[ATCGs]

Speaking from a historical perspective, the only way to describe the circumstances would essentially be "whatever I want". All you need is the authority to justify it.

[Mikey69]

	Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When 'your' resources just happen to be in or under 'their' land. I remember a translation from a copy of the Illiad of the Greek word for war was "stealing your neighbours cattle". We need it more than you do.

Funny, the socialist lunatics that get bent out of shape over Nationalism, militarism etc. seem to think they have a right to my tax dollar.

[Vermillion]

	Originally Posted by Bonamona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was thinking back and forth either to put this under politics or ethics, but I've decided to post it under ethics. In your opinion, explain what circumstances you think make an invasion of another country 'morally justified'?

lol moral based on whose definition of morality? Morality is just a worthless subjective concept used to manipulate others and yourself.

[Savagelight]

	Originally Posted by Bonamona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was thinking back and forth either to put this under politics or ethics, but I've decided to post it under ethics. In your opinion, explain what circumstances you think make an invasion of another country 'morally justified'?

If that country violates any of the principles in the US Constitution, it would be moral to invade them and change their regime and give them liberty.

Whether or not it would be ethical would depend on the consequences of doing it. The Iraq war was not ethical but it was moral. World War 2 was both moral and ethical, because it lead to good consequences for the USA and it promoted American principles.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If that country violates any of the principles in the US Constitution, it would be moral to invade them and change their regime and give them liberty.

Even though the country in question never ratified the US Constitution and has one of its own?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The converse must be true: I presume you would agree that it would be entirely moral for China and Russia to join forces, invade America (because our constitutional principles are not the same as theirs) and give us their version of "liberty." Yes/no?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Even though the country in question never ratified the US Constitution and has one of its own? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The converse must be true: I presume you would agree that it would be entirely moral for China and Russia to join forces, invade America (because our constitutional principles are not the same as theirs) and give us their version of "liberty." Yes/no? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Their Constitution is of no concern to the moral values of the USA which are based on our Constitution. Nation states exist to defend their Constitution. If nation states are to be morally motivated at all it would be to spread principles from their Constitution throughout the world.

Violence is actually not the best way to spread principles. The best way to spread principles is to use the CIA to put people into power in all governments throughout the world who will change their Constitutions to be more favorable to US principles. This would mean CIA backed Chinese politicians taking control and changing the Chinese Constitution if it's a democracy and if it's a dictatorship then it means a revolution to overthrow the dictator. It must be done if nation states are to adopt moral behavior at all.

I'm fine with moral behavior from nation states as long as it's also rational behavior. Iraq was supposed to be a strategic rational move on the geopolitical chessboard. It was also supposed to be a moral decision as it would help spread US Constitutional principles, it's almost always better to overthrow the dictator than to leave the dictator in place. So we overthrew Saddam.

The problem is whether or not it was worth the price. So far the Iraq war does not appear to have been worth it. The USA seemed to be in a better position before the war than after the war. The middle east is more unstable than its been in generations. The USA is practically bankrupt, and the economy is in shambles, and to top it all off the USA has given up on it's own principles in the fight against terrorism.

On the same token yes it would be moral for the Chinese and Russians to try and conquer the USA to spread their Constitution. This doesn't seem likely though because Russia and the USA has similar Constitution anyway so theres not much they would care about from a moral perspective. Chinese also probably wouldn't care even though China is not a democracy, China is not communist anymore. They have no incentive to invade the USA and are far more likely to be concerned with global resource distribution. China wants to maximize resources for China. Russia wants to maximize resources for Russia. The USA wants to maximize resources for the USA. It's not about morality at all.

[ktgrey]

Uh, so do you also have some metric for determining the morality of a country's Constitution? Are all national constitutions equally moral or are some constitutions more worthy of being spread, and if so should a country with a lesser constitution submit to being taken over by a country with a superior constitution.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by ktgrey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Uh, so do you also have some metric for determining the morality of a country's Constitution? Are all national constitutions equally moral or are some constitutions more worthy of being spread, and if so should a country with a lesser constitution submit to being taken over by a country with a superior constitution.

I think the point being made is that one's own principles determine which mode of action is moral, without there having to be any kind of objective scale of morality.

[Ipsissimus]

Whenever country A finds it conducive to maintain zero or positive sum conditions for itself, vis a vis zero or positive for B, or negative sum scenario's for itself.

All other speculation is romantic musing. Politics for adolescents.

To finalise - not the relativity of applied goodness. Although there may be issues of 'harm', 'good and evil', in a platonic space [which to someone like Roger Penrose for example, is a very real thing - not the metaphysical phenomenon of effeminate Enlightenment oriented thinkers] - this issue of good can only ever occur in context - hence the Game equation as a discrete closed form 'procedure'.