Tunisia

[Jon Miller]

Basically the same reasoning (which I had) for GW2 would lead us into Iran. And I think that is a mistake.

The reasoning was as follows.

We were enemies with the nation (Iraq before GW2, Iran now) due to mistakes we (the US) made in the past (GW1 for Iraq and loads of stuff for Iran). Even though it was our mistake, we should still use our military might to neutralize possible enemies and so go to war (GW2 then, ??? now).

The problem in this pragmatic thinking is that you don't know if you won't make a worse enemy (in todays reality where terrorism is possible) so you don't really neutralize your possible enemy. You are just changing your possible enemies form.

And in the process being morally wrong (this is a stronger position than I had previously, I had thought it possible for the US to do little harm to non-combatents and now I think otherwise) and costing huge amounts which are paid by the american poor (morally and pragmatically wrong).

JM

[I AM MOBIUS]

There's hope for you yet, JM!

[The Mad Monk]

How was GW1 a mistake?

[Jon Miller]

It was based on manipulations from Kuwait/etc. We had no reason to be there and to punish Saddam/Iraq for a decade after.

JM

[The Mad Monk]

The annexation of Kuwait was a manipulation from Kuwait?

[Jon Miller]

That it was something that we should be involved in was manipulation by Kuwait. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil by drilling at angles. If Mexico started doing that to Texas, I'm betting troops would get involved.

[The Mad Monk]

Really? Sounds like something for embargoes, or other diplomatic action, not annexation. Or are you suggesting that the standard for casus belli has fallen below WWII levels?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait... wasn't there a general acknowledgement that everyone except Germany and Japan went to war too late in WW2?

[The Mad Monk]

I said below those levels. You know, back when conquest was still a thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeeees... my point was that doesn't everyone basically agree that causes belli during WW2 SHOULD have been below the levels that they actual were?

[The Mad Monk]

Hmm let me rethink this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, more like morally equivalent to the invasion of Grenada and Panama.

Basically, causes belli after WW2 became quite a bit more relaxed.

[The Mad Monk]

...so you're agreeing with me, that we should have acted in response to the annexation of Kuwait, rather than sit back and wait like the Allies did with the annexation of the Sudetenland?

Nuts. Now we're crossposting. Sorry about the DanS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nope. I'm saying the floor for causus belli had changed.

Unless you think that the UK should have declared war on the US for Grenada? Or the USSR should have declared war on the US for Panama.

To be honest, the US probably would have been fine with Iraq having Kuwait or installing a puppet government if the Saudis didn't freak out.