War motive discussion

[Digital Guerrilla]

This thread is about useless wars what I mean is wars that really should not have been fought because what was involed was of benifit to only one side involved. I will start by presenting what is called the "Opium Wars" fought by China and the Britian. The British felt they should be allowed to sell more to China not just buy from the Chinese but what they wanted to sell to the Chinese was opium. The Chinese were not interested in Western civilization but the British felt the rulers in China had no right to keep opium from their people. Opium is a medicine grown in India. It is true that opium can be dangerous. It is used to relieve pain, help with sleeplessness, and reduce hunger and thirst. The Chinese government outlawed the import of Opium because of the debilitating effects of the drug and because of the silver leaving China to pay for it. The treaty that ended the Opium War was the first of many "unequal treaties" with the west. It began a century of invasion and humiliation for a very proud nation. Although China did not want it's people to see how advanced the rest of the world was the British still did not have to force the Chinese to buy opium. The "Opium War" lasted from 1839 to 1842.

verdict useless war or not give reasons to support your opinion

[Acriku]

A war that I feel was useless was the Vietnam war, 1965-1975. Johnson got us into a big mess, to keep communism from spreading into South Vietnam. Truman made a containment policy, which was to keep communism from spreading elsewhere, due to the fear that if Indochina succumed to communism, the rest of Asia would. After giving Johnson the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave Johnson any power he wanted without a declaration of war, Operation Rolling Thunder commenced - hoping to get enough body counts and destroy the VC's will to fight. During the course of the war, more bombs were dropped than the Allies did in all of World War II. To prevent the air raids from ruining them, the VC used the vast network of tunnels underground that were built during the early 1940s. Over 30,000 miles of tunnels had been built. Even though over 200,000 communists, supposedly, died, it did not stop the VC. As Ho Chi Minh had warned the french, "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." Walter Cronkite was a respected newscaster that left Vietnam in the Tet (Vietnam's New Year's) offensive, and predicted this war would be a stalemate. And it was. It wasn't until 1975 that the Americans completely left the country, and left the South Vietnamese fighters to fend for themselves. 58,000 Americans died in the war, and over $150 billion dollars went into this war. To get a perspective on the amount of destruction American air raids laid to Southeast asia, it was 8 million tons of bombs - also equivalent to 640 Hiroshimas. 2 million Vietnamese died. Communist forces invaded Saigon and named it Ho Chi Minh City. America lost.

Was this a useful war, or useless?

[Edric O]

Speaking of the Vietnam war, I think this quote says it best:

The slippery slope began with the US siding with the French, the former colonizers, and with collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers, who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American.

Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of "communist" (one of those bad-for-you label warnings).

He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. For he was some kind of communist.

Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of communist.

More than twenty years and more than a million dead later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people believe that the US lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, by poisoning the earth, the water and the gene pool for generations, Washington had in fact achieved its primary purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

[DukeLeto]

Johnson got us into a big mess, to keep communism from spreading into South Vietnam.

Actually, the first American troops were sent in under Eisenhower.

[Mahdi]

Sandwraith: You're a bit off what the reasons were and what happened during hte opium wars. Give me ten, fifteen minutes, I may edit this post with actual facts. I'm kinda busy right now.

Edit:

England was facing trade deficit with China. Easy way around it: Sale of Opium.

In 1839 Chinese government outlawed Opium due to the dangerousness of the drug (which was the only nation on earth to ban the sale of drugs due to health purposes. The USA banned the chinese from selling opium in america in 1887, but that was as an economic attack on china, and americans and other nationalities were still permitted to sell opium in the usa).

France and the USA also major players in the Opium trade, Britain was merely mroe successful than them.

Duriong the first Opium War, France and the USA sent warships to fight with the British against the Chinese.

During he second Opium war France and the USa were not content to jsut send warships, so they invaded China themselves. Russia also fought against the chinese, but for territorial reasons. Russia and the USA both claimed to be netral and pretended to act as mediators in order to slow down China's mobilization. They succeded, and invaded along with France and Britain. Japan entered the war against China for the same reasons as Russia: Territorial gain.

After these two Opium Wars, Britain, USA, France, Russia, and Japan remained in China. It was divided up into spheres of influence (think Germany post-ww2) and essentially controlled it up until the boxer rebellion of 1900.

So, the main faults with your post are that it was just between Britain and China, when the USA, France, Russia, and Japan all played major roles on the same side as Britain, the wars were about "medicinal" opium, when in fact the vaste majority of opium sold in China was recreational, that the english attacked because they thought the government ad no right to keep opium away from the chinese people, when in fact they attacked because the opium trade was the only way to even out there trade deficit with China, and that there was only one opium war, when in fact there were two, hence them being called "The Opium WARS".

[Acriku]

Edric, that quote is a bit extreme, and I have a few comments on it.

The slippery slope began with the US siding with the French, the former colonizers, and with collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers, who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American.

This doesn't acknowledge the fact that Truman had serious doubts for supporting French's colonial ambitions. But, he was afraid of losing an ally against the Soviets during the Cold War.

He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. For he was some kind of communist.

Well, Truman, Eisenhower, and Johnson were anti-communist, so aiding a communist wouldn't make sense. Instead, they sent aid to the South Vietnamese (which most, probably 4 out of every 5 dollars, went to military funds). They wanted to build a good country with Diem, but Diem was ruling autocratically and sent the aid given by the US to the pockets of his own officials. Diem was anti-communist, and supported by US (however, the US urgered Diem to get support from the peasants in any way, but he didn't understand the needs of his people). So, the NLF (National Liberation Front) was formed, also known as the Vietcong, in South Vietnam and were communist.

Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of communist.

This may not have been true, because while communism does preach equality, it has never worked out equally, even if it appears equal at first.

Actually, the first American troops were sent in under Eisenhower.

Actually, all Eisenhower, Truman, and Kennedy did was send aid to South Vietnam. Soldiers weren't sent to Vietnam until after Johnson got the Gulf of Tonkin resolution(based on not giving the whole truth to the Congress to get this resolution), which gave him all the power he needed. The first troops arrived to guard the United States airforce base in Da Nang.

[Edric O]

I mostly agree with your points, Acriku. However:

This may not have been true, because while communism does preach equality, it has never worked out equally, even if it appears equal at first.

And by bombing North Vietnam back to the stone age, they made SURE that communism wouldn't work properly there either.

In fact, how can you expect communism to ever be successful, when every time a country becomes communist it gets invaded by dozens of foreign armies?

1. Russia goes communist in 1917, so all the Western Allies send their armies to invade. They fail to bring down the government, but succeed in ruining the economy, ensuring the failure of communism.

2. Hungary goes communist in 1919. Allied forces invade from all sides, occupy Budapest and depose the new government. A fascist dictator is installed in its place.

3. China goes communist in the late 40's in the midst of internal chaos and after some 30 years of civil war, in which foreign troops were heavily involved.

4. North Korea goes communist through a brutal civil war, which is in fact waged between the Americans and the Chinese. The country is torn apart.

5. Vietnam goes communist and throws out the French colonialists. Therefore the USA invades and bombs Vietnam's hopes to oblivion.

6. Cuba goes communist by deposing the fascist dictator Batista. The USA is outraged and attempts an invasion. It fails miserabely, so economic sanctions are imposed instead. Cuba's economy is starved and the country cannot develop.

Under these conditions, it's no wonder that communism failed in all those countries. (note that I didn't talk about Eastern Europe, because those communist regimes were installed by Moscow, and therefore they were already corrupt and oppressive to begin with)

[Acriku]

I agree they blew the hell out of Vietnam, which is said but true. This would have been effective in the war, if the Vietcong did not have miles of tunnels underneath. If the American forces knew this, perhaps so much destruction could have been avoided somehow.

Many of those countries had enough time to gain economic, political, and societal stability. They did not gain such stability. In fact, the Allies saw communism as a government of oppression, of dictatorship, of corruption, and of murder. And rightly so, since that was all that communism has brought to many of those countries.

If you live for the three stabilities, and you see a government without it, and the people being oppressed by a dictator with all the power, it's no wonder you would be anti-that-government.

[Edric O]

The history of communism in the 20th century was a sad one. Its fate was more or less sealed the minute Stalin came to power in Russia. Few people realize it, but most of the victims of Stalin's terror and purges were communists - true followers of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky who wouldn't praise Stalin's inhumane excuse for communism. The men and women who believed in communism and wanted to build a better Russia were eliminated, and Stalin's cronies were put in their place. By 1937, Stalin had assasinated or jailed every surviving member of the 1917 Revolution, except one. Leon Trotsky, Lenin's friend and co-architect of the Revolution, managed to stay one step ahead of Stalin's agents for 3 more years. He ran through Europe, and even went as far as Mexico. But in August 1940, Stalin's secret service finally caught up with him, and they shot him. By that time, Trotsky's whole family was dead - tortured and killed by Stalin. His sons were killed one by one, his wife died in mysterious circumstances, and his daughter was driven to suicide.

And this story repeated itself with almost every single communist in Russia, and beyond. Stalin was not satisfied with merely turning the Soviet Union into a brutal police state - he wanted to have all the world's communists under his command. The international communist movement itself was infiltrated by Stalin's cronies. With the help of the influential USSR (and a few well-placed bullets), they succeded in turning nearly all of the world's communist parties into extensions of the Russian secret service. As soon as an idealistic communist rebel defeated an oppressive regime somewhere in the world and began to establish a true communist government, Stalin's agents stopped him dead in his tracks, subverted his revolution to serve the Kremlin, and often had him killed as well.

It's amazing how so much can be destroyed by a single man. It is possible that without Stalin, a worldwide communist revolution would have occured, and we would now be living in a world of equality and freedom. But by taking away freedom and replacing it with brutal oppression, Stalin harmed communism far more than any capitalist ever did. He set us back by at least 100 years.

[Egeides]

Maybe Lenin had good will, but don't you think that puting that much power in that few persons brings to something else than democracy? Don't you believe that the system brought at the beginnign with the Gosplan and all the rest was naturally gonna bring control of the country by only a few and that these few would bring their cronies up there to key positions?

[Digital Guerrilla]

Mahdi I had planned to edit my intial post for the reasons you presented in your post. I know and understand about there being one than one "Opium war" and most of the other information that you ponited out in your post. I disagree that my information is off (reasons for the first Opium war) but just incomplete but it is of a small concern. In my haste I made a erroneous posted thread thank you pointing that out and for your correction.

[TMA_1]

Lenin had alterier motives. He was not the saint that edric claims he is. sorry edric, but we usually disagree with this stuff. you understand.lol ;) nah seriously. its just I believe that he had extreme ways of handling things. He, in basic philosophies was the same as stalin. He just didnt have enough time to exact that kind of horrible stuff.

[exatreide]

hind site is 20/20

if he didnt bomb the hell out of north vietnam, the war would have been alot more difficult.

[Acriku]

But that's the thing Ex, the bombing in North Vietnam did not have its effect because of the miles of tunnels underground, giving the VC a relief area for a raid. They instead blew up the beautiful country, with a blindfold. I'm sure a good portion of it helped the American side, but a lot of it was useless militarily. Hind sight being 20/20 does not excuse the overkill they laid on the country. The leaders of the war were under the pretense that if they didn't stop and kill all of the VC, the entire continent would have become communist like the domino effect. But it didn't happen when the U.S. soldiers left Vietnam in 1975.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Air power was also constraint in the Vietnam war if the bombing in December of 1972 would have taken place in Febuary of 1965 the war would have been different maybe in terms of length.

[Caid Ivik]

Wars themselves have no motives. Maybe some destructive fanatics like them, but there aren't much in our culture. Wars come because of lack of diplomatical art. Sometimes we try to make something, but there are too much opposers and too much radicals on both sides. That really causes wars, all ideologies are usually peaceful - at core.