Would you support this war?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

   There is a country that we are considering going to war with that I will call Country A. It is located in East Asia and currently governed by a charismatic dictator who rose to power seven years ago. The leader was elected to power based largely on a platform of strong government control over the collapsing economy (this was during the recession), and open hatred towards members of a minority group of the national religion.
   Since he was elected, he has centralized his control over the government and the country is now effectively a one party state. Their military has expanded considerably in size, and the minority religious group now faces official hostility, with rumours of a possible genocide. A number of members of this group have already fled the country.
   Country A is actively hostile towards a neighboring country, Country B, which was carved out of Country A during a war we fought about twenty years ago. Country B contains a large number of people who are members of Country A’s dominant ethnic group, and Country A wants areas where their people are dominant back, along with protection for the remaining members of their ethnic group. To this extent, they threatened Country B to force terms. Country B refused, and so Country A has just invaded them.
   A number of members of our government support us going to war against Country A, since we have a mutual defense pact with Country B. Others object, pointing out that the defense pact is very recent, that Country A currently poses no substantial threat to us, and that the leader of Country A is publicly fond of our nation.
   Would you support this war?

[NewYorkExpress]

Country A sounds suspiciously like Russia...

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

It sounds like Russia and Ukraine, but it's not.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Short answer: No.

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice. In fact, if our nation is able to consider going to war, then there are obviously options other than war, and war should be rejected.

I do believe that, as a nation, we need to keep our treaty agreements, if at all possible without destroying ourselves. (I would personally prefer to see us generally stopping short of 'defense pacts' and other pre-committed military actions, but I do not think changing such things suddenly and unilaterally is a good move.)

If the terms of the defense pact have truly been unambiguously crossed, then we have little choice, although I do not think I could or would 'support' such a war morally or practically. If circumstances are legitimately up for debate, then no, we should not join a war. Measures short of war (de facto, not de jure) in support of Country B definitely sound reasonable, although even that might be more than I would personally support.

[Beet]

There are only four or five countries predominantly in East Asia and there are details here that exclude all of them. But the most important details: how big the country is, what the military looks like, and what the end game of the war is are not here.

[Ye We Can]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

[DavidB.]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Yeah, this, lol.

[andjey]

Country A sounds suspiciously like Russia...

[Koharu]

Short answer: No.

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice. In fact, if our nation is able to consider going to war, then there are obviously options other than war, and war should be rejected.

I do believe that, as a nation, we need to keep our treaty agreements, if at all possible without destroying ourselves. (I would personally prefer to see us generally stopping short of 'defense pacts' and other pre-committed military actions, but I do not think changing such things suddenly and unilaterally is a good move.)

If the terms of the defense pact have truly been unambiguously crossed, then we have little choice, although I do not think I could or would 'support' such a war morally or practically. If circumstances are legitimately up for debate, then no, we should not join a war. Measures short of war (de facto, not de jure) in support of Country B definitely sound reasonable, although even that might be more than I would personally support.

For me the big issue would be this one:

Their military has expanded considerably in size, and the minority religious group now faces official hostility, with rumours of a possible genocide. A number of members of this group have already fled the country.

If there wasn't a way to deal with the genocide without going to war, then I would have to support the war. Otherwise I would be against it.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

[Banana Republican]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

For a fair description of that, you would need to include Country C (Austria) and Country D (Czechoslovakia) in the description and mention the Anschluss and the Partition of Czechoslovakia.

Also some parts of the description would be incorrect. For example:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poland was not carved out of Germany alone, but out of Germany and also Russia. One might also mention that Poland previously had a long history as an independent country prior to the partition of Poland between Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.

There are other things. In short, a 4 paragraph brief description can't adequately match the complexities and history lying behind any plausible real world scenario.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

So it would have been cool to let the people who commited the holocaust do whatever they wanted if they didn't attack us? How delightful.

[Banana Republican]

There is no way I could ever either support or oppose any war based on only 4 paragraphs of information.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

So it would have been cool to let the people who commited the holocaust do whatever they wanted if they didn't attack us? How delightful.

Setting aside your false dilemma of "do nothing" or "declare a war of choice",  that's how Clinton responded to Rwanda. It's how we're responding the the ongoing Rohinga genocide now. (In Yemen we're arguably supporting an ongoing genocide thanks to the war Obama jumped into.) And it is what we were actually doing at the time.  Oh, except we did practice  indirect support indirect opposition via economic measures and things like Lend-Lease and Destroyers for Bases - like I suggested in my post. (Gee, it's almost like I responded while thinking about both Lend-Lease and the Yemen War. Because I did.)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If you have a mutual defence pact with a country which has been invaded, what possible justification is there for not coming to their aid? Are the 8 people who voted no idiots or just nihilist?

[Koharu]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

So it would have been cool to let the people who commited the holocaust do whatever they wanted if they didn't attack us? How delightful.

Setting aside your false dilemma of "do nothing" or "declare a war of choice",  that's how Clinton responded to Rwanda. It's how we're responding the the ongoing Rohinga genocide now. (In Yemen we're arguably supporting an ongoing genocide thanks to the war Obama jumped into.) And it is what we were actually doing at the time.  Oh, except we did practice  indirect support indirect opposition via economic measures and things like Lend-Lease and Destroyers for Bases - like I suggested in my post. (Gee, it's almost like I responded while thinking about both Lend-Lease and the Yemen War. Because I did.)

Again, all of this. There are so many options that are not war, and even then Ghost mentioned that if all other options failed, war would have to happen.

There's a lot of middle ground between appeasement and war, and to act like those are the only two options is to be politically blind and ignorant.

[dead0man]

the fact that this question can be asked and that people are actually answering "no" is freaking disturbing.  You all understand the point of defensive treaties, right?  You don't have a choice as to whether assist or not.  Funking cowards, everyone of you.

[Cashew]

There are only four or five countries predominantly in East Asia and there are details here that exclude all of them. But the most important details: how big the country is, what the military looks like, and what the end game of the war is are not here.

There is no way I could ever either support or oppose any war based on only 4 paragraphs of information.

He never clarified whether or not they have WMD's and what kind they have either.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

This is literally a slightly changed description of Nazi Germany you guys. 

Runeghost confirmed fascist appeaser

Wars is general are bad news and the default should always be to avoid them. Truly defensive wars are an exception, and very seldom a matter of choice.

The fascists in both Germany and Japan declared war on the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

It's always amusing when someone attempting insults demonstrates their own ignorance.

So it would have been cool to let the people who commited the holocaust do whatever they wanted if they didn't attack us? How delightful.

Setting aside your false dilemma of "do nothing" or "declare a war of choice",  that's how Clinton responded to Rwanda. It's how we're responding the the ongoing Rohinga genocide now. (In Yemen we're arguably supporting an ongoing genocide thanks to the war Obama jumped into.) And it is what we were actually doing at the time.  Oh, except we did practice  indirect support indirect opposition via economic measures and things like Lend-Lease and Destroyers for Bases - like I suggested in my post. (Gee, it's almost like I responded while thinking about both Lend-Lease and the Yemen War. Because I did.)

Again, all of this. There are so many options that are not war, and even then Ghost mentioned that if all other options failed, war would have to happen.

There's a lot of middle ground between appeasement and war, and to act like those are the only two options is to be politically blind and ignorant.

We should've actually intervened in all of those cases.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

the fact that this question can be asked and that people are actually answering "no" is freaking disturbing.  You all understand the point of defensive treaties, right?  You don't have a choice as to whether assist or not.  Funking cowards, everyone of you.

Defensive treaties, like the real world, aren't black and white. Take The Budapest Memorandum, our treaty with Ukraine that guarantees it's territorial integrity but doesn't require us to declare war on Russia ASAP as one example.

I believe that war is a huge and destructive step, that should basically *never* be willingly initiated. That anyone can argue for a war they know basically nothing about is terrifying and depressing, right up there with bombing Agrabha.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Ok, some more information.
Country A has been aggressive to many of their other neighbors in the past, demanding cessions of land or other privledges.
Country A currently possesses chemical weapons but no nuclear weapons.
Their military is currently largely deployed facing Country B, which means that during a war we could use our overwhelming naval superiority to invade the other side of their country, and so victory is relatively likely.

[dead0man]

the fact that this question can be asked and that people are actually answering "no" is freaking disturbing.  You all understand the point of defensive treaties, right?  You don't have a choice as to whether assist or not.  Funking cowards, everyone of you.

Defensive treaties, like the real world, aren't black and white. Take The Budapest Memorandum, our treaty with Ukraine that guarantees it's territorial integrity but doesn't require us to declare war on Russia ASAP as one example.

sure, but that's not the words he used.  He used very specific words, " since we have a mutual defense pact with Country B".  Mutual Defense Pact, means exactly what it says, mutual defense.  It's can't be an option whether we go to war if the other country is invaded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a hypothetical, we can only know so much.  But we know enough to know that a mutual defense pact is involved and the conditions for us to act have been filled.  Thus we have to act.  These pacts become worthless the second a country doesn't defend an attacked member.  It's not up for discussion.  It can't be.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I believe that war is a huge and destructive step, that should basically *never* be willingly initiated. That anyone can argue for a war they know basically nothing about is terrifying and depressing, right up there with bombing Agrabha.

In this example the war is being initiated by Country A.

[หมูเด้ง]

Country B is our responsibility whether we like it or not.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Britain and France stopped the Germans in 1937 the whole European Front of WW2 could have been avoided.