National Interest is perfectly acceptable Cassus Belli.
We introduced the Roman Empire as a comparison in a thread on recruiting, so to take gluttonous advantage of that I propose that Rome routinely invaded foreign peoples to destroy a threat to their state; further, we the states united have a history fraught with examples of punitive expeditions such as wilsonian use of force
and even invasions in support of comercial interest such as the Barbary Coast Expedition.
I submit to this august body of thinkers that for our capitalist democracy to wage war for comercial interest (oil, perhaps) or preventative war (Iraq, perhaps) or as punishment for some imagined or real wrong (Afghanistan) is not without historical precedence, and is more than likely a logical extension of our national interest (commerce).

Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics

RSS


observation
I would argue that anyone's defense of their homeland would be promoting the ideals and morals of their own. Obviously one's own defense ideally would prolong their existence(and their citizens).
For an agressor to wage war on another's turf and claim that that Nation's ideals and morals are wrong is a daunting global/political move. The real question is where do you draw the line of one's defense of their homeland? And the answer? ideals or constituents?
Personally I wage war for Oil. Having lived in Texas now for 3 years, going on 6, I would have to say Oil is where it is at!
View Full Discussion