Printable View
Ok, so i just had to write a page long essay on the Justification of war (including some religious examples along the way) and, with the help of experience reading backroom posts/threads, i sped through it, but what i wrote is my own opinion.....basically its all about attack only if provoked, declare war only if there is a Genocidal dictator on the loose around europe or if your countries religion is threatened.
so what do you guys see as a just war?
Iraq?...according to Bliar and 'shrub' it's just a war....
Seriously WWII could be seen, from the UK perspective, as a just war and it follows that we held the moral high ground until the USSR and the USA decided to join the party.
One justification is religious: My god is better than your god. In this case, Christianty against Islam. Another justification can also be the fight over precious raw materials. When a country has to little resources to support a large and increasing population, there are two choice. War or trade. War always seem the most frequent answer and sometimes trade is just a pretext for war.
Religion is hardly a just cause for modern International Relations theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
@Ian, Read M Walzer's 'just and unjust wars' for proper IR/'just war' theory.
Where/what are you studying BTW?
I don't do history. I do only geography which talk about about trade and all those stuff. In my school, we are given one choice, choose geography, history or IT. Chose geo as it was my fav subject. So I don't know what is International Relations Theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Same, but first discuss with the enemy and see if a peaceful solution can be found. Avoid pure misunderstandings, and the more subtle forms of "misunderstanding" like the groups looking like enemies to each other and difficulties existing in seeing the other side's intentions, and lack of guarantees that peaces would benefit both sides more than war. Of course, if it's about defense, it's always justified, but then again you don't start the war, so then the discussion about justification never takes place; you have no choice. Basically all this could be translated into a single principle to gain your own group and yourself in the long term, using war when it is necessary for achieving it. Avoiding war as much as possible and finding peaceful solutions to disagreements often is most benefitial if you think in a long term perspective. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
There are never many 'just wars' or at least wars fought on 'just' and moral reasoning. Even WW2 was not a moral war for the Brits, as we didn't give a damn about anything other than our own self interest.
A just war, in my opinion, is one agreed via the UN on humanitarian grounds. In the modern world, that can be the only way a war should be justified.
Though it would probably help if we didn't arm everyone to the hilt with our weapons.
waras occor for many reasons, morality, religion, but also for power. if there is over population and not enough lansd whaty is there to do but invade your neighbor and so take there land. also gold, everyone wants money in gold or oil. disgression threw power, defeating enemies just to flaunt power and make the enemy quail, feudal japan did thias alot, frivolous wars just to look tough. theres also personal maddness (hitler) or the defusal of a would ber enemy (american indians).
all in all there is but one thing to realise, war is human nature, more natural even then peace and it is only threw the great wars of the past that we have all our great inventions and arent overpopulated as hell.
Every war in our planets history has started because of money. Religion, dictators and such are only excuses for someone to drop for a cup of tea with his army. From the first civilizations the reason for war was conquest. Do you think that the Greeks only wanted to bring Helena back from Troy, Do you think that the crusaders really had noble causes. They pillaged Constantinople in one crusade and captured Zadar for Venetians in another. And for the newer ones. War for the independence in the USA started because the English were takeing all their money. WW 1 started because Germany and Italy wanted colonies. I'm not sure for the WW 2 'cause Hitler was a mad man but he also must have liked money. Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Because he wanted their oil deposits which bring a lot of money. See anything that appears in all of my examples. It's money.
So I don't think there is any justification for war. If you're attacked you have every right to defend yourself but there isn't an excuse to attack someone.
The paper i wrote was for Religious Education, at a GCSE levelQuote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
Very good, but why want money? For safety, power and with power people believe comes the ability to better defend themselves. While the laziness and will to enslave others to do all work for them may drive many, the utter desire for safety stands above all. Greed is just a stronger form of desire for safety - while one cow may feed all, why not kill ten cows, and get marginals? Why not kill 100 cows? Since civilization, money has been the ultimate embodyment of safety, positions of power comes next. Get money, and you get much of the safety you want (in the short term - you lose it all when there's a French/Russian revolution type of revolt). Get power of different kinds and you, seemingly, get much safety, or at least you can keep worse leaders from getting the power position by claiming it personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by miho
There are very few wars fought by monkeys, the worst example known is one or two raids conducted by some male gorillas against another gorilla flock, but it might have been influenced by humans destroying gorilla habitats and in general weakening the survivability of gorillas. We're not fundamentally different from monkeys, and there's no genes for money - money hasn't existed long enough yet.
@Those claiming war is in human nature: War is not in human nature, the desire for safety is. If there's no reason to go to war, we don't go to war. How often do you start wars on the social level, where you CAN start a war? Do you, in private life, team up with others and try to conquer them, defame them and destroy them? Wow, imagine how tea breaks would look in an average company! If war had been in human nature, you would have done this. Wars thankfully only happen in situations of misunderstanding or when the leaders have too much greed (greed is really only exaggerated desire for safety), when there's a potential a competitor may grow powerful and become an enemy in the future, when the intentions of a competitor are unclear, or other general situations where there's a desire for safety. Civilization is creating a bad outer frame for preventing such different situations of future threat from being created. One of the reasons is the humans using tools and the ability in civilization to alter power balance so quickly and so easily. If anyone can acquire power so quickly, then you always have reason for fear because someone you didn't expect can come and destroy you all of a sudden. Only solution is to kill/conquer/destroy/defame every single other human on the planet, and it's not that easy to do, as history has shown. And since the structure is left the same, the winners (assuming anyone could win such a struggle) would soon turn into each others' competitors again, and the procedure would have been repeated.
You all have to excuse me, but I'm tired of all people saying that all people are born evil and all people saying that all people are born good. We're born to react in certain ways in certain situations. Bad situations equals bad behavior, good situations equals good behavior. It's as simple as that. It's an obvious fact supported by both statistics and theory.
That doesn't justifies anything, it's only an excuse and not a good or real one.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
Justification has a source generally in utilitarian views of the world. I accidentally passed through one of this theories when investigating the Malvinas subject. In conclusion it said: War is only justified when there are significant interests to be defended (such as nation, democracy), when there's an attack and the nation attacked must defend themselves, when there're rights to be defended or opposed (such as rightful own of given lands: ie- Argentina owns Malvinas, Argentina can make war and be justified). When there's a treaty of peace violated, when the people habititing a certain territory want to belong to the pretended conqueror. The other ones are utilitarian, like for example, reafirming resources or conquering new resources, it's seen as bad in modern society, but the truth is that many nations have been justifying internally (I mean between the internal administration) this way while saying other things to outsiders. Also there's an interesting fact with the effects of justification. Justification keeps everything in the status quo until the damage is healed. For example: if Argentina can legally attack the Malvinas and they fail, the damage is not cured so Argentina can do it over and over until damage is finally healed, and it will be always justified.
The only possibly justified war is defensive. Teh hard part is find out when the war is offensive and when it`s defensive, WW1 being a good example.
Ideally one don`t make wars at all. :hippie:
If I started a war it'd be justified. Maybe.
That's not accurate Im afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Just and un-just war is a complex issue still unresolved in higher acedemic circles.
What about wars to stop genocide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There are no just wars. War is always a loss in humanity. Unfortunately, sometimes survival demands war, which force even human passionate for life in to the hell of war.......
Wars are like euthanasia, it's a disgusting thing to do, but you do it occasionally when you don't know what else to do. It is sure nothing to be proud of, any more than having to put your dog to sleep.
That`s defensive; denfending humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Justifications for War:
In the Distant Past:
1) Defending the Empire.
2) Expanding the Empire.
3) Honoring an alliance.
In the near Past:
1) Expanding the Empire.
2) Honoring an alliance.
3) Defending the economy of one's nation.
4) Creating a better union (er, democracy for some, while still promoting the slavery of others).
In the recent past (for world powers only):
1) Expanding the economic expansion of their corporations.
2) Responding to nations intent on expanding theirs (corporate expansions).
3) The inevitabilty of someone more evil than those ruling one's nation that justifies their intervention on another.
The Present: [note: for a dictatorship no reason has ever been required to proclaim war on another nation - they simply had to have their propagandists come up with a cause for the peasants to die for. For those proclaiming democracy; they must atleast demonstrate that a war is for the common good of their citizens that their sons are dying with a purpose or the purpose to defend them (that or give them enough money to make them shut the f' up - it was $5K in WWII, $10K in 'nam, and $10K in Iraq up 'til a few months ago - when it was raised to $100K), or come up with a neet catch phrase - like, "Remember,.....what ever". Works every time.]
1) WMD (defending the empire)
2) Spreading of Democracy
3) Oil (the need to defend the economic interests)
4) expansion of the Empire
5) My nation right or wrong
6) ignorance really is bliss; if one accepts the loss of a son, husband, or father as being justified for the false premises, lies, and propaganda tossed at them by accepting the idea that "we must not let them to have died in vain" (versus having died for big oil, or some egotistical president and his staff that never, ever heard the shot fired in anger). Dying in vain is what soldiers do. Dying in vain is why soldiers are physically trained, emotionally created, taught to supress their convictions and learned to kill on impulse. It is also why soldiers love one another, and are so unwilling to accept that one of their brothers was allowed to die without a cause - for something as inmaterial to them as oil. Oil is not a cause, yet it is. To some. For a soldier? It is simply about defending a brother. Dying for a fellow soldier, so that he might live or simply responding to training (BS) - it is about the man beside you. It ain't about a country, so much as it is about just that - the men next to you.
As for nations?
Reasons to go to war? Today: Oil, water, food, the propagation of the specifies, religion, the expansion of the empire. Samo=samo. The only things that have changed are the means with which to kill, not the ideas of those that propagate their reasons for it. Those with what they preceive as ultimate power (especially the weak thinkers) always believe they bully the weak - especially when they do not understand them. It has always been, and may always be. The unfortunate thing is, now we got like 10 nations with nuclear capabilty and all have reasons to go to war.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Talking of the Falklands that was a just war to free Her Majesties subjects from the tyrannical yoke of a jingoistic junta that threatened their entire way of life. Even to the extent of forcing the Islanders to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road....~:eek: what a liberty ~D
IMO anytime war is in the best interests of the country it is justified.
I know it is a little vague but without listing a bunch of examples it’s the best I can do.
In Word, Highlight War then Format | Justify ~;)
Yes but taking also the hisotory behind....Oh! No wait that doesn't count...~:eek: ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The question is: should you right justify or left justify?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
War of unification is sometimes justified since it is inevitable anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
The real question is: Why do we wanna be unified? And even then: Why do we wanna be forced into unification? (That's of course if you mean like a country)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Yes, I'm talking about countries, especially those contiguous and sharing much culture, people, economy and natural borders (for self protection). Can you imagine a divided mainland China, Japan or the United States?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The Russian Federation/USSR was obviously an exception and Taiwan (w/China).
Yes I can. In fact I've plans for them.~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Seriously I can. The problem is not what can I imagine but what can be done? And this can be done, when all people living under the rule of some state realize that they don't need of this state to feel as a nation, and if they need it then they already seized to be a nation.