Which most merited US military intervention?

[basso]

which counry most merited the intervention of US military forces, and why? Looking back, youcan certainly say it's good that south korea didn't fall under the thumb of china and the north. vietnam? what was the threat there, really? Kuwait certainly makes some sense, from an economic stand point. only Iraq, with the terrorist threat and WMD capability rise to the level of immediate, not to say imminent, threat to US security.

[basso]

approximate number of US service men and women killed:

Korean War= 54,000
Vietnam War= 58,000
1991 Gulf War= 300
Iraq War= 1,500 dead

[FranchiseBlade]

We have Iraq with no support to terrorists posing a threat to the U.S., no WMD's, and no capability of attacking the U.S. That one is out.

Gulf War I. A march to save one dictatorship from being saved from a different dictatorship.

Vietnam, We were supporting a dictator after dictator.

Korea, an invasion by an authoritarian regime backed by China which would have decimated millions, and changed the face of East Asia. I voted for Korea.

[RocketMan Tex]

FB nailed it. I voted for Korea as well.

[wouldabeen23]

Yeah, Korea all the way....Vietnam was nothing more than a 1,000 year civil war that we stepped into the middle of at it's close.

[Oski2005]

Did you just change the reason for Iraq back to WMDs and terrorism again? I can't even keep up anymore. Seriously, no WMDs found and the terrorist all seem to have poured in as a result of the war. The terrorists there aren't planning attacks on the US or other nations, they are just there to attack our soldiers. This may be a leap in logic, but if our soldiers weren't there, wouldn't the foreign terrorists also not be there???:confused: I think you should stick to Iraqi freedom as being the original and the only reason for going there.


I'll go with Korea.

[fya]

Since Japan, Korea!

[nyquil82]

Was Kosovo not a war? I mean, we did stop a genocide from happening, as opposed to stepping in long after people died.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm not going to vote because this is a flawed comparison. In Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait there had been an invasion by another country and the main argument was protecting sovereignity whereas in Iraq in 2003 we were the ones doing the invading.

A fairer comparison would be between Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq where the decision was made based on potential future considerations rather than in response to an ongoing aggressive action by those countries.

[MadMax]

Where's Waco on this list?

[ima_drummer2k]

I voted for Iraq.

Just to piss you guys off. :)

[AggieRocket]

I wonder which poster was the lone vote for Vietnam. I would love to hear the rationale behind that vote.

[rhester]

Tiananmen Square June 4, 1989?

[basso]

frankly, i'm surprised at all the love the first gulf war, which truely was all about oil, has gotten. where are your convictions people!

[111chase111]

Can I vote for all of them? In each case, exept Iraq, you had a people being subjected via invasion to a government against their will. Certainly in all of those cases the country being attacked didn't get to vote on whether or not they became communist or part of Iraq or whatever. So, they were all justified.

You can argue that the US should not have had to do the work or that the world should have come together more to defend those nations but that's another arguement.

Iraq is more complicated. I don't things were going to get "better" if we left Saddam in power (and probably worse if one of his sons took over - look at North Korea). The invasion has certainly made things initially worse then they were under Saddam for the ordinary civilians but at lease now there is some hope they things will get better for them. There was no hope under Saddam.

[JuanValdez]

A None of the Above option would have been nice. I feel I'm chosing the least of 4 evils.

[rhester]

If those four were merited we have about 158 nations to go.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by rhester
If those four were merited we have about 158 nations to go.

Only if you assume that if we are to help one nation that we have to help them all. Clearly the French can pick and choose their battles and keep the moral high ground (at least they think they can).

I mean, is that the only moral way to intervene? If you intervene for one country you are obligated to help them all? If that's the case, then you really couldn't help anybody could you?

[111chase111]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
A None of the Above option would have been nice. I feel I'm chosing the least of 4 evils.

Do you think that North Vietnam's take over of South Vietnam was evil or not? How about North Korea's attempted take over of South Korea? What about Saddam trying to annex Kuwait without the consent of the people who actually live in Kuwait?

What do you do when something like that heppens? Just sit back and watch? Say "It's none of my business?" Sanctions? (Look at Cuba to see how well sanctions work).

If that's the case, then the appropriate thing to do when Hitler invaded Europe would have been to do nothing (which, BTW, is the way many Americans felt - it's none of our business and peace was more important).

I mean, when is it okay to intervene? When X percentage of a foreign country is occupied? Or do you go in at the first sign of trouble and avoid long,nasty drawn out wars like WWII.

[Deckard]

Agree with FB, RMT and the rest of you... North Korea's invasion of South Korea, and their assault upon the United States, along with the rest of the UN, by doing so. I don't think the others really compare. Kuwait wasn't the home of thousands of our troops, and our allies, with their security guaranteed by the UN, back when we thought the UN was a good idea. (insert roll-eyes here)

Kuwait clearly called for intervention, but it's like apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.


Keep D&D Civil!!

[Deckard]

Originally posted by basso
............
only Iraq, with the terrorist threat and WMD capability rise to the level of immediate, not to say imminent, threat to US security.
basso, do you really believe that??



Keep D&D Civil!!

[rhester]

Only if you assume that if we are to help one nation that we have to help them all

111chase111,

1. I wasn't assuming we were helping any nation.
2. I was responding to the question of 'was it merited?' (meaning was it the right action taken, deserving, simply the right thing to do, in otherwords was the justification sufficient etc.)

I guess if one was to think all of those military actions were highly merited then my opinion would be that we could come up with justification for military action against most of the rest of the nations in the world today if we wanted to.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by 111chase111

I mean, is that the only moral way to intervene? If you intervene for one country you are obligated to help them all? If that's the case, then you really couldn't help anybody could you?

Which is the downfall of having an idealistic foreign and military policy.

Countries act in their own interests.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Which is the downfall of having an idealistic foreign and military policy.

Countries act in their own interests.

The truth is somewhere in between. It wasn't in our interest to go into Somalia or Bosnia or Kosovo.

[basso]

Originally posted by Deckard


Kuwait clearly called for intervention, but it's like apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

why clearly? what was the abiding national interest or threat?

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
The truth is somewhere in between. It wasn't in our interest to go into Somalia or Bosnia or Kosovo.

Which is why we pulled out of Somalia when things got rough leaving them no better than before for at least a decade afterwords. As for Bosnia and Kosovo we actually did have an interest because the Balkan conflict was destabilizing Europe, and by extension our own alliances and economy, and the Europeans were too sorry to put together their own intervention force.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
We have Iraq with no support to terrorists posing a threat to the U.S., no WMD's, and no capability of attacking the U.S. That one is out.

Gulf War I. A march to save one dictatorship from being saved from a different dictatorship.

Vietnam, We were supporting a dictator after dictator.

Korea, an invasion by an authoritarian regime backed by China which would have decimated millions, and changed the face of East Asia. I voted for Korea.

As supposed to an authoritarian regime backed by the US, which decimated not millions (granted), but tens of thousands. I'd say pot calling kettle black.

I'd say the USSR, China and US all should shove it up their collective asses and let the Koreans had their unified country. Funny thing is, had that happened, the Korean War wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Stay out of other people's business.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MFW2310
As supposed to an authoritarian regime backed by the US, which decimated not millions (granted), but tens of thousands. I'd say pot calling kettle black.

I'd say the USSR, China and US all should shove it up their collective asses and let the Koreans had their unified country. Funny thing is, had that happened, the Korean War wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Stay out of other people's business. Except that Korea barely had a government at all. They had just gotten finished with the occupation by Japan. The South didn't want unification under the North. Originally communism was popular in some areas, and there weren't open hostilities between those that weren't. Many of the areas that ended up going communist soon found themselves disliking it, but it was too late. At that point families were split, and trouble was on the move. When North Korea started rolling in tanks, wiping all the male children in villages etc. there was definitely a valid reason for intervention.

The S. Korean govt. was incredibly corrupt, and used harsh measures, but was not even close to the kind authoritarian regime that the N. Koreans were under.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Except that Korea barely had a government at all. They had just gotten finished with the occupation by Japan. The South didn't want unification under the North. Originally communism was popular in some areas, and there weren't open hostilities between those that weren't. Many of the areas that ended up going communist soon found themselves disliking it, but it was too late. At that point families were split, and trouble was on the move. When North Korea started rolling in tanks, wiping all the male children in villages etc. there was definitely a valid reason for intervention.

The S. Korean govt. was incredibly corrupt, and used harsh measures, but was not even close to the kind authoritarian regime that the N. Koreans were under.

1. Who brought the idea of pseudo-communism (on one side) and military despotism (on the other side) to Korea? Sure as hell ain't the Koreans. For the last couple of millennia they had a monarchy and they were perfectly fine from it. But then you had the Soviets prop a tinpot dictator on one side, selling him T-59's to invade the other side. Then you have the Americans on the other side, selling something else to do the same.

Much ignored point, did you know that the South actually initiated the hostilities? Then the North jumped on that as an excuse. In reality, I don't know what would have happened, but at least we could have avoided a bloody war, in which did nothing more than split Korea til this day, and give propagandists much needed ammunition.

2. Many other countries seemed perfectly fine after wars. Generally it takes them time, but they'll live. Nothing wrong with trying to influence democracy or communism or whatever without intervening, and let them choose for themselves.

3. The Soviets politicians wanted Korea, so did the US politicians. When you have two pigs fighting for the same filth...

[Invisible Fan]

All the choices are bad. Kuwait initiated hostilities by slant drilling into Iraq's wells. Not letting Saddam complete his nuke program is probably the best thing that came out of the choices.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by MFW2310
1. Who brought the idea of pseudo-communism (on one side) and military despotism (on the other side) to Korea? Sure as hell ain't the Koreans. For the last couple of millennia they had a monarchy and they were perfectly fine from it. But then you had the Soviets prop a tinpot dictator on one side, selling him T-59's to invade the other side. Then you have the Americans on the other side, selling something else to do the same.

Much ignored point, did you know that the South actually initiated the hostilities? Then the North jumped on that as an excuse. In reality, I don't know what would have happened, but at least we could have avoided a bloody war, in which did nothing more than split Korea til this day, and give propagandists much needed ammunition.

2. Many other countries seemed perfectly fine after wars. Generally it takes them time, but they'll live. Nothing wrong with trying to influence democracy or communism or whatever without intervening, and let them choose for themselves.

3. The Soviets politicians wanted Korea, so did the US politicians. When you have two pigs fighting for the same filth...

I didn't know that the South Koreans initiated hostilities. I hadn't heard that. My in-laws lived in Korea at the time, as they did through the Japanese occupation. Most of my information doesn't come from propoganda but their experiences or reading I've done on it. My father - in - law and his brothers had to first hide underground in their own house, and then later hide out in various mountain hiding places or they would have been killed or imprisoned by the N. Koreans. It was a horrible experience for them.

I agree that communists trying to influence something isn't bad, the same goes of the U.S. as long as they stay out. But both the U.S. and Russians were there as a result of ridding Korea of the Japanese.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I didn't know that the South Koreans initiated hostilities. I hadn't heard that. My in-laws lived in Korea at the time, as they did through the Japanese occupation. Most of my information doesn't come from propoganda but their experiences or reading I've done on it. My father - in - law and his brothers had to first hide underground in their own house, and then later hide out in various mountain hiding places or they would have been killed or imprisoned by the N. Koreans. It was a horrible experience for them.

I agree that communists trying to influence something isn't bad, the same goes of the U.S. as long as they stay out. But both the U.S. and Russians were there as a result of ridding Korea of the Japanese.

To be quite honest with you, the situation was analogous to two guys fighting. Both were pushing and shoving and talking smack. Both sides crossed the "demilitarized zone" quite frequently, mostly for spying purposes. Then the South started carrying minor raids. Perhaps unbeknown to them at this time, Kim Il-Song went and sought backing from his slave master in Moscow. The the South didn't expect the North to "throw a punch" so to speak.

As for the US and the Soviets were trying to rid them of the Japanese, I disagree. The Soviets (even as an ally) sure didn't do much to help China against the Japanese... until of course, conveniently after Japan surrendered, they sent their military to into the Chinese NE, which also happens to be quite industrialized and (at the time) resource rich. But then again, what did you expect them to do?

[basso]

Originally posted by Invisible Fan
All the choices are bad. Kuwait initiated hostilities by slant drilling into Iraq's wells. Not letting Saddam complete his nuke program is probably the best thing that came out of the choices.

wait, you're equating slant drilling, w/ an invasion? secondly, is there any actual proof, from sources other than saddam apologists, that the kuwaitis were engaged in slant drilling?

[Deckard]

Originally posted by MFW2310
To be quite honest with you, the situation was analogous to two guys fighting. Both were pushing and shoving and talking smack. Both sides crossed the "demilitarized zone" quite frequently, mostly for spying purposes. Then the South started carrying minor raids. Perhaps unbeknown to them at this time, Kim Il-Song went and sought backing from his slave master in Moscow. The the South didn't expect the North to "throw a punch" so to speak.

As for the US and the Soviets were trying to rid them of the Japanese, I disagree. The Soviets (even as an ally) sure didn't do much to help China against the Japanese... until of course, conveniently after Japan surrendered, they sent their military to into the Chinese NE, which also happens to be quite industrialized and (at the time) resource rich. But then again, what did you expect them to do?
So, according to you, the North didn't launch a premeditated invasion? They just threw a bit of a punch, in a fight, and things just sort of "got out of hand?"

"The Soviets politicians wanted Korea, so did the US politicians. When you have two pigs fighting for the same filth... "

So China was oblivious to all this? South Korea started it, the US happened to be one of a pair of swine fighting over the Korean Peninsula, and China was... what? Innocent victim, dragged into the conflict kicking and screaming against it's will? So enlighten us further regarding the Korean War, MWF. We must have gotten it wrong. Right??



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Invisible Fan]

Originally posted by basso
wait, you're equating slant drilling, w/ an invasion? secondly, is there any actual proof, from sources other than saddam apologists, that the kuwaitis were engaged in slant drilling?

The events that led to the first Gulf War are as queer as the second one. Brent Snowcroft had served on the board of directors of Santa Fe International, the Kuwaitti owned parent that was accused of slant-drilling into the Iraqi Rumalia oil field. In this day and age, finding documented proof for Cheney's Haliburton connection and making people question about it is a story in itself.

Kuwait isn't exactly a democracy loving country. Enfranchised citizens are less than 10%, and its royal family maintains a tight grip. Though it was certainly better in the humanitarian front when compared against Saddam. Yet as far as two years before, Saddam was counted among our brutal allies, such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia. That war wasn't clear cut in black and white. Like I wrote before, the choices given sucked.

Then again, I answered your question from an idealistic view instead of being pragmatic about it.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by Deckard
So, according to you, the North didn't launch a premeditated invasion? They just threw a bit of a punch, in a fight, and things just sort of "got out of hand?"

"The Soviets politicians wanted Korea, so did the US politicians. When you have two pigs fighting for the same filth... "

So China was oblivious to all this? South Korea started it, the US happened to be one of a pair of swine fighting over the Korean Peninsula, and China was... what? Innocent victim, dragged into the conflict kicking and screaming against it's will? So enlighten us further regarding the Korean War, MWF. We must have gotten it wrong. Right??



Keep D&D Civil!!

Well let's see, did I say the North didn't launch a premeditated invasion? Hmmmm, let's see, no. In fact, I thought that (premeditated invasion) was implied when I said "Kim Il-Song went and sought backing from his slave master in Moscow."

Fact was, both sides were preparing for an invasion, both sides weren't ready. The South didn't have much of a military to speak of. The North had their best units (the 152nd and 154th Chinese divisions), trained by the Chinese and fighting for the Chinese in Fujian, preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. These units were recalled just for the war. They were so unready for the war that in the Battle of Chosin Resevoir, more than half of their losses was from being poorly equiped for the harsh winter, because they were in light jackets and freakin' canvas shoes. The North just happened to be more ready for war, but that doesn't change the fact that both sides would have "sucker punched" the other, only you were too stupid to know it.

As for China, let's see, hmmmmm. Was China involved in Korea before the war? No. Did China declare war when the UN landed in South Korea? No. So what's your point here really? In fact, I believe Zhou Enlai said in no uncertain terms that, the UN can do whatever the hell they liked, so long as they don't cross the 38th, because China had a defense pact with North Korea.

I think China was looking after its own interest, instead of that of the Korean people. I would too if a certain General Walton Walker of the 8th Army said "we'll beat a bunch of Chinese laundrymen"; and a more famous General Douglas MacArthur said dropping 50 nukes on China; not to mention the USAF launching air raids on the Chinese - Korean border and systematically spied on China up until the 70's, when the PLAAF became more capable to shoot them down. But nooooooo, I'm sure China was trying to bring the entire Korea under the Reds. I'm glad morons like you agree.

Btw, I thought you were going on vacation. But then again, I'm not surprised you were "going on a trip" after I owned you. So while you're coming up with your BS, don't let reality hit you on the ass.