"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and to add to Viet Nam's list of credentials: taking out one of the most despicable mass murderers in history

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Yanks and Sovs agreed to divide the country and reunify it at some unspecified point in the future. Neither was a recognised sovereign state at the point where Kim I attempted to speed up that reunification process...

And while Israel was certainly not the only aggressor in 1948 it was far from an innocent victim. The arab states and Israel were both eager to get their hands on each other.

Not the only agressor? Heh. That's rich.

re the Korean situation, you are still left with one party attacking the other, no? How many shades of grey do you want to use?

Given the thread topic, I would assume that agression is not a thing to be approved of by the chattering classes. If I'm wrong, please tell me, then we can stop the incessant kvetching about Iraq and 'legality'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oh, and to add to Viet Nam's list of credentials: taking out one of the most despicable mass murderers in history

It is to their credit that they couldn't stomach it anymore, and told the PRC where to get off when they toppled the regime in Cambodia.

[notyoueither]

Of course, for their trouble they then got invaded by the PRC.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not the only agressor? Heh. That's rich.

re the Korean situation, you are still left with one party attacking the other, no? How many shades of grey do you want to use?

Given the thread topic, I would assume that agression is not a thing to be approved of by the chattering classes. If I'm wrong, please tell me, then we can stop the incessant kvetching about Iraq and 'legality'.

I'm deliberately drawing in shades of grey here because of the fact that you set a very high standard for what you considered aggression. Was NK's aggression against SK more egregious than the aggression Israel displayed towards its Arab neighbours? Yeah, probably. But the two are not that dissimilar. Israel had no intention of living within the borders drawn for it by the UN. And the Arab states had no intention of letting it do so...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course, for their trouble they then got invaded by the PRC.

And they held their own too. China pulled a "declare victory while we still can" and ran across the border with their tail between their legs.

[KrazyHorse]

And it wasn't quite 180 years ago that Canada and the US learned to live side by side. Remember the Fenian raids....

[KrazyHorse]

And to answer you: yes, I believe that aggression toward sovereign states should be frowned upon. Abuse of military power is far too easy and the human costs of war are far too high for war to be entered into lightly. The fact is that Iraq was not attacked in self defence by any reasonable definition of the phrase. Justifying the war on humanitarian grounds (which I believe is sometimes possible) comes far closer to passing the test (despite the fact that the motivation of the US government was obviously not humanitarian). However the humanitarian case for Iraq was far less urgent and the probable negative consequences were far greater than they would be for a war of choice which I would approve of.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And it wasn't quite 180 years ago that Canada and the US learned to live side by side. Remember the Fenian raids....

Naw, the Fenian raids didn't interrupt the era of peaceful British-US relations. The most the US ever did to 'support' the fenian raids was a moronic statment by president johnson to "recognize the accomplished facts". Which turned out to mean nothing becasue the US military cooperated in defeating the raids by Stopping Sherwin on the US side of the border and capturing O'Neill when he tried to cross back to the states.