Nowadays, many nations practice a politically correct form of warfare ...
Nowadays nations engaging in war are constrained by, and ultimately subject to, international law and world public opinion ... it really has nothing to do with so-called "political correctness" ...
If you have any doubt of this, I'd suggest you pay closer attention to the Shrub's modifications of his travel itinerary:
'Avoiding the Handcuffs': George Bush Cancels Swiss Trip, After Human Rights Groups Seek Arrest on Torture Charges | The Nation
G.W. Bush Cancels Europe Speech to Avoid Prosecution, Protest - Debra Sweet - Open Salon
You know, I would think as someone who possesses a legal background, you - of all people - would know this ...
although perhaps your legal education failed to cover the finer points of the laws of war and applicable international law ...
The days of
"we're-gonna-go-to-war-and-fight-just-cause-we-want-to" are beginning to fade into the annuals of history
... as befits a civilized humanity ...
Using the US-Iraq wars for example, the United States and her allies went to war against Iraq a second time because the first campaign was called off prematurely;
The first war happened because April Glaspie - the then US Ambassador to Iraq - functionally green-lighted Saddam to go ahead and invade Kuwait. There are several versions of the transcript of her meeting with Saddam over the issue, the following is from one:
We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? ...
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Another transcript, which was published in the NY Times, is quoted below:
But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
In light of the subsequent behavior of the United States, the above may be considered highly irresponsible at best ...
and throughly duplicitous at worst ...
necessitating a second campaign even bloodier and more horrific than the first.
There was no necessity ... as evidenced by the fact that when it became clear that the US would be unable to obtain United Nations Security Council authorization for military action, the United States withdrew the proposed UNSC resolution which would have authorized it. The lack of any vote by several of the permanent members of the UNSC - which the US knew would happen - would have effectively vetoed the measure.
That, and lack of a clear
jus_ad_bellum, are precisely what made it an illegal
war_of_aggression ...
It's also what makes Junior a war criminal under international law if he served there ...
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It should be no surprise if the US and allies will feel compelled to re-enter Afghanistan in a few years after the first withdrawal.
Good luck with that ... with the older armchair militarists greying and dying off at a fairly quick clip, and with the younger generation having had their fill of illegal wars of aggression which were based on lies and went far beyond the confines of what normal common sense would dictate, the likelihood of the citizens of the US allowing us to dive back into unnecessary foreign conflicts is about nil ...
Just in case you weren't paying attention: Syria ...
In this age of television, satellites and instantaneous communication... there is no political will for total war.
And that's despite the fact of the US military's efforts - which were largely successful - to largely sanitize and censor real news from on the ground about the most recent wars ...
So, we are left with military endeavors toppling a dictator here and there from which chaos and civil wars ensue.
You're making the exact opposite case than the one you think you are making ... (as if "total war" doesn't result in chaos ...
)
But, by all means:
please do continue ...
A war not worth finishing is not worth entering. We have exchanged total war for feel-good military adventurism.
You speak of "total war" and "feel-good military adventurism" as though they are mutually exclusive things ...
They are not.
You know, there was a time when I was largely anti United Nations ... but as I've grown older and witnessed the inclinations (and the results that flow from them) of those like yourself - which are grounded in pompous self-righteous arrogance - I've become convinced that the UN very much has its place ...
Just as a people (ie.
a nation) has the right to implement just laws to deal with its own criminal malefactors within it who violate the rights of others, so too does the world community.
As this becomes more and more the norm, you should reflect back on these words and recall very clearly that it was
you - and others of your ilk - who were actually the
cause of it ...
