6 ms·

It's interesting to observe people repeat the "war is racket" line while also supporting wars because "their" side is allegedly the virtuous one (and anyone poi

It's interesting to observe people repeat the "war is racket" line while also supporting wars because "their" side is allegedly the virtuous one (and anyone pointing this out is peddling "propaganda" of "the enemy" in the totally virtuous war).

l33t233372 3y ago
Wars of defense are entirely different in my opinion.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Those are not up for debate, as the US has never been properly attacked, as far as I know. (The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor might be an exception, but that wasn't the US mainland, though the US attack on Japan did involve the Japanese mainland, so this probably doesn't count as a purely defensive war.)
  - juve1996 3y ago
    Are you really going to suggest an attack that killed 2,403 Americans, sunk five U.S. battleships & damaged 4 others ships, and destroyed 188 aircraft, is not a proper attack? because it wasn't on the "mainland?"
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      An attack made with the explicit purpose to prevent the US from putting up a fight as Japan took internationally recognized US territory.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      The point is that the US war against Japan wasn't a purely defensive war.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        But it absolutely was, and the idea that an attack isn’t an attack and responding to it isn’t defense if it isn't on the “mainland” is ludicrous. (Also, Japan attacked the US mainland during WWII, and did so before any US attacks on Japan proper, so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood
        cubefox 3y ago
        Of course one can argue about the semantics of "defensive war", but as far as I understand, there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn't purely defensive. It was nothing remotely like the defensive war of France against Germany during WW2.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > > so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther. > […] there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn’t purely defensive. War is only defensive if the attacker is likely to conquer and hold territory for an extended period of time? Well, there go the goalposts as expected, though I could not have predicted that that was where they would go.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The OP talked about "defensive wars". If X tries to steal Y's pocket, and Y prevents X from stealing it, and additionally gives X a kick in the ass, then that might be justified, but it's not just an act of self-defense.
        juve1996 3y ago
        Japan stole quite a bit, from quite a few people, in the Pacific theater. The war doesn't end when the US gets back what was stolen - it ends when all of its allies get back, what was stolen.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    The U.S. was "properly attacked" in the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. --- There are conspiracy theories (which I don't believe) that the latter two were known, but deliberately permitted to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
    - cubefox 3y ago
      I'm not an expert on American history, but the War of 1812 was first declared by the US against the UK. It doesn't sound like a purely defensive matter. 9/11 was a terrorist attack which is not something one could fight a defensive war against.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        Yes, the US declared war first. (After Britain seized American ships.) The US was "properly attacked" -- and capital burned -- though whether they were attacked first is a matter of debate.

l33t233372 3y ago

Wars of defense are entirely different in my opinion.

cubefox 3y ago
Those are not up for debate, as the US has never been properly attacked, as far as I know. (The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor might be an exception, but that wasn't the US mainland, though the US attack on Japan did involve the Japanese mainland, so this probably doesn't count as a purely defensive war.)
- juve1996 3y ago
  Are you really going to suggest an attack that killed 2,403 Americans, sunk five U.S. battleships & damaged 4 others ships, and destroyed 188 aircraft, is not a proper attack? because it wasn't on the "mainland?"
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    An attack made with the explicit purpose to prevent the US from putting up a fight as Japan took internationally recognized US territory.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    The point is that the US war against Japan wasn't a purely defensive war.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      But it absolutely was, and the idea that an attack isn’t an attack and responding to it isn’t defense if it isn't on the “mainland” is ludicrous. (Also, Japan attacked the US mainland during WWII, and did so before any US attacks on Japan proper, so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Of course one can argue about the semantics of "defensive war", but as far as I understand, there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn't purely defensive. It was nothing remotely like the defensive war of France against Germany during WW2.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > > so you’ll need to move the goalposts farther. > […] there was basically zero chance Japan would have conquered the US, or any American territory for an extended period of time, without the US invading Japan. So in this sense the war wasn’t purely defensive. War is only defensive if the attacker is likely to conquer and hold territory for an extended period of time? Well, there go the goalposts as expected, though I could not have predicted that that was where they would go.
        cubefox 3y ago
        The OP talked about "defensive wars". If X tries to steal Y's pocket, and Y prevents X from stealing it, and additionally gives X a kick in the ass, then that might be justified, but it's not just an act of self-defense.
        juve1996 3y ago
        Japan stole quite a bit, from quite a few people, in the Pacific theater. The war doesn't end when the US gets back what was stolen - it ends when all of its allies get back, what was stolen.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  The U.S. was "properly attacked" in the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. --- There are conspiracy theories (which I don't believe) that the latter two were known, but deliberately permitted to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
  - cubefox 3y ago
    I'm not an expert on American history, but the War of 1812 was first declared by the US against the UK. It doesn't sound like a purely defensive matter. 9/11 was a terrorist attack which is not something one could fight a defensive war against.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Yes, the US declared war first. (After Britain seized American ships.) The US was "properly attacked" -- and capital burned -- though whether they were attacked first is a matter of debate.