Poll: which most merited US military intervention? 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.
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
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.
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.
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??? I think you should stick to Iraqi freedom as being the original and the only reason for going there. I'll go with Korea.
Was Kosovo not a war? I mean, we did stop a genocide from happening, as opposed to stepping in long after people died.
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.
I wonder which poster was the lone vote for Vietnam. I would love to hear the rationale behind that vote.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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!!
