NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple Question really. Do you only look out for your own nations protection? Should you defend other nations? Is it ok to go to war for resources?

Poll Coming!

Anything to protect your nation, and I like the idea of standing up for your buddy nations as well (especially if they are weaker than you or are completely uncapable of defending themselves).

As for resources... a bit tricky. I don't think it's always right to go to war for resources, but I think sometimes it's necessary to ensure your nation's future.

^Bump^

i voted never but i reckon if your country was invaded by another that had a worse government than your current one then a guerilla war would be justified.

In short: War is justified if it ultimately makes the World a better place.

This particularly implies to Humanitarian Wars, which I would say are by the far the most justifiable.

But also, if you believe, and others are intent on agreeing, that your country improves the World as a whole, then it is acceptable for that nation to engage in War to strengthen itself.

I tend to agree with the sentiments of the above: war is justified if it serves the interest of goodness to partake in it. Although there is evil in war, war in and of itself is just a tool of the state to enact policy, and a good policy, such as a plan to rid the world of a horrible dictator, is justified. That being said, the purpose of war should also be to gain victory: if you cannot defeat the dictator, there is no good that usually comes from waging war on him.

I tend to agree with the sentiments of the above: war is justified if it serves the interest of goodness to partake in it. Although there is evil in war, war in and of itself is just a tool of the state to enact policy, and a good policy, such as a plan to rid the world of a horrible dictator, is justified. That being said, the purpose of war should also be to gain victory: if you cannot defeat the dictator, there is no good that usually comes from waging war on him.
I'll agree with that.

War is only justified if my country, or an allied country were attacked.

War for economical, or political purposes is evil IMO.

Human rights abusers is what we have diplomacy for, and secret services.

I'm pretty much with the "Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Just_War_tradition#When_is_a_war_just_by_the_criteria_of_Just_War_Theory.3F_.28Jus_ad_bellum.29)" Theory on this one, although perhaps with modifications.

a) If war saves more people than it hurts.
b) If it is started by an international coalition with some credibility, preferrably a proper UN resolution like in Korea. Alternatively NATO will probably do.
c) If you're defending yourself or your Allies.

Note how a preemptive war is not and cannot be in there. If you know someone will attack you, prepare a defense. Don't go out and attack people on a hunch.

War is never justified. Legalised murder is still murder. Why if a man kills a child in a domestic situation he is jailed and outcast but if he shoots or bombs one in war, he is called a hero?
Just because you can't see your enemy doesn't meant they aren't human.

War is sometimes a necassary evil. Never justified.

War is inherently evil, but sometimes we must sacrifice our souls for a greater good.

Liasia']War is never justified. Legalised murder is still murder. Why if a man kills a child in a domestic situation he is jailed and outcast but if he shoots or bombs one in war, he is called a hero?
Just because you can't see your enemy doesn't meant they aren't human.
Men don't become warheroes by killing children, most of the time it's when they put themselves in danger to save their fellow soldiers.

There are many possible outlooks on the question of war being justifiable.

One is: Weighing the options of allowing a dictator to bring suffering and death to his own people, or waging war to stop it. War is an evil thing, true, by like many of you have said...it is a necessary evil. And, most cases, the lesser of two evils.

Two: Peace is not optained without hardships. War, in the end, has brought a halt to some situations that would have eventually escalated into catastrophes on global proportions. Perhaps Hawaii would no longer be a state of the US without the end of the war with Japan. England and most of Europe would still be ruled under the iron fist of the Nazi's.

Three: If an organization or political entity decides to bring the fight to you, then there is no other alternative but to retaliate. Any upstanding nation would never allow a blow to be dealt to their soil without repurcussion.

To conquor and get more resources
No. But I believe that we'll see more and more resource wars in the future.
Because a country has different politcal beliefs to your country.
No.
Because a countries leader is feircely opressing/killing his own people.
No. War isn't the solution.
Because a neutral country is under attack.
Depends on the situation, I'll say yes.
Because an allied country is under attack.
Depends. I'll say no.
Because there is a threat of attack, but no/only small attacks have happened to your country.
No. Preemptive war is just bullshit.
Because another country will certainly attack/ is attacking your own country.
I'd say that's very much a war already.
Because another country has invaded your country.
Same as above.
War is never justified.
Ha ha ha.

What the hell does this "necessary but never justified" non-sense even mean?


If some other country is bombing the piss out of your country, and you did nothing to provocate this attack, then just how in the bloody hell is defending yourself not "justified?!"


Claiming that self-defense is unjustified is pure non-sense. Maybe war isn't always in self-defense, but that doesn't change the fact that it could be, and frankly I have no bloody clue how anyone can say that killing in self-defense if necessary was wrong.


You want to pray to God to stop a bullet from shattering your skull while some psycho tells you after he's done shooting you he's going to your home to rape and torture your daughter, go ahead! Me? I will shoot the fucker. Then shoot him two or three more times to make sure the job gets done right. Then I will pray that the fucker stays down and doesn't crawl his way to a hospital.


Despite the contradiction in terms in saying "legalized murder" one cannot say that war is never justified unless you are willing to assert that you have no rights as a human being, and that the law does not apply to you.

The only way you can afford to not ever be forced to harm another human being is if you somehow sprout magical powers capable of stopping violence; until then you are going to have to live with the reality that some situations boil down to you and those you care about versus them!


Bloody ignorant, trite, over-idealistic non-sense: war is never justified... It is tragic that human life should have to be lost, but there are some situations where the loss of human life is necessary to prevent even greater tragedy. Sometimes you have to take 1 life to save a hundred. Now maybe you feel that no war has of yet met the "burden of proof" necessary to be able to claim justification, but that is a FAR cry from not being able to justify a war EVER.

NT

IMO if extreme violation of human rights is partaking than intervention is needed, and if an allied country is attacked than war is required.

I wanted to choose both the last and second to last options. Self defense is legit. War does imply more than that, to a certain extent. Ah well. Out of the choices given, the one that best explains my view is the second to last one, so that's what I did, but it's the only one I chose because otherwise I choose the last one.

Defensive only, in my opinion. I'm not even sure about the idea of Allies. If a state wishes to make a military union with others, it becomes suspicious; what is it doing such that it wants to draw explicit attention to its armed support?

My approach to the whole "Just War" thing is that a nation should only fight in the interests of those it would be willing to take in as citizens. To do otherwise is what we call "Meddling in other people's affairs". In fact, to be honest, I feel the best approach would be simply to allow people to apply for citizenry and employment in their chosen nation from any point in the globe. If they're successful then the appropriate authorities can arrange for their "deportation" to their new country.

Defensive only, in my opinion. I'm not even sure about the idea of Allies. If a state wishes to make a military union with others, it becomes suspicious; what is it doing such that it wants to draw explicit attention to its armed support?

My approach to the whole "Just War" thing is that a nation should only fight in the interests of those it would be willing to take in as citizens. To do otherwise is what we call "Meddling in other people's affairs". In fact, to be honest, I feel the best approach would be simply to allow people to apply for citizenry and employment in their chosen nation from any point in the globe. If they're successful then the appropriate authorities can arrange for their "deportation" to their new country.

A good point that I agree with. And I love your citizenry idea!

Interesting theory but what do you when some other nation decides to start gobbling up all the "undesireable?" Do you wait for this nation to become so large that it becomes an unstoppable superpower and then attacks you? Would you wait for it to commit mass war atrocities against these "undesireables?"

Occasionally one's own protection is connected to the safety and security of one's neighboring countries. Would you stand by and watch as a rogue nation's armies marched its way towards your country through a neighboring one and gave no indication of wanting to stop in your neighbor's country?


I'm all for "purely defensive" wars in principle, but it sounds rather difficult to implement in reality.

Something to consider: If you wait till someone else does something, then you have no chance at stopping them.

NT

Not quite so simple.
Too many variables.
And too many different kinds of war.

Because a neutral country is under attack.
Depends on the situation, I'll say yes.
Because an allied country is under attack.
Depends. I'll say no.

WTF? Why is it acceptable to defend a country you have no obligations to but unacceptable to defend a country you have agreed to defend?

Yes to all except for the first 3 and the last option, obviously. Attacking when you have not been attacked but there is a threat of attack is a bit iffy, it depends on the situation and the likelihood of the threat of attack.

only when you are doing it to protect your nation or another nation.

only when you are doing it to protect your nation or another nation.


Does every nation have the right to exist?
I beg to differ, of course.

Does every nation have the right to exist?

Yes.

Yes.

That's... interesting. I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany (assuming alt. reality where Nazi Germany didn't start WWII and left Europe alone) would have felt the same way.

Simple Question really. Do you only look out for your own nations protection? Should you defend other nations? Is it ok to go to war for resources?

Poll Coming!

i would kill someone to protect my kids....does that count?

i suppose you could extrapolate it to say my country...but i really only care about my own..selfish..yes..but honest..yes


like the drugged out girl sings...someday you will ache like i ache!

So a nation built entirely of pedophile murdering scoundrels (assuming it existed) would have the right to exist?


That sort of logic sounds questionable to me. There are several nations that if they were to suddently up and disappear I wouldn't shed a tear over. I'd appreciate it if in the process of being dissolved or otherwise rendered powerless innocent civilian lives were spared, but I'd still suggest that in the long run this world would be better off if a few netions happened to "regress" a little bit, perhaps "stone agian?"

NT

the only way in which war is ever justified was not listed as any of the options in the poll, and that is to prevent or end an ongoing genocide. period. and only if and when it is actualy used to do so and nothing else. which i haven't seen happen yet.

i have seen wars excused by pretending to do so, but this has always turned out to be a lie. not the genocides themselvs, but the wars on the pretense of preventing them.

=^^=
.../\...

That's... interesting. I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany (assuming alt. reality where Nazi Germany didn't start WWII and left Europe alone) would have felt the same way.

Yeah, well, being a Jew in Germany is no guarantee of being dead-right, of course.
I disagree with him, but he gave a simple Yes/No answer, with which I have to be satisfied.

A person has principles. Principles are not the result of explanation, but of emotion. His failure to explain ( if we may call that failure ) does not invalidate his principle.

the only way in which war is ever justified was not listed as any of the options in the poll, and that is to prevent or end an ongoing genocide. period. and only if and when it is actualy used to do so and nothing else. which i haven't seen happen yet.

i have seen wars excused by pretending to do so, but this has always turned out to be a lie. not the genocides themselvs, but the wars on the pretense of preventing them.

=^^=
.../\...


Wait so its ok if someone were to just shoot you right now as long as they are from a foreign nation? Wow. I'm impressed at your professed devotion to ends not justifying the means. I would have thought self-preservation instincts would kick in before espousing something so contradictory to self-interest, but I guess I was wrong.

NT

WTF? Why is it acceptable to defend a country you have no obligations to but unacceptable to defend a country you have agreed to defend?

Yes to all except for the first 3 and the last option, obviously. Attacking when you have not been attacked but there is a threat of attack is a bit iffy, it depends on the situation and the likelihood of the threat of attack.
Well, if I was American I certainly would not like to go to war to defend some of the allies. What if Turkey attacks Armenia? Or Russia attacks Georgia? "Evil countries" have allies too (e.g. Sudan, Germany on World War II etc).

I think (I'm not sure) that neutral countries are in general more pasifistic than allied countries (why they need to ally in the first place?) and that's why I feel that we should defend them if someone attacks them. But once again, it depends. On bith options.

while i admire,agrre with you..innocent kids always...did i mention SUFFER...it is a sad truth,that most do not want to see...i adopted a kid,that is but a drop in the bucket of misery that befalls children,
i want to cry every waking moment..but i have to be strong for the loved ones i have,but i would be a liar if i dont admit i daily...break down and think of innocents...
it is to horrible to think of...sorry..i have to go.

Thought about this in first person.

Voted for

certainly:
*Because another country will certainly attack/ is attacking your own country
*Because another country has invaded your country

not certain.. but more than likely:
*Because an allied country is under attack (If this ally didn't provoke or start it this gets bumped to certainly. IF they did start it... I would still probably have their back being that if they were so bad I wouldn't help/defend them .. then they wouldn't be my ally in the first place, but still you never know)
*Because a neutral country is under attack

----------------------

Didn't vote for

possibly:
*Because a countries leader is feircely opressing/killing his own people

dire need:
*To conquor and get more resources

And ...

" Because there is a threat of attack, but no/only small attacks have happened to your country " (didn't vote for it)

As for just a threat with no attacks.. it would depend on how much water that threat holds and how much of a threat they would be if they did attack.

The "small attacks" makes me think of a much weaker country .. so I'd probably just attack back with as much power they attacked me with to let them know that kind of stuff won't be tolerated. If said country was as powerful or more so than mine, then we'd either have to negotiate and come to peace or there would be a head on war I suppose. No other choice. Couldn't risk allowing "small attacks" from a country that is capable of annihilating my country.
----

first and last options are out ... and for "Because a country has different politcal beliefs to your country " No.

Well, if I was American I certainly would not like to go to war to defend some of the allies. What if Turkey attacks Armenia? Or Russia attacks Georgia? "Evil countries" have allies too (e.g. Sudan, Germany on World War II etc).

I think (I'm not sure) that neutral countries are in general more pasifistic than allied countries (why they need to ally in the first place?) and that's why I feel that we should defend them if someone attacks them. But once again, it depends. On bith options.

Hmm, point taken. Although a country like America's strong allies which would be defended by America are usually decent upstanding places. I might say neutral countries are more requiring of allies than non-neutral countries since they usually don't have as large a military.

Wait so its ok if someone were to just shoot you right now as long as they are from a foreign nation? Wow. I'm impressed at your professed devotion to ends not justifying the means. I would have thought self-preservation instincts would kick in before espousing something so contradictory to self-interest, but I guess I was wrong.

NT

i'm afraid i don't quite fallow your 'logic'. we were talking about organized warfare here. not personaly conflict.

=^^=
.../\...

Hmm.. When it's certain that my country will be invaded. But, it doesn't really matter. We couldn't do shit.

War is justified as a last resort, but should never happen before other options have been exhausted.

Yes.

your argument falls short when one thinks of hitler or stalin...but thats just me..maybe we should have stayed out of that one..lol... i am against intervening..anywhere..but do we not have an obligation to others?
interesting question....thanks.
human rights come to mind..like my brother shoving a mud ball down the neighbor kids throat..if i dont intervene...the kid will die..and my little bro goes to jail...so i suppose i have to intervene..nation states..i am to dumb to know what is correct.

your argument falls short when one thinks of hitler or stalin...but thats just me..maybe we should have stayed out of that one..lol... i am against intervening..anywhere..but do we not have an obligation to others?
interesting question....thanks.
human rights come to mind..like my brother shoving a mud ball down the neighbor kids throat..if i dont intervene...the kid will die..and my little bro goes to jail...so i suppose i have to intervene..nation states..i am to dumb to know what is correct.


Question: does Hitler invalidate the right of Germany to exist in the first place?

PS: prayed for your son last night.

As for resources... a bit tricky. I don't think it's always right to go to war for resources, but I think sometimes it's necessary to ensure your nation's future.


So, did Japan the right thing in the WWII? Let's remember there were a blocus on oli sells and other resources, and their first aim was to control the East Asia resources.

Hmm, point taken. Although a country like America's strong allies which would be defended by America are usually decent upstanding places. I might say neutral countries are more requiring of allies than non-neutral countries since they usually don't have as large a military.
Who are America's allies? The Coalition of Willing? NATO? I honestly son't know who you count as an ally.

I agree that neutral countries usually have smaller military. I quess they don't feel that threatened.

That's... interesting. I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany (assuming alt. reality where Nazi Germany didn't start WWII and left Europe alone) would have felt the same way.
its not the coutry that did it. it was the government.

your argument falls short when one thinks of hitler or stalin...but thats just me..maybe we should have stayed out of that one..lol... i am against intervening..anywhere..but do we not have an obligation to others?
interesting question....thanks.
human rights come to mind..like my brother shoving a mud ball down the neighbor kids throat..if i dont intervene...the kid will die..and my little bro goes to jail...so i suppose i have to intervene..nation states..i am to dumb to know what is correct.
but thats the governments. governments dn't make a nation. its people do.

Question: does Hitler invalidate the right of Germany to exist in the first place?

PS: prayed for your son last night.

first off...thank you....you have no idea what that means to me.

i am terrified for him,and i would rather be in his shoes..but he will do the rigght thng for everyone,whether they know it or not.

as to the question,and your reply..germany has every right to exist(go mikey schumacker)

people seem to forget the horror that their own countries inflicted on the world...as we seem to be,but nicely,we are screwing them..a slow comfortable screw i guesss.

whats the saying....he is without sin cast the first stone?

i dont get how no one realises that we all suck..and we are all selfish..human nature i suppose...i love kids...but i love mine more....is that understandable?

War is inherently evil, but sometimes we must sacrifice our souls for a greater good.

Very true, War is evil, however, sacrificing yourself for the greater good is noble. You just have to hope that there is a God who will understand your reasons for going to war, and forgive you for it.

Very true, War is evil, however, sacrificing yourself for the greater good is noble. You just have to hope that there is a God who will understand your reasons for going to war, and forgive you for it.

no. what you have to hope is that what you are sacraficing your true self for, if you are, really is the greater good and not the greater worse! and if you don't do your (real) 'homework', you'll never know.

(whatever gods, governments, or anything else might or might not actualy exist)

=^^=
.../\...

first off...thank you....you have no idea what that means to me.

i am terrified for him,and i would rather be in his shoes..but he will do the rigght thng for everyone,whether they know it or not.

as to the question,and your reply..germany has every right to exist(go mikey schumacker)

people seem to forget the horror that their own countries inflicted on the world...as we seem to be,but nicely,we are screwing them..a slow comfortable screw i guesss.

whats the saying....he is without sin cast the first stone?

i dont get how no one realises that we all suck..and we are all selfish..human nature i suppose...i love kids...but i love mine more....is that understandable?


You're welcome. We live in stressful times ( to put it mildy ) - and praying for someone costs little and can do great good.

*hug* Yup. I feel the same about my kids, you know? :)

So a nation built entirely of pedophile murdering scoundrels (assuming it existed) would have the right to exist?Well I guess that if FOXnews/AP and-the-US-Gov tells us that Ecuador is a country "built entirely of pedophile murdering scoundrels".. then we should nuke it tomorrow :rolleyes:

Interesting theory but what do you when some other nation decides to start gobbling up all the "undesireable?" Do you wait for this nation to become so large that it becomes an unstoppable superpower and then attacks you? Would you wait for it to commit mass war atrocities against these "undesireables?"
I'm somewhat confused as to what you mean by "undesireables". Are you suggesting that some nation might wish to be completely made up of criminals? I find it hard to believe that a society like that would even function, never mind prosper. Who performs the necessary research into technological development? Where does their food come from? Is there any sense of property at all? What about group interaction and family? What about the medical profession? And just think about their standing with the rest of the world!

Anyone being altruistic in such a society would be horribly oppressed and abused by everyone else. In which case, all they need to do is to leave by applying somewhere else where their skills would be just as useful and the rewards greater. Thus, the criminal society is left without doctors, farmers, intellectuals and even foreign relations. It would be destined to implode, and to do so very quickly indeed.

It's funny that more people want to protect another nation under attack then a their onw nation. (Acording to the poll)

Is war ever justified? Yes. War is a bad thing but can it do good for humanity as a whole. What has war brought us and if there was no war were would we be? I think war gave us the following:
1. Alot of today's medical practices were created to heal and care for wounded soldiers in time of war. No nation can fight a war if it's soldiers are sick and dying. War brought about the Red Cross and the U.N., the U.N. in turn created the World Health Organization. All those combined saved hundreds of thousands/ millions of lives by bringing healthcare to other parts of the world and wide spread vaccinations. Should more vaccinations come about it will be them spreading it.
2. Technology such as computers, radios, airplanes, ships, subs, RADAR, SONAR, GPS, topographical equipments, space technology, vehicles, helicopters, phones, guns, bombs, ammo, sattelites etc. were all created or refined for warfare and arguably we wouldn't have them today.
3. Some of the most well known pieces of art and literature are based on, or inspired by war. Many artists/ authors had expirienced war at some time.

Well, shortly:

"War is always justified"
Nope

"To conquor and get more resources"
Nope either, that's what *Trade* is for.

"Because a country has different politcal beliefs to your country"
As long as human rights are respected, political beliefs are irrelevant.

"Because a countries leader is feircely opressing/killing his own people"
To this, i would say yes. Leaders are not "opressing" on their own, they are sure to have a lot of "handymen" to do their dirtywork for them, to the point where simple removal of the leader through assassination or any other method is innefective. Military action aimed specifically at the opressors is the best way.

"Because a neutral country is under attack"
Yes, if said country does not fit into the above category.

"Because an allied country is under attack"
Yes, assuming the Allied country is any better then the one attacking it

"Because there is a threat of attack, but no/only small attacks have happened to your country"
Assuming you're referring to another country's armed forces, then i say respond with overwhelming force to those small attacks, if possible. If prelude to a larger attack (if obvious), then all necessary steps should be taken to stop those attackers at the defender's borders. Calling on allies, for example, everyone has them.

"Because another country will certainly attack/ is attacking your own country" See above. If said country is superior in force, then assume a defensive stance. If the opposite occurs, then attack. Utter destruction of their means to wage war should be the objective.

"Because another country has invaded your country"
Similar to the above, but yes, certainly. But in that case, you're not exactly waging war, you're defending yourself. If your nation is worth, by your standards (again, human rights, as undefined as they might be) defending, then aid in it's defense (at a personal level), if not, then aid in it's downfall (of the government, i mean). If the latter, but the country proves to be no better than a simple conquerer, then fight to expel him too.

"War is never justified"
Don't really need to answer this....

I tried to cover all angles, but i certainly did not manage to do it. Confusing, actually. Pardon me, i'm sleepy. Almost 2 A.M where i'm standing.