Question for my American friends

[Weevil]

Would it have been the morally right course of action for England and/or France to invade America in the 1840's? To put a forceable end to the slave trade and prevent the genocide of Native Americans? Is there an America today only because of their failure to bring about positive change?

 

[Problem Child]

That's an excellent question there weevil.

I think it would have been morally right, but the world rarely operates strictly along lines of morality. There are dozens of cases where it would have been morally right for one country to invade another, but it wasn't practical or economical in terms of lives lost vs. the possible wrongs righted.

I think the situations in which going to war for the right moral reasons are, unfortunately few. I also think that in our history, the U.S. has been on the right side of morality more often than not when it comes to the major conflicts we've fought, although sometimes we have not gotten out when we should have. It seems that most of the times we have been on the wrong side of morality have been the smaller conflicts we've fought.

 

[Problem Child]

I need more coffee, obviously.

 

[Weevil]

That's an excellent question, there weevil.

I think it would have been morally right, but the world rarely operates strictly along lines of morality. There are dozens of cases where it would have been morally right for one country to invade another, but it wasn't practical or economical in terms of lives lost vs. the possible wrongs righted.

I think the situations in which going to war for the right moral reasons are, unfortunately few. I think that in our history the U.S. has been on the right side of morality more often than not when it comes to the major conflicts we've fought.

Yeah, I suppose, And typically I've never been a supporter of the "We were wrong in the past so we must be wrong in the future" argument that seems to take root with the dumber members of my political affiliation.

I just think that occasionally the US's moralizing is like W's prosecution of drug addicts.

 

[Problem Child]

Yeah, I suppose, And typically I've never been a supporter of the "We were wrong in the past so we must be wrong in the future" argument that seems to take root with the dumber members of my political affiliation.

I just think that occasionally the US's moralizing is like W's prosecution of drug addicts.

I'm not sure what "moralizing" you are talking about. If you mean the general tone that we need to take out Saddam because he's a "bad man", I agree.

I think we need to take him out if it can be clearly shown he has WMD and there is reasonable evidence that he plans to use them. Short of that, I'm not in favor of invading.

Having said that, I have always thought and continue to think that assassinating the him is an excellent idea. If that's immoral of me, so be it.

 

[Sillyman]

Whether or not it would be morally right would depend greatly on how it was done. Switching the subjugation of one people for another certainly wouldn't be right, it would just be different.

While people are capable of moral choices, countries tend to be (and should be in my opinion) concerned first and foremost with the welfare of it's citizens. Protecting the Indians or slaves would have very little ultimate benefit for England, France, or any other world power that was capable of it at the time.

I don't believe in all major conflicts we were completely morally justified. War isn't really fought on moral ground; it's fought on economic ground, at least for us.

 

[Problem Child]

I don't believe in all major conflicts we were completely morally justified. War isn't really fought on moral ground; it's fought on economic ground, at least for us.

Which major war did we fight with absolutely no consideration towards the morality of the situation (except for Viet Nam and Korea- I wasn't thinking of them when I made that statement)?

 

[Weevil]

Which major war did we fight with absolutely no consideration towards the morality of the situation (except for Viet Nam and Korea- I wasn't thinking of them when I made that statement)?

The war of 1812, The Mexican American war, The Spanish-American War. Any more?

 

[Sillyman]

Which major war did we fight with absolutely no consideration towards the morality of the situation (except for Viet Nam and Korea- I wasn't thinking of them when I made that statement)?

I didn't say that morality was never a factor at all. Economic factors are what seems to propel things into an actual war.

 

[Weevil]

I'm not sure what "moralizing" you are talking about. If you mean the general tone that we need to take out Saddam because he's a "bad man", I agree.


Having said that, I have always thought and continue to think that assassinating the him is an excellent idea. If that's immoral of me, so be it.

I suppose I mean the general disgust in the US for any country who does "bad things"

If the US had a better track record of knocking off leaders than sure. By that same notion I openly endorse Al-Qaeda taking a run at Dubs.

 

[Sillyman]

The war of 1812, The Mexican American war, The Spanish-American War. Any more?

Some people might say Desert Shield.

 

[Weevil]

The war of 1812, The Mexican American war, The Spanish-American War. Any more?

Also, WW1

 

[Problem Child]

The war of 1812, The Mexican American war, The Spanish-American War. Any more?

I don't consider those major wars. That's why I made the qualification. I consider WWI, WWII, The Civil war, and the Revolutionary war major wars, either because of the profound change they had on the U.S. or strictly due to the number of lives lost or both. I think all those wars were fought for (at least partially) moral reasons.

Now, if you want to classify the wars you mentioned as major ones, be my guest, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm not.

I think the both the Mexican and spanish wars were examples of American aggression, and as such can't be regarded as moral. I'm not too familiar with the causes for the war of 1812, but I can't think of a reason you would say that our fighting in that war would be immoral. Maybe you could enlighten me, bug.

 

[Problem Child]

Also, WW1

Explain.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

There were numerous treaties with the Indian Nations in place, and, even though they were all eventually broken, the French and English couldn't have known that, and they would have respected the U.S.'s attempt at peace. Also, American Indians, even 1840, had voices in government and many white advocacy groups working on their behalf. Again, not a pamphlet for how wonderful the U.S. government was, but another series of things to consider before moralizing about "invading". And I think we can leave off the word "genocide". By the Civil War there more American Indians on this Continent than there were when Columbus got here. Not that thousands weren't murdered, they were, let's just be careful which words we use to describe events.

Also, the conflict with the Indians were considered territorial "Wars" with actual nation states, something the Europeans invented and rationalized morally as the right of the superior races. I don't think either England or France could have made their case based on a hatred for Imperialism.

Regarding slavery, even by 1840 the country and the world knew that the Peculiar Institution of the South was soon to be abolished, either by legislation and compliance, or outright armed conflict (which is what happend). There were impressive and effective anti-slavery movements in the United States going back to the mid 1700s, when the first one was founded by Benjamin Franklin, an American, by the way, not by the English who still owned the place and introduced slavery to the Colonies. There were hundreds of abolishist movements and the underground railway and "no slavery" charters for new western territories.

No, by 1840 it was clear that salvery should and would be abolished. What in the world was there for England France to do? Come in and put garrisons in Charleston, Atlanta, Savannah, etc.? They'd also have to attack New York, Philadelphia and Boston because there's no chance that the Northern States were ever going to let the Southern States be torn from the Union. So you're talking about the attempted Continent wide continued occupation of an enemy that has already defeated England twice, and for what? To force a change that was inevitable anyway? I don't think so.

-----------------

And to get to your actual question, no, I don't see any parallel between 1840 America and 2002 Iraq.

 

[Weevil]

I think the both the Mexican and spanish wars were examples of American aggression, and as such can't be regarded as moral. I'm not too familiar with the causes for the war of 1812, but I can't think of a reason you would say that our fighting in that war would be immoral. Maybe you could enlighten me, bug.

You wanted land that wasn't yours you invaded us, we kicked your ass, you burned toronto, we burned the white house.

Also what moral reasons are their for ww1 for anybody. It was a war where the rich sacrificed the bodies of the poor so they could expand their territory a little before it was all gone.

 

[Sillyman]

Right. World War I was a giant cluster fuck for the most part. God was on no one's side for that one. (I like lit because I can talk about history and use the phrase "cluster fuck".)

In World War II we were definately the good guys, but if we were really doing it for moral reasons, we would have gotten involved a lot sooner. Instead we had to have our president withhold information and trick us into it.

I would say the North was on the morally right side as far as the Civil War goes, although really the war was more of a fuckup than anything else. There were many peaceful resolutions possible if people could have been willing to comprimise.

The Revolution is just odd. I would still say we were the good guys again, but really America has done a lot of the same things England did.

 

[Problem Child]

You wanted land that wasn't yours you invaded us, we kicked your ass, you burned toronto, we burned the white house.

that was a fairly weak synopsis, but i'm not in the mood to look up the causes of the war of 1812 so I won't argue. I think "we kicked your ass" is a little incorrect as a blanket statement though. I'm pretty sure the U.S. kicked a little ass in the Battle of New Orleans too.

Also what moral reasons are their for ww1 for anybody. It was a war where the rich sacrificed the bodies of the poor so they could expand their territory a little before it was all gone.

I would say that there was a moral factor to going to europe at all. After all, what did we, the U.S. have to gain? We weren't in it for land, and it was a nasty situation for us to voluntarily send our men into. I think that coming to the aid of aour allies, who were invaded can be said to be a moral thing to do.

If you are trying to say that WWI as a whole was an atrocious waste of life for no good reason, and therefore immoral, then I agree.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

We say we "defeated" England twice, I guess you can say that. However, I think in both cases, they were far superior militarily and economically. It's probably that they decided it wasn't worth more of their boys dying overseas for something that didn't appear to be "worth" it at the time (Sound familiar?). I guess we lost to Viet Nam, though it was more of a..."we're tired of this, let's get out of here" thing.

 

[Saytur]

There were numerous treaties with the Indian Nations in place, and, even though they were all eventually broken, the French and English couldn't have known that, and they would have respected the U.S.'s attempt at peace. Also, American Indians, even 1840, had voices in government and many white advocacy groups working on their behalf. Again, not a pamphlet for how wonderful the U.S. government was, but another series of things to consider before moralizing about "invading". And I think we can leave off the word "genocide". By the Civil War there more American Indians on this Continent than there were when Columbus got here. Not that thousands weren't murdered, they were, let's just be careful which words we use to describe events.

Also, the conflict with the Indians were considered territorial "Wars" with actual nation states, something the Europeans invented and rationalized morally as the right of the superior races. I don't think either England or France could have made their case based on a hatred for Imperialism.

Regarding slavery, even by 1840 the country and the world knew that the Peculiar Institution of the South was soon to be abolished, either by legislation and compliance, or outright armed conflict (which is what happend). There were impressive and effective anti-slavery movements in the United States going back to the mid 1700s, when the first one was founded by Benjamin Franklin, an American, by the way, not by the English who still owned the place and introduced slavery to the Colonies. There were hundreds of abolishist movements and the underground railway and "no slavery" charters for new western territories.

No, by 1840 it was clear that salvery should and would be abolished. What in the world was there for England France to do? Come in and put garrisons in Charleston, Atlanta, Savannah, etc.? They'd also have to attack New York, Philadelphia and Boston because there's no chance that the Northern States were ever going to let the Southern States be torn from the Union. So you're talking about the attempted Continent wide continued occupation of an enemy that has already defeated England twice, and for what? To force a change that was inevitable anyway? I don't think so.

-----------------

And to get to your actual question, no, I don't see any parallel between 1840 America and 2002 Iraq.

Besides, who wants to sail all that way and risk getting their ass kicked anyway.

 

[Saytur]

We say we "defeated" England twice, I guess you can say that. However, I think in both cases, they were far superior militarily and economically. It's probably that they decided it wasn't worth more of their boys dying overseas for something that didn't appear to be "worth" it at the time (Sound familiar?). I guess we lost to Viet Nam, though it was more of a..."we're tired of this, let's get out of here" thing.

so what's the difference?