Has there been a single war in America's history that was justified?

Mexican American war was a pretty boldfaced land-grab from a weak Mexico who could do little to stop it. Although Polk DID offer to buy California before looking to take it through conquest (if that makes unprovoked aggression any more ethical).

I don't think the Spanish American war was plotted as a way to strip Spain of her colonies, but it just sort of worked out that way.

>WW1 and WW2 being moves of international recognition

Do you not understand that we tried to stay out of both of the wars? We entered once we were ATTACKED. If you're attacked your first response is to go to war if Im not mistaked.

>discuss the motives for historical event
>By justified I mean "Not motivated by America's elite's desire for expansion of power"

pick one

WWII was a genuinely just war.

>be clueless and uneducated rice farmer conscripted into communist army
>fight against democratic government because Uncle Ho said so
>die
They still won. It's too bad they were on the wrong side.

The American elite's desire to expand their power dovetailed with ethical international interests in both World Wars...I can't think of anything else, though I'd say the Spanish American war is another ambiguous case, in the sense that though it was ultimately an imperial endeavor freeing the Philippines/Cuba/etc from Spain would've been a legitimately good thing.

>wanting to be ruled by some inbred faggot on an island across the ocean
Spotted the leaf

Ngo Diem and his kleptocratic, minority-rule junta was absolutely worse than Ho Chi Minh's government, even taking into account the unforgivable war crimes committed by both sides.

>WWI
no

>t. Nguyen Dong

>1776
everyone has this war read wrong, it really was caused by the brits attempting to run a land in fact that used to only rule indirectly.
>1812
I honestly think one is a major cluster fuck and misunderstanding and passive aggression by both sides.
>Mexico
Straight up war of aggression
>Civil War
Hard to judge but I can see it both ways honestly.
>Spanish
Straight up war of aggression
>WW1
I would judge it as a war of American prestige as far as why America got involved.
>WW2 Europe
Attempting to help an ally in a difficult position and stop any power in Europe from taking too much power
>WW2 Asain
Provoked an attack by a rival nation, so somewhat justified. Taking to extremes in its precaution though.
>Post WW2
Maintaining regional balances of power and stopping any power from dominating Eurasia. Notable exception is Afghanistan

This feels so loaded as "can you convince me that any of America's wars are acceptable by my very particular standards" standards which are more than likely inauthentic, imposed upon you by your family/culture.

They were all justified or they wouldn't have happened.

>By justified I mean "Not motivated by America's elite's desire for expansion of power"
Do you know the first thing about just war theory? Because this debate goes back to St. Augustine and I don't think you're ready to have it seriously.

Ngo Diem was couped and killed before the main American phase of the Vietnam war even really started.

Stopping the German menace is always justifiable

>They were all justified or they wouldn't have happened.

Is English not your first language?

Kill yourself you commie faggot.
They were all justified or they would not have happened.

Define justified

Collins English Dictionary
justified
(ˈdʒʌstJfaJd)
Definitions

adjective
1. reasonable and acceptable ⇒ In my opinion, the decision was wholly justified.
2. having good and valid reasons ⇒ He was quite justified in refusing., ⇒ He's absolutely justified in resigning. He was treated shamefully.

People were willing and able to fight those wars believing for whatever reason (speculate all you like) that it was reasonable/legitimate/acceptable - the wars happened: they were justified.

Just like saying 'is the answer "3" ever justified?' Yes, when you add 1 and 2.

Is logic not your first method?

You can't impose your own definition of what is/isn't justification if your real intention is to discuss historical motives. History isn't black and white. Obviously bait; a political opinion poorly disguised as a leading question discernible to anyone that isn't retarded.

In what way was the Second Gulf War justified in a way that doesn't make it seem like you're arguing that justified can mean "As long as the soldiers believe the lies they're told"

I'm not even an American, but every single war in America's history was justified, including the Iraq War and the Vietnam War.

...

>1776
The king and parliament kept screwing us over - taxation without representation. We sent the olive branch petition, but they ignored it. So we rebelled.

>1812
The British kept impressing our sailors. Of course we were justified in fighting back.

>Civil war
The South effectively committed treason and attacked Fort Sumter. It was their fault entirely.

>WW1
Belgium, the Lusitania, and the Zimmerman Telegram are why we entered. Again, we were justified.

>WW2
Japan attacked us and then Germany declared war.

>Korea
North Korea invaded South Korea without any provocation. We stepped in and stopped them.

>>Korea
>North Korea invaded South Korea without any provocation. We stepped in and stopped them.

Was Chinese intervention justified as well?

No, because the US and South Koreans didn't invade China. China entered the war because they were getting "too close" to the border.

No and MacArthur should have nuked them

I see, I see, so then that means American intervention in Cuba wasn't justified either, no?

Mate.
This might upset you and, heaven forbid, cause you to have an existential crisis, but not everyone has the same morals as you.

Many people think of "justification" as being equal to "acceptable by me," I would guess it's because of social worry and anxiety - most people try so hard to fit in and go along with the norm that they take on ethics as though they were their own morals, doing which instantly affirms everything they (wrongly) think they (authentically) believe.

You/OP strike me as the person that would ask something like "was slavery every justified" well shit, only for most of human history.

I think you're limiting your ability to think critically if you think of justification the way you are now, you'll do a lot better if you think of justification as being something closer to being the reason something happened/happens.

Pretentious

You choose to say this in this thread and not the countless alt-right, straight outta /pol/ "x ideology was clearly a jewish shill" threads?

Theres a lot of sped ppl in the world.

Ad hominem.
Weak game user.

Fallacy fallacy.
My attack on your character doesn't make you any less pretentious.

Oh I see, you were never trying to dismiss my points, you just wanted to upset me.

Well, I'm afraid you remain unsuccessful.

Yeah we totally fought WW2 for expansion of power.

Not because of a million other valid reasons.
Almost like you could say that for almost every other war we fought, besides Vietnam. And huh, we left Vietnam after we realized it was pointless.

Says the user who can't stop replying.

Can't stop or won't? You'll never know, but you'll believe whatever you want.

>thinking that increasing american hegemony isn't a justification

I honestly believe it's a sort of coping mechanism to make up for how awful the real-life conversations you have go (because just going by the tone you take when you type, it is clear that you "that guy" who thinks what he says MUST be said), but you're right, how could I know for sure?

World War I. How fucking dumb are the Germans that they thought Mexico could take us out? Korea is debatable. Civil War- If we're talking about the Union. Afghanistan was also completely justified.

You see I'd be more inclined to believe that it's a sort of Freudian displacement - logically dismissing a point you believe to be stupid gives the pleasure of killing the parts of oneself you believe to be stupid. It goes further though because there is a functional element to it in that the more you practice argument, the more refined your ability becomes.

I used to be that guy, but then I became educated and able to think critically/authentically and felt no need to anxiously impose my view upon others. Now I come to forums, boards etc... places for, amongst other things, discussion.

This

>It goes further though because there is a functional element to it in that the more you practice argument, the more refined your ability becomes.

Your own posts evidence to the contrary.

You think any of your ramblings have been elegant response?

How much hang movement do you put into your conversations when you talk? It's clear you're a hand talker.

>Northern elites literally threw the Constitution under the bus
>Doesn't know what the supremacy clause is
>Thinks states are allowed to just go rogue because they disagree with the National government

That want't on the list of justified wars. Even if it was, it was to prevent a communist dictator from coming into power and ruining an entire country.

Not once have you addressed anything I've said directly, you're making it all about my character and that's boring, like American politics.
Bye now.

>Implying Batista wasn't a huge faggot

> Implying that the Castro regime wasn't an improvement in virtually every way.

> Implying that the Castro regime wasn't an improvement in virtually every way.

Yes that is in fact exactly what I am implying.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_dissident_movement

>needing things you do to be """"justified"""" beyond the fact that you want them to happen
spooky

Every single one except late 18th century wars and the revolutionary war

You're a strange one.

>vietnam was capitalist jewry meme

I think this is an interesting point, and it applies especially to autocratic govts, but it's virtually impossible within democratic governments with hundreds of thousands of employees in the bureaucracy. It's designed to arbitrate human emotion in favor of pragmatic policy making

>and our shenanigans in the Caribbean/Central America

Grenada was justified desu

War of Southron Secession (slave power fired on the Union flag)

World War I (Germany conspired with Mexico to attack America)

World War 2 (Japan attacked, Germany declared war)

Korea (UN mandate)

Gulf 1 (UN mandate)

Afghanistan (9/11)

9/11 was the Saudis' fault

>1812

"Getting too close" is a credible reason. Especially when you consider the commanding general actively and vocally wanted to continue into China and use nukes.

>Even if it was, it was to prevent a communist dictator from coming into power and ruining an entire country.

Ahh so if the country is "bad", it's okay to invade?

>better go fuck up Germany first
Are you retarded?

>UN mandate

So then Taiwan is part of China?