After WWII: Has the US military might have been a force of good or bad.

[B5C]

After beeing years as a conservative American and an Army brat. I was taught in school and home that the United State's military might has been a force of good. Also any coups done by the United States was in the name of defending freedom all over the world.

I say we have been lied too.

The United States has NEVER been a country of good and promoting democracy and freedom in it's foreign policy. We have conquered foreign states and annexed them like the Kingdom of Hawaii.

During the Cold War, we removed democratic elected governments and replace them with dictators in the name of fighting communism.

I was a supporter of the Iraq war. Because we are Americans and as Americans we should be promoting democracy all over the world. Even if we have to start wars and remove governments. Because I believed in the Neo Conservative ideals of democracies don't fight each other.

Unfortunately what we have been told by our elected leaders we never find ANYTHING that was a threat too the United States. Also Saddam was a perfect leader to hold off Iran. Now Saddam is gone, Iran was been slowly influnceing Iraq and other middle east states.

Afghanistan was the only truly war that had good principles. We have been fighting and killing for nearly 10 years. Every bomb we drop to kill more terrorists just creates MORE terrorists. The war started in high school and I don't want the see the war continued when my first kid (when ever I get one) goes too school.

[Emperador Carlos]

Saddam was committing genocide upon the Kurds using Chemical WMDs...

Your defeatist attitude and negative view of the US, which has promoted freedom throughout the World, is highly disrespectful to the men who've fought and died for you.

[Jedi1]

Your defeatist attitude and negative view of the US, which has promoted freedom throughout the World, is highly disrespectful to the men who've fought and died for you.

Ask your self, did they really die for you or were they just told that to convince them to go kill and be killed for altogether far more sinister and immoral motives and you told it so you would support these wars?

If you don't like it, move to Iran. I'll send you a postcard when we liberate it.

Liberate, sure sure.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Saddam was committing genocide upon the Kurds using Chemical WMDs...

Your defeatist attitude and negative view of the US, which has promoted freedom throughout the World, is highly disrespectful to the men who've fought and died for you.

Saddam was also suported by US in 80s you are lier Saddam was a GOod man when US need him! Traitor! Is higly disrepectfull to the people that Saddam killed!

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Saddam was committing genocide upon the Kurds using Chemical WMDs...

Your defeatist attitude and negative view of the US, which has promoted freedom throughout the World, is highly disrespectful to the men who've fought and died for you.

shusha. I wanted to join the army just a few months ago (still do) but a ww2 veteran, thats right a guy who fought in Europe told me our government after ww2 is a force of evil and power hungry. That man may be right...

[43rdFoot]

To be fair, the agitators who escalated the conflict overwhelmingly came from a class that had an obvious gain in the end of British meddling in the economy.

The "agitators" came from different "classes" (i.e., Southern planters, poor city lawyers, booksellers, etc.), and if they had wanted personal gain they would have not gone for revolution int he first place. The economy was a shambles in the U.S. until many years later, and no business-interested man would have ever left the economic giant that was the British empire.

How is it Marxist to think that the colonialists were overly impetuous in starting a civil war? Its not as though the British were running their lives. I just think that was an act of treason which barely worked. If Washington had had a different temperament (ambitious rather than dutiful) it would have become a Constitutional Monarchy instead of a Republic. A lot of people died because the British Parliament was too blind to see how angry the colonies would get over their policies. Seeing as the state men like Jefferson envisioned never really happened was it worth it?

You're seeing everything with a tremendous amount of foresight. The colonists had no perception of British intentions, nor would it have been very possible for those intentions to have been taken seriously.

Think about it from a colonial perspective: The British parliament, a legislature 3,000 miles away and un-representative was ending generations worth of relative autonomy, maintaining a standing army (a truly scary sight for any Whig), revoking a colonial charter, disbanding colonial legislatures, closing an important trading port, and putting a major city under martial law. What else would a learned colonist have called that but tyranny?

My biggest objection to your previous post is this:

The founding fathers used a bunch of noble ideology to justify killing the British soldiers who just wanted them to pay their damn taxes

The fact is that they weren't "using a bunch of noble ideology". They genuinely believed in that ideology, and was prepared to defend their rights to their death. The American Revolution was the most perfect that ever happened, and it produced a nation that , for better or worse, has one of the best governments and standard of living of any on earth. It's not perfect, but it's pretty ing good on the historical scale.

I don't think the French Revolution was particularly good either. If the Revolution as it played out was needed you may as well write off Stalin's purges or the Cultural Revolution in China.

"Good" and "bad" are poor choices of words when discussing the single most important historical event in the last 1000 years.

[Azog 150]

Your right that freedom and democracy has never been anything but a byword for American Imperialism in order to appease the public. Hell, in the 1800's and early 1900's the US didn't even make a secret of its Imperialism (Philippines for example). It was only when it realised that it couldn't compete with its European counter-parts that it started taking a more subtle approach and started going on about spreading freedom and democracy.

As for whether its a force for good or bad- that's far too simplistic. In my opinion some actions have been for good and others for bad. I just view it as the way of the world. At the moment it is the USA's time as the worlds chief power and, like all the major powers before it and probably all the major powers after it, its going to look after its own interests at the expense of others and that is going to undoubtedly involved ing over other countries or, if need be, supporting brutal tyrants and whatever else comes with imperialism/neo-imperialism and the quest for dominance. It didn't get to become top-dog by playing nice. If the USA wasn't doing it, someone else would be (Indeed other nations already do).

Freedom and democracy can be a very welcome side effect of US imperialism, but its just that, a side effect. And on the other hand, if need be, the US has shown its more then willing to support brutal regimes that hold values that are the complete opposite of freedom and democracy (Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot etc)

[Emperador Carlos]

Your right that freedom and democracy has never been anything but a byword for American Imperialism in order to appease the public. Hell, in the 1800's and early 1900's the US didn't even make a secret of its Imperialism (Philippines for example). It was only when it realised that it couldn't compete with its European counter-parts that it started taking a more subtle approach and started going on about spreading freedom and democracy.

As for whether its a force for good or bad- that's far too simplistic. In my opinion some actions have been for good and others for bad. I just view it as the way of the world. At the moment it is the USA's time as the worlds chief power and, like all the major powers before it and probably all the major powers after it, its going to look after its own interests at the expense of others and that is going to undoubtedly involved ing over other countries or, if need be, supporting brutal tyrants and whatever else comes with imperialism/neo-imperialism and the quest for dominance. If the USA wasn't doing it, someone else would be (Indeed other nations already do).

Freedom and democracy can be a very welcome side effect of US imperialism, but its just that, a side effect. And on the other hand, if need be, the US has shown its more then willing to support brutal regimes that hold values that are the complete opposite of freedom and democracy (Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot etc)

If you don't like it, move to Iran. I'll send you a postcard when we liberate it.

[Azog 150]

If you don't like it, move to Iran. I'll send you a postcard when we liberate it.

I'm British.

And I didn't say anything about disliking it (Nor did I say anything about liking it either). It just is.

You seem to be the one who's uncomfortable with it seeing as your getting so defensive.

[CamilleBonparte]

It was only when it realised that it couldn't compete with its European counter-parts that it started taking a more subtle approach and started going on about spreading freedom and democracy.

Boy, sometimes I wonder what they teach you Europeans in school that make you believe stuff like this.

Look at who's on top right now and has been since the end of World War II. The competition is over, bro.

[Svaline]

Boy, sometimes I wonder what they teach you Europeans in school that make you believe stuff like this.

Look at who's on top right now and has been since the end of World War II. The competition is over, bro.

Quickly reading through posts looking for an opportunity to compare dicks really doesn't add much to the discussion. Read the full post next time.

[Mr. Scott]

The United States is about the same as any old colonial empire. However there is a key difference that does give the American Empire a bit higher morality compared to the old empires.

Because there are many people like you in this country, the US government must be on its toes. It must always have a reasonable justification for anything and when it comes to country molding, it must have a justification that relates to liberty and democracy.

However, we both know that the motives are quite different generally speaking.

But, this cautiousness that the US government must have (especially considering how it isn't easy to hide information... wikileaks lol) it must act in a much more humanitarian demeanor.

Plus, because of its free market and generally un-protectionist policies, US imperialism tends to benefit the country in question.

For the cold war, the US itself was threatened. The American core beliefs were under threat and so the US government had to go machiavellian and do what was felt needed to combat the larger threat of communism.


The purpose of the Iraq war, contrary to many other people believe, was not for oil or economic reasons.
It was for political.

The Bush Administration had been emboldened by the rapid success in defeating the Taliban forces and then thought to themselves, "Well, we have the American people and most of the world supporting us at the moment. Why don't we use this new-found approval and remove another thorn in our side." And so in 2003 Saddam fell.

There was a bit of economic motivation, but that correlated to political tensions. The US did not like an unfriendly dictatorship in control of a good quantity of oil.

But, if you look at the statistical data, the US isn't getting any more oil now then it did in pre-saddam.

[Jedi1]

it must have a justification that relates to liberty and democracy.

I would say reasonable convincing excuse as opposed to justification.

[B5C]

The United States is about the same as any old colonial empire. However there is a key difference that does give the American Empire a bit higher morality compared to the old empires.

The CIA and the United States have been playing very dirty in the Cold War.

The purpose of the Iraq war, contrary to many other people believe, was not for oil or economic reasons.
It was for political.

The Bush Administration had been emboldened by the rapid success in defeating the Taliban forces and then thought to themselves, "Well, we have the American people and most of the world supporting us at the moment. Why don't we use this new-found approval and remove another thorn in our side." And so in 2003 Saddam fell.

Oil and economic reasons was just the by product of the war.Also note this Iraqi Republic has a hard time establishing an government and Iran has bigger influence in Iraqi government than the United States. Iraq will be considered a imperial blunder.

[Emperador Carlos]

The CIA and the United States have been playing very dirty in the Cold War.




Oil and economic reasons was just the by product of the war.Also note this Iraqi Republic has a hard time establishing an government and Iran has bigger influence in Iraqi government than the United States. Iraq will be considered a imperial blunder.

I consider it a success because we liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal genocidal dictator. And that's that.

[B5C]

I consider it a success because we liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal genocidal dictator. And that's that.

Did you ever think the side effects? He maybe a brutal dictator, but he stabilized the nation and kept Iran in check.

Iran's closeness to Iraq is only due to proximity and the fact that Iran is trying to push Iraq closer to it.
Iraq is totally dependent on the US right now and is essentially a US protectorate.

Besides, the relations between the Iraqi government and US government are on good terms and much much better then during Saddam. So the goals of the war were accomplished, even if it did take 7 years.

Anyway, protectorates don't always have to do what their masters say. You ever played Empire?

How long should Iraq and Afghanistan be our "protectorates?"

We have domestic issues that are more important that starting wars for power.

[Stark of Winterfell]

I consider it a success because we liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal genocidal dictator. And that's that.

Liberation at what cost? It's not like Saddam fell and we magically instantly rebuilt destroyed infrastructure and created a stable democracy. Iraqi democracy might succeed, and if so then we can judge it if was worth it. But if it fails, the Iraq War will have been a colossal disaster. Currently, the Iraqis have gained a good bit of freedom. They also gained half a decade of religious civil war, terror, and chaos. Infrastructure was ruined and slowly replaced. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died or fled. Taking out a brutal dictator is only a good idea if you can replace them with something better, and the jury is still out on that in Iraq.

On topic, I think that the Korean war was a good use of force. It did protect the Republic of Korea from aggression from its northern neighbor, and especially given the condition of North Korea today, in hindsight it was very good that the US led the charge to keep two thirds of the Korean population out of the hands of the Communist North. But in Vietnam the we were propping up a hated and brutal regime which was arguably just as bad as the Communist regime in North Vietnam, so US intervention there was not a good thing. What the US should've done was ally with Ho-Chi-Mihn and screw the French...

[Mr. Scott]

Liberation at what cost? It's not like Saddam fell and we magically instantly rebuilt destroyed infrastructure and created a stable democracy. Iraqi democracy might succeed, and if so then we can judge it if was worth it. But if it fails, the Iraq War will have been a colossal disaster. Currently, the Iraqis have gained a good bit of freedom. They also gained half a decade of religious civil war, terror, and chaos. Infrastructure was ruined and slowly replaced. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died or fled. Taking out a brutal dictator is only a good idea if you can replace them with something better, and the jury is still out on that in Iraq.

Freedom for the Iraqi people was the justification, not the motive, for the US invasion of Iraq.

[Sanguinary Guardian]

I consider it a success because we liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal genocidal dictator. And that's that.

A Dictator YOU put into power. Just like the Taliban, to whom you supplied with weapons. Stop playing dumb, you are an Imperialistic nation, you don't wage wars to liberate, you wage wars just for your own interest, as well as any country in your place should. The US armed forces are the spear-tip of the American Empire, plain and simple. Now, you want to go and "liberate" Iran, DPRK and others, be my guest...

[Stark of Winterfell]

A Dictator YOU put into power. Just like the Taliban, to whom you supplied with weapons. Stop playing dumb, you are an Imperialistic nation, you don't wage wars to liberate, you wage wars just for your own interest, as well as any country in your place should. The US armed forces are the spear-tip of the American Empire, plain and simple. Now, you want to go and "liberate" Iran, DPRK and others, be my guest...

When did the US supply the Taliban with weapons? There were some failed gas line negotiations, but I don't believe the US actually sold weapons to the Taliban.