Question about justification for war...

[denny]

I think a large amount of people believe that America wants to go to war either for material gain (notably the oil issue) or territorial gain, rather than any motive based on protecting the innocent or saving the world from evil...

What I want to know is: What would actually happen if George Bush just made a speech saying "Fuck you all, we're bigger than them and we want their country, and we intend to take it by force". So beginning a war of invasion fought on much the same basis as they always have been - imperialism, greed and lunacy  :)

What would happen? Would NATO the UN be obliged to declare war on the USA? Would NATO the UN actually do it? Would they stand a chance? Who else is likely to try and stop the USA if they just decide they're going to help themselves? I'm curious as to why Bush doesn't just get stuck in without bothering to justify himself, really...

(this chain of thought revived by this article posted by oakdryad)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

What would happen?

A whole world of shit.

Would NATO be obliged to declare war on the USA? Would NATO actually do it?

I doubt NATO would be obliged to do so; NATO is, essentially, about all the members protecting any member in case of attack. Iraq isn't a NATO member. This part of the North Atlantic Treaty is fuzzy; the Treaty is unequivocal about attack on any member of NATO, but fuzzier about nearby threats like (say) Yugoslavia.

Nicolai

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

D'oh. I meant the UN, not NATO, sorry. That's what I get for trying to think at the weekend.

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

I'm curious as to why Bush doesn't just get stuck in without bothering to justify himself, really...

That would damage the US's trade links - the last thing Bush's puppetmasters want. And would force a lot of fence-sitting countries to shift their stances, quite possibly in ways unfavourable to the US.

Any of the US's Arab "allies" would flip.

The pretence of adherence, however slight, to international rules of diplomacy, provides useful excuses and get-out clauses to all parties concerned.

Would NATO be obliged to declare war on the USA?

I think it's the UN that has that clause in its charter, not NATO.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Yup, got my acronymic organisations mixed up there  :)

I realise that he's being 'diplomatic' so people don't pick sides... I'm just wondering why it's actually necessary. Who could beat the USA in a war now?

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

It's neccessary for financial and trade reasons far more than for purely military reasons - because the whole of the US's policy is based on financial dominance, not military (although that can be a tool).

War costs a fortune and removes critical parts of the domestic workforce. War against the whole world is financially impossible.

Besides which, they'd never have enough of their own oil to power the mechanised divisions, without seriously inconveniencing the US motorist-voter.

The US may have the biggest standing and reservist military forces, but does not have the financial and population base to support this in a 'conventional' global conflict. Europe, for example, may have less standing force, but has a fairly similar population base (I suspect). Oh, and don't forget China, aka the world's largest unknown.

In other words, the question of "Who could take the US in a scrap?" is a purely hypothetical one. Either it's a conventional war and hits stalemate, or it's a nuclear one and everyone's dust.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

It did occur to me that if they start a war with no allies, they'll have no-one to sell their big guns to, which might upset some of their manufacturing industry quite a bit too...

[nickys.livejournal.com]

I should think that the Soviet Union and China have enough military force to beat America - particularly if the Arab oil states were prepared to bankroll them.
Europe as a single unit might manage it too...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

particularly if the Arab oil states were prepared to bankroll them.

Ah, good point.

[codepope.livejournal.com]

Read the chronology (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html). The reason Bush is going through the UN is Colin Powell. Without Powell, he
would have adopted the policy you suggested.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Thankyou, interesting summary there.