-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What wars in U.S. history have been just wars in your opinion?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ya. All conservatives want to blow up buildings of people because Timothy McVeigh did. All US soldiers want to torture prisoners because a few did. All Americans are serial killers because of the Son of Sam. All Musslims support terrorism because of Al Queda. And all progressives support eugenics programs 'as bad as Hitler's holocaust' because a group of people supported, in the infancy of such science, a misguided and terrible program that was nothing like the Holocaust.
The fact is, rather than the program beng 'as bad as Hitler's', Germany's abuses led to the end of of any such efforts in the US as a main reason.
Show me somewhere in the progressive platform or something else representing the progressive movement as a whole support for 'Eugenics as bad as Hitler'.
The Eugenics movement had broader support. It was a terrible movement - but was more about some misguided ideology not unique to the progressives, and while terrible, nothing like Hitler's racial superiority policies. Eugenics were practiced among whites in a different ideological mistake.
You are a liar saying Eugenics in the US were a 'progressive policy as bad as Hitler'.
PeshakJang
Platinum Member
All corporations are bad, all insurance companies are bad, all rich people are bad, all ... (ad nauseum)
Defenders can morally do anything they want. After an unprovoked attack on the US homeland, it's easy to justify firebombing Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima, and nuking Nagasaki. If you don't want millions of people to die, don't start wars against one of the most powerful nations in the world. Everyone knows this.
Defending your country is always a noble cause.
Joepublic2
Golden Member
honestly no it wouldn't, slaves are very cheap to keep and do a better job than machines for most tasks as they're human beings with the ability to consciously and not just mechanically perform a task. if the CSA had been allowed to defect I believe they'd still be practicing slavery today to some degree.
To answer this thread's question the most just wars the US has engaged in were the revolutionary war (colonies have always been shafted regarding their economic productivity vs. the amount of wealth that was allowed to trickle back to them from the parent country) the civil war (which was started over economic reasons, not moral ones like slavery but ended up having a net moral positive effect on the world) and WWII which was a legitimate threat to the physical security of the US, having two genocidal empires expanding on both sides of the US. The only thing that saved us from massive aerial bombing/ground war campaigns was two wide oceans on both side of the country and the limitations of 1940s technology.
It's not entirely misguided. Think back to high school biology and think about how evolution works. A species will reproduce based on desirable traits even when you don't realize it. When you think of a woman with wide hips and large breasts as being attractive, what you are looking at is physical traits that are directly related to parenting. Women who have ugly bodies look that way because their hormone levels are totally screwed up. A woman with healthy hormone levels will have that beautiful hourglass figure even if she's very overweight since the location of fat is determined by hormones. People are also naturally attracted to confidence and the ability to lead group activities, which is a strong evolutionary advantage of our species (ie 2 nazis working together are stronger than 1 nazi alone).
The eugenics people are just too impatient. If you want evolution to go faster, stop using condoms and start banging the people you think are "better" than the rest.
Joepublic2
Golden Member
Well to the point smaller breasts have actually been show to be advantageous on average to feeding very young babies. Which illustrates the point of human beings being pretty terrible at actually determining what in the human genome is advantageous to the species as a whole and even more terrible when they decide to go about enforcing whatever they hold up as an ideal human as the norm (it usually involves some degree of genocide or mass sterilization).
r31ncarnat3d
Senior member
Slavery was never the goal of the war, but a political point for both sides to rally around. Think of how we're "spreading Democracy overseas", that's of course not our intention but it is used as a political rallying point.
And as for just wars:
Revolutionary War
Civil War
WWI
WWII
And I haven't seen a just war since WWII. In my opinion, a "just war" is a war that's declared only because your own country is under attack or when there's a humanitarian disaster so great that inaction itself should be considered a crime. Unfortunately, I absolutely hate politics in war, especially when trying to change the government of another country. Unfortunately, that's what we've been seeing lately...
If that were true we wouldn't be shipping in all these migrant workers.
Who said that, maker of straw men?
First, you're a liar about progressives.
Fascism and liberalism are at odds. It's conservatism that's more aligned with fascism.
Joesph Kennedy was one of the wealthiest men in America, a corporate leader, and the US corporatocracy was way behind the curve on opposing Hitler.
Many US corporations continued to trade with Hitler after the European war started, some showed they wanted to after the US war started, some did secretly.
Joseph Kennedy was the US ambassador to England. England was a country that had tried to make peace with Germany; its former King actually was very friendly with the Nazis. Kennedy made his prediction that it looked like Hitler was going to conquer England. That's a far cry from what you said, much less what you said about liberals and fascism.
Liberals had just fought - idealistic liberals from around the world had fought and gotten killed trying to protect Spain from takeover by fascist Franco in the 30's. They lost.
Hitler's first group for persecution were the communists. They too fought hard and warned the world. Corporations didn't mind as much - a liberal FDR led the country to war.
As for communism, the left had some early support for the young USSR hoping it would do well - and most were strong opponents of what it became.
But they weren't dishonest ideologues who used the issue for political power when their agenda to help the rich was bankrupt and couldn't win elections.
They weren't the ones to fuel the flames of domestic persecution in McCarthyism the way the right was, they weren't the ones to put the world at risk of reckless nuclear war.
That was the right.
Your statement is also offensive - Both of Joseph Kennedy's sons of age seerved in the war, in combat. His eldest, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. was a war hero - volunteering for extra tours of duty in dangerous air service, and then volunteering to fly the then-largest bomb ever made to Germany, when an electrical short bliew the plane up in flight.
Joseph P. Kennedy lost his son in service of the war against Hitler and yet you accuse him of being a fan of Hitler.
More lies and propaganda. Do liberals support every act of terrorism? No. Do you support every act against the Palastenians? It seems you do.
Is Israel a 'progressive' state as it amasses war crimes and the worst count of violating international law as resolutions by the UN, as it persecutes the Palestenians, creates illegal settlements for thousands of Palastenian-hating settlers, tears down Palastenian homes as a measure of control and terrorism and much more? No, but you say it is with your implication.
You have shown no understanding of it.
Totalitarianism brings peace. You support that, apparently.
So your policy is not freedom in the world, not distributed power, but an America ruling the world by force to keep the peace.
However many more Vietnams are needed, killing millions; however many more lives lost of people fighting for freedom from occupation, for representative government - too bad.
Your position doesn't even deserve a label. It's just a mish mash of might makes right apologism for abuse of power and mass violence for some vague promise of peace.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
"Just War" ha ha, good one
War is never just, only varing levels of injustice
War is never just, only varing levels of injustice
I disagree. Self defense and the defense of others against unjust brutality are just causes for war. The actual determination of whether a given action is "just" may not be determined until considered by history, after the fact, but that does not change the fact that there are "just" causes for going to war.
Our entry into WW II was just and right. We were attacked by a nation who had already shown their imperialistic intentions throughout the Asia and the Pacific. Hitler's attrocities were already known, and he declared war on the U.S. the day after Pearl Harbor. In both cases, we didn't have a choice. War came to us, not the other way around.
Going after Milosovic in Yugoslavia/Serbia to stop his genocidal reign of ethnic cleansing was similarly just. That action was taken under a decision by the United Nations. It was not a unilateral action by the United States.
Last edited:
Noobtastic
Banned
Revisionist history again Craig? Fascism and liberalism are at odds with each other, but there is a difference between a written ideology and a practiced ideology. As I stated previously, the Left was enamored with both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The difference between the two states was purely economically. Both were equally authoritarian and most of the power rested in the state. The soviets were just as anti-semitic as the Nazis. In fact, the soviets killed more people than Germany. Hell, over 10,000,000 died during the civil war of ~1910s. If you put Hitler and Stalin in the same room and throw out economics, both could get a long quite nicely.
And if you don't remember, Germany and the USSR had a pact before Germany sabotaged it.
The communists in Russia were pure evil, just as bad as the Nazis. They were just as ruthless as the Nazis. Same policies, same tactics, same evil. And after Germany fell, Soviets forcibly expelled 13,000,000 Eastern European refugees. 1,000,000 died, 1,000,000 raped by Russian soldiers.
Yeah, that's communism for ya.
Joseph Kennedy was a Nazi lover and had a boner for Stalin as well. I don't give two shits what his sons' did.
He was a fan of Hitler.
Why do you reduce my argument to a zero-sum, black/white analogy.
The intellectuals, or "Academics" march lock-step with homicidal Palestinians. This is a fact. They support their agenda.
Not only that, but they support the Arabist agenda. Chomky, Zinn, and Fickelstein openly express their support for the anti-Zionist Arab fascists and LOL communists as well. Why? Because the USSR loved the Arabs.
Anti-Zionism in its modern form was developed by Soviet propagandists, to discredit Russian jews looking to emigrate to Israel or the USA, while also placating the Arab states in their war against Israel. Why do you think Chomsky is so indifferent to Soviet wars?
He bitches about the Lebanon invasion, but silent about Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan - where the Russians were killing 25,000 Afghanis a week.
He bitches about irrelevant conflicts between Arabs and Jews, yet is silent about Arabs killing each other - such as the Yemen Civil War, Black september, hama massacre, etc.
The progressive left overwhelmingly supports a boycott of Israel on the basis of social justice and human rights, while lobbying for Arabs and Palestinian warriors who make Israel look like green peace. They say nothing of the racist and apartheid policies of Israel enemies.
Actually, they victimize them. The Left says the Arab world is victim to Israel's existence. Israel shouldn't be there in the first place because it came at the expense of the original inhabitants.
But the Arabs of course get to exist, even though their entire presence in the region is the result of genocide and expulsion.
In other words, the Left is not guided by moral principals, but by ideology. They cry and scream when a Palestinian trips over a rock, but says absolutely nothing when Pakistan levels an entire village and killed 1,000 people in 30 minutes as they did last month.
Israel represents a America, and has also been opposed to the Communist lobby - the Soviets in particular.
You want a history on where Chomsky comes from? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist_Committee_of_the_Soviet_Public
See, point exactly.
I've essentially spelled out and explained the modern form of progressivism. You didn't really make an attempt to explain why the Left is so indifferent, if not outright supportive of the most despotic Arab tribes, yet so manically obsessed and offended by Jews building apartments in the desert (a.k.a settlements).
It demonstrates a severe lack of moral clarity. Even assuming the most extreme interpretation, there is nothing to justify such an excessive and distorted portrayal of Israel. How can anyone take the Left seriously when they lobby for states like Saudi Arabia and the Arab world which are avid-consumers of antisemitism and bigotry, but SCREAM APARTHEID when Israel an anti-suicide bombing fence.
Human rights are universal. And the basic human right is the right to LIVE. Israelis have a right to live, but because the conflicts with the progressivism and Leftist need to "struggle" peace between Israel and the Arabs is unacceptable.
What would the Left do without Israel? Seriously? Where would you go? Darfur? Afghanistan? Egypt? Somalia?
Probably go back to burning flags and praising the glory of communism.
Uh?
Fern
Elite Member
No, slaves were not cheap. It's quite the opposite actually. And you don't have to read much to know that.
The bulk of slave ownership was concentrated in the hands of a minority. They simply weren't used except in a few agricultural settings, not all agriculture. Even back then their use was pretty limited.
Also, in may parts of the South succession was opposed. We had many deadly battles here amongst ourselves. Why would the vast majority want to go to war to protect something they didn't participate in (slave ownership)?
Some of the states who eventually joined the CSA originally voted in their state congresses to stay with the Union, it was only after Northern aggression they reluctantly joined. See what caused NC to join.
If you're really just trying to free slaves is rolling through the South killing, raping, stealing and burning everything to the ground the way to do that? Of course not.
Like just about everything thing in this country it was about taxes, money & power. Slavery was mostly tossed in to help ensure Britain & France wouldn't come to the aid of the South. Otherwise, they were trying to get rid of slavery through legislation but were at a legislative impass.
Also, harvesting (reapers) machines were just coming into use in the decade prior to the civil war, so slavery was on borrowed time. How much? IDK.
Fern
Fern
Elite Member
I don't think this a troll thread.
I DO think that is a very difficult question.
"Just"? What kind of "just"? Morally just? Legally just. Financially just?
If it's the 'morally just', well that's the problem isn't it. Who's gonna decide that?
To this day we can't seem to agree. For some, homosexuality is immoral, for others it isn't. Likewise with abortion and all kinds of other issues.
Otherwise I don't enough about all these wars to really say.
Fern
No, they're not. Their expense is actually why many such as the UK transitioned from the traditional view of slavery to slavery via colonialism.
If you're the one being attacked, and you haven't aggressed against anyone else, it's not that much of a question, is it?
... regardless of the fact that slavery ended mostly because of the Civil War, doesn't change the fact that the war was 1. not about slavery and 2. destroyed many of the things America was founded on. States not being able to leave the Union? Yeah... that's fucking retarded.
werepossum
Elite Member
Quite true. Slavery is a great way of wealth concentration but a lousy form of wealth creation because slaves will work only as hard as they absolutely have to work - why worker harder since there's little or no personal gain and you're only enriching your own persecutor? Here in East Tennessee we were union, because farms were small and the ground tends to be poor and thus slavery made no economic sense. Conversely in Middle and West Tennessee the land is flatter, farms were bigger, and slavery made more economic sense, so they were Confederate. Financial gain is, as always, a great incentive to do evil.
Imagine the ruin if the South had won though. As you said, slavery was doomed anyway, but could have lingered for decades more. World War One would probably have seen no American forces, and perhaps even split forces, one side fighting with Germany and the Central Powers. World War Two might well never have happened, but if so it might well have seen Americans fighting Americans as well; ethnic Germans being numerous in Northern states and Nazi classifications of levels of humanity appealing to the Southern bigotry, it's not hard to imagine one side or the other joining the Axis Powers. At the very least large numbers of American troops would have been retained at home to guard against the "other" America. By the North holding on until its economic strength built up its war machine, not only American but the whole world was blessed.
Atreus21
Lifer
In my opinion, that's irrelevant. If a crime as horrific as slavery is in progress, we can't wait for it to naturally grind to a halt.
To answer the OP: I think anyone can agree that WWI & II were just. I think the Gulf War was just.
But I also agree with Fern. "Just" is incredibly ambiguous. Most people interpret the words "just war" as "war of defense." Which essentially means isolationism. Which doesn't work when you're the most powerful nation on earth.
And I'm not sure I agree that no war is just that is not undertaken in self-defense. I think America had a legitimate concern about the spread of communism during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. My problem with Vietnam was not that it was undertaken, but how.
Last edited:
The thing is, it's ahistorical to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. It wasn't.
It was 'an issue' inreasingly between the North and the South, but slavery alone would not have led to the war IMO. It was an 'issue of convenience' since there was a war.
You can start with Lincoln's own statements that 'if he could preserve the union and end slavery, he'd do that; and if he could preserve the union and not end slavery, he'd do that.'
You can go on to Lincoln's longtime dream being to ship all blacks back to Africa; and that his moderated goal after that was to end slavery by the end of the century.
We like to find moral justifications for wars for all the killing, and so the war 'becomes' the urgent war to end slavery, that just couldn't because slavery was so bad.
But it wasn't that war.
What are you yapping about?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
