Reasons for going to war
- Thread starter taysean
- Start date
Which reasons do you think are justifiable for going to war with another country? All of these reasons assume that a diplomatic solution is not possible or not effective. This is mainly aimed at an American audience but is relevant for any other nationality.
1) Our country was deliberately attacked by a foreign power or terrorists supported by a foreign power.
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
These are just a few reasons I could think of that one country might use as a reason to attack another. If you can think of any other reasons, please state them.
1) Our country was deliberately attacked by a foreign power or terrorists supported by a foreign power.
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
These are just a few reasons I could think of that one country might use as a reason to attack another. If you can think of any other reasons, please state them.
JackReynolds
New member
How about the US or the Soviet Union? 
I`m glad no-one tried stop either... it could have gotten really, really nasty. At least I`m alive now 
I`m glad no-one tried stop either... it could have gotten really, really nasty. At least I`m alive now There's oil in them thar hills, and Oil's the life blood of the world.
Iraq is believed to have the second largest conventional oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia is believed to be #1. Control Iraq you, control the oil in Iraq with significant influence in Saudi Arabia, and surrounding countries.
You control the oil, and everyone has to play by your rules.
Iraq is believed to have the second largest conventional oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia is believed to be #1. Control Iraq you, control the oil in Iraq with significant influence in Saudi Arabia, and surrounding countries.
You control the oil, and everyone has to play by your rules.
Christropher Brando
New member
Oh brother! Not another one of those "no blood for oil" libs.
That's an interesting example. Part of the complication was that, just prior to gaining nuclear arms, the Soviet Union was our ally in stopping another expansionist power - Nazi Germany. How would we have acted to the Soviet Union developing nuclear power if they had never been our allies? Would any military action have been worth the cost? Ultimately, as we know, communism and agressive Soviet expansionism was internally toppled so it all turned out "well". I suppose eventual outcomes are hard to predict.
I suppose the thing that scares me most is not only an expansionist power gaining nuclear arms but one that is fanatical in its philosophy and willing to be destroyed for its cause (fanatical militant Islamic fundamentalism comes to mind).
I suppose the thing that scares me most is not only an expansionist power gaining nuclear arms but one that is fanatical in its philosophy and willing to be destroyed for its cause (fanatical militant Islamic fundamentalism comes to mind).
sugar baby<3
New member
1 & 9, though I could see 8 as part of NATO or UN.
The others have a bad habit of setting precedent (I don't agree with you so I can attack, even if its a democracy attacking the NAZIs reborn it means that the NAZIs were perfectly justified should they chose to attack a weaker nation of a different philosophy) or turning a cold war into a real one - now which would you rather of had - the Cold War or MAD being carried out?
The others have a bad habit of setting precedent (I don't agree with you so I can attack, even if its a democracy attacking the NAZIs reborn it means that the NAZIs were perfectly justified should they chose to attack a weaker nation of a different philosophy) or turning a cold war into a real one - now which would you rather of had - the Cold War or MAD being carried out?
Yeah, it is true that it`s hard to predict what would have happened if the US and the Soviet had duked it out before they had reached capabilities of destroying the world. But the other part of my example was the US. Would the world have been a better place if the US had been stopped in its tracks before developing super-power status? Personaly, I think the world would have been a far worse place.
Yeah, which suggests that it actually would be better if "gulf war II" was based on oil grabbing goals rather than idealistic goals of implementing US style democracy on foreign nations... Because US sure has nuclear arms capabilities...
Yeah, which suggests that it actually would be better if "gulf war II" was based on oil grabbing goals rather than idealistic goals of implementing US style democracy on foreign nations... Because US sure has nuclear arms capabilities...
threesevens
New member
Are you one of the Blood for Oil republicommies?
Henry Hedgehog
New member
what would cause a terrorist to become inaccessible? why would a terrorist that put our country in a state of emergency, in expense of billions of dollars worth of property, and in misery for nearly 3000 killed people, not be priority enough to use eery resource available to pursue, capture and execute. mind you, this terrorist has not only attacked us, but maintains a threat of attacking us and our allies continuously, and has followed through on his threats
what happens when the terrorist in question has no resident country, or has sponsors in a number of countries, none of which are affiliated to any government? do you still put pressure on a country? how do you select which country to hold responsible for such a terrorist group?
what happens when the terrorist in question has no resident country, or has sponsors in a number of countries, none of which are affiliated to any government? do you still put pressure on a country? how do you select which country to hold responsible for such a terrorist group?
She did WHAT !
New member
Are these reasons for going to war justified? My views are:
1) Our country was deliberately attacked by a foreign power or terrorists supported by a foreign power.
Yes
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
Yes, though this has to have sufficient proof, not merely suspicion.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
No
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
Pakistan and India come to mind. With so much at stake, I doubt that their hostile intentions will lead to anything other than some saber rattling and border skirmishes. So... a conditional no. Yes, only for an expansionist country that should be stopped early.
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
I'm not sure if North Korea falls into this category. My impression is that they want nuclear arms simply to be left alone. Certainly, they have a brutal government but regime change is a dangerous business, that also sets a bad precedent.
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
Probably not, unless it will destabilize the world economy and unless a large unity of nations exist to stop this country.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
No, unless only to give military aid to an internal rebellion against such a dictator.
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
Yes, though hopefully joined with other allies.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
No, unless there is a truly joint and widespread UN effort
1) Our country was deliberately attacked by a foreign power or terrorists supported by a foreign power.
Yes
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
Yes, though this has to have sufficient proof, not merely suspicion.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
No
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
Pakistan and India come to mind. With so much at stake, I doubt that their hostile intentions will lead to anything other than some saber rattling and border skirmishes. So... a conditional no. Yes, only for an expansionist country that should be stopped early.
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
I'm not sure if North Korea falls into this category. My impression is that they want nuclear arms simply to be left alone. Certainly, they have a brutal government but regime change is a dangerous business, that also sets a bad precedent.
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
Probably not, unless it will destabilize the world economy and unless a large unity of nations exist to stop this country.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
No, unless only to give military aid to an internal rebellion against such a dictator.
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
Yes, though hopefully joined with other allies.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
No, unless there is a truly joint and widespread UN effort
roswelldreamer
New member
I agree that the world would have been a far worse place if the US had been stopped in its tracks before developing super-power status. If every country had been stopped from developing nuclear weapons, that would have been best but, unfortunately, unrealistic. So, which countries do we trust with nuclear weapons and which do we not trust? That is where my criteria of military expansionism comes in - i.e. consider stopping those countries attaining nuclear arms that have plans of military expansion. The main question is --- is it worth the cost. That is harder to answer and dependent on the situation.I wouldn't really say that the US is either fanatical in its desire to introduce democracy to other nations, nor is it willing to destroy itself in that process.
1) Our country was deliberately attacked by a foreign power or terrorists supported by a foreign power.
Yes
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
DepenRAB to what extent the terrorists are supported. There also neesd to eb an abundance of proof.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
No
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
No
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
No
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
DepenRAB on specific circumstances.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
No
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
If we've declared that an act of war on our ally will be taken as an act of war on us, then yes.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
DepenRAB on specifics
-Wez
Yes
2) Though no attack has yet occurred, there is an imminent and real threat of a foreign power attacking our country.
DepenRAB to what extent the terrorists are supported. There also neesd to eb an abundance of proof.
3) A foreign power is hostile toward us in its rhetoric, but has shown no clear signs of a planned attack.
No
4) A foreign power is developing nuclear capablities and has shown hostile intentions to another power.
No
5) A foreign power is developing nuclear capabilities, but has shown no clear signs of hostile intentions to any other country.
No
6) A brutal dictator rules a country that is a threat to its neighbors, though not to us.
DepenRAB on specific circumstances.
7) A brutal dictator rules a country but is no threat to any other country.
No
8) A foreign power attacks our allies.
If we've declared that an act of war on our ally will be taken as an act of war on us, then yes.
9) A foreign power attacks another country that is not our ally.
DepenRAB on specifics
-Wez
Charlotte =]
New member
A terrorist could become inaccessible if he/she is hiding in a foreign country or countries. Then we have to either make arrangements with that foreign country or countries to have them ferret the terrorists out, do it ourselves under their permission, or force ourselves upon the sovereignty of their country to try to attack/ferret out the terrorist without the host country's permission.
Since You Asked
New member
I would say that the US has been pretty "expansionistic" in the past 50 years or so. And how should one consider Europe? I mean, EU is certainly expanding, even though it is without violence.
Yeah, sure. It depenRAB on the threat and the cost. it doesn`t make it any mor right though.
If killing hundreRAB, if not thousanRAB or tens of thousanRAB civillians in order to impose US-style democracy is not fanatical, I don`t know what is. But that is assuming that the Iraq campaign was based on ideological goals. Something that I sincerely doubt.
And I`m not so sure about the unwillingness to destroy itself. It all depenRAB on wether you believe in what georged, daewo and other posters on this forum has to say about the economic future of the US...
Yeah, sure. It depenRAB on the threat and the cost. it doesn`t make it any mor right though.
If killing hundreRAB, if not thousanRAB or tens of thousanRAB civillians in order to impose US-style democracy is not fanatical, I don`t know what is
. But that is assuming that the Iraq campaign was based on ideological goals. Something that I sincerely doubt. And I`m not so sure about the unwillingness to destroy itself. It all depenRAB on wether you believe in what georged, daewo and other posters on this forum has to say about the economic future of the US...
cupcake<333
New member
You would bancrupt yourself in a few months if you thought these were legitemate reasons for war, especially with the others as well - you are sending the message that if you have nukes we will not attack you but unless you are our frienRAB/do as we say...we might attack you anyway. You are encouraging nukes and increasing the chances you will go to war at the same time.
Not sure I agree with you on it being right to attack the expansionistic one, though here it would really depend on the circumstances.
Not sure I agree with you on it being right to attack the expansionistic one, though here it would really depend on the circumstances.
lover_chick93
New member
i just want to isolate this. now that weve agreed that this is a reason to go to war, the next question is "who do we declare war against?" do we attack one of the supporting countries of the terrorists, or do we attack the terrorists themselves?
For a country to be militarily expansionistic, I think of the classic idea of countries conquering other countries to gain territory for exploitation or colonization. The Soviet Union was certainly expansionistic in that regard. The great majority of its subjected peoples were certainly not willingly subjugated. It also had no plans of leaving the subjected lanRAB - it was not a temporary situation.
Yes, we invaded Iraq and are currently occupying it (and Vietnam and Korea before those) but that does not mean that we wanted to set up permanent colonies apart, perhaps, from military bases. In all cases, we wanted to set up stable governments and get out as soon as possible. Of course, we could argue about how much those governments are puppet governments that are there to support US business exploitation, but stable governments that are democratic are, by their very nature, hard to be under any strong covert US control. We are talking apples and oranges here.
Yes, we invaded Iraq and are currently occupying it (and Vietnam and Korea before those) but that does not mean that we wanted to set up permanent colonies apart, perhaps, from military bases. In all cases, we wanted to set up stable governments and get out as soon as possible. Of course, we could argue about how much those governments are puppet governments that are there to support US business exploitation, but stable governments that are democratic are, by their very nature, hard to be under any strong covert US control. We are talking apples and oranges here.
Us has certainly used force to expand their sphere of interests, set up or supported puppet governments (many of them undemocratic) and exported their political and cultural values, but above all, US has used force to protect and impose market economy and free flowing trade. I would certainly say that this qualifies as expansionistic, if not purely imperialistic. But, if you are refering to only territorial expansion, I guess you are right. But I don`t see why this distinction would be useful in this regard, except for merely excluding the US and other nations using more covert but still violent methoRAB for maintaining and furthering their economic and political interests
The Question Asker O.o
New member
Though I see no problem in exporting political or cultural values or generally expanding sphere of interests (most countries do that), the charges of the US setting up undemocratic puppet governments or using the military to protect and impose market economy and free trade are more important. Which specific situations, within the last 25 years (the possible sphere of power of those currently in power) do you have in mind?