I am not for war, but is it sometimes necessary? Ask Americans why we are at war and you will get different answers.
We provide healthcare for other countries when thousands of Americans can't afford insurance. We put our troops in danger for another country's "freedom". We have alliances that make enemies of other countries. We supply and support Israel. All for what? How exactly does this benefit America?
Should we continue doing what we have been doing or should we just stay over here and mind our own business? I am eager to see how other atheists view this.
I wasn't insinuating that the American Revolution was an American aggression, but more pointing out that it wasn't even 'American' until it was done. Had the US not fought it then their descendants would have been obligated to take part in WWI and WWII much sooner, I suppose.
As far as the US-Mexican war, no one ever consulted with the Indians on the issue, so it was imperial expansion on the part of Mexico AND the USA.
The Philippines fell under US control through some underhanded dealings with the exiled Philippine president under the Spanish-American war, and set the stage for Japan's imperial inclination in that region - the US had no 'moral grounds' for having been in the Pacific in the first place, aside from Imperial Expansion.
I'll give you the 1812 war though.
--- This is the third attempt to make a simple post, but for some reason it just won't format properly. ---
I haven't revised any historical fact. There is simply context to the declarations.
----------------------------------The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
December 11, 1941.
The submarines were sinking US vessels (sometimes in US waters) and were therefore violating international maritime agreements and custom. The US were therefore within their right to shoot on sight and to sink German submarines. The US is allowed to choose allegiances without being part of the war, just like Spain and Portugal did. I cannot recall Spanish and Portugese ships being sunk by the British, though it may well have happened, but there were no declration of war.
Again, the casus belli and declaration of war are the most important parts of the historical interpretation of war and to assign responsibility.
In a newer interpretation, the casus belli given by the US for the 2003 war on Iraq was WMDs, which is accepted as legitimate by the international society (WMDs, not necessarily the casus belli). It was very weak evidence for this casus belli, and currently many are using the fact that no WMDs were found as a claim that the war was illegitimate (without casus belli). However, this is historical revisionism as one must way the evidence available at the time of casus belli, not what is discovered later.
This is why the allied powers could not use the persecution of Jews as a post hoc excuse for the war against the Axis, because the gross violations of human rights committed are not viewed as being available at the time. It is also why Lincoln could, since the issue was brought forth as a justification during the war.
History has certain 'rules' which must be followed, just like any other type of higher learning. Disobeying these rules is the same as violating the scientific method.
The evidence wasn't fabricated, there aren't any serious evidence that they willfully did. There may be in the future, which will then uncover a huge conspiracy not yet accepted as a known historical conspiracy. There may be vast historical conspiracies which we don't know about, but the starting point is that it is not a conspiracy, and that the official history is true.
From a scientific point of view, you are starting with a theory which is saying that official history is false, and that alternative history is correct, and true to prove your null hypothesis instead of falsifying the alternative. You have to try to prove yourself incorrect, not the other way round.
And to back up Paul's statement, just read Colin Powell's testimony.
Paul, the current justification for war is getting passed the UN security council. The history books go something like this (I don't remember the exact course of events): The US layed out it's evidence, much like a trial by jury, in front of the UN. They then deliberated, and, if i recall correctly, voted it down. But the margin was not big enough, in as far as i can recall, to give the US a clear mandate NOT to go to war.
The US therefore went to war on a very weak foundation, which caused dissent. Later, when WMDs were not found, this was used as a further evidence that the war was unfounded. However, at the time of invasion, enough countries believed in the evidence for the US to take it as a mandate. But since there is no proof (yet) that the evidence was fake, we cannot conclude that it was. We can argue if the US had mandate enough to go to war, but the evidence was certainly enough to convince some countries. So at that time, all countries that voted for were part of the decision, and must therefore be given equal guilt.