I do not agree. The campaign against Yugoslavia achieved to stop the ethnic cleansing in the province with no allied casualties. I would be sad if that was seen as a pointless or small achievement.
The problem about WWI, in my opinion, is that what should have become a replica of the French-Prusian war about the colonies become a worldwide conflict. A so massive conflict for such a small question - and the consequences it had - are really pitiful.
Pointless wars? The Spanish-American war of 1898. Damn, we should have invaded the US mainland instead of losing badly in Cuba.
I'd have to disagree with you guys about Viet Nam. The point of that war was to protect and defend the freedoms of people from tyranical rule and to stop the spread of Communism (which it did, North VN couldn't have expanded any further if they wanted to after the US pulled out). The reason that war was lost is due largely to the American people and hippies and such who had no appreciation for freedom or life.
All wars have a point, the question is whether they are valid or not.
The campaign against Yugoslavia achieved to stop the ethnic cleansing in the province with no allied casualties. I would be sad if that was seen as a pointless or small achievement.
I am afraid I disagree. The Kosovo campaign replaced the ethnic cleansing of Albanians with the ethnic cleansing of Serbs to appease US foriegn policy and ease the conscience of the west. Fi you look at the ethnicity of displaced people since the campaign and the location of NATO guards now they will, I think, bear out my case.
Well, I suppose any war you lose is pointless, and any war you win is validated by that fact. So I would say that any struggle is pointless from the perspective of the loser, and perfectly justified to the winner. Whereas the outsider usually sees two groups of idiots. Hmm. In short, it's late, and I'm tired.
There were many seperate conflicts in the so-called "Indian Wars," and although some (such as the forced movement of the Cherokee, or various of the infamous Indian massacres) were unjustifiable and definitely wrong morally in my eyes, there were many that were justified (namely fighting the Creek down in Georgia and Alabama, the Apaches in the Southwest, and the Blackfoot in the northern plains), as these tribal groups posed an immediate threat to our citizens from the word go. Actually, in the case of the Blackfeet and the Apache, they posed an immediate threat to all neihbouring Indian tribes as well as to ourselves. The Creek, likewise several northeastern tribes, had been allied with our enemies in the French and Indian War and the Revolution and the War of 1812, and received assistance from those parties when we fought the tribes themselves.
I would agree with your charges about several individual aspects of the Indian Wars, but overall I would have to disagree.
Thorin, care to back that one up? How can you copmpare the pre-Korean War Southern Government to the North (or post war for that matter)????? Singman Rhee was a rotten, murdering creep, whom we never should have put in power (or allowed to stay once we knew what he was doing) but he never came close to Kim Il Sung's record of butchery. Are you saying that the UN defense of South Korea was a mistake?
Personally, I would have to say the Opium Wars (1839-42 and 1856-60). Total embarrassment for Britain and the Royal Navy as they were fought to open China up to the import of opium (!) by British merchants (First) and against the French (Second) to ensure that the Brits had control of the China trade.
I know I dont have a real say when it comes to Vietnam but I think it wasnt a pointless war. We're all entitled to our opinions but I think us trying to stop communism from spreading to a weaker country is a good reason to fight...