Obviously, a poll would be nice, but the United States have invaded so many countries a poll wouldn't be able to present all the alternatives.

So in your opinion, what U.S. wars can be justified?
What U.S. wars do you feel have been "correct"?

98% of ALL wars through ALL of history have been improper.

Of the US wars, though every war has it's negative issues,
and all of these also have serious negative issues;

Independence
Eventually this part of the world would have to break away from Britons colonialism.


1812
The US was attacked, though this war could have been prevented.


Civil
The need was felt to preserve the union,
though in hind sight, this war may have been prevented as well


WWII
The issues behind this huge conflict are extreme and varied.
Clearly Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had to be stopped, even reversed.
But reasons for involvement and the aftermath of WWII including
the Secret governments and the military industrial complex deserve a lot of attention.

Since history is mostly lies, it's difficult to tell. War is always a crime, the only question is whose fault it is.

Wars that were themselves justified, let's see...

The Revolution, the Civil War, World War II (WWI is questionable, but the US entered legitimately, and Woodrow had a decent vision that was shot down by naysayers)... that's about it for wars that were both justified and conducted properly. You can make a case for many other wars, like 1812, as we were attacked, or even Korea or Gulf War I (where an ally was attacked), but in the case of the latter two, the war was unconstitutional because Congress never issued a declaration of war.

Clearly, however, the WAY most wars have been carried out are highly questionable. The US did some atrocious things even in a "just" war like WWII, not to mention the various aggressive wars we've fought (ie Mexican-American, Spanish-American, and Gulf War II).

The War of 1812 was a case of Americans trying to invade Canada!!!

Just wars? I'd say WWI (despite the US only coming in at the END) and WWII.

BTW, in WWII in Japan, Tojo wasn't pulling the strings, Hirohito was.

Read "Hirohito and the making of Modern Japan" for more details.

War does not prove who is right and wrong, it only proves who is dead and who is alive.

Dude, simmer yer national pride jets,
in 1812 Canada existed as an English colony.

So, when the US entered into Canada,
the US was attempting to drive the English off the continent.

In other words, because Canada was still a colony,
the US attacked the British, not Canadians!

And they did so with the context of that war.
I mean New Orleans had only just been purchased from the French.





Granted, the US entered late in WWII,
but that was hardly the end.
Plus, American involvement in effect, saved everybodies ass!

And Tojo was the Emperor.
The fact that he was not the string puller,
very likely saved his life.

WW2

The war on poverty

I dont think we have really even fought the war on poverty.

I think we chould take just 2% off the top of the military budget and that alone would ensure each American had 3 square meals a day.

Oh we did fight it.
We just didn't win!


But like fighting terrorism,
fighting a war on poverty,
is a war that never ends!

Ever!



Accept, IMO, if you fight a WORLD WIDE war on poverty,
you help drain the swamp that breeds terrorism.


This is a large part of why I'm a liberal.
We see our glass this way.

Capitalist conservatives will in effect, cut off their leg to save the foot!
Clearly, that's not a very workable policy!

True.

LBJ's war on poverty cut the poverty rate in half. That counts for something.

Ding ding ding!
We HAVE A WINNAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hammer. nail. head.

if only everyone realized that.

I don't like war! Nobody does except terrorist or people such as Hitler.

I never got to see my grandpa, he died aged 32 in WW11, a war that couldn't be avoided unfortunately! I am proud of my grandpa, he gave his live selflessly for an important cause to save many innocent lives.

As for the war in IRAQ. Over 2000 US soldiers have died yet most people forget that thousands more decent Iraqis and workers trying to rebuild Iraq have died too. There is no doubt Saddam was a tyrant who tortured and killed many of his own people, also! Saddam in the past has used WMD's (chemical weapons) to wipe out thousands of Iranians. Saddam had to be removed, he was a threat! Yet Bush gave plenty of warning for Saddam to step down before the war began. So of course Bush suspected Saddam had WMD's. Yet none we're found however!! Since the war in Iraq began it has weeded out all the terrorist, thousands of them, as Bush said after 9/11 "your either with us or against us" Sadly though I feel WW111 has already begun or in its earliest stages

Aww man! I hope I didn't offend anyone! As I do respect everyones point of view.

Most wars the U.S. has been involved in was necessary. Most of these wars were fought to strengthen the U.S.'s position in world politics and military force.
The only wars that were necessary:

The Revolutionary War- This war was necessary in order to establish the U.S. and defeat British tyranny.

The War of 1812- This was necessary in order to maintain U.S. independence and to protect ourselves from British invasion.

The Civil War- This was necessary because we literally had a divided country, I mean, imagine if we another country in America.

WWII- This was necessary in order to end the tyranny of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. It was also necessary because we were attacked.

~Mike: The Political Guy

True, however, we were called the Dominion of Canada, and people who lived here called themselves Canadian.



I was talking about WWI. The US didn't enter until 1917, and the war began in 1914.



Tojo was NOT the emperor, he was Prime Minister. Hirohito was Emperor, and therefore had full power.

Tojo was hung after being tried for war crimes.

This concludes our history lesson for today .

Oopsie, my bad.
(bows) most humble pardon sir.

No problems!

~War is a way for rich people to make money killing poor people.~ Lucidthots

IF WWII had been faught at least in part on US Mainland soil,
I believe it likely the Military Industrial complex would not exist as it does today.

Why?

Because WWII taught the Industrialists just how profitable war could be.
If the war had been on home soil, that profitability lesson might not have ever existed to the degree that it did at the end of that war.
I believe there was so much profit, that every war since then has been about profits.
Halliburton and the other Iraq war profiteers being the most current and glairing examples.


Personally, that's one fundamental question I am simply unable to understand why it doesn't make it's self into average daily conversation.

I'm agreeing with Walter Cronkite:

"We Are Mired in Stalemate" Broadcast

- February 27, 1968 -

'. . . After listing Tet and several other current military operations as "draw[s]" and chastising American leaders for their optimism, Cronkite advises negotiation "...not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could." . . .'

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff.

On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

Source: Reporting Vietnam: Part One: American Journalism 1959-1969

Link: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php...=62424&forum=17

AND Walter says we should get out of Iraq...NOW! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/15/w...q-_n_13877.html

Catherine

Very astute Sky! Most historians agree that the rise of the US is mainly atributed to the fact that the industry was left totally undamaged by the war, and no European or Asian country can say the same.

the war of 1812 was about america's belief that it had a god-given right to own all of north america (and maybe even south america too, i can't remember what the exact detail of the belief was).....the invasion of canada was not justified...and if you know how the war ended, then you also know that you're lucky the british were stupid enough to allow you to keep the states running all the way down the east coast which you lost..even though if the tables had been turned back then, canada wouldn't be a country today...it would be the united states of north america

Lots and lots of detail left out, but agreed!


Andrew Jackson eventually became president based on his accomplishment as a war of 1812 war hero.
Most of that, from the battle with the Brits that he won, several weeks AFTER the war of 1812 was over!

i think anybody would be hard-pressed to deny that america has a long history of unjustified wars, or waging war when other solutions are still available...and nothing about that has changed today..and nothing about that will change in the near future....or ever, in the future, period

Lets be careful with the finger pointing.

Though Canada is a peaceful country, they are not the norm.
Many, if not most countries have histories they should not be proud of.

And that does include Canada.
Ask any Native American.
Canadians worked just as hard to wipe out their culture as Americans did.

Still, all things being equil, Canada does set a fine socialist example.
Little wonder the Canadian PM and the US President don't often see eye to eye!

War is about Banks, Defense Industries, and natural resources.

The elite make trillions killing the poor.

I like this version:

"War doesn't prove who's right. Just who's left."

A smart man once said "compromise is not a dirty word". Why war? I honestly don't understand the thousands of years of war that people have waged on each other. I once heard a statistic about how there have only been 29 years in history, where a war was NOT going on.



29!