I have not looked at the details of the legit status of the Vietnam war, but what would be the point? You can do horrible crimes in legit wars too. At least in this century they don't even try to meet them. A US which would at least try formally to meet the standards of international law would be less problematic than the actual US. And don't forget that being legitimate according to international law is on one part of the standard I use. As you can see from my defense of Assad against those gas attack fakes, I don't consider gas attacks as acceptable, but have rejected the claims as obvious fakes. Similarly for the claims made 22 or so times about the last hospital in Aleppo being destroyed. I'm not aware of USSR territory increased by military conquest after 1949. Given that the first of China's nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964, you cannot have in mind Tibet or the war between China and India that occurred in 1962. The only idea I have is to consider the winner of the USSR-Chinese border conflict (USSR) as 'expanding [its] territory', resp. the China-Vietnam border conflict as China 'expanding [its] territory'. But both are too minor to consider them a reasonable point. So help me what you have in mind here. The US not having done that is only formally. Kosovo is, essentially, a big US base with some local mafia gang officially ruling the environment. Formally an independent state, LOL. That in iceaura's view everything bad is the Reps fault is not interesting for me and not worth to be discussed. The US war which seriously changed my own mind, the Kosovo war, was started by Clinton, and even pro-Western Wiki writes so that this does not look like a war prepared by the Reps which Clinton was unable to stop, iceaura's beloved excuse for wars started under Dem presidents. So, destroying "all buildings capable of affording shelter" is, according to that dude, not genocidal. Buildings capable of affording shelter are, last but not least, only buildings, if there are people inside, that's their own fault. A one liner claims LOL. A casus belli not used to declare war is uninteresting. If the US was, in this case, the aggressor in October 1989, the reaction of Panama will not give the US a legit cause of war. Once you say so, let's look at the details: Ok, this I have not known. You obviously too, given that supporting some ally against insurgencies was what you have used most of the time. Feel free to believe so. I consider Wiki to be more or less reliable for scientific questions, as long as they have not been politicized. For everything else, it is sufficient to look at what sources are considered and accepted as reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources That is simply the Western media bubble which is accepted as reliable, so that one can guess that your list is similar. My list of reliable media is quite different. They have the right - say, by diplomatic protests, by symmetrical reactions, and so on. But not with war, and even less with war-like false flag actions. Read the UN charta about how states (UN members) are allowed to respond to various hostile actions against them. I know, and I have recognized this point. For me, too. I have made the same point above answering iceaura. It was in the past. It is no longer for those who have signed the UN charta. Nonsense. I defend Russia against popular Western defamations, that's all. That Russian actions in Crimea were morally legitimate too, given the overwhelming support for this by the people living in Crimea is something I don't have to emphasize, because what the people of Crimea think plays no role in Western propaganda.