NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you feel is the most unjustified military engagement in your country's history? Please do not say Iraq, because I have a feeling that a slew of people will say Iraq and the thread will be pulled into a tangent about said conflict. I'd prefer to explore other avenues of discussion, for a change.

I, as an American, would say the Kosovo air war is the least justified military action in US history. The pretext was fabricated (and not even that well), the true reasons for the war were textbook realpolitik, all but a very select, ruthless few were better off for it, yet somehow it maintains a strange legitimacy in many people's minds despite it all.

Guess. :p

All of them in the past 50 years.

Anything Bill Clinton did.

I've felt that the Kosovo strikes were probably the BEST justified actions the US has been in for a while.

Our least justified? Probably the Spanish-American War. Pure media beat up.

Guess. :p
Yeah! :D

Take a wild guess... :p

What do you mean by justified? The one that was least morally justified, or the one that had the least sound rationale behind the justification, or the one in which there were few or no justifications given to the public?

Because the second Iraq war really does fall into all three categories. The original justification was that Iraq had contravened UN resolutions for too long and possesed WMD (This appears to have been fabricated with many within unelected portion of government at odds with the elected part's conclusion. Even so far that a government scientist was found dead under suspicious circumstances). The politicians didn't stick to their guns which says much about the morality of the argument. Democracy and liberation where future claims, though democracy is faltering and many live in fear of armed militias which the Iraqis government is unable or unwilling to reign in. So much for that. There are also a whole host of reasons why the USA and its allies may have wanted to go to war with Iraq. Such as furthering the agenda of controling populations through fear of terror, frightening over middle eastern powers into not adopting the Euro as the trading currency for oil, or control of oil supplies and so on.

Hence Iraq wasn't morally justified, soundly justified, nor where the public given much justification in the first place.

The Spanish American War was pretty poorly justified.

The current war in Messopotamia. What? I didn't say Iraq.

I'd also have to say Kosovo.I was only a liddlun when it happened,but I did a bit of reading and wasn't uber impressed.Sooooo,Kosovo.

The Spanish American War was pretty poorly justified.

No, we at least got some land out of that. Puerto Rico and for a while the Phillipines were under our control after that, right?

Anything Bill Clinton did.

Right. No need to bomb those Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. They never did anything to us.

The Spanish American War was pretty poorly justified.

Well? The Maine at least offered "evidence" to justify war.

No, we at least got some land out of that. Puerto Rico and for a while the Phillipines were under our control after that, right?

Yeah, but the Phillipines sucked. All they managed to do was drag us into a massive, ten year long insurgency that killed some 10,000 American troops, and illustrated how our tactics and equipment at the time were poorly designed to handle such a conflict.

Iraq.

They have nukes! Wait! Sadaam is a bad bad man!

Yeah, but the Phillipines sucked. All they managed to do was drag us into a massive, ten year long insurgency that killed some 10,000 American troops, and illustrated how our tactics and equipment at the time were poorly designed to handle such a conflict.

Funny you mention 10 years. That is how long Vietnam went for. That is also the projected target for another war. So I say after 10 years either you win or leave.

Yeah, but the Phillipines sucked. All they managed to do was drag us into a massive, ten year long insurgency that killed some 10,000 American troops, and illustrated how our tactics and equipment at the time were poorly designed to handle such a conflict.

Yeah, but we got exposure to Phillipino martial arts, which are great.

Yeah, but we got exposure to Phillipino martial arts, which are great.

Are we invading Japan, Korea, or Brazil next then?

The entire Spanish/American war. Started on an obvious lie (the explosion of the USS Maine), and all it was really for is to establish the US as something other that England's former colonies.

I'd have to say William Walker's conquest and rule of Nicaragua. 1855.

"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News

"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker


A civil war was then raging in the Central American republic of Nicaragua, and the rebel faction hired Walker as a mercenary. Evading the federal U.S. authorities charged with preventing his departure, Walker sailed from San Francisco on May 4, 1855 with 57 men, to be reinforced by 170 locals and about 100 Americans upon landing. On September 1, he defeated the Nicaraguan national army at La Virgen and, a month later, conquered the capital of Granada and took control of the country. As commander of the army, Walker controlled Nicaragua through puppet president Patricio Rivas. Despite the obvious illegality of his expedition, U.S. President Franklin Pierce recognized Walker's regime as the legitimate government of Nicaragua on May 20, 1856. Walker's agents recruited American and European men to sail to the region and fight for the conquest of the other four Central American nations: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica. He was able to recruit over a thousand American mercenaries, transported free by the Accessory Transit Company controlled by Wall Street tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt.
...

In July of 1856, Walker set himself up as president of Nicaragua, after conducting an uncontested election. Realizing that his position was becoming precarious, he sought support from the Southerners in the U.S. by recasting his campaign as a fight to spread the institution of slavery, which many American Southern businessmen saw as the basis of their large and prosperous tobacco, sugar, and cotton exporting businesses. With this in mind, Walker revoked Nicaragua's emancipation edict of 1824, which had made slavery illegal. This move did increase Walker's popularity in the South and attracted the attention of Pierre Soulé, an influential New Orleans politician, who campaigned to raise support for Walker's war.

But hey, maybe that doesn't count since it wasn't "really" the US government doing anything directly.

So how about 1898, declaring war on Spain (blaming it erroneously for the Maine explosion, which was probably an accident)? The war enabled the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

Hmmm.... so many to choose from. Latin America has a lot of nasty wars that the US took part in, that I would venture to say a solid majority of US population (including me) is only peripherally aware of, at best.

Are we invading Japan, Korea, or Brazil next then?

How about Indonesia? I like Pentjak Silat.

Guess. :pWorld War II has been seconded! :D

The Suez Crisis in 1956 for Britain, I think. Aside from the obvious alternatives, one would be hard pressed to find a conflict in which 1) the government`s self-interest overrode common sense, and 2) the control the US has on the UK, are any clearer.

Yeah, but we got exposure to Phillipino martial arts, which are great.

It also gave us the Colt Model 1911 .45, a gun designed specifically to knock down a coked out Phillipino.

The raids on English monistaries, by Vikings.

Spanish-American War, since I can't say Iraq Mk. II.

irish civil war. pointless.
to sum it up. pro-treaty vs. anti-treaty. anti-treaty wins but stills signs treaty. ireland gets an american leader that wasnt voted in.

It also gave us the Colt Model 1911 .45, a gun designed specifically to knock down a coked out Phillipino.

See? Spanish-American war paid off well. It's justified in terms of what we got out of it.

Are we invading Japan, Korea, or Brazil next then?

what about ireland? we have our own fighting style. bare knuckle boxing. traveler familys use it to work out disbutes.
this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDrd4TyXOG4&mode=related&search=) is 8mins long, but its gets more violent as it goes on. one of the guys is from the macdonagh clan. they are a very very viscious bunch of people.
dont worry if you cant understand what they are saying, they are pikeys.
pikeys are not like humans.

I, too, agree that the Spanish-American War is the least justified war in U.S. history.

what about ireland? we have our own fighting style. bare knuckle boxing. traveler familys use it to work out disbutes.
this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDrd4TyXOG4&mode=related&search=) is 8mins long, but its gets more violent as it goes on. one of the guys is from the macdonagh clan. they are a very very viscious bunch of people.
dont worry if you cant understand what they are saying, they are pikeys.
pikeys are not like humans.

wtf is a Pikey?

The military response to the Red River Rebellion.

In 1869, 2 years after Canada was confederated, the Red River Colony (in what would later be Manitoba) declared itself sovereign, and required that 14 conditions be met before it would agree to be absorbed by Canada (prior to this it had been part of Rupert's Land, which was owned by the Hudson Bay Company). Since, at the time, the Red River Colony wasn't technically part of anyone's territory, no one had the authority to tell them what to do.

But, the Red River Colony was run and inhabited almost entirely by the Métis (Catholic mixed-blood natives). When they convicted a white Ontarian Thomas Scott of treason (he was attempting to foment civil war to oust the Métis from power) and executed him, the Canadian forces responded and crushed the rebellion.

The leader of the Rebellion, Louis Riel, was exiled from Canada. While in exile, he was thrice elected to the Canadian parliament.

wtf is a Pikey?

filthy horrible little animal people. has been describe by an english lords as "white chimpanzees in clothes".
kind of like the mix between a rat and a monkey. commonly mistaken for romas. not geneticly linked with romas at all. romas were the rejects of the aryan empire, pikeys are the rejects of ireland. not dont have homes also they cant be arrested for assault, its really annoying.

probably the Crusades
though the Falklands War comes pretty close

In my lifetime? Vietnam and CURRENT Iraq nonsense. (US History being short at least we don't have any of the Church Crusades on our collective conscience, much to my relief)

Historically Korea gives Vietnam a run for the money in idiocy. Anything that is called a "police action" to justify a military engagement is selling the same brand of Kool-aid as W and Rummy did.

filthy horrible little animal people. has been describe by an english lords as "white chimpanzees in clothes".
kind of like the mix between a rat and a monkey. commonly mistaken for romas. not geneticly linked with romas at all. romas were the rejects of the aryan empire, pikeys are the rejects of ireland. not dont have homes also they cant be arrested for assault, its really annoying.


aka a group of people whom where born into a lower status and will therefore be looked down on, be considered sub-humans and just generally ostracized because of it?

aka a group of people whom where born into a lower status and will therefore be looked down on, be considered sub-humans and just generally ostracized because of it?

lower status? they chose to live animals. they wonder around and dont get jobs and just rob people. they think its ok to have children with cousines. its promoted in thier sub-culture.

probably the Crusades
though the Falklands War comes pretty close
The Falklands War is largely responsible for the arrival of democracy in South America. I'm a big fan of that one.

I sometimes think it was the model on which the invasion of Iraq was based. But Iraq's not working out as well (because the people there want to kill each other, whereas Argentines didn't).

Probably the various wars by which most of the land inside the current borders was conquered.

And WWI. It was pretty much unjustified and stupid in general. Totally pointless.

War of 1812.

Hey guys, the British gave us our independence, and a bit of land too!

Yeah? So what?

Well, isn't that nice?

NO! I WANT CANADA AS WELL! GIVE ME CANADA! I'M GREEDY!

I am from the US. I think our fighting of the Phillipinos was pretty silly after the Spanish American War. By the way Iraq is a great war.

The whole mexican american war thing was pretty sketchy. I suppose california was gained, so perhaps that justifies it.

Still, I imagine grenada is probably the most unjustified. Or any of the south american interventions.

though the Falklands War comes pretty close

Not even. Suez was far less justified for one thing, and that's only in the post war period.

Looking further back, how about invading afganistan for queen victoria's birthday?

I've felt that the Kosovo strikes were probably the BEST justified actions the US has been in for a while.

In actuality, I'd agree, apart from the demonization of Serbians, support of invading KLA thugs who had only a little while before been listed as terrorists by the US State Department (and who were supported by Osama bin-Laden in Sudan), an utter failure to find any evidence of genocide despite efforts by the Hague, the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, a Spanish team and others, a massive refugee problem caused by NATO bombing and our friends the KLA, the wanton destruction of Serbian infrastructure and civilian area caused by the NATO air war, the transformation of Kosovo into a base for further incursions into Serbia, and the currently ongoing terrorizing of non-Albanian and non-Muslim Kosovars and those who associate with them, which, despite UN jurisdiction of the area, is given a blind eye. All in all, very justified.

Korean War, 1950-53. Ceasefire in 1953. Technically still on-going.

Pushing past the 38th parallel, and trying to end North Korea as a political entity was a strategic mistake of massive proportions. 2 millons lives later the borders returned to pretty much to pre-war status quo.

North Korean and their Soviet backers were blinking insane to think the rest of the world would just draft a stiff note of protest. It wasn't however, rational for the US/UN forces to extend the war by pushing past the 38th. In the end, it accomplished NOTHING.

What do you feel is the most unjustified military engagement in your country's history? Please do not say Iraq, because I have a feeling that a slew of people will say Iraq and the thread will be pulled into a tangent about said conflict. I'd prefer to explore other avenues of discussion, for a change.

I, as an American, would say the Kosovo air war is the least justified military action in US history. The pretext was fabricated (and not even that well), the true reasons for the war were textbook realpolitik, all but a very select, ruthless few were better off for it, yet somehow it maintains a strange legitimacy in many people's minds despite it all.



Well, Viet-fuckin-Nam. hands down.

Any crap we've done in the Middle East/Far East.

And the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.

The only justifiable wars in US history were the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the two World Wars.

Probably Spanish American War.

See William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism

Probably the various wars by which most of the land inside the current borders was conquered.

And WWI. It was pretty much unjustified and stupid in general. Totally pointless.

The war itself was unjustified, but US involvement in the war was very justified when you look at the Lusitania, Germany's violation of the Sussex Pledge, and the Zimmerman Note.

Any crap we've done in the Middle East/Far East.

And the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.

The only justifiable wars in US history were the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the two World Wars.

How was the Civil War unjustified? The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter?

Well? The Maine at least offered "evidence" to justify war.

I will admit in all honesty that there was no way to know what happened to her until diving technology improved.

It wasn't until ADM Rickover reopened the case in 1975 that the US Navy was officially able to conclude her loss was the result of a coal dust explosion.

The Mayan wars in the 19th C.

I would have to say Custer's Last Stand. God what an idiot.

How was the Civil War unjustified? The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter?

Civil wars are never justifiable in my opinion.

Any crap we've done in the Middle East/Far East.

And the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.

The only justifiable wars in US history were the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the two World Wars.
how was the war of 1812 justified? it was a landgrab while Britain was busy kicking Napoleon's ass.

Well my country's only war was to defend the japanese from taking our island. Our troops gave up in 9 days cause the damn japanese cut off our water supply.


One very stupid war was the french revoulution, France beheaded the King, then placed a president,then beheaded their president, then put Napoeleon on as Emperor then had another president, which declared himself emperor.......

One very stupid war was the french revoulution, France beheaded the King, then placed a president,then beheaded their president, then put Napoeleon on as Emperor then had another president, which declared himself emperor.......

The French also keep on burning/killing/exiling their best military minds.

War of 1812.

Hey guys, the British gave us our independence, and a bit of land too!

Yeah? So what?

Well, isn't that nice?

NO! I WANT CANADA AS WELL! GIVE ME CANADA! I'M GREEDY!Apparantely the impressment of thousands of American sailors by the Royal Navy means nothing to you.

Civil wars are never justifiable in my opinion.

Then it would be unjustified on the part of the CSA who started it. The Union was just fighting back after Fort Sumter.

Apparantely the impressment of thousands of American sailors by the Royal Navy means nothing to you.

Most people overlook this as the main reason for the conflict. Memories of these kids are so short these days.

I believe WWII was the least justified. While there were egregious abuses of power under the Nazi system (the Holocaust, for example), it was preferable to the disgusting atrocities committed by Stalin, and with it came inevitable industrial and technological growth. It was a choice between fascism and communism, and we picked the wrong side to support because of our liberal president. Tens of millions of people died because of that choice.

how was the war of 1812 justified? it was a landgrab while Britain was busy kicking Napoleon's ass.

impressment of sailors, British forts in the Ohio River Valley, and their use of Indians to organize attacks on villages.

Basically any war we were ever involved in.

*pax Suecia, soon to be 200 years, ah, it's good to have peace*

Most people overlook this as the main reason for the conflict. Memories of these kids are so short these days.

I think it is more accurate to say that most of the people in this world are very ignorant when it comes to history.

Most people overlook this as the main reason for the conflict. Memories of these kids are so short these days.
main reason? main reason was Manifest Destiny and anger at British control of trade during the Napoleonic wars.

main reason? main reason was Manifest Destiny and anger at British control of trade during the Napoleonic wars.
Here is a list of reasons for the war:

British blockade against US ships in Europe
Impressment of sailors
Using the Indians to fight a proxy war against the US
refusal to abide by Treaty of Paris 1883 in terms of keeping control of forts in the Ohio River Valley

Here is a list of reasons for the war:

British blockade against US ships in Europe
Impressment of sailors
Using the Indians to fight a proxy war against the US
refusal to abide by Treaty of Paris 1883 in terms of keeping control of forts in the Ohio River Valley
and expansion. Denying that America was not interested in gaining territory does not change the fact that it is true.

and expansion. Denying that America was not interested in gaining territory does not change the fact that it is true.

and saying it is true doesn't remove the fact that there was ample justification for the war.

though the Falklands War comes pretty close

While I'm not gonna weigh in on the normative value of the Falklands war, I must say it was fought over an odd little bit of sparsely populated rock, in one of the more miserable regions of the world. I really don't see why the UK wanted to keep it, but, then again, I'm not Maggie Thatcher, so I really can't say what one would think on the matter.

I know I'm not supposed to say it, but it has to be Iraq. It's just Britain joining into somebody else's war so Blair could suck up to Bush. It should never have been our problem. Though if I can't choose Iraq then Kosovo seems like a good choice. Another case of Britain getting needlessly dragged into other people's problems.

though the Falklands War comes pretty close
I can't see how the Falklands is one of the most pointless wars. Regardless of the merits of keeping the islands, it was a case of this country defending territory that had been invaded by a foreign country. We've gone to war over far more pointless things than that before.

and saying it is true doesn't remove the fact that there was ample justification for the war.
fair enough

and expansion. Denying that America was not interested in gaining territory does not change the fact that it is true.

It was viewed as a bonus to using war as the solution to these provocations., like when you get a hotel room, plus the little candy on the pillow.

I'd probably say Suez, that was pretty stupid.

We're not in Iraq so I can't really say that anyway..


I guess being involved in Vietnam might have to be it, although at the time we still thought that we had to suck up to the US more than we did so I guess I can see where they were coming from. At least every man who went were volunteers. I suppose much of the land wars were completely unjustified too.

It was viewed as a bonus to using war as the solution to these provocations., like when you get a hotel room, plus the little candy on the pillow.

Bah, they were trying to capture Canada! Jefforson said that capturing Canada would be "a matter of marching".

Bah, they were trying to capture Canada! Jefforson said that capturing Canada would be "a matter of marching".

The grievances of the United States regarding impressment, the Ohio forts and other factors are the reasons that a sufficient majority in Congress existed to declare war. Because the US felt that it had been wronged, it came to the conclusion that it deserved some sort of reparations, and that it would be the job of the army to secure that in the form of Canada. That Jefferson said it would be "just a matter of marching" is an analysis of military tactics and strategy.

Vietnam, there was absolutely no need to send Australian troops into a war just to get credit from the US, hey... that sounds like another unjustified war in Mesopotamia...

The whole mexican american war thing was pretty sketchy. I suppose california was gained, so perhaps that justifies it.

You do realise that Mexico attacked the US first, right?

Still, I imagine grenada is probably the most unjustified. Or any of the south american interventions.

Grenada's a much better choice.

How was the Civil War unjustified? The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter?

And they did so with some justification, as Anderson's occupation of it was seen as a violation of the government's pledges.

I would have to say Custer's Last Stand. God what an idiot.

While Custer was indeed an idiot, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn was a disaster, it wasn't a war. It was one battle in the Black Hills War. You could make a damned good argument that the Black Hills War was one of the worst justified wars in US history. The entire justification was gold, nothing more nothing less.

War of 1812.

Hey guys, the British gave us our independence, and a bit of land too!

Yeah? So what?

Well, isn't that nice?

NO! I WANT CANADA AS WELL! GIVE ME CANADA! I'M GREEDY!

Well, well. The hijack and nasty spat the OP worried about isn't going to be Iraq but yet another rehash of this. Can we cut to the chase and just have the Canadians get all huffy, the US armchair historians pwn, and the Europeans and others get confused; or do we have to really go through all this again?

You do realise that Mexico attacked the US first, right?

False. A US patrol crossed into Mexican territory and was met by the Mexican Army.

Are we invading Japan, Korea, or Brazil next then?
Nope China

everybody was kung fu fighting! :D

Vietnam.

Or maybe WW1...

False. A US patrol crossed into Mexican territory and was met by the Mexican Army.

That's very disputable. The evidence for the precise location of the ambush is sketchy at best. The most we can say with confidence is that it occurred CLOSE to the border - but it remains uncertain as to which side of it.

You do realise that Mexico attacked the US first, right?


I'm a bit of a Whig about this. It strikes me that the US provoked mexico into attacking the 'US' because they refused to sell California et al. In any case, from the mexican perspective, they didn't actually attack the US, but rather a fort that the US had constructed in disputed territory. (Nevermind that the US had just annexed what mexico considered to be a rebellious mexican province).

It really is very hard to claim the moral high ground with this one.

That's very disputable. The evidence for the precise location of the ambush is sketchy at best. The most we can say with confidence is that it occurred CLOSE to the border - but it remains uncertain as to which side of it.

Nope, Taylor crossed the Nueces into Mexican territory. The area between the Nueces and Grande was claimed by Texas, but by no means was the situation resolved then.

The US policy was one of open confrontation, they needed a good excuse for war. The excuse was going to be the refusal of Mexico to sell that land, but the skirmish provided a much better one, although even Congress was divided over this and many voted against war.

Nope, Taylor crossed the Nueces into Mexican territory. The area between the Nueces and Grande was claimed by Texas, but by no means was the situation resolved then.

The US policy was one of open confrontation, they needed a good excuse for war. The excuse was going to be the refusal of Mexico to sell that land, but the skirmish provided a much better one, although even Congress was divided over this and many voted against war.

Taylor BELIEVED he'd crossed the Nueces, but there's evidence he was mistaken. It had been a wet year, and some of his men believed that what they'd forded was a runoff channel, and not the main river.

Of course, it's equally plausible that Taylor was right. And either way, Taylor was operating in what he believed was disputed territory.

wtf is a Pikey?

You never watched Snatch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208092/)?

It's always fascinating to see how Europeans react to the mere mention of gypsies or gypsy-like people.

Ira-

Erm... can't say that war now...

Vietnam!

Although the revolutionary war goes up there...

Um.. it starts with an I....

*Prepares to be flamed by all Texans*

The Mexican American War, fought over American Blood, on American Land, began in a part of Texas that the Texans at the time never even claimed was Texas. The Texans only wanted a much smaller part of Texas, Taylor wanted the larger, sent a small part of the army into the Mexican controlled part, Mexicans shot at the invading force.

And let's not get into the Alamo, shall we? "Freedom" my ass, they just wanted to keep slavery, which Mexico had abolished at the time(Not to mention Mexico practically gave away the land to those people to settle in that part of Mexico), which pissed em off.

But, heh, whatever. I'm sure any Texans on the board will give me so much flak for this.

Heh, on review, this has already been stated.

*Prepares to be flamed by all Texans*

The Mexican American War, fought over American Blood, on American Land, began in a part of Texas that the Texans at the time never even claimed was Texas. The Texans only wanted a much smaller part of Texas, Taylor wanted the larger, sent a small part of the army into the Mexican controlled part, Mexicans shot at the invading force.

And let's not get into the Alamo, shall we? "Freedom" my ass, they just wanted to keep slavery, which Mexico had abolished at the time(Not to mention Mexico practically gave away the land to those people to settle in that part of Mexico), which pissed em off.

But, heh, whatever. I'm sure any Texans on the board will give me so much flak for this.

Heh, on review, this has already been stated.

Not me. I'm in total agreement here.

Of course, things turned out the way they did. That's just how it goes. There's no changing what's already happened...

Not me. I'm in total agreement here.

Of course, things turned out the way they did. That's just how it goes. There's no changing what's already happened...

Makes you wonder, though, if we hadn't gained that land, would we have Americans crossing the border into Mexico?

:D

The war itself was unjustified, but US involvement in the war was very justified when you look at the Lusitania, Germany's violation of the Sussex Pledge, and the Zimmerman Note.

I was talking about the war, in answer to the original question. The US was involved in WWI, the war was a pointless and utterly idiotic one.

Also, the US was never truly neutral even while it was officially so in that war.

Guess. :p
Are you refering to Australia or Germany?:p

New Zealand has been justified in every war we have partook in.
We didn't have a say on World War One...

Makes you wonder, though, if we hadn't gained that land, would we have Americans crossing the border into Mexico?

:D

Who knows? It might've even been a step towards uniting the States with Mexico.

Excluding US military interventions in Latin America (too easy), probably the struggle for colonialism in the Phillipines.

Excluding US military interventions in Latin America (too easy), probably the struggle for colonialism in the Phillipines.

I agree.

and expansion. Denying that America was not interested in gaining territory does not change the fact that it is true.

Actually the land grab was more of a half hearted "Hey why not....."

The forces used to invade were pathetic at best. Hell one force were chased out and surrendered without even firing a shot.

As an Australian citizen, Vietnam.
As an Australian citizen of German descent, World War I.
As an Australian citizen of Ukrainian descent, Iraq (sorry, it's the only war we've been involved in :( ).

What do you feel is the most unjustified military engagement in your country's history? Please do not say Iraq

Iraq...specifically the invasion that occured on 2003 and the subsequent and ongoing occupation.

Sorry, but no other conflict America has been involved in has even come close, and I'm not about to pretend otherwise.

I'd prefer to explore other avenues of discussion, for a change.

I can imagine...so I'll stop right there, and leave your thread in peace.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" :p

I won't say Iraq, because I'm not allowed to.....

In second place would be Vietnam.

New Zealand has been justified in every war we have partook in. We didn't have a say on World War One...

As another Kiwi, I would have to agree - part of it is because we tend to be a bit wimpish

The Irish Civil War, if that counts.

Also, failing to oppose outright Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

By the way Iraq is a great war.
How can anyone who lives in the same universe as me think this?

World War II has been seconded! :D

I'm joining the German crowd here... it's a pretty pointless question to ask a German in the first place.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m92/matthewthirlwell/givemepoland.jpg

Yeah, but the Phillipines sucked. All they managed to do was drag us into a massive, ten year long insurgency that killed some 10,000 American troops, and illustrated how our tactics and equipment at the time were poorly designed to handle such a conflict.

er i might be wrong, but i think the war did not last for 10 years becuase Philippines because the Spanish American wr ended in 1898 and the US established colonial rule in the Philippines in 1901 and by 1902 were already sending more than a thousand american teachers to the colony. and there wasnt 10 000 US casualties but rather the US sent a total of roughly 10 000 soldiers there. it also was not an insurgency because in between the time the Spanish left and the Americans came, the Philippines was declared an independent nation by the natives, so it was more of an invasion =)

Soviet Union's occupation of my country

The Civil War was made of fail. Other than that it's all good.

Well, ya know, as much as war can be.

The vietnam war was very stupid, so much blood, so little change

well i'm sorry but iraq is on the list.

but if you want to go back historicly the list does get rather long:

grenada
philipenes
spanish american
little big horn
tippacanoe
trail of tears
yamhill
modoc
french and indian war (in which my hessian ancestor on my father's side was brought over as a mercinary from what is now north rhine westphalia. this last was before the u.s. was a country.)
thanksgiving (check out what it REALLY origeonaly celibrated for it's first hundred years! although this is another one that took place when there wasn't yet any such place as the u.s.)

and, as they say, many many others.

all that is presumably refering to the country i'm mundanely surrounded by
as opposed to my REAL country which is the immaginary one inside my head
which never invaded anybody but evolved out of an indiginous defensive coelition.

=^^=
.../\...

The least justified: War with China 1937 - 1945
The least sensible: War with America 1941 - 1945, WOW that was a BAD idea. Although a full-blown war with America wasn't really our intention.

The least justified: War with China 1937 - 1945
The least sensible: War with America 1941 - 1945, WOW that was a BAD idea. Although a full-blown war with America wasn't really our intention.

IM going to take it that you are japanese

er i might be wrong, but i think the war did not last for 10 years becuase Philippines because the Spanish American wr ended in 1898 and the US established colonial rule in the Philippines in 1901 and by 1902 were already sending more than a thousand american teachers to the colony. and there wasnt 10 000 US casualties but rather the US sent a total of roughly 10 000 soldiers there. it also was not an insurgency because in between the time the Spanish left and the Americans came, the Philippines was declared an independent nation by the natives, so it was more of an invasion =)

The war was officially declared over 1902, but fighting continued, especially in the south, until about 1913. A lot of the brutality in particular happened after 1902, as the guerrilla warfare stage intensified.
According to wikipedia, 126,000 troops were used/sent over by the Americans, with 4324 dead and 3000+ wounded Americans alone. Quite pointless I think - but doesn't count for me, as I'm not American.

For UK? Suez ranks quite high up there... can't rack brains for earlier or other wars really.

The least justified: War with China 1937 - 1945
The least sensible: War with America 1941 - 1945, WOW that was a BAD idea. Although a full-blown war with America wasn't really our intention.

Hey Ceia! Hisashiburi. :D
Yep both were bad ideas. At least you got a semblance of a liberal democratic system out of the Pacific War... ;)

(As for the Mexican-American War issue, I'll tackle that later. Off to bed now.)

The hundreds of years of oppression and wars against the Indonesian peoples.

The so called "police actions" in '47 and '49 with the purpose of keeping grip on Indonesia (and kill some thousands of civilians along with it). Considering we just came out of a terrible 5 years of Nazi occupation I don't understand (except for egoistic economic interests) that my people were able to act similar to their past occupiers in Indonesia

(this is for the Netherlands)

Just about every colonial war which wasn't in self defence(Zulu war for example). Hundred years war, Spanish armada, most out of the many many wars with France (possibly apart from the Napoleonic wars, we had an excuse then.... just), Suez, Crimea, American war of independance (although we didn't start that one), war of 1812 (ditto, though that was worth it to burn Washington to the ground), Chinese opium wars, and finally, World War 1.

Just a couple then.

Just about every colonial war which wasn't in self defence(Zulu war for example). Hundred years war, Spanish armada, most out of the many many wars with France (possibly apart from the Napoleonic wars, we had an excuse then.... just), Suez, Crimea, American war of independance (although we didn't start that one), war of 1812 (ditto, though that was worth it to burn Washington to the ground), Chinese opium wars, and finally, World War 1.

Just a couple then.

I don't see how you can call the Hundred Years War or the destruction of the Spanish Armada unjustified. In both cases, Britain was acting in self defense.

Because the second Iraq war really does fall into all three categories.

What "second Iraq war?" There was only one that the US was involved in. The one that started with Iraq invading and occupying Kuwait. It was paused by a ceasefire that Hussein violated and ended with Hussein's capture and arrest.

What other Iraq war was there?

Hm...How's about World War I, started because Willy, Nicky, and (geez, I should know the English monarchs...Franky? Eddy? Hold on, Wikipedia to the rescue...Georgey!) couldn't just sit down and work it out (yeah, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire was worth inviting...)?

I don't see how you can call the Hundred Years War or the destruction of the Spanish Armada unjustified. In both cases, Britain was acting in self defense.

Fair point on the Spanish bit, but the Hundred years war was pure Plantagenet "I want your land even though i own Britain and a largechunk of France" mentalness.

probably the Crusades
though the Falklands War comes pretty close

?

I thought we were attacked and so defending ourselves.

Fair point on the Spanish bit, but the Hundred years war was pure Plantagenet "I want your land even though i own Britain and a largechunk of France" mentalness.

Fair enough. I'll have to take a better look at that period - I must've got it mixed up with when the King of France was taking over the Norman holdings in France. Maybe that was a bit later.

What "second Iraq war?" There was only one that the US was involved in. The one that started with Iraq invading and occupying Kuwait. It was paused by a ceasefire that Hussein violated and ended with Hussein's capture and arrest.

What other Iraq war was there?

The invasion of Kuwait was given the go ahead by Bush Sr. He told Saddam we would not get involved. And yet we did...

And how, might I ask, did Saddam violate the ceasfire?

Nevermind. Read it wrong.

I would say the Mexican-American war we basically just went and took their land not that im giving it back

...and finally, World War 1.

How was Britain not justified for joining in that particular slaughter? We were defending the neutrality of Belgium, originally.

The least justified: War with China 1937 - 1945
The least sensible: War with America 1941 - 1945, WOW that was a BAD idea. Although a full-blown war with America wasn't really our intention.

Togo should have listened to Yamamoto, who was a much cooler and wiser head. Of course, here in the US we have had much the same problem. Frequently our President fails to heed the advice of those who actually know how to find their rear ends with a flash light and a map.

Bad strategic decisions are made frequently while under the spell of ideology. Togo certainly did it, Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson did it, Bush 43 and Rumsfeld did it.

If you are not careful in Japan, mistakes are likely to be repeated with your new leader.

What do you feel is the most unjustified military engagement in your country's history? Please do not say Iraq, because I have a feeling that a slew of people will say Iraq and the thread will be pulled into a tangent about said conflict. I'd prefer to explore other avenues of discussion, for a change.

I, as an American, would say the Kosovo air war is the least justified military action in US history. The pretext was fabricated (and not even that well), the true reasons for the war were textbook realpolitik, all but a very select, ruthless few were better off for it, yet somehow it maintains a strange legitimacy in many people's minds despite it all.

Yeah well guess what, I'm saying Iraq because its true. deal with it.

Yeah well guess what, I'm saying Iraq because its true. deal with it.

Eh, Iraq had the effect of over throwing a Tyrannical leader. Still, not very justified, especially by the reasons as to why we went to war, but still it has an incling.

There are worse, such as Vietnam(no justification whatsoever), or the Mexican American war(US provoked war). Spanish American comes to mind, as well.

it depends on what you look at. Are we looking at the necessity of the conflict at the time of the declaration of war, or are we looking at it after the fact. remember Iraq was supported by 2/3 americans and 3/4 of congress, its just the way its handled was very poor. The gulf of tonkin incident was what brought the US into vietnam, perfectly justified reason there, but it was handled very poorly. The war of 1812 was extremely contraversial, New England theatened to secede from the union. So really, every war is justified at the time of the declaration, but as public opinion fades we start seeing things differently. So in my mind, no american war was unjustified, just mis managed.

There are worse, such as Vietnam(no justification whatsoever),

american ships were fired upon by north vietnamese ships in international waters just prior to the US upped the troop amounts.

we actually havent had a declared war since 1941. Everything we've done has been police action. Even Iraq and desert storm werent, legally and technically speaking, wars.

The Suez Crisis in 1956 for Britain, I think. Aside from the obvious alternatives, one would be hard pressed to find a conflict in which 1) the government`s self-interest overrode common sense, and 2) the control the US has on the UK, are any clearer.

The Suez Crisis was justified I believe. The Suez Canal was a vital trade route for Britain and France, and if Egypt nationalised it, they could cut off British and French trade. Probably not the best way to go about things, but at least it was a good reason, unlike Iraq :rolleyes:

I would have to say anything sugested by some one with last name of Bush. I am from same state as him and thought he was a complete and total idiot even before he was elected.

The gulf of tonkin incident was what brought the US into vietnam, perfectly justified reason there, but it was handled very poorly. Yeah, that was made up for the express purpose of increasing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. It never happened.

Boer war, if we presuppose British autonomy as requisite to a British engagement. If not, Iraq it is.

The invasion of Kuwait was given the go ahead by Bush Sr. He told Saddam we would not get involved.

Mmmm - yeah...

And how, might I ask, did Saddam violate the ceasfire?

Try this on for size - and, it's from 1992;

===========================
Security Council Warns Iraqis to Halt Cease-Fire Violations

By John M. Goshko
The Washington Post
United Nations

The U.N. Security Council warned Iraq Thursday to immediately stop violating the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and U.N. officials said the first test of Baghdad's intentions could come next week when a U.N. team goes to Iraq, possibly with instructions to destroy disputed missiles.
===========================
-- http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html

What do you feel is the most unjustified military engagement in your country's history? Please do not say Iraq, because I have a feeling that a slew of people will say Iraq and the thread will be pulled into a tangent about said conflict. I'd prefer to explore other avenues of discussion, for a change.



I as an American say the US revolutionary war is top of the list of Unjustified Military use of force.

Tied for Second are numerous uses of force where we occupied Latin American and Caribean countries to make sure they paid off US banks

Fair point on the Spanish bit, but the Hundred years war was pure Plantagenet "I want your land even though i own Britain and a largechunk of France" mentalness.

The problem with looking at the conflict in that respect is that we are looking at the conflict through modern eyes.
Sure, medieval wars for honour, prestige and dynastic claims may seem petty and pointless for us, but they played a very important role in how power was constructed.
England's Plantagenet lands in France had been gradually whittled ever since the reign of John, and obviously this was a legacy of shame. Now in Edward III's case, what the early victories of the Hundred Years' War did was to cement his reputation amongst the nobility, unify and mobilise a realm behind him, avenge and reclaim Plantagenet losses in France, and raise his prestige in Europe and at home - making him a heck of a lot of a stronger and respected king than his father, Edward II. Hence for him the expenses incurred were well worth it. And if he could even become king of France (to which he had a claim of sorts - not to pursue it may be a sign of weakness), then all the better.

...

Probably we should look again at what we mean by 'least justisfied', because all wars had some sort of reasoning behind it (maybe not all...). Maybe wars that set out to achieve objectives, but left the country no better or worst off than before?
In that sense the HYW can be included, for English kings eventually lost all their French lands. But the problem with the HYW was that it was over such a long period anyway and a long series of wars conveniently grouped under a single name, and so latent trends in power play could have just as easily resulted in something similar, HYW or not.

Mexican-American War. Just mosey on up to the border, wait to get shot, and declare war.

Are we invading Japan, Korea, or Brazil next then?

OKINAWA!!

What? i had to say it.

Who wouldn't want some Shorinji Ryu?