Justified War

Talk about current events, entertainment, technology or anything not related to soccer
NewBornProdigy
Admin
Posts: 2695
Joined: 23 May 2008, 19:51

Post

Is war ever justified, as in nessecary or indeed moral... I'm strongly against it but when I think about it. Humans revolve around fighting, so does that make war nessecary and thus justified

Thoughts?

Met
Senior Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 27 Jun 2008, 22:18

Post

Fighting is necessary in the sense that it separates the strong from the weak. This is what drives evolution. If there was one female and two males, for the offspring to have the best possible chance of survivng, the strongest male has to mate with the female. This is how it's always been.

However, enter humans. Due to our complex behaviour, we have made fighting into more than it is, essentially overcomplicating it. I guess war too has evolved and feelings towards it. Rome ruled the world because it crippled other armies. It deserved to because more of its men were left over in the battlefield. The British Empire ruled the world because it had better weapons, and again more of its men were left over in the battlefield. Hitler got toppled because most of the German soldiers got annihilated. My point is war doesn't determine who is right, but who is left.

Can war be justified? Does it need to be? What difference does it make? Look, a president sent its army to war. A justification is just to make its citizens feel better while its soldiers kill and gets killed. People are dieing and you want a justification? Where's the sense in that?

Met
PS - I'm not having a go at you NBP, just society in general. :shock:

2brown347
Veteran Member
Posts: 3339
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 04:15

Post

War is always justified in someones eyes. I'm sure even the biggest anti-war activist would change suit if an invading army was threating their family.

I'm personally pro-war. I'd love it if the entire world could get along and no one did anything bad, but I'm also a realist and think when a nation or group is doing wrong they should be put in their place.


A bigger issue in my opinion is how humans have become so fearful of the prospect of death that we are basically dooming other species and even ourselves down the line. If anything war is one of the only things we can always count on lowing the population with the advances in medical care. Terrible thing to say but it's also quite true.

Hugh
Veteran Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 20 Jan 2007, 20:26
Location: Vancouver

Post

I would argue that the allied standpoint of WWII was pretty justifiable.

War with North Korea would also be justifiable.

2brown347
Veteran Member
Posts: 3339
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 04:15

Post

Hugh wrote:I would argue that the allied standpoint of WWII was pretty justifiable.

War with North Korea would also be justifiable.
Agreed about N. Korea but it's also a risky one. KJI is just crazy enough to destroy try destroying the world and he has enough to have a decent go at it. I agree 100% that it would be justified though.

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

NK was a justified war, but not for the Americans. For the people of South Korea it was a just cause, and when the Nato forces went in, they done their job, restored freedom to the South Koreans and provided them with security and a way to protect themselves.

However, when they reached the point called the 38th parallel, everyone else pulled out, America stayed in. At this point it was an in just war, America wasn't fighting for the freedom of the South Koreans any more, it was fighting for its own selfish and greedy reasons.

Spiderman anyone? "with great power comes great responsibility" That is so true it's unreal. If we have the power to fight evil, and to stop it, then it is our responsibility to do so, for the good of the people, and to snuff out the threat of evil.

2brown347
Veteran Member
Posts: 3339
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 04:15

Post

klc123 wrote:NK was a justified war, but not for the Americans. For the people of South Korea it was a just cause, and when the Nato forces went in, they done their job, restored freedom to the South Koreans and provided them with security and a way to protect themselves.

However, when they reached the point called the 38th parallel, everyone else pulled out, America stayed in. At this point it was an in just war, America wasn't fighting for the freedom of the South Koreans any more, it was fighting for its own selfish and greedy reasons.

Spiderman anyone? "with great power comes great responsibility" That is so true it's unreal. If we have the power to fight evil, and to stop it, then it is our responsibility to do so, for the good of the people, and to snuff out the threat of evil.
I'm fairly certain Hugh was talking about present, not the Korean War. I agree with a lot of what you said but you have to look at it from the mind set of the nation (and many nations back then) which was that communism had to be stopped, and to be honest if we'd been able to finish the job they wouldn't be the problem child they are now.

mint
EF Drug Baron
Posts: 2430
Joined: 16 Apr 2008, 20:38

Post

its only justifiable if its a dictator thats gonna get his ass kicked like saddam or the north koerean dude or if there threatening to push a big red button, this is so weird me and my friends were having the exact same discussion last night.
Image
i was made to ignite

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

Yes brown, but having the mentality of "if we finished" the job is not just lmao.

A lot of racist people believe that if the Nazis "finished the job" then there would be world peace. Which is actually true, if the Nazis were able to kill every single person that wasn't one of them, the world might be a better place because there would be no one to fight with, and they would have their utopia, however the means and the inhumane monstrosities that would have to occur for the Nazis to "finish the job" definitely don't mean it's just.

On the other hand, many people believe that if America wasn't such a power hungry strain on the planet, there might not be terrorism because most of the problems faced now a days happen because of the proxy wars that took place between America and Russia.

I know its difficult for you to understand because you've been taught the American perspective, and that is completely and utterly acceptable because History and who is "good and bad" depends on what side of the fence you stand on. In Europe most people believed the Russians were actually the good guys trying to stop the US taking over the world. The Russians didn't do a hell of a lot wrong in my opinion, yes they supplied and funded countries war economies, but so did America, the only difference between America and Russia is Russia said they would help people who asked for it, America forced their help onto countries and said that it was their duty to aid them when the countries didn't want anything to do with them.

I know I've drifted miles off topic and I'm now deep into cold war territory, but most of the problems and disputes about whether a modern war is just or not are the direct or indirect results of the proxy wars that took place in the cold war.

To make my point clearer, the North Vietnamese wanted to be united with the south again, in a communist state, so they asked Russia, the motherland of communism for funding and support to turn into a communist state. The US saw this as another country turning against them and in their bizarre paranoia decided they needed to start a war that no one needed nor wanted to fight. The North Vietnamese only requested military assistance from Russia, because they needed to get rid of the French who were occupying them at the time.

An election was actually help by the US forces in South Vietnam, in which the South Vietnamese people voted what they wanted to do. By an absolute landslide the majority of the people wanted to turn communist. This didn't suit Americas grand scheme of things so they declared the poll void and said that no further democratic polls would take place until a later date, which coincidently happened to be just over 2 decades later, when the US forces had withdrew from Vietnam.

Try and tell me that just. Try and tell me all the sufferings and deaths of Vietnamese, American and NATO/SEATO forces was just, for the simple reason that America didn't want to see another country "fall to communism," even when that was what the vast majority of the Vietnamese people wanted for themselves. If that's what you call a just war, then I have no fu**ing clue what isn't one.

NewBornProdigy
Admin
Posts: 2695
Joined: 23 May 2008, 19:51

Post

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war

Jus ad bellum

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions

Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms just war is waged in terms of self defense or in defense of another with sufficient provocation.

Jus in bello
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act

Distinction
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians

Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)

Military necessity
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction

That is the just war theory which came about after WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
In Europe most people believed the Russians were actually the good guys trying to stop the US taking over the world
Most of Europe hated Russia and the Iron curtain and loved America because they delivered fund's (billions almost) to our depleted economies
If that's what you call a just war, then I have no fu**ing clue what isn't one.
Word, they screwed up that country bad

klc123
Veteran Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 16:26

Post

That's opinion, I'm not saying the Europeans loved the Russians, but they didn't dislike them any more than they disliked the Americans.

I'm aware that the Americans gave lots of funding to countries, but that doesn't necessarily mean they in turn liked America. To countries sitting on the fence, they were as bad as each other.

evo
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 18:20

Post

As long as the world is ruled by capitalism, then there will always be war.

fr33k1ck
Veteran Member
Posts: 362
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 21:14

Post

evo wrote:As long as the world is ruled by capitalism, then there will always be war.
As long as there is life on planet earth there will be war.
Chelsea>Your team

panchester07
Veteran Member
Posts: 3852
Joined: 27 Aug 2007, 04:25

Post

As long as people put their interests before their nations, their will be war 8)
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

2brown347
Veteran Member
Posts: 3339
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 04:15

Post

Klc there is a reason why during the time of the cold war people were risking their life daily to escape the USSR. People weren't waiting months to try to get citizenship to Russia.

Evo I have to say that's a extremely ignorant statement. Capitalism has neither increased or decreased the presence of war.

Fr33k1ck - basically, unless a magic fairy cast a friendship spell on everyone

panchester07 - Some wars are because rulers put their own interest before the nation, but thats a small portion.

anyway everyones basically gotten off topic, the point isn't who you blame and sh*t, it's weather you think war can be just.

Post Reply