All wars are conducted for multiple reasons. There's no one guy up there thinking, "hey, I want to go to war for this and this and this! Hop to it!" They are the products of the decision-making of large numbers of people, and I think it would be hard to find a war in which perceived humanitarian concerns were not a motivating factor for at least a subgroup.
--- Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But can anyone name an instance in which a nation
> dedicated what was
> once called "blood and treasure" for anything other
> than power
> projection, power preservation or self-defense?
>
> People who recommend "humanitarian" military
> intervention rarely seem
> to consider the logistics and mechanics of modern
> war. If your goal
> is to alleviate suffering, how will you (the
> rescuing nation) justify
> the 'collateral damage' sure to come from the carpet
> bombing and
> cruise missile 'softening' campaign, followed by the
> Marines hammering
> organized resistance to powder via close-in
> artillery and
> house-to-house combat, followed by an occupation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>