In my view, the only legitimate reason to go to war is to repel an invasion. Agree or disagree?

Question

It's true we were attacked on 9/11, but we do not know by whom or for what motive. We are still waiting for a thorough investigation of the events of that day. The way to deal with a terrorist attack is through police work and good intelligence. Iraq was never a serious threat to us.

Answer 1

Even the liberal's goddess Hillary thought Iraq was a threat.

Answer 2

what about an attack on our allies? How about an attack on a major world commodity? If Iran or Iraq controlled all the Oil in the world and made it $300 A BARREL The production of Food and Medicine WOULD be under a direct threat if oil jumped due to Iranian or Iraqi or any other true threat to it's free flow throughout the worlds free markets. Cheap oil assures cheap prices and surpluses of food and Medicine which is the main Staple of survival for most of the worlds Poor. Alternative fuels are an option but would ensure the death of a Billion poor before it was an efficiant replacement. The wars civil, economisc and International would kill untold millions. Free market economies would be overthrown by starving masses a super war would ensue. The US and it's Allies are trying to be proactive and ensure stabilization. It is however not in the interest of many rogue nations and many politicos bent on the destruction of the west. make a mental list of how you would cope if oil was at $300 per barrel. Would you call for WAR then?

Answer 3

Well, Jeff, I mostly agree but not entirely (by the way, I think it's pretty well decided who attacked us on 9/11 and why, isn't it?). I mostly agree because that was the Founding Fathers' intent, and otherwise we get off into all kinds of foreign adventures that may not really be in our interest (ahem).

I disagree in this: I think it might be important to fight for U.S. interests, or to protect an ally. By your calculus, we should not have been involved in either WW1 or WW2 until the Germans were in Hackensack. Also, if some strategic overseas asset the U.S. needs is attacked, or we are prevented from using it to our detriment, we might be justified in going to war. Think of Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, or trying to cripple us through denying our economy what it needs to chug along (imagine if we had no more oil to use through the intervention of an enemy -- in the short term -- i.e. 5-10 years, our economy would be absolutely devastated).

Good question, though!

Answer 4

What do you mean by legitimate? U.N. approved? Congress authorized? Moral? I will go with Moral.

Disagree. There are lots of wars we (U.S.) waged where we were not invaded (Bosnia, WWII, Korean War) but where we were legitimate. Dealing with terrorists using police work should be part of our strategy but it has major failings. First you don't fight terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic and you can't defeat a tactic. We are fighting Islamo Fascism. Second police work is reactionary - it happens mostly after the fact. I do not want to wait for Islamo Fascist to attack and the police to show up afterward.

Answer 5

If your home is broken into and we think we know who did it. Then one week later your home is broken into again by armed bandits and it has more evidence pointing to the people we think broke in the first time. Then the people we think broke into your home are standing in your neighbors yard yelling that they are going to break into yours again and every house on the street. Why don't you just go in your house and close the door because according to your logic you should not approach them until they come back into your home again. Wrap your brain around this also. Armed bandits in your home can you take two or maybe three armed intruders alone. If you call the police it will take a minimum of 10 minutes maybe as long as thirty. I would handle it anywhere anyplace so they don't have another chance to surprise attack my house ever again. Apply this logic to a global scale and see what happens.

Answer 6

I agree with your ideal--completely but disagree with it's reality and practicality and here's why. When you look at a bigger picture, every nation on earth is involved in furthering its national interests. These tools in include, Social, Diplomatic, economic and military.

Lets look at an example using your ideal. Nation "V" has developed an isolationist policy and has been down hat road for several years. Meanwhile, aggressive nations "X" and U
"U" (neighboring Nations) have fostered a strong alliance and ave plans on expanding heir religious/political ideology. Nation "V" had ample opportunities to forge allegiances with both in he past but did not.

Trying to repel an invasion when the invading forces attack is a perilous situation to find itself in. If nation "V" fails, a new flag will be flying over heir capitol. As difficult as t may be, intervention and directing world affairs to aid and insure your national interests , while unfortunate, is a global reality.

Answer 7

That line of thought would mean we should have had no American Revoluitonary War, no Civil War, should not have been engaged in WW!, and really did not need to be in WWII (hey, it was only one bombing). It assumes that we have no character, and that it doesn't bother us that tens of thousands of people are murdered for their religious beliefs, and that we close our eyes to other parts of the world. True, not all wars are necessary - but in my eyes, we won the war with Iraq but are now fighting an impossible war with insurgents. We should have divided the country up based on sects and moved on. Of course, one advantage of this war is that we are indeed fighting terrorists "over there", which is better than fighting them here. I think people are naive if they don't believe that terrorists are pumpling resources (including people) into the region. Many, many angles to consider. It's not as simple as whether weapons of mass destruction were there.

Answer 8

Invasion is a good reason, but not the only one. Germany didn't invade America, but was spreading fascism across the world, which had to be stopped. So it's possible to go to war for reasons to stop evil from harming others. You have to have a clear idea of what evil is, though...

Answer 9

Why wait? We know who and why we were attacked 9/11

Answer 10

While I basically agree with you in part I have to disagree because we went to war against Japan because they attacked us first - and we had to go to war against Germany because Hitler made the mistake of declaring war on the US only days after this.

The Iraq war was Illegal - being against International Law as well as the Geneva Convention - and Immoral!

But then when we have an Immoral President like Bush what can you expect?