> It was all about strategic interests, political influence and resource grabbing. This is true, if you omit the 'all'. > That has never happened in the histo

> It was all about strategic interests, political influence and resource grabbing. This is true, if you omit the 'all'. > That has never happened in the history of modern war. This is not true. A state may go to war for both human rights and self-interests; these are not always contradictory. One casus belli does not preclude others, and it is better that a state have more than one reason to go to war. It might be rare for there to be a war that is actually fought for humanitarian means, but I would argue than one modern example is the Cambodian-Vietnamese War [0]. A Cynic might say that this war was for solidifying Vietnam's influence in the region, and the international reaction was to view the war as such, but perhaps there was a hint of sincerity in the Vietnamese propaganda claiming one reason for the war was to stop Khmer Rouge's domestic terror. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_Wa...