A reasoned approach to war

I do not habitually reply to comments, but I feel that a lengthy comment concerning British involvement in illegal wars deserves a detailed reply.  The original comment is in purple text, with my responses in black text.

You should explain exactly why you believe Britain entered the war illegally.
No country should ever go to war except defensively.  Britain was not attacked when Germany invaded Belgium, and so entered the war as an aggressor.

It seems to be nonsense both legally and morally to me.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but your own point of view does not bear scrutiny.

Britain had longstanding mutual defence treaties with both Belgium and France when the German army invaded them, depriving them of their liberty and freedom. Quite rightly the British upheld their end of the treaties and responded to the German threat.

Britain had no business having mutual defence treaties with any other countries.  Has it ever occurred to you that treaties are fundamentally undemocratic?  I repeat that Britain was not attacked when Germany invaded Belgium, and so entered the war as an aggressor.  Trying to use treaties to justify an illegal act of aggression is utterly wrong.

The Germans acted illegally, and with arrogance in invading France, and Britain (and Russia) responded rightfully, luckily for the world.

You start by saying that I should explain why I believe Britain entered the war illegally, and yet you regard the German invasion of Belgium as illegal.  Where is your logic?  Germany was wrong to invade Belgium and France, and Britain was wrong to get involved.

The ensuing war cost the lives of an estimated seventeen or maybe eighteen million people either dead or missing, to which can be added more than twenty million people wounded – and yet you dismiss this carnage with the words “luckily for the world”.

The reason Britain is not at war with Syria is because the British are tired of war which doesn't directly involve or require them.

It is a shame that the British were not tired of war which did not directly involve or require them in the summer of 1914.

Furthermore, recent wars have been interferences in civil wars (Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq), which frankly, you can't win. Even if they were involved in a war in Syria, would it be a war WITH Syria?

Evil politicians in this country and the USA would have us believe that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and bombed Libya (all of which is true), but that we were somehow not actually at war with those countries.

It is easily arguable that not helping the oppressed Syrian people is shameful. Personally I say stay out of it, but the cost of that is massacres, chemical weapons use, torture and civil war for decades.

You want Britain to not to go to war against Syria because you personally say stay out of it.  I too want Britain to stay out of it.  The difference is that my opposition to war against Syria is part of a considered and humane approach to the subject of war which is free from hypocrisy.

This post and its comments are also relevant.