Has there ever been a war out of moral obligation or for moral reasons, or does it all boil down to geopolitical interests?
>>352524
You're implying morality and geopolitics are mutually exclusive
>>352524
Yes and no.
to be honest pham everyone views wars differently
for example, one could say that the crusades were done to secure western economic influence in glabal trade. And another person could say it was for pure moral obligation to retrieve the holy lans
>>352547
>crusaders did nothing wrong
>they just wanted a holy lan party
>>352524
It can be argued that almost every war ever has happened for a variety of reasons. And it will continue to be argued as such. There are so many goddamned wars in history though, just about anyone can find an example that supports their theory of they search hard enough.
>>352575
At the same time, it's almost always a combination of both. If you want to invade a country for economic reasons, you'll always need a moral cassus belli for it. If you want to invade a country for moral reasons, it will only be worth the trouble if you have any economic benefit from it.
>>352524
Fairly sure both plays a part in it. The higher ups need to justify the war for moral reasons even if it's primary for geopolitical interests.
>>352524
This is more of entering into a war rather than an actual war, but the US involvement in serbia is arguably to purely prevent the serbians from genociding the balkans.
>>352937
You are misinformed. The US has geopolitical interests in keeping Bosnia as one country as well as their exploits in Kosovo.
>>352524
If there has been a moral war, it's been for the personal morals of a few men at the top who are offended.
Most if not all moral wars are just pretexts.
WW2 was a moral war. To stop the Nazis.
>>353451
>americans unironically believe this
>>353451
This desu
Nazism had to be smashed
>>353869
Americans went to war in WW2 so they could establish themselves as a global power you faggot
