Was Kuwait slant drilling?
In this case it would be more cost-effective to leave them.
Possibly. But it was no excuse.
Also, consider Saddam Hussein’s genocidal campaign against Kurds. Its hard for me to not succumb to foreign state intervention in certain instances.
Why not?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
He was in $80 bn debt, its possible he made the whole thing up. In any case oil is no excuse to launch war against a nation.
Not sure what you mean.
ESF, you might consider offering scenarios in which prior American intervention is not largely to blame.
I tell you now, if it wasn’t America, it’d be China
It’s somewhat disturbing to see so many libertarian’s try to justify the actions of states based on other states. As if somehow we as individuals needed to do so in the first place.
The sins of the individual, are not the sins of the many. I didn’t endorse anyone to bomb anyone, yet I am somehow expected as an American to defend it’s previous actions. Well I consider both states to be violent and stupid. Anytime you marginalize the sins of the one onto the many people will begin to defend the most asinine of actions.
But that is precisely why the US invaded Iraq.
I know.
I never justified the US invasion of Iraq. However, the intervention in support of Kuwait could have been humanitarian. Of course, no, it was about oil. But it would have been justified had it been humanitarian.
Perhaps I am missing something?
Anyway, some examples might include the Japanese war crimes in WW2.
Obviousology 101. The least that people arguing for the utilitarianism of World War 2 could do is get the analysis right, that FDR was a communist agent trying to destroy the regional buffers against the USSR and Communist China, nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to intervene in interstate affairs, you go by the rule of at any given point aiding the side that appears to be losing. Had that been done imagine how much better the map of Eurasia would have looked, not just a big Red blob.
I failed to see how the OP showed us that libertarianism doesn’t have anything to do with the real world.
Libertarianism has everything to do with reality, but those libertarians who think that wars can be conducted without significant collateral damage are out of touch. Not only that, but wars need to deter the enemy, and if deterrence is achieved by massive killings, even of civilians, then it has to be done. Otherwise the civilians on your side (that is you, your family and your friends) will suffer worse consequences.
What you’re saying simply doesn’t follow. Only because Hamas was democratically elected doesn’t mean that all Palestinians should be held responsible for Hamas’s actions.
As for Japan:
-
It’s well known that US diplomats knew that Japan was seeking unconditional surrender BEFORE the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
Even the only “condition” the Japanese wanted when it wanted to surrender beforehand was for the Emperor to stay in power. Well guess what happened after unconditional surrender? The US decided to keep the Emperor in power. So for all practical purposes, the war could’ve ended sooner.
-
Mass bombings violate the rights of innocent individuals.
Only we are not talking about rights, we are talking about not being stupid. If the only way to deter Japan or the Soviet Union is to kill 1 million of their citizens, then that’s what should be done. Otherwise 1 million of people who you care about will be killed by them. I would rather kill Russians than Israelis. Besides, I do think the population shares some of the responsibility for what their government does. Maybe according to libertarian principles they don’t, but according to the intuition of every man on the street they do. So I don’t have moral qualms about killing Palestinian civilians. Sure, some of them may not even support Hamas, but I know that most do, and collateral damage is inevitable anyway. I also know that in Israel we learned that in order to deter terrorists you need to project a lot of power and never to surrender to their demands. Terrorists and most other kind of aggressors understand only force, and the more brutal is the force the better they understand it.
Such an attitude is what causes people of the Arab world to hate Israel. Until Isreaelis understand this, there really is no hope for peace in the Middle East.
Collateral damage isn’t something that should be taken lightly - collateral damage is an initation of violence, it is no different from a thief or a murderer or a vandalist robbing you, killing you, or destroying your property.
On the one hand, you say that you have no problem initiating aggression by killing innocent civilians. Then you say that “terrorists and most other kind of aggressors understand only force, and the more brutal is the force the better they understand it.” So it follows that you should be tortured and publicly executed.
Palestinians hate Israel because the believe Jews have taken their lands. For the purpose of this debate it doesn’t matter whether this is true or not. The fact is that Israel will not accept 6 million hostile Palestinians into its borders.That would be just like inviting a murderer into your home.
Palestinians continue their campaign of terror in order to get what they think is their lands back. If Israel wants to win this war, Israel must fight back ferociously until Palestinians will see that there is no hope in getting what they want. Until they lose hope, they will continue to vote and support terrorist organizations. However once the population will suffer enormously from their decision to support these organizations, they might rethink their attitude.
Do they? How’s that working out for you?
They’re operating on the same principle, yet you want to claim they’re doing something wrong and Israel isnt? Can’t have it both ways. Are you saying Hamas should pay attention to: “If you want to stop the aggression of your enemies, you need to destroy them, kill 5 citizens for every citizen they kill. Otherwise they will not be deterred”?
The difference between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah is that Israel doesn’t want anything except defending its lands, while Hamas and Hezbollah want to take these lands. How the warfare is conducted is entirely different issue. However it is clear which side is the aggressor and which side is on the defensive.