Are the actions of the U.S. military justified?

[The Republic of Fore]

1. It's literally not. There's no reason the US need to intervene anywhere. Other countries have militaries.

And in some cases, they may want to use them against the US.

2. It's not too hard at all, we should advise US citizens in war torn regions to return home.

We've always done this, and frequently people don't listen. You're still essentially saying you support extraterritoriality for US citizens overseas, which is bananas.

3. Japan apologized for the panay and paid an indemity. We didn't go to war with Israel when they blew up a technical research ship.

Keep movin' those goalposts, you'll get there eventually!

Japan started those wars to conquer new resources and territory. That's a better reason to me than "we think we're the world police."

You think letting other countries wage wars of conquest whenever they like is helpful for building a safer world for Americans and America? You think that's a totally fine precedent and can't possibly threaten any American interests or citizens unless it poses a direct threat to the territory of the mainland US?

1. And there's what proof we're going to be attacked? Not fearmongering BS, actual proof. "Might" or "could be" aren't reasons to do something. I assume you still drive despite the fact that you could die in a car crash.
2. Then that's their fault for not listening.
3. The panay really shouldn't have even been there in the first place.
4. I think It's better than sending our sons to die for the benefit of irrelevant foreigners.

[The Republic of Fore]

Japan started those wars to conquer new resources and territory. That's a better reason to me than "we think we're the world police."

You do realize that the US doesn’t play as”World Police” for shits and giggles right?

And literally thats one of the most hypocritical positions I’ve ever seen.

I don't care why we do, we shouldn't.

[The Republic of Fore]

And assuming they did we could've had more time to prepare. And not lost thousands of servicemen plus a dozen ships in pearl harbor.

We were preparing. Why else would the pacific fleet be at Pearl.

And that worked out great didn't it? Getting your ass kicked is a great way to show how prepared you are.

[The Republic of Fore]

Yup, stopping trade with Japan did great things to prevent them from attacking us. Oh wait.

The issue is they were planning to attack anyways, so might as well not give them more oil for their stockpile. We only beat Japan through blind luck and the fact that Japan couldn't win a war of attrition, and with a larger stockpile and more time to set up shop in China we wouldn't have the latter as an advantage. I would not have bet the lives of every man, woman, and child in America on blind luck. Better a million soldiers than ten million civilians.

It wasn't blind luck, Japan was always going to lose. The US has too much industrial capacity. Sorry, I just don't buy this ridiculous fantasy that japan somehow would magically be able to invade the US and cause millions of casualties when they themselves admitted it wasn't feasible. I say better a billion foreigners than one american.

[The Republic of Fore]

TROF, what are your political leanings? Whilst I share your concerns for American interventionism, you seem real keen to defend a formally fascistic power.

I'm not defending anything, except america mind It's own business for once. I ask anyone to show me the part of the constitution that says america is the official anti dictator police and has to go to war everytime people are dying in some backwater dump.

[Loben III]

We were preparing. Why else would the pacific fleet be at Pearl.

And that worked out great didn't it? Getting your ass kicked is a great way to show how prepared you are.

Sure they bloodied us but at least our carriers were at sea.

[Loben III]

And in some cases, they may want to use them against the US.

We've always done this, and frequently people don't listen. You're still essentially saying you support extraterritoriality for US citizens overseas, which is bananas.

Keep movin' those goalposts, you'll get there eventually!


You think letting other countries wage wars of conquest whenever they like is helpful for building a safer world for Americans and America? You think that's a totally fine precedent and can't possibly threaten any American interests or citizens unless it poses a direct threat to the territory of the mainland US?

1. And there's what proof we're going to be attacked? Not fearmongering BS, actual proof. "Might" or "could be" aren't reasons to do something. I assume you still drive despite the fact that you could die in a car crash.

I don’t know, IJN planes didn’t turn up over Pearl Harbor by itself.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. And there's what proof we're going to be attacked? Not fearmongering BS, actual proof. "Might" or "could be" aren't reasons to do something. I assume you still drive despite the fact that you could die in a car crash.

I don’t know, IJN planes didn’t turn up over Pearl Harbor by itself.

Yeah, something happened one time 80 years ago. What proof is there that it'll happen now?

[Adamede]

TROF, what are your political leanings? Whilst I share your concerns for American interventionism, you seem real keen to defend a formally fascistic power.

I'm not defending anything, except america mind It's own business for once. I ask anyone to show me the part of the constitution that says america is the official anti dictator police and has to go to war everytime people are dying in some backwater dump.

Where does it say in the constitution that the US is required to trade with Japan and can’t embargo them?

[Deus Ignis]

I'm not defending anything, except america mind It's own business for once. I ask anyone to show me the part of the constitution that says america is the official anti dictator police and has to go to war everytime people are dying in some backwater dump.

Where does it say in the constitution that the US is required to trade with Japan and can eject embargo anyone?

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

[Punished UMN]

Is it our business to stop them?

Apparently.

Although really, I have no issue with the Gulf War considering it was limited. The message was sent, don't go around violating other countries sovereignty willy-nilly, and Iraq itself was left for the most part alone.

The later war was pretty stupid though.

I wouldn't say killing 50-100K Iraqi soldiers who are retreating from the area of operations is that limited, but most Americans tend not to know about that.

[Punished UMN]

And in some cases, they may want to use them against the US.

We've always done this, and frequently people don't listen. You're still essentially saying you support extraterritoriality for US citizens overseas, which is bananas.

Keep movin' those goalposts, you'll get there eventually!


You think letting other countries wage wars of conquest whenever they like is helpful for building a safer world for Americans and America? You think that's a totally fine precedent and can't possibly threaten any American interests or citizens unless it poses a direct threat to the territory of the mainland US?

1. And there's what proof we're going to be attacked? Not fearmongering BS, actual proof. "Might" or "could be" aren't reasons to do something. I assume you still drive despite the fact that you could die in a car crash.
2. Then that's their fault for not listening.
3. The panay really shouldn't have even been there in the first place.
4. I think It's better than sending our sons to die for the benefit of irrelevant foreigners.

This is a very short-sighted way of thinking. Yes, in the short term, not going to war over something is probably the better move, but the undermining of international institutions that benefit our country, its allies, and potentially many other countries, is a net-loss.

[The Republic of Fore]

I'm not defending anything, except america mind It's own business for once. I ask anyone to show me the part of the constitution that says america is the official anti dictator police and has to go to war everytime people are dying in some backwater dump.

Where does it say in the constitution that the US is required to trade with Japan and can’t embargo them?

It doesn't, but that doesn't change that trade with Japan benefitted us. Option A makes us money. Option B lets 400,000 american boys die for the benefit of foreigners. I choose option A.

[The Republic of Fore]

1. And there's what proof we're going to be attacked? Not fearmongering BS, actual proof. "Might" or "could be" aren't reasons to do something. I assume you still drive despite the fact that you could die in a car crash.
2. Then that's their fault for not listening.
3. The panay really shouldn't have even been there in the first place.
4. I think It's better than sending our sons to die for the benefit of irrelevant foreigners.

This is a very short-sighted way of thinking. Yes, in the short term, not going to war over something is probably the better move, but the undermining of international institutions that benefit our country, its allies, and potentially many other countries, is a net-loss.

Less americans dying for the benefit of foreigners is always a plus. We don't need the UN, NATO, or any other international institution. They do nothing but whine and cost us money. Any organization who criticizes human rights in America while trying to put a country that stones rape victims on the human rights council loses the right to be taken seriously in my opinion.

[Picairn]

It doesn't, but that doesn't change that trade with Japan benefitted us. Option A makes us money. Option B lets 400,000 american boys die for the benefit of foreigners. I choose option A.

Yes, human lives for money. What a psychopathic choice. Trade with a genocidal empire doesn't benefit the US in the long run, on the contrary it may fuel the greed of the imperialists even further.

[The Republic of Fore]

It doesn't, but that doesn't change that trade with Japan benefitted us. Option A makes us money. Option B lets 400,000 american boys die for the benefit of foreigners. I choose option A.

Yes, human lives for money. What a psychopathic choice. Trade with a genocidal empire doesn't benefit the US in the long run, on the contrary it may fuel the greed of the imperialists even further.

As long as it makes us money it does benefit us. And like I said, "may" "might" and "could be" aren't reasons to do something.

[Picairn]

As long as it makes us money it does benefit us. And like I said, "may" "might" and "could be" aren't reasons to do something.

That's still a psychopathic, greedy and unethical choice to trade with genocidal empires. And Japan's ambition was to rule the world, with the US' help they would have even accomplished the dream.

[The Republic of Fore]

As long as it makes us money it does benefit us. And like I said, "may" "might" and "could be" aren't reasons to do something.

That's still a psychopathic, greedy and unethical choice to trade with genocidal empires. And Japan's ambition was to rule the world, with the US' help they would have even accomplished the dream.

It's not at all unethical. That implies we have an obligation to not do business with certain countries. There's no law that states that. My ethics say the politicians who were elected to represent the american people should put american interests first. When China starts electing members of the US congress we can worry about theirs.

[Adamede]

Where does it say in the constitution that the US is required to trade with Japan and can’t embargo them?

It doesn't, but that doesn't change that trade with Japan benefitted us. Option A makes us money. Option B lets 400,000 american boys die for the benefit of foreigners. I choose option A.

Trade with Japan didn’t benefit us enough to support the Japanese conquest of East Asia. And wasn’t one of your complaints that the US seemed Japan’s enemies? Why should the US not have traded arms with them?

Japan and Germany’s defeat benefited the US as much as it benefited foreigners. It properly led the US out of the Great Depression, elevated our global power, and stopped a bunch of assholes form murdering millions of people.

Regardless the isolationism is the part of your argument most people have the least problem with, and frankly it’s not the part I give a shit about. It’s your hypocritical stance on American diplomacy with Japan at the time that is.

[Picairn]

It's not at all unethical. That implies we have an obligation to not do business with certain countries. There's no law that states that.

It is unethical because the US would be enabling genocidal dictatorships and their crimes by giving them money and goods. It has the sovereign right to decide whoever it wants to trade with, and the right to retaliate if one country was mad enough to go to war over sanctions.

My ethics say the politicians who were elected to represent the american people should put american interests first. When China starts electing members of the US congress we can worry about theirs.

My ethics say the US, or any country for that matter, should not enable genocidal dictatorships to kill millions.

[The Yeetusa]

Is it justified? Yes but no.

The US intervention in the Middle East was very reactionary. Following 9/11 millions of troops began flooding Syria, Iraq, etc etc. Admittedly, lots of civilians have died through collateral damage. However, through the US intervention, ISIS/ISIL has been mostly eradicated, and functional, albeit unfree, government's have been established. If I'm not mistaken, President Trump planned to pull out the military.

Now that I listed the facts, I'll say my opinion.

According to https://www.statista.com/topics/3412/islamic-state-isis/, 4% of Iraqi deaths were ISIS caused in 2016. That's 1 million deaths. Who knows how many more will have happened if the US army didn't intervene. Of course, half a million or so Iraqis have died, but ISIS caused more. I'm normally not a fan of the "ends justify the means" mentality, but in this case, the US army did their job.

[Xeng He]

I'd say foreign intervention itself isn't the problem so much as regime change and pitting factions against each other. We need to recognize that we can't (or maybe shouldn't) overthrow a government and disarm the people maintaining security, then leave. We need to stop favoring our own national interest over the world's interests, and therefore allow true Middle Eastern (or other) powers to emerge.

[Adamede]

I'd say foreign intervention itself isn't the problem so much as regime change and pitting factions against each other. We need to recognize that we can't (or maybe shouldn't) overthrow a government and disarm the people maintaining security, then leave. We need to stop favoring our own national interest over the world's interests, and therefore allow true Middle Eastern (or other) powers to emerge.

Foreign intervention is very much a problem. It leads to instability and death, even in cases with the best of intentions. I say better to leave the em be so long as they don’t pose a direct threat to the US, even if that I causes letting them kill each other indiscriminately.

[The Republic of Fore]

It doesn't, but that doesn't change that trade with Japan benefitted us. Option A makes us money. Option B lets 400,000 american boys die for the benefit of foreigners. I choose option A.

Trade with Japan didn’t benefit us enough to support the Japanese conquest of East Asia. And wasn’t one of your complaints that the US seemed Japan’s enemies? Why should the US not have traded arms with them?

Japan and Germany’s defeat benefited the US as much as it benefited foreigners. It properly led the US out of the Great Depression, elevated our global power, and stopped a bunch of assholes form murdering millions of people.

Regardless the isolationism is the part of your argument most people have the least problem with, and frankly it’s not the part I give a shit about. It’s your hypocritical stance on American diplomacy with Japan at the time that is.

1. I've already explained this. We sold at subsidized rates to china and the allies. Why sell for low worthless prices when you have someone that will pay full price?
2. Please stop spreading the myth that WW@ ended the great depression, because it didn't. Some sectors of the economy did benefit, but it didn't really end until the late 40's. We didn't really need our global power increased, and foreigners not dying doesn't benefit American. Japan could've killed everyone in southeast asia and America would have continued on fine. It benefitted foreigners, not us. The young men we wasted could have done useful things.

[The Republic of Fore]

It's not at all unethical. That implies we have an obligation to not do business with certain countries. There's no law that states that.

It is unethical because the US would be enabling genocidal dictatorships and their crimes by giving them money and goods. It has the sovereign right to decide whoever it wants to trade with, and the right to retaliate if one country was mad enough to go to war over sanctions.

My ethics say the politicians who were elected to represent the american people should put american interests first. When China starts electing members of the US congress we can worry about theirs.

My ethics say the US, or any country for that matter, should not enable genocidal dictatorships to kill millions.

1. America also has a sovereign right to not get involved in other countries' business. We trade just fine with China, the biggest genocidal dictatorship on earth. People will always die and be killed by oppressive governments, whether we support them or not. Might as well as least get some benefit out of it. Unless we're going to occupy every single country on earth to make sure nothing bad ever happens.\
2. I'm going to borrow a quote for this. "If polls show that 2/3 of Americans want to intervene in Syria, then we can draft that 2/3 and make them lead the way". Put up or shut up, people should either back up their words or admit they only care as long as it's not them in the crossfire.