4 ms·

I probably wouldn't be complaining if I was born in the 1930's, WW1 and 2 were fairly well justified. However what are the current wars even still about? WMD? N

I probably wouldn't be complaining if I was born in the 1930's, WW1 and 2 were fairly well justified. However what are the current wars even still about? WMD? No, that was a fabrication. Bin Laden? He's long dead. Oil? With fracking, the US has the largest oil reserves on the planet. ISIS? Essentially gone, not much of a threat to US citizens in any case. There was no reason for these wars, there is certainly no reason to let them continue.

JasonFruit 6y ago
Don't look too closely at how we got into World Wars 1 and 2, if you want to maintain that opinion.
- narwally 6y ago
  Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population was either largely against any intervention, or was outwardly pro-Nazi[0]. If it wasn't for Japan forcing our hand, the US would have been perfectly happy profiting from supplying other countries' war efforts, and building up their military while the rest of the world was destroying their own; All while turning a blind eye to the atrocities occurring in Europe and Asia. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.
    - jononor 6y ago
      Everyone except the final payer (the government, indirectly the people) made profits. Same happens if the supplies and munitions were used instead of stolen. Many people profit along the way, and it is the same today.
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        Yes, but this does not refute what I said. The parent comment makes it appear as if the motive for staying out of the was was, easy profit. Clearly not so.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
      - bbarnett 6y ago
        Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
        bbarnett 6y ago
        By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that. You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please! Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works. On to your other comment. If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it? Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible. Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them. Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope. Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting. Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine? It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years. Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here. So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years. Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so. Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control? YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT. Please stop! Please!
dnautics 6y ago
To be fair the fracking thing is a last 5 years thing, until about 2-3 years ago the all in cost of fracking wasn't competitive with saudi arabia/iraq.
narwally 6y ago
It's nearly always about natural resources, just because the US has the largest oil reserves doesn't mean it's going to stop there. And the wars you mentioned are just the boots on the ground (or drones in the air) conflicts. Were still backing coups in Latin America (Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia) so US friendly governments are put into place that will allow American companies to extract their resources.
- anoraca 6y ago
  About the development of, distribution of, and continued stability of access to natural resources... which benefits everyone.
- nyolfen 6y ago
  which natural resources were we getting out of afghanistan
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    Pomegranate. After burning the poppy fields.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Oh I love that fruit. In that case, bombs away!
  - advrs 6y ago
    Afghanistan is strategically located at a major crossroads between Central and East Asia. This is useful for trade and military operations. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > This is useful for trade and military operations. This has been an unfortunate truth for the US and USSR before it (and other empires before that). For a depressing insight into how little we have learned, Boys in Zinc by Svetlana Alexievich is a good read.
jessaustin 6y ago
Of course you're right about all the stupid wars fought in my parents' lifetimes. It's also true that by the time WWII broke out, it was too late for USA to avoid it, so in a sense it was "justified". I don't find USA's actions in WWI to have been either justified or beneficial to humanity. Wilson ran for reelection promising not to enter WWI. Upon winning, he immediately broke that promise. When USA entered the war, it had already ground to a stalemate after three years of carnage. The various warring parties had been open to a negotiated peace. As soon as American lives were on the line, France, Britain, and Italy discovered a determination to see the war to its bitter end, which took another 1.5 brutal years and millions more human lives. Wilson claimed to prefer reconciliation to punishment of Germany, and initially during peace negotiations he reined in the worst French and British excesses. Then he got Spanish Flu, suffered severe mental decline, and functioned as a doormat for the remaining "negotiations". The French and British somehow concocted such draconian penalties that they created brutal fascist dictatorships not only in their enemy Germany but also in their ally Italy. Hitler's and Mussolini's empowerment, not to mention the transfer of Germany's Chinese colony to Japan, guaranteed a conflict like WWII. https://www.history.com/news/woodrow-wilson-1918-pandemic-world-war-i https://www.history.com/news/woodrow-wilson-1918-pandemic-wo...
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Almost nothing after WW2 was a reasonable war to be in. Not vietnam, probably not Korea, not Afghans, not Iraq, although I think the limited war in Gulf War 1 was fairly well reasoned.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  It’s striking just how short those two wars were when you compare them to others, before and after.

JasonFruit 6y ago

Don't look too closely at how we got into World Wars 1 and 2, if you want to maintain that opinion.

narwally 6y ago
Roosevelt won in 1940 in large part because he was running against an interventionist that wanted to join the war alongside the allies, but the US population was either largely against any intervention, or was outwardly pro-Nazi[0]. If it wasn't for Japan forcing our hand, the US would have been perfectly happy profiting from supplying other countries' war efforts, and building up their military while the rest of the world was destroying their own; All while turning a blind eye to the atrocities occurring in Europe and Asia. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...
- bbarnett 6y ago
  During early WWII, prior to Pearl Harbour, the US used to place supplies on the US side of the Canadian/US border. We'd then "steal" those supplies, thus allowing the US to avoid breaking non-aggression treaties, and (as you mentioned) the ire of some of its citizenry. Not much profit in theft.
  - jononor 6y ago
    Everyone except the final payer (the government, indirectly the people) made profits. Same happens if the supplies and munitions were used instead of stolen. Many people profit along the way, and it is the same today.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      Yes, but this does not refute what I said. The parent comment makes it appear as if the motive for staying out of the was was, easy profit. Clearly not so.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Source? As we set up multiple "legal" ways of abiding by the letter of the treaty while also selling arms. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that.
    - bbarnett 6y ago
      Surely you realise your language implies intent. Not wanting to spill their blood, not wanting to enter a conflict which (at the time) seemed only to aid old, dying empires (eg France, UK), means the goal in not entering the conflict, was all about profit? What a twisted viewpoint. Meanwhile, if the US does enter a conflict, the goal is always claimed by some, to be exploitation. Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. I cannot find an easy source for the history lesson I learned in school. Take it or leave it as it stands.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I did not say that the only motivation behind the nonintervention was profit, but it would have been one of the results of the policy. Even if true, your unproven claim that we let Canada steal from us does not mean much of America would have happily sat back and profited. >Thus, whatever the US does, the goal is selfish, evil, cruel? Sure, that sound reasonable, fair. That is what it means to be an empire. There's no "good" empire, they all exist to prop themselves up to greater heights.
        bbarnett 6y ago
        By using "only motivation" in your response, you are indicating you believe it to have been a motivation for non-intervention. It wasn't. At all. Period. Even if Roosevelt's goal wasn't to sit back and make a profit, he ran on that platform as the country did want that. You've actually claimed that Roosevelt ran on a platform of "Let's sit back and not do anything, so we can make a profit". Come on! Give it a rest, please! Further, the average American (re: the voter) didn't give a rat's ass about some corp they worked for, turning a profit thanks to war profiteering. And many Americans even wanted to enter the war! You know how voting works. On to your other comment. If there is no "good" empire, then there is no "evil" empire. You cannot remove moral labels on only one side, yet leave them on the other. Ergo, you've essentially stated that Nazi Germany has no justified, negative moral connotation to it? Sorry, there are empires that revolve around a negative, evil premise. And those which revolve around a positive, good premise. But let's step back from this a bit, and do what some might find sensible. Look at historical empires, comparatively, and assess the US against them. Is the US perfect? Certainly not! However, are you? I? Nope. Yet compare the US to other empires. Especially world spanning empires. Whilst the UK, France, all the way back to Rome, Greece, were not superpowers, they were "known world" spanning. World impacting. Now assess the policies of these empires. Comparatively? The US is the most benign empire ever. EVER. Assess its strength, versus countries it invades. If the US behaved as the UK, the entire planet would be under its boot! If it behaved as Nazi Germany, can you even imagine? It sickens me to have to defend the US, for I do indeed know it is not perfect. The US rolls over in its sleep, and crushes parts of Canada's economy. Yet I don't seem to recall post WWII US threatening to invade Canada, if we didn't pass copyright laws it likes. I don't recall the US capturing Iraq, and hauling off "undesirables* to concentration camps by the millions. I don't recall the US invading countries, and maintaining control after the fact -- for hundreds of years. Oh sure, yes "Well, the US did this, corporate that, it's all for this and that" so what. We're comparing empires here. So please, show me a world spanning empire, ever, which behaved with as much restraint as the US has. And bear in mind, the US literally could overthrow 90% of the planet in a matter of 20 years. Just... it sickens me to see the US's own citizens, denigrate her so. Now... do I respect your desire to reign in the US? Keep it restrained? Under control? YES! By God yes, I do. But why on Earth make up contrived stuff, like the US was a land of profiteering, sniveling, hand wringing people, staying out of a war because PROFIT. Please stop! Please!

dnautics 6y ago

To be fair the fracking thing is a last 5 years thing, until about 2-3 years ago the all in cost of fracking wasn't competitive with saudi arabia/iraq.

narwally 6y ago

It's nearly always about natural resources, just because the US has the largest oil reserves doesn't mean it's going to stop there. And the wars you mentioned are just the boots on the ground (or drones in the air) conflicts. Were still backing coups in Latin America (Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia) so US friendly governments are put into place that will allow American companies to extract their resources.

anoraca 6y ago
About the development of, distribution of, and continued stability of access to natural resources... which benefits everyone.
nyolfen 6y ago
which natural resources were we getting out of afghanistan
- withinboredom 6y ago
  Pomegranate. After burning the poppy fields.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Oh I love that fruit. In that case, bombs away!
- advrs 6y ago
  Afghanistan is strategically located at a major crossroads between Central and East Asia. This is useful for trade and military operations. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > This is useful for trade and military operations. This has been an unfortunate truth for the US and USSR before it (and other empires before that). For a depressing insight into how little we have learned, Boys in Zinc by Svetlana Alexievich is a good read.

jessaustin 6y ago

Of course you're right about all the stupid wars fought in my parents' lifetimes. It's also true that by the time WWII broke out, it was too late for USA to avoid it, so in a sense it was "justified". I don't find USA's actions in WWI to have been either justified or beneficial to humanity. Wilson ran for reelection promising not to enter WWI. Upon winning, he immediately broke that promise. When USA entered the war, it had already ground to a stalemate after three years of carnage. The various warring parties had been open to a negotiated peace. As soon as American lives were on the line, France, Britain, and Italy discovered a determination to see the war to its bitter end, which took another 1.5 brutal years and millions more human lives. Wilson claimed to prefer reconciliation to punishment of Germany, and initially during peace negotiations he reined in the worst French and British excesses. Then he got Spanish Flu, suffered severe mental decline, and functioned as a doormat for the remaining "negotiations". The French and British somehow concocted such draconian penalties that they created brutal fascist dictatorships not only in their enemy Germany but also in their ally Italy. Hitler's and Mussolini's empowerment, not to mention the transfer of Germany's Chinese colony to Japan, guaranteed a conflict like WWII. https://www.history.com/news/woodrow-wilson-1918-pandemic-world-war-i https://www.history.com/news/woodrow-wilson-1918-pandemic-wo...

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Almost nothing after WW2 was a reasonable war to be in. Not vietnam, probably not Korea, not Afghans, not Iraq, although I think the limited war in Gulf War 1 was fairly well reasoned.

lostlogin 6y ago
It’s striking just how short those two wars were when you compare them to others, before and after.