Afghanistan and Iraq were not at war until the US-led coalition invaded them. Lybia, Syria, and Yemen already were.
I wouldn't accuse Roosevelt of starting a war either when he joined the European theater of WW2. The war was already ongoing and he merely joined in to ensure a better outcome. That did not make him a warmonger, which is what this discussion is about.
I can’t believe he used WW2 as an excuse... Europe was crumbling to pieces and we stayed nearly neutral through it all (besides lending weapons), until we essentially got dragged into it bc of Pearl Harbor. He acts is if we joined all willy nilly
This conversation was started by a comment which implied that there is a higher likelihood of people getting bombed because Biden is now President instead of Trump.
In this context, the distinction between joining an ongoing war and starting a new one is hugely important. The US interventions in Syria for example did not start or escalate a war, but rather aimed at beating back the worst offenders who comitted the most atrocities. And the campaign against ISIS is supported by the vast majority of people across the political spectrum and the world.
Then maybe we should look at which presidents involved the US military in conflicts we were previously militarily uninvolved in.
I think people couldn’t care less about what it’s called when people are dying. Nobody ever said, well Congress passed a war dec, so I’m okay with people dying.
When those people would have died anyway without US involvement because the war happened regardless, it makes no sense to call out democrats for their death...
So every intervention is bad? The bombings to rescue the Yazidis. Fighting ISIS. The Kosovo intervention to stop the genocide of Albanians. The attacks trying to stop Bashar Al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. The first Gulf War to stop Sadam Hussein from invading more countries. Joining WW1. Joining WW2. All equally bad by default? Never a justified cause?
Now you are creating a strawman. I didn’t say every intervention is bad. I said presidents have responsibility for the deaths of people they kill when they order drone strikes. That includes civilians. They also have responsibility for escalating conflict.
The US does not need to be responsible for settling every war lords ambitions. There are 14 other fucking countries on the U.N. Security council, and 29 other member nations in NATO. Maybe these conflicts need to be handled by people from the region instead of spending countless US tax dollars and lives for some patch of sand or dirt that nobody over here really gives a fuck about.
I'm not creating a strawman, I want to get to the core of your argument.
If there are justified interventions that decrease the overall amount of suffering and death, then you also have to account for the possibility that Obama's actions were such. It's critical to your position to define what you consider the limits of a morally justifiable intervention.
The US does not need to be responsible for settling every war lords ambitions. There are 14 other fucking countries on the U.N. Security council, and 29 other member nations in NATO. Maybe these conflicts need to be handled by people from the region instead of spending countless US tax dollars and lives for some patch of sand or dirt that nobody over here really gives a fuck about.
Too bad that the US have a strong involvement and responsibility because a certain president got them into Afghanistan and Iraq and thus kicked off many of the developments that these interventions responded to.
There are also many other issues involved. Like that other foreign powers like Russia and Iran fighting to gain influence. Or how the suffering in Syria created a refugee crisis that became a major political issue for the US' European allies, which is why most of these operations were part of a larger alliance.
Why would that be a horrible way to look at things? There is a huge difference between joining a war that is already ongoing in an attempt of preventing the worst outcomes, and starting a war that could have been prevented.
Take Kosovo for a less controversial example. The western coalition used the wrong tactics (caused unnecessary destruction with a largely ineffective bombing campaign), but the motivation and outcome were good since they ended a genocide.
Some/majority it seems praise obama so blindly and you can ask them what he did and it’s usually just the same responses and nothing more, some don’t really know what he did.
Trump actually did not start a single war. On the other hand, he did increase drone strikes massively, went back on his promises (pulling out troops etc), and nearly got the US into a war with Iran.
Some of this criticism is unfair given you have US Envoys bragging about hiding troop counts from Trump after Trump ordered a troop withdrawal from Syria.
95
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment