[fusion]

Is war ever justified?
I don't think so. Well I'm a pacifist and have opposed almost every war the US has fought, because their has not been enough reason to Go mass murder people.

[alxian]

thank you for using that smilie.. i thought it was the funniest thing since the presidential address saying that the US was going to try to use clean nuclear power again without mentioning private community owned pebble bed reactors as the power source.

but to be on topic.

war

is it ever justified?

sure

when wars are philosophical and based on fighting ignorance and prejudice

as for real wars man against his brothers or nation against nations?

depends on what they are fighting for...

if its religious i won't touch its morale significance with a 60' pole (a very tall man.. lol)

if its for a resource.. well then i can see why nations would fight over land for resources rather than stupid unrealistic religious reasons (oops that was fairly unsubtle opinion wasn't it)..

but yes, two nations fighting over resources is as ancient as the land they live on, and its as natural as a pecking order hierarchy. alphas get the first right to a kill. there is little way of making that distinction in humans, since there is no way to assert dominance between the nations unless you do so by wars. in that case wars are natural. only though when fighting over resources. if you are killing your fellow man for religious reasons... my made up god is more powerful than your made up god (where religion is more an individual undertaking and not subject to nation enforcement/edicts in the first place) its just an excuse i think for proper civilized societies to outlaw organized religion. it won't be long before a crusade or jihad destroys a huge swath of humanity before people realize how dangerous its polarizing effects are between nations.. or neighbors for that matter.

so you'll say, fighting over a piece of land for the gold beneath it is morally o.k. but fighting for a peace of land that was given to you by a god you made up is wrong?.. yes.

the reason is what are you going to get from that arbritrary peace of land god gave you anyway? especially when your neighbor has been living on it since his nation was founded and doesn't believe in your god? nothing but trouble from both sides..

how then is the first example of war for resources just? well once the first nation has refined the resources they may or may not and most often will for the sake of profit use those resources to develop economies between both nations (the greed involved is simply human nature). in this case war can be good if that business relationship blossoms.


and yes.. the US must keep their noses out of other peoples #### but given they always have economic reasons to start or join wars then its partially justified that way.. as far as i can tell the US will never start a crusade... (besides of course 911... but thats another story for another day)

[Tim_Lou]

of course some wars are justified:
wars of people defending themselves when being attacked.

It is a natural response and should be justified.

(well... thats the argument there, is a war for defending? or some self-interests? war in Iraq can be seen as a war to defend humanity of the future... or a war about oils, money, and revenge.)

[pgrmdave]

hypothetical:

Assume a leader, who rose to power by scapegoating a group of people, who then becomes a dictator, and destroys human rights, to the point where it is impossible for anybody within the country to depose him. He then begins to murder those people.

Is it wrong to invade the country to force a regime change? Or is it more moral to sit back and watch as people are murdered?

[Tim_Lou]

it depends on what kind of "regime change" is being made, whether not it is going to be "worse", or "better".
for worse I mean that the change doesnt gain support from the majority of the people in that country, for better i mean that the change goes with the people's will in that country.

"Or is it more moral to sit back and watch as people are murdered?"
In my opinion, yes, there is no necessity for one to intervene with others.

[Tim_Lou]

its about the debate of "war brings peace". Is war necessary to obtain peace? or does peace maintain itself?

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Tim_Lou

"Or is it more moral to sit back and watch as people are murdered?"
In my opinion, yes, there is no necessity for one to intervene with others.

At what level does this break down? Would you stand by as a person next to you on a train was murdered? Would you do nothing as a minority are oppressed?

This is similar to my ideas on zero-tolerance. Violence MUST exist as a last resort to deal with unreasonable people. It should never be desired to harm another, but it is sometimes necessary.

[zadojla]

Originally Posted by Tim_Lou

"Or is it more moral to sit back and watch as people are murdered?"
In my opinion, yes, there is no necessity for one to intervene with others.

That's easy to say if the victims are in Sudan or Rwanda. Suppose the victim you choose not to defend is your mother, or daughter?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by fusion

Is war ever justified?
I don't think so. Well I'm a pacifist and have opposed almost every war the US has fought.

Some of our wars have been wasteful. I think we did a better job in Yugoslavia than we did in Iraq: and those were marginal wars. As a dirgression, I like to point out to my conservative friends that actually Clinton's team proposed invading Iraq on humanitarian grounds, but the Gingrich Congress said "No nation building!" Now of course that there's no WMD, its okay to do nation building...

We all know that WWI was started by megalomaniacs, imperialist idiots and was stopped by the good ol USA (by Wilson, after Wilson ran on a platform of "he kept us out of war"), and WWII was of course the ultimate in stopping evil (I'll point you all to Philip K. Dick's Man In the High Castle for a good exposition of what we avoided there!).

Unfortunately, we forget to separate the action from the people we have do our dirty work for us from Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!") to Lt. Gen James Mattis ("it's fun to shoot some people") to Sergeant York or Audie Murphy. War, unfortunately, is definitely like making sausage.

Enjoy your freedom...a lot of people died for it.

Cheers,
Buffy

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Enjoy your freedom...a lot of people died for it.

Cheers,
Buffy

Not again. The last people who died for my freedom were the US/Russians freeing Europe to stop WWII and there was no other solution at that point. The problem is that the world should have reacted pacifically before Germany got that big.

Apart from that (as I stated in the priests/believers in the army thread) there is no one who died for my freedom. Already I asked but I never got an answer, tell me who died for my freedom (in the last 60 years)?