** 30-Dec-2021 World View: Justification for war
DaKardii wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:33 pm
> My standard for the legality of American wars falls upon three
> questions. First, was the war a domestic or foreign conflict?
> Second, if the conflict was foreign, then was military action
> authorized by Congress? And third, for post-WWII foreign
> conflicts, was military action authorized by the UN Security
> Council?
> By these standards, here are my opinions on whether the following
> armed conflicts involving the US were legal. Only wars with over
> 1,000 US casualties are included.
> Northwest Indian War (1785-96): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.
> War of 1812 (1812-15): Legal. Authorized by Congress.
> Second Seminole War (1835-42): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.
> Mexican-American War (1846-48): Legal. Authorized by Congress.
> Civil War (1861-65): Legal if you consider it a purely domestic
> conflict; illegal if you consider it a war between two
> countries. Not authorized by Congress.
> Frontier Indian Wars (1865-98): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.
> Spanish-American War (1898): Legal. Authorized by Congress.
> Philippine-American War (1898-1913): Legal. Purely domestic
> conflict.
> World War I (1917-18): Legal. Authorized by Congress.
> World War II (1941-45): Legal. Authorized by Congress.
> Korean War (1950-53): Legal under international law, but illegal
> under US law. Military action was authorized by the UN but not by
> Congress.
> Vietnam War (1955-75): Legal under US law only from 1964-73, when
> the Congressional authorization was in effect. Illegal under
> international law, as military action was not authorized by the UN
> at any point.
> Gulf War: Legal. Authorized by both Congress and the UN.
> War in Afghanistan: Legal under US law but not under international
> law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.
> Iraq War: Legal under US law but not under international
> law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.
This is a very interesting analysis, but I do believe that it has to
be expanded. Possibly the most obvious thing is that it would have
been unthinkable not to respond to the 9/11 attacks. The whole
country was traumatized, and the situation could not have been
resolved any other way besides war.
So the point is that when a country is attacked, then it has the right
to respond, without having to ask permission. So self-defense is one
issue.
Another issue is America's role as "policeman of the world." You can
look at America's post-WWII wars -- Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan,
Iraq -- and they were all for the benefit of someone else, not for
America. By contrast, Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine were
for the benefit of Russia, to gain territory, to try to restore its
colonization of these countries.
DaKardii wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:52 pm
> It's debatable whether Russia would be obligated to give Crimea
> back to Ukraine if this agreement is ratified. On May 27, 1997,
> Crimea was Ukrainian territory and Russia had no military presence
> there. So it's possible to interpret the agreement (if ratified)
> as requiring that AT MINIMUM Crimea be de-militarized. However,
> because the agreement does not address changes in territory made
> on or after May 28, 1997, it's also possible to interpret the
> agreement a (if ratified) as permitting that Crimea remain Russian
> territory even if it's de-militarized.
> On another note, it's all but certain that the agreement (if
> ratified) would require that Russia remove all troops from Eastern
> Ukraine, which would all but guarantee a defeat for the
> pro-Russian rebels. For this reason, the rebels are very likely to
> oppose this agreement and perhaps even take escalatory measures to
> prevent its ratification.
There isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that Putin would agree to
give Crimea back to Ukraine, even if he signed that agreement.
You're assuming that Russia would actually do what it agreed to. As
I've previously said, both Russia and China view international
agreements as a means to have veto power over American and Western
foreign policy, while they do anything they want. Russia and China
will violate international law at will, and they will ignore any
agreements or treaties they've signed, but they would demand that
Western countries remain bound by those agreements.
As I said, just signing that agreement would be a major geopolitical
victory for Putin, and a defeat for the West, because Putin could
claim that the West had agreed that Crimea was part of Russia.