Which of these American wars were justified?

[wimp]

all choices are for the side America (or what would become America) fought for.

NOTA for me, including the Civil War and WWII; even considering how insidious the CSA and Third Reich were, I feel they would have eventually collapsed on their own.

edit: added the Mexican-American War. pretend its above NOTA.

[Pink Panther]

I voted for these wars:
    *War of Independence-I feel the British stepped out of their lines on certain issues, though you can make an argument that the Americans were acting like spoiled children.
     *War of 1812-I'm going to be honest, I only voted for this option because it somewhat helped Napoleon and his war with the British, although it didn't matter in the end. I guess we gained the respect of the British, although we starting to get respected before the war.
     *Civil War(Union Side)-I believe this is obvious, but it also completely united the country, as people starting thinking of themselves as Americans, rather than Alabamians or Vermonters.
     *WW1-Although I wish the Germans didn't lose, considering they tried to convince Mexico to invade us, that's more than enough justification, honestly.
     *WW2-I believe this is also obvious.

      Honorable Mention:
       *Spanish-American War-Although this wasn't at all justified, it essentially marked the end of one of the most evil empires in human history.
       

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I voted for these wars:
    *War of Independence-I feel the British stepped out of their lines on certain issues, though you can make an argument that the Americans were acting like spoiled children.
     *War of 1812-I'm going to be honest, I only voted for this option because it somewhat helped Napoleon and his war with the British, although it didn't matter in the end. I guess we gained the respect of the British, although we starting to get respected before the war.
     *Civil War(Union Side)-I believe this is obvious, but it also completely united the country, as people starting thinking of themselves as Americans, rather than Alabamians or Vermonters.
     *WW1-Although I wish the Germans didn't lose, considering they tried to convince Mexico to invade us, that's more than enough justification, honestly.
     *WW2-I believe this is also obvious.

      Honorable Mention:
       *Spanish-American War-Although this wasn't at all justified, it essentially marked the end of one of the most evil empires in human history.
       

They didn’t try to convince Mexico to invade apperopos of nothing. The Zimmerman telegram was about a contingency if the US entered the European war.

[darklordoftech]

- War of Independence (pro-Independence Side) because the British Parliament was so unrepresentative that it makes Mitch McConnell look like John Lewis in comparison.

- Civil War (Union Side) (After the Emancipation Proclamation) because freeing the slaves was a moral obligation.

- World War II (Allied Side) because Hitler had to be stopped.

- Afghanistan War because terrorist attacks were being launched from Afghanistan.

[Storr]

The War of Independence, Civil War (Union), World War II, and Afghanistan are all easily justified.
But I'll die on a hill arguing Korea was justified. Vietnam could have been justified due to a Korea like scenario. Just as in our timeline, I imagine North Vietnam would have eventually tried to militarily invade the South had the US kept to "advising" and (what we now call) nation building in the Republic of Vietnam. But, instead American leaders decided to create an imaginary incident to use as justification for full scale intervention because sending in massive numbers of troops without a strategic plan will solve any geopolitical problem....right?

Edit: The Gulf War was technically justified as Iraq invaded a sovereign nation, which is pretty straightforward when it comes to modern military conflicts.  Though, why was it the United States' job to lead the fight against Saddam?

I know the answer is oil. But my point is that in another situation where American strategic interests oil was not involved (say, apartheid South Africa invading Zimbabwe) would there have been the same reaction? Militarily intervening to protect your flow of oil is way more morally murky than saving poor little Kuwait from big meanie Saddam Hussein.

[RINO Tom]

I think whether or not a war was "justified" is not the same question as whether or not we should have entered the war.  I happen to believe that nearly every war the US has entered could be pretty reasonably justified from a certain ideological perspective, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the right decision to go to war.

War of Independence - Absolutely Justified.  This is not comparable at all to the South seceding, IMO, as we were true second class citizens an ocean away who tried - in good faith - to remain under British rule if only concessions were met.
War of 1812 - Justified.  I am no expert on this war, but the alternative to fighting it would have essentially been letting a European nation spit on American sovereignty, from what I have read.
Civil War (Union side) - Absolutely Justified.  Even taking the entire question of slavery out of it (which should be an obvious moral justification, once that was on the table), fighting to keep the nation together is a worthy cause in and of itself.    
Civil War (Confederate side) - Unjustified.  In my ever-so-humble opinion, this decision stops at "Treason."
Indian Wars - Unjustified, from my limited understanding, though there is more nuance than "racist European descendants are mean to Native Americans."
Spanish American War - Unsure, as I have read conflicting arguments both ways on this one and would need to revisit it.
Philipine American War - Unsure, as I would need to do a bit more research, honestly.
World War I - Justified.  While I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that there were no "bad sides" in this one, it was clear by the time that we entered that an Allied victory would be a statement that liberal democracy and internationalism would be the way of the future (even if we ended up screwing it up...).
World War II - Absolutely Justified.  We should have entered much earlier.
Korean War - Somewhat justified, but this runs into the (perhaps more relevant) question of whether or not that justification is a good enough reason to get involved.
Vietnam War - Unsure, as the mismanagement of it and infamous nature of its coverage kind of clouds my views of how I would actually feel about the spread of Communism during this time.
Gulf War - Justified.  I also don't know a ton about this war, but from everything I have seen, we had a good enough reason to assemble a united initiative to stop Hussein.  Not sure we wouldn't be better off today if we hadn't just finished the job and removed him then.
Afghanistan War - Absolutely Justified.  I have never heard a coherent argument other than being an absolute slave to "anti-war" stances for why we weren't justified in invading a country that was harboring those responsible for a tragedy on our soil.
Iraq War - Unsure, as I do believe we had a good initial justification to declare war on that regime (there is a reason it had bipartisan support), but the ensuing mismanagement and uncertainty about how much "lying" was done about WMDs really clouds this one.  It does appear clear as day that by 2007ish, we were not being productive there.
1989 Invasion of Panama - Unsure.  Definitely need to research this one more.
French and Indian War - Somewhat unjustified, I suppose, as it seems to largely be an extension of British/French rivalries and desire for more land ... but then again, someone was going to get it, and I'm not surprised neither was handing it out.  Would need to revisit this one.
Mexican American War - Unsure, as it seems that American provoking of the war was certainly shady, but our actual declaration of war was justified at that point ... lean unjustified overall, but I would want to read some varying sources that are in disagreement.

[Calthrina950]

all choices are for the side America (or what would become America) fought for.

NOTA for me, including the Civil War and WWII; even considering how insidious the CSA and Third Reich were, I feel they would have eventually collapsed on their own.

edit: added the Mexican-American War. pretend its above NOTA.

I think you forget how we got into World War II. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor pushed us to declare war on Japan. Adolf Hitler subsequently declared war on the United States, bringing us into the European Theater.

As for my response to this question, I think the American Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II are the clearly justifiable conflicts. I'm uncertain about most of the remaining conflicts, and I think the Vietnam War, Iraq War, Spanish-American War, the Invasion of Panama, and the Indian Wars were all unjustified.

[LBJer]

I voted for the Revolution, the Union side in the Civil War, and WWII.  But in looking at the Revolutionary War, I don't think it's so obvious as to which side had the moral high ground--you can make an argument either way.  I voted yes to that war because I thought that the Patriot cause was justifiable, not because it was justified in the sense that the Patriots were clearly in the right and the British/Loyalists clearly in the wrong.  

[TheReckoning]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

If South Vietnam survived and was as prosperous as South Korea is today, while North Vietnam remained a totalitarian pariah state, it then would be much more difficult to argue the war was wrong.

[TheReckoning]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

If South Vietnam survived and was as prosperous as South Korea is today, while North Vietnam remained a totalitarian pariah state, it then would be much more difficult to argue the war was wrong.

But the question is about justification, not result, and the wars had the same justification.

[(no subject)]

The western objective in Vietnam was perfectly honourable. Such an an objective was achieved in Korea, which is why the South is a prosperous democracy and not a hellhole under the the Kim dynasty.

Saddam was a fascist and I vowed never to support the Australian Democrats again after they sided with the far left and illegal blood for oil war crap. The 1991 war was authorised by the United Nations, which is as legal a war as you can get.

[Alben Barkley]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

If South Vietnam survived and was as prosperous as South Korea is today, while North Vietnam remained a totalitarian pariah state, it then would be much more difficult to argue the war was wrong.

But the question is about justification, not result, and the wars had the same justification.

My take on it is that Vietnam may have been initially justified, but after a certain point it was not. It was clear that South Vietnam didn't have the will or ability to fight and that the war was a quagmire wasting the lives of Americans and Vietnamese alike. And we mostly just kept going out of pride; LBJ didn't want to be the first president to "lose" a war, and neither did Nixon. It became more like Iraq than Korea and was no longer justifiable.

[American2020]

There's a conflict which marked me during the 90's and in which the US intervened: the Yugoslav Wars.
The massacres and other atrocities marked me.
French President Jacques Chirac convinced Bill Clinton to be involved in the Bosnia War.
These actions were justified.

[KaiserDave]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

Korea was a UN police action and Vietnam wasn't.

[KaiserDave]

Voted for about six, but came to say the OP's justification for saying WWII and the Civil War (Unionist) were unjustified is hilariously stupid.

[(no subject)]

Why the split in Korea vs Vietnam? They were extremely similar in justification, the only difference was the outcome.

Korea was a UN police action and Vietnam wasn't.

Only because the Soviets could veto UN approval of fighting the North Vietnamese dictatorship. They'd learned their lesson after the USA took use of the Soviets boycotting the UN over Taiwan to get a UN supported police action for Korea..

[dw93]

Korea made more sense strategically than Vietnam did, as South Korea falling could've had negative consequences on Japan, while South Vietnam falling didn't really have any lasting consequences that would've been equivalent to a scenario where South Korea fell to the North.

[Proud Houstonian]

all choices are for the side America (or what would become America) fought for.

NOTA for me, including the Civil War and WWII; even considering how insidious the CSA and Third Reich were, I feel they would have eventually collapsed on their own.

edit: added the Mexican-American War. pretend its above NOTA.

CSA and Axis Attacked first

[The Mikado]

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims that the American Revolution was justified but not the War of 1812 or the French and Indian War.

I mean, the War of 1812 had the element of being an ant declaring war on a shoe. It was incredibly stupid in a "why do we think we have any shot at beating the British other than that they're busy with Napoleon at the moment" way, and if/when Boney went down, the US had zero shot at success, especially if you took the War Hawks' delusional fantasies of annexing Canada as "success."

Of course, the USA did achieve its secondary objective in the war: crushing Tecumseh's Tribal Confederacy and ending once and for all any serious threat of a major British-aligned Native state emerging to oppose the USA. Tie for America, tie for Britain, huge huge huge loss for the Native Americans.

[The Mikado]

Anyway, re: Korea v Vietnam, worth pointing out that South Vietnam wasn't even really supposed to exist. There was supposed to be a referendum in South Vietnam on merger with the North in 1956 which seemed like it would have passed overwhelmingly, but Diem made sure that referendum was never held. Diem himself was a brutal despot, and his various successors didn't even have the homegrown legitimacy he had and were just generals the Americans liked. You can make a case that Diem's rejection of international binding treaty obligation to hold a 1956 referendum on merger with North Vietnam made the very existence of South Vietnam inherently lawless, if you wanted to.

South Korea and North Korea were both deeply artificial and arbitrary countries in 1950 and neither Syngman Rhee nor Kim Il-Sung were really "home grown" so much as imposed, and Syngman Rhee was certainly no charmer, but the invasion by North Korea of South Korea was unquestionably unprovoked and illegal North Korean aggression. Kim Il-Sung's regime was decisively in the wrong.

It's true that the Soviets and North Koreans were shocked the USA cared enough about South Korea to enter the war and Stalin was expecting North Korea to just wipe South Korea off the map as a fait accompli. Maybe had the USA done a better job in credibly arguing it'd defend South Korea in face of a Northern invasion, such a Northern invasion wouldn't have happened, and maybe you should blame Dean Acheson a bit for arguing that the US line of defense starts at the Pacific Ocean (the US will go to war to defend Japan and Taiwan...but completely neglected to mention the existence of South Korea), a mistake that actually helped convince the Soviets and the North Koreans that South Korea wasn't under American protection. Perhaps if the US had been more explicit that South Korea was under its protection umbrella, Kim (and Stalin, who greenlit the war) would have been more careful about provoking it.

Am I saying it should've been obvious that South Korea should be defended and South Vietnam not? Of course not! It's really only justifiable in retrospect. However, I definitely think you can make a case that the fact that Diem couldn't even hold a referendum on whether South Vietnam should be absorbed by North Vietnam because it was blindingly obvious that annexation would win should've warned Washington a lot about how deeply unpopular the South Vietnamese government was and how there wasn't an actual groundswell of opinion in South Vietnam on wanting to remain independent. The South Vietnamese public didn't have its heart in the fight to remain independent, so why should anyone else fight for them?

[LtNOWIS]

The US entry into World War I was justified. The Germans resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and sank 7 US merchant ships. The US can't just sit there and be attacked. That's why the previously dovish President Wilson and and overwhelming majority of Congress went for it.

[Continential]

War of Independence/War of 1812/Civil War (Union)/WW1/WW2/Korean War/Gulf War/Afghanistan War

[darklordoftech]

The Bosnia and Kosovo interventions were definitely justified. The violence stopped and Milosevic was voted out.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims that the American Revolution was justified but not the War of 1812 or the French and Indian War.

What does the justness of the French and Indian War have to do with the justness of the Revolution? One was fought to further British imperial interests while the other was a rebellion against those very same interests. The French and Indian War has no ideological justification, unless you think the Seven Years' War was a war clearly fought on the basis of right and wrong, while the American Revolution was one of liberty against tyranny, republic against monarchy. There is also no American equivalent to Lord Jeffrey Amherst in our independence war, he of course being the one who intentionally infected Britain's native enemies with smallpox after 1763 (actually, he was still around during the Revolution, but he was busy leading the defense of England against a possible invasion by France - allied with America - and suppressing the radical Gordon Riots).