[gokuismyhero]

I'd argue the US contributed to "W2" through "De-Ba'athification," disbanding the Iraqi military, and the incompetence of the occupation (eg insufficient troops to enforce martial law/secure weapons caches). This isn't simply claiming the benefit of hindsight because there were many people warning about these decisions at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_End_in_Sight

[berntb]

I answered someone arguing that legally -- someone that starts a war is absolutely responsible for the effects. But then he turned around and wrote that one group was responsible for starting a war they weren't really involved in, except for trying to stop it.

There is a contradiction in there, if you think about it.

(People do make lots of mistakes in war, but the Bush administration did make a new face for f-ckups while handling the Iraq occupation. They did get lots of help from the Iranians to trip up, the guy arguing for disbanding the Iraqi military was working with them.)

[einhverfr]

> I answered someone arguing that legally -- someone that starts a war is absolutely responsible for the effects. But then he turned around and wrote that one group was responsible for starting a war they weren't really involved in, except for trying to stop it.

So let's consider this story. Germany invades Poland and tries to resolve the tension between itself and France and Britain. France and Britain declare war on Germany.

Who is the aggressor? Are we to agree, in the end, with Reichspresident und Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz and recognize that who is the aggressor is a political determination (presumably dependent on who wins the war)? Or do we accept that since the situation seems reversed in Iraq we should hold ourselves accountable?

It seems to me that this is largely confirmation that Doenitz was right, that "aggressor" is a term to be decided by the victor. I suppose we can say that aggressors never win wars ;-)

[berntb]

Wasn't there an ultimatum re WWII that if you start this war -- then we are part of it?

That is, joining an attacked ally in an existing war.

[einhverfr]

How do you differ from "If you don't censor your newspapers about the Archduke's death, we will invade?"

[berntb]

>> How do you differ from "If you don't censor your newspapers about the Archduke's death, we will invade?"

If you make a bad argument, admit it. Don't equate declaring a defence alliance with making threats of war, that is just stupid.

(To the downvoting idiot: There is another comment in my history you can find and downvote.)

[einhverfr]

But Germany essentially went to war in WWI to defend their allies, who had suffered what was quite arguably an act of war, namely a terrorist attack on their dignitaries on foreign soil, and which the nationalities involved were, according to them, not very cooperative. Now if you argue that is not the same, then the US invasion of Afghanistan is also a US war of aggression.