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

[Picairn]

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.\

Just because people have always been killed by oppressive dictatorships doesn't mean that the US, or any country, should continue to enable them. And "Might as well as least get some benefit out of it" is a psychopathic mindset. Only psychopaths and robots devoid of ethics and morals would choose to trade lives for money.

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.

38.8% (6,332,000) of enlisted Americans in WW2 were volunteers, and 61.2% (11,535,000) were drafted. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/stude ... ry-numbers

6 million voluteers... I think Americans didn't take Pearl Harbor well.

[Adamede]

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.

1: Because we don’t owe Japan trade of any kind. Would you personally sell a gun to a known murderer even if they where willing to pay above market value for it?

2: That’s one of the most morally bankrupt things I’ve ever read, and this fucking NSG. Not to mention the fact that you have no understanding of geopolitics at all.

[Sophisticated horrors]

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.

I´d say, most dictatorships of the last fifty years couldn´t have been istalled without the direct or indirect support of the States, and also there´s almost no US intervention without American interests (political, financial or global strategic - very often all three of them) and as an act of pure altruism or humanism.

[Sophisticated horrors]

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.

So the US does embargo Saudi Arabia, or Israel , for example ? Is that, what you´re saying ?
Japans intention in the thirties and fourties of the last century was not "to rule the world", but to become the main country in southeastern Asia and to secure the industrial ressources imperial Japan needed (by occupation, war and imperialistic behaviour, I admit).

[Picairn]

2: That’s one of the most morally bankrupt things I’ve ever read, and this fucking NSG.

NSG only produces the best highbrow scholars on politics.

[Picairn]

So the US does embargo Saudi Arabia, or Israel , for example ? Is that, what you´re saying ?

In my opinion the US definitely should cut ties with the Saudis and pressure Israel to stop its human rights abuses against Palestine. But just because the US doesn't do so (out of greed or political motivations) doesn't mean that its decision to embargo Japan was wrong.

Japans intention in the thirties and fourties of the last century was not "to rule the world", but to become the main country in southeastern Asia and to secure the industrial ressources imperial Japan needed (by occupation, war and imperialistic behaviour, I admit).

They definitely wanted to carve out a new world order led by the Axis with each regime's sphere of influence (Germany in Europe and West Africa, Italy in the East Africa, and Japan in Asia).

[Sophisticated horrors]

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.

2: That’s one of the most morally bankrupt things I’ve ever read, and this fucking NSG. Not to mention the fact that you have no understanding of geopolitics at all.[/quote]
It may be moraly bancrupt and unethic, but in fact it´s correct; the declaration of war was the a rather desperate reaction to the freezing up of Japanese assets and the oil and steel embargo of the US government.
Also, the States could have allied with the Nazis instead of the Britains, the decision mainly was made on economical reasons (the given credits and investments to support the British war efforts were simply to high already) and Roosevelts personal preferrances, not on morally ones...
The US didn´t even declare war on Nazi Germany, despite their despotic, imperialistic and genocidal behaviour.

[Sophisticated horrors]

They definitely wanted to carve out a new world order led by the Axis with each regime's sphere of influence (Germany in Europe and West Africa, Italy in the East Africa, and Japan in Asia).

Well, which definitely leaves out more than 2/3rd of the world, like America north and south, Stalins Soviet Russia, most of the British empire and dominions, aso...

[Adamede]

2: That’s one of the most morally bankrupt things I’ve ever read, and this fucking NSG. Not to mention the fact that you have no understanding of geopolitics at all.

It may be moraly bancrupt and unethic, but in fact it´s correct; the declaration of war was the a rather desperate reaction to the freezing up of Japanese assets and the oil and steel embargo of the US government.
Also, the States could have allied with the Nazis instead of the Britains, the decision mainly was made on economical reasons (the given credits and investments to support the British war efforts were simply to high already) and Roosevelts personal preferrances, not on morally ones...
The US didn´t even declare war on Nazi Germany, despite their despotic, imperialistic and genocidal behaviour.

I see that you lack basic reading comprehension, so I’ll try simplifying it for your benefit.

1: I never said that the US declared war on moral grounds. The US declared war because it had war declared on it first.

2: What I was talking about in regards to ethics and morals is Fores talking about how they’re okay with millions of people dying so long as they’re not American.

3: The Americans where never going to side with the Nazis

Now then it appears to me that the two of you are more concerned with being Axis apologists than actually understanding the topic.

[Picairn]

Well, which definitely leaves out more than 2/3rd of the world, like America north and south, Stalins Soviet Russia, most of the British empire and dominions, aso...

Soviet Russia would cease to exist under Hitler's Lebensraum policy. British's colonies in the East (India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc.) would fall under Japan's influence, while its African possessions would be divided among Germany and Italy.

South American countries while officially neutral were actually sympathetic towards fascism. There's a reason many high-ranking Nazis fled to Argentina and other SA nations after the war.

[Punished UMN]

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.

As I said, this is short-sighted. For one, the UN isn't about needing, it's about having a neutral forum to negotiate with other nations. But NATO is obviously a net-benefit to the United States, given it protects our largest trading partners.

[The Republic of Fore]

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.\

Just because people have always been killed by oppressive dictatorships doesn't mean that the US, or any country, should continue to enable them. And "Might as well as least get some benefit out of it" is a psychopathic mindset. Only psychopaths and robots devoid of ethics and morals would choose to trade lives for money.

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.

38.8% (6,332,000) of enlisted Americans in WW2 were volunteers, and 61.2% (11,535,000) were drafted. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/stude ... ry-numbers

6 million voluteers... I think Americans didn't take Pearl Harbor well.

1. we aren't enabling anything, we literally can't stop them.
2. Yeah, because they'd been fed propaganda BS. I'd be willing to bet if you asked the average volunteer why Japan attacked the US you'd probably get a generic response of "they hate our freedom!"

[The Republic of Fore]

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.

1: Because we don’t owe Japan trade of any kind. Would you personally sell a gun to a known murderer even if they where willing to pay above market value for it?

2: That’s one of the most morally bankrupt things I’ve ever read, and this fucking NSG. Not to mention the fact that you have no understanding of geopolitics at all.

1. We don't owe southeast asia the lives of our children either. And yes, I would. It's not my responsibility what they use it for.
2. So tell me, what is this great horrific tragedy that will befall America if we stop sending our sons to die for the benefit of backwater shitholes? People seem to be so sure it will happen, and yet can never name what it is.

[The Republic of Fore]

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.

As I said, this is short-sighted. For one, the UN isn't about needing, it's about having a neutral forum to negotiate with other nations. But NATO is obviously a net-benefit to the United States, given it protects our largest trading partners.

The UN is completely and utterly worthless, countries negotiated perfectly fine before it existed. And our biggest trade partners can try protecting themselves. Nevermind that there's no one they need protection from. People have spent the last ten years shrieking that Russia will conquer Europe, and yet there's not the slightest bit of evidence for that.

[The Republic of Fore]

It may be morally bankrupt and unethical, but in fact, it´s correct; the declaration of war was a rather desperate reaction to the freezing up of Japanese assets and the oil and steel embargo of the US government.
Also, the States could have allied with the Nazis instead of the Britains, the decision mainly was made on economical reasons (the given credits and investments to support the British war efforts were simply too high already) and Roosevelts personal preferences, not on morally ones...
The US didn´t even declare war on Nazi Germany, despite their despotic, imperialistic, and genocidal behavior.

I see that you lack basic reading comprehension, so I’ll try simplifying it for your benefit.

1: I never said that the US declared war on moral grounds. The US declared war because it had war declared on it first.

2: What I was talking about in regards to ethics and morals is Fores talking about how they’re okay with millions of people dying so long as they’re not American.

3: The Americans were never going to side with the Nazis

Now then it appears to me that the two of you are more concerned with being Axis apologists than actually understanding the topic.

I'm not apologizing for anything but America minding Its own business. When there's an actual law, not "morality" not "ethics" an actual law passed by the United States Congress that says we have to be the anti dictator police let me know.

[Adamede]

I see that you lack basic reading comprehension, so I’ll try simplifying it for your benefit.

1: I never said that the US declared war on moral grounds. The US declared war because it had war declared on it first.

2: What I was talking about in regards to ethics and morals is Fores talking about how they’re okay with millions of people dying so long as they’re not American.

3: The Americans were never going to side with the Nazis

Now then it appears to me that the two of you are more concerned with being Axis apologists than actually understanding the topic.

I'm not apologizing for anything but America minding Its own business. When there's an actual law, not "morality" not "ethics" an actual law passed by the United States Congress that says we have to be the anti dictator police let me know.

That’s not what an apologist is. An apologist is someone who defends a controversial position, and you seem hell bent on justifying Japanese expansionism and their attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Senkaku]

The UN is completely and utterly worthless, countries negotiated perfectly fine before it existed.

negotiating so fine that archie duke shooting an ostrich because he was hungry started the bloodiest and most terrifying war of all hitherto existing human conflicts and set the stage for an even worse round two

[Punished UMN]

As I said, this is short-sighted. For one, the UN isn't about needing, it's about having a neutral forum to negotiate with other nations. But NATO is obviously a net-benefit to the United States, given it protects our largest trading partners.

1) The UN is completely and utterly worthless, countries negotiated perfectly fine before it existed. And our biggest trade partners can try protecting themselves. 2) Nevermind that there's no one they need protection from. People have spent the last ten years shrieking that Russia will conquer Europe, and yet there's not the slightest bit of evidence for that.

1) The negotiations they had were so effective and conducted in such good faith that they started the more horrifying war at that point in history due to their belief that they could not trust each other diplomatically. Clearly we need to regress to those days.
2) Have you considered that a major reason Russia has not taken any military action against the EU is that NATO would be likely to intervene in such a conflict? You're saying that the benefits of NATO are proof that we don't need it anymore.

[Nakena]

Most of them are to me; I think Vietnam was kind of pointless and I'm not sure abut our intervention in the Middle East, but for the most part, yes, I support our military actions

The Iraq War was the result of a misguided policy, and false evidence and rationale being fabricated by a small traitorous clique who had taken over the Bush Administration.

[FutureAmerica]

The US military should get out of Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf to focus its attention on China.

[Neanderthaland]

The US military should get out of Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf to focus its attention on China.

Abandoning a territory "the Enemy" is interested in expanding into seems like an odd way to fight them. But Okay.

[Tyrassueb]

The US needs to radically rethink it's foreign entanglements. My friend served in Afghanistan after 9/11 and his son is now serving a tour there. That is way too long to be caught up in the affairs of another nation especially since the US seems to be fine with arming the very terror groups we were attacking in Afghanistan as long as they are in Syria for instance.

[Nakena]

The US needs to radically rethink it's foreign entanglements. My friend served in Afghanistan after 9/11 and his son is now serving a tour there. That is way too long to be caught up in the affairs of another nation especially since the US seems to be fine with arming the very terror groups we were attacking in Afghanistan as long as they are in Syria for instance.

Yes it is.

Specifically if theres no objective behind it anymore. It is not even war for the sake of war.

At some point it must come to a conclusion and end, or generations be trapped in this.

If it were a proper war, with an proper objective, i'd be a different question. But in the end it is just a fake war. Hence it cannot be won and is imbecile.

Thats why it needs to end.