due to neglience.

A F16 pilot dropping a bomb that due to any number of reasons blows up a wedding for example did not intentionaly target civilians. A fleet of Lancasters or B29s that are deliberately armed with a mix of firebombs and high explosives, along with delayed action bombs, in order to maximize destruction of civilian dwellings and kill emergency personnel is deliberate.

Now whether Hamburg or Tokyo fireraids were a war crime is a different issue, but civilian deaths (and I have very strong suspicions about your numbers) in both Gulf Wars were definitely not war crimes. Just the horrors of war.

Between 14,000-16,000 civilians have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). One of the latest justifications for the war is that we went in to protect the civilian population from Saddam Hussein. At this rate the U.S. will surpass Saddam as the greater killer of Iraqi civilians.

In the years since the fall of Saigon, over 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed or injured by landmines and unexploded ordnance (explosives) left behind from that conflict. There are still 3.5 million landmines scattered around the country left from the "American War" as the Vietnamese call it.

Yes, civilians are killed in war, but to simply dismiss this as a fact of war is to conveniently sidestep the moral issue of a nation's responsibility to avoid civilian casualties. Are the 14,000+ Iraqi civilians killed less important, or less innocent, than the 3000 Americans who died on September 11? Do we just wash our hands of our moral responsibility for the millions of landmines that kill Vietnamese children every month?

When did such large civilian casualties become an accepted fact of war?

civilian casualties became an accepted part of war in EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER FOUGHT SINCE WE STARTED FIGHTING WARS. And I mean humanity, not just Americans.

Efforts for centuries to limit that have had extremely varied success. At least the US is actually trying to limit civilian casualties since 1960.

If the US had been really ruthless, the following events would have occured. Hanoi and Haiphong would have been hit by a couple hundred B52s laying a deliberate pattern of bombs that would have completely leveled those cities, killed practically everyone in them, and if really pissed of, simply dropped a couple of nukes. That would have been a war crime.

Baghdad would have been converted into a moonscape during the First Gulf War or consist of a single large crater surrounded by a plain of glass.

That would have been genocide.

Neither happened.

Modern Industralized Total War started with the French Revolution, and reached its worst in World War 2.... thankfully nothing has happened like it since.

Why isn't Lincoln's war to prevent southern independence on the list?Give me a break.

What? You've got something against independence? I challenge you to give my one good reason why a war to "preserve the union" was justified.

Freeing slaves
Keeping the nation in one piece is justification enough
They fired on Fort Sumter, regardless of any excuses, they fired first.

I'm surprised no one has voted for the first Gulf War, considering at least 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, with the total including 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.

What would the media make of an enemy who killed over 30,000 American children? When did American lives become worth more than the lives of other people?

Although the Gulf War is probably best remembered for its use of targeted "smart bombs" and computer guided missiles, the reality is that only 3% of the 88,500 tons of explosives used by U.S. forces were "smart bombs," and 20% of them missed their target. Once considered a war crime, somehow the wholesale bombing of cities and civilians has become an acceptable fact of modern war.

A justifyable war does not mean no casualties. Please feel free to name me a war (justified or not) that had no civilian deaths. Since the rise of the industrial age, you've had "total warfare" -- the mobilizing of an entire nation's resources. This is first seen in the US Civil War and is most obviously seen in WW1 and WW2.

No one said American lives are worth more than others. But IMHO you've got a lot of gall. How about the Kuwaitis suffereing? Were they less deserving of life?

If you think that Gulf War I was not justified, I can't see how you'd think any war was justified.

In fact, bombing cities is NOT a war crime , and has never been prosecuted as such. If you can site me ONE example of the World Court doing so, you win.

What? You've got something against independence? I challenge you to give my one good reason why a war to "preserve the union" was justified.

There is no clause in the Constitution to leave the union.
By doing so, the Confedercy would have destroyed the nation. Wars for national survival are justified.

This is why I believe that the UN/other nations has no business telling Russia what do to about the Chechnians.

There is no clause in the Constitution to leave the union.
By doing so, the Confedercy would have destroyed the nation. Wars for national survival are justified.

This is why I believe that the UN/other nations has no business telling Russia what do to about the Chechnians.

People who disagree with you believe that the sates that entered into the Union did so voluntarily, and thus could leave the Union at any time they could so choose.

Unfortunately, the Civil War centralized government and helped to destroy the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[QUOTE=Galveston Bay]its all about intent.... the difference between murder and manslaughter is the similar. Murder is planned, even if at the spur of the moment. Manslaughter is due to neglience.QUOTE]


I totally agree that the intent is of primary concern.

People who disagree with you believe that the states that entered into the Union did so voluntarily, and thus could leave the Union at any time they could so choose.

Unfortunately, the Civil War centralized government and helped to destroy the 9th and 10th Amendments.

...ah, but there's the rub -- if states could leave the union ad hoc (without the approval of the union), then the union is untenable. Everytime a vote came along that someone didn't like (say, cut farming subsidies, or whatever issue you want to name), somebody would threaten to leave.
There is no way a government based on such assumptions could survive, let alone be effective...

Hmm. I see what you're getting at, but I'm really don't believe that the founders meant the people to retain a right to leave the union. (I'm more of the opinion that they purposefully didn't address it).

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>> Here, I'm more of the opinion that this Amendment was put to stop the governement from passing future Amendments that would take away rights. Yet somehow, it didn't stop the 18th (Prohibition).

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
>> This is a good argument. But on the other hand, is leaving the Union a right/power? It's kind of a catch 22.

hmm. interesting that you don't include the other wars the US has been involved in.

American Revolutionary war, WWI and WWII to Name a few.

And there are the wars that we didn't fight in but supported in one way or another.

Afghanistans war against the Russians for one.

While America's history is blemished, it's still better than other countries because we do make reparations and help those that we fought against. We paid and granted the Native American's their right to govern themselves. We helped restore Japan after bombing the Cr@p outta it, Former Enemies are now our allies, and when trouble brews, America is the first to help, just ask any Nation who suffered an Earthquake, Volcanic Eruption or other natural desasters... and ask them if they sent any aid after Florida was hit with multiple Hurricanes in a row.

All wars are unjust... it's how we handle ourselves during and after the war that matters.

For me, the most Unjust war was the American Revolution War. After all, Europe HELPED us set up the colonies, started us on our treatment of the Native Americans (Chis Colombus took them back where the lable 'savages' was tacked on.) and because we suddenly didn't like their laws, we rebelled against our rulling government using terrorist techniques and unorthodox methods.

Granted, everyday that I turn on the news, I thank our founding fathers for their courage to do that and the strength to succeed.

How could anyone not support the Gulf War, right? After all didn’t the U.S. step in to defend the freedom loving people of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the American people?

And yet:
Between 1985 and 1990, the Commerce Department approved 771 licenses for dual-use technology exports to Iraq, of which 82 went directly to Iraqi military-related establishments.

Fifteen times between 1983 and 1990, the U.S. government waived restrictions to allow items that appeared on the State Department's restricted "Munitions List" to be exported to Saddam.

The Reagan and Bush administrations authorized $5.08 billion in loan guarantees to Iraq between 1983 and 1990.

In spite of their abysmal human rights record, their weapons of mass destruction programs, and increasingly hostile policy, Iraq had become America's number two trading partner in the Arab world.

Any deals made with Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait are superfluous. You're talking about dealings between two nations that UP TO the point of invasion had no pressing quarrel. Or was World War 2 unjustified because the US took up arms against Nazi Germany because it'd had had trade and dealings with it before 1941?


On July 25, 1990, just before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, at the request of President Bush, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and gave him a green light to invade Kuwait by reassuring him that, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Let me get this straight- the US saying that it doesn't want to get involved in a local conflict, and then getting involved when the UN votes to is WRONG?


It seems to me that the United States encouraged and supported Iraq’s dictator as much as any nation. The idea that the U.S. committed its forces to protect the Kuwaiti people or their freedom is foolishness. Kuwait, a nation created by Great Britain as a check against Ottoman power at the turn of the 20th century, was and remains a totalitarian oligarchy. Also, the U.S. committed no similar forces to protect the people of Sudan or Rwanda.

Hitler was considered a genius and a man worthy of respect in most circles until 1938/9. While the US didn't say "don't do that!", it certainly didn't tell him TO do it, either. Ever hear of soverignty?

As for Sudan and Rwanda: neither did the rest of the planet.


Why did the U.S. fight the Gulf War? I’m still waiting for a logical explanation to that question.


Right back at you - why did the WORLD fight Gulf War I?
We're talking about unjustified war, correct? What is better justification than a UN resolution and allies from over 100 nations taking part in the action?

If you think that Gulf War I was not justified, I can't see how you'd think any war was justified.

How could anyone not support the Gulf War, right? After all didn’t the U.S. step in to defend the freedom loving people of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the American people?

And yet:

Between 1985 and 1990, the Commerce Department approved 771 licenses for dual-use technology exports to Iraq, of which 82 went directly to Iraqi military-related establishments.

Fifteen times between 1983 and 1990, the U.S. government waived restrictions to allow items that appeared on the State Department's restricted "Munitions List" to be exported to Saddam.

The Reagan and Bush administrations authorized $5.08 billion in loan guarantees to Iraq between 1983 and 1990.

In spite of their abysmal human rights record, their weapons of mass destruction programs, and increasingly hostile policy, Iraq had become America's number two trading partner in the Arab world.

On July 25, 1990, just before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, at the request of President Bush, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and gave him a green light to invade Kuwait by reassuring him that, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

It seems to me that the United States encouraged and supported Iraq’s dictator as much as any nation. The idea that the U.S. committed its forces to protect the Kuwaiti people or their freedom is foolishness. Kuwait, a nation created by Great Britain as a check against Ottoman power at the turn of the 20th century, was and remains a totalitarian oligarchy. Also, the U.S. committed no similar forces to protect the people of Sudan or Rwanda.

Why did the U.S. fight the Gulf War? I’m still waiting for a logical explanation to that question.