Which of the following scenarios do you think would be a justified military intervention by the US?

[Ferguson97]

?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The first 3 options

[CEO Mindset]

nota

protection from zionists or a woke regime though would be justifiable

[dead0man]

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?


for Harry-a little...like on a scale of 1-10, a 2.4....I'm much more disappointed than I am mad.

[CEO Mindset]

Homo Sapiens isn't an endangered species, you know.

[John Dule]

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?


for Harry-a little...like on a scale of 1-10, a 2.4....I'm much more disappointed than I am mad.

For the record I misread the poll, and I thought it was asking in which situations US intervention would be required. Given that China is technically in the midst of a genocide right now, and given that I don't exactly want to start a war with a nuclear power, I didn't select that option. I do agree that genocide is of course a justification for intervention, however.

[dead0man]

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?


for Harry-a little...like on a scale of 1-10, a 2.4....I'm much more disappointed than I am mad.

For the record I misread the poll, and I thought it was asking in which situations US intervention would be required. Given that China is technically in the midst of a genocide right now, and given that I don't exactly want to start a war with a nuclear power, I didn't select that option. I do agree that genocide is of course a justification for intervention, however.

I can understand that.  I don't think we should be obliged to stop every attempted genocide, but if we can with acceptable losses in blood and coin, we should.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Normally just 1 and 2.

3 and 4 depend on the situation.

3: What kind of an attack was it, what is the "retaliation" supposed to be and is it even verified that it was a state-sponsored attack? The invasion of Iraq was sold as a "retaliation for a state-sponsored terrorist attack" and I certainly was against that sort of thing. If North Korea smuggled a nuke into New York... okay, fine.

4: If it is a Khmer Rouge-level kind of oppression which makes it more akin to #1 ("autogenocide") then sure, yes. But normally I'd be against it. Too many oppressive regimes around for that, anyway.

[Schiff for Senate]

Definitely #1 and #2.

#3 definitely if the country that is the victim of the terrorist attack is America, and maybe if it is not America (depending on the context of the situation.)

#4 might be acceptable. It probably is, if the reason is paired with one of #1, #2 or #3, but if the sole cause of going to war is residents of some other country being oppressed, we should be very careful about which ones we choose to entrench ourselves in. If America went to war over every country with a brutal/unfair leader, we wouldn't be able to do anything else and we'd lose at least some of the wars.

[Stuart98]

The first 3.

[Dr. MB]

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola#Ideas

[dead0man]

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola#Ideas

yeah, military action would have been justified against that piece of work

[CEO Mindset]

war is the health of the state...

surprising you even have a yellow avatar instead of a red one

[Wikipedia delenda est]

First three.

wow, we have some truly horrible people here.  Almost half of us would allow a genocide to happen.  You're gross.  Just so you know, if you voted no for the genocide, you are a horrible, horrible person.....maybe....maybe if you have a super good excuse...but I'm not seeing what it could be.  Even if you're a pacifist you still wouldn't want to see an entire peoples killed....would you?  Is that a way pacifists can be?


for Harry-a little...like on a scale of 1-10, a 2.4....I'm much more disappointed than I am mad.

For the record I misread the poll, and I thought it was asking in which situations US intervention would be required. Given that China is technically in the midst of a genocide right now, and given that I don't exactly want to start a war with a nuclear power, I didn't select that option. I do agree that genocide is of course a justification for intervention, however.

[Chips]

All of these would largely depend on the actual situation on the ground.

[Big Abraham]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

[Ferguson97]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

You would allow a genocide to occur because the US might have "ulterior motives"?

[Big Abraham]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

You would allow a genocide to occur because the US might have "ulterior motives"?

It's not "might." We already know what happened the last time Americans used "humanitarian concerns" to conduct an ethnic cleansing of their own in Southeast Europe.

There are ways of addressing ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity that fit well within the proscriptions of international law without relying on unilateral invasion. We have done this many times - international tribunals are set up for this very reason. Why America should be seen as wholly responsible for this, though, is beyond me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

As an historical hypothetical, would this include the Second World War? Was intervention against the Nazis not justified?

It's not "might." We already know what happened the last time Americans used "humanitarian concerns" to conduct an ethnic cleansing of their own in Southeast Europe.

If that's a reference to Kosovo then there was no ethnic cleansing of Serbs? The claim to the contrary is literal Serbian nationalist propaganda. Census figures for Kosovo's current demographics are not reliable because a) the area where two thirds of Kosovan Serbs live is not under the control of the Kosovan government and so did not participate in the census and b) there was an organised boycott of the census by Serbs elsewhere in Kosovo. Some Serbs were permanently displaced as a result of the war, of course, but this is true of other ethnic groups, including the Kosovan Albanian majority, as well.

[Big Abraham]

As an historical hypothetical, would this include the Second World War? Was intervention against the Nazis not justified?

We had already been "intervening" against the Nazis well before we ever became involved militarily.

If that's a reference to Kosovo then there was no ethnic cleansing of Serbs? The claim to the contrary is literal Serbian nationalist propaganda. Census figures for Kosovo's current demographics are not reliable because a) the area where two thirds of Kosovan Serbs live is not under the control of the Kosovan government and so did not participate in the census and b) there was an organised boycott of the census by Serbs elsewhere in Kosovo. Some Serbs were permanently displaced as a result of the war, of course, but this is true of other ethnic groups, including the Kosovan Albanian majority, as well.

What? In 1998 Albanian militants drove ethnic Serbs from their homes by the hundreds. Some of those who remained are unaccounted for and are presumed to have been abducted by the KLA and killed. In total nearly two thousand Serbs were either killed or went missing during the Kosovan War, including many killed directly in the bombing campaign. U.S.-led NATO forces also bombed civilians and public utilities en masse, an act of state terrorism. In 1999 a Serbian refugee camp was struck by heavy airstrikes. The atrocities were multiplied manifold as a result of NATO intervention, according to Wesley Clark himself something that was known beforehand, and that's to say nothing of the case of Turkey (a NATO member state) and their ethnic cleansing operations and other crimes, enormous in scale, which were carried out with a huge flow of military aid from the Clinton administration, increasing as atrocities mounted. I guess "ethnic cleansing" cannot be tolerated near the borders of NATO; only within its borders, where the crimes are to be expedited.

[Ferguson97]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

You would allow a genocide to occur because the US might have "ulterior motives"?

It's not "might." We already know what happened the last time Americans used "humanitarian concerns" to conduct an ethnic cleansing of their own in Southeast Europe.

There are ways of addressing ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity that fit well within the proscriptions of international law without relying on unilateral invasion. We have done this many times - international tribunals are set up for this very reason. Why America should be seen as wholly responsible for this, though, is beyond me.

If you were the US President at the time, would you have entered WW2?

[Big Abraham]

None of these, considering that the first three would have ulterior motives and would only be used as a pretext anyway.

You would allow a genocide to occur because the US might have "ulterior motives"?

It's not "might." We already know what happened the last time Americans used "humanitarian concerns" to conduct an ethnic cleansing of their own in Southeast Europe.

There are ways of addressing ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity that fit well within the proscriptions of international law without relying on unilateral invasion. We have done this many times - international tribunals are set up for this very reason. Why America should be seen as wholly responsible for this, though, is beyond me.

If you were the US President at the time, would you have entered WW2?

After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, yes. Not prior to that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We had already been "intervening" against the Nazis well before we ever became involved militarily.

That doesn't really answer the question.

What? In 1998 Albanian militants drove ethnic Serbs from their homes by the hundreds. Some of those who remained are unaccounted for and are presumed to have been abducted by the KLA and killed. In total nearly two thousand Serbs were either killed or went missing during the Kosovan War, including many killed directly in the bombing campaign. U.S.-led NATO forces also bombed civilians and public utilities en masse, an act of state terrorism. In 1999 a Serbian refugee camp was struck by heavy airstrikes. The atrocities were multiplied manifold as a result of NATO intervention, according to Wesley Clark himself something that was known beforehand,

You might wish to check what Serbian forces were doing at the same time (i.e. forcibly removing the Kosovan Albanian population by the hundreds of thousands, amongst other things: documented massacres absolutely included). I've no particular flag to fly for the KLA and of course there were atrocities and abuses on both sides, as is almost always the case, but it really is a matter of degree. You can certainly make an argument against the NATO campaign in Kosovo without resorting to regurgitating Serbian nationalist propaganda.

and that's to say nothing of the case of Turkey (a NATO member state) and their ethnic cleansing operations and other crimes, enormous in scale, which were carried out with a huge flow of military aid from the Clinton administration, increasing as atrocities mounted. I guess "ethnic cleansing" cannot be tolerated near the borders of NATO; only within its borders, where the crimes are to be expedited.

Genuinely not relevant. I do not think that many people would seriously dispute that the Clinton administration was prone to hypocrisy.

[Big Abraham]

That doesn't really answer the question.

You rhetorically asked if intervention against the Nazis was not justified. I replied by saying that it's possible to intervene without the use of military force, as we did before the U.S. entered the European theatre. In the case of Germany, however, war was declared upon us so the point is moot.

You might wish to check what Serbian forces were doing at the same time (i.e. forcibly removing the Kosovan Albanian population by the hundreds of thousands, amongst other things: documented massacres absolutely included). I've no particular flag to fly for the KLA and of course there were atrocities and abuses on both sides, as is almost always the case, but it really is a matter of degree. You can certainly make an argument against the NATO campaign in Kosovo without resorting to regurgitating Serbian nationalist propaganda.

I don't deny there were Serbian atrocities as well but that is not the point. The NATO "humanitarian bombing" against the Serbs represented an act of state-terrorism (and, in the case of the KLA - NATO's ally - literal ethnic cleansing) against the Serbs. I've provided the figures to show this which you do not deny. How can you justify "stopping an ethnic cleansing" by conducting one of your own and violently robbing the Serbs of their public utilities? Like I said, there are well-established ways of bringing the perpetrators of crimes against certain groups by means of international tribunal etc., that do not involve conducting wanton mass killings on an industrial scale in flagrant violation of international law. Of course merely having Milošević before the ICC would not have been good enough for the United States, who wanted to integrate Yugoslavia into the neoliberal world order by the use of force, given it was the only country prior to 1999 which openly defied the Western hegemony

Genuinely not relevant. I do not think that many people would seriously dispute that the Clinton administration was prone to hypocrisy.

It is absolutely relevant! Have you forgotten what the justification for Kosovo was? Humanitarian intervention against ethnic cleansing, which is apparently achieved by a state under NATO and European jurisdiction being allowed to commit a large-scale ethnic cleansing of their own with full-fledged support from the nation orchestrating the bombing of Bosnia. There is simply no grounds, legal or otherwise, whatsoever for NATO to stand on.

[America Needs R'hllor]

The only reason some people vote against the first three or try to think up situations that allow them to vote against the first three- anti-interventionism is one of the funnest LARPs. It lets you sound like you're both against all the bad stuff like colonialism and imperialism AND like you're a patriotic "America first!" populist. Fun for all!

The fact is that it's not a question of "would you intervene if someone lied that there's genocide/would you intervene if you lied there was a state sponsored terrorist attack", it's a question of "would these situations justify a military intervention". Of course stopping a genocide would justify it. Of course if you won't defend any allies from attack you shouldn't have any allies. Of course not retaliating against an attack by another state in some way would just mean it's fine to attack your civilian population. Also, nice to see that the people who oppose a Jewish state also admit they'd oppose military intervention to stop a genocide. I'm sure we can trust ypur diplomatic means to save us if someone tries it again 😍