Jus ad Bellum and Preemptive War

Just War Theory comes out of the Christian Tradition. St. Augustine is typically seen as its source. One element of the labeled Bush Doctrine is preemptive war. Below is St Thomas' meditation of whether waging war is lawful from question 40 of the second part of the second part of the Summa Theologica.

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?



Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.


Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.


Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.


Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.


On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."


I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."


Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."


Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."


Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.


Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."


Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."


Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [*Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

The question: is preemptive war justifiable?

I chose yes.

If someone wronged me, I would plan to make it right!:shame: :2thumbsup:

No since what if they went to war with you preemptively because they thought you were gonna perform a preemptive strike on them and the cycle just continues.

Pre-emptive strikes can, if done correctly, achieve complete surprise and provide minimal losses in men and equipment on both sides in comparison to a drawn out war.

So the question you have to ask is:

Do you want to be the one to fire the first shot?

No it is not. Not for the Japaneese or the Germans or us.

justifiable? maybe, depending on circumstances.

Moral? Never.

I would like to point the Israeli aircraft strike on the Egyptians as a justifiable pre-emptive strike. It destroyed the Egyptian aircraft, and knocked them out of the war, a war that Israel had to survive. I think it was the Six Days War, but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I would like to point the Israeli aircraft strike on the Egyptians as a justifiable pre-emptive strike. It destroyed the Egyptian aircraft, and knocked them out of the war, a war that Israel had to survive. I think it was the Six Days War, but I'm not sure.

---

You are correct. The "Six Days War" of 1967 featured an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Credible evidence suggests that the Israelis were correct in assuming that a coordinated attack by all three of these "arab" nations was iminent. Israeli air elements achieved an astounding level of destruction among the under-prepared arab air forces and Israeli ground forces made extremely sizeable gains in a very short period of time (Gaza, Sinai [sic?], West Bank, Golan Heights).

Be aware, MM, that there are those who view ANY pre-emptive effort --even with confirmed evidence of a clear and compelling danger -- to be immoral and unsupportable. They view a violent response after the accomplished fact of having been attacked as the only moral/justifiable reason for violence -- the sole casum bellum.

Under that rubric, since no wrong had been received by Israel, the "Six Days War" was simply a war of conquest.

I believe that the concept of the just war was one of justice through violence, of redressing wrongs through warfare. A pre-emptive strike would not fall into this category. IIRC of course.

Such a morality would hardly be binding to a nation such as Israel, however.

I vote on the moral aspect of such a war rather than the practical side.

A preemptive war could be justified, although whether or not such justification would matter at all is another issue. As silly as it sounds, in a defensive war you can say, "He started it!" There is not such cover in a preemptive strike.

As we have so amply learned in Iraq, if the pretext(s) you use for your action turn out to be false, you're gonna wind up with egg on your face and precious few allies or sympathetic powers.

Preemptive war can be justified, but the preemptor risks goodwill, stature and the moral high ground. Heavy stuff to weigh the next time you think about showing Lichtenstein who's the big man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A preemptive war could be justified, although whether or not such justification would matter at all is another issue. As silly as it sounds, in a defensive war you can say, "He started it!" There is not such cover in a preemptive strike.

As we have so amply learned in Iraq, if the pretext(s) you use for your action turn out to be false, you're gonna wind up with egg on your face and precious few allies or sympathetic powers.

Preemptive war can be justified, but the preemptor risks goodwill, stature and the moral high ground. Heavy stuff to weigh the next time you think about showing Lichtenstein who's the big man.

---

What he said.

Yes, if you have almost water tight evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.

It also doesn't make sense for a large nation (U.S.A.) to pre-emptive strike another nation. While it does yield benefits of overwhelming surprise, the surpise should be reserved if the enemy can punish you before you strike. There was no real threat of Iraq shipping a nuke into the U.S. and blowing it up, and if it did, it would be pummeled by NATO and the U.S.

I think a preemptive war is justifiable fairly easily, proving intention is always difficult but if a real and emminent threat is there then I feel it justified. (For the record I've never considered Iraq a threat to the US)

A preemptive war would only be moral in my opinion, if the preemptive war would be ensured to be to be significantly shorter or less casualty intensive than a regular war. This of course can never be proven, only speculated in what if hindsight. (French or British going to war with Germany 1934-39 for example).

Preemptive war is the case equivalent of attempting self defense when there's only a non-actual menace. I say no, it's perfectly rational though, but not sufficiently substantiated until the imminent becomes actual. Is just a fortiori reasoning, if an individual's life is important enough for the menace to be actual, then it should be the same at least when there's a group of human lives at stake.

I take it we have all been reading Michael Walzer's 'Just & Unjust Wars'?...

Walzer uses the British plan to attack Norway in WW2 as an example IIRC...this seems to me to be pretty much a reasonable example of a pre-emptive strike. ie- that by doing an unjust act (attack norway) you will be a) serving norwegian interests (whether they know it and/or actually appreciate it) in the long term which in turn leads to b) increases your chances of success in the conflict.

This of course can lead to 'slippery slope' situations where you can justify pretty much anything...

Justifiable, yes.

Moral, no.

But morality has no place in affairs of state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Justifiable, yes.

Moral, no.

But morality has no place in affairs of state.

---

That's untrue, the reality of a situation has nothing to do with the corresponding duty of the people involved in such situation. Justification has always a moral basis, it cannot be technically justified as that will lead to justify anything.

That's true.

But focusing on the moral duty of the state to protect its citizens above all else, in some situations, where a pre-emptive strike can prevent needless death and suffering of said citizens, such a strike can be justified.

I by no means supported the attack on Iraq, btw ~;)

I probably will have an unfavorable response to this post but rather then make something up I rather be honest about what I think.

I believe that preemptive war is not only the proper course but is a necessary condition to deter the need for preemption in the first place. Its clear to me that notion of someone attacking another is enough to keep most beligerents at bay.

The danger of not being a proponent of preemptive war lays in the romantic notion that your moral and ethical values are shared universally. What might be justification of pity for you, might be justification for stoning someone somewhere else.

does that mean I propose to wage war against those who dont share my values? No, but it does propose the notion that I can and will should I need to. Preemption suggests a claim to something, be it land, principal you pick, the key to the equation is the valuation you place on the item in question.

Sadly current preemptive wars have been based on notions that are not universally accepted as truths and thus thier failure assured from the onset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

I take it we have all been reading Michael Walzer's 'Just & Unjust Wars'?...

Walzer uses the British plan to attack Norway in WW2 as an example IIRC...this seems to me to be pretty much a reasonable example of a pre-emptive strike. ie- that by doing an unjust act (attack norway) you will be a) serving norwegian interests (whether they know it and/or actually appreciate it) in the long term which in turn leads to b) increases your chances of success in the conflict.

This of course can lead to 'slippery slope' situations where you can justify pretty much anything...

---

This is not a great example of a pre-emptive strike and certainly not an example of Just War.

I'm not really sure whether Pindar's opening statement actually has any meaning since the Just War theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event. Just War is about bringing justice through the sword. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, you cannot have a pre-emptive Just War.

Of course the theory of a Just War is essentially bollocks, serving as it does real politik rather than justice. It is carte blanche to wage war for just about any reason, so long as your can claim to be serving justice rather than, say, personal gain. Interestingly the early medieval Church struggled to overcome the idea of righting wrongs through warfare since it led to constant petty conflicts and feuds within Europe which weakened Christendom at a time when external threats lay all around.

hardly any wars can be considered just as the only benefit the small minority of people who hold power in a country at a given time, if anyone. for example, when U.S. leaders say, "we are attacking X in intrests of national security", whose security are they talking about? certainly not people living on main street. who is benefiting from these wars? you know the old saying, the rich start wars and the poor die in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You are correct. The "Six Days War" of 1967 featured an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Credible evidence suggests that the Israelis were correct in assuming that a coordinated attack by all three of these "arab" nations was iminent. Israeli air elements achieved an astounding level of destruction among the under-prepared arab air forces and Israeli ground forces made extremely sizeable gains in a very short period of time (Gaza, Sinai [sic?], West Bank, Golan Heights.

---

I tend to agree with a preemptive war if there is undeniable intelligence that another nation is actually going to attack and has arrayed its forces in such a manner. In the case of Iraq, there was no such hard evidence, despite the claims of the warhawks in the Bush cabinet. They only had some vague notion that the Saddam Hussein regime was a threat to the United States.
That Iraq might have been a threat to the region is arguable, but I didn't hear to many of its neighbors complaining too loudly at the UN.

No....we were not justified in this case of preemotive war IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Just War Theory comes out of the Christian Tradition. St. Augustine is typically seen as its source.

---

This is not correct. There are several examples of "just war theory" before Christianity, for instance in the early roman Appollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appollo) cult, more than 500 years BC, in Cicero's work (from which St Augustine is said to have found inspiration for his work on bellum iustum), and in Sun Tzu's "Art of war" (BC), to mention a few. Christian tradition in general has played a minor role as promotor of "just war theory" since St Augustine (4th century CE), after which the main source of such theory was the Enlightenment philosophers. To call "just war theory" something that comes out of Christian tradition could be perceived by followers of other cultures and religions as both arrogant and offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I tend to agree with a preemptive war if there is undeniable intelligence that another nation is actually going to attack and has arrayed its forces in such a manner.

---

I agree in principal but in application how do you cover the terrorist angle to the equation?

Lets take afghanistan for instance, now i think its fair to say that we knew pre 9/11 that the Taliban was harboring Bin laden and al queda elements/training facilities. I think its fair to say that we knew they wanted to attack us as well.

In this case would a preemptive war, in your opinion been justified? If not why?

Further down the trail here....

Iran is devloping nuclear capability which it claims is for energy needs. A valid claim for certain but the leadership of Iran, with the blessing of the supreme leader has advocated the destruction of Israel. Now the nuclear capability theory dosent limit Iran to using said capability for energy exclusively. Given proper development the capability could be used in weapon form, in this case does Israel have justification for a preemptive war? If not, why?

Im not trying to single you out, but using absolutes in the equation for someone attacking seems to me counter to human nature. In addition to that we have conditions in the world now where whole nations are not soely responsible for the actions of a few on thier soil, but they do allow them the ability to use the land for staging training (IE Afghanistan).

I think a valid argument can be made that preemption might dissuade future nations from acting, or allowing groups in thier country from acting hostily towards another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Iran is devloping nuclear capability which it claims is for energy needs. A valid claim for certain but the leadership of Iran, with the blessing of the supreme leader has advocated the destruction of Israel. Now the nuclear capability theory dosent limit Iran to using said capability for energy exclusively. Given proper development the capability could be used in weapon form, in this case does Israel have justification for a preemptive war? If not, why?

---

Yes Israel would have justification for a pre-emptive attack.

However that would not make it a Just War in the sense outlined in Pindar's post.

A Just War can be justified, but not every justified war is Just.

Preemptive war may be justifiable in some case, but the very definition of "preemptive" says it's a war you fight against some group you think is dangerous even though that group hasn't done anything wrong yet. Such a concept can be abused heavily if it were to be morally or legally accepted. You can simply say you consider a group a potential danger in the future, and attack/genocide them without any good excuse whatsoever, if it's accepted to attack some group that hasn't done anything wrong yet. Nobody can prove whether they're going to become evil or not in the future because nobody knows for sure what the future will bring.

On the other hand, there is one very clear case where preemptive war is justified, and that is against someone trying to gain enough power to be unstoppable for a very long time, such as the roman empire. It is wise to attack any empire that has an agenda of expansion and massive power, because gaining such power inevitably results in decadence of the leader, and abuse of his power, no matter how good the initial intentions may be (yes, many of the ideologies that eventually end up attempting something like world domination ultimately had their roots in some quite peaceful philosophy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Yes Israel would have justification for a pre-emptive attack.

However that would not make it a Just War in the sense outlined in Pindar's post.

A Just War can be justified, but not every justified war is Just.

---

Well what was outlined in Pindar's post rather runs the gambit of the epitomy of "having your cake and eating it too". At least in my opinion, it supposes that the ideal situation exsists in all cases but narrows the justification to 3 specific rules that must occur.

Its the 3rd rule thats the kicker, because

Quote:

---

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention

---

and thats the rub because "rightful intention" is subjective.

Keeping with the Iran theme, lets suppose for a moment that in thier view it is absolutely the right course to destroy israel. If thats the case dosent that nullify Israels right to preemption based on the 3rd premise of Pindar's theory?

How could one attack someone elses premise of rightful intention with thier own premise of rightful intention? The best, simplest way is to infer the devine in the equation and that is where logic ends and faith begins and that is not a universal truth.

Essentially, based on Pindar's outline, both Israel and Iran could make a just war, as to each, thier intent is rightous.

if a preemptive strike is justifiable on a macro scale, i.e. between states, then surely a preemptive strike should be justifiable on a micro scale. i.e between individuals. example, that state should then be allowed to arrest individuals who have not yet commited a crime, but who the gov't believes are intending to do so, even if the individuals don't know so yet, as for example in the movie minority report. or if i see some youths walking behind me on a deserted street at night, i can justifiy using preemptive violence on them because i might be targeted by them.

I think that with Irans rhetoric, I would support an Israeli pre-emptive strike.
However, we role-played this at Model U.N., and the end result was a MAD of the two parties.
The pre-emptive strike should dissuade the possible belligerent from returning te favor, or giving you time to assemble forces.

I think that saying 'They will attack me in 5 years, so I hit them now' is absurd. Proclaiming genocide to prevent your own genocide is also absurd.
Circumstances need to be evaluated, and then the attack can be considered just.
No 2 cases are alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

if a preemptive strike is justifiable on a macro scale, i.e. between states, then surely a preemptive strike should be justifiable on a micro scale. i.e between individuals. example, that state should then be allowed to arrest individuals who have not yet commited a crime, but who the gov't believes are intending to do so, even if the individuals don't know so yet, as for example in the movie minority report. or if i see some youths walking behind me on a deserted street at night, i can justifiy using preemptive violence on them because i might be targeted by them.

---

People have been arrested and imprisoned for gathering explosives. They have also been imprisoned for attempting to hire a hitman. Conspiracy to commit murder and all that stuff.

I voted no.

Though I think a preemptive war can be justifiable on strategic or tactical grounds, it can never be justified morally. Basically you're wronging someone who hasn't wronged you yet, and you can never be 100% sure they would wrong you.

I think it can be justified, but for a nation to act in a justifiable pre-emptive way, the bar goes way up in terms of burden of proof. A simple "we know, but we can't tell you what we know or how we know it" won't cut it here...

Translation, this administration has played the 'just trust us' card one too many times for this Missouri wannabe (for the non-US citizens out there, Missouri's slogan is the "Show Me" state, referencing their pragmatism and refusal to be taken in).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I'm not really sure whether Pindar's opening statement actually has any meaning since the Just War theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event. Just War is about bringing justice through the sword. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, you cannot have a pre-emptive Just War.

---

This is interesting. Where does the idea "Just War Theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event" come from?

To this rejection of preemptive justice: does this mean any act taken in anticipation can never make any appeal to justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Just War Theory comes out of the Christian Tradition. St. Augustine is typically seen as its source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

This is not correct. There are several examples of "just war theory" before Christianity, for instance in the early roman Appollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appollo) cult, more than 500 years BC, in Cicero's work (from which St Augustine is said to have found inspiration for his work on bellum iustum), and in Sun Tzu's "Art of war" (BC), to mention a few.

---

---

I don't know any theory of just war from an early Roman Apollo Cult. I don't know that Sun Tsu wrote on the theory of just war. I didn't reference Cicero as his notes on war don't seem systemic. Even so, the source of the idea is not my concern, rather the focus is on the idea of just war theory and preemptive war.

Quote:

---

To call "just war theory" something that comes out of Christian tradition could be perceived by followers of other cultures and religions as both arrogant and offensive.

---

Not all cultures and religions speak to all issues. Cultural and/or religious inferiority complexes are not my concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

To this rejection of preemptive justice: does this mean any act taken in anticipation can never make any appeal to justice?

---

Well we can throw out "intent to sell" from the drug laws to begin with then move on to a couple others. We can throw out "conspiracy to commit murder" prior to any murder, goodbye undercover police being hired as hitmen. We could also get rid of that whole Dateline series on how to catch a predator. The cameras have to stay there until they actually do have sex with a minor.

I could of course, continue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not all cultures and religions speak to all issues. Cultural and/or religious inferiority complexes are not my concern.

---

Not to mention there is supposed to be a complete lack of any universal morality. Omitting its relevance to Christian Tradition would have been a worse afront.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Well we can throw out "intent to sell" from the drug laws to begin with then move on to a couple others. We can throw out "conspiracy to commit murder" prior to any murder, goodbye undercover police being hired as hitmen. We could also get rid of that whole Dateline series on how to catch a predator. The cameras have to stay there until they actually do have sex with a minor.

---

The first case is based on a law contrary to the principles of liberalism, wich of course modern society considers to be just, therefore any attempt at even stopping such an act is and will be unjust. Conspiracy to commit murder is already a crime (and justly so), while, for example, creating a large military force on a given territory is nothing more than a display of sovereingty. An undercover police man is the height of immorality under the State power, it's immoral to let an officer of the law violate it without punishment as long as it's in the service of the State. Therefore the second case also implies injustice. The last case is more complex, but it's still immoral if we consider that the so called "sexual predator" is naturally pre-disposed to commit the same crime again and again. However in this case the officer does not commit any crime per se, unless we expand the concept of instigation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

To this rejection of preemptive justice: does this mean any act taken in anticipation can never make any appeal to justice?

---

Many acts would be justified, but war implies too many deaths, and in my opinion it can only be justified by an extrapolation of self-defense to a larger entity. Therefore to me it's only just when answering to an attack, and while the attack remains actual.

Definitely NO.

War, preemptive or whatever, isn't justifiable nor morally right in any case whatsoever. War is wrong, period.

As your mommy told you, use your words, not your fist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Definitely NO.

War, preemptive or whatever, isn't justifiable nor morally right in any case whatsoever. War is wrong, period.

As your mommy told you, use your words, not your fist.

---

Inside a vacum I would say you're right. Other than that the High Brazilian disposition just isn't workable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Inside a vacum I would say you're right. Other than that the High Brazilian disposition just isn't workable.

---

It hasn't been tried yet, you can't say something doesn't work until you've tried it, your mommy probably told you that too ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It hasn't been tried yet, you can't say something doesn't work until you've tried it, your mommy probably told you that too ~;)

---

I eat broccoli to this day...but within our context here are you assuming war without attempts at diplomacy? What happens when you are attacked, should you seek negotiations only then? Would this not invite further attacks to get you to negotiate? Playing devils advocate here as a father I'd love to see a world without war emerge, but I don't see it rationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I eat broccoli to this day...but within our context here are you assuming war without attempts at diplomacy? What happens when you are attacked, should you seek negotiations only then? Would this not invite further attacks to get you to negotiate? Playing devils advocate here as a father I'd love to see a world without war emerge, but I don't see it rationally.

---

Diplomacy all the way, even when invaded.

And I reserve the right to remain optimistic on human nature and our will to stop killing each other...

Ghandi made it work, you know ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Diplomacy all the way, even when invaded.

---

That was tried not to many years ago. A certain despot demonstrated the failure of such a policy given the human condition.

Quote:

---

And I reserve the right to remain optimistic on human nature and our will to stop killing each other...

---

Human nature is primarily based upon competion and the will to survive. When peaceful means of diplomacy fail - what does one do, submit to tryanny or fight against tryanny?

Quote:

---

Ghandi made it work, you know ~;)

---

Ghandi was a great man - however to few great men exist in the world.

Diplomacy is indeed the way to go, but one should never sacrifice freedom and doing what is right for the sake of diplomacy when facing tryanny.

Peaceful protests also worked wonders for the Chinese in Tiananmen Square in 1989. And what was that 'peace in our time' business?

Diplomacy doesn't work when one side's minimum demands are greater than what the other side is willing to concede.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Diplomacy all the way, even when invaded.

And I reserve the right to remain optimistic on human nature and our will to stop killing each other...

Ghandi made it work, you know ~;)

---

Have to state my admiration for being optimistic on human nature, especially in the totality it would take to pull this off.

Ghandi did make it work, but his death also proves the rule that without an accompanying mass of people completely devoted to like principles violence will happen.

Redleg, why is it impossible to fight tyranny with the pen instead of the sword? Hard; yes, but impossible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Redleg, why is it impossible to fight tyranny with the pen instead of the sword? Hard; yes, but impossible?

---

Did I say it was impossible to fight tyranny with a pen?

Again I ask the simple question of you, When peaceful means of diplomacy fail - what does one do, submit to tryanny or fight against tryanny?

You can assume that the question alreadly considered that it is possible to fight tyranny with the pen, but that it has failed.

Answering a question with a question that was alreadly considered in the initial question is not a rebuttal or an answer.

A pen-writer needs somebody to stop the pen from getting cut out of his hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Did I say it was impossible to fight tyranny with a pen?

Again I ask the simple question of you, When peaceful means of diplomacy fail - what does one do, submit to tryanny or fight against tryanny?

You can assume that the question alreadly considered that it is possible to fight tyranny with the pen, but that it has failed.

Answering a question with a question that was alreadly considered in the initial question is not a rebuttal or an answer.

---

Sorry, seems to be some communication failure here...

But the answer to your question, "what to do when you have lost to tyranny?", is simply to try again. And again. And again...

And grey_fox, remember that the pen is mightier than the sword(unlike the sword-gun, which is mightier than the pen-gun), so the penwriter doesn't need a guard. That's the problem every tyranny has, cut down one opponent, and another one pops up, if not more than one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well what was outlined in Pindar's post rather runs the gambit of the epitomy of "having your cake and eating it too". At least in my opinion, it supposes that the ideal situation exsists in all cases but narrows the justification to 3 specific rules that must occur.

Its the 3rd rule thats the kicker, because and thats the rub because "rightful intention" is subjective.

Keeping with the Iran theme, lets suppose for a moment that in thier view it is absolutely the right course to destroy israel. If thats the case dosent that nullify Israels right to preemption based on the 3rd premise of Pindar's theory?

How could one attack someone elses premise of rightful intention with thier own premise of rightful intention? The best, simplest way is to infer the devine in the equation and that is where logic ends and faith begins and that is not a universal truth.

Essentially, based on Pindar's outline, both Israel and Iran could make a just war, as to each, thier intent is rightous.

---

Quite so, which is why I decribed the theory of Just War as bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sorry, seems to be some communication failure here...

---

Must of been.

Quote:

---

But the answer to your question, "what to do when you have lost to tyranny?", is simply to try again. And again. And again...

---

That is a method that has been tried also - it took men with guns to remove the boot of tryanny off of the throats of the innocent. Ghandi is an inspriration to all men - however his method still required sacrifice that still worked - if he went against a less democratic form of government he would not have been as successful.

Quote:

---

And grey_fox, remember that the pen is mightier than the sword(unlike the sword-gun, which is mightier than the pen-gun), so the penwriter doesn't need a guard. That's the problem every tyranny has, cut down one opponent, and another one pops up, if not more than one...

---

All revolutions against tryanny have involved bloodshed. The writer stirs the passions of the people, and the people raise up against tryanny - violence is the result of that pen. So while you advocate writing against tryanny, your action will still results in bloodshed. So are you advocating that the violence be done by others because the writer does not want to soil his hands with the blood of others?

Its a vicious little cycle we men live in. To claim the pen is mighter then the sword but attempt to claim that the pen was not responsible for the violence needed to defeat tryanny is a weak position.

Yes indeed the pen is mighty - because it stirs in man the need for a better life and freedom. In all cases the fight against tryanny has resulted in some form of violence. To reject that violence does not follow when one stirs the emotions of freedom with a pen.

Again I ask when all peaceful means have failed - do you fight against tryanny or do you surrender to that tryanny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again I ask when all peaceful means have failed - do you fight against tryanny or do you surrender to that tryanny.

---

I don't mean "incite population to take up arms"... You continue to fight - with words. You convince the tyrant to put down his weapons so you can all leave in peace and smell the flowers ~:)

It's far-fetched, and very, very optimistic, but I don't want to believe that it's not possible. Call me naive and blind, but I like it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't mean "incite population to take up arms"... You continue to fight - with words. You convince the tyrant to put down his weapons so you can all leave in peace and smell the flowers ~:)

---

Again the words will stir up the passion of the people to be free. That is the nature of such writings, since it will not convince the tyrant no matter how much you try. The very existance of such a writting is what will stir the people to remove the shackel of the tryant from around their necks.

Quote:

---

It's far-fetched, and very, very optimistic, but I don't want to believe that it's not possible. Call me naive and blind, but I like it that way.

---

Its only naive if your unwilling to accept that when writing against tyrants there will be a result, that result is often violence because the tyrant will not want the writing to exist, and the people will raise up against the tyrant if their passion for freedom isignited. This is the concept behind the phrase that the pen is mighter then the sword.

So again I ask when all methods of diplomacy have failed - do you fight against tryanny or do you submit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again the words will stir up the passion of the people to be free. That is the nature of such writings, since it will not convince the tyrant no matter how much you try. The very existance of such a writting is what will stir the people to remove the shackel of the tryant from around their necks.

So again I ask when all methods of diplomacy have failed - do you fight against tryanny or do you submit?

---

I'll say it again, fight with words. Words that will convince the tyrant that smelling flowers is better than oppression, not words that will incite violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'll say it again, fight with words. Words that will convince the tyrant that smelling flowers is better than oppression, not words that will incite violence.

---

Again you have a mispreception on what those words will bring about. Tryants don't respond to prose about smelling flowers is better then oppression, the mere existance of the words themself will result in the inciting of violence. Your statement here goes beyond naive.

I must ask you then - do you understand the history involved around the phrase "the pen is mighter then the sword?"

History has shown that dictatorships only respond to coercion.

I'm not sure how the issue of Just War and First Strike are related here. To take Iraq as an Example:

If George Bush decided to Invade Iraq in order to remove the brutal Dictator Saddam and to establish a free and fair democracy in Iraq then that qualifies as a Just War in the Christian tradition, in principle at least.

All three pre-requisites are there, another good example of a percieved and arguably Just War is the First Crusade, called by the Pope to drive the Infidel out of the occupied Holy Land and establish a Christian State.

Whether you agree with either position is neither here nor there. The arguement can be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again you have a mispreception on what those words will bring about. Tryants don't respond to prose about smelling flowers is better then oppression, the mere existance of the words themself will result in the inciting of violence. Your statement here goes beyond naive.

---

Why is impossible to convince the tyrant to smell flowers? And why is it certain that those words will incite violence in other people? All it takes for my strategy to work, is for every single human to think that way. That's not too hard, there are only about 6.500.000.000 humans alive... I'm one, that only leaves 6.499.000.000...

As for grey_fox' comment, well, before the invention of the plane, "history had shown" that it is impossible for humans to travel by air...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I must ask you then - do you understand the history involved around the phrase "the pen is mighter then the sword?"

---

That was never part of my point....it was simply a side comment. I know it means, and that's not what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why is impossible to convince the tyrant to smell flowers? And why is it certain that those words will incite violence in other people? All it takes for my strategy to work, is for every single human to think that way. That's not too hard, there are only about 6.500.000.000 humans alive... I'm one, that only leaves 6.499.000.000...

---

Again that implies a state so beyond naive about the effect of words on the passions of man.

Quote:

---

As for grey_fox' comment, well, before the invention of the plane, "history had shown" that it is impossible for humans to travel by air...

---

Not the same type of anology. Beside gliders and ballons were in existance before the plane. But no tryant has been put down without violence of some sort. The closest is the collaspe of the Soviet Union, but that was not exactly bloodless either.

Quote:

---

That was never part of my point....it was simply a side comment. I know it means, and that's not what I'm talking about.

---

Unfortunately for you that is exactly what you are talking about. Your comments have all been geared around that concept - that writing about peace and flowers will convince the tryant to give up power and restore freedom. How to you expect that freedom to come about when the tryant has his boot upon your neck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

How to you expect that freedom to come about when the tryant has his boot upon your neck?

---

By telling him that the boot hurts and the tyrant realizing that he shouldn't hurt me, and so removes his boot ~:)

Join my worldview, you know you want to. And it'll leave only 6.498.000.000 others to convince...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

By telling him that the boot hurts and the tyrant realizing that he shouldn't hurt me, and so removes his boot ~:)

Join my worldview, you know you want to. And it'll leave only 6.498.000.000 others to convince...

---

I am to much of a realist, your tactic was tried once and the world suffered from 6 years of bloodly war because of it.

There is an old quote by Thomas Jefferson about the tree of liberty, it still applies to today's world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Definitely NO.

War, preemptive or whatever, isn't justifiable nor morally right in any case whatsoever. War is wrong, period.

---

Hello,

Am I correct, you consider Norwegian resistance to the Nazi invasion of their homeland as immoral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

Am I correct, you consider Norwegian resistance to the Nazi invasion of their homeland as immoral?

---

Yes. I consider every act of killing immoral. We should have convinced hitler to smell flowers instead...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I am to much of a realist, your tactic was tried once and the world suffered from 6 years of bloodly war because of it.

There is an old quote by Thomas Jefferson about the tree of liberty, it still applies to today's world.

---

No-no, the world has never had an entire population who consider violence as something that should never, ever happen...

Throw away the realistic thinking, and join me so we can hop around, smelling flowers and sing! :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes. I consider every act of killing immoral. We should have convinced hitler to smell flowers instead...

---

Again that stance was tried with Hilter by a certain Englishman.

Quote:

---

No-no, the world has never had an entire population who consider violence as something that should never, ever happen...

---

There is a very simple reason for that - men do not often like to live with the boot of tyranny on their neck,

Quote:

---

Throw away the realistic thinking, and join me so we can hop around, smelling flowers and sing! :yes:

---

Sorry that is an impossible task - I have no ability to carry a tune or hop around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes. I consider every act of killing immoral.

---

Does this include the killing of any living thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Sorry that is an impossible task - I have no ability to carry a tune or hop around.

---

Thats funny, conspiracy theorists have you hopping all over the place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Thats funny, conspiracy theorists have you hopping all over the place.

---

Hopping no - stomping yes, since I have pretty much stomped on each and every one of them......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Does this include the killing of any living thing?

---

Of course not. I'm a human, hence I don't kill other humans. Any other species are called "dinner"... Or "snack"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

There is a very simple reason for that - men do not often like to live with the boot of tyranny on their neck,

---

Ah, but if everybody thought this way, there wouldn't be any tyrants in the first place, now would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Sorry that is an impossible task - I have no ability to carry a tune or hop around.

---

You can sit under a tree and hum if you want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Of course not. I'm a human, hence I don't kill other humans. Any other species are called "dinner"... Or "snack"...

---

I see. Why do you consider killing people as immoral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I see. Why do you consider killing people as immoral?

---

Simply put: because I'm a human, and they are humans. But most of all because it is ALWAYS avoidable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ah, but if everybody thought this way, there wouldn't be any tyrants in the first place, now would it?

---

Hence your postion goes beyond the simplicity of naive into something worse. Your postion leaves off the most basic trait of the human condition.

Quote:

---

You can sit under a tree and hum if you want?

---

To hum requires one to be able to carry a tune also - ie I believe a sense of timing is also required, alas a trait that I do not have. No hopping or singing for me, only queit reflection on the traits of human beings,

Absolutely, positively NO!

War in general is rarely justifiable, but it must always be the last resort of diplomatic solution. Never the first, and certainly must not be allowed to become a policy of state in a democracy.

Europe had 25-30 years of failed diplomacy and minor conflicts (between smaller nations - e.g. the Pig Belly Wars) preceding WWI. Once it began both conflicting parties (alliances) pointed at the other as having started it. Germany is blamed for "pre-emptive", but all the nations had their sabers rattling and armys amassed on their borders. Diplomacy failed on a scale that is out and out frightening (especially when one considers that most of the leaders of the opposing forces were all related), no one thought it would really happen - but no one would make even a token concession to stem the tide towards war. The slaughter that followed was on a scale no one could have imagined, and it didn't have to happen. So much botched diplomacy and unnecessary intrigues, and the final excuse for war nothing more than an hype to start the killing.

What we have in the world today is almost a mirror of that pre-war eras inability to properly employ diplomacy without rattling sabers at the same time. Per-emptive strikes were quite popular then as well.

WWI was not inevitable, and neither was the US invasion of Iraq.

A nation proclaiming itself to have high morals does not
use preemptive war as a diplomatic policy. It's that simple.
:balloon2:

How would diplomacy have saved Japan and America?

I voted niet.
Technically any war is always justifiable as long as it is won.
But I suppose that the christian you quote places your question from a moral point of view.
As what is called pre-emptive war is simply the choice of a war declaration and the first strike, this supposes that no other option but war is available at a given moment.
Intimidation, sabre rattling and negotiations make this assumption false so no, pre-emptive war is not justifiable from a moral point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is interesting. Where does the idea "Just War Theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event" come from?

To this rejection of preemptive justice: does this mean any act taken in anticipation can never make any appeal to justice?

---

You don't have to justify a Just War, it is it's own justification.

The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.

It can, however, still be justified.

In answer to your second question: Strictly speaking no it cannot. If, once the action is taken, it turns out to have served justice then that is merely a happy coincidence.

It can never be justified for that simple reason that you start a state of war, with another state and you start it without having been engaged first. If the state in question 'plans' to attack your country it will remain speculation only, since they have not done it yet, and therefore cannot be proven 100%. If, however, you could prove it 100% then yes it would be justified. The only circumstance I can think of that will prove such a thing is time travelling.

So no, it cannot be justified. It can be used of course as an excuse to wage a war, justified it can never be.

There is no justification in taking a man's life without him having done you any wrong, which he hasn't in the case of pre-emptive war. Can you prove 100% that he will do it as I said then yes, it is justified, but you can never prove such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Simply put: because I'm a human, and they are humans. But most of all because it is ALWAYS avoidable.

---

The designate: being human doesn't say anything about not killing other humans. Avoidably doesn't imply moral standing. Neither of these points speaks to a moral posture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

This is interesting. Where does the idea "Just War Theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event" come from?

To this rejection of preemptive justice: does this mean any act taken in anticipation can never make any appeal to justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

You don't have to justify a Just War, it is it's own justification.

---

---

This doesn't speak to my question.

Quote:

---

The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.

It can, however, still be justified.

---

The above is a contradiction.

Quote:

---

In answer to your second question: Strictly speaking no it cannot. If, once the action is taken, it turns out to have served justice then that is merely a happy coincidence.

---

Interesting, if a policeman shot and killed a person who was himself drawing on the cop, the policeman would have committed an unjust act because his action was anticipatory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't know any theory of just war from an early Roman Apollo Cult. I don't know that Sun Tsu wrote on the theory of just war. I didn't reference Cicero as his notes on war don't seem systemic. Even so, the source of the idea is not my concern, rather the focus is on the idea of just war theory and preemptive war.

---

I didn't take any offense, but pointed out that "just war" isn't a concept originating from the Christian tradition. However, the latin concept "bellum iustum" was coined by a philosopher that was part of the Christian tradition, though often went against the majority view within this church (and it's not really surprising that the latin concept was coined by Christian tradition, since latin was mostly used by Christian tradition after 300 AD).