Christians: Sunni protesters, not Assad are the problem

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's easy. You just say one word at a time. Many people have done it before.

Yes, but some people have no aptitude for irony.

[patrick1]

Al, I frankly prefer wars of sunshine, lollipops and daffodils....

Urging the Turkish Army to invade is a very bad idea.

[Beet]

Not all declarations of war are wars of aggression. The US participation in World War II, was a defensive war, because the Axis powers had already declared war against the US. Not all wars are equal. Wars of aggression, are specifically offensive wars that are not triggered by a need for self-defense.

This is all very obvious, basic stuff.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not all declarations of war are wars of aggression. The US participation in World War II, was a defensive war, because the Axis powers had already declared war against the US. Not all wars are equal. Wars of aggression, are specifically offensive wars that are not triggered by a need for self-defense.

This is all very obvious, basic stuff.

The point is that it's a tautology. Better still, it is a tautology that has become a piece of gloriously meaningless (well, up to a point) jargon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, I frankly prefer wars of sunshine, lollipops and daffodils....

That would be funny for the opposite reason, obviously.

[republicanism]

We should give up the idea that these conflicts are black/white in general.
Neither in Syria, nor in Egypt or Libya it is/was: "Glorious freedom fighters vs. evil devilish dictator."

Yes, it is.

Well I don't think so.

While my sympathies are/were definitely with the opposition in all the three nations, I have serious problems calling the Salafis in Egypt or the guys who systematically displaced and intimidated (and occasionally slaughtered) blacks in Libya 'glorious freedom fighters'.

And while I'm not at all a friend of Mubarak, I will not call the man who made peace between Egypt and Israel a 'evil devilish dictator'.

[Beet]

Not all declarations of war are wars of aggression. The US participation in World War II, was a defensive war, because the Axis powers had already declared war against the US. Not all wars are equal. Wars of aggression, are specifically offensive wars that are not triggered by a need for self-defense.

This is all very obvious, basic stuff.

The point is that it's a tautology. Better still, it is a tautology that has become a piece of gloriously meaningless (well, up to a point) jargon.

Are you and Patrick really trying to argue that because people carry guns and shoot one another in wars, hence they're all "wars of aggression"? You can't really believe that. By that standard, there's no such thing as a "civil war." For crying out loud, it's a figure of speech. But it's a figure of speech that has a specific definition, namely a war carried out from one state to another without regard for the need of self-defense. Modern categorizations of war go back to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (which is still in force), were further developed during the Nuremberg Trials and the UN Charter. It's been a critical concept of international relations ever since. And it's been quite effective, actually-- the number of wars of aggression have fallen in the latter part of the 20th and early part of the 21st century, the number of wars of aggression for territorial conquest even more so. The threat of violating international norms has played an important role in this.