Well, unfortunately this is the same kind of thinking that resulted in the religious wars of Europe. I mean, it was just unthinkable to allow people to suffer under the yoke of protestants, you know? Fortunately we ultimately got the Peace of Westphalia.

While I certainly don't like the idea that people might have to live in a tyrranical place, if the tyrant is just sitting there and keeping to himself, it is too _dangerous_ a reason to go to war.

After all, if not, the anyone can basically launch a war since the decision that someone is a tyrant or whatever is entirely subjective. And it means that wars become very unpredictable -- by this reasoning we have a good reason to go to war with countries all over the world. And they can themselves launch wars and use the same reason, making such a war as apparently valid as ours.

This is why I like the UN. It doesn't stop people from going to war in self defense, provided that they've been attacked, and that the UN isn't doing anything yet. But to just start a war out of thin air requires a lot of cooperation around the world. This serves as a great gatekeeper function, since many countries with differing views are going to have to agree that there's validity in the proposed action. Not any excuse will work.

Thus, while I wouldn't have been too upset if the present action were authorized by the Security Council, the mere fact that it isn't, all by itself is enough to make this a pretty bad war. Because it will have a tendency to lead to more war.



Doesn't matter much. Japan attacked the U.S. on Dec. 7, 1941, and declared war on us. Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on Dec. 11. (and Bulgaria and Hungary joined in against us on Dec. 13)

We didn't declare war on Japan until Dec. 8, and on Germany and Italy until Dec. 11 as well.

Though Germany had attacked some of our naval vessels earlier in 1941, so we would've at least had a justification if it had been felt politically viable.