In reflecting in all the arguments for what is right and wrong to fight for, what relevant, driving, valid reason is there to go to war, or to support another groups war?
How can someone be sure that what they feel to be an undeniable right, is not something that is mere social construct of their culture? What real right does one culture have to dictate right and wrong to another culture? To arm them, or to disarm them?
Is it possible that the only determination of right and wrong, on an international level, is purely derived from the amount of influence and profit to be gained from a certain action? From the possibility, that nations, not even overtly hostile to your own, could be weakened, therefore lending the advantage in access to resources controlled?
There are many wars supported by the united states these days. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria, and likely more to come. At what point were we ever ethically compelled to influence the outcome of their own internal conflicts? Because we cared? Or because it suited the needs of a capitalist entity?
Too many people believe that a 'loss' of money for a government is a genuine loss. Every bullet used, every city razed, and every child murdered is an opportunity for a corporation to profit. Reconstruction bids to be 'awarded' to the victors of a slaughter, arms contracts for the conquerors, and multi-million dollar aid projects to finance the operations of more companies with already deep pockets. Nothing is 'free' in a capitalist war because everything is profitable for someone. The only people that actually 'lose' are the one who do not participate, the civilians, the tax payers.
It is far more likely that, in addition to the profits enjoyed by the companies cleaning up after our messes, keeping undeveloped nations in a constant state of instability will forever ensure that populations in those regions will never require the resources that civilians in 'civilized' western nations demand on a daily basis. It has been said that if China's population reached a living standard on par with Americans, that the entire world economy could collapse under the strain within years. If the whole world reached such a standard, there would be no hope of the West maintaining a dominant, decadent, and luxurious living standard. Therefore, by keeping as many people in other nations in a constant state of war, and drawing as much resources, economic, or otherwise, into the western sphere of influence, the current western standard of living is prolonged for as long as possible.
So which is it? Are we ethically, or practically, motivated to determine what when it is right to be involved with other countries problems? What is "right". What is the definition of "right". Because the people need it? Or because our own people need it, regardless of their opinions?
