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

[Imperial Esplanade]

Are they (typically) justifiable? Yes. But, do they need to be justifiable? No.

Majority of what people bemoan about the actions of U.S. military stems from policies set by those who are not actively part of the U.S. military; it's Congress, the White House, and the whole Washington bureaucracy who set the rules by which the U.S. military operates. Ask anyone who serves and had been in active combat zones, they will tell you the priority lies in completing the mission handed down to them with as few casualties as possible, everything else is of lesser priority. That's war.

They don't need to be justifiable but they should be as it's immoral not to.

One issue with taking the "it's immoral" stance is that while there are plenty of things that are black-and-white, there's plenty more that aren't. For every singular action, there is yet another equal and reciprocal reaction; and while the "immorality" of the the United States is very much a valid criticism to make, such criticism does not occur in the vacuum of this comments thread. "Immoral," you claim, but "immoral" as compared to who and what else? The Chinese? The Russians? Saudi Arabians? Iranians? Venezuelans? North Koreans?

The U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them, and not always in ways that make people proud. That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others, as especially true when it relates to the butterfly effect. Example: one may see the saving of lives in some third world country as a "moral" act, and indeed it would be so if speaking in objective terms, but one of those lives that may be spared in such a hypothetical act may, in fact, turn out to be a future warlord who slaughters countless more. Might not have just spared such a warlord, but incidentally gave them weapons or funding or equipment along the way to begin their regime. And, unless you're going to tell me you figured out the secret to world peace, there will always be tyrants and warlords. And, therefore, it will always be our prerogative to keep a step ahead of them.

The world is complicated, there's just no way to predict it and there's no way to justify these things with so many acts with additional, complex variables and with such unknown litanies of outcomes. The good people across the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, know all too well how good things that are "justified" can lead to unforeseen mayhem. We can, however, make some close and educated guesses. The United States military is beholden to the rules of engagement, as established by matter of bureaucracy and politics, namely Congress and the White House. I mean, theoretically, the U.S. military only needs to justify to one human being: the commander-in-chief, but in effect does "justify" to the whole political establishment in an apolitical manner. Just because that list of people doesn't include you or I doesn't inherently mean that they don't "justify" their actions at all, or that it's "immoral" that they don't. The people that decide these things have security clearance, we do not.

[CoraSpia]

They don't need to be justifiable but they should be as it's immoral not to.

One issue with taking the "it's immoral" stance is that while there are plenty of things that are black-and-white, there's plenty more that aren't. For every singular action, there is yet another equal and reciprocal reaction; and while the "immorality" of the the United States is very much a valid criticism to make, such criticism does not occur in the vacuum of this comments thread. "Immoral," you claim, but "immoral" as compared to who and what else? The Chinese? The Russians? Saudi Arabians? Iranians? Venezuelans? North Koreans?

The U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them, and not always in ways that make people proud. That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others, as especially true when it relates to the butterfly effect. Example: one may see the saving of lives in some third world country as a "moral" act, and indeed it would be so if speaking in objective terms, but one of those lives that may be spared in such a hypothetical act may, in fact, turn out to be a future warlord who slaughters countless more. Might not have just spared such a warlord, but incidentally gave them weapons or funding or equipment along the way to begin their regime. And, unless you're going to tell me you figured out the secret to world peace, there will always be tyrants and warlords. And, therefore, it will always be our prerogative to keep a step ahead of them.

The world is complicated, there's just no way to predict it and there's no way to justify these things with so many acts with additional, complex variables and with such unknown litanies of outcomes. The good people across the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, know all too well how good things that are "justified" can lead to unforeseen mayhem. We can, however, make some close and educated guesses. The United States military is beholden to the rules of engagement, as established by matter of bureaucracy and politics, namely Congress and the White House. I mean, theoretically, the U.S. military only needs to justify to one human being: the commander-in-chief, but in effect does "justify" to the whole political establishment in an apolitical manner. Just because that list of people doesn't include you or I doesn't inherently mean that they don't "justify" their actions at all, or that it's "immoral" that they don't. The people that decide these things have security clearance, we do not.

You don't have to justify yourself to anybody if you just adopt a strictly defencive policy. The United States military didn't save those lives because it is not allowed to do so, the same reason it didn't destroy that nuclear reactor or bomb that school. The best way to avoid killing people is to keep the army away from people it might decide to kill.

[SD_Film Artists]

It seems rather futile to judge an entire country in 100 years in a single question.

Are the actions of the Argentine military justified? In 1982, no.
In 2020? Apart from their continued implicit lack of apology for the above I don't know of anything they've done wrong this year. Perhaps one of them took a particularly anglophobic poop in the morning?

[Imperial Esplanade]

One issue with taking the "it's immoral" stance is that while there are plenty of things that are black-and-white, there's plenty more that aren't. For every singular action, there is yet another equal and reciprocal reaction; and while the "immorality" of the the United States is very much a valid criticism to make, such criticism does not occur in the vacuum of this comments thread. "Immoral," you claim, but "immoral" as compared to who and what else? The Chinese? The Russians? Saudi Arabians? Iranians? Venezuelans? North Koreans?

The U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them, and not always in ways that make people proud. That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others, as especially true when it relates to the butterfly effect. Example: one may see the saving of lives in some third world country as a "moral" act, and indeed it would be so if speaking in objective terms, but one of those lives that may be spared in such a hypothetical act may, in fact, turn out to be a future warlord who slaughters countless more. Might not have just spared such a warlord, but incidentally gave them weapons or funding or equipment along the way to begin their regime. And, unless you're going to tell me you figured out the secret to world peace, there will always be tyrants and warlords. And, therefore, it will always be our prerogative to keep a step ahead of them.

The world is complicated, there's just no way to predict it and there's no way to justify these things with so many acts with additional, complex variables and with such unknown litanies of outcomes. The good people across the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, know all too well how good things that are "justified" can lead to unforeseen mayhem. We can, however, make some close and educated guesses. The United States military is beholden to the rules of engagement, as established by matter of bureaucracy and politics, namely Congress and the White House. I mean, theoretically, the U.S. military only needs to justify to one human being: the commander-in-chief, but in effect does "justify" to the whole political establishment in an apolitical manner. Just because that list of people doesn't include you or I doesn't inherently mean that they don't "justify" their actions at all, or that it's "immoral" that they don't. The people that decide these things have security clearance, we do not.

You don't have to justify yourself to anybody if you just adopt a strictly defencive policy. The United States military didn't save those lives because it is not allowed to do so, the same reason it didn't destroy that nuclear reactor or bomb that school. The best way to avoid killing people is to keep the army away from people it might decide to kill.

All of what you just said goes right back to my point I literally just made about "it's complicated" and "butterfly effect." Would it be nice if we all sat back and didn't bomb each other unless absolutely necessary, for true defensive purposes? Absolutely. But is it easy to pretend that the world, itself, would be a much better place because of it? Also yes, but pretending so won't necessarily make it so.

[Alcala-Cordel]

They don't need to be justifiable but they should be as it's immoral not to.

One issue with taking the "it's immoral" stance is that while there are plenty of things that are black-and-white, there's plenty more that aren't. For every singular action, there is yet another equal and reciprocal reaction; and while the "immorality" of the the United States is very much a valid criticism to make, such criticism does not occur in the vacuum of this comments thread. "Immoral," you claim, but "immoral" as compared to who and what else? The Chinese? The Russians? Saudi Arabians? Iranians? Venezuelans? North Koreans?

While the United States is significantly worse than those due to the sheer number of wars started, there doesn't need to be another entity to compare it to to make it immoral. Being relatively more or less moral doesn't matter for that.

The U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them, and not always in ways that make people proud. That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others, as especially true when it relates to the butterfly effect. Example: one may see the saving of lives in some third world country as a "moral" act, and indeed it would be so if speaking in objective terms, but one of those lives that may be spared in such a hypothetical act may, in fact, turn out to be a future warlord who slaughters countless more. Might not have just spared such a warlord, but incidentally gave them weapons or funding or equipment along the way to begin their regime. And, unless you're going to tell me you figured out the secret to world peace, there will always be tyrants and warlords. And, therefore, it will always be our prerogative to keep a step ahead of them.

The U.S. isn't some benevolent entity that carefully plans out its wars to ensure that the people of the world benefit in the long term, it's a selfish entity that will do so for profit. Operation Condor stands out as an example of this selfish behavior, in which the United States overthrew a series of democratically elected leaders in favor of friendly dictators. Central and south America are still dealing with the social, economic, and political fallout from this. The United States has worsened every conflict it's been militarily involved in since WW2 for no reason other than to further its own economic interests. You're so painfully mistaken if you honestly beleve we were in Vietnam and Iraq out of a desire to improve the lives of their people.

The world is complicated, there's just no way to predict it and there's no way to justify these things with so many acts with additional, complex variables and with such unknown litanies of outcomes.

That wouldn't be a good excuse even if we did care.

The good people across the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, know all too well how good things that are "justified" can lead to unforeseen mayhem. We can, however, make some close and educated guesses.

We don't do that.

The United States military is beholden to the rules of engagement, as established by matter of bureaucracy and politics, namely Congress and the White House.

The United States military is used impulsively and rarely held accountable.

I mean, theoretically, the U.S. military only needs to justify to one human being: the commander-in-chief, but in effect does "justify" to the whole political establishment in an apolitical manner.

And the people hould just accept that?

Just because that list of people doesn't include you or I doesn't inherently mean that they don't "justify" their actions at all

They do "justify it" in the sense that war is profitable. The bourgeoisie are greedy fucks.

, or that it's "immoral" that they don't.

That alone doesn't neccessarily mean they're moral or immoral. This means nothing in terms of morality.

The people that decide these things have security clearance, we do not.

And I should be fine with the actions of these monsters because...?

[Rio Cana]

Gotta say, as much as I disagree with the idea that Vietnam or Afghanistan were good ideas, i feel like others, like the Gulf War and Korea were justified. Can't forget that it wasn't just solely a US thing either.

In Korea, the US could have held back the SK. government from overdoing what they did to the people of Jeju island. At least ten percent of the islands population was eliminated. The islanders that did manage to escape (about 40.000) fled to Japan. Entire towns were wiped out. Age of the population did not matter.
Read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising

[Coradortodos]

I mean they should be unless it is corrupted. In wars yes justice not justice if protests unless its a threat and needs to be eliminated ASAP

[Imperial Esplanade]

While the United States is significantly worse than those due to the sheer number of wars started, there doesn't need to be another entity to compare it to to make it immoral. Being relatively more or less moral doesn't matter for that.

You had completely missed the point, and I do mean completely, all while assuming the other nations haven't not "started as many wars," as if that is the only litmus test on the matter or as if the United States being the military might it is has nothing to do with that fact. Do you mean to claim to me that totalitarians in North Korea, Iran, or China wouldn't start a war, if there weren't any repercussions for it? If the threat of United States involvement didn't sway them against it? As I said in my original comment: this discussion is not limited to the vacuum of these posting threads. The world is complex, as are the people and societies living in it. Some things are black-and-white, things like the Holocaust, but much of it is very much a grey area.

The U.S. isn't some benevolent entity that carefully plans out its wars to ensure that the people of the world benefit in the long term, it's a selfish entity that will do so for profit. Operation Condor stands out as an example of this selfish behavior, in which the United States overthrew a series of democratically elected leaders in favor of friendly dictators. Central and south America are still dealing with the social, economic, and political fallout from this. The United States has worsened every conflict it's been militarily involved in since WW2 for no reason other than to further its own economic interests. You're so painfully mistaken if you honestly beleve we were in Vietnam and Iraq out of a desire to improve the lives of their people.

A.) Who said the U.S. was a benevolent entity?
B.) When did I say the U.S. was in Vietnam or Iraq to "improve peoples' lives?"

Answer to "A," not I. Answer to "B," nowhere. And, again, you completely, and I do mean completely, miss the point.

I, literally, even said "the U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them [geo-political foes], and not always in ways that make people proud," as well as "That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others."

To be honest, I do not know what to tell you, besides actually read what I'm saying to understand what I'm saying, not just reading to respond. All I said is the the U.S. military postures itself to ready itself against geopolitical foes of the U.S. itself, and the U.S. military is beholden to a code of conduct and rules of engagement. Sometimes their actions are genuinely horrible, other times it negates something else that is, and still some others you have no idea what the implications are of them refraining from acting out in either scenario. You are entitled to your opinions on these things, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And these? These are all facts, whether you like them or not.

That wouldn't be a good excuse even if we did care.

Reference above.^
You have, again, mistaken a matter of fact as an opinion. It is not an opinion to say that the world is complicated nor difficult to predict.

We don't do that.

We do, just not always well. When we get it right, you generally don't hear about it or you'd forget about it. When we don't, that's what you remember. But yet, here you are suggesting the U.S. should just step back as if there won't be dire consequences from doing so? Irony.

The United States military is used impulsively and rarely held accountable.

The U.S. military is a structured hierarchy, with people answering to others above them. They do not suddenly assault other nations on a whim, or impulsively. The U.S. military acts at the command by the commander-in-chief. I'm not sure what revisionist streak you are on right now, but that is just patently false. Whatever beefs you have with the U.S. military and its' history, you need to orientate that energy and lay blame at the people who are actually responsible for their actions.

And the people should just accept that?

Again, see the difference between opinion and fact. This was invoking the latter, fact. Don't like it? Fine, don't like it. Do something to change that fact, even. I'd encourage you to. But don't pretend a fact isn't a fact, simply because you don't like it.

They do "justify it" in the sense that war is profitable. The bourgeoisie are greedy fucks.

Once again, you had completely missed the point. That was involving a statement that the U.S. military are beholden to a chain-of-command, and one that does not include you or I.

That alone doesn't necessarily mean they're moral or immoral. This means nothing in terms of morality.

.... which was my entire point, because it's almost as if there are plenty of things that are "moral" to some and "immoral" for others, and the same can be said about how their actions are "justifiable" to the public in that very light; even if all the U.S. military has to do in justifying their actions is abide by what their commander-in-chief ultimately commands of them to do, assuming the commands are permissible within the code of conduct and rules of engagement. On the whole, it is quite obvious that you fail to understand that the U.S. military is not a democracy, and that members of the military do not have the liberty to debate ethics over every single command.

And I should be fine with the actions of these monsters because...?

Once more, see the difference between opinion and fact. This was invoking the latter, fact.

[Cordel One]

While the United States is significantly worse than those due to the sheer number of wars started, there doesn't need to be another entity to compare it to to make it immoral. Being relatively more or less moral doesn't matter for that.

You had completely missed the point, and I do mean completely, all while assuming the other nations haven't not "started as many wars," as if that is the only litmus test on the matter or as if the United States being the military might it is has nothing to do with that fact. Do you mean to claim to me that totalitarians in North Korea, Iran, or China wouldn't start a war, if there weren't any repercussions for it? If the threat of United States involvement didn't sway them against it? As I said in my original comment: this discussion is not limited to the vacuum of these posting threads. The world is complex, as are the people and societies living in it. Some things are black-and-white, things like the Holocaust, but much of it is very much a grey area.

Iran and North Korea aren't superpowers, and while they can cause some harm they are not capable of doing so at the scale or the magnitude of the United States. China is a superpower, but I don't see them getting any worse than the US even if they do develop a military industrial complex. It's gonna take a lot more than overthrowing democracies en masse, establishing monstrous dictatorships, ravaging the environment with horrible chemicals, and killing countless innocents to out-war crime the United States. It doen't matter which of the superpowers is the most aggressive (though I wasn't even advocating for pacifism, just less impulsiveness).

The U.S. isn't some benevolent entity that carefully plans out its wars to ensure that the people of the world benefit in the long term, it's a selfish entity that will do so for profit. Operation Condor stands out as an example of this selfish behavior, in which the United States overthrew a series of democratically elected leaders in favor of friendly dictators. Central and south America are still dealing with the social, economic, and political fallout from this. The United States has worsened every conflict it's been militarily involved in since WW2 for no reason other than to further its own economic interests. You're so painfully mistaken if you honestly beleve we were in Vietnam and Iraq out of a desire to improve the lives of their people.

A.) Who said the U.S. was a benevolent entity?
B.) When did I say the U.S. was in Vietnam or Iraq to "improve peoples' lives?"

Answer to "A," not I. Answer to "B," nowhere. And, again, you completely, and I do mean completely, miss the point.

I, literally, even said "the U.S. military constantly postures to counter all of them [geo-political foes], and not always in ways that make people proud," as well as "That is all not to mention the fact that what comes to benefit one group of people can come at the cost of others."

To be honest, I do not know what to tell you, besides actually read what I'm saying to understand what I'm saying, not just reading to respond. All I said is the the U.S. military postures itself to ready itself against geopolitical foes of the U.S. itself, and the U.S. military is beholden to a code of conduct and rules of engagement. Sometimes their actions are genuinely horrible, other times it negates something else that is, and still some others you have no idea what the implications are of them refraining from acting out in either scenario. You are entitled to your opinions on these things, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And these? These are all facts, whether you like them or not.

I get all that, but none of it provides any justification to the actions of the United States military. A good portion of morality does come from opinion as it's built opon ideas such as "human rights abuses are bad", but that doesn't mean it doesn't have weight. It is worth noting it's not the best idea from a strategic perspective either as it provides other nations with a good incentive to undermine the U.S.

That wouldn't be a good excuse even if we did care.

Reference above.^
You have, again, mistaken a matter of fact as an opinion. It is not an opinion to say that the world is complicated nor difficult to predict.

I think you're missing the point.

We don't do that.

We do, just not always well. When we get it right, you generally don't hear about it or you'd forget about it. When we don't, that's what you remember. But yet, here you are suggesting the U.S. should just step back as if there won't be dire consequences from doing so? Irony.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

The United States military is used impulsively and rarely held accountable.

The U.S. military is a structured hierarchy, with people answering to others above them. They do not suddenly assault other nations on a whim, or impulsively. The U.S. military acts at the command by the commander-in-chief. I'm not sure what revisionist streak you are on right now, but that is just patently false. Whatever beefs you have with the U.S. military and its' history, you need to orientate that energy and lay blame at the people who are actually responsible for their actions.

They United States doesn't attack on a whim, it attacks for profit.

And the people should just accept that?

Again, see the difference between opinion and fact. This was invoking the latter, fact. Don't like it? Fine, don't like it. Do something to change that fact, even. I'd encourage you to. But don't pretend a fact isn't a fact, simply because you don't like it.

I never denied it was true, my claim is that it's still wrong.

They do "justify it" in the sense that war is profitable. The bourgeoisie are greedy fucks.

Once again, you had completely missed the point. That was involving a statement that the U.S. military are beholden to a chain-of-command, and one that does not include you or I.

That alone doesn't necessarily mean they're moral or immoral. This means nothing in terms of morality.

.... which was my entire point, because it's almost as if there are plenty of things that are "moral" to some and "immoral" for others, and the same can be said about how their actions are "justifiable" to the public in that very light; even if all the U.S. military has to do in justifying their actions is abide by what their commander-in-chief ultimately commands of them to do, assuming the commands are permissible within the code of conduct and rules of engagement. On the whole, it is quite obvious that you fail to understand that the U.S. military is not a democracy, and that members of the military do not have the liberty to debate ethics over every single command.

And?

And I should be fine with the actions of these monsters because...?

Once more, see the difference between opinion and fact. This was invoking the latter, fact.

It still seems like you missed the point.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Going back-and-forth on this with an alt? Because I did not address any of that to you, if not.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Going back-and-forth on this with an alt? Because I did not address any of that to you, if not.

Cordel One is my alt.

[Genivaria]

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.

Look, don't you think of the American soldiers even if the people of the country wanted it ? American nationalism is strange, you see soldiers as robots ready to die, and you see the whole world as American soil. I am a Turk, in our culture, soldiers act on the principle of Peace at Home, Peace in the World therefore, due to this culture, it is not suitable for Turkish soldiers to go to countries such as Libya. If America wants to do something for the world, it must establish a union state with Canada and Mexico and destroy the racist thoughts in its country.

Please don't pretend you can read my mind, it just makes you look silly.

[The Adrestrian Empire]

I think that the only two justified U.S wars waged were the Civil War (Northern side obviously) and World War II. I'm excepting the Revolution, because while in hindsight the colonists were being a touch over-the-top in their hate for King George III, I'm glad they did revolt.

I'm a non-strict non-interventionist, who believes in the principle of just war theorem.

If the U.S. can conduct a war, for the proper reasons, through the proper methods, in the proper length of time, I'm fine with U.S. intervention.

I'm not an isolationist or pacifist.

However, the issue is the U.S. has virtually never fulfilled the requirements of Just War theorem (I'm thinking in terms of Aquinas's rule about just war)

1. A just war must be capable of ending quickly. You can't go in, with no end in sight. Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to be endless conflicts, resulting in more suffering than proper.

2. A just war must have just causes and just methods throughout. For example, if we pursued world war II only to save the Jews, the Chinese, and others being oppressed, that would legitimate. However, America was out for blood against the Japanese. Our fire-bombings of Dresden, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were also wrong. I am not fine with pursuing for the sake of oil. If the Belarusian people told us right now "Please save us from Lukashenko" and all we did was overthrow Lukashenko and hold an election, that would be legitimate. Taking out Assad? Fine. But we have not taken out Assad. Destroying ISIS? Yeah sure, that's justified, but we've failed at that too.

3. A just war must have just targets. Syrian children, and Gazan or Yemeni villages are not legitimate targets. A just war involves only combatants, and honestly; the least combatants possible. We should seek to have zero civilian deaths, and as few combatant deaths as necessary to have a lasting, true victory.

4. A just war must be winnable. A war is unjust if there is a chance of the enemy just resurging and causing more trouble. This is why it would be wrong for Finland to undertake a war that is legitimate for America, because unless it involves holding the Mannerheim line, Finland lacks the prowess to score a solid, lasting victory over any crackpot dictators I can think of. Of course, it should be up to the people, not America, whether to remove a leader. But for example, Assad using chemical weapons on his people, caused him to lose all right to rule and it would thus be legitimate to remove him. This is also the issue with a war on ISIS, because while they're a just target, winning against a non-state actor fueled by an ideology seems impossible to me. One also wonders if adjusting our Middle East Diplomacy, and encouraging foreign investment in the region would help alleviate the factors which lead to people joining ISIS, thus making the war unneeded...

A just war maximizes results (Seeking permanent positive change) and minimizes deaths.

So yes, U.S. military action is justified. But our recent...sorry...virtually all of our actions have been illegitimate. In America's defense, the military actions of every country throughout history have been overwhelmingly immoral. World War II would be an exception, except the way that war was waged, I am not in support of. Self-defense is a legitimate reason, so Britain, Russia, and France get passes. The tactics though of the World Wars, with fire-bombings and toxic gases like mustard gas, not so much. I'm going to have to say that drone strikes on non-descript targets are also a no-go for me.

Oil is not a legitimate reason to launch a war, so that eliminates a lot of U.S. military actions since Reagan...

[Nepleslia]

Yes.

[Sungoldy-China]

I do not care the justify of US war, I love US throws their troops into the never-ending war ，

Steel, gunpowder and blood are human romance ， Enjoy and be satisfied

[The Republic of Fore]

No, I personally don't support the current use of our military. The purpose of the US military should be to protect US citizens, nothing more. The last war I would consider justified would be the civil war. I know most people would say WWII but, I personally don't feel that a country can pull the self-defense card when they were attacked after destroying another countries economy with an oil embargo. Not to mention arming their enemies.

[Picairn]

No, I personally don't support the current use of our military. The purpose of the US military should be to protect US citizens, nothing more. The last war I would consider justified would be the civil war. I know most people would say WWII but, I personally don't feel that a country can pull the self-defense card when they were attacked after destroying another countries economy with an oil embargo.

Japan was sanctioned because they invaded French-Indochina. The US, Britain and the Dutch East Indies together embargoed Japan for its aggression.

Seeing how Japan wanted to accomplish its imperialist dreams, those embargoes were pretty inevitable.

Not to mention arming their enemies.

Japan invaded China and the South East Asian nations for their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere project. They made plenty of enemies through imperialist invasions.

[The Republic of Fore]

No, I personally don't support the current use of our military. The purpose of the US military should be to protect US citizens, nothing more. The last war I would consider justified would be the civil war. I know most people would say WWII but, I personally don't feel that a country can pull the self-defense card when they were attacked after destroying another countries economy with an oil embargo.

Japan was sanctioned because they invaded French-Indochina. The US, Britain and the Dutch East Indies together embargoed Japan for its aggression.

Seeing how Japan wanted to accomplish its imperialist dreams, those embargoes were pretty inevitable.

Not to mention arming their enemies.

Japan invaded China and the South East Asian nations for their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere project. They made plenty of enemies through imperialist invasions.

Neither of which was our problem. Japan hadn't hurt a single US citizen until Pearl Harbor, so there was no reason for us to do anything to them. Well, unless you count Chenault's flying tigers but they were mercenaries who knew what they signed up for. As far as I'm concerned until an American is harmed it's not the US military's concern.

[Picairn]

Neither of which was our problem. Japan hadn't hurt a single US citizen until Pearl Harbor, so there was no reason for us to do anything to them. Well, unless you count Chenault's flying tigers but they were mercenaries who knew what they signed up for. As far as I'm concerned until an American is harmed it's not the US military's concern.

But the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor, hence the US entry into the war.

[The Restored Danelaw]

There is simply no way to give a once-over statement for whether US military actions are justified or not. I believe the nature of its intervention is typically justified -though exceptions do apply. Is all its actions taken during intervention justified? No. War crimes are war crimes regardless of who does it.

[The Republic of Fore]

Neither of which was our problem. Japan hadn't hurt a single US citizen until Pearl Harbor, so there was no reason for us to do anything to them. Well, unless you count Chenault's flying tigers but they were mercenaries who knew what they signed up for. As far as I'm concerned until an American is harmed it's not the US military's concern.

But the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor, hence the US entry into the war.

After we provoked them by arming their enemies and embargoing them.No embargo, no reason to join the war It's that simple.

[Loben III]

But the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor, hence the US entry into the war.

After we provoked them by arming their enemies and embargoing them.No embargo, no reason to join the war It's that simple.

We embargoed them and they bombed us, seems a tad out of proportion.

[The Restored Danelaw]

But the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor, hence the US entry into the war.

After we provoked them by arming their enemies and embargoing them.No embargo, no reason to join the war It's that simple.

The fact an embargo and aiding one's enemies aren't actually proper casus belli notwithstanding, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war on the US, which makes this even funnier that you're siding with a legit culprit of a War of Aggression.

[Loben III]

After we provoked them by arming their enemies and embargoing them.No embargo, no reason to join the war It's that simple.

The fact an embargo and aiding one's enemies aren't actually proper casus belli notwithstanding, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war on the US, which makes this even funnier that you're siding with a legit culprit of a War of Aggression.

War was coming anyway, Pearl Harbor wasn’t even the home port for the battleships there irc.

[La Xinga]

^
This

Would you rather China or Russia as the global superpower.

It doesn't matter, war crimes are war crimes at the end of the day

Comes the question who decides the war crimes.