The stupid, it burns! The American War Machine.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

You know, I admit to being one of those Americans who, like Hillary Clinton, originally thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Believing the official line, I had the idea floating around in my head – nebulously as it were – that Iraq was a terror state, and also that there were WMDs there. I now think that was all wrong, and am happy to cheer on the anti-war protest movement.

But, when enumerating all the instances of aggression on the part of the American war machine, we need to pick and choose. All wars are not Iraq. Not every war is immoral or unjustified. Yet, I recently saw a poster listing the wars of American aggression, including:

The Revolutionary War. If we didn’t do this I guess we’d be lambasting the British War Machine now.

The War of 1812. Didn’t Great Britain attack us?

The Civil War. Umm. didn’t we end slavery with that? Or should we have just let the South alone? After all, slavery was their own internal affair.

World War II–again, we were attacked. Then there was this kerfluffle over in Europe about millions of innocents being annihilated–but I suppose that was just faulty intelligence and we should have stayed out.

Afghanistan - Should we really have let this one slide? I mean, I know we deserved to be attacked, but how could the world have let the Taliban enslave their country for so long?

All the other wars, I’m right there with you. The Mexican, Spanish American, Vietnamese, etc., wars, are wars of aggression all right. The Iraqi war too. But when you list the Civil War in the same breath as the Iraq war, you’re not helping the cause.

That’s all I got right now.

[Loach]

If you are in a war isn’t aggression sort of a good thing? I would hate to see a war of passive aggression.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

The War of 1812. Didn’t Great Britain attack us?

Are you referring to the “attack” on USS Chesapeake? That was the only direct “attack” and it took place in 1807; we didn’t go to war with the British until after the War Hawks took power in 1812.

The reasons for the War of 1812 are pretty complicated. It is not right to say it started because the British attacked us. America certainly had legitimate grievances about the Britain not respecting its sovereignty and impressment of its sailors, but the War Hawks also had territorial expansion as a goal.

[Frostillicus]

I want to hear the argument as to how WWII was a war of aggression on the part of the US.

[Fear_Itself]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

The War of 1812. Didn’t Great Britain attack us?

Sort of. The British were seizing American merchant ships and impressing the sailors into service on British warships to fight Napoleon. The US responded by commissioning privateers to harass British shipping and sink British warships. In turn, the British blockaded American ports and ultimately invaded Washington DC.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Fear Itself

Sort of. The British were seizing American merchant ships and impressing the sailors into service on British warships to fight Napoleon. The US responded by commissioning privateers to harass British shipping and sink British warships. In turn, the British blockaded American ports and ultimately invaded Washington DC.

It is kind of unclear what you are saying, but the British did not invade until after war had been declared.

[Zoe]

Spectre: The Civil War. Umm. didn’t we end slavery with that? Or should we have just let the South alone? After all, slavery was their own internal affair.

Actually, there had been slavery in the Northern states much, much longer. But the Civil War did speed along an end to the slavery of many blacks in the South. Sadly, it didn’t really liberate black men and certainly not black women in the North or the South. That process continues.

What was the reason given for calling the Revolutionary War a war of aggression (on our part?)?

I think one thing that makes the War in Iraq so bad is that it is unlike us. It is somewhat unAmerican.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Yet, I recently saw a poster listing the wars of American aggression, including:

Details: we need details. Who made the poster? Did they use magic markers or is this professionally printed? Is there a copy on the web?

For the moment it sounds like an urban legend. Look, I believe you. It’s just that the core allegation lacks a certain sense of context.

FWIW, I got suckered in 2003 as well.

[OtakuLoki]

@Zoe

What was the reason given for calling the Revolutionary War a war of aggression (on our part?)?

I’ll tackle this, if you like.

First off, had the colonists not gone to war, the theory could be that we’d simply be Commonwealth citizens. That, eventually, Great Britain would have had to release the colonies, as she had to release the majority of her empire.

More to the point, one can look at any number of the violent incidents leading up to the revolution: The Boston Tea Party, The Gaspee incident, the Boston Massacre, and even the Battles and Concord and Lexington, as having been cases where the use of violence was begun by the colonists, in each case. And that the British responses were simply legitimate use of police powers against civil insurrection.

I believe that this view ignores the legislative issues that were coming out of Parliament at the same time. But I can see how someone who truly believes in non-violent protest would view the two as separate issues.

Then there’s the shameful treatment of Tories after 1775. ISTR that The Sons of Liberty were what we’d call out and out terrorists - trying to scare those people who most sympathized with Great Britain out of the country. A number of Canadian communities have their origins from such refugee groups, IIRC.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@OtakuLoki

I’ll tackle this, if you like.

First off, had the colonists not gone to war, the theory could be that we’d simply be Commonwealth citizens. That, eventually, Great Britain would have had to release the colonies, as she had to release the majority of her empire.

More to the point, one can look at any number of the violent incidents leading up to the revolution: The Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was violent?

the [Battles of Lexington and Concord], [a] case where the use of violence was begun by the colonists[.]

Huh? Captain Parker ordered his men to go home at Lexington, and his men were beginning to follow the order when a shot was fired. Nobody knows who fired the shot.

[OtakuLoki]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

The Boston Tea Party was violent?

The Tea Party was done by people disguised as indians, planning to break numerous laws. There are enough similarities between the Tea Party and the earlier Gaspee incident, including, IIRC, kidnapping a real indian to provide camouflage*, that I can’t think of it as a peaceful protest. I don’t believe anyone was hurt, but part of that is that the crews of the ships didn’t contest the boarding of the tea ships. Had there been a determined guard, I have no idea what would have happened - but I doubt the Sons of Liberty would have just up and left.

Would you prefer to simply say that the potential for violence was inherent in the manner in which the protest happened?

Huh? Captain Parker ordered his men to go home at Lexington, and his men were beginning to follow the order when a shot was fired. Nobody knows who fired the shot.

I’ve got two possible answers here. First: I’d always been of the understanding that Concord had been the first action, not Lexington. I don’t recall that sort of ambiguity at Old North Bridge. (I may be wrong, I haven’t skimmed any resources, just going off various memories>)

Secondly, and more to the point - IIRC the militias by that point had all been ordered disbanded, so the simple fact that they were ranked and armed at Lexington was already a violation of the legitimate governor’s orders. At which point, the legitimate authorities were facing armed men, presumed to be prepared for insurrection against the forces of the government - deadly force is usually allowed to be used in such situations.

I may have these details wrong - like I said, I’m mostly going off of old memories and some more recent research I did for a story I’m working on. But, whether the facts are completely valid, or not, I think it still offers a potential line of reasoning for someone, if they were so inclined, to claim that the Revolutionary War was one where the forces that would become the US forces were the aggressors.

*I have read transcriptions of primary sources that say that an indian was forced to go along with the raid on the Gaspee. ISTR also reading commentary that that detail was one of the many similarities between the parties at the Gaspee Incident, and the Boston Tea Party. I won’t swear that there was a kidnapped indian on the docks in Boston, but it’s something I find very easy to believe.

[Richard_Parker]

@Frostillicus

I want to hear the argument as to how WWII was a war of aggression on the part of the US.

Our strict trade embargo of Japan forced them to attack us for the good of their people. And if we hadn’t set up the totally unstable Treaty of Versailles, the Nazis never would have come to power. Naturally, both the oil embargo and the Treaty of Versailles were put into place in order to give Big Steel an excuse for war profiteering. It’s all in my book, *Noam Chomsky is Right About Everything.
*

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@OtakuLoki

Would you prefer to simply say that the potential for violence was inherent in the manner in which the protest happened?

Yes.

I’ve got two possible answers here. First: I’d always been of the understanding that Concord had been the first action, not Lexington.

Patriots Day and Related Events | American Experience | PBS

@PBS

5am
Battle of Lexington. April 19,1775 The British and the rebels face each other across the Green. Parker orders a retreat, but a shot rings out, leading to a full volley from the British. Both sides are engaged as the Colonists flee. Eight Americans are killed and ten wounded.

7am
The British arrive at Concord and begin searching the town for weapons. The minute men watch from positions above the town, aware they are currently outnumbered but gaining troops each moment.

Secondly, and more to the point - IIRC the militias by that point had all been ordered disbanded, so the simple fact that they were ranked and armed at Lexington was already a violation of the legitimate governor’s orders. At which point, the legitimate authorities were facing armed men, presumed to be prepared for insurrection against the forces of the government - deadly force is usually allowed to be used in such situations.

The legal issues were in question. The colonists would claim the order to disband was not legitimate. This is just one the issues that took a war to settle - the Colonists won.

I may have these details wrong - like I said, I’m mostly going off of old memories and some more recent research I did for a story I’m working on. But, whether the facts are completely valid, or not, I think it still offers a potential line of reasoning for someone, if they were so inclined, to claim that the Revolutionary War was one where the forces that would become the US forces were the aggressors.

The whole issue of trying to find an aggressor for the Revolutionary War is pretty silly. It was a situation that was not going to be solved any other way.

[Argent_Towers]

What on earth is the point here? Think of America compared to the rest of the world’s nations for a sense of perspective. The nations of Europe spent hundreds of years slaughtering each other in religious wars. And war was very different then. No airstrikes and special forces and any of that shit. We’re talking about gigantic masses of men on horseback hacking each other to death over the silliest bullshit you could imagine. And then there’s the British Empire’s relentless attempt to conquer the globe.

America is hardly the worst offender when it comes to this stuff. What’s even the point of bringing it up?

[OtakuLoki]

@Two and a Half Inches of Fun

The whole issue of trying to find an aggressor for the Revolutionary War is pretty silly. It was a situation that was not going to be solved any other way.

I don’t disagree. I was just engaging in an intellectual exercise to offer one potential line of thought that might be used by someone else to justify calling the Revolutionary War a war of aggression. I don’t agree with that thinking, as I tried to make clear in my original post in this thread.

[Sunspace]

@OtakuLoki

Then there’s the shameful treatment of Tories after 1775… A number of Canadian communities have their origins from such refugee groups, IIRC.

That’s “United Empire Loyalists”. Staunch pillars of the community, driven from their homes amidst the wailing of their wives and children by the terror tactics of illegitimate rebels.

See? History is written by the winners.

[Voyager]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

The Civil War. Umm. didn’t we end slavery with that? Or should we have just let the South alone? After all, slavery was their own internal affair.

First of all, the start of the Civil War had nothing to do with the ending of slavery, which wasn’t seriously on the table. The unhappiness of the South did come from the effort to block slavery in new states and territories. In any case, the South, unhappy with the results of a legitimate election, fired first.

Since Richard Parker is clearly related to Captain Parker, he must not be listened to. But the oil embargo had something to do with Japan’s attacks on China and Manchuria. And the Europeans had a lot more to do with reparations and stuff than Wilson.

[Loach]

@Richard Parker

Our strict trade embargo of Japan forced them to attack us for the good of their people. And if we hadn’t set up the totally unstable Treaty of Versailles, the Nazis never would have come to power. Naturally, both the oil embargo and the Treaty of Versailles were put into place in order to give Big Steel an excuse for war profiteering. It’s all in my book, *Noam Chomsky is Right About Everything.
*

Being part of the root cause of a conflict does not equal aggresion. For instance before WWII we were trying to stop Japanese aggresion in China by purposely using economic and diplomatic presure and not military means.

[Mr.Moto]

Another problem with these “posters” is that they are simplistic - they apply modern values and only modern values only to historical events.

These modern values didn’t spring from a vacuum - they evolved from that same history. So working backwards in that way isn’t really right.

[gonzomax]

A History of American Wars It is not just the wars. We have thrown over governments and set up puppet governments. We have been viral as we spread around the globe infiltrating and toppling the existing governments.