NationStates Jolt Archive

I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion:

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

*A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.
It was developed by Christian scholars if I remember well, as a way to limit wars and question their legitimity.

The Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.
It was developed by Christian scholars if I remember well, as a way to limit wars and question their legitimity.
Yes, I believe it was first put forth by St. Augustine of Hippo and later explained in-depth by St. Thomas Aquinas

Yes, I believe it was first put forth by St. Augustine of Hippo and later explained in-depth by St. Thomas Aquinas
Then there is Michael Walzer's re-hash, updating it for VietNam & Gulf 1...

I think that whether you're Pro-War, Anti-War, or Maybe-War... the Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.

And the fact that our governments try to justify their war with "humanitarian causes" or "liberation of the people", instead of just saying "let's kick their butts because we hate them", shows that the Just War Theory has greatly influenced our western culture.

I think the absolute opposite of the Just War doctrine is Machiavel's doctrine.

I agree with the "Just War" Theory entirely.

The Just War theory is truly honourable, an adjective I thought had died in this society after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think that whether you're Pro-War, Anti-War, or Maybe-War... the Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.

And the fact that our governments try to justify their war with "humanitarian causes" or "liberation of the people", instead of just saying "let's kick their butts because we hate them", shows that the Just War Theory has greatly influenced our western culture.

I think the absolute opposite of the Just War doctrine is Machiavel's doctrine.
Not if you read ALL of Machiavelli.... Machavelli is VERY specific on when and how force should be used - and it aligns rather well with Just War Theory. You just have to read more than The Prince.

the only just war is fought when the enemy is trying to overrun your country. its just to defend yourself

it MAY be just to aid another country in throwing out an aggressor (insurgents perhaps?)

i see nothing wrong with "actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate". SOMEONE has to do it if the government is unwilling or unable. as long as the justness of the war isnt in question.

the vietnamese had no reasonable chance at winning against either the french or the US. was it unjust of them to try? i think not.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

That's the only one of them that I have trouble with - it seems to reflect the Church leaders' desire to maintain the "status quo" with regard to state power...

There will be times when no "legitimate authority" will be willing to take up the "just cause". It simply doesn't seem right that nothing could or should be done.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

I definetly like this one...

...but it gets me wondering. According to this "rule", has there ever been a "just" war? :(

I definetly like this one...

...but it gets me wondering. According to this "rule", has there ever been a "just" war? :(

The 1st Gulf War?

We invade: Iraq will never touch Kuwait again.
We didn't invade: More people would have been exposed to Iraqi oppression.

If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump down my throat.

The 1st Gulf War?

We invade: Iraq will never touch Kuwait again.
We didn't invade: More people would have been exposed to Iraqi oppression.

If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump down my throat.
Walzer goes into this with the difference between the doctrines of Preemption vs. Prevention.

Preemption means "the enemy is massing on the border and no reasonable person doubts they intend to attack, so you attack them first - i.e you preempt their attack. It's the sucker-punch used to stop a bigger imminent fight.

Prevention means "I think they may attack me, so I will attack them first to prevent it." This is burning down the house of your neighbor because you might get into a fight about the hedges.

I'll have to get out my copy of Walzer. It's been 10 years since I read it.

Walzer goes into this with the difference between the doctrines of Preemption vs. Prevention.

Preemption means "the enemy is massing on the border and no reasonable person doubts they intend to attack, so you attack them first - i.e you preempt their attack. It's the sucker-punch used to stop a bigger imminent fight.

Prevention means "I think they may attack me, so I will attack them first to prevent it." This is burning down the house of your neighbor because you might get into a fight about the hedges.

I'll have to get out my copy of Walzer. It's been 10 years since I read it.

So, are you jumping down my throat or not.

I like to be clear on these things.

So, are you jumping down my throat or not. I like to be clear on these things.
No, I think Walser put Gulf I into the Preemption category, but IIRC there are some caviats when it comes to Nation A fighting a preemptive war for nation B. Like I said, I'll have to look it up.

No, I think Walser put Gulf I into the Preemption category, but IIRC there are some caviats when it comes to Nation A fighting a preemptive war for nation B. Like I said, I'll have to look it up.

Yay, I'm not being attacked.

I've never hears of Walser, but it seems like something that would be good to read.

Like a modern day Art of War.

The Just War theory is truly honourable, an adjective I thought had died in this society after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
oh, STFU.

oh, STFU.

And STFU too, my friend.

and what Authority is going to say that this conclusions are respected in start of the war or are not.maciavelly? st.augustin-i think they are dead long time ago,the U.N. maybe? GOD? ALAH? BUDA?....hehe your] posts are very foolish and naive ....if there isnt adequate authority on this issue and in my opinion there is NOT! ALL this rules are worth NOTHING!...some people will agree this requirements are met some will say Not.hmmm

and what Authority is going to say that this conclusions are respected in start of the war or are not.maciavelly? st.augustin-i think they are dead long time ago,the U.N. maybe? GOD? ALAH? BUDA?....hehe your] posts are very foolish and naive ....if there isnt adequate authority on this issue and in my opinion there is NOT! ALL this rules are worth NOTHING!...some people will agree this requirements are met some will say Not.hmmm

How about the authority of G.W.Bush, a man with the largest army in the world under his thumb?

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought


I definetly like this one...

...but it gets me wondering. According to this "rule", has there ever been a "just" war? :(

im thinking this one means that you cant just attain your goal "removal of saddam hussein" and leave the place in a shambles, you have to clean up after yourself and leave the "enemy" better off than when you found him. the marshal plan comes to mind.

The Just War theory is truly honourable, an adjective I thought had died in this society after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
did you see the movie "fog of war"?

its a documentary interview with robert mcnamara, the secretary of defense under kennedy and johnson.

he was an aide to general le may who was in charge of the bombing of japan in ww2. including the firebombing of tokyo. its chilling to hear him say that it was le may's opinion that if we lost the war they would be tried for war crimes.

it also covers his time as head of ford motor, the cuban missle crisis and the vietnam war. well worth seeing.

I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion:

Kk. Please realize I am responding to the theory, not attacking or supporting you.

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

Sounds reasonable, yet what happens if this attempt to avoid war only leads to the enemy force being able to strengthen itself? Chamberlain comes to mind.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

I cannot agree with this one, because I do not see there being any legitimate authorities. Even when they have been formed (The League of Nations, the UN being prominent examples.), they are generally rather inneffective, leading to things like Darfur and Zimbabwe, whilst simultaneously managing to make any nation who takes action without them look bad, even when those nations broke no laws, and had casus belli.

*A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

It seems to me that this is one of the misgiuded tenants of the Just War theory. There are two reasons for this. First, it is actively encouraging revenge. Second, I would assume only this great authority would be able to decide what is actually a sufficient injury to allow war: assume a nation has suffered an attack or deceit, and the people are angry, but the UN doesn't consider it worthy of war. The people will not be at all happy, and the nation may go to war anyway; if they do not their pride and identituy will be injured, and it could boil over into a much larger conflict, or guerilla action.

* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

This sounds like a sensible idea, but when you take a seat and think about it, it fails on a major point. If two nations with hostilities both adhere to this idea, then it will rapidly become a case of having the largest military, and having the most powerful weapons, in the hopes of simply making yourself look too powerful to take on. Now, from my perspective this is a reasonably sensible course for any nation to take, but a massive buildup of arms is not the best way to go about reducing the quantity and ferocity of wars.

* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

This one depends on the ability to divine what the outcome of both actions would be. Let us say that a nation invades the other with the intent of establishing, essentially, a slave colony of the unfortunate nation they are targetting. Let us also say that their totalitarian regime makes it relatively easy for them to maintain the peace. Would it be right for this nation to be enslaved, their pride and identity stripped away, because it will cost fewer lives? Not only is the idea unworkable because of it requiring the ability to see all ends, but it also has far too narrow a definition.

* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

As a couple of points above, this simply suggests an eye-for-an-eye idea of revenge. In and of itself, I have no real qualms with that philosophy, but the problem is in practise there is no such thing. It always leads to escelation, because both sides feel they are being unjustly attacked and that their retaliations are therefore justified.

* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

This one I cannot argue with in any way, but I would point out that sometimes risks either must be taken, or cannot be taken, and that this can unfortunately result in civilian deaths, in the same manner as accidents or misinformation can. Whilst it should always be made certain the civilian casualities are limited, it must also be understood that completely avoiding such incidents is impossible.

I think the last genuine war we had was GW1. And this one might have passed the test of "Just War", especially since our armies liberated Kuwait, but didn't go on a killing rampage into Iraq (well... except on the Basra highway of course). That's the spirit of just war: you liberate a contry from an invasion, but you don't actually massacre the invader, you just push him back.
I can't see any other "maybe just" war between 1990 and 2005.
Anyway, what followed the Gulf War (isolating Iraq for 10 years and watching their children die) wasn't of the same morale fiber.

I think the last genuine war we had was GW1. And this one might have passed the test of "Just War", especially since our armies liberated Kuwait, but didn't go on a killing rampage into Iraq (well... except on the Basra highway of course). That's the spirit of just war: you liberate a contry from an invasion, but you don't actually massacre the invader, you just push him back.
I can't see any other "maybe just" war between 1990 and 2005.
Anyway, what followed the Gulf War (isolating Iraq for 10 years and watching their children die) wasn't of the same morale fiber.
OK, here goes. "Just & Unjust Wars, 2nd ed.", Michael Walzer, ISBN 0-456-03701-1. (1st ed published in 1977)

GW-1 is described in the preface to the 2nd ed over 10 pages (no, I won't type them all... but I may scan them & post the images for review) Here, however, is an ineresting quote... (edited down with elipses. comments in {} are mine)

It is certainly possible to reinterpret or reconstruct Just War Theory so that no war could possibly be justified. It is important to stress, however, that "no war" here means no war past or present. The most massively destructive form of warfare is also one of the oldest: the seige of a city, in which the civillian population is the avowed target and no effort at dicsrimination is made. Those opponents of the Gulf War {GW1} who advocated the prolonged blocade of Iraq seem to not have realized that what they were advocating was a radically indiscriminate act of war with predictibly harsh consequences (see the discussion in chapter 10 of the blocade of Germany in WWI). Just War Theory as I understand it would require that food and medical supplies be let through - but then it is unlikely that the blocade would serve its purpose. ... Taken literally, which is exactly the way many people took it during the months of the blocade, {the} "last resort" {doctrine} would make war morally impossible. For we can never reach lastness, or we can never know that we have reached it. There is always somthing more to do: another diplomatic note, another UN resolution, another meeting. Once somthing like a blocade is in place, it is always possible to wait a little longer and hope for the success of (what looks like, but isn'tquite) nonviolence. ... The blocade was aimed above all at Iraq's military-industrial capacity. But Saddam could have let this capacity run down over a period of months or even years, so long as he was sure of not being attacked. Hence, the blocade's effectiveness depended on a credible threat to fight, and this threat, once it was mounted, could not be sustained indefinately. At some point, either the Iraqis had to yeild or the coalition had to fight. Otherwise, the victory would have been theirs {Iraq & the invasion of Kuwait}: agression triumphant. Most competent observers, applying this or that version of rational decision theory, expected Iraq to yeild before the January 15 deadline. When that did not happen, war was, though not a last resort, surely a legitimate one. ...

{whew}

Walzer's book on Just War Theory is 327 pages plus preface, afterword and notes. It's not a gripping read, but a good one. I would like to see ed. 3 and how Walzer updates CH 12 on Terrorisim.

Just War Theory, while certainly debatable, (as are all good sociopolitical theories) IMO is more than a way for NationStates to relate to each other, it codifies an extension of Harm Theory Ethics which defines the extent to which a soverign entity - be it a Nation, State, City or Person - is entitled by Nature to use Force.

Aplied to an Individual, Just War Theory clearly deleniates the boundries one must maintain when attempting Survival under Attack - Defensive, Proportional, Limited, non-agressive, and preemptive (only when absolutely certain/necessary - see the Six Day War as a Just example...). A claim to Self Defense that does not comply with Just War Theory cannot be considered truly Self Defense. Likewise, a War that is not Defensive (or a requested intervention for a Just Desensive cause) - and one must be very careful with the preemptive/preventitive conundrum - cannot be Just.

(Note: Walzer came into the discussion of Just War theory as an anti-VietNam activist. He acknowledges his biases, but proves that the theory extends beyond one of "anti war" to one of "total war when necessary". As such, he is critical of VietNam - which was, at best, one of arguable "requested intervention" {generally my position}, and one of "prevention" (i.e. "domino theory"), but more solicitious of Gulf 1, which was more clearly one of both "requested intervention" and "preemption of agression". Nonetheless, despite his activist background, I think the book is well worth the read for anyone interested in the politics of Geopolitical Conflict.)

I just thought I'd bring it up for discussion:

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

*A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Is this list pertaining to real life or are you guys planning on starting a game of Risk?

Is this list pertaining to real life or are you guys planning on starting a game of Risk?
Oh, Just War Theory is very RL. It is a philosophical system which attempts to make sense of the reality of warfare and tries to formulate a structure by which wars may be judged to be Just (justified/justifiable defensive war) or Unjust (immoral agression).

Oh, Just War Theory is very RL. It is a philosophical system which attempts to make sense of the reality of warfare and tries to formulate a structure by which wars may be judged to be Just (justified/justifiable defensive war) or Unjust (immoral agression).

And whilst a noble idea (And therefore one it is a terrible sin to ever speak ill of!), it's riddled with flaws, and additionally appears to have no understanding of realpolitik.

And whilst a noble idea (And therefore one it is a terrible sin to ever speak ill of!), it's riddled with flaws, and additionally appears to have no understanding of realpolitik.Well, duh. It is Ivory Tower Philosophising after all... :rolleyes: :p

Oh, Just War Theory is very RL. It is a philosophical system which attempts to make sense of the reality of warfare and tries to formulate a structure by which wars may be judged to be Just (justified/justifiable defensive war) or Unjust (immoral agression).

And who judges the war to be just? The guy in the grave, or with the smoking gun in his hand?

And who judges the war to be just? The guy in the grave, or with the smoking gun in his hand?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The "justice" of war is debated and "judged" by independant observation, history and hopefully the people contemplating military action. If it is not Just, hopefully you wouldn't undertake it.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The "justice" of war is debated and "judged" by independant observation, history and hopefully the people contemplating military action. If it is not Just, hopefully you wouldn't undertake it.

If I was being intentionally obtuse, would that be grounds for a "just war"?

The danger of attempting to find "justice" in a savage act is that it breeds the ignorant belief that something good can come from violence. But to make my point a little less obtuse let me ask you a few questions.

1. Do you think the mother of a dead child cares whether you think the war that killed her baby was just?

2. Are your observations limited only to declared acts of war?

3. Do your observations account for violence that is commited by the military during times of "peace"? (ie. police actions, covert operations)

4. Do you take into account the kind of leaders that are produced by a world that is shaped by war, and the danger of justifying the means by which they came into power?

If I was being intentionally obtuse, would that be grounds for a "just war"?

The danger of attempting to find "justice" in a savage act is that it breeds the ignorant belief that something good can come from violence.
Ah yes... nothing good came out of the Violence perpetrated by the Allies in WWII. :rolleyes: Re read (or just READ) the quote from Walzer, vis-a-vis the fallacy of saying there is NO justification.

But to make my point a little less obtuse let me ask you a few questions.

1. Do you think the mother of a dead child cares whether you think the war that killed her baby was just? Her opinion doesn't matter except to her and her family.
2. Are your observations limited only to declared acts of war?No. They include all acts of agression and/or the defensive response.
3. Do your observations account for violence that is commited by the military during times of "peace"? (ie. police actions, covert operations) Yes.
4. Do you take into account the kind of leaders that are produced by a world that is shaped by war, and the danger of justifying the means by which they came into power?
If they came into power through violent agression, then Just War Theory does just the opposite - it explicitly does NOT justify such action. OTOH, it takes no position on a person who rises to leadership through Heroisim in justified defense.

I suggest you read what Just War theorists have to say before glibly assuming that they are trying to "justify war".

Interesting thread. Thanks for the Walzer info, Syniks.

A little ditty I wrote about 10 years ago for an in-class essay on Walzer.

“Emergency and crisis are cant words, used to prepare our mind for acts of brutality.” (Walzer, p.251)

Whereas patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, emergency is the first refuge of tyrants, and we should ever be wary of its use. Whenever a government wishes to forcibly impose its will upon its citizenry, it invokes emergency, crisis or some other such “cant” word as epidemic, plague or war. Never has this been so much the case as with the U.S. propensity to couch its laws in terms of crisis or “wars”. The Healthcare crisis - The War on Crime - The War on Drugs - The War on Poverty - An Epidemic of Violence - Guns Plaguing Our Streets - all slogans with the same “look and feel” as Hitler’s “Jewish Problem”.

At what point is one person (or group of people) ethically justified in using force to coerce others to act outside of their (benign) best interests? What sort of crisis makes it ethically and morally acceptable to confiscate property from an honest individual, either by force of arms or force of law? In our “War on Poverty”, the U.S. government has declared such use of force to be morally justifiable on the ethically unjustifiable position that its citizenry is so amoral as to allow starvation in the streets - a position that is both a fabrication and an insult. (I’ve always wondered why there are so many rich “progressives” and New Deal/Great Society adherents. Why haven’t they passed out their largess in a more equitable distribution?)

But what of the rights of an individual to be free from aggressive use of force? This is the crux of the argument in Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars. If we are to accept his premise that War against aggression is just, valid and necessary, and that aggressive war is unjust and criminal, then we must also accept the principle that, in general, government infringement on personal liberty or property, even though we tolerate it, is unjust by its very need to be enforced.

Just War Theory is particularly applicable to the ongoing domestic issue of “gun control”, an issue that is dependant on the perception that the violent defense of self is never justified, and that defensive arms cause acts of aggression. Proponents of gun control posit that non-violent submission, appeasement, or, at most, passive resistance of the aggressor are the only ethical means of confrontation.

Walzer’s theory is based upon the natural, inviolable rights of an autonomous, independent body of persons, called a state, and has its roots in what he calls the “legalist paradigm”. Briefly:
There exists an international society of independent states.
This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members - above all the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act.
Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society.
Nothing but aggression can justify war (in response).
Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished. (Walzer, pp. 62-63)

Intellectual honesty and consistency of ethical reasoning demand this paradigm apply to independent persons as well as states. If a person is not free from “territorial aggression” in his or her body, then a state cannot be justified in likewise defending itself, for both have at stake their very “survival and independence.” Likewise, “political sovereignty” is the greatest asset, or property, that a state can possess. Given then that violent response to aggression in self-defense is just and (often) necessary, all terms and modifications of the legalist paradigm upon which a society is justified in defending itself are equally applicable to the individual. To wit;
Appeasement, submission and non-violent “resistance” are morally unacceptable or impracticable.
Pre-emptive strikes (in times of imminent aggression) are just - Preventative attacks are not.
The neutrality of the individual is inviolable - one cannot be compelled to fight (person v. person or state v. state), but one may be morally obligated to fight in the case of intervention.
An individual may intervene (may be morally obligated to intervene) in the fight of another individual, but only to stop (and punish) an aggressor.
Etc.

What makes the idea of gun control so particularly pernicious is it is the forceful denial by an outside aggressor of the methods to defend oneself from other aggression. To pose an international community based example: The United States, by force of law and arms, removes the defensive weaponry of Israel, claiming the threat of U.S. police action will be enough to keep (take your pick of anti-Israel Middle-Eastern country) from acting aggressively towards it. Would this be an ethical use of force? What would the U.S. find after it receives the inevitable “911” call? Undoubtedly, it would find the same thing any domestic reactive police force finds after an undefended aggressive attack - a wounded or destroyed sovereign individual. (The only difference to this scenario would be that the U.S. “police” would know who and where the aggressor was, and be able to take action…unlike the local PD.)

How then to protect the undefended? By Walzer’s definition, any attempt to “deal with” the neighboring Middle-Eastern nations before (or after) forcibly removing Israel’s defensive capabilities, but before they mass to strike, amounts to preventive war, and is therefore unjust. In similar vein, the domestic police cannot punish potential criminals before they act aggressively…even if they knew who they were. A sovereign entity has the moral duty to protect itself from aggression, and so does the individual. To deny that right to another is patently unjust, and to force the denial of that right is in and of itself a criminal act of aggression.

We return again to what should be called the basis of all human ethical action, Primum, non nocere. - First, do no harm. This is the fundamental jus ad bellum error of “politics-by-crisis.” For example, there is no imminent catastrophe that would allow us to forcibly take the property of one State and give it to another in need without recompense, nor is there any to warrant the confiscation of personal property (income) to “fight” poverty. In both cases and for many reasons, the community of individuals rises to the occasion and act charitably.

Similarly, the “War on Drugs” is inherently a preventive war, interspersed with comparatively infrequent just reprisals against identified aggressors. Since the “engagement” in that “war” often consists of aggressive attacks (force of law and arms) on the sovereignty (rights or property) of persons who may (because of their proximity to "drugs") potentially commit acts of aggression against other sovereign individuals, the nature of "drug-crime" “prevention” is unjust. There is obviously no identifiable or imminent attack or catastrophe that can justify the harm to innocents caused by the preventative aggression. For similar reasons, there is no imminent catastrophe that would allow us to disarm another sovereign State, nor are there any to warrant the disarmament of non-criminal individuals. By denying an entity the fundamental right to self-preservation by restricting or denying its ability for defense against aggression we are doing that entity harm. In both cases, if we perpetrate harm by the forcible removal of property, we are guilty of aggression and injustice.

edit: and then Sabbatis goes and posts while I'm cut-n-pasting... I thought for sure I would have killed this with info overload...

A little ditty I wrote about 10 years ago for an in-class essay on Walzer


Not bad. A pro-gun libertarian fellow 10 years ago! I like all the good info that can be stuck in a thread. There's so much to learn.

Not bad. A pro-gun libertarian fellow 10 years ago! I like all the good info that can be stuck in a thread. There's so much to learn.
Fshaw. I was a "pro-gun libertarian fellow" long before that... at least 23 years ago - back in the days of my "yoot" in Wyoming.

You know, that there Cowboy State that had the audacity to have a Small Bore Rifle Team in their HS sports curriculum. (for which I was a Letterman) :eek:

:sniper: "Oh, sorry, was that YOUR football?" :D

There has never, ever been a just war.

Every single war in human history, whether or not the cause has been seen as 'just' has never followed the just war doctrine. In each and every case, one or more points of the just war theory are violated, leaving the legitimacy of the war in the eyes of those looking for justice, questionable.

A few examples:

American Revolution: injured were killed, sides were not even, armaments and distribution were not even, no regard to non-combatants.

Gulf War 1: Sides not equal, weapons unequal as well, weapons will kill civilians etc. . .

WWII: civilian non-combatants ignored, mass genocide, WMDs used

WWI: gas.

French Revolution: mass civilian executions

The list just goes on and on, present a conflict and I can point out how it does not follow the just was theory.

There has never, ever been a just war.

Every single war in human history, whether or not the cause has been seen as 'just' has never followed the just war doctrine. In each and every case, one or more points of the just war theory are violated, leaving the legitimacy of the war in the eyes of those looking for justice, questionable.

A few examples:

American Revolution: injured were killed, sides were not even, armaments and distribution were not even, no regard to non-combatants.

Gulf War 1: Sides not equal, weapons unequal as well, weapons will kill civilians etc. . .

WWII: civilian non-combatants ignored, mass genocide, WMDs used

WWI: gas.

French Revolution: mass civilian executions

The list just goes on and on, present a conflict and I can point out how it does not follow the just was theory.
But we don't give up the philosophy because there are failures. The Philosophy is a good one, and could lead to more "rational" wars.

But the events within the ware do not necessairly make the War unjust. The reasons for fighting WWII (on the allied side) were QUITE just.

Just War theory is less about the fight itself than the motivations leading to the fight.

Ah yes... nothing good came out of the Violence perpetrated by the Allies in WWII. :rolleyes: Re read (or just READ) the quote from Walzer, vis-a-vis the fallacy of saying there is NO justification.

Her opinion doesn't matter except to her and her family.
No. They include all acts of agression and/or the defensive response.
Yes.

If they came into power through violent agression, then Just War Theory does just the opposite - it explicitly does NOT justify such action. OTOH, it takes no position on a person who rises to leadership through Heroisim in justified defense.

I suggest you read what Just War theorists have to say before glibly assuming that they are trying to "justify war".

I've read what you've posted. If that is inadequate then maybe it is you who should do some re-reading and make a better effort of summarizing what you've learned.

I've read what you've posted. If that is inadequate then maybe it is you who should do some re-reading and make a better effort of summarizing what you've learned.
Apparantly, it is only inadequate to you.

Nothing about Just War Theory, nor what I have posted, in any way attempts to justify agressive war/violence - somthing which would be absurd.

You, OTOH, have posited that no good can ever come from violence - regardless of whether that violence was (in the large) defensive or not. Your position is simply untenable and niaeve.

It is therefore obvious to me that you have a profound lack of understanding and/or reading comprehension.

I really don't think it is incumbent upon me to "better summarize what I have learned" when the concept has been fairly well explained. If you have a substantial difference of opinion beyond "all violence is bad," please make it known, along with some sort of logical argument that debates the points of philosophy. But, as of yet, you have done nothing to refute the Just War position except type vaguely (and not so vaguely) antagonistic posts.

I've read Walzer. I still have his book. But I'm not going to write a set of Cliffs Notes for you.

Apparantly, it is only inadequate to you.

Nothing about Just War Theory, nor what I have posted, in any way attempts to justify agressive war/violence - somthing which would be absurd.

You, OTOH, have posited that no good can ever come from violence - regardless of whether that violence was (in the large) defensive or not. Your position is simply untenable and niaeve.

It is therefore obvious to me that you have a profound lack of understanding and/or reading comprehension.

I really don't think it is incumbent upon me to "better summarize what I have learned" when the concept has been fairly well explained. If you have a substantial difference of opinion beyond "all violence is bad," please make it known, along with some sort of logical argument that debates the points of philosophy. But, as of yet, you have done nothing to refute the Just War position except type vaguely (and not so vaguely) antagonistic posts.

I've read Walzer. I still have his book. But I'm not going to write a set of Cliffs Notes for you.

Well it's very obvious that you seem to have a thing for this guy Walzer, but I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who would claim; "The most massively destructive form of warfare is also one of the oldest: the seige of a city, in which the civillian population is the avowed target and no effort at dicsrimination is made."

This guy was supposed to have made his conclusions during the Vietnam War, yet Vietnam is a perfect example of how a long drawn out war is so much more destructive than a seige of a city. Claiming not only the lives of those living during the battles, but damaging generations to follow with land mines and unexploded shells left by the Americans.

But, Walzer aside, is there anything you could add to this dialogue that can prove that rules and regulations can be used to make a war just? How do you tell someone who has seen his family destroyed by an bomb that the pilot who dropped that bomb was on the side of a nation whose participation in that war was for a just cause? Do you think that will stop them from wanting to exact revenge?

P.S. If you're going to call me "naïve" at least spell it properly.

The 1st Gulf War?

We invade: Iraq will never touch Kuwait again.
We didn't invade: More people would have been exposed to Iraqi oppression.
The First Gulf War didn't fit this criterium:

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

The First Gulf War didn't fit this criterium:

So... what? We sit back while Iraqi forces rape Kuwait and the Kuwaiti people? 'Cause, yeah, that doesn't look selfish or cowardly. "Excuse me Mr. Hussein, we'd really rather not use force on your benficent and legal regime, so would you mind sort of... backing off of Kuwait, maybe? Please? If it's not too much trouble, and in your own time of course?"

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

No. Not if by delaying thousands or millions of people suffer or die. None violent means may take too long. In some cases a swift solution is required.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

Outsiders to that authority? Does that include the enemy? No, armed forces should only answer to the legitimate gov' of their home nation and if that is a republic or democracy to the population of that country.

*A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

Does this not contradict point one? All none violent solutions first? But I sort of agree.

* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

'The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.' A Lincoln

* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The most efficient and expedient means should be used to fight a war. The statement above may cause a protracted and more bloody encounter.

* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Agreed.


But to quote another US president 'Don't hit if it is honourably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!'

So... what? We sit back while Iraqi forces rape Kuwait and the Kuwaiti people? Being that this wasn't happening, and this was simply propaganda put out by the Kuwaiti Royal Family, then, yes, diplomacy would have been a good idea.

Well it's very obvious that you seem to have a thing for this guy Walzer, but I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who would claim; "The most massively destructive form of warfare is also one of the oldest: the seige of a city, in which the civillian population is the avowed target and no effort at discrimination is made."
You really do have trouble with Context, don't you? Just War Theory, whether using Walzer, Augustine or Aquinas, is the discussion of warfare between States. At one time - before Nation States, that meant CITY States, and since they didn't have WMDs to kill an entire City State, they used the Seige - now called a Blocade when used against a Nation State - to starve/disease the buggers into surrender.

Just War Theory also is a theory about Conventional Warfare - not Nuclear warfare, but even so - which is more vicious, starving a city to death or nuking it out of existence? The Suffering caused by the former is far greater than the "horror" of the later - even if the death toll is the same.

This guy was supposed to have made his conclusions during the Vietnam War, yet Vietnam is a perfect example of how a long drawn out war is so much more destructive than a seige of a city. See above.
Claiming not only the lives of those living during the battles, but damaging generations to follow with land mines and unexploded shells left by the Americans.and the French, and the North Vietnamese/ChiComs... but why quibble about who left what lying around an unjust, undeclared war zone?
But, Walzer aside, is there anything you could add to this dialogue that can prove that rules and regulations can be used to make a war just?Rules do not make a war Just, a war is either Just or not. The "rules" make it easier to reflect on the circumstances leading to a conflict and see if the response is Just.
How do you tell someone who has seen his family destroyed by an bomb that the pilot who dropped that bomb was on the side of a nation whose participation in that war was for a just cause? Do you think that will stop them from wanting to exact revenge?And exactly how much Revenge have the citizens of Germany wanted to exact on the World for the Just War fought against the Unjust Actions of the 3rd Reich? Your point about individual grief is meaningless to the discussion of State vs. State actions.
P.S. If you're going to call me "naïve" at least spell it properly.I'll spell it "properly" when I take the time to learn ALT code. Until then, I'll use good old fashioned typewriter conventions for circumventing the lack of accented type.

You really do have trouble with Context, don't you? Just War Theory, whether using Walzer, Augustine or Aquinas, is the discussion of warfare between States. At one time - before Nation States, that meant CITY States, and since they didn't have WMDs to kill an entire City State, they used the Seige - now called a Blocade when used against a Nation State - to starve/disease the buggers into surrender.

Just War Theory also is a theory about Conventional Warfare - not Nuclear warfare, but even so - which is more vicious, starving a city to death or nuking it out of existence? The Suffering caused by the former is far greater than the "horror" of the later - even if the death toll is the same.

See above.
and the French, and the North Vietnamese/ChiComs... but why quibble about who left what lying around an unjust, undeclared war zone?
Rules do not make a war Just, a war is either Just or not. The "rules" make it easier to reflect on the circumstances leading to a conflict and see if the response is Just.
And exactly how much Revenge have the citizens of Germany wanted to exact on the World for the Just War fought against the Unjust Actions of the 3rd Reich? Your point about individual grief is meaningless to the discussion of State vs. State actions.
I'll spell it "properly" when I take the time to learn ALT code. Until then, I'll use good old fashioned typewriter conventions for circumventing the lack of accented type.

LOL... Even without expecting you to use the fancy smancy ALT code your spelling is still pretty brutal. ;)

But I understand what your saying and surprisingly enough I still disagree.

Since I'm a simple person I like to use simple analogies to express my point, so let me use the example of two small children who get into a fight. If you step in and say; "Okay who started it?" Each kid is going to point at the other and start making excuses in order to prove that they are justified. This only heightens their resentment of each other. However if you step in and tell them that they are both wrong to be fighting then they realise they are equally to blame. Now you might argue that civilizations are more sophisticated then two kids in the school yard, but when you have this notion that some wars should be fought and some wars shouldn't you are going to develope the same kind of resentment. Now because governments are dependent on international trade they might comply with the rulings of an international tribunal, but then what you end up with is popular uprisings and terrorism. You can say that the activities of Al Quada are unjust, but that's not going to stop them from flying airplanes into buildings.

LOL... Even without expecting you to use the fancy smancy ALT code your spelling is still pretty brutal. ;) Well, I never claimed to be Fass :rolleyes: … But, just for you, I will type this reply in Word, let M$ spell-check it, and then paste it into Jolt. Happy? :p

But I understand what your saying and surprisingly enough I still disagree.

Since I'm a simple person I like to use simple analogies to express my point, so let me use the example of two small children who get into a fight. If you step in and say; "Okay who started it?" Each kid is going to point at the other and start making excuses in order to prove that they are justified. This only heightens their resentment of each other. However if you step in and tell them that they are both wrong to be fighting then they realise they are equally to blame. I was all set to argue about how 2 kids fighting cannot be relevant to Just War Theory, but then I realized something… there IS a viable comparison to Just War Theory in your analogy, just not the one you expect.

Even though you do not provide enough information as to WHO “started it”, we KNOW someone started it. They are NOT “equally to blame”. Child A hit child B. That is an aggressive and unjust act. When child B, in every way physically equivalent to child A, defends him/herself from A’s aggression, that is Just because to not defend oneself is to submit to injustice – the rule of the bully. Since the fight is equally matched it could (theoretically) go on indefinitely with no resolution but a lot of minor injury (pain) to both parties. On the Global Scene, this could be compared to two States. One attacks the other. We don’t care about political/economic "provocation"; one took aggressive military action against another. A War begins because Country B refuses to be destroyed (unlike 2 children fighting, when one State attacks another it is to destroy that State – or at least the Political System therein). The “pain” felt by a State is the deaths of its citizens (soldier & civilian) and the destruction of its infrastructure. If the two States are equally matched, such fighting can persist for years – causing long term "pain" (deaths & economic loss,) but never quite destroying the States involved.

Back to the kids: Neither child called for your help – even though one was genuinely wronged. But enter Big Strong Oye Oye. Through intimidation of violence (“I’m big, you’re small, I’m Right, you’re Wrong”) or actual Violence (grabbing the children) you stop the fight. Was your action Just? You used un-requested aggression to stop the fight. You did not use Economic Sanction (Stop or I won’t give you a cookie). You did not use Starvation/Siege/Blockade tactics (let them fight, but don’t feed them until they are no longer able to fight from hunger). In what way is that action different than any non-requested interventionist military action a world power has taken? Why is it OK?

Let’s change the parameters just a bit: You know who started the fight and you were asked to intervene by the wronged party. The Aggressor doesn’t care about your cookies, so threatening to withhold them is useless. Would you let them continue to fight but withhold food from the Aggressor - thereby permitting pain to both sides, but increasing the pain of one? Or would you be Justified to use your superior Strength to stop the fight?

Back to States: You can’t just grab a little State in a bear hug and hold them until they stop kicking – no matter how Big and Strong you are. Are you going to Blockade them and starve them? (talk about causing resentment…) Are you going to use insufficient/substantially equivalent force and drag out the conflict, or are you going to use sufficient Strength/Force to neutralize their capacity for aggression immediately – i.e. destroy just enough of their military and/or military infrastructure to make further aggression impossible (in the short term)… the closest thing to “hugging-restraint” you can do to a State.

How about this: You saw A start the fight – and A is using a stick to whale away on B. B is doing their best to defend themselves, but is taking more than they are giving. Is using your superior strength and size to come to B’s aid – even without their request – Just? Remember, you may get hurt with that flailing stick too. Are you going to use Force (i.e. violence/war) to take away that stick before putting A into a restraint-hug? Or are you going to starve A & B (punish everybody) here too?

Now you might argue that civilizations are more sophisticated then two kids in the school yard, but when you have this notion that some wars should be fought and some wars shouldn't you are going to develope the same kind of resentment.That doesn’t follow. Please explain.

Now because governments are dependent on international trade they might comply with the rulings of an international tribunal, but then what you end up with is popular uprisings and terrorism. You can say that the activities of Al Quada are unjust, but that's not going to stop them from flying airplanes into buildings.No, calling the activities of Agressors “Unjust” is no more going to stop the Aggression than does calling Crime unjust stops Criminals. But it does give us a common basis for discussing War/Aggression without involving Politics.

No, I think Walser put Gulf I into the Preemption category, but IIRC there are some caviats when it comes to Nation A fighting a preemptive war for nation B. Like I said, I'll have to look it up.

Gulf 1 wasnt' pre-emptive, it was reactive (Kuwait, an American Ally, was already invaded). Gulf 2 might be catagorized as pre-emptive, since Saddam was working to have the sanctions lifted wiht the intent of obtaining weapons for less-than-noble purposes. Grenada was Preventative or Pre-emptive. Probably Pre-emptive, as the cuban airbase going in on the island was going to be used by Soviet strategic-bombing forces. (Remember, the Cold war was only "Cold" if you lived in Moskow, or Washington D.C. and didn't have family members in the military.)

Gulf 1 wasnt' pre-emptive, it was reactive (Kuwait, an American Ally, was already invaded). Gulf 2 might be catagorized as pre-emptive, since Saddam was working to have the sanctions lifted wiht the intent of obtaining weapons for less-than-noble purposes. Grenada was Preventative or Pre-emptive. Probably Pre-emptive, as the cuban airbase going in on the island was going to be used by Soviet strategic-bombing forces. (Remember, the Cold war was only "Cold" if you lived in Moskow, or Washington D.C. and didn't have family members in the military.)
I agree, I was just citing what I could remember off of the top of my head at that post...

Being that this wasn't happening, and this was simply propaganda put out by the Kuwaiti Royal Family, then, yes, diplomacy would have been a good idea.
Actually, I should clarify. I'm not suggesting that Iraq's treatment of Kuwait was phenomenal by any stretch of the imagination. I am, however, saying that things like Iraqi troops "storming hospitals and dumping babies out of incubators" was nothing more than Kuwaiti royal family propaganda.

Well, I never claimed to be Fass :rolleyes: … But, just for you, I will type this reply in Word, let M$ spell-check it, and then paste it into Jolt. Happy? :p

I was all set to argue about how 2 kids fighting cannot be relevant to Just War Theory, but then I realized something… there IS a viable comparison to Just War Theory in your analogy, just not the one you expect.

Even though you do not provide enough information as to WHO “started it”, we KNOW someone started it. They are NOT “equally to blame”. Child A hit child B. That is an aggressive and unjust act. When child B, in every way physically equivalent to child A, defends him/herself from A’s aggression, that is Just because to not defend oneself is to submit to injustice – the rule of the bully. Since the fight is equally matched it could (theoretically) go on indefinitely with no resolution but a lot of minor injury (pain) to both parties. On the Global Scene, this could be compared to two States. One attacks the other. We don’t care about political/economic "provocation"; one took aggressive military action against another. A War begins because Country B refuses to be destroyed (unlike 2 children fighting, when one State attacks another it is to destroy that State – or at least the Political System therein). The “pain” felt by a State is the deaths of its citizens (soldier & civilian) and the destruction of its infrastructure. If the two States are equally matched, such fighting can persist for years – causing long term "pain" (deaths & economic loss,) but never quite destroying the States involved.

Back to the kids: Neither child called for your help – even though one was genuinely wronged. But enter Big Strong Oye Oye. Through intimidation of violence (“I’m big, you’re small, I’m Right, you’re Wrong”) or actual Violence (grabbing the children) you stop the fight. Was your action Just? You used un-requested aggression to stop the fight. You did not use Economic Sanction (Stop or I won’t give you a cookie). You did not use Starvation/Siege/Blockade tactics (let them fight, but don’t feed them until they are no longer able to fight from hunger). In what way is that action different than any non-requested interventionist military action a world power has taken? Why is it OK?

Let’s change the parameters just a bit: You know who started the fight and you were asked to intervene by the wronged party. The Aggressor doesn’t care about your cookies, so threatening to withhold them is useless. Would you let them continue to fight but withhold food from the Aggressor - thereby permitting pain to both sides, but increasing the pain of one? Or would you be Justified to use your superior Strength to stop the fight?

Back to States: You can’t just grab a little State in a bear hug and hold them until they stop kicking – no matter how Big and Strong you are. Are you going to Blockade them and starve them? (talk about causing resentment…) Are you going to use insufficient/substantially equivalent force and drag out the conflict, or are you going to use sufficient Strength/Force to neutralize their capacity for aggression immediately – i.e. destroy just enough of their military and/or military infrastructure to make further aggression impossible (in the short term)… the closest thing to “hugging-restraint” you can do to a State.

How about this: You saw A start the fight – and A is using a stick to whale away on B. B is doing their best to defend themselves, but is taking more than they are giving. Is using your superior strength and size to come to B’s aid – even without their request – Just? Remember, you may get hurt with that flailing stick too. Are you going to use Force (i.e. violence/war) to take away that stick before putting A into a restraint-hug? Or are you going to starve A & B (punish everybody) here too?

That doesn’t follow. Please explain.

No, calling the activities of Agressors “Unjust” is no more going to stop the Aggression than does calling Crime unjust stops Criminals. But it does give us a common basis for discussing War/Aggression without involving Politics.

Most of what you described relies heavily on the point that a third party should step in to negotiate a peace or intervene against the aggressor of a conflict. In the example of the two children you used me, assuming that I'm stronger than both children. This is exactly the failing of any ideology behind declaring some wars just and denouncing others as unjust, is that it is reliant on a "super power" to play the enforcer.

In real life we have the example of the U.S. playing the "super power" in which Iran was beating Kuwait with a stick. The U.S. stepped in on the premise that Iraq was fighting an "unjust" war against Kuwait. Yet who are the U.S. to judge what is just and unjust when they have engaged in similar conflicts against Loas, Vietnam, Grenada, Phillipines, Panama, etc...?

Actually, I should clarify. I'm not suggesting that Iraq's treatment of Kuwait was phenomenal by any stretch of the imagination. I am, however, saying that things like Iraqi troops "storming hospitals and dumping babies out of incubators" was nothing more than Kuwaiti royal family propaganda.Yes that was propaganda, the Iraqi military incursion across the border was not.

Yes that was propaganda, the Iraqi military incursion across the border was not.
True, but that doesn't mean war was justified in preventing it.
In real life we have the example of the U.S. playing the "super power" in which Iran was beating Kuwait with a stick. The U.S. stepped in on the premise that Iraq was fighting an "unjust" war against Kuwait. Yet who are the U.S. to judge what is just and unjust when they have engaged in similar conflicts against Loas, Vietnam, Grenada, Phillipines, Panama, etc...?This says it well.

True, but that doesn't mean war was justified in preventing it.
This says it well.

I'll take this from a different direction. Let's say you see someone beating a friend of yours to death with a chain. Now, do you intervene, or don't you?

It's a heap different if you don't have any real connections, but if you abandon your friends, you're just an asshole, and probably don't deserve to have any.
Kuwait was a U.S. ally, they were invaded, they asked for help, we gave. That's what you do if you want to have allies at all. A person who doesn't back up his allies is worthless as an ally, and worth far less as a person.

One can argue about whether or not the ally in question is worthy when things are peaceful, but once an ally is in trouble, if he or she is still your ally, you have a moral duty to back them up. That's what Alliance Means.

it's hard to Justify war, but there is NO justification for cowardice.

I'll take this from a different direction. Let's say you see someone beating a friend of yours to death with a chain. Now, do you intervene, or don't you?
Certainly, but there are a myriad of ways to intervene, only one of which means directly using force to stop the chain wielder.

I'll take this from a different direction. Let's say you see someone beating a friend of yours to death with a chain. Now, do you intervene, or don't you?

It's a heap different if you don't have any real connections, but if you abandon your friends, you're just an asshole, and probably don't deserve to have any.
Kuwait was a U.S. ally, they were invaded, they asked for help, we gave. That's what you do if you want to have allies at all. A person who doesn't back up his allies is worthless as an ally, and worth far less as a person.

One can argue about whether or not the ally in question is worthy when things are peaceful, but once an ally is in trouble, if he or she is still your ally, you have a moral duty to back them up. That's what Alliance Means.

it's hard to Justify war, but there is NO justification for cowardice.

You do realise it was the kind of alliances you're talking about that led to WW 1 and WW 2?

Most of what you described relies heavily on the point that a third party should step in to negotiate a peace or intervene against the aggressor of a conflict. In the example of the two children you used me, assuming that I'm stronger than both children. This is exactly the failing of any ideology behind declaring some wars just and denouncing others as unjust, is that it is reliant on a "super power" to play the enforcer. No, that was simply me using your analogy as a stick to beat you with. :D

The ideology has nothing (specifically) to do with third party interventions, though it discusses when such interventions are Just and Unjust. The Ideology has to do with looking at ANY situation that involves Agressive Violence by one State against another State.

In real life we have the example of the U.S. playing the "super power" in which Iran was beating Kuwait with a stick. The U.S. stepped in on the premise that Iraq was fighting an "unjust" war against Kuwait
Yet who are the U.S. to judge what is just and unjust when they have engaged in similar conflicts against Loas, Vietnam, Grenada, Phillipines, Panama, etc...?. Are you saying that because someone has previously engaged in unjust actions means they cannot engage in just actions? Sounds like an excellent case for executing every criminal everywhere immediately upon conviction.

Anyone & everyone has the "right" to judge the actions of another when that judgement is based upon non-subjective criteria. (Religion is a subjective criterion, not a categorical imperative.) Just War theory is not about the US judging anyone, it's about individuals judging the actions of individuals, whether those individuals are States or Persons.

Non-defensive violence is not justifiable. But you have to compare apples to apples. I swing my fist, a State swings an Army. Unless the "punch" you throw is specifically designed to interrupt the drawing of a weapon, the one who "punches first" is ALWAYS wrong.

You do realise it was the kind of alliances you're talking about that led to WW 1 and WW 2?

So?? It could be argued successfully, that your path led to the Second war more than the basic dictum of alliance. After all, Chamberlain thought that by appeasing Hitler, he could avoid a war, din't he? "Peace In our Time" I beleive was the quote. "Peace of Paper" is more like it in practice.

Before anyone gets invaded, before bullets fly and people die, is the time to pressure for peaceful resolution. Once gunfire starts, you have to choose whether your word is any good or not. NO one will trust the word of a coward who says "I'll be there for you" then cuts-and-runs when danger is real, present, and attacking.

and they shouldn't. Cowards are simply un-trustworthy, people who will sell you out because they are afraid of being hurt aren't worth the effort of supporting in good times. It's simply wasting energies and resources that could better be applied to those that will back you up when it's important. To have those, you have to be willing to back them up when it's important. In the case of Kuwait, it was a matter of backing an ally facing conquest and annihilation. Appeasement only increases the appetite of the Conqueror-look at history.

You do realise it was the kind of alliances you're talking about that led to WW 1 and WW 2?
What world do you live in? WW2 was not caused by "alliances", WW2 was caused by a little mustachioed rat bastard. Alliances were developed to combat HIM.

Now it is concievable that the Japanese were honestly concerned that the US might attack them (they were certainly worried about an oil/steel embargo when they joined the Axis), so they undertook a PREVENTATIVE strike against the US. Had we already been marshalling forces to cross the bearing straight and roll over Japan, they might have been justified, but we weren't and they weren't.

WW1 is only slightly more complicated, but it was still a war of agression by the Kaiser against the rest of Europe.

No, that was simply me using your analogy as a stick to beat you with. :D

The ideology has nothing (specifically) to do with third party interventions, though it discusses when such interventions are Just and Unjust. The Ideology has to do with looking at ANY situation that involves Agressive Violence by one State against another State.

And what is the point of looking at situations if there is to be no practical application?

. Are you saying that because someone has previously engaged in unjust actions means they cannot engage in just actions? Sounds like an excellent case for executing every criminal everywhere immediately upon conviction.

I don't believe in executing criminals upon conviction, but I don't believe in making them judges either.

Anyone & everyone has the "right" to judge the actions of another when that judgement is based upon non-subjective criteria. (Religion is a subjective criterion, not a categorical imperative.) Just War theory is not about the US judging anyone, it's about individuals judging the actions of individuals, whether those individuals are States or Persons.

And what will those individuals do about it? There were individuals all over the world who judged the war in Iraq to be unjust, but the U.S. went anyways.

Non-defensive violence is not justifiable. But you have to compare apples to apples. I swing my fist, a State swings an Army. Unless the "punch" you throw is specifically designed to interrupt the drawing of a weapon, the one who "punches first" is ALWAYS wrong.

You've argued valiantly since dropping Walzer (and thank God because those were some long ass passages) but you have yet to convince me that there is a practical application to Just War theory.

True, but that doesn't mean war was justified in preventing it.
It couldn't be prevented... it had already happened. War against it was therby justified.

So?? It could be argued successfully, that your path led to the Second war more than the basic dictum of alliance. After all, Chamberlain thought that by appeasing Hitler, he could avoid a war, din't he? "Peace In our Time" I beleive was the quote. "Peace of Paper" is more like it in practice.

Before anyone gets invaded, before bullets fly and people die, is the time to pressure for peaceful resolution. Once gunfire starts, you have to choose whether your word is any good or not. NO one will trust the word of a coward who says "I'll be there for you" then cuts-and-runs when danger is real, present, and attacking.

and they shouldn't. Cowards are simply un-trustworthy, people who will sell you out because they are afraid of being hurt aren't worth the effort of supporting in good times. It's simply wasting energies and resources that could better be applied to those that will back you up when it's important. To have those, you have to be willing to back them up when it's important. In the case of Kuwait, it was a matter of backing an ally facing conquest and annihilation. Appeasement only increases the appetite of the Conqueror-look at history.

Are you currently serving in the military?

It couldn't be prevented... it had already happened. War against it was therby justified.
All right, let me rephrase. Simply because one country invades another does not mean war is justified against the aggressor. Yes, there are some cases where it can be, but not by definition.

What world do you live in? WW2 was not caused by "alliances", WW2 was caused by a little mustachioed rat bastard. Alliances were developed to combat HIM.

Now it is concievable that the Japanese were honestly concerned that the US might attack them (they were certainly worried about an oil/steel embargo when they joined the Axis), so they undertook a PREVENTATIVE strike against the US. Had we already been marshalling forces to cross the bearing straight and roll over Japan, they might have been justified, but we weren't and they weren't.

WW1 is only slightly more complicated, but it was still a war of agression by the Kaiser against the rest of Europe.

I have a tendency to view WW1 and WW2 as two halves of the same soccer match with a brief break at half time to make substitutions. You may argue this, but it would probably be best to start another thread.

WW1 began when a Serbian group called the Black Hand killed Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria went to war with Serbia, Serbia had an alliance with Russia, Austria had an alliance with Germany, Russia had an alliance with France... etc.

You've argued valiantly since dropping Walzer (and thank God because those were some long ass passages) but you have yet to convince me that there is a practical application to Just War theory.
I don't think I ever said it was practical, just that it could be practical if world leaders would think on it before plunging head first into conflict.
And what is the point of looking at situations if there is to be no practical application? About the same as for any other pointy-headed naval gazing subject like History, Philosophy, Theology, or Art/Literature Appreciation... :rolleyes:

I don't believe in executing criminals upon conviction, but I don't believe in making them judges either.Well, if there are no Just people in the world, then the Unjust will have to serve as Judges. Same holds for States. But since there is no penalty for an unjust war save the war itself...(unless you get slapped by a Just intervention) what's your point?

And what will those individuals do about it? There were individuals all over the world who judged the war in Iraq to be unjust, but the U.S. went anyways.It's PHILOSOPHY. When was the last time you saw a fully practical application of Hobbes, or Rand, or Locke, or Hume or Descartes, or Kant, or, or, or....

Phliosophies exist to give us a rational basis for thought and decision taking. They are not the "rules" by which the world can, or should, live. We glean what we can from them and discard the conflicting or inconsistant bits. You seem to think I want Just War Theory to be some sort of new "Geneva Convention" that applies to all States. While that might be cool, we can't even get the Geneva Convention accepted by all players, so why should I think that Just War Theory, which has existed in one form or another since before Geneva existed, will magically become the Global Conflict Resolution Punishment Tool?

And I didn't drop Walzer... most of those long posts were pure me.

All right, let me rephrase. Simply because one country invades another does not mean war is justified against the aggressor. Yes, there are some cases where it can be, but not by definition.
Why not? If not War, what? Capitulation? Defeat? Loss of Self? How else is a State to defend itself from Invasion other than War?

Or are you just posing the "Better Red than Dead" argument?

read Carl von Clausewitz 'On War.'
War is but a continuation of politics. There is no just war, or aggresion war. You make that divide and you'll never win. You must understand that true war can only be won by Total War. As the yanks and brits put all of there industrial might into war production as did the krauts and japs. If anyone of those great nations failed to bring their entire industrial ecomony not on to a war footing, then things around here would be different. :sniper: :mp5:

Why not? If not War, what? Capitulation? Defeat? Loss of Self? How else is a State to defend itself from Invasion other than War?
In the instance of Gulf War I, we aren't talking about a state defending itself, we're talking about a state getting its ally to defend it. The ally could have chosen any number of courses, such as negotiation (not to be confused with appeasement, these are two different things) threats, embargoes, espionage, diplomacy, or instigating a coup, and that's just a few examples. I'm not suggesting that all of those examples are better than war, but some of them are, and should have been tried.

In the instance of Gulf War I, we aren't talking about a state defending itself, we're talking about a state getting its ally to defend it. The ally could have chosen any number of courses, such as negotiation (not to be confused with appeasement, these are two different things) threats, embargoes, espionage, diplomacy, or instigating a coup, and that's just a few examples. I'm not suggesting that all of those examples are better than war, but some of them are, and should have been tried.
Once they have been invaded it's too late for any other methods. Sure, we could have sat back and watched as the little kid who called for our help was mauled by the big dog. Given enough time, we might have even been able to starve the big dog to death with an embargo/blockade... but the little kid would still be dead.

Once they have been invaded it's too late for any other methods. Sure, we could have sat back and watched as the little kid who called for our help was mauled by the big dog. Given enough time, we might have even been able to starve the big dog to death with an embargo/blockade... but the little kid would still be dead.While dogs can't reason, people (and therefore countries) can, and we could have reasoned with Iraq to pull out. Hell, at least we could have given it more than a token effort before invading.

read Carl von Clausewitz 'On War.'
War is but a continuation of politics. There is no just war, or aggresion war. You make that divide and you'll never win. You must understand that true war can only be won by Total War. As the yanks and brits put all of there industrial might into war production as did the krauts and japs. If anyone of those great nations failed to bring their entire industrial ecomony not on to a war footing, then things around here would be different. :sniper: :mp5:
In the application of War, the goal (of all {rational} sides) is to bring the hostilities to a halt as soon as possible with as few deaths (on your side) as possible. This cannot be done with Parity - it can only be done with overwhelming advantage, either in Men & material or Technology. A just War does not mean not waging Total War (when necessary) just not waging war at all when UNnecessary.

While dogs can't reason, people (and therefore countries) can, and we could have reasoned with Iraq to pull out. Hell, at least we could have given it more than a token effort before invading. Sigh.

Does this seem like just a "token" attempt? (http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp)

September 12, 1990
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to annex it as a "19th Province". On that same day, President George Bush declared that this "naked aggression would not stand". Less than six weeks later, on September 12, President Bush addressed the Iraqi people from the White House in a speech that was televised on Iraqi State television.
IRAQI PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S ADDRESS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
September 25, 1990
On September 25, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein responded to President Bush's speech to the Iraqi people with his own televised address to the American people.
AMBASSADOR APRIL GLASPIE TESTIFIES TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CMTE.
March 21, 1991
On July 25, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to his office for a discussion of U.S.-Iraq relations. This was to be the last high-level contact between the two governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Ambassador Glaspie testified in March 1991 to the House Foreign Affairs Cmte. about that meeting and U.S. policy towards Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.
JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN COLIN POWELL AND DEFENSE SECRETARY DICK CHENEY ON BEGINNING OF GULF WAR
January 16, 1991
On November 29, 1990, the UN passed resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against Iraq if they did not leave Kuwait by January 15, 1991. After Iraq's refusal to depart Kuwait, coalition forces began an air attack on January 16, 1991. Next, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell brief reporters at the Pentagon on the beginning stages of the Persian Gulf War.Now wait another month to see if Iraq pulls out of Kuait.... Nope
PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH ON BEGINNING OF GULF WAR
February 23, 1991
On February 23, 1991, President Bush announced the beginning of the ground war phase of the Gulf War in a televised speech to the American people. Next, his speech, followed by a military briefing 4 days later from Saudi Arabia by General Norman Schwarzkopf. Then President Bush's address to the American people on February 27, 1991 announcing the end of the ground war in Operation Desert Storm.

Oh yeah, the UN is really known for its snap judgements and desire to jump into war... :rolleyes:

Sigh.

Does this seem like just a "token" attempt? (http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp)It doesn't say anything about direct meetings between the two governments. Were there any?

It doesn't say anything about direct meetings between the two governments. Were there any? Yes, read it again.

On July 25, 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to his office for a discussion of U.S.-Iraq relations. This was to be the last high-level contact between the two governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Ambassador Glaspie testified in March 1991 to the House Foreign Affairs Cmte. about that meeting and U.S. policy towards Iraq before the Persian Gulf War.

Yes, read it again.I meant after the invasion.

Are you currently serving in the military?

I got my DD214 in December of 1994. No. I got to serve during the time when we were being sent pell-mell from place to place to wear blue hats and get shot at while not being permitted to shoot back.

I meant after the invasion.
After the invasion it wouldn't have mattered. By not intervening we would be allowing unjust hostilities to proceed in the face of a Just request for assistance.

How Humane would it have been to just dither with letting Saddam "just" take Poland... er, Kuwait... and kill their people virtually unopposed (the big dog vs small child analogy) vs. pulling the dog's fangs in less than 5 days?

I got my DD214 in December of 1994. No. I got to serve during the time when we were being sent pell-mell from place to place to wear blue hats and get shot at while not being permitted to shoot back.


Now I understand where your cynicism about the UN comes from, I don't agree but I understand!

Syniks, you are making some very complicated but enjoyable arguments, pity the responses are not quite on the same philosophical level. I suppose from a non American point of view, the Afgan war is a Just war while the Iraqi one is not because of the intent of those carrying out the agression (America).

How does the theory of Just wars stand up to the need for resorces, eg would it be just for those countries who have to compete with country A for water sources to attack if Country A if A's uses undermined their access to water and therefore under threatened their existance. Would the outside world be just in interveneing in country B if B was persiquiting an ethnic minority within its own borders.

<snip>How does the theory of Just wars stand up to the need for resorces, eg would it be just for those countries who have to compete with country A for water sources to attack if Country A if A's uses undermined their access to water and therefore under threatened their existance.Not unless the international community refused to render Aid &/or sanction the country that is withholding/stealing what would otherwise be a shared natural resource (like a river).

Would the outside world be just in interveneing in country B if B was persiquiting an ethnic minority within its own borders.The first issue would be "define peresecution". If said persecution is not political in nature, but violent/homocidal/genocidal in nature, then absolutely - after Sanctions/Diplomacy fail. However, if the persecution is "just" socio-political, no matter how onerous, then No. It is up to the citizens of a country to change their system.

The first issue would be "define peresecution". If said persecution is not political in nature, but violent/homocidal/genocidal in nature, then absolutely - after Sanctions/Diplomacy fail. However, if the persecution is "just" socio-political, no matter how onerous, then No. It is up to the citizens of a country to change their system.

The last one is personal, home is a mess at the moment.

Any thoughts on writing a book?

The last one is personal, home is a mess at the moment. :( Home wouldn't happen to be SA (or almost anywhere else in Africa) would it? If there is no political process, Revolutions can be Just too.

Any thoughts on writing a book?Many. I have to pick a subject first. I tend to tangent rather badly.

I don't think I ever said it was practical, just that it could be practical if world leaders would think on it before plunging head first into conflict.
About the same as for any other pointy-headed naval gazing subject like History, Philosophy, Theology, or Art/Literature Appreciation... :rolleyes:

History, Philosophy etc. have practical applications that are used in making laws, establishing governments, etc. With "Just War theory" there is no practical application without a super power/enforcer.

Well, if there are no Just people in the world, then the Unjust will have to serve as Judges. Same holds for States. But since there is no penalty for an unjust war save the war itself...(unless you get slapped by a Just intervention) what's your point?

I never said there were no just people. But in order for a super power to become a super power it must involve itself in unjust acts of aggression.

It's PHILOSOPHY. When was the last time you saw a fully practical application of Hobbes, or Rand, or Locke, or Hume or Descartes, or Kant, or, or, or....

As I said, in the making of laws and government.

Phliosophies exist to give us a rational basis for thought and decision taking. They are not the "rules" by which the world can, or should, live. We glean what we can from them and discard the conflicting or inconsistant bits.

Which is what I'm doing with "Just War Theory"

You seem to think I want Just War Theory to be some sort of new "Geneva Convention" that applies to all States. While that might be cool, we can't even get the Geneva Convention accepted by all players, so why should I think that Just War Theory, which has existed in one form or another since before Geneva existed, will magically become the Global Conflict Resolution Punishment Tool?

I don't know, which is why I find the subject impractical.

And I didn't drop Walzer... most of those long posts were pure me.

That explains the spelling. ;)

I got my DD214 in December of 1994. No. I got to serve during the time when we were being sent pell-mell from place to place to wear blue hats and get shot at while not being permitted to shoot back.

Do you think it is cowardly to fail to support the U.S. government's initiatives in Iraq?

Do you think it is cowardly to fail to support the U.S. government's initiatives in Iraq?
What do you mean by "support"?
Do you mean "approve of" the political machinations that lead us there or,

Wish for the best outcome now that we are there? (i.e. support the efforts of the troops who are trying to fight "cleanly" and the efforts of the military and NGO organizations trying to rebuild Iraq)?

They can be, and often are, two different things.

What do you mean by "support"?
Do you mean "approve of" the political machinations that lead us there or,

Wish for the best outcome now that we are there? (i.e. support the efforts of the troops who are trying to fight "cleanly" and the efforts of the military and NGO organizations trying to rebuild Iraq)?

They can be, and often are, two different things.

I was actually hoping you would respond to post directed to you. The question you are responding to was meant for Cadillac Gage, to better understand his point of view. But since you decided to reply I will ask you if you think "just war theory" can be applied without a super power to enforce it?

Keep in mind that milions of people around the world protested the war in Iraq and the U.S. went anyways.

I was actually hoping you would respond to post directed to you. Sorry, you made an interlinear reply within the Quote block, so I rather missed it. Answers at the end.
The question you are responding to was meant for Cadillac Gage, to better understand his point of view.I was just trying to better understand your question. My response did not involve the concept of "cowardice".
But since you decided to reply I will ask you if you think "just war theory" can be applied without a super power to enforce it?Yes, since it is a Theory, not a Law. You don'e enforce Theories, you use them as a basis of personal decision taking and action. There is nothing to enforce.
Keep in mind that milions of people around the world protested the war in Iraq and the U.S. went anyways.And similarly, right or wrong, millions of people supported the decision. The (in)justice of a decision does not change with the number of supporters or dissenters.

Originally Posted by Syniks, Interlinear by Oye Oye
I don't think I ever said it was practical, just that it could be practical if world leaders would think on it before plunging head first into conflict.
About the same as for any other pointy-headed naval gazing subject like History, Philosophy, Theology, or Art/Literature Appreciation...

History, Philosophy etc. have practical applications that are used in making laws, establishing governments, etc. With "Just War theory" there is no practical application without a super power/enforcer.
Why not? If I, as "Chief of Syniks" am a proponent of Just War Theory and use it do determine when and when not to use the Army of Syniks, isn't that a "practical application" that requires no enforcement?
Well, if there are no Just people in the world, then the Unjust will have to serve as Judges. Same holds for States. But since there is no penalty for an unjust war save the war itself...(unless you get slapped by a Just intervention) what's your point?
I never said there were no just people. But in order for a super power to become a super power it must involve itself in unjust acts of aggression.
Likely, but not necessairly. Had there been no aboriginals in North America, the development of the United States as a Super Power would have still occured.
It's PHILOSOPHY. When was the last time you saw a fully practical application of Hobbes, or Rand, or Locke, or Hume or Descartes, or Kant, or, or, or....

As I said, in the making of laws and government.
Phliosophies exist to give us a rational basis for thought and decision taking. They are not the "rules" by which the world can, or should, live. We glean what we can from them and discard the conflicting or inconsistant bits.
Which is what I'm doing with "Just War Theory"
Actually, it seems to me that you are attempting to discount it entirely simply because you don't understand it. You haven't shown any arguments as to what is conflicting or inconsistent with the logic, just assertions that it is useless because it isn't/can't be enforced.

You seem to think I want Just War Theory to be some sort of new "Geneva Convention" that applies to all States. While that might be cool, we can't even get the Geneva Convention accepted by all players, so why should I think that Just War Theory, which has existed in one form or another since before Geneva existed, will magically become the Global Conflict Resolution Punishment Tool?
I don't know, which is why I find the subject impractical.
Perfection is impractical. Demanding World Peace is impractical. There are lots of impractical things that people do/discuss every day. The impracticality of a subject does not render the subject invalid or moot.

And I didn't drop Walzer... most of those long posts were pure me. (bad typing and all.)

Do you think it is cowardly to fail to support the U.S. government's initiatives in Iraq?

I think it's a complex situation, and the motivations are equally complicated. It's not 'Cowardly' to say you don't like the war, or that you're worried it will turn into a quagmire. It's not Cowardly to question who benefits from it.

OTOH: The shooting is going on. An immediate unilateral withdrawal will effectively undo any good that might have come from overthrowing Saddam.
We have a previous example of what I mean on file: Southeast Asia. In particular, the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam without adequately preparing the Republic of Vietnam to handle their enemies, and we trusted an unreliable treaty to protect our allies. What followed the U.S. pullout was a regime bad enough that people like Trung Li (a former co-worker) risked their lives to escape it.

But... the U.S. is, (as has been noted) not the one facing occupation (at the moment), so International non-support is not by-definition an outright betrayal of trust. Where the current war differs from the first Gulf conflict, is that the U.S. felt (and was) obligated to protect an ally from direct, overt, mass-scale aggression by a neighbour. The Current Iraq war is more-or-less the U.S. cleaning up a mess it helped make (we kept Saddam in power during the cold-war years, incited the kurds to revolt against Saddam, then did not support them...) Any nations that went in with us, did so voluntarily, which is how Spain can pull out and get only mild criticism for folding to violence.

Limited criticism is always good, and it's not smart to buy off on what elected officials say without examining it closely. Ridiculous "The sky is falling" criticism is often a symptom of cowardice (though, by itself, it's only a symptom, don't treat it as a full-positive!)

The greater concern raised is whether the current "anti-War" movement has more to do with which American is in the White House, than with genuine concerns about the conduct, prosecution, and outcome of the current War.

Oddly enough, I do think we need to keep a close eye on the Administration to make certain they are, in fact, making every effort to prepare Iraq to handle its own problems in readiness to depart-support of training initiatives for the remodeled Iraqi military, transfer of crucial assets to counterinsurgency by Iraqi troops, and reconstruction/improvement of the Iraqi infrastructure need to be completed before the U.S. leaves. It has been shown that it is much, much, more difficult for Militant whack-jobs to gain power in places that have running water and reliable electricity, where folks have a job and a paycheque, and both are steady. (Examples: Failure of the "Militia Movement" in the 1990's, failure of the Skinhead and other racist fucktards in the U.S. from the 1960's onward...)

What I see as counterproductive, is this unilateral withdrawal attitude. We've gone in, and, in grunting terms, "Fucked shit up", if a serious effort to rebuld the shit we fucked up isn't done, then it will, indeed, be an unjust war. America has a tendency to leave places in better shape than we found 'em when we invade. Look to Japan, or Germany, (Hell, the rest of continental europe!) for examples of what the Administration is claiming to be doing.

Criticism oriented to hold them to that claim is a good idea-an Iraq with a working infrastructure, economy, and professional military and police governed by rule-of-law could serve others as an example and a stabilizer in a region that has seen too much conflict over the last 4,000 years.
Bosnia, and Turkey, both show that rule-of-law is possible in Islamic nations. This is probably the thing that scares the Tyrants and Theocrats the most-it's entirely possible for an Islamic Nation to fit the Western definition of 'Civilized' without a dictator or strongman. That's bad news for Autocrats, fundamentalist Militants, and other psychos who want to drive the world into 12th Century Wahhabism.

so, short-form, to answer your question: It depends on the Criticism. It really does.

What do you mean by "support"?
Do you mean "approve of" the political machinations that lead us there or,

Wish for the best outcome now that we are there? (i.e. support the efforts of the troops who are trying to fight "cleanly" and the efforts of the military and NGO organizations trying to rebuild Iraq)?

They can be, and often are, two different things.

Syniks, that's a lot slimmer than my response was, but gets to the point.

(Point being: it depends on the criticism, not on whether it's criticism or not...)

Syniks, that's a lot slimmer than my response was, but gets to the point.

(Point being: it depends on the criticism, not on whether it's criticism or not...)
:D I thought I've been wordy enough for the moment...

Sorry, you made an interlinear reply within the Quote block, so I rather missed it. Answers at the end.
I was just trying to better understand your question. My response did not involve the concept of "cowardice".
Yes, since it is a Theory, not a Law. You don'e enforce Theories, you use them as a basis of personal decision taking and action. There is nothing to enforce.
And similarly, right or wrong, millions of people supported the decision. The (in)justice of a decision does not change with the number of supporters or dissenters.


Why not? If I, as "Chief of Syniks" am a proponent of Just War Theory and use it do determine when and when not to use the Army of Syniks, isn't that a "practical application" that requires no enforcement?

No, because you are using the "Army of Syniks" to enforce it.

Likely, but not necessairly. Had there been no aboriginals in North America, the development of the United States as a Super Power would have still occured.

But the aboriginals of North America were there, and they taught the first settlers to survive. (ie. Thanksgiving). The Spaniards (who would later become Mexicans) introduced horses and cattle into the American landscape. The U.S. became a major colonial power after the Spanish American War, which can be argued as being unjust. The Americans also waged wars and supported coups of several countries in order to expand their hegemony (ie. The United Fruit Company, Panama Canal, annexation of Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines)

Actually, it seems to me that you are attempting to discount it entirely simply because you don't understand it. You haven't shown any arguments as to what is conflicting or inconsistent with the logic, just assertions that it is useless because it isn't/can't be enforced.

I'm discounting "Just War theory" because it is impractical.

Perfection is impractical. Demanding World Peace is impractical. There are lots of impractical things that people do/discuss every day. The impracticality of a subject does not render the subject invalid or moot.

(bad typing and all.)

If you note my first post in this thread, which I believe is the post you responded to, I asked the author of the thread if "Just War Theory" was intended for real life or for a game of Risk. My facetious remark was motivated that I find "Just War Theory" impractical. If you agree with this then we really have no argument.

I think it's a complex situation, and the motivations are equally complicated. It's not 'Cowardly' to say you don't like the war, or that you're worried it will turn into a quagmire. It's not Cowardly to question who benefits from it.

What about refusing to recognise a draft based on those convictions?

OTOH: The shooting is going on. An immediate unilateral withdrawal will effectively undo any good that might have come from overthrowing Saddam.
We have a previous example of what I mean on file: Southeast Asia. In particular, the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam without adequately preparing the Republic of Vietnam to handle their enemies, and we trusted an unreliable treaty to protect our allies. What followed the U.S. pullout was a regime bad enough that people like Trung Li (a former co-worker) risked their lives to escape it.

The Vietnam war is very similar to the Iraq war in that it is an occupation that the U.S. seems unable to handle. The reason why U.S. troops are required is because there is not enough support coming from the Iraqi people to suppress the insurgents.

But... the U.S. is, (as has been noted) not the one facing occupation (at the moment), so International non-support is not by-definition an outright betrayal of trust. Where the current war differs from the first Gulf conflict, is that the U.S. felt (and was) obligated to protect an ally from direct, overt, mass-scale aggression by a neighbour. The Current Iraq war is more-or-less the U.S. cleaning up a mess it helped make (we kept Saddam in power during the cold-war years, incited the kurds to revolt against Saddam, then did not support them...) Any nations that went in with us, did so voluntarily, which is how Spain can pull out and get only mild criticism for folding to violence.

Wouldn't it be better to recognise that a mistake has been made, cut your losses and avoid having to impose a draft?

Limited criticism is always good, and it's not smart to buy off on what elected officials say without examining it closely. Ridiculous "The sky is falling" criticism is often a symptom of cowardice (though, by itself, it's only a symptom, don't treat it as a full-positive!)

The greater concern raised is whether the current "anti-War" movement has more to do with which American is in the White House, than with genuine concerns about the conduct, prosecution, and outcome of the current War.

I've said this before, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of following the same agenda. It's only the way they go about it that differs. what the U.S. needs most is not new leadership, but an analysis and restructuring of their electoral system.

Oddly enough, I do think we need to keep a close eye on the Administration to make certain they are, in fact, making every effort to prepare Iraq to handle its own problems in readiness to depart-support of training initiatives for the remodeled Iraqi military, transfer of crucial assets to counterinsurgency by Iraqi troops, and reconstruction/improvement of the Iraqi infrastructure need to be completed before the U.S. leaves.

If this is the case why was G.W.'s original reason WMDs, then "To get Saddam"? It seems the objectives keep changing.

It has been shown that it is much, much, more difficult for Militant whack-jobs to gain power in places that have running water and reliable electricity, where folks have a job and a paycheque, and both are steady. (Examples: Failure of the "Militia Movement" in the 1990's, failure of the Skinhead and other racist fucktards in the U.S. from the 1960's onward...)

This might change if a super power placed trade embargos around the U.S., bombed their major cities and kidnapped the President.

What I see as counterproductive, is this unilateral withdrawal attitude. We've gone in, and, in grunting terms, "Fucked shit up", if a serious effort to rebuld the shit we fucked up isn't done, then it will, indeed, be an unjust war. America has a tendency to leave places in better shape than we found 'em when we invade. Look to Japan, or Germany, (Hell, the rest of continental europe!) for examples of what the Administration is claiming to be doing.

Look to the Phillipines, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan and Mexico.

Criticism oriented to hold them to that claim is a good idea-an Iraq with a working infrastructure, economy, and professional military and police governed by rule-of-law could serve others as an example and a stabilizer in a region that has seen too much conflict over the last 4,000 years.

Much of the world has seen too much conflict over the last 4,000 years, mainly because people are conned into believing there is such a thing as "A Just War".

Bosnia, and Turkey, both show that rule-of-law is possible in Islamic nations. This is probably the thing that scares the Tyrants and Theocrats the most-it's entirely possible for an Islamic Nation to fit the Western definition of 'Civilized' without a dictator or strongman. That's bad news for Autocrats, fundamentalist Militants, and other psychos who want to drive the world into 12th Century Wahhabism.

Yet the U.S. seems content to do business with these dictators.

so, short-form, to answer your question: It depends on the Criticism. It really does.

And my criticism is that war only benefits weapons manufacturers and wealthy men who want to rule the world. If we want to truly evolve as a species we must look towards more democratic solutions and use technology to develope better ways of sharing the wealth, instead of trying to hoard it.

War benefits many people based on what is going on. If there is a genocide occuring then a war would be in a way justified as a means to an end. That is all that war is. Really it would be good if war was not something that was even called for. But there are people that try to undermine peace and who hurt others and who make the world a worse place to live in and war is often the best way to deal with them.

War benefits many people based on what is going on. If there is a genocide occuring then a war would be in a way justified as a means to an end. That is all that war is. Really it would be good if war was not something that was even called for. But there are people that try to undermine peace and who hurt others and who make the world a worse place to live in and war is often the best way to deal with them.

I was always under the impression that democracy was the best way to deal with tyrants.

How on earth is democracy the best way to deal with tyrants? Are you talking about as a method to keep them from arrising? Democracy only prevents the rise of tyrants if a good government exists, otherwise that democracy will only breed discontent tyrants. Besides not everyone in the world wants democracy and even democratic countries will declare war based on various reasons.

How on earth is democracy the best way to deal with tyrants? Are you talking about as a method to keep them from arrising? Democracy only prevents the rise of tyrants if a good government exists, otherwise that democracy will only breed discontent tyrants. Besides not everyone in the world wants democracy and even democratic countries will declare war based on various reasons.

Democracy is a tool to keep them from arising as well as a tool to remove them from power. (ie. Indian Independence) Tyrants use war to rise to power, but their power cannot be maintained if the public are aware, educated, unified and unwilling to follow. These attributes come from having good leaders who are able to explain the benefits of democracy. (ie. the U.S. occupation of Iraq would not be neccessary if the U.S. had tried to win the hearts and minds of the people before invading.)

Yeah, brainwashing from afar does not always work. Although it is good to have ideals, it is not good to be idealistic, pragmatism rules this world. Ultimately the idea of brainwashing everyone to love democracy and follow it would not work. There would still be people who would reject democracy, there would still be people who would wish to wage war. As well when trouble strikes, the people tend to turn to the insane militants once the moderates fail or take too long. After all Germany was a democracy before Hitler took charge.

Yep. That theory is perfect. But people are greedy, so it doesn't quite work that way.

Oh, and someone said they thought honor died after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look dude, we don't need that. Would you have rather 1/4 of a million US soldiers died invading Japan, and then probably a couple million Japanese dieing in the invasion? Because if you'd rather that, you're a war criminal in my eyes. Look at it logically, there was no better option at the time. You and your idiotic revisionist friends are trying to put down what America did in the past. And you're fools. We're the greatest country on Earth (or at least we were) but people like you try and say we're sick blood-thirsty human beings. Try and belittle our actions in the greatest war in the history of the world. And then your revisionist friends go on saying Lincoln was a traitor and a dictator, or the Founding Fathers were fools. Shut up. The past is done. I guess it's a shame you lousy revisionists can't change it? Huh? You'd change the history books so it said "July 4th, 1776: The Worlds Tragedy" or "9/11/01: The Day America Got What Was Coming" or "12/7/41: The Day We Should Have Kept Out Of WW2." I'm damn proud of America. If you're not get out.

If you note my first post in this thread, which I believe is the post you responded to, I asked the author of the thread if "Just War Theory" was intended for real life or for a game of Risk. My facetious remark was motivated that I find "Just War Theory" impractical. If you agree with this then we really have no argument. I find the simplistic way you look at Just War Theory the most troubling aspect. To wit, your next comment:
Much of the world has seen too much conflict over the last 4,000 years, mainly because people are conned into believing there is such a thing as "A Just War".... Again I would ask if Europe (the world?) would have been better off under the Third Reich... Please tell me how this could have been prevented without fighting the Nazis in the war they started.

It seems to me you are having the hardest time distinguishing the War in its totality from the reasons its combatants are fighting. Just War Theory does not address the totality of War except to say that wars are ALWAYS started by an unjust actor. The hope is that the war will be finished by a Just actor - as it was in WWII.
And my criticism is that war only benefits weapons manufacturers and wealthy men who want to rule the world. While small conflicts/wars may be profitable for those in a military/industrial setting outside the conflict, a war that engages the full economy of the country is hardly profitable... especially if thar country's infrastructure is also engaged by the enemy. And, IIRC, the last man who wanted to rule the world was slapped down pretty hardby the Just part of it.
If we want to truly evolve as a species we must look towards more democratic solutions and use technology to develope better ways of sharing the wealth, instead of trying to hoard it.If we want to truly evolve as a species we must look for ways of getting off this rock and not eating/drinking our planet dry with overpopulation. There are only 3 things that can "fix" overpopulation. Migration, Famine or War. I say we need to Migrate.

Yeah, brainwashing from afar does not always work. Although it is good to have ideals, it is not good to be idealistic, pragmatism rules this world. Ultimately the idea of brainwashing everyone to love democracy and follow it would not work. There would still be people who would reject democracy, there would still be people who would wish to wage war. As well when trouble strikes, the people tend to turn to the insane militants once the moderates fail or take too long. After all Germany was a democracy before Hitler took charge.

Of course pragmatism rules the world, which is why I think "Just War Theory" is a less practical solution than democracy.

Of course pragmatism rules the world, which is why I think "Just War Theory" is a less practical solution than democracy.Democracy may be the best solution, in general, for preventing wars, but democracy - as a political system - takes no position on War. Thus, incorporating the idea that agression is Unjust INTO democracy by fostering the ideals in the population helps that democracy better identify truly agressive acts taken against them or another and gives them the resources to decide the best way in which to defend themselves from that agression.

Self Defense is not unjust.

I find the simplistic way you look at Just War Theory the most troubling aspect. To wit, your next comment:
Again I would ask if Europe (the world?) would have been better off under the Third Reich... Please tell me how this could have been prevented without fighting the Nazis in the war they started.

It seems to me you are having the hardest time distinguishing the War in its totality from the reasons its combatants are fighting. Just War Theory does not address the totality of War except to say that wars are ALWAYS started by an unjust actor. The hope is that the war will be finished by a Just actor - as it was in WWII.

Do you mean the same "Just actors" that went on to conduct the Cold War?

While small conflicts/wars may be profitable for those in a military/industrial setting outside the conflict, a war that engages the full economy of the country is hardly profitable... especially if thar country's infrastructure is also engaged by the enemy. And, IIRC, the last man who wanted to rule the world was slapped down pretty hardby the Just part of it.

I have no idea who this is, could you provide the full name?

If we want to truly evolve as a species we must look for ways of getting off this rock and not eating/drinking our planet dry with overpopulation. There are only 3 things that can "fix" overpopulation. Migration, Famine or War. I say we need to Migrate.

This last statement seems a little bit sidetracked from your previous argument but, if you and all the other people who advocate war as a substitute for negotiation and civil protest want to fly to the moon, be my guest.

Democracy may be the best solution, in general, for preventing wars, but democracy - as a political system - takes no position on War. Thus, incorporating the idea that agression is Unjust INTO democracy by fostering the ideals in the population helps that democracy better identify truly agressive acts taken against them or another and gives them the resources to decide the best way in which to defend themselves from that agression.

Self Defense is not unjust.

No grasshopper, but there is a third option, you can take away the stick.

:rolleyes:
This last statement seems a little bit sidetracked from your previous argument but, if you and all the other people who advocate war as a substitute for negotiation and civil protest want to fly to the moon, be my guest.Where are you located, really? I don't see how anyone in the US - even a radical leftist, could fail to see that sometimes you HAVE to fight wars. Nazisim taught us that. Please explain how anyone in their right mind would use negotiation and civil protest when the tanks are rolling into town?

I really don't understand how you keep missing the point that Just War Theory says that war is ONLY just IF it is DEFENSIVE - i.e. somebody else has already started fighting you or those whom you have agreed to defend.

If the fighting hasn't started, then by all means negotiate. If you are not party to the conflict, look at who started it and use civil protest against them if you like (not that it will do any good).

But damn it, stop trying to paint Just War Theory as an excuse FOR war. It is NOT. If you would actually read the primary authors and advocates of the theory, who lay it out in rigorous logical detail you would know this, rather than continuing to ignore the entire premise of what I've been saying.

AGRESSION IS BAD, SELF DEFENSE IS REQUIRED. How much more pain can I make it?

No grasshopper, but there is a third option, you can take away the stick.
And pray tell, how do you "take away the stick" without using force? You can't do Aikido on a Country.

An Embargo/Blockade is the application of force to cause Starvation.
Ditto for sanctions. The leaders eat and the pesants starve. How's that for justice?

But both take time, time that will be used by the agressor to do more agressing. That's what agressors do. They don't just stop because people ask nicely. Did Chaimberlain's "Niceness" keep Hitler out of Poland?

Look, ALL wars are unjust at their beginning. If they weren't, they wouldn't be wars. ("Hello, Mr. Stalin? Would you please come and take over Checzoslovakia? We don't want self rule any more... Thanks, you're a gem.) :rolleyes:

So far you still have not brought up any philosophical argument against WHY Just War Theory is"bad" or somehow "promotes war".

Do you mean the same "Just actors" that went on to conduct the Cold War?You haven't answered. Would Europe been better off under the Nazis? Would it have been better to let the agressor "win"?

Oh, and as for the economic & ideological "war" between the US and the Soviets, that wasn't a war in any sense of the term that can apply to overt agression between two States. It was exactly what you keep asking for - war by diplomacy.

While small conflicts/wars may be profitable for those in a military/industrial setting outside the conflict, a war that engages the full economy of the country is hardly profitable... especially if thar country's infrastructure is also engaged by the enemy. And, IIRC, the last man who wanted to rule the world was slapped down pretty hardby the Just part of it.
I have no idea who this is, could you provide the full name?
Riiiight. :rolleyes: But then, you don't think winning WWII was Just. So why should I even try?

And please learn how to insert quote tags before typing your responses. If you can bold your comments, you can make them into interlinear quotations to better facilitate rebuttal... (not that you want logical rebuttal to your assertions...)

Heck, the U.S. has many crazy people. I know a history major in Texas that believes that history teaches us that war is an avoidable evil. Some people do not accept the idea that cynicism is often correct. We should be thankful for all the times that people are good but most of the time they are going to seek their own benefit at the cost of others.

And pray tell, how do you "take away the stick" without using force? You can't do Aikido on a Country.

An Embargo/Blockade is the application of force to cause Starvation.
Ditto for sanctions. The leaders eat and the pesants starve. How's that for justice?

But both take time, time that will be used by the agressor to do more agressing. That's what agressors do. They don't just stop because people ask nicely. Did Chaimberlain's "Niceness" keep Hitler out of Poland?

Look, ALL wars are unjust at their beginning. If they weren't, they wouldn't be wars. ("Hello, Mr. Stalin? Would you please come and take over Checzoslovakia? We don't want self rule any more... Thanks, you're a gem.) :rolleyes:

So far you still have not brought up any philosophical argument against WHY Just War Theory is"bad" or somehow "promotes war".

You haven't answered. Would Europe been better off under the Nazis? Would it have been better to let the agressor "win"?

Oh, and as for the economic & ideological "war" between the US and the Soviets, that wasn't a war in any sense of the term that can apply to overt agression between two States. It was exactly what you keep asking for - war by diplomacy.

Riiiight. :rolleyes: But then, you don't think winning WWII was Just. So why should I even try?

And please learn how to insert quote tags before typing your responses. If you can bold your comments, you can make them into interlinear quotations to better facilitate rebuttal... (not that you want logical rebuttal to your assertions...)

You complain because my view of your arguments are simplistic, but the one time I ask you to elaborate you refuse. Talk about irony.

Here check this out:

"ALL wars are unjust at their beginning. If they weren't, they wouldn't be wars."

This I can agree with.

Yes all wars are due to misguided people. In a perfect world war would not be necessary, however, this is not a perfect world and the rules of a perfect world do not apply. Ultimately we will strive to achieve peace but of course will be kept from doing so by our own violent and power-hungry natures. Peace is good but we must defend our ideals and ourselves through bloodshed in many instances.

You complain because my view of your arguments are simplistic, but the one time I ask you to elaborate you refuse. Talk about irony.
Ask again. I'm sorry if I missed it. It's easy to do if it's embedded in a quote of what I said.

However, it seems I am the only one elaborating much anyway. It would be nice to see some sort of logical justification for your position rather than simple assertions.

Here check this out:

"ALL wars are unjust at their beginning. If they weren't, they wouldn't be wars."

This I can agree with.So? What conclusion does this lead you to? That we should ignore Injustice? That we should simply Protest while a stoppable Injustice is occuring? Would you simply stand on the street corner and protest the actions of the rapist across the street, or would you try to actually do somthing substantiative?

You should understand my position fairly well. I don't hide what I believe. I'm a libertarian. Anti (big) Government, Pro personal responsibility. I believe that the only crimes that should truly be considered such are Theft and Agressive violence. I am absolutely opposed to interventionisim.

You, on the other hand, have not stated any philosophical position other than "Just War Theory is Impractical, and therefore Irrelevant" (correct me if I'm wrong). You have revealed nothing of the foundations of your position. I have no way of knowing if you are serious, deluded, or trolling. I can atleast understand where a self-identified Wobbly is coming from. I may disagree, but I can understand the Philosophy. You have denied the forum readers even that concession.

I'm really getting tired of explaining the same, simple concept over and over. Do you or do you not believe that every living entity, be it an animal, human or State, has the right to defend itself from agression? It's really that simple. If you do, then Just War Theory has some value. If you do not, then your ideals are contrary to not only sociology but basic biology. Even a Rabbit will fight back when it cannot run. States cannot run. Once they have been attacked, they must fight back. If they are too small to fight for themselves, they must do as any world leader does and hire (a) bodyguard(s). That's what defense treaties are about.

Tell me why I should take you seriously and continue this rather one-sided "debate"?

Not to blow anybody off or anything, but it is now 12:05AM here and I have Relatives coming into town for the 4th of July weekend. My ability to respond until Tuesday will be extremely limited.

I'll do my best, but JTLYN I'm not "running out" on the conversation. :p

Here's a nice article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/138/55.0.html) from Christianity Today about Augustine and his Just War, especially on how Christians should feel about war. Of course debating the Christian response to war could take another big thread itself.

Personally I'm inclined to beleive that war is one of our population control mechanisms.

Really it would not surprise me that if the earth became over-populated that it would all end with ww3. Hopefully, after a war like that, mankind would survive, it would be unlikely though considering the weapons used in that war but it is possible.

After the invasion it wouldn't have mattered. By not intervening we would be allowing unjust hostilities to proceed in the face of a Just request for assistance.Of course it would have mattered, or at least it could have. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have intervened, I'm saying that there are other forms of intervention that should've been tried before war, such as talking directly to Saddam after the invasion, but before the war. If those things didn't work, then, yes, war is perfectly acceptable. I mean, at least before the police storm a suspect's house, they say "come out with your hands up."

How Humane would it have been to just dither with letting Saddam "just" take Poland... er, Kuwait... and kill their people virtually unopposed (the big dog vs small child analogy) vs. pulling the dog's fangs in less than 5 days?Again, I'm not suggesting dithering, I'm suggesting action, just not war, at first.

Oh, and Kudos to you for knowing the IWW/Wobblies. :)

Edit: Oh, and I do need to find the Noam Chomsky quote about the UN Resolution that authorized war (Resolution 678). Or can you access the part of the CSpan site that has its text? I tried, but it said I didn't have access to it.

And my criticism is that war only benefits weapons manufacturers and wealthy men who want to rule the world. If we want to truly evolve as a species we must look towards more democratic solutions and use technology to develope better ways of sharing the wealth, instead of trying to hoard it.

Ah, you don't have to worry, mate, you should head out, and join the American Communist Party right-bloody-now. You'll never be successfully drafted into service because it's one point that's still an immediate disqualifier. (it's also consistent with your beliefs anyway...)

Every piece of technology you own has been refined, or relies on processes refined, as a tool of war-from the computer you're using right now, to the knife in you kitchen drawer, to the shoes and pants and whatever else you're wearing, everything.

Humans stopped "Evolving as a Species" with the ability to control fire. We stopped being ruled by our environment, and took control-and that, friend, means evolution no longer rules the species.

Further, the Cultural change you describe has been tried. those that tried it without the armed-apes to protect them, became the slaves of those who did not. (The Helots under the Spartans is a particularly glaring point, but not the only one...) there's a reason that the Amish don't have a massive centre of influence in the Low countries of Europe (where they originated)-the Armed Apes in America were willing to leave them alone and not burn their houses down, were, in fact, willing to protect them from the worst of the thugs out there, and do so without making them slaves first.
Non-Pacifists are what keep Pacifists alive and free to be pacifists.
Anyone who claims slavery is better than death has never seriously considered the life of a slave-or seen it in action.

By its nature, War is injurious, and to an extent, unjust. it is also inescapably part of the human condition. We have always had, and will always have, war on one level or another. from South Central Los Angeles and Cabrini Green in Chicago, to US vs. Iraq round II, to the Cold war. Always. Weapons and war have existed for aeons-the "Iceman" found in the Alps a few years ago was shot in the back by an arrow. (Discovery Channel), he was outfitted in the way a warrior would be outfitted at that tech-level and level of development.
Many of the oldest artifacts in your museums, are tools designed to either deprive humans of life, or prevent other humans from killing the bearer.

Is there a "Just War"? Only if "Peace" comes at too high a price-if the trade for not-going-to-war is to be subject to the whims of an enemy, it is too high a price. Chamberlain and Petain thought as you do-and Hitler prospered on the backs of those whom were sacrificed for a momentary peace-this is an old, old, pattern. War is justified when it removes a Tyrant, it is justified when it removes a Threat, and, it is justified when the other option is the same as losing a war, and is more damaging than the status-quo.
It is also justified when the option of not-fighting leaves those who depend on you alone against a stronger. unscrupulous, and aggressive enemy. Not acting on behalf of those with whom you have no relationship is not AS immoral as not-acting when called upon by those with whom you have an established and friendly relationship.

Surrender is never acceptable. Once an enemy thinks he has your measure, he will pressure it to achieve power over you.

Ah, you don't have to worry, mate, you should head out, and join the American Communist Party right-bloody-now. You'll never be successfully drafted into service because it's one point that's still an immediate disqualifier. (it's also consistent with your beliefs anyway...)

Every piece of technology you own has been refined, or relies on processes refined, as a tool of war-from the computer you're using right now, to the knife in you kitchen drawer, to the shoes and pants and whatever else you're wearing, everything.

Humans stopped "Evolving as a Species" with the ability to control fire. We stopped being ruled by our environment, and took control-and that, friend, means evolution no longer rules the species.

Further, the Cultural change you describe has been tried. those that tried it without the armed-apes to protect them, became the slaves of those who did not. (The Helots under the Spartans is a particularly glaring point, but not the only one...) there's a reason that the Amish don't have a massive centre of influence in the Low countries of Europe (where they originated)-the Armed Apes in America were willing to leave them alone and not burn their houses down, were, in fact, willing to protect them from the worst of the thugs out there, and do so without making them slaves first.
Non-Pacifists are what keep Pacifists alive and free to be pacifists.
Anyone who claims slavery is better than death has never seriously considered the life of a slave-or seen it in action.

By its nature, War is injurious, and to an extent, unjust. it is also inescapably part of the human condition. We have always had, and will always have, war on one level or another. from South Central Los Angeles and Cabrini Green in Chicago, to US vs. Iraq round II, to the Cold war. Always. Weapons and war have existed for aeons-the "Iceman" found in the Alps a few years ago was shot in the back by an arrow. (Discovery Channel), he was outfitted in the way a warrior would be outfitted at that tech-level and level of development.
Many of the oldest artifacts in your museums, are tools designed to either deprive humans of life, or prevent other humans from killing the bearer.

Is there a "Just War"? Only if "Peace" comes at too high a price-if the trade for not-going-to-war is to be subject to the whims of an enemy, it is too high a price. Chamberlain and Petain thought as you do-and Hitler prospered on the backs of those whom were sacrificed for a momentary peace-this is an old, old, pattern. War is justified when it removes a Tyrant, it is justified when it removes a Threat, and, it is justified when the other option is the same as losing a war, and is more damaging than the status-quo.
It is also justified when the option of not-fighting leaves those who depend on you alone against a stronger. unscrupulous, and aggressive enemy. Not acting on behalf of those with whom you have no relationship is not AS immoral as not-acting when called upon by those with whom you have an established and friendly relationship.

Surrender is never acceptable. Once an enemy thinks he has your measure, he will pressure it to achieve power over you.

Well said.

Ah, you don't have to worry, mate, you should head out, and join the American Communist Party right-bloody-now. You'll never be successfully drafted into service because it's one point that's still an immediate disqualifier. (it's also consistent with your beliefs anyway...)

Every piece of technology you own has been refined, or relies on processes refined, as a tool of war-from the computer you're using right now, to the knife in you kitchen drawer, to the shoes and pants and whatever else you're wearing, everything.

Humans stopped "Evolving as a Species" with the ability to control fire. We stopped being ruled by our environment, and took control-and that, friend, means evolution no longer rules the species.

Further, the Cultural change you describe has been tried. those that tried it without the armed-apes to protect them, became the slaves of those who did not. (The Helots under the Spartans is a particularly glaring point, but not the only one...) there's a reason that the Amish don't have a massive centre of influence in the Low countries of Europe (where they originated)-the Armed Apes in America were willing to leave them alone and not burn their houses down, were, in fact, willing to protect them from the worst of the thugs out there, and do so without making them slaves first.
Non-Pacifists are what keep Pacifists alive and free to be pacifists.
Anyone who claims slavery is better than death has never seriously considered the life of a slave-or seen it in action.

By its nature, War is injurious, and to an extent, unjust. it is also inescapably part of the human condition. We have always had, and will always have, war on one level or another. from South Central Los Angeles and Cabrini Green in Chicago, to US vs. Iraq round II, to the Cold war. Always. Weapons and war have existed for aeons-the "Iceman" found in the Alps a few years ago was shot in the back by an arrow. (Discovery Channel), he was outfitted in the way a warrior would be outfitted at that tech-level and level of development.
Many of the oldest artifacts in your museums, are tools designed to either deprive humans of life, or prevent other humans from killing the bearer.

Is there a "Just War"? Only if "Peace" comes at too high a price-if the trade for not-going-to-war is to be subject to the whims of an enemy, it is too high a price. Chamberlain and Petain thought as you do-and Hitler prospered on the backs of those whom were sacrificed for a momentary peace-this is an old, old, pattern. War is justified when it removes a Tyrant, it is justified when it removes a Threat, and, it is justified when the other option is the same as losing a war, and is more damaging than the status-quo.
It is also justified when the option of not-fighting leaves those who depend on you alone against a stronger. unscrupulous, and aggressive enemy. Not acting on behalf of those with whom you have no relationship is not AS immoral as not-acting when called upon by those with whom you have an established and friendly relationship.

Surrender is never acceptable. Once an enemy thinks he has your measure, he will pressure it to achieve power over you.

I never claimed surrender was acceptable. What I said is that humans should use technology and their currently evolving understanding of the world to find new ways to resolve differences. If you think that "since war has always been than war shall always be", you are confining yourself to thinking inside the box.

[QUOTE]Ask again. I'm sorry if I missed it. It's easy to do if it's embedded in a quote of what I said.

You didn’t miss the question, you declined to answer it.

Riiiight. But then, you don't think winning WWII was Just. So why should I even try?

See?

So? What conclusion does this lead you to? That we should ignore Injustice? That we should simply Protest while a stoppable Injustice is occuring? Would you simply stand on the street corner and protest the actions of the rapist across the street, or would you try to actually do somthing substantiative?

There is a difference between war and self defense.

War • noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups.

In order to fight a war groups must organize themselves with the intent of causing harm to others. Thus premeditation is a factor.

You should understand my position fairly well. I don't hide what I believe. I'm a libertarian. Anti (big) Government, Pro personal responsibility. I believe that the only crimes that should truly be considered such are Theft and Agressive violence. I am absolutely opposed to interventionisim.

You, on the other hand, have not stated any philosophical position other than "Just War Theory is Impractical, and therefore Irrelevant" (correct me if I'm wrong). You have revealed nothing of the foundations of your position. I have no way of knowing if you are serious, deluded, or trolling. I can atleast understand where a self-identified Wobbly is coming from. I may disagree, but I can understand the Philosophy. You have denied the forum readers even that concession.

I’m not trolling, deluded… that’s a matter of opinion, but I am trying to take you seriously.

I'm really getting tired of explaining the same, simple concept over and over. Do you or do you not believe that every living entity, be it an animal, human or State, has the right to defend itself from agression? It's really that simple.

No it isn’t. You seem to think the only way a person can defend themselves is with violence. There are other ways.

If you do, then Just War Theory has some value. If you do not, then your ideals are contrary to not only sociology but basic biology. Even a Rabbit will fight back when it cannot run.

Do you equate a rabbit biting a fox to the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan? A side effect of war is that innocents are caught in the cross fire.

States cannot run. Once they have been attacked, they must fight back. If they are too small to fight for themselves, they must do as any world leader does and hire (a) bodyguard(s). That's what defense treaties are about.

Civilizations can resist oppression without waging war.

Tell me why I should take you seriously and continue this rather one-sided "debate"?

How many sides of this debate should I be arguing? You say that I keep asserting the same thing over and over, but so are you. You’re stating that war is justified as a means of defending a state or a group of individuals against an aggressive force. I’m simply saying that there are other ways.

To say that war can be completely avoided is a bit deluded. After all many wars are fought in this modern age out of a duty to remove a threat or restore peace. To allow an enemy or threat to build up without intervening would be foolish. As well, innocents do die during war, in fact by blowing up the 2 japanese cities we probably saved lives and provided an excuse for the political stalemate of the cold war(as opposed to another hot war). Yes, I will not even reach you(after all you did admit to being obstinant on this position) however, I do not think that you have any practical solution besides war that is guaranteed to have an effect.

You didn’t miss the question, you declined to answer it.

Quote:
Riiiight. But then, you don't think winning WWII was Just. So why should I even try?

See?

See what? There has only been one meglomaniac in the past century who had both the desire, and means, to try to Rule The World. Is it really necessary for me to spit out his name? Maybe you think you can get some sort of upper hand by claiming a Godwin, but Godwins don't work that way. (psst... since you can't seem to figure it out for yourself, his name was Aldolph Hitler...)

There is a difference between war and self defense.

War • noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups.

In order to fight a war groups must organize themselves with the intent of causing harm to others. Thus premeditation is a factor.So being capable of defending your country from the agression of others necessairly implies you intend to be agressive to others? That doesn't follow. Post Hoc fallacy.

I’m not trolling, deluded… that’s a matter of opinion, but I am trying to take you seriously.Definately deluded. When a Wobbly & I agree on a philosophical principle, it pretty much means that that principle is a categorical imperative.
No it isn’t. You seem to think the only way a person can defend themselves is with violence. There are other ways. I am Aikidoka. I understand "nonviolent defense". Please explain to me how a country is to defend itself without violence.
Do you equate a rabbit biting a fox to the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan? Yes. The tenacity of the Japanese is legendary. They were prepared to fight, hand to hand, with every man, woman and child. The death toll required, on both sides, required to defeat Japan conventionally would have been horrific. While the death toll of the A-bombs was large, it was a tiny fraction of what conventional war would have cost.
A side effect of war is that innocents are caught in the cross fire.Unfortunate, but in the scope of war between States, "innocents" mean as much to the country as the scratch on a face caused by a cat-fight. It is painful, you wish it wouldn't have happened, but the only way to stop more scratches is to stop the war. Fight until you win and the scratching stops.
Civilizations can resist oppression without waging war.Yes, but they cannot resist War without waging War. The only way to "resist" War without waging War is to surrender. Try this some time. Go to a bad part of town and get mugged. While you are being beaten, diplomaticly ask the mugger to stop kicking you. When the Police arrive, please make sure the officer does not use force to stop the mugger. Make suer he diplomatically asks the mugger to stop kicking you. Maybe he will agree to stop after 3 more kicks if he can keep your wallet. :rolleyes:
How many sides of this debate should I be arguing? You say that I keep asserting the same thing over and over, but so are you. You’re stating that war is justified as a means of defending a state or a group of individuals against an aggressive force. I’m simply saying that there are other ways.What ways? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. But you sould be debating your position by doing more than asserting your position. You should be debating your position by giving us a philosophical framework for your assertions. You have yet to do that.

Oh, and I sill can't figure out what question of yours I'm declining to answer.

I never claimed surrender was acceptable. What I said is that humans should use technology and their currently evolving understanding of the world to find new ways to resolve differences. If you think that "since war has always been than war shall always be", you are confining yourself to thinking inside the box.
Unfortunately, human beings will resort to violence. I know you're having a hard time understanding this, but some folk out there prefer it to non-violent measures-which leaves the rest of us needing to be ready to apply it in our own defense. see, Laws only work on the Law-Abiding, and technology only works for you if you have it.

Thugs and Ruffians will always attack those they percieve as too weak to defend themselves. Those that are unwilling to fight, will be victims to those willing to use violence unless they have their own guys who are willing to use violence right back.

My view is supported by 15,000 years of human history and human misery. Those that give up their weapons live on the sufferance of those who do not.
In the schoolyard, when the Teachers aren't around, the little kids organize themselves by who is physically strong enough to enforce his or her will. Adults without supervision tend to do the same thing Ceterus Paribus on the international scale. Don't believe me? ask Tibet, Israel, or Kurdistan (*wait, you can't ask Kurdistan, it doesn't exist-the Turks, Iraqis, and former soviet republic of Azerbaijan won't let it!)

Ghandi succeeded only because he chose an opponent that cared about Morality and believed in a certain set of values. Had he been facing, say, Belgium, Italy, Imperial Japan, China, Russia, or France, he wouldn't have lived as long or had any impact whatsoever. Them's the breaks-nonviolence only works against an opponent who is not ruthless.

Ya know, I do wonder about extreme pacifists. If they believe that there is a way to get out of any war what would they say about a group of people that beat them up for the heck of it. I mean a fight is sort of a small war, and surrender is not always an option so how would they internalize that fight if they had no opportunity to negotiate a peace or anything.

[QUOTE]See what? There has only been one meglomaniac in the past century who had both the desire, and means, to try to Rule The World. Is it really necessary for me to spit out his name? Maybe you think you can get some sort of upper hand by claiming a Godwin, but Godwins don't work that way. (psst... since you can't seem to figure it out for yourself, his name was Aldolph Hitler...)

And, IIRC, the last man who wanted to rule the world was slapped down pretty hardby the Just part of it.

You might think this a stupid question, actually you probably will think this a stupid question as you seem to have a low tolerance for anyone who doesn't think like you, but how am I too assume that IIRC stands for Hitler?

So being capable of defending your country from the agression of others necessairly implies you intend to be agressive to others? That doesn't follow. Post Hoc fallacy.

Government's do not build militaries with the intention of preventing casualties, but with the intention of causing them. ie. A bullet does not prevent a person from getting shot. It's only purpose is to penetrate the object, person, animal, that it is fired at.

Definately deluded. When a Wobbly & I agree on a philosophical principle, it pretty much means that that principle is a categorical imperative.
I am Aikidoka. I understand "nonviolent defense". Please explain to me how a country is to defend itself without violence.

I have no idea what a Wobbly is, and I don't care if the Pope agrees with you, name dropping does not make your argument more legit. Nor does knowing Aikido.

Yes. The tenacity of the Japanese is legendary. They were prepared to fight, hand to hand, with every man, woman and child. The death toll required, on both sides, required to defeat Japan conventionally would have been horrific. While the death toll of the A-bombs was large, it was a tiny fraction of what conventional war would have cost.

So if a rabbit leaves a bite mark on the paw of a fox it is the same as wiping out millions of Japanese civilians?

Unfortunate, but in the scope of war between States, "innocents" mean as much to the country as the scratch on a face caused by a cat-fight.

Which is precisely the problem with "Just War Theory". It places agenda over actual human suffering.

Yes, but they cannot resist War without waging War.

Yes they can, it takes two to tango. If someone engages you in a war and you do not fight back, then it is not a war, but an injustice that the rest of the world must be confronted with.

The only way to "resist" War without waging War is to surrender.

Not true, there is non co-operation.

Try this some time. Go to a bad part of town and get mugged. While you are being beaten, diplomaticly ask the mugger to stop kicking you. When the Police arrive, please make sure the officer does not use force to stop the mugger. Make suer he diplomatically asks the mugger to stop kicking you. Maybe he will agree to stop after 3 more kicks if he can keep your wallet. :rolleyes:

I would rather not go into a bad part of town. Unlike "Just War" theorists, I don't go looking for trouble. :D

What ways? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. But you sould be debating your position by doing more than asserting your position. You should be debating your position by giving us a philosophical framework for your assertions. You have yet to do that.

I have been giving you a philisophical framework, however you have simply not recognised it because I have not added a fancy shmancy cocktail party word to describe it. But if you need labels I will give you one. "Satyagraha"

Oh, and I sill can't figure out what question of yours I'm declining to answer.

I think it's more a case that you are not understanding my answers. But you did ask how a country is expected to defend itself without violence so I will give you a quote to help you understand my position. (hang on quote on it's way...)

How do you deal with injustice without some conflict? Give us an actual means to deal with the problem practically. War is simply an attempt to solve a problem that is resistant to other solutions. If I perform an injustice and no one attempts to fight me or physically resist me(war) then I can perform injustices until I am content. The world can not do anything to stop a war at all without going to war. If the U.S. or britain or Russia start invading everyone and no one goes to war to stop them, then they can control the world!

I think both world wars would've actually been over more quickly had the US NOT stepped in...despite that fact, I feel the US was justified in both of those cases.

[QUOTE]Unfortunately, human beings will resort to violence. I know you're having a hard time understanding this, but some folk out there prefer it to non-violent measures-which leaves the rest of us needing to be ready to apply it in our own defense. see, Laws only work on the Law-Abiding, and technology only works for you if you have it.

I think what you are having a hard time understadning is that violence breeds violence. The United States is guilty of a genocide far worse than anything the Nazis were involved in. But they are not viewed with the same contempt because they won the war. The society in which you live was founded on the principles of war, which is probably why you see such behaviour as moral, when it is in fact evil.

Thugs and Ruffians will always attack those they percieve as too weak to defend themselves. Those that are unwilling to fight, will be victims to those willing to use violence unless they have their own guys who are willing to use violence right back.

So are we to be ruled by the strongest thug? If you submit to this then you are not only a victim of past wars but a potential perpetrator of future wars.

My view is supported by 15,000 years of human history and human misery. Those that give up their weapons live on the sufferance of those who do not.

My view is based on the belief that we can learn from our mistakes.

In the schoolyard, when the Teachers aren't around, the little kids organize themselves by who is physically strong enough to enforce his or her will.

Not true, when we played sports it was the most skillfull kids who were the Captains. When we were hanging around trying to decide what to do, we often used democracy and voted. When it came to girls, the kid with the most experience led the way. I've never been in a situation were a bully told me what to do and when a big kid did move into the neighbourhood, if he acted like a bully nobody would play with him.

Adults without supervision tend to do the same thing Ceterus Paribus on the international scale. Don't believe me? ask Tibet, Israel, or Kurdistan (*wait, you can't ask Kurdistan, it doesn't exist-the Turks, Iraqis, and former soviet republic of Azerbaijan won't let it!)

And who is the supervision for the adults? We live in a society with laws, etiquette and other forms of social conduct for a reason, we can accomplish more united than we can divided.

Ghandi succeeded only because he chose an opponent that cared about Morality and believed in a certain set of values. Had he been facing, say, Belgium, Italy, Imperial Japan, China, Russia, or France, he wouldn't have lived as long or had any impact whatsoever. Them's the breaks-nonviolence only works against an opponent who is not ruthless.

Gandhi did not choose his opponent. Nor was he lucky in the draw, the British Empire is guilty of some of the worst crimes against humanity in the history of civilization. The African slave trade reached it's peak under the British and the Native Americans were all but wiped out. Today the Jews have Isreal, regardless of what problems they have with the Arabs they are in a much better position then the Natives of North America.

I think both world wars would've actually been over more quickly had the US NOT stepped in...despite that fact, I feel the US was justified in both of those cases.

Why do you think that? Are you suggesting that a different ending would have occured? I am curious about how the US's presense slowed down the war by supplying it with more soldiers(unless you mean a different side wins).

What other recourse is there than to submit to the person who has the power to protect. Just be glad that in this modern age that most nations do not wish for war but recognize the necessity from time to time. Gandhi was lucky because the British for whatever reason decided not to kill him off, the reasons were either political(killing off a wimp like Gandhi would have started an open rebellion that we can not afford) or moral(killing is wrong and we can afford to lose india). I do challenge you to come up with a system that could prevent a war when one of the people or nations desires conflict(does not want diplomacy).

[QUOTE=Cadillac-Gage]

I think what you are having a hard time understadning is that violence breeds violence. The United States is guilty of a genocide far worse than anything the Nazis were involved in. But they are not viewed with the same contempt because they won the war. The society in which you live was founded on the principles of war, which is probably why you see such behaviour as moral, when it is in fact evil.

"Moral" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, it's "Survival". Life as a Slave is worse than death.


So are we to be ruled by the strongest thug? If you submit to this then you are not only a victim of past wars but a potential perpetrator of future wars.

Thank you.



My view is based on the belief that we can learn from our mistakes.

Learning relies on an active mind willing to grasp the lesson, my counter is that such minds are rare, and even more rarely do they achieve a position to effect even temporary change.


Not true, when we played sports it was the most skillfull kids who were the Captains. When we were hanging around trying to decide what to do, we often used democracy and voted. When it came to girls, the kid with the most experience led the way. I've never been in a situation were a bully told me what to do and when a big kid did move into the neighbourhood, if he acted like a bully nobody would play with him.

You must have lived in a very exclusive neighbourhood. By the time I was eight, I knew how to fight because I had to.



And who is the supervision for the adults? We live in a society with laws, etiquette and other forms of social conduct for a reason, we can accomplish more united than we can divided.

Those laws, mores, and ettiquettes have to be enforced. Someone is always going to be the enforcer, and in the case of Laws, that someone has access to greater force than the rest.


Gandhi did not choose his opponent. Nor was he lucky in the draw, the British Empire is guilty of some of the worst crimes against humanity in the history of civilization. The African slave trade reached it's peak under the British and the Native Americans were all but wiped out.

Mostly by Spain, (oh, forgot about them, dint you??? Cortez.)
and diseases brought over from Europe.

Further, the British Empire of Ghandi's day was an "Older" empire, they did care about their Moral standards-had he been born a hundered (or fifty, or twenty five) years prior, he would ahve been another dead wog by age thirty.

He got lucky, he hit the right time-period (Britain was reeling from one world war and engaged in another, the Empire was already cracking...) The agreements post-war that were signed by the allies forced the European allies to reduce their Colonial holdings or their debt would not be forgiven by the United States. (lots and lots of loans were involved. big money.) This was not a 'humanitarian' gesture on our part, either-we wanted those markets and resources opened for our businesses.


Today the Jews have Isreal, regardless of what problems they have with the Arabs they are in a much better position then the Natives of North America.

Yes, and Israel survives by doing what?? Yah, shooting back. Israel only exists because the Jews are better fighters than the Arabs-who outnumber them thousands to one and want them dead to the last child.
If Israel adopted your Policy, they would be wiped out inside of a week, and while the West would care, it doesn't stop those people from being exterminated for what you consider the "Moral High Ground".

Don't get me wrong, I admire someone willing to sacrifice themselves for a point of morality-but I draw the line at sacrificing others for that same point.
Allowing yourself to be overrun and enslaved just makes you overrun and enslaved. Without those willing to do violence on behalf of the victims (i.e. go to war to stop it), brutality is the only policy mankind has in common with itself.
the Fist is the universal language, because it works even on the catastrophically stupid and insensitive.

[QUOTE]"Moral" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, it's "Survival". Life as a Slave is worse than death.

You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of non co-operation. It means you do not obey the person trying to oppress you under any circumstances. It is a more effective tool than war because the winner of war is determined by military strength and tactics, the winner of civil resistence is determined by will.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Learning relies on an active mind willing to grasp the lesson, my counter is that such minds are rare, and even more rarely do they achieve a position to effect even temporary change.

Yet look at all the great things the world has to offer. We have civil rights, technologies and political freedoms that civilisations before us did not have because those rare individuals who believed things could be done differently succeeded in affecting a permanent change.

You must have lived in a very exclusive neighbourhood. By the time I was eight, I knew how to fight because I had to.

I have lived in many rough neighbourhoods. One of the roughest being in Cali, Colombia. Colombia is a very libertarian society and I recomend several libertarians from this forum spend a year living there. They will either claim they've found paradise and spend the rest of their days there, or come back a full fledged communist.

Those laws, mores, and ettiquettes have to be enforced. Someone is always going to be the enforcer, and in the case of Laws, that someone has access to greater force than the rest.

Those who rule are greatly outnumbered by those who are ruled. If as a society we learn to recognise the value of non co-operation with unjust laws then we can never be coersed into doing something against our will. In a true democracy it is common interests that govern our behaviour.

Mostly by Spain, (oh, forgot about them, dint you??? Cortez.)
and diseases brought over from Europe.

I didn't forget Cortez, nor the fact that native tribes still exist in Latin America as they have been for thousands of years. Languages such as Quechua, Chibcha and Embera are still commonly used. In fact Venezuela has a native American President. The reason is that, as rutheless as the Conquistadors were, they were not nearly as savage as the British and U.S. Colonialists. However the genocide of Natives in Latin America is a current issue as multinational corporations are using puppet governments to force widespread displacement. This is an injustice that the U.S. could prevent. Not with war, but by refusing to trade, sell weapons, or provide supplies to governments guilty of such actions.

Further, the British Empire of Ghandi's day was an "Older" empire, they did care about their Moral standards-had he been born a hundered (or fifty, or twenty five) years prior, he would ahve been another dead wog by age thirty.

It was an Empire in decline that was recognising the necessity to encorporate Democracy into their policies. But you should keep in mind that Gandhi did not begin his campaign in India. His practice of non co-operation was first applied in South Africa.

P.S. "wog" is a racial slur towards Arabs. If your going to be a bigot at least be an informed bigot.

He got lucky, he hit the right time-period (Britain was reeling from one world war and engaged in another, the Empire was already cracking...) The agreements post-war that were signed by the allies forced the European allies to reduce their Colonial holdings or their debt would not be forgiven by the United States. (lots and lots of loans were involved. big money.) This was not a 'humanitarian' gesture on our part, either-we wanted those markets and resources opened for our businesses.

I agree with most of what was said in this quote. But how much of Gandhi's campaign was luck, and how much of it was understanding the political and cultural landscape? After returning from South Africa many members of the Indian Independence movement wanted Gandhi to join their ranks, instead he took a train trip across India.

Yes, and Israel survives by doing what?? Yah, shooting back. Israel only exists because the Jews are better fighters than the Arabs-who outnumber them thousands to one and want them dead to the last child.
If Israel adopted your Policy, they would be wiped out inside of a week, and while the West would care, it doesn't stop those people from being exterminated for what you consider the "Moral High Ground".

Palestine was originally Arab occupied territory. The Israeli's, with the aid of the British, pushed out the Arabs because of anti-semetic attitudes expressed by Europeans. Jews from Germany, Poland, France and other parts of Europe had as much right to call Europe their home as any Christian. If they had protested their displacement and challenged the virtues of Christian morality, the way Gandhi did, maybe they wouldn't be fighting with the Arabs as they are today.

[QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I admire someone willing to sacrifice themselves for a point of morality-but I draw the line at sacrificing others for that same point.

Yet what do you think happens when one nation declares war on another nation? The difference is that you are not only sacrificing the people who believe in your doctrines, but the blood of those they kill is also on your hands.

Allowing yourself to be overrun and enslaved just makes you overrun and enslaved.

Again you fail to see the difference between non-cooperation and slavery.

Without those willing to do violence on behalf of the victims (i.e. go to war to stop it), brutality is the only policy mankind has in common with itself.
the Fist is the universal language, because it works even on the catastrophically stupid and insensitive.

Does this mean you beat a child when it does something wrong? How about someone who is retarded?

Non-cooperation does not always work. If I do not care then I will kill you and all those who disagree with me. Our job in Iraq would actually be easier in someways if we just cracked down and murdered everyone who opposed us. If the Jews in the holocaust went by non-cooperation, they would have died in the streets. Non-cooperation is not effective because murder is too effective.

Thank you for identifying the Philosophy you are trying to champion. “Fancy Schmancy Cocktail Party Labels” aside :rolleyes: , Satyagraha is a noble principle, one that is quite practical when applied under the correct strictures. The problem that you seem to have is in not differentiating/being able to differentiate Oppression from naked Aggression. One CAN fight Oppression with noncompliance. But it is impossible to be noncompliant to aggression without being violent. When one is COMPLIANT to aggression, one passively accepts the damage done. One allows the aggression to continue unabated. To be NONcompliant to aggression means to FIGHT aggression, or, as in the case of Aikido, redirect the aggression in such a way as to put you in the position of dictating terms of compliance (something that cannot be done to a Country).

Since you like Gandhi so much try this little quote in relation to naked aggression:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - -Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446and "nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes. Nonviolence is the summit of bravery. And in my own experience, I have had no difficulty in demonstrating to men trained in the school of violence the superiority of nonviolence. As a coward, which I was for years, I harbored violence. I began to prize nonviolence only when I began to shed cowardice. Those Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were nonviolent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury. A rabbit that runs away from the bull terrier is not particularly nonviolent. The poor thing trembles at the sight of the terrier and runs for very life.

Nonviolence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of nonviolence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with nonviolence. Translation from swordsmanship to nonviolence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Nonviolence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate, and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A dog barks and bites when he fears. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it too troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him. The sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children who throw dust at him. They only harm themselves in the act... (LINKY) (http://www.peacemakersguide.org/peace/Peacemakers/Mahatma-Gandhi.htm)Notice that nonviolence is only appropriate when the aggression acted out against you is "in vain", as the violence of a small child against an adult. Violence is not to be used against vainly striving opponents, nor for vengeance, but the ability to do violence is presupposed. Anyone who eschews the ability to do violence is, in Gandhi's view, simply a coward looking for "nonviolence" to justify their cowardice.

When discussing non-violence, “Mahatma” Gandhi comes to mind. I used to interpret non-violence as passivity in the face of violence, but Gandhi's approach was never passive. Gandhi believed non-violence had to be a choice. He said a mouse can't be non-violent with a cat, because a mouse doesn't have the potential to be violent with a cat. Indeed, non-violence is only possible from a position of power where there is the choice, the tools and the ready opportunity to be violent. <snip>Gandhi also believed that the defensive position in a war against aggression could and must be a moral one (http://www.gandhiserve.org/video/mahatma/commentary10.html).11 To put the Allied cause on an unassailable basis, Gandhi wrote to President Roosevelt that the position of the democracies in the war was morally indefensible so long as India and Africa were not granted independence. and I have shown it as an out-and-out believer in non-violence, even because of my belief. Whilst all violence is bad and must be condemned in the abstract, it is permissible for, it is even the duty of, a believer in ahimsa to distinguish between the aggressor and the defender.(Letter, Oct 16, 1939) (http://64.233.167.104/u/gandhiserve?q=cache:V6Scp3R4l6AJ:www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL077.PDF+allies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Gandhi knew you cannot fight aggression with passive resistance because it simply leads to death, and, as you misrepresented, “the rule of the bully” (see below). The bully can only rule when no one resists his bullying. When the “bully” is the civil authority, then Satyagraha is appropriate, but when the “Bully” is an aggressive invading force, the only response is counter force or death/compliance.

BTW, I'm not a real fan of someone who can claim to love non-violence above all yet say the following in another letter (when it looked like Hitler was winning/might win... Realpolitik at its best): 15.05.1940 from GANDHI, M. K. to KAUR, AMRIT: (http://www.gandhiserve.org/correspondence/1940.html) I wish you do independent translation of the articles. I am daily doing introspection and do not miss anybody or anything even Harijan. I do not wish the allies to be defeated and yet Hitler is commanding my admiration.
The Dalai Lama also believes in the principles of "violent" self defense.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~~ The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Oppression is quite different than Aggression, (though it may include aggression) and it requires a different philosophy. Satyagraha is less than useful in defeating aggression… in fact, it makes wanton aggression possible AND painless

On to your statements:
You might think this a stupid question, actually you probably will think this a stupid question as you seem to have a low tolerance for anyone who doesn't think like you, but how am I too assume that IIRC stands for Hitler?I have a great deal of tolerance and respect for differing opinions that are voiced rationally and not just asserted. But, since you have difficulty comprehending a logical inference, “IIRC” means “if I remember correctly”. When used in conjunction with my previous statements about the Justice of WWII, and immediately following statement of “the last man who wanted to rule the world” the comment could only refer to Hitler. But as mentioning Hitler on a Forum is a good way to end a debate, I am reluctant to do so, and prefer making enough inferences to lead historically literate persons to the right conclusion.
Government's do not build militaries with the intention of preventing casualties, but with the intention of causing them. ie. A bullet does not prevent a person from getting shot. It's only purpose is to penetrate the object, person, animal, that it is fired at. The casualties a government anticipates its military will cause are within another government’s military. The objective is to fight Militaries, not Civilians. But, to your analogy; the purpose of the bullet is as you say, but a Military is not analogous to a Bullet. A military is analogous to the Gun the Dalai Lama talks about. While a bullet has to be used (fired), to perform its design purpose, a Gun does not. By possession the gun, the knowledge of its possession leads the aggressor to think twice about the aggression. The gun (Military) does not need to be “used” until aggression has commenced. The bullet (soldier) fired from the gun (Military) will not stop the attack from happening, but it might stop it from continuing. This is the Just use of a Gun (Military).
I have no idea what a Wobbly is, and I don't care if the Pope agrees with you, name dropping does not make your argument more legit. Nor does knowing Aikido.”Jello Biafra” is a Wobbly, i.e. a member of the International Workers World “Labor Union”. On virtually every economic and political principal, Wobblies and I are opposed. In any cases where our opinions mesh, those principles must transcend both politics and economics, i.e. be what Kant called a Categorical Imperative. As for my being Aikidoka, it has more to do with this discussion than your having lived in Cali. As Aikidoka, I am aware of what can and can’t be done physically to non-violently redirect aggression. Countries cannot physically redirect aggression without using violence… (unless you consider huge minefields to be nonviolent) :rolleyes:
So if a rabbit leaves a bite mark on the paw of a fox it is the same as wiping out millions of Japanese civilians?Again, your (agenda driven) ignorance is showing. Try some simple research. (http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki) According to the city of Hiroshima, as of August 6, 2004, the cumulative death toll of atomic-bomb victims was 237,062. According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of emperor Hirohito's closest advisors stated that "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945 called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace. The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost - and that number has since been repeated "authoritatively", but in the summer of 1945 US military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens (including about 200,000 Dutch) and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese were ended.
Which is precisely the problem with "Just War Theory". It places agenda over actual human suffering.No, it places long term Survival of the NonAggressor over the short-term human suffering caused by defending itself from the aggression of others.
Yes they can, it takes two to tango. If someone engages you in a war and you do not fight back, then it is not a war, but an injustice that the rest of the world must be confronted with. While you and your people die. Revisit my Mugging analogy.
Not true, there is non co-operation.Not true. Non Cooperation with aggression towards you is to fight aggression. Cooperation with aggression towards you is capitulation.
I would rather not go into a bad part of town. Unlike "Just War" theorists, I don't go looking for trouble. Yet you willingly lived in Cali… :rolleyes: Just War Theory is about “the bad part of town” imposing itself upon you – not the other way around.(to CG) I have lived in many rough neighbourhoods. One of the roughest being in Cali, Colombia. Colombia is a very libertarian society and I recomend several libertarians from this forum spend a year living there. They will either claim they've found paradise and spend the rest of their days there, or come back a full fledged communist. You must be a full fledged Communist then. What do you think of the Gulags and Aggressions perpetrated in the name of Soviet Communisim?
So are we to be ruled by the strongest thug? If you submit to this then you are not only a victim of past wars but a potential perpetrator of future wars. This is why aggression must be fought, not “protested”.
(to CG) You seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of non co-operation. It means you do not obey the person trying to oppress you under any circumstances. It is a more effective tool than war because the winner of war is determined by military strength and tactics, the winner of civil resistence is determined by will.As I stated before, Aggression is different than Oppression. If you do not fight an aggressor, but refuse to obey the aggressor, the aggressor simply kills you. That’s why they attacked in the first place, to either get you to Obey or Die. There is no middle ground to someone willing to attack first.
Palestine was originally Arab occupied territory… No, Palestine was British occupied territory. They were in charge at the time and did with it as they saw fit. However, the Arabs certainly didn’t (and still don’t) seem too interested in Satyagraha – even though it would probably help their cause.
Yet what do you think happens when one nation declares war on another nation? The difference is that you are not only sacrificing the people who believe in your doctrines, but the blood of those they kill is also on your hands.No, the “blood is on the hands” of the nation who STARTED the war. Why can’t you grasp that distinction?
(to CG) Again you fail to see the difference between non-cooperation and slavery.Ask the difference to a Soviet Dissenter. If they remained alive, they were enslaved in a gulag. We see the difference quite clearly.
(to CG)Does this mean you beat a child when it does something wrong? How about someone who is retarded?No, not for doing wrong, but I will absolutely beat anyone or anything that is trying to hurt me and has a reasonably good chance of succeeding if I do not.

Oh, and given the tone of your responses to CG, I can see that at heart your argument isn’t about Satyagraha, it’s about being against anything that might have a tinge of Euro/American philosophical history. You hate the US and anything the US may have done in the past or will do in the future was and must be immoral. You don’t know what you are talking about, and misrepresent what you do. It’s really pointless to continue debating this with you.

I would rather Argue with Wobbly Jello :D

There is a difference between war and self defense.
War • noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups.

I can cite dictionaries too: :rolleyes:

dictionary.com

3 entries found for self-defense.
self-de·fense (slfd-fns)
n.
Defense of oneself when physically attacked: took a course in self-defense. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
self-de·fensive adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: self–de·fense
Pronunciation: 'self-di-'fens
Function: noun
1 : the use of force to defend oneself
2 : an affirmative defense (as to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used force necessarily to protect himself or herself because of a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death —see also JUSTIFICATION 2

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

self-defense

n : the act of defending yourself [syn: self-defence, self-protection]

Sounds like what has to happen when attacked at the onset of War...

5 entries found for aggression.
ag·gres·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-grshn)
n.
The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
The practice or habit of launching attacks.
Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ag·gres·sion (-grshn)
n.

Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'gresh-&n
Function: noun
: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

aggression

n 1: a disposition to behave aggressively 2: a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack [syn: aggressiveness] 3: violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked [syn: hostility] 4: the act of initiating hostilities 5: deliberately unfriendly behavior

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

aggression

aggression: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

3 entries found for oppression.
op·pres·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-prshn)
n.

The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power: “There can be no really pervasive system of oppression... without the consent of the oppressed” (Florynce R. Kennedy).
The state of being oppressed.
Something that oppresses.
A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
: an unjust or excessive exercise of power: as a : unlawful, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of authority by a public official acting under color of authority that causes a person harm b : dishonest, unfair, wrongful, or burdensome conduct by corporate directors or majority shareholders that entitles minority shareholders to compel involuntary dissolution of the corporation c : inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice —see also UNCONSCIONABILITY —op·pres·sive /&-'pre-siv/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

oppression

n 1: the act of subjugating by cruelty; "the tyrant's oppression of the people" [syn: subjugation] 2: the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: "after years of oppression they finally revolted" 3: a feeling of being oppressed [syn: oppressiveness]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Now, other than an oppressors use of aggression, what do the two have to do with each other vis-a-vis War? (psst, the answer is nothing)
You can often fight oppression with non-violence, but you cannot fight naked aggression with non-violence. Period.

Thank you for identifying the Philosophy you are trying to champion. “Fancy Schmancy Cocktail Party Labels” aside :rolleyes: , Satyagraha is a noble principle, one that is quite practical when applied under the correct strictures. The problem that you seem to have is in not differentiating/being able to differentiate Oppression from naked Aggression. One CAN fight Oppression with noncompliance. But it is impossible to be noncompliant to aggression without being violent. When one is COMPLIANT to aggression, one passively accepts the damage done. One allows the aggression to continue unabated. To be NONcompliant to aggression means to FIGHT aggression, or, as in the case of Aikido, redirect the aggression in such a way as to put you in the position of dictating terms of compliance (something that cannot be done to a Country).

Since you like Gandhi so much try this little quote in relation to naked aggression:
and Notice that nonviolence is only appropriate when the aggression acted out against you is "in vain", as the violence of a small child against an adult. Violence is not to be used against vainly striving opponents, nor for vengeance, but the ability to do violence is presupposed. Anyone who eschews the ability to do violence is, in Gandhi's view, simply a coward looking for "nonviolence" to justify their cowardice.
Gandhi also believed that the defensive position in a war against aggression could and must be a moral one (http://www.gandhiserve.org/video/mahatma/commentary10.html). and
Gandhi knew you cannot fight aggression with passive resistance because it simply leads to death, and, as you misrepresented, “the rule of the bully” (see below). The bully can only rule when no one resists his bullying. When the “bully” is the civil authority, then Satyagraha is appropriate, but when the “Bully” is an aggressive invading force, the only response is counter force or death/compliance.

BTW, I'm not a real fan of someone who can claim to love non-violence above all yet say the following in another letter (when it looked like Hitler was winning/might win... Realpolitik at its best):
The Dalai Lama also believes in the principles of "violent" self defense.

Oppression is quite different than Aggression, (though it may include aggression) and it requires a different philosophy. Satyagraha is less than useful in defeating aggression… in fact, it makes wanton aggression possible AND painless

On to your statements:
I have a great deal of tolerance and respect for differing opinions that are voiced rationally and not just asserted. But, since you have difficulty comprehending a logical inference, “IIRC” means “if I remember correctly”. When used in conjunction with my previous statements about the Justice of WWII, and immediately following statement of “the last man who wanted to rule the world” the comment could only refer to Hitler. But as mentioning Hitler on a Forum is a good way to end a debate, I am reluctant to do so, and prefer making enough inferences to lead historically literate persons to the right conclusion.
The casualties a government anticipates its military will cause are within another government’s military. The objective is to fight Militaries, not Civilians. But, to your analogy; the purpose of the bullet is as you say, but a Military is not analogous to a Bullet. A military is analogous to the Gun the Dalai Lama talks about. While a bullet has to be used (fired), to perform its design purpose, a Gun does not. By possession the gun, the knowledge of its possession leads the aggressor to think twice about the aggression. The gun (Military) does not need to be “used” until aggression has commenced. The bullet (soldier) fired from the gun (Military) will not stop the attack from happening, but it might stop it from continuing. This is the Just use of a Gun (Military).
”Jello Biafra” is a Wobbly, i.e. a member of the International Workers World “Labor Union”. On virtually every economic and political principal, Wobblies and I are opposed. In any cases where our opinions mesh, those principles must transcend both politics and economics, i.e. be what Kant called a Categorical Imperative. As for my being Aikidoka, it has more to do with this discussion than your having lived in Cali. As Aikidoka, I am aware of what can and can’t be done physically to non-violently redirect aggression. Countries cannot physically redirect aggression without using violence… (unless you consider huge minefields to be nonviolent) :rolleyes:
Again, your (agenda driven) ignorance is showing. Try some simple research. (http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki) According to the city of Hiroshima, as of August 6, 2004, the cumulative death toll of atomic-bomb victims was 237,062. According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of emperor Hirohito's closest advisors stated that "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945 called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace. The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost - and that number has since been repeated "authoritatively", but in the summer of 1945 US military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. In addition to that, the atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens (including about 200,000 Dutch) and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. In addition, Japanese atrocities against millions of Chinese were ended.
No, it places long term Survival of the NonAggressor over the short-term human suffering caused by defending itself from the aggression of others.
While you and your people die. Revisit my Mugging analogy.
Not true. Non Cooperation with aggression towards you is to fight aggression. Cooperation with aggression towards you is capitulation.
Yet you willingly lived in Cali… :rolleyes: Just War Theory is about “the bad part of town” imposing itself upon you – not the other way around. You must be a full fledged Communist then. What do you think of the Gulags and Aggressions perpetrated in the name of Soviet Communisim?
This is why aggression must be fought, not “protested”.
As I stated before, Aggression is different than Oppression. If you do not fight an aggressor, but refuse to obey the aggressor, the aggressor simply kills you. That’s why they attacked in the first place, to either get you to Obey or Die. There is no middle ground to someone willing to attack first.
No, Palestine was British occupied territory. They were in charge at the time and did with it as they saw fit. However, the Arabs certainly didn’t (and still don’t) seem too interested in Satyagraha – even though it would probably help their cause.
No, the “blood is on the hands” of the nation who STARTED the war. Why can’t you grasp that distinction?
Ask the difference to a Soviet Dissenter. If they remained alive, they were enslaved in a gulag. We see the difference quite clearly.
No, not for doing wrong, but I will absolutely beat anyone or anything that is trying to hurt me and has a reasonably good chance of succeeding if I do not.

Oh, and given the tone of your responses to CG, I can see that at heart your argument isn’t about Satyagraha, it’s about being against anything that might have a tinge of Euro/American philosophical history. You hate the US and anything the US may have done in the past or will do in the future was and must be immoral. You don’t know what you are talking about, and misrepresent what you do. It’s really pointless to continue debating this with you.

I would rather Argue with Wobbly Jello :D

You sure spent a lot of words on a "pointless debate", but regarding my attitudes towards the U.S., I don’t hate it, I am simply stating facts. If your initial reaction to the truth is anger and denial then that’s something you have to work through. But you shouldn’t misinterpret the teachings of Gandhi or use his words out of context to do it.

“If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war.” - M.K. Gandhi - November 20, 1938

In the case of Iraq even if Bush lied about the reasons, he did try to negotiate but Sadam Hussein kept playing with the inspectors and making tough defiant speeches,
besides he got what he deserved.

The Dictator had members of his own family be-headed, he
gased his own nations citizens etc, etc.

On my personal issue Cuba, that very few nation persons agree with me on 27 as of my last count, the point I keep trying to make on Cuba is trade and constructive engament by the EU and even by the USA under Clinton have not worked because the government does not want to change its ways which in my personal opinion is a dictatorship and that is why it does not want to change
through diplomacy and trade. Granted the embargo has not worked either, but I think it is because of the refusal of the Eu, canada and other democratic nations to make it an international embargo of democratic nations since I dont think that governmet can survive without dollars or euros.

I am trying to make the corolation here of diplomatic negotiations when one party or both in some persons view dont want to agree on something, we could have negotiated for ever with sadam hussein and he still would not have agreed to anything the same in the other subject.
That is my point in simple language.

When a Wobbly & I agree on a philosophical principle, it pretty much means that that principle is a categorical imperative.Perhaps. After all, "direct action gets the goods." :)
Yes. The tenacity of the Japanese is legendary. They were prepared to fight, hand to hand, with every man, woman and child. The death toll required, on both sides, required to defeat Japan conventionally would have been horrific. While the death toll of the A-bombs was large, it was a tiny fraction of what conventional war would have cost.I haven't made up my mind on this issue. While I do acknowledge this opinion, and perhaps it is quite valid, I have also heard that Japan was prepared to surrender. There is also the fact that the Soviets had entered the war the week before, and were fighting Japan on Manchuria, and could have perhaps borne the brunt of the fighting on the Japanese mainland. Some theorists believe that the bombs weren't about ending WWII, but were rather the first act of the Cold War with the Soviets. However, I'm not sure of how willing the Japanese were to fight, how willing the Soviets were to invade Japan, or if the bombs were indeed meant to shock and awe the Soviets. I need more information. However, I put this out there to get opinions.

More to come...

While I don't agree with Oye Oye, he does have a point in bringing up the hypocrisy of the U.S. (one of the reasons I'm opposed to Gulf War 2) in its foreign policy. I do also agree with Syniks that simply because someone did something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the present. However, I will bring up this point from the Just War Theory:
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Couldn't the U.S. supporting Saddam, or invading other countries without provocation in the past be seen as undermining it as a "legitimate authority?" Mind you, I'm not attacking the concept of a Just War Theory, I agree with the idea, but rather just this subsection of it, which I only partially agree with.

And as a side note:
I have no idea what a Wobbly is, and I don't care if the Pope agrees with you, name dropping does not make your argument more legit.Ah, how awesome would it be if the Wobblies were as well known and seen as legitimate espousers of a viewpoint that to mention them would be considered "name dropping." Maybe someday.

While I don't agree with Oye Oye, he does have a point in bringing up the hypocrisy of the U.S. (one of the reasons I'm opposed to Gulf War 2) in its foreign policy. I do also agree with Syniks that simply because someone did something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the present. However, I will bring up this point from the Just War Theory:

Couldn't the U.S. supporting Saddam, or invading other countries without provocation in the past be seen as undermining it as a "legitimate authority?" Mind you, I'm not attacking the concept of a Just War Theory, I agree with the idea, but rather just this subsection of it, which I only partially agree with.

(Ok, so I'm not arguing...) Just war theory is not a "law", just a theory, and there are many flavours. This point * A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.) is not common in modern just war theory because it denies the right of rebellion (when non-violence fails). However, until a Revolutionary Order gains enough foothold to be seen as a legitimate "voice of the people", I suppose the violence is more aptly called an insurrection rather than a War....

And as a side note:
Ah, how awesome would it be if the Wobblies were as well known and seen as legitimate espousers of a viewpoint that to mention them would be considered "name dropping." Maybe someday.
Hell, everybody has a viewpoint. I don't mind talking about a viewpoint I disagree with... as long as that viewpoint is soundly argued. It may not stand up to history or scrutiny, but a sound argument is good by me and a damnsight better than bald assertions.

Oye Oye cites Gandhi as the perfect example of a founder of the modern peace movement who led his people to political independence using non-violent peace tactics.

A review of Indian history reveals a different story. India in Gandhi’s 1930s was a nation with hundreds of millions of people who could have driven the few thousands of British out of the country simply by holding hands and marching them into the Indian Ocean. The problem was that Indians were bereft of organizational skills and had no competence as warriors. There was no alternative to non-violence. Gandhi was primarily interested in India and India's problems. He took no effort to see how his theories applied to the rest of the world. Since Death is of no particular consequence to one who believes in reincarnation, he could easily create a philosophy that glorifies the death of innocents at the hands of aggressors.

On taking statements out of context:

“If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war.” - M.K. Gandhi - November 20, 1938

Germany had not yet invaded Poland. Thought the Anschluss was proceeding apace, Germany had not yet resorted to outright aggression against another State - i.e. war had not yet begun. Gandhi was suggesting, in 1938, that ATTACKING Germany (i.e. Starting an aggression) could possibly be justifiable given what the Nazis had done on Kristallnacht only 10 days previous. But at that point he was still, rightly, against the Allies being aggressive.

In 1939 "Anticipating the devastating consequences of war, Gandhi wrote to Herr Hitler-the one person who could prevent a war that would reduce humanity to a savage state. "Must you pay this price for an object, however worthy it may appear to you? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war?" he asked." (link) (http://www.gandhiserve.org/video/mahatma/commentary10.html)
Again, Gandhi shows that he realizes that only the aggressor has the capacity to "prevent" a war through non-violence since without the aggressor's action, the defender is not compelled to defend. Gandhi had a goal he wished to achieve. He could have attempted it through violence, but chose not to. He hoped that he could impress upon Hitler, who also had a goal he wished to achieve, that aggression was not necessary.

In general, however, Gandhi was far too interested in Indian politics during WWII to comment upon it much except in how it relates to India as a British Colony. Between 1938 and 1945 Gandhi (tangentially) mentioned WWII only 10 times in his correspondence, and even then he did NOT condemn the Allies for fighting the war against German Aggression. (Correspondence) (http://www.gandhiserve.org/correspondence/correspondence.html)

000026669 19.09.1939 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08497 DADOO 1
"Passive Resistance need not be stopped because war has broken out. But wisdom may dictate that course." As Hitler had invaded Poland, an act of aggressive War that necessitated a defensive response, India, as a British Colony, was ostensibly involved. (Gandhi rightly asserts that the non-violent Independence movement "Quit India" need not be compromised.)

000028381 15.05.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 4
"I wish you do independent translation of the articles. I am daily doing introspection and do not miss anybody or anything even Harijan. I do not wish the allies to be defeated and yet Hitler is commanding my admiration." (If the allies are to not be defeated, they must fight. Gandhi understands this yet expresses an understanding of Realpolitik in the event the Allies lose to Hitler's Aggression.)

000028383 25.05.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 4
"News if inmates The allies are Losing. But let us forget this dance of death and do our work." (Shows he is, rightly, more concerned with Local Oppression than International Aggression.)

000023643 20.12.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 00778 GANDHI, Devdas 6
"For defects (in education) in him Gandhiji also is responsible, but Gandhiji has been experimenting. Informs] that Hitler's letter (or his letter to Hitler) is straight from his heart. One should see only the brighter side of another, but if the blacker side is revealed that also must be exposed." (Gandhi feels remorse for not being able to educate Hitler in the way of non-violent methods to achieve goals.)

000029209 26.12.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 2
"Glad everything is going well etc. Hitlers is not yet published." (Gandhi's letter to Hitler is not yet released)

000023133 17.01.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 07638 HARRISON, Agatha (Miss) 8
"I fear my letters are censored and even suppressed. I submit to it as a war measure my letter to Hitler, was surpressed I can get it published but that can be only surreptitiously and I would not do it. But I am worried because even my local statements are not allowed to be published any way not assured nothing will be done that can be called violent and intruthful." (Worried about publicity of his teachings.)

000022663 25.01.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08167 HEATH, Carl 2
"Gandhiji declares that if Britain wins by employing Nazi methods the world will not be better for it. Congress stand is against violence not only between man and man but between nation and nation (Congress once erred on this point and then Gandhiji left it. But they rectified it after wards) Government was foolish not to understand it and to declare, because of this, that the congress was pro-Nazi." (Gandhi does not deny the validity of Britain's war with the Nazis, but is concerned about tactics. This could be construed as a declaration disavowing the Allied cause, but other statements rebut that claim. It also shows a marked misunderstanding of Nazi ideology.)

000023787 17.02.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 10398 MALKINSON, M. 2
"Nazism is only a new name for the exploiter. I represent the dumb exploited. My pacifism therefore cannot help Nazism on the contrary it will die by my method only and by none other." (Here he rightly asserts that Nazism, as a construct, will not die except through non-cooperation and disavowal. Since Nazism still exists, in this respect Gandhi was correct.)

000023138 22.10.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 07638 HARRISON, Agatha (Miss) 3
"G. gives an alround picture of the political Situation says G leads the congress and they are wedded to non violnece that they have no sympathy with Nazism nor with imperialism, that the question of princes is of British creation that the congress cannot help the war effort; and that all must remain non violent under the strain G. feels God will give strength andshow the way" (Gandhi declines to comment on WWII other than to emphasize Indian Neutrality)

000022486 01.07.1942 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08147 ROOSEVELT, Franklin D. 1
"Gandhiji states that he is a well wisher and not an enemy of great Britain and U. S. A. that while he hates the British rule over India he loves the British people: that as long as foreign rull continues over India; Africa and other parts of the world and U. S. A. has the Negro Problem. professing that the war is to ensure freedom to all is merely tall talk that it is in this background that the Indian National Congress has accepted his (G's) proposal not to thwart war effort and that this letter may be looked upon as a friendly invitation to meditate in the matters." (Gandhi asserting that because the US is not yet integrated (the "negro problem") it does not have moral standing to assist in defeating the Germans, but does not repudiate the defensive side of the War itself.)

{no correspondence in 1943, 1944, 1945 or 1946 mentions WWII}

A bit more that Gandhi says - in context.

Ganhdi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volumes II, p148 "A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. (To die in the stead of a loved one) If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women." (If the situation presents itself that a person is unable to die to prevent the death or dishonor of their family, then resistance unto death, i.e. violence, while not desired, is more acceptable than the consequence. However, Gandhi felt that the passive acceptance of death in the Gas Chambers by the Jews would lead to nonviolent Nazi collapse. He was wrong. It just led to the deaths of aprox 11 million people who did not materially resist.)

Gandhi supports Firearms for Self Defense in the above circumstances: CITE (http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ20-Gandhi.html)"The Indian Congress wanted self-government and considered war for independence. Gandhi naturally refused to support a war but declared that if India was not free under Dominion Status by the end of 1929, then he would demand independence. Consequently on January 26, 1930 he asked people to celebrate Independence Day, and he proclaimed a manifesto that India must sever its connection with Britain and attain complete independence. Gandhi announced an eleven-point program that included reducing land revenue by fifty percent, abolishing the salt tax, prohibiting alcohol, passing a tariff to protect against foreign cloth, enacting a coastal reservation bill to help Indian shipping, revaluating the rupee, reducing military expenditures by at least fifty percent, reducing salaries of civil servants by half, releasing all political prisoners except for murder, abolishing or controlling the Criminal Investigation Department that was targeting Congress, and issuing firearms for self-defense under popular control.

GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENT ARMY (http://www.whatwouldgandhido.net/) "there are two ways open to non-violence. To yield possession, but non-cooperate with the aggressor...prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by the people who have been trained in the non-violent way... The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery..."[i](this has been proven false by multiple regimes worldwide since the death of Gandhi...)

Since cogent rebuttal seems out of the question, Maybe Oye Oye should look at both the complete writings of Gandhi as well as a few solid critiques (http://members.aol.com/ScottH9999/essays/Gandhi.htm) before clipping one-off quotes that (poorly) serve an agenda with no practical application that require the existence of a superpower (or international community) willing to threaten force if the Aggressor/Oppressor doesn't stop killing all those poor nonviolent "martyrs for peace" :rolleyes:
-----------------------
Edit: Note to Jello - make sure you check out the link to Critiques above. It's thoroughly Marxist... :D

(Ok, so I'm not arguing...) Just war theory is not a "law", just a theory, and there are many flavours. This point * A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.) is not common in modern just war theory because it denies the right of rebellion (when non-violence fails). However, until a Revolutionary Order gains enough foothold to be seen as a legitimate "voice of the people", I suppose the violence is more aptly called an insurrection rather than a War....Fair enough. Well, since our discussion was about specific wars and how Just War Theory might apply, I'll ask: do you feel that the 2nd Gulf War was consistent with the theory, and do you think the Iraqi insurrection has enough popular support to be consistent with the theory?


Hell, everybody has a viewpoint. I don't mind talking about a viewpoint I disagree with... as long as that viewpoint is soundly argued. It may not stand up to history or scrutiny, but a sound argument is good by me and a damnsight better than bald assertions.Same here, actually. I enjoy hearing about new things that I may or may not agree with...I guess that's why I'm here...lol.

Edit: Note to Jello - make sure you check out the link to Critiques above. It's thoroughly Marxist... Lol...thanks. Although to be precise, while I do agree with much of what Marx said, I'm more of an anarchist than a Marxist.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I had two posts in a row. I wondered if you had a response to my comments about the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fair enough. Well, since our discussion was about specific wars and how Just War Theory might apply, I'll ask: do you feel that the 2nd Gulf War was consistent with the theory, and do you think the Iraqi insurrection has enough popular support to be consistent with the theory?No and No. Mostly because Iraq2 should have been Saudi-1 because Iraq-1 should have finished the situation there. Since we declined to prosecute Saddam with GW1, the disposition of his regime became the provenance of the Diplomats & internal rebellion - where Gandhi's premises would apply. As to the "Iraqi Insurgents", they (mostly) aren't either Iraqis or insurgents, they are imported foregin terrorists taking advantage of both the Iraqi people and the situation to further their own radical Islamic goals.
<snip>Lol...thanks. Although to be precise, while I do agree with much of what Marx said, I'm more of an anarchist than a Marxist. When Marx is read thouroughly, the end result of his doctrines is an anarcho/democracy of the proletariat, with no leaders or governing body per-se - so I don't think you are too far off.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I had two posts in a row. I wondered if you had a response to my comments about the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.I did. Since you response was a clear equivocation ;) I decided to not make an issue of it. At least you are willing to research/question the issue. While I agree there are conflicting theories, though I think you will find that in the balance the majority come down on the side of "It saved lives" and ended the War sooner.

[QUOTE]Oye Oye cites Gandhi as the perfect example of a founder of the modern peace movement who led his people to political independence using non-violent peace tactics.

Show me the post where I make this assertion.

A review of Indian history reveals a different story. India in Gandhi’s 1930s was a nation with hundreds of millions of people who could have driven the few thousands of British out of the country simply by holding hands and marching them into the Indian Ocean. The problem was that Indians were bereft of organizational skills and had no competence as warriors. There was no alternative to non-violence. Gandhi was primarily interested in India and India's problems. He took no effort to see how his theories applied to the rest of the world. Since Death is of no particular consequence to one who believes in reincarnation, he could easily create a philosophy that glorifies the death of innocents at the hands of aggressors.

On taking statements out of context:



Germany had not yet invaded Poland. Thought the Anschluss was proceeding apace, Germany had not yet resorted to outright aggression against another State - i.e. war had not yet begun. Gandhi was suggesting, in 1938, that ATTACKING Germany (i.e. Starting an aggression) could possibly be justifiable given what the Nazis had done on Kristallnacht only 10 days previous. But at that point he was still, rightly, against the Allies being aggressive.

In 1939 "Anticipating the devastating consequences of war, Gandhi wrote to Herr Hitler-the one person who could prevent a war that would reduce humanity to a savage state. "Must you pay this price for an object, however worthy it may appear to you? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war?" he asked." (link) (http://www.gandhiserve.org/video/mahatma/commentary10.html)
Again, Gandhi shows that he realizes that only the aggressor has the capacity to "prevent" a war through non-violence since without the aggressor's action, the defender is not compelled to defend. Gandhi had a goal he wished to achieve. He could have attempted it through violence, but chose not to. He hoped that he could impress upon Hitler, who also had a goal he wished to achieve, that aggression was not necessary.

In general, however, Gandhi was far too interested in Indian politics during WWII to comment upon it much except in how it relates to India as a British Colony. Between 1938 and 1945 Gandhi (tangentially) mentioned WWII only 10 times in his correspondence, and even then he did NOT condemn the Allies for fighting the war against German Aggression. (Correspondence) (http://www.gandhiserve.org/correspondence/correspondence.html)

000026669 19.09.1939 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08497 DADOO 1
"Passive Resistance need not be stopped because war has broken out. But wisdom may dictate that course." As Hitler had invaded Poland, an act of aggressive War that necessitated a defensive response, India, as a British Colony, was ostensibly involved. (Gandhi rightly asserts that the non-violent Independence movement "Quit India" need not be compromised.)

000028381 15.05.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 4
"I wish you do independent translation of the articles. I am daily doing introspection and do not miss anybody or anything even Harijan. I do not wish the allies to be defeated and yet Hitler is commanding my admiration." (If the allies are to not be defeated, they must fight. Gandhi understands this yet expresses an understanding of Realpolitik in the event the Allies lose to Hitler's Aggression.)

000028383 25.05.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 4
"News if inmates The allies are Losing. But let us forget this dance of death and do our work." (Shows he is, rightly, more concerned with Local Oppression than International Aggression.)

000023643 20.12.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 00778 GANDHI, Devdas 6
"For defects (in education) in him Gandhiji also is responsible, but Gandhiji has been experimenting. Informs] that Hitler's letter (or his letter to Hitler) is straight from his heart. One should see only the brighter side of another, but if the blacker side is revealed that also must be exposed." (Gandhi feels remorse for not being able to educate Hitler in the way of non-violent methods to achieve goals.)

000029209 26.12.1940 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08381 KAUR, AMRIT 2
"Glad everything is going well etc. Hitlers is not yet published." (Gandhi's letter to Hitler is not yet released)

000023133 17.01.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 07638 HARRISON, Agatha (Miss) 8
"I fear my letters are censored and even suppressed. I submit to it as a war measure my letter to Hitler, was surpressed I can get it published but that can be only surreptitiously and I would not do it. But I am worried because even my local statements are not allowed to be published any way not assured nothing will be done that can be called violent and intruthful." (Worried about publicity of his teachings.)

000022663 25.01.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08167 HEATH, Carl 2
"Gandhiji declares that if Britain wins by employing Nazi methods the world will not be better for it. Congress stand is against violence not only between man and man but between nation and nation (Congress once erred on this point and then Gandhiji left it. But they rectified it after wards) Government was foolish not to understand it and to declare, because of this, that the congress was pro-Nazi." (Gandhi does not deny the validity of Britain's war with the Nazis, but is concerned about tactics. This could be construed as a declaration disavowing the Allied cause, but other statements rebut that claim. It also shows a marked misunderstanding of Nazi ideology.)

000023787 17.02.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 10398 MALKINSON, M. 2
"Nazism is only a new name for the exploiter. I represent the dumb exploited. My pacifism therefore cannot help Nazism on the contrary it will die by my method only and by none other." (Here he rightly asserts that Nazism, as a construct, will not die except through non-cooperation and disavowal. Since Nazism still exists, in this respect Gandhi was correct.)

000023138 22.10.1941 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 07638 HARRISON, Agatha (Miss) 3
"G. gives an alround picture of the political Situation says G leads the congress and they are wedded to non violnece that they have no sympathy with Nazism nor with imperialism, that the question of princes is of British creation that the congress cannot help the war effort; and that all must remain non violent under the strain G. feels God will give strength andshow the way" (Gandhi declines to comment on WWII other than to emphasize Indian Neutrality)

000022486 01.07.1942 00001 GANDHI, M. K. 08147 ROOSEVELT, Franklin D. 1
"Gandhiji states that he is a well wisher and not an enemy of great Britain and U. S. A. that while he hates the British rule over India he loves the British people: that as long as foreign rull continues over India; Africa and other parts of the world and U. S. A. has the Negro Problem. professing that the war is to ensure freedom to all is merely tall talk that it is in this background that the Indian National Congress has accepted his (G's) proposal not to thwart war effort and that this letter may be looked upon as a friendly invitation to meditate in the matters." (Gandhi asserting that because the US is not yet integrated (the "negro problem") it does not have moral standing to assist in defeating the Germans, but does not repudiate the defensive side of the War itself.)

{no correspondence in 1943, 1944, 1945 or 1946 mentions WWII}

A bit more that Gandhi says - in context.

Ganhdi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volumes II, p148 "A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. (To die in the stead of a loved one) If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women." (If the situation presents itself that a person is unable to die to prevent the death or dishonor of their family, then resistance unto death, i.e. violence, while not desired, is more acceptable than the consequence. However, Gandhi felt that the passive acceptance of death in the Gas Chambers by the Jews would lead to nonviolent Nazi collapse. He was wrong. It just led to the deaths of aprox 11 million people who did not materially resist.)

Gandhi supports Firearms for Self Defense in the above circumstances: CITE (http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ20-Gandhi.html)"The Indian Congress wanted self-government and considered war for independence. Gandhi naturally refused to support a war but declared that if India was not free under Dominion Status by the end of 1929, then he would demand independence. Consequently on January 26, 1930 he asked people to celebrate Independence Day, and he proclaimed a manifesto that India must sever its connection with Britain and attain complete independence. Gandhi announced an eleven-point program that included reducing land revenue by fifty percent, abolishing the salt tax, prohibiting alcohol, passing a tariff to protect against foreign cloth, enacting a coastal reservation bill to help Indian shipping, revaluating the rupee, reducing military expenditures by at least fifty percent, reducing salaries of civil servants by half, releasing all political prisoners except for murder, abolishing or controlling the Criminal Investigation Department that was targeting Congress, and issuing firearms for self-defense under popular control.

GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENT ARMY (http://www.whatwouldgandhido.net/) "there are two ways open to non-violence. To yield possession, but non-cooperate with the aggressor...prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by the people who have been trained in the non-violent way... The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery..."[i](this has been proven false by multiple regimes worldwide since the death of Gandhi...)

Since cogent rebuttal seems out of the question, Maybe Oye Oye should look at both the complete writings of Gandhi as well as a few solid critiques (http://members.aol.com/ScottH9999/essays/Gandhi.htm) before clipping one-off quotes that (poorly) serve an agenda with no practical application that require the existence of a superpower (or international community) willing to threaten force if the Aggressor/Oppressor doesn't stop killing all those poor nonviolent "martyrs for peace" :rolleyes:



You use a lot of words to say very little, but you are no closer to disproving the fact that "Just War Theory" is not only impractical but potentially dangerous.

Perhaps. After all, "direct action gets the goods." :)


But not Osama Bin Laden.

[QUOTE]While I don't agree with Oye Oye, he does have a point in bringing up the hypocrisy of the U.S. (one of the reasons I'm opposed to Gulf War 2) in its foreign policy. I do also agree with Syniks that simply because someone did something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the present. However, I will bring up this point from the Just War Theory:

I never said that someone who did something in the past is incapable of doing something good in the present. All I said was that they shouldn't be put in a position to judge others. Which is what "Just War" theorists do.

Couldn't the U.S. supporting Saddam, or invading other countries without provocation in the past be seen as undermining it as a "legitimate authority?" Mind you, I'm not attacking the concept of a Just War Theory, I agree with the idea, but rather just this subsection of it, which I only partially agree with.

Perhaps you could explain why you support "Just War Theory". The arguments I've been dealing with have, for the most part, tried to prove their points with racial slurs, assumptions, and misinterpretations of the doctrines of non violent, non co-operation.

And as a side note:
Ah, how awesome would it be if the Wobblies were as well known and seen as legitimate espousers of a viewpoint that to mention them would be considered "name dropping." Maybe someday.

Anyone who says, "this person agrees with me so I must be right" is name dropping. I prefer dealing with people who discuss issues plainly and to the point.

Ok, Oye Oye. What would you have your nation do if it were being invaded by racist neo-Nazis that were going to murder part of your population? Would you allow them to enter that nation and do so? (I am assuming that in this situation you are in a position to make decisions regarding your nation's policies)

Ok, Oye Oye. What would you have your nation do if it were being invaded by racist neo-Nazis that were going to murder part of your population? Would you allow them to enter that nation and do so? (I am assuming that in this situation you are in a position to make decisions regarding your nation's policies)

Could you be more specific? Provide me with an environment, a description of the people being attacked, explain why they are being attacked. You mentioned racist neo Nazis are attacking part of the population, is this a visible minority like Africans in the U.S. or an invisible minority?

What world do you live in? WW2 was not caused by "alliances", WW2 was caused by a little mustachioed rat bastard. Alliances were developed to combat HIM.

Now it is concievable that the Japanese were honestly concerned that the US might attack them (they were certainly worried about an oil/steel embargo when they joined the Axis), so they undertook a PREVENTATIVE strike against the US. Had we already been marshalling forces to cross the bearing straight and roll over Japan, they might have been justified, but we weren't and they weren't.

WW1 is only slightly more complicated, but it was still a war of agression by the Kaiser against the rest of Europe.

I've got to argue that last point. The Great War is infinitely more complicated than the Second World War (or rather, Great War Part II), and it is the most atrocious war from the soldiers' standpoint in history.

It began as a slap-down between one empire and one of its semi-autonomous regions; the Kaiser was not an aggressor. While Germany did issue the first declaration of war against a Triple-Entente member (Russia), France and England both declared war on Germany; the Kaiser responded. It's a little interesting fact that the start date of the Great War, 4 August, is the day when England issued its war declaration to Germany -- to play semantics, England started the Great War.

But it's not even as simple as conflicting, entangled alliances and some perforated, pushy Austrian Archduke. Both Russia and France had begun increasing military spending, with the expectation of conflict with Germany, in the early years of the 20th century. France was pumping huge amounts of capital into Russia so the latter could build a highly efficient, modern rail system -- invaluable to a then-modern war effort. After all, the rapid mobilization achieved by the us of rail-ways effected Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

France had already constructed a similar rail system, with rail-heads terminating at Strausborg, Verdun, and numerous other near border cities. England was continuing to build its great Dreadnoughts, which indirectly threatened the Kaiser's ambition to forge a colonial power out of Germany. England increased its naval funding at several times the rate and amount that Germany did.

Moreover, Germany was effectively surrounded -- Eastern Prussia could be cut off by the Russians, and an advance forced into Germany's south-eastern borders; and France continued to maintain military units along its border with Germany. If the wild-card England became involved, the Royal Navy would quickly choke Germany out and block her Baltic Seas ports.

And perhaps most importantly, Germany realized that the increasing industrial capacity of the Triple Entente limited Germany's time as the most industrially powerful nation.

I view Germany as a rather hostile, paranoid little critter -- one that feels, rightly so, backed into a corner. Potential enemies are all around, and increasing in potency. When hostilities erupted between Russia and Austria, Germany had little choice but to honor its alliance -- and she saw it as perhaps the last chance to effect balance on the continent. It was, to some extent, a do-or-die effort.

That's what I think, anyway.

Could you be more specific? Provide me with an environment, a description of the people being attacked, explain why they are being attacked. You mentioned racist neo Nazis are attacking part of the population, is this a visible minority like Africans in the U.S. or an invisible minority?

Well, these are people invading your flat country. The people being attacked are being attacked due to racist beliefs of ethnic superiority and desire to cleanse the earth of scum. The part of the nation being attacked looks different than the rest of the population(skin tone and that stuff). The neo-Nazis are vicious racists who are trying to assert ethnic superiority and conquer the world for nationalist beliefs. The power of the neo-Nazis makes support from other nations difficult as well.

Well, these are people invading your flat country. The people being attacked are being attacked due to racist beliefs of ethnic superiority and desire to cleanse the earth of scum. The part of the nation being attacked looks different than the rest of the population(skin tone and that stuff). The neo-Nazis are vicious racists who are trying to assert ethnic superiority and conquer the world for nationalist beliefs. The power of the neo-Nazis makes support from other nations difficult as well.

What is the percentage of the population being attacked? Is the country that is being attacked a multi-ethnic society? Are the people being attacked isolated in one region of the country or are they integrated with other ethnic groups? Are there members of the nation being attacked that are the same ethnic group as the Neo Nazis?

What is the percentage of the population being attacked? Is the country that is being attacked a multi-ethnic society? Are the people being attacked isolated in one region of the country or are they integrated with other ethnic groups? Are there members of the nation being attacked that are the same ethnic group as the Neo Nazis?

The ethnic group is 21% of the population. The country has few other ethnicities. The people are mixed throughout the nation. Members of the nation that do not comply with the Neo Nazi ideals(think religious right) or governing will be attacked. Those who comply perfectly will be tolerated.

The ethnic group is 21% of the population. The country has few other ethnicities. The people are mixed throughout the nation. Members of the nation that do not comply with the Neo Nazi ideals(think religious right) or governing will be attacked. Those who comply perfectly will be tolerated.

I apologize for the number of questions, but we want to create a scenario that's as realistic as possible, yes?

For the sake of clarity let us refer to the Neo Nazis as the NN. Let's refer to the Ethnic Group that is the target of their aggression as the EG, and the remaining 79% of the population as the EM (Ethnic Majority).

Now from what you have described so far, it seems that there is racial integration in this nation that is being attacked. Is there racial harmony between the EG and the EM? If so, is there interacial marriages between the EG and EM? If so, are the children of these interracial marriages also targeted by the NN? Also, do the EM and the NN share a common ethnic heritage?

I apologize for the number of questions, but we want to create a scenario that's as realistic as possible, yes?

For the sake of clarity let us refer to the Neo Nazis as the NN. Let's refer to the Ethnic Group that is the target of their aggression as the EG, and the remaining 79% of the population as the EM (Ethnic Majority).

Now from what you have described so far, it seems that there is racial integration in this nation that is being attacked. Is there racial harmony between the EG and the EM? If so, is there interacial marriages between the EG and EM? If so, are the children of these interracial marriages also targeted by the NN? Also, do the EM and the NN share a common ethnic heritage?

Racial harmony does not exactly exist. There is racial tolerance and some amount of distrust between the two. The NN and the EM have a common ethnic background. As well the EG and EM intermarry very infrequently and the children of such unions are treated as EGs by most NNs and EMs. Any more questions? (I only wish to see what kind of response you can think of)

Racial harmony does not exactly exist. There is racial tolerance and some amount of distrust between the two. The NN and the EM have a common ethnic background. As well the EG and EM intermarry very infrequently and the children of such unions are treated as EGs by most NNs and EMs. Any more questions? (I only wish to see what kind of response you can think of)

I could give you a very broad response, but I find this line of questioning forces me to re-evaluate the practicality of my own theories more so than the previous debates I've had in this thread.

My initial response to anyone who asks me what my solution is to racism, and this is the core of the conflict in this scenario, is interracial marriage.

However, if we were to look at this scenario with the facts available, I'm left to wonder how supportive the larger part of the population would be towards a minority that it already distrusts. Also, would the EM be offended by the NNs violation of their sovereignty, enough to view the plight of the EG as their own?

If you want a definitive answer I'm going to need more specifics.

does anyone believe economic gain is enough of a reason to go to war?

does anyone believe economic gain is enough of a reason to go to war?

We've gone a little bit past economic gain my friend.

I could give you a very broad response, but I find this line of questioning forces me to re-evaluate the practicality of my own theories more so than the previous debates I've had in this thread.

My initial response to anyone who asks me what my solution is to racism, and this is the core of the conflict in this scenario, is interracial marriage.

However, if we were to look at this scenario with the facts available, I'm left to wonder how supportive the larger part of the population would be towards a minority that it already distrusts. Also, would the EM be offended by the NNs violation of their sovereignty, enough to view the plight of the EG as their own?

If you want a definitive answer I'm going to need more specifics.

The EM would be mildly offended but could easily be made compliant after the war or struggle has been lost. The EM feels more akin to the NN than the EG and if the nation is lost to the NN the EM will not be that opposed to the NN that much so long as the NN does not slaughter the EM.

The EM would be mildly offended but could easily be made compliant after the war or struggle has been lost. The EM feels more akin to the NN than the EG and if the nation is lost to the NN the EM will not be that opposed to the NN that much so long as the NN does not slaughter the EM.

So EM doesn't care one way or the other what happens to the EG?

The EM cares about the nation but once that has fallen it does not see itself as a part of the EG in any fashion and does not care about what happens.

The EM cares about the nation but once that has fallen it does not see itself as a part of the EG in any fashion and does not care about what happens.

The only recourse is for the EG to run. Although some may see this as cowardice they have no other choice. To stand and fight would be suicide since the NN is a powerful nation and the EM are disinterested in their fate.

The only recourse is for the EG to run. Although some may see this as cowardice they have no other choice. To stand and fight would be suicide since the NN is a powerful nation and the EM are disinterested in their fate.

But of course the EG might have a difficult time of running. After all they include children and if the NN are a modern army, they can use aircraft to bomb all groups of EG that they see and the motorized vehicles can take down the rest. The EM would not be disinterested in fighting either, they are just disinterested in the fate of the EG, I believe I mentioned earlier that the EM would be willing to fight for the nation but not for a lost cause(fallen nation). But yes in the situation of no possible military success running away is the best option besides I never really stated directly that the EM would fight(so of course differing views on the situation were likely to occur) as well I also said the NN were powerful so that means that an army might have fallen anyway. You did consider fighting and that is something that I consider important. It does not matter that fighting is not the option you took or even a favorable option in almost any situation but so long as it is something that could be seen as important in a situation. (like if the nation in question could be successfully defended it might be good to stand up to the NN to prevent genocide) I will admit Oye Oye that war is in many cases a horrible solution.

I've got to argue that last point. The Great War is infinitely more complicated than the Second World War (or rather, Great War Part II), and it is the most atrocious war from the soldiers' standpoint in history. No argument here.

It began as a slap-down between one empire and one of its semi-autonomous regions; the Kaiser was not an aggressor. While Germany did issue the first declaration of war against a Triple-Entente member (Russia), France and England both declared war on Germany; the Kaiser responded. It's a little interesting fact that the start date of the Great War, 4 August, is the day when England issued its war declaration to Germany -- to play semantics, England started the Great War. <snip>That's what I think, anyway.
Interesting. That is a postulate I have not before read. I will look into it. While I really do not consider WWII to be WWI-The Sequel, your position has merit. I was never really a scholar of WWI anyway.

I never said that someone who did something in the past is incapable of doing something good in the present. All I said was that they shouldn't be put in a position to judge others. Which is what "Just War" theorists do. So? You judge people's actions on a daily basis. Everyone does.
Perhaps you could explain why you support "Just War Theory". The arguments I've been dealing with have, for the most part, tried to prove their points with racial slurs, assumptions, and misinterpretations of the doctrines of non violent, non co-operation.Racial slurs? What the hell are you talking about? Please try not to flame.
Anyone who says, "this person agrees with me so I must be right" is name dropping. I prefer dealing with people who discuss issues plainly and to the point.
Ahhh, I see. You complain that I "quoting out of context", yet when I post complete text with citations that refute your position vis a vis Gandhi I am being "wordy", "unplain" and not "to the point". :rolleyes: Gotta love intellectual dishonesty.

Show me the post where I make this assertion.When you cite Satyagraha as the principal that defines your position then use selective quotations from Gandhi as the basis for that principal, the assertion is implied.
You use a lot of words to say very little, but you are no closer to disproving the fact that "Just War Theory" is not only impractical but potentially dangerous.I use only the raw text of Gandhi, in context, as per your chastisement, to refute your position vis a vis Satyagraha. I have also never claimed that Just War Theory was a "practical" solution to anything, just a useful tool. However, you have yet to provide any support at all for your argument that Just War theory is somehow Dangerous and leads to conflict, when the definition of Just War Theory is one of defining and minimizing/preventing conflict.

Just because I have research skills and can argue to your points directly (i.e. "use a lot of words") there is no excuse for the arrogant dismissal of my arguments or refutations.

I think that whether you're Pro-War, Anti-War, or Maybe-War... the Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.

And the fact that our governments try to justify their war with "humanitarian causes" or "liberation of the people", instead of just saying "let's kick their butts because we hate them", shows that the Just War Theory has greatly influenced our western culture.

Yup. Just War Theory changed forever the rediculous bullshit that our leaders heap on us to convince us that war is a good idea when really it's all about money laundering, except for the little bit that's about an insane fringe cult ideology. It's a shame that it hasn't done much to actually cause us to only fight just wars.

The only recourse is for the EG to run. Although some may see this as cowardice they have no other choice. To stand and fight would be suicide since the NN is a powerful nation and the EM are disinterested in their fate.
Under Satyagraha, "running" is not an option. They are to Die Nobly or Fight. Or are you proposing to change the philosophical basis for your argument?

Yup. Just War Theory changed forever the rediculous bullshit that our leaders heap on us to convince us that war is a good idea when really it's all about money laundering, except for the little bit that's about an insane fringe cult ideology. It's a shame that it hasn't done much to actually cause us to only fight just wars.
Bravo. One more who understands. :D

The original post, in the nature of whatever theory it belonged to, made sense if the world was of that opinion. But "legitimate authority" does not exist, because there is no arbiter on what is just and unjust. One majority or authority may say one thing is just, and the opposition can say the same thing for themself. Not a single thing in this world is just or unjust, those are human creations, to fit with the opinion of a select few. The same with murder, murder is murder, animals do it, and we don't consider animals evil. Anyways.

The original post, in the nature of whatever theory it belonged to, made sense if the world was of that opinion. But "legitimate authority" does not exist, because there is no arbiter on what is just and unjust. One majority or authority may say one thing is just, and the opposition can say the same thing for themself. Not a single thing in this world is just or unjust, those are human creations, to fit with the opinion of a select few. The same with murder, murder is murder, animals do it, and we don't consider animals evil. Anyways.
Interesting. However, in the large, animals also do not kill with intent for reasons other than survival - i.e. sustenance or defense.

HUmans, because they have intents other than sustenance (which does not apply to nations) and self-defense (which does) have both the capacity and the need to judge their actions according to a minimum set of ethical standards if any form of civilization is to continue.

Using intentional injury as the lowest order abstraction by which a human action may be judged provides a culturally-neutral method of ascertaining the validity of the action.

Since Humans do not - in the large - need to kill other humans for sustenance, that valid reason for violence is rendered moot. On the other hand, all creatures of any species have abiological imperative to continue their existence. To continue one's existence in the face of violent aggression necessitates a response capable of ending the violent aggression without inflictin arm on the self. Thus, actions taken in response to violent aggression, acts of self defense, are by default a biological imperative and therefore a "good", or more appropriately an ethical or Just, thing.

[QUOTE]But of course the EG might have a difficult time of running. After all they include children and if the NN are a modern army, they can use aircraft to bomb all groups of EG that they see and the motorized vehicles can take down the rest.

This depends on how they run. From an aircraft it would be difficult to tell the difference between the EG and the EM.

The EM would not be disinterested in fighting either, they are just disinterested in the fate of the EG, I believe I mentioned earlier that the EM would be willing to fight for the nation but not for a lost cause(fallen nation). But yes in the situation of no possible military success running away is the best option besides I never really stated directly that the EM would fight(so of course differing views on the situation were likely to occur) as well I also said the NN were powerful so that means that an army might have fallen anyway.

This was why I wanted to be specific and detailed with the scenario.

You did consider fighting and that is something that I consider important.

I made the same assertion that I have been making throughout this thread. That non-violent, non-co-operation is preferrable to war.

It does not matter that fighting is not the option you took or even a favorable option in almost any situation but so long as it is something that could be seen as important in a situation. (like if the nation in question could be successfully defended it might be good to stand up to the NN to prevent genocide) I will admit Oye Oye that war is in many cases a horrible solution.

Let's hope this is a foundation we can build on.

[QUOTE]So? You judge people's actions on a daily basis. Everyone does.

Yes. But, unless I take the law into my own hands, I'm not in a position to determine someone's civil liberties based on my judgements. People who have displayed a tendency for violence and corruption shouldn't be placed in a position where they have judiciary powers over others.

Racial slurs? What the hell are you talking about? Please try not to flame.

Review the thread and you will see the term "wog" being used.

Ahhh, I see. You complain that I "quoting out of context", yet when I post complete text with citations that refute your position vis a vis Gandhi I am being "wordy", "unplain" and not "to the point". :rolleyes: Gotta love intellectual dishonesty.

Well it's obvious that you do.

[QUOTE]Oye Oye cites Gandhi as the perfect example of a founder of the modern peace movement who led his people to political independence using non-violent peace tactics.

When you cite Satyagraha as the principal that defines your position then use selective quotations from Gandhi as the basis for that principal, the assertion is implied.

Citing Satyagraha as an influence and citing Gandhi as the perfect example of a founder of the modern peace movement is not the same thing. If Gandhi was the perfect example, we would not be having this debate, and countries would not be waging wars.

I use only the raw text of Gandhi, in context, as per your chastisement, to refute your position vis a vis Satyagraha. I have also never claimed that Just War Theory was a "practical" solution to anything, just a useful tool. However, you have yet to provide any support at all for your argument that Just War theory is somehow Dangerous and leads to conflict, when the definition of Just War Theory is one of defining and minimizing/preventing conflict.

This is what "Just War" theorists claim about "Just War Theory" which is pricisely why it is potentially dangerous.

Just because I have research skills and can argue to your points directly (i.e. "use a lot of words") there is no excuse for the arrogant dismissal of my arguments or refutations.

I dismiss your arguments mainly because they have a tendency to digress from the main issue.

Under Satyagraha, "running" is not an option. They are to Die Nobly or Fight. Or are you proposing to change the philosophical basis for your argument?

If I disagree with Gandhi it is on the rigidness of this exact point. But keep in mind that Gandhi was under a lot of criticism from political rivals who claimed "passive" resistance was inefectual. Non-violence is not passive because it is the refusal to accept an injustice. However sacrificing your life does not prevent the injustice from being committed. Sometimes one must initially conform with an oppressive force until an opportune moment arises. Conceding a battle is not the same as giving up on the war.

Quoting Syniks

Using intentional injury as the lowest order abstraction by which a human action may be judged provides a culturally-neutral method of ascertaining the validity of the action.

Since Humans do not - in the large - need to kill other humans for sustenance, that valid reason for violence is rendered moot. On the other hand, all creatures of any species have abiological imperative to continue their existence. To continue one's existence in the face of violent aggression necessitates a response capable of ending the violent aggression without inflictin arm on the self. Thus, actions taken in response to violent aggression, acts of self defense, are by default a biological imperative and therefore a "good", or more appropriately an ethical or Just, thing.

Intentional injury can come in many colors, Syniks. It is not culturally-neutral, because the way someone perceives it is tainted by their own perceptions and experiences. I can intentionally injure you to harvest your organs to save dozens of lives, and Judges could either say I did wrong or I did right. Understand?

As for nonvalid violence, violence is violence. Animals have killed for power, which has nothing to do with sustenance. Also, some animals kill each other after mating, and some do it for unknown reasons. There are many variables to consider. But, you say self-defense is good, always good. What if your organs would save the life of the last English-speaking person to speak Russian, on the eve of a possible thermonuclear war? And if you killed people trying to harvest you? See the glaring contradiction? My point is that there is no just violence, everything can be argued, opinionated, debated over. Nothing is objective besides 2+2=4 and an orange is an orange. All things involving non-empirical data is purely subjective, and thus, neutral, without just or unjust natures.

On my own personal level, I feel that I can personally place labels on things based upon the statement "that which is most efficient to the benefit of the State". I think that makes me a Fascist.

But I don't say I'm right, because much of the world would not agree with me. In fact, it would be best for every single one of us to admit that there is no such thing as truth, and no such thing as morals, or good and evil, or just and unjust. There is only the laws of physics, and laws and dimensions of energy and matter.

For everyone who thinks that war is never justified, I pose this question:

Would the war against the ruthless expansionist regimes of Nazi Germany and Japan be unjust? Would you condemn countless innocents to concentration camps or Japanese prisons because they do not have the means to resist? Would you not consider an underhanded, devilish ploy such as Pearl Harbor as grounds for retaliation against Japan, and her allies Germany and Italy? What would you say if WWII were fought today? If Pearl Harbor happened this morning, and you know that Jews are being herded into camps on the whim of a dictator?

[QUOTE]For everyone who thinks that war is never justified, I pose this question:

Would the war against the ruthless expansionist regimes of Nazi Germany and Japan be unjust?

Since war is never justified then yes.

Would you condemn countless innocents to concentration camps or Japanese prisons because they do not have the means to resist?

I would condemn the concentration camps. The same way I condemn the concentration camps in Guantanamo and Iraq.

Would you not consider an underhanded, devilish ploy such as Pearl Harbor as grounds for retaliation against Japan, and her allies Germany and Italy?

No.

What would you say if WWII were fought today?

I'm moving to Peru.

If Pearl Harbor happened this morning, and you know that Jews are being herded into camps on the whim of a dictator?

I would tell anyone else opposed to these actions to stop all commerce with these nations, openly protest what is going on and provide refugee status for anyone who applied. I would also try to contact reasonable people within those countries (remember not all Germans and Japanese are charged with crimes against humanity) and try to get them to protest their government's tactics.

Would you not consider an underhanded, devilish ploy such as Pearl Harbor as grounds for retaliation against Japan, and her allies Germany and Italy?

Underhanded? Devilish? My dear boy, how biased you are! The United States of America decided to end its fuel and heavy industry trade to Japan after Japan invaded China, or Manchuria, can't remember the exact incident. The Japanese could say we were devilish, and underhanded.

Do people honestly not understand that their opinions aren't superior to a single other person's? Gosh.

*A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

It *SHOULD* be waged as a last resort. However, it depends entirely on the ruling parties that have control of waging it. In our government (US) it is legal as long as our Congress legitimately declares war. I prefer it that way. We might have a potentially genuine intrest in declaring war if our representatives in Congress declares it. This isn't a "christian" nation as many would like to think it is thus the "just war" theory does not apply to us. It is a Constitutional Republic, and has the right given to it by the Constitution to act as an independent entity. The morality of the war is supposed to be first, but it isn't a requirement.

* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

Not really. It just isn't a BIG conflict if there isn't a vast number of combatants.

*A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

I'm leaning to a yes on this one. However, history has shown that the victor is the one who writes the history books.

* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

It really has nothing to do with "just" if the only difference is that it has become a difficult fight for the side with the better advantage. Even if the cause is hopeless, people have the right to wage it if there is real grievence in their cause.

* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

Nope. The ultimate goal of any war is to have your side with the different perspective to that of your opponent be the successor and be the one who can enforce your perspective. War is all about the conflict of entities coming to a head. The resolution and point of the whole thing is who dicates who or how the situation between the mulitple perspectives is settled.

* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

Nope. The violence and atrocities really doesn't matter. Everything that is done is done to succeed in triumph. The carpet bombings of Germany to the A-bombs on Japan were done not to make the war sadistic, it was to WIN the damned thing without having to sacrifice more lives and resources of the Allies. It was real war. There was no "morality" in the actual fighting because it was completely done for survival. The horror with the holocaust was because they had NOTHING to do with being enemies of Germany. They were non-combatants and their own countrymen killed for reasons that had nothing to do with succeeding in a war against the allies. Also the party with the least advantage will not pull any punches. The party with the larger advantage really shouldn't pull any punches either if they want a definitive victory. For instance the Iraq war had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. Thus, its pointlessness made the whole actions there unjust as the war on terror is concerned. Guantanamo however is more greyish. That Jose Padilla however is more black and white due to the Constitution's purpose of protecting any American born citizen.

* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Actually, whether you can acknowledge it or not, citizens of a country are part of the war machine almost by default. If they REALLY don't want to be part of the war, they need to leave or flee the country. Otherwise they will contribute to the economy's ability to wage a war against another people by being a supporting part of its industry. Its as simple as that. Civilians that are captured can be released back or held prisoner. But in general there is no point to treating them the same way as military because they do not have access to the same level of military knowledge as a military person. Just the basics of "where is a military base, where is a factory in the city" and etc. If your carpet bombing a city because its outright war however, hey you are under NO moral obligation to feel guilty if your fighting for survival. Eventually the country will turn its citizens into militia which is ANY male at the age of 18 (or younger) years or older into a combatant.

In reality, war is just war. There are no real rules for it. Just common occurances and the nature of things that happen to be predictable.

Oh. One more thing. Concerning "Jews herded into concentration camps", I'm not Jewish, so it wouldn't matter to me. The same way it wouldn't matter to me if everyone descended from Bulgarians were "herded into concentration camps".

Concerning the non-combatant part, the extermination of the Jews was propagandized by the Nazi Government, to drill morale into the soldiers, by saying in effect, the "enemy of the pure race is being exterminated, now free your pure brethren across Europe from their own Jewish parasites." So, the killings of the Jews, and not just Jews, since most concentration/death camp fatalities were Soviet prisoners, and others sentenced in effect to probable death, did serve a purpose in the war.

Quoted from Americai:
Actually, whether you can acknowledge it or not, citizens of a country are part of the war machine almost by default. If they REALLY don't want to be part of the war, they need to leave or flee the country. Otherwise they will contribute to the economy's ability to wage a war against another people by being a supporting part of its industry. Its as simple as that. Civilians that are captured can be released back or held prisoner. But in general there is no point to treating them the same way as military because they do not have access to the same level of military knowledge as a military person. Just the basics of "where is a military base, where is a factory in the city" and etc. If your carpet bombing a city because its outright war however, hey you are under NO moral obligation to feel guilty if your fighting for survival. Eventually the country will turn its citizens into militia which is ANY male at the age of 18 (or younger) years or older into a combatant.

Your statement on how the economy rests on the individual is true. Although not all individuals pay out directly or indirectly towards the wartime economy, their dollars mix with everyone else's dollars, and it all channels to the highest priorities, in this case, war.

Your statement on carpet bombing was mixed. First, many people would say that carpet bombing Mexico would be unnecessary, because it has no chance of threatening our survival. But, the people can take up what little arms they have, and wage guerilla war.

Dresden was completely unnecessary, though.

As for the 18 years or older, you are grossly wrong. Some countries recruit as early as 13. Some recruit as early as 17. Some allow recruiting as early as 13 as well. Those who forcibly recruit at 13 are mostly undeveloped nations, and we hear not many of the details.

But, I appreciated your somewhat rational opinion on war. It was far less biased than most everyone else so far.

Underhanded? Devilish? My dear boy, how biased you are! The United States of America decided to end its fuel and heavy industry trade to Japan after Japan invaded China, or Manchuria, can't remember the exact incident. The Japanese could say we were devilish, and underhanded.

Do people honestly not understand that their opinions aren't superior to a single other person's? Gosh.

I don't see how trade sanctions are more underhanded than a sneak attack that killed thousands.

Oh, and I realize that my opinions are not necessarily superior, but I do think that they are worth arguing for.

[QUOTE=Freudotopia]

Since war is never justified then yes.

I would condemn the concentration camps. The same way I condemn the concentration camps in Guantanamo and Iraq.

No.

I'm moving to Peru.

I would tell anyone else opposed to these actions to stop all commerce with these nations, openly protest what is going on and provide refugee status for anyone who applied. I would also try to contact reasonable people within those countries (remember not all Germans and Japanese are charged with crimes against humanity) and try to get them to protest their government's tactics.

And what would you do if none of this worked and the Axis powers overran the world, and everything you once stood for, such as the belief that war is never justified, was ground into the dust? Would you just hide in Cuba and hope that the Nazis didn't feel like hunting down those who had opposed them and could oppose them again? When they developed nuclear weapons? When they turned against each other, and possibly brought armogeddon? Would you cower in Peru, avoiding the inevitable, or would you face fear and death to try, just try, to bring back sanity?

As for the 18 years or older, you are grossly wrong. Some countries recruit as early as 13. Some recruit as early as 17. Some allow recruiting as early as 13 as well. Those who forcibly recruit at 13 are mostly undeveloped nations, and we hear not many of the details.

But, I appreciated your somewhat rational opinion on war. It was far less biased than most everyone else so far.

Actually I'm not grossly wrong. I did say "(or younger)". It is a commonly known fact about the use child soldiers.

I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out. If you have anything to add, be free to do so, it gets boring without posts to respond to.

[QUOTE=Syniks]

Yes. But, unless I take the law into my own hands, I'm not in a position to determine someone's civil liberties based on my judgements. People who have displayed a tendency for violence and corruption shouldn't be placed in a position where they have judiciary powers over others.



Review the thread and you will see the term "wog" being used.



Well it's obvious that you do.

You really don't read contextually, do you? Yes, I used the term "Wog" because in the example, that's how he would have been viewed by the men shooting him.
Ghandi's technique depended as much on the evolution of the British Empire's Morality as it did on his personal charisma in getting people to notice what he was doing in the first place, and his persuasiveness in getting his followers to actually do what he was suggesting.

A charismatic leader of a Subject people in 1850 would have been, quite simply, shot. However, Ghandi was able to make use of the late-victorian morality drilled into the Upper Classes-a morality that included a far more humanitarian view than was present at the near-beginning of the Empire. thus, he was fortunate in that he could use British morality, and British Ethics, to make peaceful noncompliance workable. He was also fortunate in the existence of Radio and the Telegraph-without mass-market media in near-realtime amounts, his protests would have been vulnerable to wipeout and coverup.

The WHOLE WORLD operated on a racist/nationalist/Statist/Prejudiced structure prior to the first world war. Mohandas K. Ghandi rose to prominence in the post-war era, when the Empire (like many other empires of the time) was already struggling with finding an image its rulers could live with.

If Ghandi had been trying the same trick in 1935 Berlin, he'd have died horribly, in obscurity, possibly with a number tatooed on his arm and his head shaved not for religious reasons, but because that's what they do in a concentration camp.

If Ghandi had been Vietnamese or Cambodian, the French would have gunned him down in his bed, or other fun things they did with Indochinese leaders in order to assert their dominance.

In either Empirial Russia, or Soviet Russia under Stalin, Ghandi would have frozen to death in a camp, or been killed by the Chekisty, along wiht his family, and every follower who could not be compelled to recant their support and accuse their fellows...

He could only accomplish what he did, because of who his opposition was. What you fail to understand, is that we have a modern example of what you get trying it against a truly tyrrannical government. Tianenmen Square-notice that nobody has levelled serious sanctions against Communist China for butchering and imprisoning those peaceful protestors.

Fundamentally, nonviolence only works against a specific sort of state, or specific sort of individual. Satyagraha and its philosophical descendents only work against idealistic Western Democracies whose cultural mores are opposed to the use of ruthless tactics against unarmed civilians, and whom possess free and unfettered Press establishments not under the thumb of their rulers.

About 1% of the world's nations fit that description.

No and No. Mostly because Iraq2 should have been Saudi-1 because Iraq-1 should have finished the situation there. Since we declined to prosecute Saddam with GW1, the disposition of his regime became the provenance of the Diplomats & internal rebellion - where Gandhi's premises would apply. Ah, I see. Well, we've already discussed Gulf War I, so I won't go there again. And I agree, Saudi Arabia would have been a much better target than Iraq.
As to the "Iraqi Insurgents", they (mostly) aren't either Iraqis or insurgents, they are imported foregin terrorists taking advantage of both the Iraqi people and the situation to further their own radical Islamic goals.Agreed there. While I do think the situation there is bad, I don't really think the majority of the population supports the insurgency. I also acknowledge that the insurgency is mostly non-Iraqi.
When Marx is read thouroughly, the end result of his doctrines is an anarcho/democracy of the proletariat, with no leaders or governing body per-se - so I don't think you are too far off.This is true, although the introduction in the copy of the Manifesto that I read said that Marx supported a totalitarian regime to redistribute wealth, something I don't like the idea of.
I did. Since you response was a clear equivocation ;) I decided to not make an issue of it. At least you are willing to research/question the issue. While I agree there are conflicting theories, though I think you will find that in the balance the majority come down on the side of "It saved lives" and ended the War sooner.Fair enough, though I do think the idea of using the bombs is distasteful, it probably did save U.S./Allied lives.

But not Osama bin Laden.Sad, but true.

I never said that someone who did something in the past is incapable of doing something good in the present. All I said was that they shouldn't be put in a position to judge others. Which is what "Just War" theorists do.Point taken.

Perhaps you could explain why you support "Just War Theory".I don't necessarily support the theory as it's worded in this thread, but I support the concept of the theory. There are a couple reasons, as follows: I abhor violence, except in the case of self-defense, or defending others who cannot defend themselves. Just War Theory agrees that this is the only acceptable cause for war. I also think that there needs to be a strictly defined definition of self-defense, because certain things can start out as self-defense but progress into offense. Just War Theory allows for this with the requirement (to paraphrase) "The Just War must be only the amount required to defend and no more."
Furthermore, there could be a situation where my nation sees that a war is happening between two parties, and is allied with neither. I think that, if my nation decides to get involved to stop the killing, that there must be a way of determining which side to help. I don't believe in Just War Theory as a tool to use to punish one side or the other in a conflict, however I view it as necessary to determine which side to help in a given situation.

Anyone who says, "this person agrees with me so I must be right" is name dropping. I prefer dealing with people who discuss issues plainly and to the point.Ah, I see.

Oh. One more thing. Concerning "Jews herded into concentration camps", I'm not Jewish, so it wouldn't matter to me. The same way it wouldn't matter to me if everyone descended from Bulgarians were "herded into concentration camps".So then you're only concerned with things that affect you personally?

So then you're only concerned with things that affect you personally?

If worrying about things that will never affect you is your cup of tea, then so be it. However, no one would worry about things if it didn't affect them in some way, either directly, indirectly, or the mere thought. Think about it.

I find this to be one of the better debates to be found on this forum, and to be quite frank CC and Syniks have pretty much covered what I would add, so I will simply add a quote I find to be relevent.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person, who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

Interesting point, imported_berserker. I have a quote myself which seems to add to the mood.

"War is the systematic destruction of the product of human labor, to freeze the progress of human society, and destroy change which could otherwise remove the power of the "haves". -George Orwell

I don't necessarily support the theory as it's worded in this thread, but I support the concept of the theory. There are a couple reasons, as follows: I abhor violence, except in the case of self-defense, or defending others who cannot defend themselves. Just War Theory agrees that this is the only acceptable cause for war. I also think that there needs to be a strictly defined definition of self-defense, because certain things can start out as self-defense but progress into offense. Just War Theory allows for this with the requirement (to paraphrase) "The Just War must be only the amount required to defend and no more."

This is my main concern and why I find "Just War" Theory potentially dangerous. In Colombia the most violent group, responsible for over 70% of the countries violent crimes is the AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) "The United Selfdefence of Colombia". Which began as hired guns to protect wealthy landowners from the Guerrillas. The Guerrillas themselves began as a selfdefense group over fourty years ago. In this example and several others, war begins as something that is justifyable, but eventually becomes a way of life.

Furthermore, there could be a situation where my nation sees that a war is happening between two parties, and is allied with neither. I think that, if my nation decides to get involved to stop the killing, that there must be a way of determining which side to help. I don't believe in Just War Theory as a tool to use to punish one side or the other in a conflict, however I view it as necessary to determine which side to help in a given situation.

A situation such as this requires not only incredible insight with regards to the past and present, but a touch of "clairvoyancy" into the future. Look at the Mujahideen for example. Some could say that the U.S. support of an Islamic organization against an invading Soviet army was a "just cause". But it resulted in the eventual formation of Al Quada.

[QUOTE]
You really don't read contextually, do you? Yes, I used the term "Wog" because in the example, that's how he would have been viewed by the men shooting him.

Gandhi was killed by one man. A fellow Hindu.

Ghandi's technique depended as much on the evolution of the British Empire's Morality as it did on his personal charisma in getting people to notice what he was doing in the first place, and his persuasiveness in getting his followers to actually do what he was suggesting.

Gandhi's success was determined by the way he used an ancient method of civil protest in tandem with his understanding of the economical, cultural and political setting. You'll note that non violent, non cooperation was used by someone else I admire... Jesus.

A charismatic leader of a Subject people in 1850 would have been, quite simply, shot. However, Ghandi was able to make use of the late-victorian morality drilled into the Upper Classes-a morality that included a far more humanitarian view than was present at the near-beginning of the Empire. thus, he was fortunate in that he could use British morality, and British Ethics, to make peaceful noncompliance workable.

Are you familiar with the Amritsar Massacre?

He was also fortunate in the existence of Radio and the Telegraph-without mass-market media in near-realtime amounts, his protests would have been vulnerable to wipeout and coverup.

This is true, but I again refer you to Jesus. The most important miracle He performed, in my opinion, is evident by the fact that His message, although misinterpreted by many "Christians" was not entirely wiped out. Non Violent, Non Cooperation is as much about the progressive evolution of the human spirit as it is about acheiving contemporary political objectives.

The WHOLE WORLD operated on a racist/nationalist/Statist/Prejudiced structure prior to the first world war. Mohandas K. Ghandi rose to prominence in the post-war era, when the Empire (like many other empires of the time) was already struggling with finding an image its rulers could live with.

Again, he was only reacting to the political climate. In an earlier era he might have done things differently. But if nonviolent, noncooperation is, as you contend, aided by the progressive enlightenment of European Nations and the world media, why isn't it more commonly used today?

If Ghandi had been trying the same trick in 1935 Berlin, he'd have died horribly, in obscurity, possibly with a number tatooed on his arm and his head shaved not for religious reasons, but because that's what they do in a concentration camp. If Ghandi had been Vietnamese or Cambodian, the French would have gunned him down in his bed, or other fun things they did with Indochinese leaders in order to assert their dominance. In either Empirial Russia, or Soviet Russia under Stalin, Ghandi would have frozen to death in a camp, or been killed by the Chekisty, along wiht his family, and every follower who could not be compelled to recant their support and accuse their fellows...


This is entirely speculation. You may be right, but you might also be wrong.

He could only accomplish what he did, because of who his opposition was. What you fail to understand, is that we have a modern example of what you get trying it against a truly tyrrannical government. Tianenmen Square-notice that nobody has levelled serious sanctions against Communist China for butchering and imprisoning those peaceful protestors.

So would we be better off if those millions of people around the world who protested the war in Iraq, suddenly picked up guns and started fighting against the governments who supported the invasion because they feel they are fighting against injustice?

Fundamentally, nonviolence only works against a specific sort of state, or specific sort of individual. Satyagraha and its philosophical descendents only work against idealistic Western Democracies whose cultural mores are opposed to the use of ruthless tactics against unarmed civilians, and whom possess free and unfettered Press establishments not under the thumb of their rulers.

Is what is going on in Guantanamo an example of this?

About 1% of the world's nations fit that description.

For a moment I would like you to pretend that you are a person who has been born and raised as a Muslim in Palestine. Try to review Western politics from this perspective.

The Just War Theory makes a lot of sense.
It was developed by Christian scholars if I remember well, as a way to limit wars and question their legitimity.

It was more than that it first legitamized war in the early dark ages before this for the most part pacifism was the accepted christian doctrine.

Your statement on how the economy rests on the individual is true. Although not all individuals pay out directly or indirectly towards the wartime economy, their dollars mix with everyone else's dollars, and it all channels to the highest priorities, in this case, war.

Your statement on carpet bombing was mixed. First, many people would say that carpet bombing Mexico would be unnecessary, because it has no chance of threatening our survival. But, the people can take up what little arms they have, and wage guerilla war.

Dresden was completely unnecessary, though.

As for the 18 years or older, you are grossly wrong. Some countries recruit as early as 13. Some recruit as early as 17. Some allow recruiting as early as 13 as well. Those who forcibly recruit at 13 are mostly undeveloped nations, and we hear not many of the details.

But, I appreciated your somewhat rational opinion on war. It was far less biased than most everyone else so far.
Nazis did it durring ww2 when the soviets invaded berlin their were 13 yr old kids blowing up t1s like it was a game

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

And what would you do if none of this worked and the Axis powers overran the world, and everything you once stood for, such as the belief that war is never justified, was ground into the dust? Would you just hide in Cuba and hope that the Nazis didn't feel like hunting down those who had opposed them and could oppose them again? When they developed nuclear weapons? When they turned against each other, and possibly brought armogeddon? Would you cower in Peru, avoiding the inevitable, or would you face fear and death to try, just try, to bring back sanity?

If we were more lenient in our war dealings and more pacifistic ww2 never would have happened because no one would have listenend to the damn Nazis in germany they only did because they were humilated democracy had failed them and were grossly mistreated by the allies in world war one

[QUOTE]And what would you do if none of this worked and the Axis powers overran the world, and everything you once stood for, such as the belief that war is never justified, was ground into the dust?

Isn't this the way the world is today? As you can plainly see I am a minority in my beliefs.

Would you just hide in Cuba and hope that the Nazis didn't feel like hunting down those who had opposed them and could oppose them again?

I wouldn't need to hide because the war mongers would be too busy killing each other to be bothered with me. Again, not much of a hypothetical scenario.

When they developed nuclear weapons? When they turned against each other, and possibly brought armogeddon? Would you cower in Peru, avoiding the inevitable, or would you face fear and death to try, just try, to bring back sanity?

Well I'm not currently in Peru and, although I'm not facing death by having this conversation, I am doing my best to induce somekind of sanity. ;)

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

You really don't read contextually, do you? Yes, I used the term "Wog" because in the example, that's how he would have been viewed by the men shooting him.
Ghandi's technique depended as much on the evolution of the British Empire's Morality as it did on his personal charisma in getting people to notice what he was doing in the first place, and his persuasiveness in getting his followers to actually do what he was suggesting.

A charismatic leader of a Subject people in 1850 would have been, quite simply, shot. However, Ghandi was able to make use of the late-victorian morality drilled into the Upper Classes-a morality that included a far more humanitarian view than was present at the near-beginning of the Empire. thus, he was fortunate in that he could use British morality, and British Ethics, to make peaceful noncompliance workable. He was also fortunate in the existence of Radio and the Telegraph-without mass-market media in near-realtime amounts, his protests would have been vulnerable to wipeout and coverup.

The WHOLE WORLD operated on a racist/nationalist/Statist/Prejudiced structure prior to the first world war. Mohandas K. Ghandi rose to prominence in the post-war era, when the Empire (like many other empires of the time) was already struggling with finding an image its rulers could live with.

If Ghandi had been trying the same trick in 1935 Berlin, he'd have died horribly, in obscurity, possibly with a number tatooed on his arm and his head shaved not for religious reasons, but because that's what they do in a concentration camp.

If Ghandi had been Vietnamese or Cambodian, the French would have gunned him down in his bed, or other fun things they did with Indochinese leaders in order to assert their dominance.

In either Empirial Russia, or Soviet Russia under Stalin, Ghandi would have frozen to death in a camp, or been killed by the Chekisty, along wiht his family, and every follower who could not be compelled to recant their support and accuse their fellows...

He could only accomplish what he did, because of who his opposition was. What you fail to understand, is that we have a modern example of what you get trying it against a truly tyrrannical government. Tianenmen Square-notice that nobody has levelled serious sanctions against Communist China for butchering and imprisoning those peaceful protestors.

Fundamentally, nonviolence only works against a specific sort of state, or specific sort of individual. Satyagraha and its philosophical descendents only work against idealistic Western Democracies whose cultural mores are opposed to the use of ruthless tactics against unarmed civilians, and whom possess free and unfettered Press establishments not under the thumb of their rulers.

About 1% of the world's nations fit that description.

Lets not kid ourselves about British imperialism it was no better than any other Europeans most probably worse.

Note to Celtic Union 1

Please don't include my name when quoting someone else.

Note to Celtic Union 1

Please don't include my name when quoting someone else.

What the hell are you talking about.

What the hell are you talking about.

Maybe it shows up differently on your screen. But when I review your responses to other posters I see the handle "[QUOTE=Oye Oye]" included at the top.

Maybe it shows up differently on your screen. But when I review your responses to other posters I see the handle "[QUOTE=Oye Oye]" included at the top.

lol thats because the people i am quoting were quoting you when they said this.

Quoting The Celtic Union1
Nazis did it durring ww2 when the soviets invaded berlin their were 13 yr old kids blowing up t1s like it was a game

Quoting myself:
"Those who forcibly recruit at 13 are mostly undeveloped nations..."

[QUOTE=Cadillac-Gage]

Lets not kid ourselves about British imperialism it was no better than any other Europeans most probably worse.

The point is, Ghandi's methods (and those derived from them) would not, do not, and could not, work against a dedicatedly and openly oppressive regime such as Soviet Russia, Communist China, present-day Burma, Pinochet's Argentina, Franco's Spain, or Hitler's Reich. It only works on relatively democratic states where the idea of Individual Rights, and Humanitarian Ideals, are ingrained into the culture.

The British Empire could get away with being a global twerp as long as it could hide it from the people back home, or justify it using those same values. Ghandi's toolbox included an unmuzzled press, Radio, and the Newsreel. His advantage, was a target audience whose opinions held great power over the Parlaiment (and by extension, the Government), and a Government that was unused to the manipulations necessary to 'spin' events to their favour on a consistent basis.

An OPEN society, whose invested membership favoured concepts of human rights on a consistent basis. Against a genuinely and openly oppressive and dictatorial system (Saudi Arabia, or Iraq pre-current war), those methods are a failure-because the rulers don't hold value systems that would permit it, nor do the populace have the combination of courage and information necessary to place pressure on the rulers.

In today's terms, Oye-Oye's philosophical tactics might work on the United States, but will fail in the People's Republic of China, the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), or Stalin's Soviet Union.

and this is the real problem- Satyagrana doesn't work on truly bloody handed tyrants, it works on nations that value humanitarian memes, and possess open societies. Put into practice, it IS surrender to Tyrants, Theocrats, brutes, and Murderers-because such men and their followers lack the value of individual life necessary to make it function, and care little for the views of outsiders.

Without the guy willing to use the gun on the side of the Pacifist, the Pacifist ends up being meat for the guy willing to use the gun on the other side.

The point is, Ghandi's methods (and those derived from them) would not, do not, and could not, work against a dedicatedly and openly oppressive regime such as Soviet Russia, Communist China, present-day Burma, Pinochet's Argentina, Franco's Spain, or Hitler's Reich. It only works on relatively democratic states where the idea of Individual Rights, and Humanitarian Ideals, are ingrained into the culture.

India was a colony with a history of a caste system. Notions of democracy were more foreign to them than it would have been to the U.S.S.R, Argentina, Spain or Germany.

The British Empire could get away with being a global twerp as long as it could hide it from the people back home, or justify it using those same values. Ghandi's toolbox included an unmuzzled press, Radio, and the Newsreel. His advantage, was a target audience whose opinions held great power over the Parlaiment (and by extension, the Government), and a Government that was unused to the manipulations necessary to 'spin' events to their favour on a consistent basis.

From this quote I am left with the understanding that you think it was the British that permitted India to be independent. India earned their independance through solidarity. This is why Gandhi's Satyagraha campaign succeeded while previous violent methods failed.

An OPEN society, whose invested membership favoured concepts of human rights on a consistent basis. Against a genuinely and openly oppressive and dictatorial system (Saudi Arabia, or Iraq pre-current war), those methods are a failure-because the rulers don't hold value systems that would permit it, nor do the populace have the combination of courage and information necessary to place pressure on the rulers.

I have highlighted the portion of the text that I agree with. Satyagraha relies heavily on popular support. This is gained through education, not violence. When I use the term education, I do not mean this in a formal manner. Gandhi was a teacher. The world needs more teachers like him.

In today's terms, Oye-Oye's philosophical tactics might work on the United States, but will fail in the People's Republic of China, the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), or Stalin's Soviet Union. and this is the real problem- Satyagrana doesn't work on truly bloody handed tyrants, it works on nations that value humanitarian memes, and possess open societies. Put into practice, it IS surrender to Tyrants, Theocrats, brutes, and Murderers-because such men and their followers lack the value of individual life necessary to make it function, and care little for the views of outsiders.

Remember that soldiers are also humans. They have families and friends and if you convince them that violence against unarmed civilians is an act of cowardice, they will lay down their weapons.

Without the guy willing to use the gun on the side of the Pacifist, the Pacifist ends up being meat for the guy willing to use the gun on the other side.[/QUOTE]

Yet with all their guns, tanks, and airplanes how many U.S. soldiers have died over the course of the past century?

I wonder...

All sorts of animals fight, and chimpanzees (the closest animal to humans in terms of genetics, but almost no one would say that they are not animals) wage all-out war within their own species. And not just in self defense. They war to exterminate potential rivals and to punish insurrection.

Mankind has been fighting since the dawn of civilization. War has been an accepted part of the world for thousands of years.

Maybe fighting wars is natural. However, there are some who would say that even if it is natural, it is still not right. They may be right, and they may be wrong. I think that there is a strong possibility that humans evolved to be able to wage full-scale war. If this is the case, then perhaps we as a species fight war because war has a purpose, and may even be necessary for the balance of life on this planet, human and otherwise.

This Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431814) and the scholarship referenced (http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf), goes a long way to debunking the type of incoherent, self righteous "pacificisim" Oye Oye is demonstrating. :rolleyes:

It shows just how useless all those "diplomatic" UN measures really are when it comes to trying to deal with people who are actively involved in Agression.

It's a long, but interesting read.

Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? (http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf)

This Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431814) and the scholarship referenced (http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf), goes a long way to debunking the type of incoherent, self righteous "pacificisim" Oye Oye is demonstrating. :rolleyes:

It shows just how useless all those "diplomatic" UN measures really are when it comes to trying to deal with people who are actively involved in Agression.

It's a long, but interesting read.

Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right? (http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf)

If my position is so incoherent and self-righteous, why don't you debunk it yourself, instead of introducing threads and articles which have no relevance?

If my position is so incoherent and self-righteous, why don't you debunk it yourself, instead of introducing threads and articles which have no relevance?
Quite simply, because I (and others) already have. Not that you would ever stoop to actually reading an article, or theory or data to see if it has relevance, it's fareasier to continue to regurgitate what you believe.

I don't care what you believe. I (was) interested in what you think. However, you have clearly intimated that your position is not rational and that you don't care.

You have an irrational belief in Pacificisim. That's OK for you, but as policy it makes for a lot more dead innocents than an understanding of how to fight Evil while striving to minimize casualties.

Yet with all their guns, tanks, and airplanes how many U.S. soldiers have died over the course of the past century? Exactly enough to stop Unjust Agression and a hell of a lot less than were killed while not resisting that same agression. But then, you wouldn't have cared if the Axis had won WWII. Fighting them was bad because it was a war. :rolleyes:

Do the Rational World a favor and pack your bags for Darfur so you can be a diplomatic, "non compliant" Victim for Peace. :mad:

I've read all this coz its something i'm very interested in. i'm basically anti-war, but then think we should have prevented genocides. this has helped clear up the contradictions i felt, and has been well argued by Syniks. War is definately a bad thing to have to resort to, and there are mnany i wont approve of, even in theory. i still don't feel i could fight in a war though, whatever the cause, i couldn't put myself in that position where i had to kill. i guess i'm the pacifist which needs cadilac-cage at my side.

now i need to think of a way to make wars never at all justifyable/needed etc. if i have an original brainwave i'll let you all know.

I wish everyone could spell correctly with their own goddamn first-languages.

But besides that. Wars are a natural element of human existence. It is likely there will always be wars, whether external or internal. It is impossible to find a common ground between everyone to agree what is "just" or not. Those terms do not exist. But if there was an ongoing war, in which I could die if I did nothing, I think I would be compelled to do something.

If worrying about things that will never affect you is your cup of tea, then so be it. However, no one would worry about things if it didn't affect them in some way, either directly, indirectly, or the mere thought. Think about it.Simply because something doesn't affect you at this very moment doesn't mean it won't at some point in the future.

This is my main concern and why I find "Just War" Theory potentially dangerous. In Colombia the most violent group, responsible for over 70% of the countries violent crimes is the AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) "The United Selfdefence of Colombia". Which began as hired guns to protect wealthy landowners from the Guerrillas. The Guerrillas themselves began as a selfdefense group over fourty years ago. In this example and several others, war begins as something that is justifyable, but eventually becomes a way of life.Well, I don't think that the AUC's actions would fit into any reasonable definition of self-defense. Definitions (and principles) are useless if one doesn't stick to them.


A situation such as this requires not only incredible insight with regards to the past and present, but a touch of "clairvoyancy" into the future. Look at the Mujahideen for example. Some could say that the U.S. support of an Islamic organization against an invading Soviet army was a "just cause". But it resulted in the eventual formation of Al Quada.Well, I won't get into the specifics of that example, but I don't think that the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking is a method of accurately determining who to help in a given situation.

if the spelling comment was directed at me, sorry, i can't spell and i'm especially bad on the net.

i should point out, i admire oye oye's outlook, and wish i could hold it, but i think i feel that if people die througfh inaction that's as bad as war. i'm not sure, i struggle to reconcile war as a good thing ever, but then genocide...

cadilac, i think your attitude is the attitude all armed forces should have. in your experience, is it, or are they more patriotic/gong ho/whatever, rather than feel they're doing it for the peoples they're fighting? I ask as the experience i have with people who are planning to go nito the army, its more out of a sense of adventure/pay/for their country, than for the people of the country they're fighting. but this is people thinking of joining, rather than actual soldiers, of which i have no experience.

if the spelling comment was directed at me, sorry, i can't spell and i'm especially bad on the net.

i should point out, i admire oye oye's outlook, and wish i could hold it, but i think i feel that if people die througfh inaction that's as bad as war. i'm not sure, i struggle to reconcile war as a good thing ever, but then genocide...

cadilac, i think your attitude is the attitude all armed forces should have. in your experience, is it, or are they more patriotic/gong ho/whatever, rather than feel they're doing it for the peoples they're fighting? I ask as the experience i have with people who are planning to go nito the army, its more out of a sense of adventure/pay/for their country, than for the people of the country they're fighting. but this is people thinking of joining, rather than actual soldiers, of which i have no experience.

Oye Oye's position is an honerable PERSONAL one. It is rather like a religion. But people willing to die rather than defend themselves or others do just that. They die. And if they had it within their power to stop their own death, and the possibly the deaths of others, then IMO they are complicit in those deaths.

While I'm sure there are people who join up during a war specifically to either "kill the bad guys" or "save the good guys", most members of the military did not join when we had an active conflict going, so most didn't do it "for the other guys". That really doesn't play into the equation during peacetime enlistment.

i kinda agree. about oye oye's position, like you (i think) i don't fault it as a personal position. actually, i think it's probably my personal position (in that i wouldn't fight). But i don't think i think its neccessarily the right position to have all the time.

as for signing up, there must be a reason for it. i imagine there'd be several different ones of differing degrees of importance to different people. IMO, signing up, whether in peace time or during conflict, you enter a contract to follow orders which may well be to kill (even if this is in order to protect fellow soldiers or citizens). as such i'm interested in the motivation of people to enbter this contract, which they have to hold to whether they approve of that war (consider it just) or not. Cadilac's view seems to be the best view i can think of for a soldier to have, but i ask if in his experience (as i have non) it is the standard view, or even a common one? I don't see that it matters whether you sign up during peacetime or war, your motives would be the same, surely? the only benefit of signing up while at war is that you know that the current enemy is one you agree with fighting (or else you wouldn't sign up) as opposed to smoeone your leaders have chosen to fight.

i kinda agree. about oye oye's position, like you (i think) i don't fault it as a personal position. actually, i think it's probably my personal position (in that i wouldn't fight). But i don't think i think its neccessarily the right position to have all the time.

as for signing up, there must be a reason for it. i imagine there'd be several different ones of differing degrees of importance to different people. IMO, signing up, whether in peace time or during conflict, you enter a contract to follow orders which may well be to kill (even if this is in order to protect fellow soldiers or citizens). as such i'm interested in the motivation of people to enbter this contract, which they have to hold to whether they approve of that war (consider it just) or not. Cadilac's view seems to be the best view i can think of for a soldier to have, but i ask if in his experience (as i have non) it is the standard view, or even a common one? I don't see that it matters whether you sign up during peacetime or war, your motives would be the same, surely? the only benefit of signing up while at war is that you know that the current enemy is one you agree with fighting (or else you wouldn't sign up) as opposed to smoeone your leaders have chosen to fight.
(I was in the Army from 1985-1992) Yes, a soldier has to be psychologically prepared to fight and kill when the order comes. We hope that the order is a Just one. We will not obey if the order is an illegal one. But unjust and illegal are two different things.

If the leadership of a country/military understands that the only time fighting is justified is when you have been attacked, or such attack is imminent, or a request for aid in defense is rendered, then very few wars would ever be fought. However, as a matter of practicality, there are enough sadists out there that regardless of (because of?) how peaceful your intent as a nation, someone is going to be aggressive. Thus the need for militiaries and the need for people who have the capability and will to do what is necessary to stop unjust aggression.

Otherwise, it's a pretty cool job. You get to blow things up without the police coming after you. :D

Quite simply, because I (and others) already have. Not that you would ever stoop to actually reading an article, or theory or data to see if it has relevance, it's fareasier to continue to regurgitate what you believe.

I don't care what you believe. I (was) interested in what you think. However, you have clearly intimated that your position is not rational and that you don't care.

You have an irrational belief in Pacificisim. That's OK for you, but as policy it makes for a lot more dead innocents than an understanding of how to fight Evil while striving to minimize casualties.

Exactly enough to stop Unjust Agression and a hell of a lot less than were killed while not resisting that same agression. But then, you wouldn't have cared if the Axis had won WWII. Fighting them was bad because it was a war. :rolleyes:

Do the Rational World a favor and pack your bags for Darfur so you can be a diplomatic, "non compliant" Victim for Peace. :mad:

You have a tendency to want to throw other people in harm's way. You should really try to get work with the Bush administration.

[QUOTE]Well, I don't think that the AUC's actions would fit into any reasonable definition of self-defense. Definitions (and principles) are useless if one doesn't stick to them.

How do you ensure people "stick" to your definition of "Just War"?

Well, I won't get into the specifics of that example, but I don't think that the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking is a method of accurately determining who to help in a given situation.

My example was intended to demonstrate the potential danger in justifying violence. We can use other examples if you prefer. Although the philosophy you noted was the basis for several alliances during WW2 and there are those who have responded to this thread who assert that WW2 was a "Just War".

Oye Oye's position is an honerable PERSONAL one.

Wow, that's a surprising compliment.

It is rather like a religion. But people willing to die rather than defend themselves or others do just that. They die.

And yet I'm still here.

And if they had it within their power to stop their own death, and the possibly the deaths of others, then IMO they are complicit in those deaths.

Yet are those leaders who promote war not complicit in the deaths of those who die in times of war?

You have a tendency to want to throw other people in harm's way. You should really try to get work with the Bush administration.

Wow, what an irrelevant statement. An off-topic personal attack based on your real beliefs (opposition to the Bush Administration) rather than your professed beliefs.
j
Perhaps when you've gotten old enough to shave, you'll have a coherent argument that is not based on selective=sampling or faith in myths.

Anyway, my momma always taught me you can't reason with a fanatic. So I will stop trying, and bid you good-day.

about oye oye's position, like you (i think) i don't fault it as a personal position. actually, i think it's probably my personal position (in that i wouldn't fight). But i don't think i think its neccessarily the right position to have all the time.

Why not?

Wow, what an irrelevant statement. An off-topic personal attack based on your real beliefs (opposition to the Bush Administration) rather than your professed beliefs.
j
Perhaps when you've gotten old enough to shave, you'll have a coherent argument that is not based on selective=sampling or faith in myths.

Anyway, my momma always taught me you can't reason with a fanatic. So I will stop trying, and bid you good-day.

j?

j?

Puzzle it out.

why not? coz while by the nature of war people die, people may also die if war isn;t committed. take Rwunda and Darfur as examples of genocides commited due to a lack of war, and Kosovo as a war which was aimed precisel at preventing that. I find my personal morals split a bit, as while i'm inherently anti-war, i think we should have had troops in Rwunda and Darfur, which could easily have meant war. We have a responsibility to prevent genocide.

that said, i personally still couldn't join the army coz i couldn't kill, and wouldn't trust my leaders to pick just wars.

another problem i have with wars is that the soldiers we shoot and kill aren't neccessarily die hard supporters of hte regime, and may simply be doing their job like our soldiers. It'd be nice if these men fighting eachother wouldn't, like the xmas celebrations with germans and allies during WW1, but i accept that that doesn't regularly happen. It would be nice to see how governments coped with armies which refused to fight, but as with the Ghandi eg, both sides must comply.

Puzzle it out.

A riddle from a fool can be no more than a foolish riddle ;)

[QUOTE]why not? coz while by the nature of war people die, people may also die if war isn;t committed. take Rwunda and Darfur as examples of genocides commited due to a lack of war, and Kosovo as a war which was aimed precisel at preventing that. I find my personal morals split a bit, as while i'm inherently anti-war, i think we should have had troops in Rwunda and Darfur, which could easily have meant war. We have a responsibility to prevent genocide.

I agree with this, but do you think these attrocities occur because of the lack of military intervention, or the lack of intervention?

that said, i personally still couldn't join the army coz i couldn't kill, and wouldn't trust my leaders to pick just wars.

Agreed.

another problem i have with wars is that the soldiers we shoot and kill aren't neccessarily die hard supporters of hte regime, and may simply be doing their job like our soldiers.

So wouldn't using the media and other diplomatic solutions be a more valid alternative to "Just War"?

It'd be nice if these men fighting eachother wouldn't, like the xmas celebrations with germans and allies during WW1, but i accept that that doesn't regularly happen. It would be nice to see how governments coped with armies which refused to fight, but as with the Ghandi eg, both sides must comply.

With regards to Indian Independence. The British did not comply with India. What happened was that they eventually saw the futility of trying to control a population that would rather die than be subservient.

but think on the other hand what happens when a,lets say, preemptive , or a just war turns in to genoocide.
The cyprus peace operation (code name atilla) resulted in 200,000 greek cypriot refugees, mass slaughter, multiple rapes against greek cypriot women conducted by the Turkish army, mass torture, and all the good stuff having to do with ethnic cleansing.
Also, the liberators of Iraq and Afghanistan have tortured in many ways, civilians, there are shots of american soldiers gangraping Iraqi women of all ages and puting electrodes on the bodies of Iraqi senior citizens, and there are complaints having to do with Americans performing sleep deprivation on prisoners of war, abducting people in the streets of Kabul and Baghdad, not to mention bombing instalations of foreign tv networks and murdering journalists, on purpose.....For these reasons, I think that war, and especially an offensive, and maybe colonial wars are a crime themselves

So wouldn't using the media and other diplomatic solutions be a more valid alternative to "Just War"?

With regards to Indian Independence. The British did not comply with India. What happened was that they eventually saw the futility of trying to control a population that would rather die than be subservient.

The media and diplomatic solutions would not be more valid because these soldiers would still be willing to die for their nation. National leaders are not very cooperative with diplomacy, especially when they feel that they have the upper hand. Ultimately war of some form is necessary when dealing with warlords/dictators that have a thirst for conquest or hatred of some group of people.

If the British did not decide to give in and had an army to oppress the Indian people then they could have gotten control of India. Not everyone who fights for rights is a complete idealist. People still can comprehend the idea that living is in many ways better than dying even if it is a life of servitude. Terror techniques can work.

If the British did not decide to give in and had an army to oppress the Indian people then they could have gotten control of India. Not everyone who fights for rights is a complete idealist. People still can comprehend the idea that living is in many ways better than dying even if it is a life of servitude. Terror techniques can work.

Not realistic, considering there were plenty of Indians ready to commit to full-scale guerilla war to gain their independence. It would have been a violent, bloody quagmire in India for the British.

Not realistic, considering there were plenty of Indians ready to commit to full-scale guerilla war to gain their independence. It would have been a violent, bloody quagmire in India for the British.

Perhaps, but most people do not continue resisting once their homes are burned, their children are tortured and executed, their wives raped, their crops and other plants burned and the ground salted so that nothing will ever grow again, their cattle and livestock slaughtered, their holy relics destroyed and defiled, their great landmarks demolished, their leaders executed publicly and painfully, their elders gutted and put on pikes, their water supplies poisoned, and worse with the only message being that without surrender this will continue. Cruelty has won wars(or at least prevented defeat) in the past and terror tactics can work.

I doubt that the British would have done this so soon after the Second World War. After all, most of their army was then dedicated to preserving the peace in Germany. They had neither the stamina nor the will to fight for India. And I doubt America would have gone along with British atrocities. And perhaps the Soviets would have used that as an excuse to expand further south towards the Indian subcontinent.

I doubt that the British would have done this so soon after the Second World War. After all, most of their army was then dedicated to preserving the peace in Germany. They had neither the stamina nor the will to fight for India. And I doubt America would have gone along with British atrocities. And perhaps the Soviets would have used that as an excuse to expand further south towards the Indian subcontinent.

I never said it would be practical. The reason that the revolution worked was because the British were weakened by WW2. I even stated that IF Britain had the army and the will it could have been done. I did not claim that in the real world they could have, just that if things were different they could have theoretically done so.

Perhaps, but most people do not continue resisting once their homes are burned, their children are tortured and executed, their wives raped, their crops and other plants burned and the ground salted so that nothing will ever grow again, their cattle and livestock slaughtered, their holy relics destroyed and defiled, their great landmarks demolished, their leaders executed publicly and painfully, their elders gutted and put on pikes, their water supplies poisoned, and worse with the only message being that without surrender this will continue. Cruelty has won wars(or at least prevented defeat) in the past and terror tactics can work.

I would think that people are in more of a position to defy injustice when they have nothing to lose.

What makes you believe that the British could have withstood a full-fledged guerilla war? In a country of hundreds of millions of Indians who would become new replacement fighters?

The media and diplomatic solutions would not be more valid because these soldiers would still be willing to die for their nation. National leaders are not very cooperative with diplomacy, especially when they feel that they have the upper hand. Ultimately war of some form is necessary when dealing with warlords/dictators that have a thirst for conquest or hatred of some group of people.

If the British did not decide to give in and had an army to oppress the Indian people then they could have gotten control of India. Not everyone who fights for rights is a complete idealist. People still can comprehend the idea that living is in many ways better than dying even if it is a life of servitude. Terror techniques can work.

Modern armies conscript soldiers from the general population. Media is used to gear a civilisation towards war (ie. Leni Reifenstal during the rise of the Nazi party). If more people were to embrace non-violent, non-cooperation as a more productive method of solving problems, don't you think societies would be better off?

* Question to all those who support "Just War" theory: Would you support non-violent, non-cooperation over a "just war" if it achieved the same results?

How do you ensure people "stick" to your definition of "Just War"?Well, as long as they don't do anything that would make me feel that I was required to go to war with them, they're welcome to have any opinion that they like. :) A person holding your views, for example, would never violate anything in the Just War Theory.


My example was intended to demonstrate the potential danger in justifying violence. We can use other examples if you prefer. Although the philosophy you noted was the basis for several alliances during WW2 and there are those who have responded to this thread who assert that WW2 was a "Just War".Oh, I agree that one of the biggest reasons that WW2 was started was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, and that's unfortunate. I'm on the fence about WW2, personally. On one hand, the Nazis were committing terrible atrocities against the Jews. It didn't matter if the Jews were willing to die rather than be slaves because the Nazis didn't want slaves, they wanted the Jews dead. This is a problem, and one where Just War Theory would apply (a genocide.) The irony, of course, is that none of the nations that fought against the Nazis in WW2 fought for that reason.

* Question to all those who support "Just War" theory: Would you support non-violent, non-cooperation over a "just war" if it achieved the same results?

What exactly do you mean by this?

One thing I'd like to add in regard to the Just War Theory, is that central to the theory is the inherent view that all wars are evil. Meaning, that some wars can be justified, but no war is right. It comes down to the famous "Law of Proportionality" (do the ends justify the means). That's why the JWT is so hard to interpret because it is vague and subjective (especially now with the radical departure from "traditional" warfare). So, one can use the JWT to justify the Iraq War (albeit not easily--but it can be done). Without the Law of Proportionality the JWT is obsolete.

* Question to all those who support "Just War" theory: Would you support non-violent, non-cooperation over a "just war" if it achieved the same results?Definitely. War should always be a last resort.

Oh, I agree that one of the biggest reasons that WW2 was started was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, and that's unfortunate. I'm on the fence about WW2, personally. On one hand, the s were committing terrible atrocities against the Jews. It didn't matter if the Jews were willing to die rather than be slaves because the s didn't want slaves, they wanted the Jews. This is a problem, and one where Just War Theory would apply (a genocide.) The irony, of course, is that none of the nations that fought against the s in WW2 fought for that reason.

In the case of WWII, I would argue that war was inevitable, and clearly, there was a genuine "evil" to combat--an evil, I must add, that justified the lesser evil of engaging in war. As you mentioned, the s ruthlessly persecuted the Jews in a form of genocide, led a military-backed dictatorship across half of Europe, threatened the sovereignty of Western Europe (including our allies), and suppressed democracy. Most rational people would aknowledge this to be bad. The fact that the Germans were gaining strength demands a response. However, instead of jumping right in, the JWT was taken into account (probably not intentionally, but regardless other means were used to avoid wars). We tried Embargo Acts (all of which failed miserably-with all belligerent nations), the Neutrality Acts (maintaining neutrality while giving some non-military support to the Allies), and final demands. None of these worked, and clearly, the Axis were not going to stop. So, war was not only needed, but was needed desperately to defend ourselves and our Allies.

A perfect example of the JWT in action.

[QUOTE]Well, as long as they don't do anything that would make me feel that I was required to go to war with them, they're welcome to have any opinion that they like. :) A person holding your views, for example, would never violate anything in the Just War Theory.

A person holding my views does not support Just War theory. But you havent't answered the question which is; how do you ensure that those who do support Just war theory stick to your definition? Especially once the bullets start flying.

Oh, I agree that one of the biggest reasons that WW2 was started was because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, and that's unfortunate. I'm on the fence about WW2, personally. On one hand, the Nazis were committing terrible atrocities against the Jews. It didn't matter if the Jews were willing to die rather than be slaves because the Nazis didn't want slaves, they wanted the Jews dead. This is a problem, and one where Just War Theory would apply (a genocide.) The irony, of course, is that none of the nations that fought against the Nazis in WW2 fought for that reason.

Wouldn't a better solution to fighting a just war to stop genocide be to encourage countries to accept refugees and discourage genocide through diplomatic measures such as trade embargos and informing the public as to what is going on? Or do you believe that all Germans knew what was going on in the concentration camps?

I'm gonna ignore the Indian Revolution of Independance, or whatever it's officially called for the mo coz it happened under a set of very specific and now days unusual circumstances, as has been stated before. Although I think it would be ideal, and I admire Ghandi and his followers very much, it was an unusual situation. So that aside, moving onto Oye Oye's comments.

I imagine the J stands for jesus, jeez or similar, but i could be wrong.

"Lack of military intervention or just intervention???" Well, maybe originally lack of intervention, but once the situation got going lack of military intervention too. I don't know how much we can intervene before atrocities occur though, and once they do then they've already started and its too late for many, but we must then intervene, and at that stage i think military intervention is the only sort which would work. Diplomacy and media wouldn't have the immediacy or the clout on the aggressors leadership.

We are agreed that neither of us could become soldiers, and we're agreed why. As a soldier you must submit to the decisions of your superiors, which you may not agree with. As such I think soldiers should have an option of not fighting if they don;t feel a war is just, even if their superiors do. However, armies wouldn't work like that and leaders will never change laws to allow it, although maybe if the army had individual conciences deciding for themselves whether to fight or not many unjust wars would be avoided. Mind you, so might some just ones, but if there were enough soldiers holding cadillac's views then there'd still be an army left to fight just wars. This would be equivalent to the xmas celebrations, if neither side responsded to orders to re-arm. without an army to back them up, leaders would have to use diplomacy.

I do sympathise with your position, but if you take Darfur and Rwanda as examples where genocide was committed and we didn't go to war, and Kosovo as an example of where war probably reduced the genocide deathcount, then I think there are times when being a pacifist (as we are) and not going to war and killing sentences many, many more innocent people to death.

So I think there are times when we must go to war. I also think there are many times when we shouldn't. I don't think either the recent Iraq or Afganistan wars were justified and I don;t think our re-building programmes have been sufficient, nor were they sufficiently considered before the war. There are many times when war is unjust, but i think there are some times when it is a neccessary evil, much as it pains me to say it.

Definitely. War should always be a last resort.

I propose that war should never be a resort.

I'm gonna ignore the Indian Revolution of Independance, or whatever it's officially called for the mo coz it happened under a set of very specific and now days unusual circumstances, as has been stated before. Although I think it would be ideal, and I admire Ghandi and his followers very much, it was an unusual situation. So that aside, moving onto Oye Oye's comments.

Let’s then apply the same principles to the U.S. invasion of the Middle East. If Iraqi insurgents put down their guns and protested the U.S. occupation this might bring to light the injustice of the U.S.'s prolonged presence. Instead their militant resistance only acts to justify some of the atrocities that are going on in military prisons.

I imagine the J stands for jesus, jeez or similar, but i could be wrong.

I thought it stood for joint ;)

"Lack of military intervention or just intervention???" Well, maybe originally lack of intervention, but once the situation got going lack of military intervention too. I don't know how much we can intervene before atrocities occur though, and once they do then they've already started and its too late for many, but we must then intervene, and at that stage i think military intervention is the only sort which would work. Diplomacy and media wouldn't have the immediacy or the clout on the aggressors leadership.

We could intervene by bringing about awareness before things get out of hand. Other nations could have prevented the rise of Hitler by helping the Germans to recover from the war instead of imposing an unfair peace treaty on them. But then Europe and the U.S. weren’t exactly anxious to incorporate the Jews into their society prior to WW2.

We are agreed that neither of us could become soldiers, and we're agreed why. As a soldier you must submit to the decisions of your superiors, which you may not agree with. As such I think soldiers should have an option of not fighting if they don;t feel a war is just, even if their superiors do. However, armies wouldn't work like that and leaders will never change laws to allow it, although maybe if the army had individual conciences deciding for themselves whether to fight or not many unjust wars would be avoided. Mind you, so might some just ones, but if there were enough soldiers holding cadillac's views then there'd still be an army left to fight just wars. This would be equivalent to the xmas celebrations, if neither side responsded to orders to re-arm. without an army to back them up, leaders would have to use diplomacy.

A military cannot be conducted it a democratic manner. The success of a military is reliant entirely on the ability of soldiers to follow orders without question. For this reason I find it dubious when people propose to preserve democracy through militant means.

I do sympathise with your position, but if you take Darfur and Rwanda as examples where genocide was committed and we didn't go to war, and Kosovo as an example of where war probably reduced the genocide deathcount, then I think there are times when being a pacifist (as we are) and not going to war and killing sentences many, many more innocent people to death.

Let’s look at war the way most people might view rape. We both agree that rape and war are terrible things. Yet is there such a thing as a Just Rape? If you take the Muslim edict an “eye for an eye” literally, then it can be interpreted to mean that if a man rapes your wife, then you are justified in raping his wife. There are some people in North American society who might object publicly to a woman being raped but if she is someone they view as being a slut or a tease they might mutter under their breath that she had it coming. Yet as a society we hold rape in contempt and do not praise those who participate in such behavior. The reason we hold rape in contempt is because we want to discourage it and abolish it from our society. I propose we do the same with war.

So I think there are times when we must go to war. I also think there are many times when we shouldn't. I don't think either the recent Iraq or Afganistan wars were justified and I don;t think our re-building programmes have been sufficient, nor were they sufficiently considered before the war. There are many times when war is unjust, but i think there are some times when it is a neccessary evil, much as it pains me to say it.

War is only possible because it is socially acceptable. It is socially acceptable because most people adopt the attitude you have just expressed. "War is terrible but..." I propose we make war socially unacceptable and uneccesary by applying "Just Diplomacy", not only when we see a problem arising, but in the manner by which we solve that problem.

What exactly do you mean by this?

One thing I'd like to add in regard to the Just War Theory, is that central to the theory is the inherent view that all wars are evil. Meaning, that some wars can be justified, but no war is right. It comes down to the famous "Law of Proportionality" (do the ends justify the means). That's why the JWT is so hard to interpret because it is vague and subjective (especially now with the radical departure from "traditional" warfare). So, one can use the JWT to justify the Iraq War (albeit not easily--but it can be done). Without the Law of Proportionality the JWT is obsolete.

Oye Oye, yes, if non-war could achieve the same results as war, but without the death and misery of war, of course i would take it over war. who wouldn't. the problem is that it can't alwatys achieve what war can.

TCV makes very good points here, the last one being the scariest, that as JWT isn't an absolute, depending on how you view things, even the Iraq war can be made to comply with it, although I refuse to believe it was in any way just.

You can't ensure that JWT is followed, even by countries which claim to adhere to it. You just have to hope that the chain of command structure agrees on JWT throughout it and will stomp on any infringements of it. This has been proven with Abu Grahib (sp?) and Guantanamo Bay, where the chain of command wasn;t supportive of JWT.

Wouldn't a better solution to fighting a just war to stop genocide be to encourage countries to accept refugees and discourage genocide through diplomatic measures such as trade embargos and informing the public as to what is going on? Or do you believe that all Germans knew what was going on in the concentration camps?

yes, refugees should be accepted and all diplomatic measures should be taken to prevent them, even any trade embargoes which could damage the leadership but wouldn't cause starvation etc amongst the people (i don't know much about embargoes, i assume there are types which would fill these criteria?). Informing the public is also important, in both the country where it is occouring and elsewhere. But we all knew/know about Rwanda and Darfur, and we've done/are doing sod all about it. I don't know how many germans knew about the concentration camps, but if they showed the same apathy as we are about Darfur now then we're on a level with them. I assume there were relatively few actiuvely persecuting jews, but many people would just let it happen, and few would go against the state and try to stop it, but i'm not very aware of the german peoples (in general) attitudes towards 'the jewish problem' .

Modern armies conscript soldiers from the general population. Media is used to gear a civilisation towards war (ie. Leni Reifenstal during the rise of the Nazi party). If more people were to embrace non-violent, non-cooperation as a more productive method of solving problems, don't you think societies would be better off?

If every country's population chose not to enrol, like us, then war would be a thing of the past. But as long as just one country has an army, then others need one if for no other reason than to prevent tihe initial army from conquering all.

People are willing to fight to defend their country from invaders. This has been demonstrated in probably every country, and recently in Iraq. People are also willing to commit terrorist acts/freedom fighers/guerrillas once invaded.

Now, if entire societies adopted non-violent, non-cooperation after invasion, then they'd be freed. But, many would be killed by the oppressor, and not everyone would risk death whilst being a pacifist non-violent, non-cooperator. the oppressor could torture families and randomly kill civilians to get people to co-operate. This would breed hatred with the opressed, making them more likely to become violent themselves. This in term could warrent violent reprisals, liek the random Nazi killings in (Czech/Bulgaria?) in revenge for freedom fighter attacks. Ruthless, but ik thikn it was fairly effecitve.

What i'm saying is once there is an aggressor, if there isn't a war, and occipation occurs, then non-violent, non-cooperation can be counteracted by harsh actions by the oppressor.

Now, if the invadors conquered a country with no army, and gave its citizens equal rights to the invaders, effectively making the 2 countries 1, the one of the attackers, but with attacked subjects too, then if the cultures aren't to different there may be no reason to resist, but afaik, this has never happened.

I propose that war should never be a resort

Take Rwunda. One tribe was being massacred by another, they had no army to defend themselves with and there was no option of non-violent, non-cooperation, they were just being killed. it was ethnic cleansing. I assume we're agreed this is wrong. Of course, teh persecuted, in this situation should flee and we (everyone) should accept them as refugees. It's wrong that they should have to flee, but if they can't defend themselves (or are pacifists, but i'll come onto that later), then they must flee from a combat situation. But many could not, and many would be killed, and it would still be a massacre. Diplomacy hasn't worked and isn;t working and the massacre continues. Embargoes (if there were any) aren't working. All other 'resorts' have been tried, and the massacre continues. The persecuted try to flee, but many are caught and killed.

What would you do. Would you not send in an army and watch as genocide happens (as we did), or send in an army, have a war which would cause deaths of soldiers on both sides and civilians of the enemy, but save many more lives of the peoples which were fleeing?

We could intervene by bringing about awareness before things get out of hand. Other nations could have prevented the rise of Hitler by helping the Germans to recover from the war instead of imposing an unfair peace treaty on them. But then Europe and the U.S. weren’t exactly anxious to incorporate the Jews into their society prior to WW2.


If everyone on earth agreed to avoid war at all costs it could be done. The only thing is that people will not agree to that idea. The european nations decided to take the costs of WW1 out of Germany, that was wrong but no one could stop it other than the leaders of the countries themselves(and no one tells the leader of a foreign country what to do). If everyone agreed to help rebuild Germany it could be done but not everyone agreed that was the right thing to do. Most people said that Germany should pay and a minority that disagree do not mean a thing.

[QUOTE]Informing the public is also important, in both the country where it is occouring and elsewhere. But we all knew/know about Rwanda and Darfur, and we've done/are doing sod all about it. I don't know how many germans knew about the concentration camps, but if they showed the same apathy as we are about Darfur now then we're on a level with them. I assume there were relatively few actiuvely persecuting jews, but many people would just let it happen, and few would go against the state and try to stop it, but i'm not very aware of the german peoples (in general) attitudes towards 'the jewish problem' .

I've isolated this quote because it reveals why I think "Just War" is unneccessary in order to prevent genocide. Relativley few people actually commit attrocities, the reason why they are successful is because the remaining members of the civilisation are apathetic. If all these "Just War" supporters are really outraged about what is going on in Rwanda or Darfur, why aren't they posting threads encouraging others to actively protest and encourage their own governments to impose sanctions?

What makes you believe that the British could have withstood a full-fledged guerilla war? In a country of hundreds of millions of Indians who would become new replacement fighters?

The British have better technology(machine guns, tanks, airplanes, and the like could be used to cause destruction). As well, the loss of most things would perhaps drive some but most people are demoralized once they lose everything(or after an exposure to extreme death and cruelty like shown by Vlad the Impaler's forest of the impaled). So long as the British had a good amount of soldiers starting off, they could win through a strategy of total war. What we would have seen in India would be hell on earth and eventually the resistance fighters would have surrendered to the British or to death due to the absolute cruelty.