NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the theory. Also, here's why I think its crap.

Proportionality - the same number of defendors [good] and aggressors[evil] on each side.

When will there ever be such a war? You always want the advantage, never equal numbers. Also, do you think the US and Iraqi numbers were equal? No. Not 'just'.

Utility - weapons on both sides are proportional in number and efficency

WTF? Why would you ever give up superior tech just to think you're doing something just? You have it, you use it. Its not your fault the other side doesn't have it.

Non-Combat Immunity - non-combatants should not be killed

Okay, I agree with this one, but its almost impossible in the days of guns, missiles, bombs, and suiciders.

Just Cause - there should always be a 'higher aim' for war.

I'm calling BS on this one. Wars are fought for resources or territory, never for 'peace'

More good than harm - should bring out something good rather than the problems the war was started for

Again, what the hell? War is always distructive, never constructive.

No Discrimination - people may not be killed because of their views

Isn't that what starts wars in the first place?

Benefit to welfare of others - should benefit people

since when has the death of thousands ever been beneficial?

Merit in One's Actions - all actions should be free of greed, ambition, bias, etc. . .

That's nice. But a war is driven by hatred, not love. Find me a bunch of peacenicks that will fight a war and I'll believe you

Last Resort - war should be the last option

I agree with this and I think in most cases it is actually met

Right Authority - only legit governments can declare war

okay, but that renders just about every revolution the world has ever had an 'unjust war'

Temperence in goals - stop the evil, don't destroy it.

Whats the point of the war then? If you don't destroy the evil, its just going to come back

So, on a whole, the entire just war theory is a load of crap. You have to meet every criteria for it to be a just war. Pick a war, any war you want. Apply this to it, you'll see its unjust. The only way to wage a just war is to not wage war at all.

Where did you find that list? Who came up with those criteria?

Also, it is interesting to note that when Augustine wrote about war, he put it in the chapter on love, not hte chapter on justice. The reason being that the only just war was one fought to keep other people from being oppressed.

its the Powell Doctrine I believe (which he came out with when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

it was pretty much the belief of the US Army officers corps post Vietnam

hey Robbo
Interesting Theory

hey Robbo
Interesting Theory

You mean the Augustine part?

Proportionality - the same number of defendors [good] and aggressors[evil] on each side.
I couldnt give a rats arse about numbers if i had the tech capabilities to get me through id be happy with that!

Utility - weapons on both sides are proportional in number and efficency
I disagree with this on the grounds i would want my peoples to have superior weapons apossed to numbers!
The quality of my weapons shall exceed my oponents!

Non-Combat Immunity - non-combatants 'should' not be killed
I agree with this.

Just Cause - there should always be a 'higher aim' for war.
Germany-Killing Jews is a Just cause
Allies-Liberating Europe is a Just cause

More good than harm - should bring out something good rather than the problems the war was started for
Germany-Killing Jews allows more Libensraum for the Herrenvolk
Allies-Group hug

Discrimination - people may not be killed because of their views
Thats what Wars for Killing!

Benefit to welfare of others - should benefit people
America-we will free you from one mans Terror!
Iraq-But now we fear everyone!

Merit in One's Actions - all actions should be free of greed, ambition, bias, etc. . .
Rommel-Even a General can plunder!

Last Resort - war should be the last option
Yes

Right Authority - only legit governments can declare war
Thats Stupid

Temperence in goals - stop the evil, don't destroy it.
Good example Gulf War I :rolleyes:

Ahh, ideals. Very cute, now let's all get together and hold hands.

So wars are only fought for resources? Yeah, like when the allies made war with nazi germany when it invaded Poland. Could you remind me what land or resources they were trying to gain?

Wars are only destructive huh? So the American revolution was destructive? What about World War 2? Of course it was destructive, but you honestly don't believe ending the holocaust and stopping Hitler's conquest of Europe wasn't a higher cause? You're very hard to impress.

Now, like I said before, your views on war and peace are cute, and very kindergartenish. However, in the real world, one side's refusal to go to war doesn't guarantee peace. Freedom of speech, press, and even religion were all given through war and bloodshed. Your condemnation of those soldiers who risked and gave their lives so you can say or think whatever you want is nothing more than ignorance.

Maybe a lot of wars have been fought for greed, but let me ask you this, what more can you give for a cause than your own life? That cause may or may not be just, but sitting on the sidelines and cursing those soldiers who have given their lives for a cause they believe in doesn't make you honest, moral, noble, or enlightened. Write about that in your live journal.

We all cherish our belongings, but how many truly appreciate them? Many lives have been lost due to evil means, but many lives have been lost in protecting what is sacred. If you ask me, you don't deserve to have something if you're not willing to protect it.

I'd like to say that I got these from my english teacher, I don't know where the original came from.


Ahh, ideals. Very cute, now let's all get together and hold hands.

So wars are only fought for resources? Yeah, like when the allies made war with nazi germany when it invaded Poland. Could you remind me what land or resources they were trying to gain?
land, manpower

Wars are only destructive huh? So the American revolution was destructive? What about World War 2? Of course it was destructive, but you honestly don't believe ending the holocaust and stopping Hitler's conquest of Europe wasn't a higher cause? You're very hard to impress.
Yes, the American Revolution was destructive. Look at property damage and loss of life.

Now, like I said before, your views on war and peace are cute, and very kindergartenish. However, in the real world, one side's refusal to go to war doesn't guarantee peace. Freedom of speech, press, and even religion were all given through war and bloodshed. Your condemnation of those soldiers who risked and gave their lives so you can say or think whatever you want is nothing more than ignorance.
You missed my comments then. I don't believe any of this is applicable. Thats why I stated its a load of crap. And these wars didn't really have to be fought. You can grant freedoms without war, but, only if people are educated and lose the dark-ages mindset. Don't even start me on the 'noble soldier' bullshit

Maybe a lot of wars have been fought for greed, but let me ask you this, what more can you give for a cause than your own life? That cause may or may not be just, but sitting on the sidelines and cursing those soldiers who have given their lives for a cause they believe in doesn't make you honest, moral, noble, or enlightened. Write about that in your live journal.
when did I say this?

We all cherish our belongings, but how many truly appreciate them? Many lives have been lost due to evil means, but many lives have been lost in protecting what is sacred. If you ask me, you don't deserve to have something if you're not willing to protect it.
fair enough. but should you have to worry about protecting that thing?

And these wars didn't really have to be fought. You can grant freedoms without war, but, only if people are educated and lose the dark-ages mindset.

If there are rulers who are oppressing the people, then how is going to grant those rights? Those people need to be moved out of power. Quite often, it is going to take a way to get rid of them.

As for protecting things, you should always be ready to do so in case some idiot like Hitler comes along ot try to take it. Hence why Washington said that the way to peace is to prepare for war.

There is no such thing as a just war.

Get it over and done with is the best option. Whack your enemies until they can no longer fight. At the end of the day, history is written by the winners.

War is only "just" in the eyes of those who fight it - that is, if they even bother to rationalize their actions. There are reasons, certainly...

The only "good" reason to ever fight a war is when it's brought upon oneself by another... and by that point, it's far too late for the war to be "good", absolutely speaking.

War can be "justified" - there is ample justification to fight an invading force. Whether there is ever justification in anything other than a defensive war is not something I care to address presently.

War is only "just" in the eyes of those who fight it - that is, if they even bother to rationalize their actions. There are reasons, certainly...

The only "good" reason to ever fight a war is when it's brought upon oneself by another... and by that point, it's far too late for the war to be "good", absolutely speaking.

War can be "justified" - there is ample justification to fight an invading force. Whether there is ever justification in anything other than a defensive war is not something I care to address presently.

Precisely. "Good" and "evil", "just" and "immoral" are all relative, depending on the person observing the event.

Here's the theory. Also, here's why I think its crap.

Proportionality - the same number of defendors [good] and aggressors[evil] on each side.

When will there ever be such a war? You always want the advantage, never equal numbers. Also, do you think the US and Iraqi numbers were equal? No. Not 'just'.

Utility - weapons on both sides are proportional in number and efficency

WTF? Why would you ever give up superior tech just to think you're doing something just? You have it, you use it. Its not your fault the other side doesn't have it.

Non-Combat Immunity - non-combatants should not be killed

Okay, I agree with this one, but its almost impossible in the days of guns, missiles, bombs, and suiciders.

Just Cause - there should always be a 'higher aim' for war.

I'm calling BS on this one. Wars are fought for resources or territory, never for 'peace'

More good than harm - should bring out something good rather than the problems the war was started for

Again, what the hell? War is always distructive, never constructive.

No Discrimination - people may not be killed because of their views

Isn't that what starts wars in the first place?

Benefit to welfare of others - should benefit people

since when has the death of thousands ever been beneficial?

Merit in One's Actions - all actions should be free of greed, ambition, bias, etc. . .

That's nice. But a war is driven by hatred, not love. Find me a bunch of peacenicks that will fight a war and I'll believe you

Last Resort - war should be the last option

I agree with this and I think in most cases it is actually met

Right Authority - only legit governments can declare war

okay, but that renders just about every revolution the world has ever had an 'unjust war'

Temperence in goals - stop the evil, don't destroy it.

Whats the point of the war then? If you don't destroy the evil, its just going to come back

So, on a whole, the entire just war theory is a load of crap. You have to meet every criteria for it to be a just war. Pick a war, any war you want. Apply this to it, you'll see its unjust. The only way to wage a just war is to not wage war at all.

It came from Just and unjust wars, Micheal Walzer has a lot to answer for,

Personally I think it is a load of crap. And what about Double effect? Well its ok to shoot a non combatant if you tried not to and feel it is morally wrong!!
I HATE POLITICAL PHILOSPHY AND I HAVE TO DO AN EXAM ON THIS PIECE OF S%$T ON may 25th ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

If there are rulers who are oppressing the people, then how is going to grant those rights? Those people need to be moved out of power. Quite often, it is going to take a way to get rid of them.

As for protecting things, you should always be ready to do so in case some idiot like Hitler comes along ot try to take it. Hence why Washington said that the way to peace is to prepare for war.
Granted, but is a war really necessary? Can we get what we want without massive destruction of property and without armies? What about assasins, political shifts in power, blockades, sanctions, etc. . .

Those will work, you just have to try the right way.

The other point was - should you have to worry about people like Hitler coming along to take things away? Should you be living in fear of loosing your possesions?

Granted, but is a war really necessary? Can we get what we want without massive destruction of property and without armies? What about assasins, political shifts in power, blockades, sanctions, etc. . .

Those will work, you just have to try the right way.

The other point was - should you have to worry about people like Hitler coming along to take things away? Should you be living in fear of loosing your possesions?

The assasinations would work a good portion of the time, but not always. For example, if we had assasinated Saddam, I think that the power vacuum created would have been even more trouble to deal with than going in to do it ourselves. Besides, that stuff was found to be somewhat unpleasent in the eyes of the public back during the Church committee meetings in the '70's. President Ford signed an executive order outlawing assasination as a foreign policy tool.

As for Hitler and the like, we shouldn't be living in fear. The only way not to is to be prepared for the worst. I don't know about you, but I'm more afraid when I'm not prepared than when I am.