Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 07:10:56 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Lunar, Torie)
| | |-+  In hindsight--American Wars
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Poll
Question: Which of the following American conflicts would you have supported intervening in with hindsight?
Revolutionary War   -37 (11.5%)
Quasi-War   -13 (4%)
War of 1812   -16 (5%)
Mexican-American War   -15 (4.7%)
American Civil War (as someone in the Union)   -36 (11.2%)
Spanish-American War   -10 (3.1%)
World War I   -17 (5.3%)
World War II   -45 (14%)
Korean War   -18 (5.6%)
Vietnam War   -5 (1.6%)
Operation Just Cause (Panama)   -7 (2.2%)
First Gulf War   -22 (6.9%)
Bosnian War   -16 (5%)
Kosovo War   -17 (5.3%)
Afghan War   -21 (6.5%)
Iraq War   -6 (1.9%)
Operation Unified Protector (Libya)   -20 (6.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: In hindsight--American Wars  (Read 2213 times)
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38392
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2012, 11:06:26 pm »
Ignore

Only Canadians care, Earl.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19728
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.00


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2012, 11:21:43 pm »
Ignore

Only Canadians care, Earl.

Sad

Well... we burned down the white house!
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2012, 11:53:58 pm »
Ignore

Only Canadians care, Earl.

Sad

Well... we burned down the white house!

Nope, that was all the British.

(Also, carrying on their tradition of never doing anything right, they should've made sure it *STAYED BURNT*)
Logged

dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20902
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2012, 11:56:01 pm »
Ignore

lol at anyone who said War of 1812. Thanks for supporting a war of aggression against my country.
"lol" indeed.  You were enslaving our sailors and limiting our trade with France (which was our right as a neutral country).  "your" country was the aggressor, we were defending ourselves.
Logged

Quote from:   Martha Gellhorn for The Atlantic 1961
The unique misfortune of the Palestinian refugees is that they are a weapon in what seems to be a permanent war...today, in the Middle East, you get a repeated sinking sensation about the Palestinian refugees: they are only a beginning, not an end. Their function is to hang around and be constantly useful as a goad. The ultimate aim is not such humane small potatoes as repatriating refugees.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2012, 12:42:02 am »
Ignore

I've mixed feelings on a lot of these conflicts but in hindsight feel hesitantly supportive toward American participation in the Revolutionary, Quasi, Persian Gulf, Bosnian, and Afghan Wars, in addition to World War II and Operation Unified Protector.
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11983
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2012, 03:45:03 am »
Ignore

Amusing to see the amount of votes for Libya. I didn't know we had that many Islamists on Atlas.

Except the Libyan rebels weren't even close to being Islamists in most cases.

I said from the outset that it would lead to Libya either becoming an Islamist hellhole or a corporate puppet. And given some of the laws passed recently, it looks like the former. Compare to Iraq as well, where as brutal as Saddam was, the country took a 100 year leap backward after he was kicked out.
Logged

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4469
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2012, 03:54:26 am »
Ignore

Civil(reluctantly, I'd probably have an evil streak of wanting to have the south shoot itself in the foot and learn from it's mistakes) and WW2, a few more mixed, opposed majority. Revolutionary war I would have opposed because America was still in it's infancy and needed to be shaped a little more by the more cultured society, and it would have more than likely resulted in a suicide.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 03:56:10 am by Senator Seatown »Logged
LBJer
Full Member
***
Posts: 149
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2012, 08:47:43 am »
Ignore

Even allowing for some pro-Confederate respondents, I find the number of voters who chose the Civil War--20 out of 30--surprisingly low.  For those who didn't choose it, I'd be interested to know what your reasons are.
Logged
Senator TNF
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2012, 09:33:33 am »
Ignore

Revolutionary War (really should be called the American War of Independence)

Quasi-War (probably should have declared War on France and had a legit war in this case)

War of 1812 (not a great outcome for us, but hey, had to stop the British from impressing our sailors)

Mexican War (This pretty much sums up why I think we had to do something in this instance)

American Civil War (self-explanatory)

World War I (Germany interfering in Latin American affairs, plus U-boat warfare)

World War II (self-explanatory)

Korean War (North Korea launched a war of aggression against the South, so we had to intervene  and drive them out of the country)

Vietnam War (The rationale was good (prevent the Indochinese version of Kim Il Sung from taking over all of Vietnam), but the execution, not so much. Even so, Vietnam is a war I would have supported simply because it was in the context of our larger Cold War efforts against communism)

Operation Just Cause

First Gulf War (same basic issue as Korea)

Bosnian War

Kosovo War

Afghan War (again, rationale was correct, but everything that followed...not so much. We should have gotten the hell out of there after we nixed OBL)

Operation Unified Protector (Libya)
Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2012, 11:05:45 am »
Ignore

Even allowing for some pro-Confederate respondents, I find the number of voters who chose the Civil War--20 out of 30--surprisingly low.  For those who didn't choose it, I'd be interested to know what your reasons are.

In my case it is because I consider the right of people to national self-determination important. The Southern republics had political interests divergent from those of their counterparts in the North. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of succession was not worth throwing away tens of thousands of lives over and - although under different circumstances I'd have stubbornly fancied war against the CSA on humanitarian grounds - at the time I suspect said country posed too great a threat to the Union to be prudently tangled with in a full-blown conflict. For now I think a diplomatic, non-violent resolution and an agreement for peaceable coexistence would have been preferable.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 11:07:16 am by Redalgo »Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
Senator TNF
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8165
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2012, 12:22:29 am »
Ignore

Even allowing for some pro-Confederate respondents, I find the number of voters who chose the Civil War--20 out of 30--surprisingly low.  For those who didn't choose it, I'd be interested to know what your reasons are.

In my case it is because I consider the right of people to national self-determination important. The Southern republics had political interests divergent from those of their counterparts in the North. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of succession was not worth throwing away tens of thousands of lives over and - although under different circumstances I'd have stubbornly fancied war against the CSA on humanitarian grounds - at the time I suspect said country posed too great a threat to the Union to be prudently tangled with in a full-blown conflict. For now I think a diplomatic, non-violent resolution and an agreement for peaceable coexistence would have been preferable.


>implying that Southerners are a separate nationality

'Divergent political interests' in this case means slavery. How in the world does a socialist defend the right of slaveowners to try and destroy the United States (because they lost an election) because they want to continue owning, oppressing, and crippling other human beings?
Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2012, 02:30:59 am »
Ignore

>implying that Southerners are a separate nationality

'Divergent political interests' in this case means slavery. How in the world does a socialist defend the right of slaveowners to try and destroy the United States (because they lost an election) because they want to continue owning, oppressing, and crippling other human beings?

My use of the word "national" was improper in this instance, ya. After more than an hour of thinking about how best to answer your question, I arrived at a conclusion that my unusual position on this matter is a result of contradictions in the liberal and socialist ideas I've been doggedly trying to reconcile for the past few years. A more thorough, specific explanation is warranted but for now it is half past one in the morning where I live and some sleep is badly needed. If you're willing to wait for awhile though I'll gladly come back to this and elaborate!
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4469
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2012, 03:24:09 am »
Ignore

Even allowing for some pro-Confederate respondents, I find the number of voters who chose the Civil War--20 out of 30--surprisingly low.  For those who didn't choose it, I'd be interested to know what your reasons are.

In my case it is because I consider the right of people to national self-determination important. The Southern republics had political interests divergent from those of their counterparts in the North. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of succession was not worth throwing away tens of thousands of lives over and - although under different circumstances I'd have stubbornly fancied war against the CSA on humanitarian grounds - at the time I suspect said country posed too great a threat to the Union to be prudently tangled with in a full-blown conflict. For now I think a diplomatic, non-violent resolution and an agreement for peaceable coexistence would have been preferable.


>implying that Southerners are a separate nationality

'Divergent political interests' in this case means slavery. How in the world does a socialist defend the right of slaveowners to try and destroy the United States (because they lost an election) because they want to continue owning, oppressing, and crippling other human beings?
A better solution at the time would have been to negotiate with southerners their states rights for abolition of slavery, and once the preemptively didn't work, apply a traditional neoliberal policy and blockade the south from trade which would have made them reconsider their position after a couple years of impoverishment.
Logged
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2012, 02:19:46 pm »
Ignore

Alright! I'm awake again - w00t! TNF, it may be useful to lay this out as a cost-benefit analysis.


Core Objectives:

- Resolve the secessionist crisis
- Avoid unnecessary bloodshed
- Liberate the enslaved workers
- Improve North-South relations
- Promote a free & open society


Benefits of War:

- Restoration of the Union
- Four million slaves freed
- Justice for illicit succession
- Improved security and strategic geopolitical influence
- Consolidation of the republic's stability and legitimacy
- Denial of a foothold in western territories to slavery
- Enhanced actionable freedom for African Americans


Detractors of War:

- About 620,000 comrades were slain as soldiers
- State coercion of over 124,500 people to serve
- Violated rights for many of the ~400,000 POWs
- Poor disproportionately suffered by conscription
- Implementation of "total war" by some generals
- Perhaps >50,000 civilians died from military acts
- CSA troops were at times unpaid, malnourished
- Undermined democratic institutions in the South
- Imperialist aggression against Southern culture
- Inter-regional tensions seemed to get entrenched
- Uncompensated property loss for slave owners


In looking at these outcomes I find that, no matter how I approach the decision to engage in or shy from the Civil War, it is a conflict that both defended and violated a lot of human rights that I care deeply about. The liberal in me values private property rights, federalism, individual autonomy from undue state coercion, the preservation of representative government and non-violence in politics, and equality of citizens before the law. My relatively socialist considerations include enhancing equality of opportunity, dismantling hierarchies of dominant and subordinate social groups, promoting freedom that's actionable - not just written down on paper, resisting the imperialist attempts of major powers to project their political-economic interests onto weaker nations, and ensuring human beings are afforded dignified living conditions and opportunities for fulfilling self-enrichment without exception. I also consider it more important for the state to reflect its subjects' cultural values than to get my way, politically.

Very clearly I cannot get everything I want in this situation, and this problem would persist even if I made an effort to analyze the decision as strictly an advocate for one ideology or another - especially since contradictions already exist in each of them which would force me to sacrifice one or more of my objectives to achieve another. At least so far as I'm concerned right now, the Civil War was a lose-lose scenario. My immediate reaction to that is wanting some alternative options to examine in hopes of outcomes which do not so much shock my conscience. Perhaps someone could argue me back into thinking the Civil War was the best option on the table but until then I'm inclined to tinker with diplomatic "what if"s and wonder whether we would've been in a better position to quickly and decisively overwhelm the CSA with our military at a later date while inflicting less harm in the process. Or maybe that could have never happened. I'm not entirely sure. Either way, I do not consider myself pro-slavery or a defender of slave ownership.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 02:31:11 pm by Redalgo »Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2012, 02:39:28 pm »
Ignore

against the invasion of the South.
Logged
and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3427


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2012, 02:41:49 pm »
Ignore

against the invasion of the South.
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15509


Political Matrix
E: -8.39, S: -3.30

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2012, 02:53:16 pm »
Ignore


Detractors of War:

- Undermined democratic institutions in the South
- Imperialist aggression against Southern culture
- Uncompensated property loss for slave owners

These were positives; the South was anything but Democratic, Southern culture was one of oppression and reactionary politics, and slaveowners deserved a lot more than just losing their property. The South was not going to give up the institution of slavery until either:

A. Technology improved enough that slavery was clearly economically unviable, and even then slavery would last after that.

B. Blood was spilled.

Also, who else is disturbed that four of our users would not go to war against Nazi Germany and Japan after they declared war on us?
Logged

Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14818
United States


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2012, 03:15:35 pm »
Ignore

Huh. Vietnam in the way we fought it, or Vietnam with the opportunity to be fixed? I guess that applies to some of our more recent wars as well, specificaly the last eleven years or so.
Logged

Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30956
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2012, 03:46:47 pm »
Ignore

against the invasion of the South.

explain
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2012, 04:01:53 pm »
Ignore

against the invasion of the South.

explain

the burden is on those who would favor an action, rather than it would be on me to prove a negative.  so you can start us off.
Logged
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8329
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2012, 04:54:36 pm »
Ignore

Also, who else is disturbed that four of our users would not go to war against Nazi Germany and Japan after they declared war on us?

I believe those are people who thought that we should not have materially supported the Soviets/British and thus wouldn't have had war declared upon us.
Logged

Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15509


Political Matrix
E: -8.39, S: -3.30

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2012, 04:58:03 pm »
Ignore

Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2012, 05:31:04 pm »
Ignore

Logged

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4469
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 24, 2012, 06:52:36 pm »
Ignore

For the Civil war at the time you also have to consider it would have been seen as a blowout at the time, and an easy opportunity to end slavery, which is probably why I would have ended up supporting it. I guess in hindsight it looks like both options are bad(going to war vs not going to war), but the best option would have been to attempt to economically destroy south so that hopefully they would become unsettled and unable to fight a war.
Logged
Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30956
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 25, 2012, 02:21:43 am »
Ignore

against the invasion of the South.

explain

the burden is on those who would favor an action, rather than it would be on me to prove a negative.  so you can start us off.

Slavery was bad; the Civil War ended it.
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines