NationStates

Nuroblav wrote:The only one I know of that I can see being justified is their intervention in the Bosnian War (that was mentioned earlier). And I wouldn't call that wholly good either.

Otherwise, no. Just don't intervene in countries - I don't see that as being particularly hard.

Operation Urgent Fury was as well justified.

The phrasing of this question is odd.

The U.S. military has institutional faults and virtues, like every institution. But one of its real virtues is that it sets the gold standard for deference to elected, civilian policymaking. The Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the wars in Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan - none of these were decisions made by a bunch of brass hats at the Pentagon. They were decisions made by the political branches: the President and Congress. War, in our system, is an action taken by elected policymakers using the U.S. military. It is not an action taken by the military itself on its own authority. If we want to interrogate the justification of these actions, we are interrogating our government, not our armed forces.

And as a lot of folks have said, I don't think anyone could reasonably claim either that all of modern U.S. foreign policy is unjustified, or that all of it has a perfectly sound rationale. My own view is that Korea, the First Gulf War, and Afghanistan were likely justified, at least at the level of jus ad bellum; there is a question as to whether we preserved jus in bello throughout our conduct in Afghanistan. Vietnam and the Iraq War, at least in utilitarian terms, proved to be blunders: whatever our "right" to intervene, our intervention imposed moral and material costs disproportionate to any possible benefit. Other, smaller operations - in Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans, for example - were grounded in humanitarian aid and achieved narrow goals; we did not "fix" those countries, but we did save a lot of lives. Likewise the many military operations other than war undertaken by the armed forces, ranging from the delivery of 20 million tons of flood-relief aid to Pakistan in 2010 to the Berlin airlift of 1948-49.

All of these are part of foreign policy - the use that policymakers have made of the military. If you agree with them, the praise belongs to the government; if you disagree with them, the blame likewise falls on the government. The armed forces are the instrument of democratic politics, implementing both its good ideas and its bad ones. If you don't like the military, you need a better reason than that it does what democratically elected policymakers order it to do.

Some actions are and some are not.

Sometimes yes sometimes no.

Picairn wrote:Depends on what war you ask. Stopping genocide in the 1995 Bosnian war is a good thing imo. Sad that the US didn't do anything in the Rwandan genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... rate_Force

I’d also say that defending Kuwait from being invaded by Iraq to be good as was the Korean War.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

Picairn wrote:Not disagreeing with you, but different situations entails different perspectives. South Korea and Kuwait were definitely grateful for US intervention.

Is Korea American soil? Korea is not American soil. Then what is the reason there are soldiers there ? money and greed see no other reason.

Because the Republic of Korea asked us to be there. There’s nothing to be gained financially from having that many troops stationed there

Wizlandia wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:What about the mother of the American children? Being a soldier = risk of being killed. I think America should leave the world alone and not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

What about the mother of the American police officers. Being a police officer = risk being killed. I think America should just defund the police.
And the fire service.
And any other dangerous jobs.

Certain amount of deaths are inevitable when trying to protect the life and liberty of people both at home and abroad. The key should be to do a cost-benefit analysis, and in the case of the Korean War the benefits clearly outweighed the costs.

We should probably just ban all delivery drivers since that’s actually a more dangerous job than the police

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

Senkaku wrote:To paraphrase a wise man-- "It's not about the money... it's about sending a message. There must be international order, you can't just invade people."

Is America the guardian of order ? Then I refuse to be a part of that order. The pioneer of the united world is not America but the European Union. please don't fool yourself.

You are aware that the US hasn’t been involved in half of those right? Syria was in a bloody civil war, Libya also a civil war kickstarted by the Europeans, Yeman is also in a civil war and the Saudis got involved in that one.

Always

Thermodolia wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Is Korea American soil? Korea is not American soil. Then what is the reason there are soldiers there ? money and greed see no other reason.

Because the Republic of Korea asked us to be there. There’s nothing to be gained financially from having that many troops stationed there

money is not important here, the important thing is the american meddling in an event that is not an issue. everywhere America goes, it does nothing but death and sadness. You will find that America does not deserve to be the world spokesperson. Europe understood this after the second world war

Nakeisha: “They say the from New York, but their families are from Pakistan!”
Joe: “Pakistan one of them countries that don’t like America.”
Maxine: “Maybe it has something to do with us bombing them for the past ten years.”
Joe: “I ain’t go’ play chicken or egg with you Maxine.”
Jarrod: “Dad, please.”

Where do we get off telling other countries how to conduct their affairs when we're so screwed up.

I was about to post my opinion of the united states military but the OP did it pretty well for me.

Jabberwocky wrote:Where do we get off telling other countries how to conduct their affairs when we're so screwed up.

Because we are the world police.

Just because a King wears a crown doesn't forbid him from preventing others from wearing a crown.

Cordel One wrote:Devotion to the United States military is perhaps one of the main characteristics of American nationalism. Many things have contributed to this such as the Civil War, the Monroe Doctrine, World War 2, and the Cold War. At the same time, the involvement of the United States in many unpopular wars (Vietnam) and human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay) has led many to view this institution in a negative light. This brings me to the subject of this thread: the modern United States military. Beyond the question in the title, is American interventionism in the Middle East justified? Should we continue on this path? Remember, this is a touchy subject so please do your best to remain civil.

I tried really hard to write the above paragraph with as little of my anti-military bias leaking through. Click below to see how I really feel.

If you've been on this forum for the past few months you probably know where I stand on this issue. I dislike almost every action the military has made as an institution after the end of the second World War. It is neo-imperialism in my eyes, an endless series of wars selfishly started to further the interests of the nation's corporations and weapons manufacturers, causing pain, suffering, and destabilization around the globe. The military itself is deceptive and manipulative in terms of recruitment as well, enticing people into doing its bidding with propaganda and college admission.

It depends. The US Military is a fairly well oiled machine, that's often misused by Neocon and Neolib lobbyists. Let's look at four major US interventions after WWII:

Korean War - Justified, North Korea invaded South Korea, and the US helped repel the attack, but then the US went too far by going after North Korea proper
Vietnam War - Unjustified, the US invaded a sovereign country because the US leadership thought that Might makes Right

Afghanistan War - Justified, (at least until 2003) the US invaded a troubled country because they failed to turn over a terrorist; furthermore, if the US succeeded in rebuilding Afghanistan, which was possible if Iraq wasn't invaded, and that would've been a major boon to Human Rights in the Middle East
Iraq War - Unjustified, the US invaded a sovereign country because the US leadership thought that Might makes Right

It's not the military that the issue, it's how the military's used, or rather, misused.

-Ra- wrote:Always. Someone's got to be the global police. The US Military is mostly a force for good, and I hope to see its continued hegemony lest China or Russia rise in its stead.

Ah, yes, something the British used to justify plundering ships and gang pressing sailors, didn't the US fight against this bullshit? Also:

Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden—
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden—
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper—
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White Man's burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden—
Ye dare not stoop to less—
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden—
Have done with childish days—
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

EDIT: I wrongly attributed the above poem, as Kubra points out:

Kubra wrote:Shof, you've made quite a mistake regarding the Kipling bit. It wasn't a hymn to the british empire, but the nascent american one.
That uh, that only makes the whole thing worse, though.

We all make mistakes. Anyways, at least that was quality propaganda. Modern Neocon/Neolib version is based on this:



Russia, Russia, Russia!
China, China, China!

Willtime wrote:the U.S. military means military of the U.S.
So it is designed to benefit the US,right?
Every country which has such great military power,will do the same things.
If you believe the US(or other country,such as China)will protect your benefits as they protect themselves,you are fooled.

Is it justified?
It is justified for the US.
But if your country is not the US…………

Is the Iraq War justified for the US? I disagree. Was Libya's Intervention justified for the US? Was it worth destroying any semblance of inviting Russia into NATO over the Bombing of Belgrade worth it to the US? Was the Vietnam War worth nearly destroying, and permanently scarring an entire Generation of Americans? I could keep going.

-Ra- wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:
We could avoid that by not having countries at all.

And other fairy tales I tell myself at night.

How about the one where the World always had a Global Police Force... or the one where the World desperately needs one...

Wizlandia wrote:

Cordel One wrote:Devotion to the United States military is perhaps one of the main characteristics of American nationalism. Many things have contributed to this such as the Civil War, the Monroe Doctrine, World War 2, and the Cold War. At the same time, the involvement of the United States in many unpopular wars (Vietnam) and human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay) has led many to view this institution in a negative light. This brings me to the subject of this thread: the modern United States military. Beyond the question in the title, is American interventionism in the Middle East justified? Should we continue on this path? Remember, this is a touchy subject so please do your best to remain civil.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. While I'm against human rights abuses like in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, in general I think the US should be more involved in Syria, and am against the US troop withdrawal that occurred under the Trump presidency.

You do realize that if the US escalates in Syria, Russia will intervene in Iraq or Iran's behalf, albeit covertly, right?

American Pere Housh wrote:While there are negative moments in US military history, good far outweigh the bad. The Vietnam War went badly because the politicians didn't let General Westmoreland run the war how it should have been run. Gitmo isn't just a prison but a naval base.

You do know that Vietnam also defeated the Mongols and the Chinese, right? Vietnam specializes in giving its invaders PTSD.

Thermodolia wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Is America the guardian of order ? Then I refuse to be a part of that order. The pioneer of the united world is not America but the European Union. please don't fool yourself.

You are aware that the US hasn’t been involved in half of those right? Syria was in a bloody civil war, Libya also a civil war kickstarted by the Europeans, Yeman is also in a civil war and the Saudis got involved in that one.

We have been involved, by proxy if not directly.

Herzpunkt wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Depends on the situation, negotiations aren't useless.


And that was the last time the US did good through a major military operation.

"Wars are only okay when they are against my ideological opponents, fuck the fascists, but we need to hold the phone when it comes to communists"

Not because they're my opponents but because of the nature of the ideologies and the sociopolitical tensions in the region.

Shof, you've made quite a mistake regarding the Kipling bit. It wasn't a hymn to the british empire, but the nascent american one.
That uh, that only makes the whole thing worse, though.

Kubra wrote:Shof, you've made quite a mistake regarding the Kipling bit. It wasn't a hymn to the british empire, but the nascent american one.
That uh, that only makes the whole thing worse, though.

Oh, whoops. I'll edit this into my post.

Shofercia wrote:

Kubra wrote:Shof, you've made quite a mistake regarding the Kipling bit. It wasn't a hymn to the british empire, but the nascent american one.
That uh, that only makes the whole thing worse, though.

Oh, whoops. I'll edit this into my post.

And as a bit of a tidbit, the war of empire that the poem refers to, well lol there was a lot of folks asking "whoa whoa whoa slow the fuck down, aren't we supposed to fight this?" and they were of course mostly ignored. Because in true american fashion, money makes morals. I mean it's the only country that would ever call a tariff "the tariff of abominations".

Do NOT remind me of “the White Man’s Burden.”

Which actions? That's a very broad question.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Because the Republic of Korea asked us to be there. There’s nothing to be gained financially from having that many troops stationed there

money is not important here, the important thing is the american meddling in an event that is not an issue. everywhere America goes, it does nothing but death and sadness. You will find that America does not deserve to be the world spokesperson. Europe understood this after the second world war

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Turkish_Nationalists_arrive_by_ship_at_Samsun.webm

So you don't think the Korean government which is elected by their people have the right to make their own decisions?
Because if they did a 180 and asked the US to remove their forces and bases there we would.

Cordel One wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You are aware that the US hasn’t been involved in half of those right? Syria was in a bloody civil war, Libya also a civil war kickstarted by the Europeans, Yeman is also in a civil war and the Saudis got involved in that one.

We have been involved, by proxy if not directly.

That's a really shaky standard.