Talk:US Attacks on Other Countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title of this article is biased since "attacks" implies that the US is the aggressor in all of these cases. While the info in the article may be useful, the title should be changed. The first line of the article has already been changed along these lines to "The following is a list of countries that have been involved in armed conflict with the USA since the end of World War II". --Alabamaboy 15:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. "attack v. 1. tr. act against with (esp. armed) force" according to the Concise OED. The idea that only unprovoked military action counts as an attack is political spin, and I'm disappointed that you've swallowed it. Even the Wikipedia page on Attack, which lists a military definition, allows that it includes attempts to "deny the enemy the use of territory, installations, personnel, or equipment". Edited back. -- Metamatic 15:35, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Isn't the use of the word "attack" also a political spin? The implication of the word is that the United States was unjustified in imposing it's will upon these countries. Whether one feels that is the case or not, it does sound like a political decision point. Wouldn't something like Armed Conflicts involving the United States be less fractious? Of course, a quick scan of the list leads me to believe that US troops were only the defending forces in one - the Korean War. In the other cases, for whatever reason, US troops were sent into the conflict without having first been fired upon. (I could easily be incorrect and there could be ones I didn't notice in a glance in which US troops were in-place and fired upon to start the conflict.) Nonetheless, I think the use of Attack is intended to be inflammatory and thus not terribly encyclopedic. --Habap 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Habap's comment. A title such as Armed Conflicts involving the United States is neutral and should be used. If we can get agreement on this issue, the first line should be changed back to along these lines. --Alabamaboy 15:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "attack" necessarily implies "unjustified". The allies attacked Berlin during World War II. The US attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are you going to tell me those were unjustified? -- Metamatic 14:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Of course they were justified. From my POV, almost all of the military actions you listed were totally justified. In addition, attack is a perfectly useful word to describe many military actions. The problem is that the word also has other alternate definitions, such as "a belligerent or antagonistic action" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). To avoid this confusion and to have a more neutral POV, I believe using Armed Conflicts or Military Actions is better. I also agree with the comment below about making this a redirect and merging with the other article.--Alabamaboy 16:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After doing more research on this subject, I wonder if this article should be merged into List of U.S. military history events.--Alabamaboy 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A difficulty with "Armed Conflicts" and "military history" is that CIA operations would not fit in well with those titles. eg the The Cuban Project where a six-man CIA team blew up a Cuban industrial facility, amongst other operations. -- Rwendland 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. I actually considered other wording and went through two or three before settling on the simple word "attacks". I think there's value in having a list of US attacks on other countries, as opposed to a list of official military operations or wars. Having said that, I was unable to find the List of U.S. military history events during all my searches, or else I might have considered adding the list to that page in a separate section, or linking to and from it. -- Metamatic 14:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Good point, Rwendland. Metamatic, since the List of U.S. military history events includes an entry for Covert operations, U.S.-supported coups, etc. would it make sense to merge these two topics - perhaps creating a redirect here to the List? That way, it puts all the information in one place and avoids missing some at one or the other. --Habap 14:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The more I look at this page, the less I understand why some things are here and others are not. Why include Operation PBSUCCESS (Guatemala, 1954), but not Operation Ajax (Iran, 1951–1953), the Brazilian Military Coup (Brazil 1964), Chilean Coup (Chile, 1973) and the Argentine Military Coup (Argentina, 1976)? All five were apparently the same thing in different places. If both pages are necessary, what are the differences between them? (Other than that this page only covers the last 60 years) --Habap 19:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added events to to the other list (Croatia, El Salvador, Libyan patrol boats), but I could not find links for (China '45-'46, Indonesia '58, Guatemala '60, '64 and '67-'69, and Peru '65). I'm simply ignorant of those events, so don't even know what category they belong in. If you could start articles (even just stubs) or add something to the History page for those countries in those years, then I'd be comfortable. Once those are listed there, I would like to submit this page for deletion or changing to a redirect. [Also, for me, listing the places but not the events (or links to descriptions of the events) is not real useful.] --Habap 20:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia is available for editing again, please let us know about these other events.... --Habap 28 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)

[edit] VfD time?

Now that most of the items on the list are on the other page, I am thinking I will submit a VfD for this page. I have been hoping that the original author would come back and explain those other items.... --Habap 5 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

I would support this. As I said before, the information here was useful. By being in the other article, more people will be able to access it.--Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

After reviewing the deletion policy, I realized that redirection was the appropriate response, not deletion. The content (other than China '45-'46, Indonesia '58, Guatemala '60, '64 and '67-'69, and Peru '65 - none of which I know anything about) has already been merged to List of U.S. military history events. --Habap 15:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)