USA involvement in wars

[louisgray]

Why is it the USA always intervene in wars that ain't there's ,Vietnam ,Korea ,they say they won ww2, but they were barely in Europe till 43' ,they are getting involved with Libya and they offered their support to Georgia ( not the state)

[Amnesiac]

Because the U.S. has, over the past 50 years, entitled itself with some sort of right to tell other nations how to govern themselves.

"Communism is bad, we have to stop it!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine) That entire philosophy was absolute bullshit. The wars waged by the West have had catastrophic ramifications across the globe, with Vietnam being the most notable clusterfuck. The United States should keep to itself – it's not our job to fuck around and ruin countries on the other side of the world. It's a waste of lives and money.

[scuba steve]

Vietnam and Korea were both proxy wars against the USSR, to indirectly fight with them, but not cause world war 3.

[louisgray]

50000 dead in nam
30000 dead in Korea

Not what you call proxy

[scuba steve]

50000 dead in nam
30000 dead in Korea

Not what you call proxy

What does the number of the dead have anything to do with what makes it a proxy war? Fact is that these were indirect disputes between the USA and the USSR, which both backed, supported and trained different sides.

[louisgray]

Because ,as per usual,the USA were sticking their nose in other people's business

- cause thrussians are backing the north Koreans and vietnams,the USA have to back the south,no they don't ,it was a shambolic waste of life

So do you think all the families of the 80000+ dead in them two wars would call it a proxy war

[Professional Russian]

Causw the U.S. is awsome thats why plus our last president was a monkey but i still hate obama frickin hippie

[JakeRS]

Why is it the USA always intervene in wars that ain't there's ,Vietnam ,Korea ,they say they won ww2, but they were barely in Europe till 43' ,they are getting involved with Libya and they offered their support to Georgia ( not the state)

because the nazi usa government wants oil (afghanistan,libya,iraq,...) and other resources (kosovo)

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230120_206935276006999_197335290300331_625026_3151665_n.jpg

[louisgray]

because the nazi usa government wants oil (afghanistan,libya,iraq,...) and other resources (kosovo)

image (http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230120_206935276006999_197335290300331_625026_3151665_n.jpg)

It's missing,Bosnia and Kosovo also

[Perseus]

Why is it the USA always intervene in wars that ain't there's ,Vietnam ,Korea ,they say they won ww2, but they were barely in Europe till 43' ,they are getting involved with Libya and they offered their support to Georgia ( not the state)
Because we think we're the police of the world.
Because ,as per usual,the USA were sticking their nose in other people's business

- cause thrussians are backing the north Koreans and vietnams,the USA have to back the south,no they don't ,it was a shambolic waste of life

So do you think all the families of the 80000+ dead in them two wars would call it a proxy war
You have no idea what a proxy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proxy+war) war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war#Cold_War) is, then.
because the nazi usa government wants oil (afghanistan,libya,iraq,...) and other resources (kosovo)

image (http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230120_206935276006999_197335290300331_625026_3151665_n.jpg)It's funny that you call us nazis when you're so nationalist for your country. NATO bombed your ass because you were conducting genocide. Get the fuck over it. Your country isn't perfect.

[louisgray]

A proxy war means no actual participation By the instigator ,America quite clearly participated in Korea and vietnam ,so don't say I don't know what one is when I do

[Perseus]

A proxy war means no actual participation By the instigator ,America quite clearly participated in Korea and vietnam ,so don't say I don't know what one is when I do

Russia backed the North Vietnamese. Therefore, proxy war. That is the biggest example of a proxy war in the 20th Century.

[louisgray]

Russia backed the North Vietnamese. Therefore, proxy war. That is the biggest example of a proxy war in the 20th Century.

But USSR didn't fight directly ,so if you want ,technically it a half proxy war ,cause the USA did fight

[scuba steve]

But USSR didn't fight directly ,so if you want ,technically it a half proxy war ,cause the USA did fight

It's still an example of proxy warfare... The USSR fought through their proxies and armed the North Vietnamese, whereas the US preferred to better aid the South with their own troops, what does it matter? It's still a known proxy war of the cold war between the two powers.

There's no point fighting it, you're just coming off as a troll.


Because we think we're the police of the world.


Someone has to, they just need to thoroughly think through what they're doing rather than just running in cowboy style and getting their own country into debt etc.

At the time however they were just trying to wade off communist influence though...

[Perseus]

At the time however they were just trying to wade off communist influence though...

But in turn, communism spread even more because of our actions.

[Iris]

Someone has to, they just need to thoroughly think through what they're doing rather than just running in cowboy style and getting their own country into debt etc.

At the time however they were just trying to wade off communist influence though...

Agreed. The US always gets involved in other countries for a reason. It's not just for fun. When there's genocide and oppression happening in a country someone has to step in to help out and restore justice. It seems that the world put that job on the US. Don't go complaining about the US being such a bother and sticking it's nose into other people's business when it's going out there, often at a great cost (the loss of the soldiers' lives, the economy), to save thousands, if not millions, of lives from an unjust government.

[darkwoon]

Agreed. The US always gets involved in other countries for a reason. It's not just for fun. When there's genocide and oppression happening in a country someone has to step in to help out and restore justice. It seems that the world put that job on the US. Don't go complaining about the US being such a bother and sticking it's nose into other people's business when it's going out there, often at a great cost (the loss of the soldiers' lives, the economy), to save thousands, if not millions, of lives from an unjust government.
*Cough*
It is a little... naive, don't you think?
The US, just like any other nation did and still does, gets involved in wars to protect their own interests in a way or another. I've never heard of a single war done "to restore justice" - that's merely propaganda used to justify making war to the citizens.

[scuba steve]

*Cough*
It is a little... naive, don't you think?
The US, just like any other nation did and still does, gets involved in wars to protect their own interests in a way or another. I've never heard of a single war done "to restore justice" - that's merely propaganda used to justify making war to the citizens.

Perhaps, but those reasons that Lilly's mentioned were still all secondary agenda's, you forget that the likes of Libya, were asked by the people of that country, had the support of the Western majority public and had filed an agreement with the U.N previously.

And if that means that NATO can get rid of another terrorist stronghold, then good riddance. As far as I know there's not enough oil to hold the USA's personal interest anyway.

[Harlequin]

Simple answer to a simple question.

Americans are so "perfect" we want others to be like us. we have the higher standard of living. we want other to have that.

also we like democracy. some people do not. so inherently they are "wrong"

same for human rights, education and all that jazz.

Also we like war.
C'mon face it you like to shout be loud at least, at most you like to get in fights. now give that whole attitude into a country. there you go.

[joeyjorulz]

Vietnam and Korea were both proxy wars against the USSR, to indirectly fight with them, but not cause world war 3.


I have recently read a lot about the Korean and Vietnam wars. In my opinion both were mainly against the Chinese. This fact surprised me in Korea due to the fact that the marines near the 38th paralell were attacked by chinese in large numbers.

[huginnmuninn]

they say they won ww2, but they were barely in Europe till 43' )

well there wasnt any real progress made by the allies in europe until after the US joined and in the pacific they pretty much ended that with the two atomic bombs... thats probably why they say they won ww2. and the us along with the other allied nations did win against axis powers

[JakeRS]

Because we think we're the police of the world.

You have no idea what a proxy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proxy+war) war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war#Cold_War) is, then.
It's funny that you call us nazis when you're so nationalist for your country. NATO bombed your ass because you were conducting genocide. Get the fuck over it. Your country isn't perfect.

Genocide? That is EXACTLY! WHY THE WORLD HATES YOUR COUNTRY!
You don't know where we are on the map,what happened to sioux indians,isn't that a genocide,what happened to poor japanese civilians in the nuke attacks,they attacked your military base and your retarded government killed 80.000 people,lets not talk about vietnam,central america and so on...you should be ashamed...It was proven that srebrenica was NOT a genocide,but instead they brought already dead bodies over there,you know what,i wrote about this issue in my thread in the news forum,i am not going to argue with a spoiled brat... :cool:

[Perseus]

You don't know where we are on the mapLolol, why actually, I do. Quit saying that.,what happened to sioux indiansI don't need a history lesson. History is my buff subject. I think it's awful that we killed off the native Americans for their land. But what was done over a hundred and fifty years ago isn't relevant now.what happened to poor japanese civilians in the nuke attacks If America would have gone and done an amphibious invasion of Japan, more civilians would have died and many more American and Japanese troops would have died as well. The Japanese didn't surrender in battle because it would dishonor their family, if you were not aware. An invasion of Japan would have been chaotic and worse for them than having two atomic bombs dropped on two of their cities.,they attacked your military base and your retarded government killed 80.000 people,That's called an act of war. Japan wanted all of the Pacific. Go learn about World War II before you even attempt to talk to me about it.lets not talk about vietnam,central america and so onThose weren't genocides. Those were wars. And I find it ridiculous that we went into those wars. There's the difference between you and me. I don't think everything my country has done is excusable. We have done many intoelrable things, but I'm not going to make excuses for it like you do with the genocide your country instigatedIt was proven that srebrenica was NOT a genocide,but instead they brought already dead bodies over there,you know what,i wrote about this issue in my thread in the news forum,i am not going to argue with a spoiled brat... :cool:
Blah, blah, blah. Nationalism and indoctrination. Your country killed those people. Don't even start to deny that.

[Awesome]

Well who else is going to do it. Now the world expects us to be involved with everything. Almost like sharing our army, a funny way to put it but its just how it is. I don't think its bad, its just what were here for.

Genocide? That is EXACTLY! WHY THE WORLD HATES YOUR COUNTRY!
You don't know where we are on the map,what happened to sioux indians,isn't that a genocide,what happened to poor japanese civilians in the nuke attacks,they attacked your military base and your retarded government killed 80.000 people,lets not talk about vietnam,central america and so on...you should be ashamed...It was proven that srebrenica was NOT a genocide,but instead they brought already dead bodies over there,you know what,i wrote about this issue in my thread in the news forum,i am not going to argue with a spoiled brat... :cool:

Okay, we killed 80,000 your saying. If Germany or Japan dropped a bomb on the allies, they would have won and taken over that entire hemishere, under the control of Germany. Or Germany would be the superpower of the world. So US got lucky and invented it first. The allies didn't want to rule the world the Axis did, at least Germany did.

[Iris]

*Cough*
It is a little... naive, don't you think?
The US, just like any other nation did and still does, gets involved in wars to protect their own interests in a way or another. I've never heard of a single war done "to restore justice" - that's merely propaganda used to justify making war to the citizens.

Obviously it's not the only reason :rolleyes: . There's never purely one reason for a war. But it has been a big part of the decision to declare war on another country. The US does a lot of things that are not so beneficial for it's people and economy in order to help out the population in other countries. And honestly, do you think it's bad that the US threw over Saddam Hussein, who was an absolute tyrant? Or that the US kicked out the Taliban, who were horribly repressing their own people? Do you think it would be better to just let those governments do whatever they wanted?? Of course the threat the US faced by those governments were a factor in the decision to declare war, but to assume that to create justice was an insignificant part of these decisions is just plain wrong.

[darkwoon]

Perhaps, but those reasons that Lilly's mentioned were still all secondary agenda's, you forget that the likes of Libya, were asked by the people of that country, had the support of the Western majority public and had filed an agreement with the U.N previously.
As I said, "justice" or "defense of democracy" was a good way to make the war acceptable to the populations. But it wasn't, by far, the primary motive. Economical and political reasons were why the Western powers got involved in Lybia. Remember how Khadafi was welcomed only a couple years ago by the very same countries now claiming to fight against its oppression? I think it is very telling.

And if that means that NATO can get rid of another terrorist stronghold, then good riddance. As far as I know there's not enough oil to hold the USA's personal interest anyway.
Oil is not the only reason to make a war. Political stability, allies at strategical places, strongholds against activists... All those are also very good reasons to support a war.

well there wasnt any real progress made by the allies in europe until after the US joined and in the pacific they pretty much ended that with the two atomic bombs... thats probably why they say they won ww2. and the us along with the other allied nations did win against axis powers
You're probably forgetting the Eastern Front, aren't you? Granted, the industrial help of the US played an important part, but ultimately, if the Western Allies were able to open new fronts on the West, it is primarily because most of the Axis forces in Europe were mobilized on the Eastern Front.
WW2 was won in Europe because of the lack of long-term strategical and industrial planning by Germany. Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of USSR) started at a time when the German armies were not ready, lacked long term supplies, with an economy still working as if in peace, and with complete disdain regarding the resistance of the Russian armies. Failure was never considered possible, and every general brave enough to contest the plans was simply put aside or demoted.

Okay, we killed 80,000 your saying. If Germany or Japan dropped a bomb on the allies, they would have won and taken over that entire hemishere, under the control of Germany. Or Germany would be the superpower of the world. So US got lucky and invented it first. The allies didn't want to rule the world the Axis did, at least Germany did.
True, but Germany was very far at creating an atomic bomb. OTOH, their conventional weapons were the most advanced for their time, and their tactics were, for a long time, unmatched.

As for the Allies not wanting to rule the world... You do realize that the Cold War was a direct consequence of WWII?

Obviously it's not the only reason :rolleyes: . There's never purely one reason for a war. But it has been a big part of the decision to declare war on another country.
As I said, it was a convenient way to make a war acceptable for the public opinion. Give me a single example of a war where there was no other reason than "defense of justice", and I'll concede I was wrong. But I admit that so far, I've never heard of such a war.

The US does a lot of things that are not so beneficial for it's people and economy in order to help out the population in other countries.
When? Where? I'm curious.

And honestly, do you think it's bad that the US threw over Saddam Hussein, who was an absolute tyrant? Or that the US kicked out the Taliban, who were horribly repressing their own people? Do you think it would be better to just let those governments do whatever they wanted??
Did I ever say it was bad? Don't put words I didn't say in my mouth, please. Of course, overthrowing dictators is a good thing. Yet it remains that the US didn't lead a war against Saddam Hussein because he was an oppressive tyran, and they didn't attack the talibans because they were supporting terrorism and international drug trade. In both cases, the primary motive was to strenghten the US strategical and economical position in the Middle East. That dictators were overthrown was just a nice side effect that doesn't even guarantee that the new powers created will not be just as oppressive or corrupted as the previous ones.

Of course the threat the US faced by those governments were a factor in the decision to declare war, but to assume that to create justice was an insignificant part of these decisions is just plain wrong.
As long as justice is not economically or strategically relevant, it will be plainly ignored. Else, we'd already have invaded Iran, Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Yemen, Pakhistan, Syria, Burkina Faso, Cameroun... But what profit would we gain *there*? What is there to defend in Burkina Faso apart its citizens freedom?

My claim is just that - justice defense never was anything else than a good way to get support from the civilian populations and international authorities. That it was sometimes a consequence of the war is of course true, though.

[Azunite]

I have to take America's side here:

World War 2: Axis forces are pawning the British, an invasion of British Isles is imminent. America has to roll in before they become alone in this fight. They roll in, since they are a fresh force ( like in WW1 ) they pawn German forces. Though due to lack of proper planning and German's cunning, they almost lose the entire army in Ardennes. Fog disappears, Patton moves in. Allied victory.

Korea and Nam? Well the actual enemy was Russia in these wars and America involved in only to weaken Russia's power across the East.

Current wars in Middle East? Well Cold War is no more and people should really stop being involved in other people's fights. Seriously. Why would the Americans care about the civil rights in the East? It is all about oil and having a foothold in East.

If they had cared about civil rights or other stuff, they would have invaded Saudi Arabia long ago. Oh another fact, the Arabian King and his Royal family is under US protection.

I have nothing to say about WWs, Nam and Korea, but as I said, US should think twice before invading Eastern countries. Their aim isn't to help people. Their aim is wealth and domination.

[JakeRS]

Lolol, why actually, I do. Quit saying that.I don't need a history lesson. History is my buff subject. I think it's awful that we killed off the native Americans for their land. But what was done over a hundred and fifty years ago isn't relevant now. If America would have gone and done an amphibious invasion of Japan, more civilians would have died and many more American and Japanese troops would have died as well. The Japanese didn't surrender in battle because it would dishonor their family, if you were not aware. An invasion of Japan would have been chaotic and worse for them than having two atomic bombs dropped on two of their cities.,That's called an act of war. Japan wanted all of the Pacific. Go learn about World War II before you even attempt to talk to me about it.Those weren't genocides. Those were wars. And I find it ridiculous that we went into those wars. There's the difference between you and me. I don't think everything my country has done is excusable. We have done many intoelrable things, but I'm not going to make excuses for it like you do with the genocide your country instigated
Blah, blah, blah. Nationalism and indoctrination. Your country killed those people. Don't even start to deny that.

IRELEVANT?!?! YOU KNOW WHAT,FUCK YOU! I didn't deny that kosovar's were killed,they were,i am just saying that your government and media blows things up for serbs,now we are mass killers,thanks to your government,serbs are ashamed to show their passport when entering another country,you know what,i will do the same thing as you and i will say that kosovar albanians and your beloved bosniaks that were killed were irelevant,asshole..

[Perseus]

IRELEVANT?!?! YOU KNOW WHAT,FUCK YOU! I didn't deny that kosovar's were killed,they were,i am just saying that your government and media blows things up for serbs,now we are mass killers,thanks to your government,serbs are ashamed to show their passport when entering another country,you know what,i will do the same thing as you and i will say that kosovar albanians and your beloved bosniaks that were killed were irelevant,asshole..

Thanks for ignoring my key points and getting butthurt. Most Americans don't even know anything about Eastern Europe. I doubt most Americans that were born in the 1990s even know there was a genocide in Europe after the Holocaust.

[Iris]

As I said, it was a convenient way to make a war acceptable for the public opinion. Give me a single example of a war where there was no other reason than "defense of justice", and I'll concede I was wrong. But I admit that so far, I've never heard of such a war.

Read what I wrote again. There is no such thing as war with only one reason. There are loads of reasons a country goes to war. My argument is that humanitarianism is a very big reason, in the cases where the country the US declares war on is oppressing it's citizens or there is some kind of lack of justice. Afghanistan, Iraq etc. posed a threat to the US and of course that was an important contributing factor, but to think that the fact those countries having tyrannical governments played no part, or even just a small part, is wrong.


When? Where? I'm curious.

Giving $10 million to Yemen for food.- http://nationalyemen.com/2011/06/20/us-provides-10-mln-in-food-aid-to-416000-people-in-saada/

Giving $1.3 million to the Georgian Red Cross (as well as providing training for the Georgian military to be able to fight back when Russia invaded) - http://georgia.usembassy.gov/programs-and-events/embassy-news-2011/usgovt_1.3mio_georgian_redcross.html

Giving $28 million in aid to the people in Somalia - http://www.klpw.com/content/us-provide-additional-28-million-aid-somalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid -a whole list of foreign aid the US provides. granted, not all of it is for purely humanitarian purposes, but quite a lot is.


Did I ever say it was bad? Don't put words I didn't say in my mouth, please. Of course, overthrowing dictators is a good thing. Yet it remains that the US didn't lead a war against Saddam Hussein because he was an oppressive tyran, and they didn't attack the talibans because they were supporting terrorism and international drug trade. In both cases, the primary motive was to strenghten the US strategical and economical position in the Middle East. That dictators were overthrown was just a nice side effect that doesn't even guarantee that the new powers created will not be just as oppressive or corrupted as the previous ones.

And, again, I disagree. I don't think it was the main purpose of the war, but that it was an important contributing factor is without a doubt.

As long as justice is not economically or strategically relevant, it will be plainly ignored. Else, we'd already have invaded Iran, Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Yemen, Pakhistan, Syria, Burkina Faso, Cameroun... But what profit would we gain *there*? What is there to defend in Burkina Faso apart its citizens freedom?

My claim is just that - justice defense never was anything else than a good way to get support from the civilian populations and international authorities. That it was sometimes a consequence of the war is of course true, though.

The US can't declare war on half the world. The countries that the US invaded posed a bigger threat to their people and other countries. With our current state we can barely maintain the wars we're already involved in.

You're right that the US will often declare war with a lot more than just justice in mind, but to deny all the effort the US puts towards humanitarian efforts, during war and after, is ridiculous.

On a side note, i think it's amusing how people say the US has to stop getting involved in other countries and has to mind their own business whenever it wars against a country (even for truly legitimate reasons), but when the US provides hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to other countries, it's all good.

[darkwoon]

I have to take America's side here:

World War 2: Axis forces are pawning the British, an invasion of British Isles is imminent. America has to roll in before they become alone in this fight. They roll in, since they are a fresh force ( like in WW1 ) they pawn German forces. Though due to lack of proper planning and German's cunning, they almost lose the entire army in Ardennes. Fog disappears, Patton moves in. Allied victory.
History rewriting.

America "rolled in" long after Battle of Brittain was lost by the Axis. Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Brittain) was cancelled in the late part of 1940. Again, it doesn't mean the US intervention was not a very important factor in WWII, but it was not the decisive factor in Europe (it definitely was in Asia against the Japanese, OTOH) - USSR resistance and lack of long-term German strategical planning were.

The Ardennes Offensive never threatened the whole Western Allied Army - the best the German HQ itself was expecting was a reconquest of some strategical points, like Antwerp, and get more strategical depth, borrowing them time to turn more troops involved on the Western Front against the Russian forces. The Wehrmacht was at this point lacking experienced men and supplies, and for lucid generals like Von Manstein, it was not anymore a question of "if" Germany loses, but "when" and "against whom".

I have nothing to say about WWs, Nam and Korea, but as I said, US should think twice before invading Eastern countries. Their aim isn't to help people. Their aim is wealth and domination.
I definitely agree - it is all about getting strategical positions.

Read what I wrote again. There is no such thing as war with only one reason. There are loads of reasons a country goes to war. My argument is that humanitarianism is a very big reason,
Ok, but in which case was it the *primary* reason? Have you ever heard of any war between two countries lead mostly "to defend civil liberties"? (Note: I'm speaking of invasion wars there, of course - civil wars and revolutions are another matter, since they are led by the very own people that were oppressed against their former masters).

in the cases where the country the US declares war on is oppressing it's citizens or there is some kind of lack of justice. Afghanistan, Iraq etc. posed a threat to the US and of course that was an important contributing factor, but to think that the fact those countries having tyrannical governments played no part, or even just a small part, is wrong.
I stand on my position - it played no part outside public opinion justification. Again, get informed about the wonderfully open society of Saudi Arabia, for example, and keep in mind that their government is a long-term friend of the US and is also strongly suspected to be involved in funding various islamist movements around the world.

Now, it doesn't mean people that get involved into those wars were necessarily as cynical as their governments, of course - a lot of them honestly want to defend freedom, and are using the war context as a way to push those altruistic goals. A famous example is Beaumarchais during the US Independence War - although the French government was only seeing the war as a way to break UK's hegemony, Beaumarchais really believed that freedom and equal rights of the American population was important, and he quite certainly worked with that goal in mind.

a whole list of foreign aid the US provides. granted, not all of it is for purely humanitarian purposes, but quite a lot is.
We were speaking about leading wars. Not about giving money. You don't take risks by sending money, while wars are always a gamble.

Let's be clear: I never said humanitarian thoughts didn't exist, or that many people didn't freely offer help to others in distress - the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders are very good example showing that lots of people, everyday, are risking their own lives just for justice.

What I just said is that governments never ever put their own nation into a war or any other threatening risk for the sake of defending freedom or justice in another one. Which is quite normal, once you think about it - most governments are designed to protect and develop their own country as their primary mission, after all.

The US can't declare war on half the world. The countries that the US invaded posed a bigger threat to their people and other countries. With our current state we can barely maintain the wars we're already involved in.
Afghanistan was threatening its neighbours? With what? And isn't Iran at least as dangerous both for its population and its neighborhood than Iraq ever was? And don't you think North Korea is a far more dangerous dictatorship both for its citizens and the other countries than any other country in the world?

Now, I agree with you on your last point - we're at a point in history where the US start to realize that they cannot win such wars, and that they do not even increase their sphere of influence. In the near future, we may see other strategies emerging, maybe relying more on economical influence and proxy wars than direct military intervention.

You're right that the US will often declare war with a lot more than just justice in mind, but to deny all the effort the US puts towards humanitarian efforts, during war and after, is ridiculous.
I never denied them. I only denied that the primary intend of such wars was humanitarian.

And speaking of efforts put towards humanitarian actions, I'd love to see less budget allowed to "freedom wars" and less support to oppressive regimes, and more allocated to resistance movements, freedom-of-speech defense activists or international cooperation.

On a side note, i think it's amusing how people say the US has to stop getting involved in other countries and has to mind their own business whenever it wars against a country (even for truly legitimate reasons), but when the US provides hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to other countries, it's all good.
I see a huge difference between sending money to help people building something, and sending troops to invade a country to enforce one's influence. An invasion always results in massive killing of the populations, and extensive damage to the local infrastructure. So I wouldn't call the difference "amusing" - "obvious" would fit better.

[Azunite]

History rewriting.

America "rolled in" long after Battle of Brittain was lost by the Axis. Operation Sealion (invasion of Great Brittain) was cancelled in the late part of 1940. Again, it doesn't mean the US intervention was not a very important factor in WWII, but it was not the decisive factor in Europe (it definitely was in Asia against the Japanese, OTOH) - USSR resistance and lack of long-term German strategical planning were.

I agree what you have said, but not this.

Britain was alone in that war, and their asses were kicked by the Germans. True, British Air Force defeated the Germans but Great Britain was almost bankrupt, and if America hadn't intervened, they would have lost.

[darkwoon]

I agree what you have said, but not this.

Britain was alone in that war, and their asses were kicked by the Germans.
Not quite.

In Autumn 1940, the British *ground* forces had been defeated on all open fronts. But the Royal Navy was still dominating the Channel, and the Luftwaffe never was designed for a strategical role like the one it tried (and failed) to fullfill during Battle of Britain. More significantly, the public opinion in the UK was massively supporting the continuation of war until German defeat.

So yes, they had been defeated on various theaters, but none of those were decisive, strategical victories by Germans against Great Britain.

Moreover, Great Britain was not alone by far - it had the whole Commonwealth and of course the colonial empire backing it up; not counting, of course, the various minor allies and the "free forces" from invaded countries that joined the war effort.

True, British Air Force defeated the Germans but Great Britain was almost bankrupt, and if America hadn't intervened, they would have lost.
Ah, but there is one small, minor point that is, IMHO, very relevant to the description of the situation: in late 1940-early 1941, the UK was primarily in debt with... the US. Precisely because before late 1941, US was not an ally at war alongside Britain against Germany - it was basically a supply provider, selling the goods and manufactured products UK needed to resist, and for a good profit.

So, the US in 1939-41 were not fighting for freedom alongside the UK - they were making money through the "Cash and Carry" program, which was in use since 1939. It is not until 1941 that the "Lend-Lease" program became active, and even that didn't mean free, unconditional alliance.

The whole idea that Great Britain was bankrupt is anyway still debated nowadays - you'd probably want to check on historical forums like this one (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=66) to get some insight on the various issues (that goes waaaaaay above me, TBH). The whole point is rather moot, in all cases, for a very simple reason: had the UK been forced to sign peace, Germans still wouldn't have occupied the English Isles, would have had one incentive *less* to focus their economy to war purposes, and would have used the very same "strategy" (or lack thereof) against USSR, and with the same results, since the overall amount of troops and supplies would have roughly been the same for identical targets.

Now, it is true that the economical support of the US was one of the decisive elements in the Allies victory; but military involvement of the US in Europe wasn't (a word of caution, though: I am not saying it was useless, or that Western Europe shouldn't be thankful for the military support received - I'm just saying that it was not what won decision against Germany).

[Iris]

Ok, but in which case was it the *primary* reason? Have you ever heard of any war between two countries lead mostly "to defend civil liberties"?

It may not be the primary reason, but it has always been one of the major reasons. When did the US ever attack a country that was ruled by a just government?? It's not about justifying a war-most people don't care they just want war in general to end.

I stand on my position - it played no part outside public opinion justification. Again, get informed about the wonderfully open society of Saudi Arabia, for example, and keep in mind that their government is a long-term friend of the US and is also strongly suspected to be involved in funding various islamist movements around the world.

Unfortunately the US is in a position where it needs as many allies in the Middle East as possible (as well as, admittedly, oil). If the US were to try and tackle every unjust government in the world, it would fall apart. Honestly I wish some other Democratic country would try to step in and pressure Saudi Arabia to let go of some of it's more barbaric laws, but that's besides the point.

Now, it doesn't mean people that get involved into those wars were necessarily as cynical as their governments, of course - a lot of them honestly want to defend freedom, and are using the war context as a way to push those altruistic goals. A famous example is Beaumarchais during the US Independence War - although the French government was only seeing the war as a way to break UK's hegemony, Beaumarchais really believed that freedom and equal rights of the American population was important, and he quite certainly worked with that goal in mind.

I agree that government's have their own interests in mind whenever they act, and that's perfectly understandable. But assuming that that means that an action (war, in particular) that government takes has little to no relation with humanitarianism is a bit paranoid, in my opinion.


What I just said is that governments never ever put their own nation into a war or any other threatening risk for the sake of defending freedom or justice in another one. Which is quite normal, once you think about it - most governments are designed to protect and develop their own country as their primary mission, after all.

I'll admit that no country will war simply and only for humanitarianism. My point is that in the wars the US has fought, often humanitarianism was a large part of the decision. For example, during the Cold War, the goal was to stop the spread of communism. Not just to ensure democracy in the US, or to deny Russia more allies, but because communism turned out to be a dictatorship and a living hell for all the people in communist countries.

Afghanistan was threatening its neighbours? With what? And isn't Iran at least as dangerous both for its population and its neighborhood than Iraq ever was? And don't you think North Korea is a far more dangerous dictatorship both for its citizens and the other countries than any other country in the world?

Afghanistan was harboring and supporting terrorists. Terrorism is a threat to everyone.

Iran is very dangerous, what with its manufacturing of nuclear bombs and extremist philosophies. If the US had had the resources (which is a key part in war), I'd support a war against them.

Fighting against North Korea would become an absolute bloodbath. Even if the US had the resources I'm not sure if it would benefit the people there in the end.

I believe that if the US wasn't currently trying to control the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and wasn't in a difficult economic position, it would have declared war on one of those two countries you pointed out.

Now, I agree with you on your last point - we're at a point in history where the US start to realize that they cannot win such wars, and that they do not even increase their sphere of influence. In the near future, we may see other strategies emerging, maybe relying more on economical influence and proxy wars than direct military intervention.

That's because winning a war means something different than it has in the past. Now a war is not considered truly won until a new, functioning democratic system is put in place and the threat of the enemy regaining power is small or nonexistent. Earlier in history a country would invade, pillage and loot and then leave the losing country in shambles. Things are different now. Especially with democratic countries like the US.

And speaking of efforts put towards humanitarian actions, I'd love to see less budget allowed to "freedom wars" and less support to oppressive regimes, and more allocated to resistance movements, freedom-of-speech defense activists or international cooperation.

Good point. The US isn't perfect. It's made a lot of mistakes during the course of all these wars. I don't think anyone can deny that. But I believe the reasoning was a lot more than just it's own goals.

I see a huge difference between sending money to help people building something, and sending troops to invade a country to enforce one's influence. An invasion always results in massive killing of the populations, and extensive damage to the local infrastructure. So I wouldn't call the difference "amusing" - "obvious" would fit better.

I chose my words carefully when I wrote that. People complaining say "involved," which includes much more than war. When the US gives a country millions of dollars, it's getting involved. No one likes war, obviously. As you said, the damage is extensive. That's obvious. But if you want us to stay out of your business, that means a lot more than just staying out of (justified) wars.

[Awesome]

The entire world leans on us to help. Sometimes they think were so much more powerful than we are. Theres so many horrible things out there that someone needs to stop and prevent. In the future it will pay off but there will always be problems, just gotta keep fixing them so you don't got a big pile of problems or half the world blown up.

[aperson444]

Well Vietnam was a proxy war, but Afghanistan wasn't (the 1979-1989 USSR intervention). Not entirely at least. The NVA was Marxist, and there were only two Marxist arms-suppliers around: The Eastern Bloc (USSR, Yugoslavia, Satellites) and China. In Afghanistan, USA supplied arms to insurgents via Operation Cyclone. We did similar things to fight "the Evil Empire" in Nicaragua where we even smuggled cocaine into the US indirectly by supplying support to the Contras. In both cases, our plan backfired. The Afghans went into civil war after the Russians left and so came the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The cocaine from Nicaragua and the extended violence spread to our region where cartels were just getting started and cocaine was being used to make industrial amounts of crack (that was distributed across the US). The United States has a strong interventionist doctrine starting with Monroe, but really accelerating with the Roosevelt Corollary. That pretty much set us up to be the "police" nation that kept "order" in the region. Really, it was a ploy to keep Marxism and Marxist influence low.

We did the same stupid things after the cold war ended. In Serbia, we completely destroyed Serb infrastructure. Regardless of the bloodshed, all of this would never have happened if Tito's Yugoslavia never fell or if WW1 didn't end in a farce of a treaty. We invaded Afghanistan for a legitimate reason (to get Osama), but failed. Now we're sitting there destroying opium poppies (which will never work because everyone wants opium) attempting to kill Taliban insurgents while the real bad guys (radical Islamists) hide out in Pakistan. We entered Iraq to overthrow Saddam (who we supported for a very long time) and stayed there to attempt to neutralize the Al Qaeda movements in the area. We killed Zarqawi, but we still remain in the region. I suspect that Bush's strategy was to use the Iraq insurgency as an excuse to keep military force in the area to put eyes in the region. Libya is another stupid little intervention. We know little to nothing about the rebels we support. For all we know, they could be radical Islamists. I find their cause noble, because Qadhaffi is an asshole, but I don't think we should be running such extensive bombing runs.

All in all, the Americans need an interventionist system to sustain their mode of Capitalism. As a Marxist, I would be biased to say that Capitalism is the sole cause of such atrocities, but I feel that is the case. In order for the USA to sustain its economic power, it must exploit and utilize other regions. We attempt to control global economy, but as of now, that sort of thing will not work. The USA is deep in debt, and no war will ever reverse this debt.