Any example of a war with no "bad guy"

[Todderbob]

@Little_Nemo

Contracts? What on earth are you talking about?

There has to be some deed, or contract to lease the property in question, doesn’t there?

I’d like to see it before I attempt to make a concrete statement on the issue.

@Ravenman

What on earth are you talking about? Refusal to negotiate has never been viewed as a legitimate cause for war. Countries refuse to negotiate all the time, on a huge variety of subjects. The US refuses to negotiate with terrorists – that doesn’t make 9/11 justified.

All subjects are not treated equally. Garrisoning troops within the sovereign borders of another nation is considered an act of war if you don’t do it with their permission… That is, negotiate for the right.

@Ravenman

That argument is based on fiction. The contract in question is the Constitution.

Which wouldn’t have applied since the State in question had seceded from the Union.

@Ravenman

After the Articles of Confederation debacle, the Constitution firmly established that the Federal government had primacy over states in matters listed in Article I, including the power of Congress to establish forts, arsenals, and other military buildings. The idea that the property would belong to the state, and not the federal government, is patently absurd.

Yep, you’re right. And that would be important if, at the time, SC was part of the Union. It wasn’t.

The fact that the articles of confederation were perpetual, and specified as much, gives me reason to believe that the Constitution was not, because it did not specify as much. Further, since NY and VA reserved the right to withdraw from the union at any time, it can be assumed that any state had the same right, and SC used that right.

Therefore Article 1 doesn’t apply to a sovereign nation-State.

[Ravenman]

Aside from your arguments being patently absurd, it is a hijack from the OP’s question. Perhaps this discussion is better handled in a new thread.

[Balthisar]

@Ravenman

What on earth are you talking about? Refusal to negotiate has never been viewed as a legitimate cause for war. Countries refuse to negotiate all the time, on a huge variety of subjects. The US refuses to negotiate with terrorists – that doesn’t make 9/11 justified.

The difference is, we’re occupying Cuban territory. Our perspective is that we have a really, really long lease, and we’ve been making the payments, too bad if the Castros refuse to capture them. Cuba’s perspective is that negotiations with the previous government are null and void, and that we’re illegally occupying Cuban land, and that we refuse to negotiate. That very well could be legitimate cause for forceful action (I don’t mean “war,” although in the Cuban case, it would be the result, as it was for the Confederacy).