NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe there is such a thing? What to you would qualify a war/conflict as being just in fighting? Furthermore, if you believed a war/conflict was justified in being fought, would you offer your own services to help out the cause?

For me, I believe in only one justifiable war, and that is if a country is absolutely defending its people and property, and I don't mean in the sense that Iraq was declared to "protect Americans". By this, I mean that if a country, say Canada, decided to invade another country, the US. It is justifiable for the US to fight to defend its land, but no more than that. And if that were the case, I might consider a role in fighting. However, any other type of war, in my opinion, is not justifiable.

A war is morally just if it saves more lives than it costs. However, economic feasibility is another matter.

can a human concept be just or unjust :confused:

SNIP

and what if Canada suddenly cut off your oil supplies? does that count as posing a direct threat to the US?

can a human concept be just or unjust :confused: Concepts and ideas are both subjective, and thus can be given subjective attributes. Remember, this is only YOUR opinion. I want to know everyone's own opinions. There are really no facts for this.



and what if Canada suddenly cut off your oil supplies? does that count as posing a direct threat to the US?

Not necessarily. The US could then get oil from elsewhere, or go to international court or the UN if the Canadians were not honoring a treaty or something along those lines. I imagine for them to cut off oil supplies would mean that our pipelines would go through their land, and I am sure that would take a treaty of some sort.

I have a hard time killing or being killed for a flag.

Capt. Nately: Don't you have any principles?
Old man in whorehouse: Of course not!
Capt. Nately: No morality?
Old man in whorehouse: I'm a very moral man, and Italy is a very moral country. That's why we will certainly come out on top again if we succeed in being defeated.
Capt. Nately: You talk like a madman.
Old man in whorehouse: But I live like a sane one. I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top. Now that he has been deposed, I am anti-fascist. When the Germans were here, I was fanatically pro-German. Now I'm fanatically pro-American. You'll find no more loyal partisan in all of Italy than myself.
Capt. Nately: You're a shameful opportunist! What you don't understand is that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Old man in whorehouse: You have it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees. I know.
Capt. Nately: How do you know?
Old man in whorehouse: Because I am 107-years-old. How old are you?
Capt. Nately: I'll be 20 in January.
Old man in whorehouse: If you live.

Two examples of 'just' wars: the US Revolutionary War and the US Civil War. Both wars were fought by a group of people who felt oppressed by another group and were invaded by hostile forces after declaring independence. A 'just' war is a war where a nation defends its borders against invasion or attacks.

It can be argued that a war to stop a clear and present danger is a 'just' war. Iraq did not, and Iran does not present a clear and present danger: these are not theaters for a just war. Afhanistan is rather more difficult to unravel. The taliban allegedly offered support to binLaden, and bin Laden was allegedly based in that nation, but I really have no idea what to believe there, and I am not convinced that the official 9-11 story is completely or even partially true. I don't think that trying to conquer the nation was justifiable, no matter what.

And that may lead to the key point: Conquest and control are never just reasons for an invasion.

Concepts and ideas are both subjective, and thus can be given subjective attributes. Remember, this is only YOUR opinion. I want to know everyone's own opinions. There are really no facts for this.

pah ruining my cop-out!

I say yes but a war can both be just and unjust depending on who you are for instance the act of warring can be just if you a pair of boots on the ground but less so if your the big wig who ordered it

Not necessarily. The US could then get oil from elsewhere, or go to international court or the UN if the Canadians were not honoring a treaty or something along those lines. I imagine for them to cut off oil supplies would mean that our pipelines would go through their land, and I am sure that would take a treaty of some sort.

what I'm trying to do is put you in the shoes of Japan in 1941 (-ish anyway)

or what if your China in the 50's and your finding violent imperialists forces knocking on your door in Korea

I have a hard time killing or being killed for a flag.

generally its more to do with what the cotton represents

generally its more to do with what the cotton represents

Things I learned long ago as a kid...when someone would hold up a little plastic soldier and say, "This is you," I would understand that in his demonstration, that little soldier stood for me. But when it melted in the sun, I was still here. At the end of the season, when they'd take down the banner that represented my team, I was still here. I'm not going to kill someone or have them kill me over a symbol.

a just war simply means making war according to good rules.

good rules are established by those who know what is best for humanity, such as myself.

simplicity itself!

kill and be killed with a free conscience.

unless you break my rules.

then you go to hell.

Things I learned long ago as a kid...when someone would hold up a little plastic soldier and say, "This is you," I would understand that in his demonstration, that little soldier stood for me. But when it melted in the sun, I was still here.

I feel like I need to comment just to tell you how unbelievably awesome that anology was.

Do you believe there is such a thing?Yes. What to you would qualify a war/conflict as being just in fighting?It is being fought in self-defence (by a regime of reasonably good and/or popular status) against an attacker, or to protect the [relatively] weak against 'unjust' aggression, or to replace a cruel & bloody-handed tyranny by a significantly better regime... and is being fought according to decent 'rules of engagement'. Pre-emptive strikes might be 'just', if they involved less suffering than waiting for it to be self-defence would probably do, but that's even more of a "case-by-case" situation.Furthermore, if you believed a war/conflict was justified in being fought, would you offer your own services to help out the cause?Maybe, but I'd fail the physical...

For me, I believe in only one justifiable war, and that is if a country is absolutely defending its people and property, and I don't mean in the sense that Iraq was declared to "protect Americans". By this, I mean that if a country, say Canada, decided to invade another country, the US. It is justifiable for the US to fight to defend its land, but no more than that. And if that were the case, I might consider a role in fighting. However, any other type of war, in my opinion, is not justifiable.So in your opinion the USA shouldn't have acted against Hitler?

I have a hard time killing or being killed for a flag.I don't know where you live, but it might be a fortunate thing for you that other people have been bolder in the past...

Two examples of 'just' wars: the US Revolutionary WarA rebellion by just part of a land's population, who were better-organised than the local loyalists but by all accounts that I've seen (including a later statement by one of their own leaders: Adams, I think it was...) not significantly more numerous than those...
and the US Civil War.Defending states' rights to keep slavery legal: Do you really consider that to be 'just'?!?

All wars are just. Just ask the people who started them.

A "just" war is only possible in a video game.

At the end of the season, when they'd take down the banner that represented my team, I was still here.

and how often does that happen in real life though?

All wars are just. Just ask the people who started them.

or rather ask the people who are alive and are thus able to justify there actions

and how often does that happen in real life though?



or rather ask the people who are alive and are thus able to justify there actions

Most of the time. Rarely now a days do you conquer a territory and wipe out its inhabitants.

All wars are just. Just ask the people who won them.

Fixed.

Fixed.

The Russians still say the invasion by Germany was unjust.

Of course some wars are just. Ive never found the arguements that no wars are just to be compelling.

Just because they are just doesnt make them pretty. Nor does it mean we should be excited about fighting them.

The Russians still say the invasion by Germany was unjust.

But it didn't end with the invasion of Russia by the Germans did it? No, it ended with the Russians raising their flag over the Reichstag. ;)

I don't know where you live, but it might be a fortunate thing for you that other people have been bolder in the past...

Not especially. Other nations have achieved what we have without having to pay for it in blood, I don't see any particular nobility in our method.

Most of the time. Rarely now a days do you conquer a territory and wipe out its inhabitants.

what about the whole Kosovo shabazz?

Other nations have achieved what we have without having to pay for it in blood

such as?

what about the whole Kosovo shabazz?

How does 'rarely' imply it never happens?

such as?

The best apples to apples comparison would be Canada. Not so much that Canada has never fought any wars or doesn't have blood on its own hands, but if we're going to hold the revolution as some sort of standard I don't necessarily any benefit from our method over how they came about.

Of course some wars are just. Ive never found the arguements that no wars are just to be compelling.

Just because they are just doesnt make them pretty. Nor does it mean we should be excited about fighting them.

To say amputations need to be performed occasionally, makes sense. Of course, anyone calling himself "pro-amputation" sounds unintelligent.

To say amputations need to be performed occasionally, makes sense. Of course, anyone calling himself "pro-amputation" sounds unintelligent.

Hence why I said no one should ever be excited about fighting a war, even if its a "just" war.

"Just" war is merely an excuse. War happens due to economic, political or religious needs of one or both participants; all else is lies and propaganda.

"All government wars are unjust." - Murray N. Rothbard

Wars are...

well, you either die or you don't. That being said, I don't regret anything that happened there.

i believe japan may have been fully justified in bombing pearl harbour. i just wish they could have done it without killing anybody.

i don't know about WARS being justified. the're just too big a pain in the ass, and i don't think those are ever justified either.

i mean politicians invent wars out of thin air when they get to fearing the rest of us might realize how little we actually need them.

some folks seem to need, thrive on the excitement of risk. well i wish they could find some way of doing that which would leave the rest of us alone, instead of trying to make everybody kill each other.

you know some people say they want peace because they think they're expected to. some of the rest of us would just simply rather do other things that don't involve beating each other over the head.

i really think too many people are afraid of peace, and not just politicians and weapons makers, but people who'se priorities, by putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in, create a market for war and war mongering.

i believe japan may have been fully justified in bombing pearl harbour. i just wish they could have done it without killing anybody.A quick overview re: the timeline: Japan invades China. Much misery ensues
US don't like this. Sanctions are placed
Japan coerces France into letting it into Indochina, in a strategic move bringing the British and American assets in Malaya & the Philippines closer to them, or more specifically, their airpower
US don't like this, either. Sanctions are worsened
Japan, in response to economic sanctions it could end by the simple move of letting go of China and buggering out of French territories, bombs the shit out of the US' pacific fleetThat's... Justified to you?

Lets not forget that in-between, it was Japan that opted out of the London Treaty 1930 (In 1934), and left the table in 1936, making its desire to get MOAR FLEET for easily discerned purposes obvious. Whereas the US did, in both cases, sign, to results that were not on par with the economic disparity between the two counties - Read, Japan got more tonnage relative to its economic power than the US.

And you believe that Pearl was 'Justified'? As something other than a plain and simple move to secure the creation of a Japanese Empire, of course (For comparison: The US had already started the process of decolonisation in the Philippines).

Quick, where can I get the 'shrooms you're on?

Two examples of 'just' wars: the US Revolutionary War and the US Civil War. Both wars were fought by a group of people who felt oppressed by another group and were invaded by hostile forces after declaring independence. A 'just' war is a war where a nation defends its borders against invasion or attacks.

Allow me to play devil's advocate.

1) A minority (c.33% - John or Samuel Adams' own estimate) of the landed elite precipiate a rebellion and declare their independence against their legitimate government due to a dispute over taxation and voting rights, and initially fight the troops that were already stationed in the disputed territory before any declaration of independence is issued. There is no immediate 'invasion' because the troops were already there; the need to tax the local population in order to support the presence of those troops was indeed a contributing factor in the dispute.

2) A oligarchic group of slave owners declare independence in a dispute that, while publicly presented as a constitutional disagreement over the rights to self-government and secession of the individual states, was more realistically about whether those individual rights of the states could be manipulated so as to allow that oligarchy to hold other human beings as slaves so as in turn to maintain their economic dominance of a labour-intensive agricultural economy.

The first conflict is only just in hindsight. The principle of self-determination can't apply given that only a third of the potentially franchised population supported full independence (Adams estimated that another third were against independence and another third indifferent), and the basic principle of whether a population can be taxed without their democratic consent was, while generally accepted today in the industrialised West, relatively new and largely untested at the time.

The second conflict is morally muddier. Independence for the South meets the standard of self-determination as it existed at the time (a majority of the locally-elected representatives of the primarily-white property-owning males were in favour), but the basic principle for which they were fighting was considered morally dubious then, never mind today. One might also reasonably ask whether the majority of the total adult population of the Confederacy - not just the population enfranchised in 1861 - would have been similarly in favour of states' rights, secession and the maintenance of slavery.