Afghanistan.

Well, I don't consider a formal declaration of war to be significant for defining the term "war". History is full of "conflicts" which were begun without a formal declaration of war, yet had a much bigger impact, lasted longer and killed more than many of the declared wars.

To me, conflict means that it's not about nations or peoples as a whole but about a region, a treaty or a resource.

War on the other hand means to me that the well-being of a nation / people as a whole is at stake.

To give specific examples, I consider the thing between India and Pakistan to be a conflict because it's about Kashmere, and the thing between Palestine and Israel as a war, because the existance of both of the parties is threatened.

__________________
Im Grabe schlummert ein neues Morgenrot.

For qualifying/disqualifying a war it should have 2 qualities

1.) It should be justifiable as being legitimately in the interests of the United States
2.) It should be morally justifiable

e.g. Afghanistan, from a realist perspective the Taliban and Al Qaeda had effectively cooperated in an attack against the united states, giving cause for retaliation, at the same time Afghanistan itself would likely continue to be a source of instability unless it was brought into the modern world. Satistifying condition 1 for both the initial invasion and the follow up.

From a liberal perspective, the Taliban was a vicious and brutal regime which was slowly killing its people, denying them rights and freedoms further they were an illegitimate regime having never attained the consent of the people they governed. Whats more the development and aide significantly improves the lives of those living in Afghanistan. further their was no possibility of an alternative situation coming about. Satisfying condition 2.

By contrast Iraq had an evil leader, however, it was not in the United States interests to engage in two wars and to ignore Afghanistan, nor did Iraq pose a significant threat, further any moral justification offered was tenuous at best when one considered the cost/benefit.
And Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles, doesn't mean WWI and WWII were the same war.

Right; it means France and/or Britain would have been justified taking out Hitler in the mid 30s.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

war of 1812?

we were invaded!

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

They would have been. But it would not stand to logic that because Iraq violated the ceasefire that war was justified.

If we hadn't gone in and Iraq had become the al Qaeda haven it looks like it was likely to turn into, I believe many of the loudest anti-Iraq voices now would have been saying the ceasefire violation was more than enough justification.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

lol except iraq's becoming a terrorist haven was a direct result of our intervention there.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

None of the conflicts the US have started where justifiable in the way we executed them. Most of the conflicts where all about the imperialistic spreading of american dogma ie Korea and Vietnam or lone wolf rogue nation action or interefering in purely internal affairs. The only way we should go to war is if it is a unilateral unified UN action or in immediate self-defense when there is a clear and credible internationally acknowledged force moving against the US.

We are not justified in being a lone wolf rogue nation. The rest of the world would be justified in treating the US as such. Just think if the rest of the world imposed a trade embargo against US. What would we do go invade everyone like a childish schoolyard bully because they dont wanna play with us anymore? Probably if the republicans had their way.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

It didn't in the least look like Iraq was going to turn into an 'Al Qaeda haven'. Saddamn hated religious fundamentalists, and went after them with a passion.

lol, right; it wouldn't be nearly as bad with Saddam funneling oil-for-palaces money to terrorists he was helping to train.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Who weren't al Qaeda, in any case.

Go ahead and show all the terrorists he was training.

You gotta watch when you break into the middle of a conversation that you know what's actually being said.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Now you're betraying your ignorance of the situation in Iraq before we went in. Saddam and his regime were nowhere close to allying themselves with Al Qaeda.

What do you think all the bad guys in the world work together?

Thing is all of the links of him to terrorists broadly, none of them linked him substantially to Al Qaeda specifically (nice back pedal there) and none of them linked him to major attacks against the US. Whats more there was nothing to suggest he could not have been contained or dealt with later when or if he ever became a threat. Ignoring Afghanistan while we pissed everything away in Iraq was stupid.