Which of the wars the US waged since 1945 can be justfied?
 

If any. I've always wondered which wars people supported, and why? For instance, I tend to disregard anyone who opposed the war in Iraq, but supported bombing Belgrade. What would justify a war? What would disqualify it?

BTW, you can vote for more than one. I should have made that clear.

I voted for the Iraq war but the first one when they invaded Kuwait.

I War, but not the second one. War can be justified to stop genocide and territorial aggression. Korea and Vietnam were civil wars we should have left alone.

All but Yugoslavia as is. We should have had a more balanced approach. Neither side was innocent, but intervention was need to stop the violence.

This may be against the point, but I don't think any of the United States wars were justifiable except for the revolutionary war which founded this country.

I don't want to sound like a smart ass, but we haven't been in a war since WW2, only "conflicts". What do you think is the significance, if any, of our country acting like we are in a war, but never officially decreeing it so?

i have had family members in all of them

they are one. Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire so we just resumed.

I can assure you that what your military did to those peoples definely felt like war for them. Just because your military hadn't had any significant loses doesn't mean that the other side wasn't obliterated.

I voted for Iraq (first one), Afghanistan, Cold War and Yugoslavia.

I didn't vote, The list was incomplete. No mention of the these wars.....
war on drugs, war on poverty, war on global warming, war on war, war on peace, war on the budget, war on obesity, war on jelly donuts.....etc..etc..etc..

They were declared, they don't count.

Weren't Korea and Vietnam technically part of the Cold War?

You completely missed my point. I said that the military and the citizens of the USA have acted like we were in a war in all these conflicts mentioned, but the fact remains our Congress never officially declared a war. Do you think that is significant?

Here we are still calling all these conflicts "wars" when the fact is they were not. Why do you think that is? I personally have no idea, and that is why I am asking.

Afghanistan.

Well, I don't consider a formal declaration of war to be significant for defining the term "war". History is full of "conflicts" which were begun without a formal declaration of war, yet had a much bigger impact, lasted longer and killed more than many of the declared wars.

To me, conflict means that it's not about nations or peoples as a whole but about a region, a treaty or a resource.

War on the other hand means to me that the well-being of a nation / people as a whole is at stake.

To give specific examples, I consider the thing between India and Pakistan to be a conflict because it's about Kashmere, and the thing between Palestine and Israel as a war, because the existance of both of the parties is threatened.

For qualifying/disqualifying a war it should have 2 qualities

1.) It should be justifiable as being legitimately in the interests of the United States
2.) It should be morally justifiable

e.g. Afghanistan, from a realist perspective the Taliban and Al Qaeda had effectively cooperated in an attack against the united states, giving cause for retaliation, at the same time Afghanistan itself would likely continue to be a source of instability unless it was brought into the modern world. Satistifying condition 1 for both the initial invasion and the follow up.

From a liberal perspective, the Taliban was a vicious and brutal regime which was slowly killing its people, denying them rights and freedoms further they were an illegitimate regime having never attained the consent of the people they governed. Whats more the development and aide significantly improves the lives of those living in Afghanistan. further their was no possibility of an alternative situation coming about. Satisfying condition 2.

By contrast Iraq had an evil leader, however, it was not in the United States interests to engage in two wars and to ignore Afghanistan, nor did Iraq pose a significant threat, further any moral justification offered was tenuous at best when one considered the cost/benefit.
And Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles, doesn't mean WWI and WWII were the same war.

Right; it means France and/or Britain would have been justified taking out Hitler in the mid 30s.

war of 1812?

we were invaded!