Tunisia

[The Mad Monk]

Anyway, on to your point about Panama and Grenada. I do not see those as being equivalent to an Annexation. Annexations are intended to be permanent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does that mean that using military force to dictate the proper government of a country is justified? Or, if it is not, then what moral high ground would a country that undertakes such actions have against a country that uses military force for annexation?

You kind of see that currently with the kerfuffle on the Crimea. The US lacks any moral high ground after the Second Gulf War and the rest of the world is unprepared to take US protestations seriously, even if they may disagree with Russia's annexation of Crimea.

[Kidlicious]

After we defeat ISIS we should put in some of our own dictators even better than Saddam and Gaddafi.

[I AM MOBIUS]

[Jon Miller]

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?

Regardless, why should we have been involved? Kuwait is not part of NATO nor is it Japan/South Korea/etc.

It's not our job to be in every war. Even if Oil/etc is involved.

JM

[I AM MOBIUS]

I agree 100%, pity that most people in the US do not share your views...

[The Mad Monk]

Even if Oil/etc is involved.

JM

Interesting. Do you believe that there are circumstances involving oil that would justify our involvement in a war?

[Jon Miller]

Interesting. Do you believe that there are circumstances involving oil that would justify our involvement in a war?

A monopoly by opponents?

Remember, we are a huge oil producer as are some of our friends.

JM
(pragmatically)

[The Mad Monk]

The mere fact that there is a monopoly, or that it refuses to sell us oil, or perhaps simply overcharges us?

I agree that such a circumstance doesn't apply at this point in time.

[I AM MOBIUS]

So if someone has a monopoly, you're willing to go to war with them?

[Jon Miller]

The mere fact that there is a monopoly, or that it refuses to sell us oil, or perhaps simply overcharges us?

I agree that such a circumstance doesn't apply at this point in time.

For a good that is a key to national sovereignty, like oil is, from a pragmatic perspective maintaining supply provides a reason to go to war.

Note that there was plenty of oil in Canada/US/other nations to support our military. Kuwait or even the entire ME wouldn't restrict our ability to fight a war.

Going to war to decrease the price of something (oil) is unsupportable (from a pragmatic perspective too).

JM

[N35t0r]

So the Japanese were totally justified in launching Pearl Harbour, given the oil embargo?

[Jon Miller]

So the Japanese were totally justified in launching Pearl Harbour, given the oil embargo?

The Japanese may have been justified in going to war, given the oil embargo.

If you assume that the oil embargo threatened Japanese sovereignty (which may have been true), Pearl Harbor had two other issues with it. First it was a surprise attack which has a significant diplomatic cost. Second it was a war Japan seemed likely to lose (There might have been better ways to acquire oil).

JM

[C0ckney]

of course. oil is a human right after all.

[Jon Miller]

Defending their citizens is one of the main reasons we have a state. In modern times, if the state doesn't have access to oil then it can not defend it's citizens.

Therefore it is a 'national right' to have access to oil.

It might be a 'national right' to have access to nuclear weapons... I could see that argument.

JM