I just wanted to make a thread about all the U.S. wars that have ever occurred and wanted to hear your opinions on if you thought each one was necessary or not? Maybe you think they we're all necessary or none of them should have been fought. Personally I think war has to be fought in certain situations and is necessary at times while at others I view it as simply a power grab, land grab, and resource grab and deem it unnecessary. I guess I'll set this thread up like this and everyone can follow with an opinion after each war.

1. The Revolutionary War - (Necessary) Obviously this country wouldn't even be here without this war, we fought against British tyranny and the British invading most of our basic rights.

2. Indian Wars - (Unnecessary) Not an official war but we battled the Indians for hundreds of years. I think we handled the entire Indian situation pretty bad, we could have definately used better bargaining power and not used such brutal tactics. We ended up slaughtering alot of villages and the Trail of Tears is not something to be proud of.

3.The Civil War - (Necessary) This country was on the verge of economic and social collapse, and being split in two there's no way either country would survive long. We also fought against slavery, which doesn't belong in America or it's ideals.

4.Spanish /American war - (Unnecessary) A land grab that really never had to happen, part of the Manifest Destiny outlook of some Americans.

5. World war 1 - (Unnecessary) Pointless for all the world really, this war was nothing more than a faction of greedy countries against another faction of greedy countries out for imperialism and land resources. We should have never entered such a pointless war of greed. Plus the ending result only caused World War 2.

6. World War 2 - (Neccessary) We basically had two absolutely evil factions that slaughtered human life with no mercy and was out for global conquest. We had to stop the Nazis and Japan.

7. The Cold War - (Unnecessary) Two allies having a pissing contest that could only end in total mutual destruction. Dumb on both countries parts.

8.Korean War -  (Unnecessary) Part of our "containment" policy that only resulted in a good chunk of lives lost. Containment was nothing more than a power struggle and pissing contest as the cold war was.

9.The Vietnam War - (Unnecessary) again all about containment, power grabbing, and a pissing contest that resulted in even more lives.

10.The 1st Gulf War - (Necessary) Even though we gave Saddam his military strength I believe it was necessary to try to stop his power grabs. I also think we should have taken out Saddam and his military right then and there with the world at our side.

11.The Afghanistan War - (Necessary) The country supported Bin Laden and Al Quida and made a safe haven for them.This is the country we should be concentrated on.

12.The 2nd Gulf war - (Unnecessary) If we wanted to get rid of Saddam it should have been during the 1st Gulf War. Since then Saddam had only cooperated with us. There was no weapons of mass destruction and the war has only breeded more radicalism with no solutions. One can also say this is another power and resource grab.

13.The Iran war (hasn't happened but could easily soon) [Unnecesary] - Another power grab and resource grab. We sure didn't care that the two rivaling factions of India and Pakistan had nuclear arms and tested them dangerously close to each others borders. I don't see how Israel and iran are any different. We just don't wnat Iran to have any bargaining power because they own so much oil.

Really so we should have went against teh UN mandate atthe end of the persian gulf war and went tiobagdad although all support would have been lost and we would have been in a war for 20 years? 

Really....

I get ya...

So umm ok...

The UN said WE COULD NOT GO TO BAGDAD. So going meant no help from the Un and world wide political turmoil.  The arab/muslim governments (saudi, kuwait, jordon and others) that joined us in removing Saddam for kuwait only did to remove him not to INVADE iraq which was not acceptable to them at the time.

By going to Bagdad we would have broken the arrangment we had with those countries nad with the UN.

Bush (41) followed by the Un resolution and we ended the war with a cease fire, which sadam broke numerous times.  We have minimal caulaties becaue our ground forces were basically mopping up for teh airwar who was hours and days ahead of them in terms of the actual invasion.   Our troops faced little to no resistance becaue we bombed teh crap out the Iraq army which was in full retreat.

the same with this current war.. the issue of caulties came when we actually got into the cities.

God, man.. please read a little before making assinine comments about going into bagdad in 1991.

THEY UN SAID BUSH CANT GO TO BAGDAD!!! how dumb are you seriously???

Were you there? Are you even old enough to remember 1991??

Bush wanted to go into bagdad and was told by Powell and his advisors that based on the UN resolution we had it would be illegal.  the coalition we had assembled would have fallen apart as not muslim nation could have backed us.  We would have had no based to fly from and been there for many years...

Sadad HAD WMD then for sure and most likley if we would have tried to go to bagdad he would have used them as a last resort.  Resulting in many more dead...

We had a reslution to drive him out of Kuwait not to dipose him...  In hindsight YES we should have workded hard to kill his ass but how was bush supposed to know Clinton would be such a pansy for 8 years and allow saddam to break the cease fire numerous times.

God man sometimes arguing with morons makes make my head hurt ...

1991-2008 is practically 20 years. If all the troops leave by 2011 that will be 20 years.
That's how long, non-stop stream, the conflict with Iraq has gone on. The 'no-fly zone war' was as real as anything just wasn't on tv every night. Excuse me for saying but it looks to me like a classic example of two people arguing over what the elephant looks like while one of you is grabbing it's tail and the other is grabbing it's nose. It's the same conflict all arrising, eventually, from the invasion of Kuwait.



He wasn't a pansy. Every time he did anything 'manly', (Somalia, Yugoslavia, Cruise missle attacks on terrorists), the GOP accused him of wasting money and lives when he should be concentrating on the economy. I can't remember once anyone in the GOP chastising him for not going back to Iraq back then so no use claiming it was 'Clinton-DEM-Pansiness' now. Considering, according to the general GOP story, that Iraq wouldn't have been invaded even now if it weren't for a worldwide war on terrorism that supposedly begins at 9/11, your stream of thought here isn't making sense.

That’s just typical, “GOP-president-war = good, Dem-President-war = bad” party politics imo, (read bullshit).



Just sayin',
Ahk