[dogemaster2026]

It is for the defense of the American national interests and friend nations:

- Iraq: 1) to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and 2) weapons (though this turned out to be mistaken) after the 9/11 attacks

- Iran: we don’t need another nuclear nation

- Syria: destroy terrorists (ISIS), enforce the red line on chemical weapons, and to protect US troops (when we attacked Iran-supported militias)

- Vietnam: to stop the spread of communism and protect neighboring nations

[pfannkuchen]

That is basically redefining the word defense, though.

I can’t be like “it was self defense” if I beat somebody up because they are getting too big at the gym and they could beat me up later if I don’t beat them up first.

That doesn’t mean such a thing is never ever justified, in international relations, it just ain’t “defense”.

[aleph_minus_one]

> That is basically redefining the word defense, though.

I guess that dogemaster2026 wanted to express this in a little bit more indirect way. :-)

[vasac]

So while many of the reasons are questionable (understatement of the year), let’s focus on the last one. After America lost the war in Vietnam, what happened to those neighboring nations? Did they suffer from Vietnamese communists? The only Vietnamese intervention was in Cambodia, and hardly anyone thinks that wasn’t the right thing to do.

[dogemaster2026]

The OP said it was not for “defence.” I am arguing the reasons were for the defense of American interests. That is objectively true.

[vasac]

The OP probably thought of defense in the narrow sense as "the action of defending against or resisting an attack", and not in the broader sense defined as "we’re going to travel halfway around the world to kill a million people because that’s who we are". A common mistake.

[dogemaster2026]

Not because “that’s who we are.” That’s a ret*rded retort. You go halfway around the world because you want to protect your friends and your nation’s interest.

Wouldn’t you do that to protect your family and your home, now and into generations? I think I know the answer.

[t-3]

That depends greatly on which interests you allow to be defined as "American". The vast majority of American people would have preferred not to be involved in most of our foreign adventures. The rich and powerful thought differently. Is our citizenship determined by the size of our bank accounts?

[dogemaster2026]

This is factually incorrect. Here are the estimates for the rates of support for each conflict at the beginning of the conflict:

- Iraq (Gulf War): 75-80%

- Iraq (2003): 65-76%

- Syria: 35-50%

- Vietnam: 65-75%

- Iran: 42%

Alexander Hamilton wrote that governance should involve people with “wisdom to discern” and “virtue to pursue the common good”. The US is not a direct democracy; it is a constitutional republic. The definition of what constitutes American interests is literally whatever the United States federal government says it is.

SOURCES:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

- https://news.gallup.com/poll/8212/only-americans-believe-war...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_domestic_reactions_to_the_2...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_in...

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/04/01/iran-war-...

[swat535]

Invading other countries to take their resources and kill civilians is not defence.

With your logic, Russia is also acting in a defensive manner.

[MarsIronPI]

I'm probably going to get flagged for this, but here goes anyway.

Russia absolutely has reason to not want Ukraine to join NATO. I'm not condoning the invasion, but I say it absolutely makes sense for Russia to carry it out. Not a reason to commit war crimes, or to cause any more suffering than necessary, but from a national security perspective it makes sense to want to disrupt the process of Ukraine joining NATO.

[mopsi]

Only if you accept the hidden assumption that Russia is an antagonist toward the rest of Europe. Otherwise the common "national security" justifications make no sense, because Russia benefits immensely from other NATO members investing resources into the development of institutions in newer member states.

A former Russian foreign minister has labeled NATO "free-of-charge security" for Russia, because NATO membership requirements turn a country into a stable and predictable place. The best neighbors Russia has are in NATO, and much of that stability is directly attributable to their membership.

[AlexeyBelov]

They meant "defense of interests", not "defense of the country" (as in a geographical entity).

[SZJX]

Yeah, by such definitions any country is justified to wage a war and always find a way to claim it’s for self-defense (which is indeed how most causus belli have worked throughout the history – they always claim to have the moral high ground when launching the war). This is also how essentially in every country it’s called the Department of Defense (unless you’re Trump) but that means nothing as they start wars all the same. Not a trace of any rules, accountability or restraints still remains under such a framing.

[dogemaster2026]

Correct. The strongest always wins.

Also it’s not defense. It’s national security what matters.

Prior to WW2, almost every nation called it “ministry of war.” The defense branding is a modern woke framing to appease the masses.

[frodowtf2]

_We don't need another nuclear nation unless it's Israel_