Poll on Had to Wars and Want to Wars

Note- because of allies we sort of were forced into world war I as well.

yet everyone of those wars was sold to the public--accurately or not--as had to be fought.

 

Depending on your definition of had. The iraq war was not sold as a defense war.

yet everyone of those wars was sold to the public--accurately or not--as had to be fought.

Yes, the "just war" argument is usually sold to maintain one's political position.

All of the replies above are correct based on ones political position. That is why I asked for what your politics from the start.

My opinion is based off of a long study of History. It shows which wars, if not fought, would have ultimately destroyed the country by itself. I personally think that many of the "want to" were still right to have been fought.

So please put your two cents in.

I consider myself to be fully independent, but with a definate lean to the left. In response to you lee, yes but. They were right to be fought but were they worth the expense and the cost of life. I would like to hear your opinion on the Iran preemptive issue (its another topic, you might want to look at it). I believe the original point was to indicate the fact that infact Kerry was not correct in his statement. I think this all depends on his[/I of a war that had to be fought. Is it only in self defense? Or in response to a threat? Or to protect people's liberties? I think you get my point.

I have found it interesting that Clintonites would defend Bosnia/Serbia while criticizing either Iraq war, and that Bushites would defend the Iraq wars while criticizing the Bosnia/Serbia conflicts. The "moral justifications" for both wars were remarkably similar; criticism has been based largely on pereception of the man in charge of each particular conflict.

Gideon- The difference is that we didn't have such a large scale operation in Bosnia, we did not fight a massive ground war, and we did NOT LOOSE LIVES. Further, it was not based on oil or supposed WMDs which never showed up, and it was NOT based on what we now know whas faulty and sloppy inteleigence created by the President and his administration.

* Lose i meant

Going by super-liberal logic, World War 2 was a "wanted to" war not a had to, at least in Germany. It was Japan that attacked us, so why did we go to Germany? Germany had no plans to attack the United States. We also did not secure UN resolutions condemning Japan and Germany and France were not on board our war against Japan (Germany was their ally and France had fallen yet again), and without those "strategic allies" we should not have done anything! We should have waited until Germany attacked us too, because otherwise we were acting on Bush's "preemptive doctrine" which liberals say is evil!

In reality though, we know better. The War on Terror, much like WW2 has many different fronts. We knew that if we don't beat the Germans WW2 would not be over and the world would not be safe. Yes, it was Japan that attacked us, but we knew Germany shouldn't be ignored either as they are allies. Much like today, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, but we know better than to just go after a network of people with no borders who are invisible. We have to go after their support structure and their allies, like Saddam and Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

It's all the same people really. Sure Al-Qaeda and Saddam weren't the best of friends, but they have a common enemy: us. Every war is a Wanted To war in the regard that we DONT HAVE TO FIGHT, but we will suffer consequences if we don't. If we did not go into Iraq they would still be sponsoring terror, shooting at our pilots, funding Palestinan terrorists, and doing all the other things. We also have to go into or take care of Iran somehow and Syria among the others. If we don't destroy the terrorists funding sources and support structure then "going after Al-Qaeda the liberal way" is pretty much playing a wack a mole game - it will have no end and no matter how many "we go after" they'll keep coming.
Make no mistake, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq are the same war. The War on Terror is the larger war, the War in Iraq is a theather in it, much like Afghanistan.

Going by super-liberal logic, World War 2 was a "wanted to"

You can call it super-liberal logic, but I call it flawed logic. We attacked germany because they were allied with Japan, and further this was in no way pre-emptive, as Germany had already begun to attack our allies. Show me where Iraq had attacked our allies without US retaliation.

I believe it is important to make the distinction between who wanted to go to war. In many cases, the American people couldn't have cared less about getting involved in most of these conflicts. Bosnians and Serbs? Who cares? The Clinton Administration did, but I don't think the American public had any interest. It is important to note the subtle difference, I'll go through some of the wars listed:

Vietnam was an extremely unpopular war designed to "contain the reds". Our lesson there was to not attempt to save people from themselves, the Vietnamese people wanted communism, not democracy, the place was far enough away not to have endangered us by any ICBM (if they even had the capability), and, as was shown by the Soviet Union, communism falls in upon itself because of it's own poorly construed economic structure. Check out Mcnamara in "Fog of War" to hear him (the man who put forth our failed doctrine in 'Nam) explain how it all went to hell and how wrong he was.

Mexican / American war; I'm sure the general public had severe interest in keeping Texas a part of the Union, so one could say we wanted that.

Panama was a strategic interest, we had to involve ourselves, perhaps the American public didn't support that war, but our leaders were correct in putting us there. Who built the Panama Canal? We did! Who gave it away? Jimmy Carter! He's a good old guy and I've a lot of respect for him but he's going to burn.

World War I; we got tangled up in our alliances, but in the end, I think both the American public and our leaders felt it neccessary to engage ourselves in it.

World War II; the American people, disgusted, sick and tired and pulling through the great depression did not want to be in this war. It was finally made apparent by Churchill that America was needed. Our leaders knew that Hitler had to be stopped, the American people finally went along with it. Germany did attack us when they sank one of our passenger ships, the "Lusitania" with one of their u-boats (Germany suspected us of using civilian ships to bring goods over to the struggling Brits), this was the final straw for the Americans.

Iraq War I; I remember Desert Shield before it became Desert Storm. Our intention was always to protect the oil fields in Kuwait . We were within fifteen miles of Baghdad and we could have taken out Saddam then, but we put him there in the first place (one can still find some pictures of Rummy and Saddam palling around in the heady days of the early eighties) to "balance" the region against the Ayatollah in Iran. Sure Saddam is a bastard but he was our bastard. After we let Saddam know that he could only have "old Iraq", not new Iraq w / Kuwait, we let him go but placed economic sanctions on him and introduced the "food for oil" program.

Iraq War II; So, we've got this "terrorism" problem and we are desperately searching for scapegoats, somehow the Taliban and Osama get turned into the Baath Party and Saddam. The American people were told there were all sorts of connections (all proven to be wrong), then we were told Saddam had WMDs (wrong), then we were told that we were liberating the people (who only want to be liberated of us now). The Bush Admin. wanted to go to war, the people were mobilized for it, now the majority of the people want out.

When John Kerry speaks of us having to go to war instead of wanting to go to war, he is attacking the idea of preemptive strike, a policy which is poorly thought out and the pillar of Bush foreign policy. We don't need to be the world's policemen (hey conservatives, that's liberal policy) we need to take care of America. We don't need to spend our blood, sweat, tears and taxs on nation building for people who are going to kick us on the way out, we need to take care of our sons and daughters in the states.

Exactly. We need to protect our people and our country. Let the UN be the world's police man.

Deference I like how you think and you got some good points. I still don't agree with you though.

Afew things I have to disagree with:

the Vietnamese people wanted communism, not democracy

The war started back with Kennedy. Do I think (if he had lived) he would have conducted the war better then LBJ? Yes. But I believe I read some where that the people of South Vietnam did not want to be part of a Communist government. The VC never had a majority of the population on their side. The VC/North Vietnamese operatives just scared most of the populace into staying quite. In fact if you remember it was the North Vietnamese Army who over ran the South not the VC.

World War I; we got tangled up in our alliances

Remember your history, we where neutral for many years during the war. We had no Allies; if we did we would have joined at the start. The big call of that war was the "War to end all Wars" and to bring Democracy to Germany and Austria. It was just too bad we decide not to stay and help the Germans remain Democratic. (A good case for staying in Iraq).

Germany did attack us when they sank one of our passenger ships, the "Lusitania" with one of their u-boats (Germany suspected us of using civilian ships to bring goods over to the struggling Brits), this was the final straw for the Americans.

This happen in 1815, not WWII. But we had no choice on not fighting Germany, because it was the Germans who Declared War on us after we Declared on Japan. Thats why I say it was a must War, even if you want to spilt the two theators (Japan/Germany).

Iraq War II; So, we've got this "terrorism" problem and we are desperately searching for scapegoats, somehow the Taliban and Osama get turned into the Baath Party and Saddam. The American people were told there were all sorts of connections (all proven to be wrong), then we were told Saddam had WMDs (wrong), then we were told that we were liberating the people (who only want to be liberated of us now). The Bush Admin. wanted to go to war, the people were mobilized for it, now the majority of the people want out.

I should have made two sections: one Iraq II and one War on Terror. As we have discussed on another set of posts, I believe it was Saddam's braking of the original Iraq War peace treaty that started Iraq #2. But if you go back to the president's State of the Union address you will notice that WMD was one reason, supporting Terrorism number 2, and braking his UN treaties as number 3.

And if you think that Saddam didn't support terrorism, and then remember he publicly gave $100,000 to each family whose sons became suicide bombers in Israel. Now it make you wonder what he did support under the table. No, I don't think he made 9/11 possible though.

My Two cents.

Gideon- The difference is that we didn't have such a large scale operation in Bosnia, we did not fight a massive ground war, and we did NOT LOOSE LIVES. Further, it was not based on oil or supposed WMDs which never showed up, and it was NOT based on what we now know whas faulty and sloppy inteleigence created by the President and his administration.

I don't see how that justifies the invasion in Bosnia. It was stil wasted resources and lives were still jeopardized. True, it was not based on oil or WMDs or anything at all, but I don't see how that's a good thing. There was absolutely no reason for us to go there, especially since it's something Europe could have easily done itself, unless all European nations are completely impotent.

I will not dispute the fact that it may have been a bad idea, as I am not aware with all the details of the bosnian conflict as it was a while back. I do know that the basis of the war was not a lie, and that is what makes it different.

And if you think that Saddam didn't support terrorism, and then remember he publicly gave $100,000 to each family whose sons became suicide bombers in Israel. Now it make you wonder what he did support under the table. No, I don't think he made 9/11 possible though

That is besides the point. That is also not a reasonable explanation for our invasion in iraq. Though I agree that saddam did support terror and did encourage anti-us sentiment, it was not a major threat to the United States. The war on terror was better fought at home, by increasing airline security and general security in this country, and most importantly antcipating anything that could happen and preparing ourselves for another attack. We are not invading Saudi Arabia even though we have evidence that they support terrorists, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. We don't invade Pakistan because the country is harboring terrorists.

unless all European nations are completely impotent.

Sad to say Messy, but yes they were.

Originally we left it for the Europeans. They all took different sides and could not get to gether and work it out.

After the polls showed that over 50% of the US population wanted to help a few years after the fighting started. Clinton decided at the time to take over. One of the things I do credit Clinton to doing.

How embarressing, the sinking of the Lusitania actually occurred May 7, 1915, which is what prompted American intervention in the first world war because the Germans (correctly) guessed that we were sending military supplies to our allies, the Brits. . Also, as you may know, this war was actually kickstarted by the assassination Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a group of organized serbian terrorists in Belfast. France, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Ireland, then, finally, the U.S. became involved to stop the German-Austria war machine.

And if you think that Saddam didn't support terrorism, and then remember he publicly gave $100,000 to each family whose sons became suicide bombers in Israel. Now it make you wonder what he did support under the table. No, I don't think he made 9/11 possible though - lee1776


That is besides the point. That is also not a reasonable explanation for our invasion in iraq. Though I agree that saddam did support terror and did encourage anti-us sentiment, it was not a major threat to the United States. The war on terror was better fought at home, by increasing airline security and general security in this country, and most importantly antcipating anything that could happen and preparing ourselves for another attack. We are not invading Saudi Arabia even though we have evidence that they support terrorists, and the fact that Osama Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. We don't invade Pakistan because the country is harboring terrorists. - Sandy2

I back Sandy on this. There are countries with WMDs *cough* North Korea! *cough* that we aren't going after so aggressively. I am thankful that you don't believe Saddam was part of 9 / 11, however, Lee. You are also correct in pointing out Saddam's flirting with terrorist activity. You are right about the Vietcong as well, but it stands that the majority of those in Vietnam did not agree with our view on how things should go in their country.

You are right about the Vietcong as well, but it stands that the majority of those in Vietnam did not agree with our view on how things should go in their country.

Hay, I have no beef with any country where the people have a free choice to elect who represents them (Democracy, Republic and some types of Constitutional Monarchies (Sweden)). I don't hold a grudge against Germany, Russia or France for their stands on the war issues. But the French still get under my hide for other things. A country can be an economic socialist, Marxist or Capitalist system I don't care. They just need to be able to choose their leaders.

But I am just mystified how some people can actually think countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other dictatorships should not be pressured into Democracies. Or how people who have the freedom to vote side with Dictatorships just because they feel disenfranchised by those who are the leaders at the time. Vietnam may be a good example of this or even those who actually sided with Saddam’s Iraq.

I know the US can not change every non-Democratic country. But if we slowly continue as we have (USSR, many Balkans states, Afghanistan, and Iraq) one day it may be completed. That is another reason why I had no heartburn going into Iraq.

Gideon- The difference is that we didn't have such a large scale operation in Bosnia, we did not fight a massive ground war, and we did NOT LOOSE LIVES. Further, it was not based on oil or supposed WMDs which never showed up, and it was NOT based on what we now know whas faulty and sloppy inteleigence created by the President and his administration.

gotcha. So it's ok to kill as many people as we want as long as it's not our OWN soldiers. Thanks for clarifying, I was confused and thought you had a moral opposition to war or something.

Secondly, you are deluded if you think the only reasons for the Iraq war were oil and WMD. I am as a rule anti-war, but realize that, if we are to go about it, we need to be dedicated to winning the conflict. No more Vietnams.

Saddam Hussein, as a fact, ran a brutal regime in Iraq. Human rights watchdog groups such as Amnesty International consistently and intensely lobbied the UN and representatives on behalf of political prisoners within Iraq and the ethnic cleansing that he undertook where the Kurds were concerned. Sanctions as applied were not working.

Personally, I'd have preferred us not to have gone to war against Iraq as well, but I also would have preferred the Bosnia and Serbian conflicts not have taken place. The fact is, both were, in my opinion, ill advised implementations of foreign policy by power mad leaders. The end results of these conflicts were good, but weren't, in my opinion, worth the means.

Secondly, you are deluded if you think the only reasons for the Iraq war were oil and WMD. I am as a rule anti-war, but realize that, if we are to go about it, we need to be dedicated to winning the conflict. No more Vietnams.

Well now, wait a second. The reason we were given to enter Iraq a second time was because we were told that we must urgently act NOW to keep Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical) that the Bush Administration claimed he had. It is true that at one point he did have some (biological and chemical) of these weapons because we gave them to him in the late seventies. Evidence is ekeing out that he destroyed the rest of these in 1991 after his failed gambit for Kuwait. After that bit was tossed, the Admin tried to prime the pump again by saying that Saddam was somehow linked to 9 / 11 and that he had terrorist ties. We know about half of that to be kind'a true. Last I heard, we were told that this was a humanitarian issue and that we were "liberating the Iraqi people" from a puppet dictator we put in place. I don't think the public would have supported the war had the administration simply said that this was the case. Do you? How does over ten years of human rights abuses sound to you? If this (or any other administration) was serious about real humanitarian causes and abuses of governments they would hop on China. Tibet has been crying for years now but you don't see it widely reported and you don't hear our officials concerns. In fact, we jump in to bed with China and allow our trade deficit with them to grow larger and larger, feeding their largesse at our expense while cowering timidly. Clinton didn't do anything, Bush isn't and won't do anything, and I have no faith that at any time during my life span (and I've got about a half century to go) will the U.S. shine it's light on some of the real bullies on the face of our wonderful little mudball spinning in a vacuum.

I will not dispute the fact that it may have been a bad idea, as I am not aware with all the details of the bosnian conflict as it was a while back. I do know that the basis of the war was not a lie, and that is what makes it different.

Didn't some of the claims made about the Bosnian Conflict invalided, such as the mass graves full of thousands of people?

gotcha. So it's ok to kill as many people as we want as long as it's not our OWN soldiers. Thanks for clarifying, I was confused and thought you had a moral opposition to war or something.

I have no moral opposition to a war that we must fight in self defence. I have an oposition to fight a war based on shody inteligence. I have extreme opposition to a war that is based soley on fabricated inteligence (as Iraq was). I don't feel the country has either the responsibility nor the ability to protect civil rights around the world if doing so would require a major military operation. Further gideon, I was defending the position of attacking the Iraq war while not as strongly opposing the bosnia conflict. It does matter how many people we loose. It does matter if we are violating the POW's rights by sending them to cuba and not following the law or by abusing them. That is unexceptable. Thats why the Iraq war was much worse.

Secondly, you are deluded if you think the only reasons for the Iraq war were oil and WMD. I am as a rule anti-war, but realize that, if we are to go about it, we need to be dedicated to winning the conflict. No more Vietnams.

> I am deluded? I do believe that the reason we went to Iraq according to the Bush admin. was WMD's, and oil is a sort of obvious explanation for bush's rashness.

I'd like to change the question from 'had to' and 'wanted to' to 'pre-emptive' and 'reactive'. I'm not American so have no political agenda here, just an opinion. To review the wars under these categories. Note that I call entering a war pre-emptive if the US had no pre war alliances.

War of 1812 (Note: We started): pre-emptive
Mexican American War: pre-emptive and reactive. Yes, Texas and Mexico were at war, but the US entered to land grab.
Civil War: reactive
Spanish American War: pre-emptive. Started the war itself
World War I: reactive, eventually
World War II: reactive, eventually
Korean War: both reactive and preemptive. The US involved itself in this conflict to combat spread of communisism. not sure of the alliances
Vietnam: both reactive and pre-emptive. The US involved itself in this conflict to combat spread of communisism. not sure of the alliances
Panama: pre-emptive to protect it's interests
First Iraq War: pre-emptive and reactive. Entered the war in response to Kuwait and international calls for support.
Bosnia: pre-emptive and reactive. entered the war for humanitarian reasons. There were mass graves located.
Kosovo: pre-emptive and reactive. entered the war for humanitarian reasons. Reacted before mass attrocities happened.
Second Iraq War: pre-emptive. started the war itself.

Looking at this list, most of the wars the US has fought have at least been in reaction to some already occurring war or disaster. Now do you define such reactions as a 'had to' or a 'want to'. You could argue that morally they were have to.

Paul.

Germany had no plans to attack the United States

germany declared war on the us on december 11, 1941.  subsequently fdr asked congress to recognize a state of war between the us and germany