Righteous Wars

[Guest aexapo]

Have there been any really wars for "good?" Out of the many wars and official police actions, I can only think of a few . . . but for the case of creating an argument, I'll play devil's advocate for ALL the ones below. . .

------------------------------------------------------

 

Revolutionary War -- with only 33% of the populace actively supporting leaving the Empire, was it really the "right thing to do" to essentially declare war killing thousands of soldiers and innocents over a goddamn tea tax?

 

Civil War -- was Lincoln really that concerned about slavery, or was it just an excuse to transform a federation of states into the American Empire?

 

Mexican-American War -- okay, first we got a bunch of Anglos to move into Mexico and set up shop, only to declare the Tejas province "independent" so they could attach it to the States. The M-A War resulted when Mexico refused to recognize the annexation of their territory by the US, plus antagonization by US forces eager to whip a foreign country. Grand prize?: Half of Mexico (quickly converted into California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, etc.) . . . yeah, it was all about Texas.

 

Spanish-American War -- we said it was about kicking a European crown out of the Americas! We were going to save the Caribbean from tyranny! We blew up a ship to get the party started, "freeing" Cuba, the Phillippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam to become American real estate.

 

WWI -- we picked sides with Momma England, preventing our Mother land from switching from the Crown of Victoria, to the Crown of her grandson, Kaiser Williem.

 

WWII -- we picked sides again, after making a huge profit playing both sides against each other . . . good outcome, though -- we didn't particularly care that Hitler was frying Jews at the time, but the victory made us look like the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

Korean War -- USA & Allies and USSR and PRC decide to use the Korean Peninsula as their Cold War chess board . . . it was a draw, at the cost of 2.5 million Korean lives.

 

Vietnam War -- Cold War chess game rematch -- killing 1 to 4 million Vietnamese.

 

Invasion of Grenada -- Grenada kicked out Queen Elizabeth and went communist. Reagan deemed the tiny island a threat, and invaded.

 

Invasion of Panama -- really, really bad drug dealer in charge. We can't get him, so we invade, killing anywhere from 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians. Drug operations move to Columbia.

 

Gulf War I (Iraq invasion of Kuwait) -- we removed the Iraqi dictator from the tiny country he invaded, handing the country back to it's rightful . . . dictator.

 

Gulf War II (invasion of Iraq) -- we invaded Iraq because Saudi terrorists flew planes into the world trade centers. The Iraqi connection? Well, again, the planes were flown by Saudi suicide pilots schooled and trained in Afghanistan by a Saudi billionaire, Osama bin Laden. The Iraqi connection? Well, Saddam was a really bad guy, so there!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I may have a sharp tongue and a dirty mouth, but when it comes to peoples livelyhood and thier very lives I choose the side of people over governments. I hate Nationalism and patriotism and am more into humanism. I am a pacifist. I'm also a moderate fiscal conservative who will always be frustrated with the warhawks and fascists that comprise most of the republican party and I won't get into civil rights issues as that is a whole nuther rant.

 

I have never been convinsed of a just war. I think that any good that has ever come from war is just luck or cirumstancial and is not in any way a reflection of integrity on the part of our politicians. With any of those bastards any good that comes from thier wars is just coincidental. Every government in the world is corrupt.

 

Its hard to criticize the Revolutionary War and the Civil War though. Even our Founding Fathers had thier foibles. They were flesh and blood and not Gods or Prophets, even though after we gained Independance they did show much integrity in putting together our Constitution and Bill of rights.

 

I can't wait to read the thoughts of others in this thread. I think its a damn good topic.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Revolutionary War -- with only 33% of the populace actively supporting leaving the Empire, was it really the "right thing to do" to essentially declare war killing thousands of soldiers and innocents over a goddamn tea tax?

 

Much more than a "goddamn tea tax". If that what you are inclined to think, I suspect you need to study much deeper.

 

As for Lincoln's War of Yankee Aggression and Merchantilism, got no bitch there.

 

Since then Americans have been dying for Gov dot corp far too often.

 

"All war is a racket":

 

Smedley Butler on Interventionism

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

 

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

 

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

 

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

 

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

 

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

 

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

 

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

 

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

 

For What It May Be Worth...

 

kL

[spamandham]

Have there been any really wars for "good?" 

 

Every war is fought under false pretenses on both sides, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the common man. Even the Revolutionary war was fought under these conditions. Does it really make a difference if you pay 50% taxes to Washington vs. London?

[Guest aexapo]

Much more than a "goddamn tea tax". If that what you are inclined to think, I suspect you need to study much deeper.

 

As for Lincoln's War of Yankee Aggression and Merchantilism, got no bitch there.

 

Since then Americans have been dying for Gov dot corp far too often.

 

"All war is a racket":

For What It May Be Worth...

 

kL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I haven't kept the source link, but I do recall reading somewhere where public support for independence at the time it was being promoted was about a 3 way split . . . about a third were loyalists, about a third were revolutionaries, and about a third didn't give a rat's ass.

[♦ nivek ♦]

I haven't kept the source link, but I do recall reading somewhere where public support for independence at the time it was being promoted was about a 3 way split . . . about a third were loyalists, about a third were revolutionaries, and about a third didn't give a rat's ass.

 

 

Whigs, Tories, Freemen. Was no direct consensus from the unallied folks.

The rabble rousers and malcontents, the Commities of Correspondences were the bloggers of their day.

 

Took a hellova lot to get the folks of that time pissed off enough at the King and his Occupiers to get the fight going.

 

Not sure if we, the uS, would have ever tossed off the oppressive English rule if left to our own choices..

 

Manipulation then, manipulation now.

 

kL

[dogmatically_challenged]

Took a hellova lot to get the folks of that time pissed off enough at the King and his Occupiers to get the fight going.

 

Not sure if we, the uS, would have ever tossed off the oppressive English rule if left to our own choices.. 

 

Manipulation then, manipulation now.

 

kL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thomas Paine did a lot in getting folks riled up and ready for Freedom.

[Guest aexapo]

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

 

Sounds pretty reasonable! I'm not pacifist, but there is a legitimate argument to be made about how maybe America could actually benefit if we became a neutral state! It seems to have worked well for Sweden and Switzerland. Both countries avoid the bloodshed of the last century quite well, and both are free and democratic republics (see, blood doesn't have to be shed in Arabian deserts for us to "be free!").

[Guest aexapo]

As for Lincoln's War of Yankee Aggression and Merchantilism, got no bitch there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My beef with the Civil War was the transformation of states (politically) into provinces . . . vassals of DC. It didn't matter which side a state was on . . . when it was over, all the states lost a great deal of sovereignty -- they lost the right to leave, and afterwards, the fed government began imposing itself on states in all arenas.

 

I'm not a conferedate sympathizer, though -- slavery was abhorrent and immoral. I absolutely believe the economy of slavery was abominable, and negated nearly every truthful argument they had for continued sovereignty. It's like the song, "I shot the sheriff (but I did not shoot the deputy)."

 

States didn't deserve to lose their right of self-direction and destiny -- but, the South brought their fall on themselves.

[sonofspong]

The only "good" war I can think of would be a war of pure defense from invasion. Sadly, It's tought to win such a war, because more ofthen than not, the invader knows ALOT more about you than you do about him.

[Vigile]

The only "good" war I can think of would be a war of pure defense from invasion. Sadly, It's tought to win such a war, because more ofthen than not, the invader knows ALOT more about you than you do about him.

 

The problem is it is so easy to manipulate society into thinking that they are being attacked or that an attack threat is valid. If we had a free media this might not be the case.

 

Ah Aexapo, you really want to stir things up don't you?

[Asuryan]

The only "good" war I can think of would be a war of pure defense from invasion.

 

 

 

The Italian prospective about this...

 

Article 11 [Repudiation of War]

Italy repudiates war as an instrument offending the liberty of the peoples and as a means for settling international disputes; it agrees to limitations of sovereignty where they are necessary to allow for a legal system of peace and justice between nations, provided the principle of reciprocity is guaranteed; it promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.

(italic is mine)

 

I always wondered, what the hell is Italy doing in Iraq with America? That goes against our own constitution

But then, Berlusconi (boy, how I hate that man) said that we "Need to help the american allies because of what they did for us in WW2" (what? Italy has been defeated in WW2, the idiot should remember that) and that we "Are going to Iraq to promote peace and help reconstruction, not to make war." So he just dodged the problem, since the constitution talks about war and he says we are bringing peace.

Whatever. I am so sick of all these lies and rethorics.

I agree with son, though. The only "good" war I can think of is a pure defense war.

Terrorism is not a war, however. We italians have had our fair share of terrorism some decades ago, with the extremist left movement called Brigate Rosse; However, I wouldn't have liked it if America would've decided to come along and bomb italy just because some terrorists spawned here. And if someone came along and bombed america just because there are KKK members there? Wouldn't it be unfair too? Self defense should be real self defense. Not something based on lies and manipulation.

Bombs don't selectively kill terrorists only. They kill everything they land on. Destroying Iraq, killing a lot of innocent civilians, destroying the homes of the survivors, condemning them to starvation during winter (at least 100 000 children have starved to death in winter following the war), just to get at a group of terrorist that aren't even in and from Iraq, but are instead from Saudi, it's almost too horrible to be believed.

Sorry for the rant, I just had to get it off my nervous system!

[spamandham]

I'm not a conferedate sympathizer, though -- slavery was abhorrent and immoral.  I absolutely believe the economy of slavery was abominable, and negated nearly every truthful argument they had for continued sovereignty.  It's like the song, "I shot the sheriff (but I did not shoot the deputy)."

 

Please tell me you don't think the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery.

[Guest aexapo]

Please tell me you don't think the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course not . . . but both sides had different issues they were fighting for. The South wanted self-determination, and the right to control their own economy -- which is a noble thing, except for that REALLY BIG part where their economy was based on owning other human beings to use as human tractors and whores.

 

Self-determination is wonderful and marvelous -- slavery is the second most horrible thing one race of people can do to another (genocide being number one, but slavery is probably a form of social genocide -- could be worse).

 

The North eventually wanted to end slavery, and the South didn't want that imposed on them. The North wanted a more centralized union, and the War was essentially the North preventing them from leaving.

 

In the end, there was good and bad. The good: slavery ended. The bad: states lost sovereignty, and the right to secede (for ANY reason).

 

Think all you want that a state still has a right to secede. If California seceded tomorrow because they didn't want to be part of Red America, tanks would be surrounding the capital in Sacremento by noon the next day.

 

Gore Vidal makes an excellent case for the end of the Civil War marking the beginning of the American Empire, inferring that the federal republic died about that time.

[Yaoi Huntress Earth]

To tell you the truth, rightous or not, all wars are cold, cruel, and ugly.