Is there such thing as a just war?

Started by Power Hungry Midget, December 22, 2010, 05:19:21 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Power Hungry Midget

 Is war ever justified?
Wars have started over a lot of things:
Territory
Resources
Religion
Racism
Political Ideology
The tiniest diplomatic disputes
Sometimes for no reason at all
People often say to me that the Allies fighting against Hitler and the Axis Powers was just. They also cite the Atlantic charter laid out by Churchill and Roosevelt(I think). This charter mentioned how countries' sovereignty had been denied. However from a British point of view, this was quite hypocritical seeing as the still had colonies and were denying the indigenous people their rights. I thought I'd just mention that because it shows how things can be twisted to make a war look more righteous and just. I do accept that the allies were under threat from Nazi Germany so they were justified in fighting back but Britain had a hand wrapped around a few valuable countries and were interested in expanding. However when the denying of people's sovereignty comes starts on Britain's door step, then it's wrong.
I ramble...
If anyone has anything to say about war being justified and if they have any examples of just wars, pray do tell.
Oh and if anyone thinks I'm being biased or anything and is about tell me to go become a Nazi and saying that the Axis was evil and bent and world domination they should take a look and Britain and America now. I'm not biased about WW2, I'm stepping back and looking at what happened on both sides rather then just focusing on how Germany and the Axis was incorrect. I am glad the Allies won otherwise my country mightn't be independent now.

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

Blizzard

December 22, 2010, 05:31:32 pm #1 Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 05:32:56 pm by Blizzard
The reasons for war have changed during the decades and centuries. 1000 years ago wars were fought in the name of religion. 500 years ago wars were fought for territory. 50 years ago it was somewhere between territory and economic power. Today it's mostly for economic power. It's that simple. War fills the pockets of the super rich with even more money because the best consumer is war. Lost a couple of tanks? No problem, just pay up. Lost another fighter jet? No big deal. If you have the money, they have the weapons. Today war is just a business and an opportunity to earn money. How else would you explain the jump in the USD currency value the other day when North Korea was being an ass again?
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Power Hungry Midget

Actually it's what was going on in Korea at the moment which got me thinking about it. I see what your saying about war being a business or industry. America's economy boomed during WW1 and WW2 and we they're still benefiting economically from war. Another side to war is a war for freedom, for example the IRA in Ireland are now considered terrorists and criminal scum but 90 years ago they were heroes and the old IRA from 90 years ago are still considered heroes. Most Irish people approve of what they did in the 1900s up until Ireland's independence from britain. They would also consider the war for independence as just. But now as the CIRA or RIRA( continuity IRA and Real IRA) or the Provos, Provisonal IRA are considered terrorist as they conduct what they think is a just war to liberate Northern Ireland and reunite it with the south. Is fighting a war of indepence justifiable? Is killing in name of freedom justifiable?

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

Blizzard

Right, I forgot that there are also wars not created from greediness.
I would say that they are justified. Living in oppression and poverty (or short: living a shitty life) does justify going to war. If you want change, you want a better life, then I see nothing wrong to fight for it, but only if there is no other way. Usually when it really comes to a revolution, then there is no other way anymore. The government sucks and is unwilling to do any changes. The people get pissed more and more and it gets out of control. I think that wanting to stop a greater evil such as this does justify a war.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Power Hungry Midget

I suppose that closes up this thread. But it brings to mind; America and Britain, the policemen of the world. They claim to be fighting for the freedom and the rights of people in Iraq and Afghanistan but it is most likely motivated by greed and the political boost winning a war gives you.

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

GasolineWaltz

Quote from: Power Hungry Midget on December 22, 2010, 05:39:51 pm
Is fighting a war of indepence justifiable? Is killing in name of freedom justifiable?


I think that these two questions are more important than wondering about the 'justness' of a war. A lot of the time the outcome of any given war writes the history, not the actual wars. And that's completely understandable... of course the winner will always believe that what they had fought for was not in vain. I'm not trying to take too relativistic of an approach, but I always get a little iffy when it comes to morals... and even if Plato disagrees, I think that when we talk about Justice, we're talking about morals to some degree.
Perhaps it would be better to frame the question as one of necessity? Nuclear proliferation comes to mind. As in, if it ever came down to it, should there be a war in order to prevent nukes from getting into the wrong hands? I would say probably yes. Because the consequences of a nuclear war far outweigh one that would be fought to prevent one.
Notice though that this poses only the choice between two wars, as if war was inevitable... which, is sort of implied in the original question. Additionally, the tricky thing about something like a "war of necessity" is that it's war fought to prevent war... But it's -- in my mind -- the only way to rationalize modern warfare. War fought for gain should be unacceptable, it's just that that gain may sometimes be very hard to notice.

Thats my two cents at least...  What do you guys think? Is making war part of the human psyche? I tend to go back and forth on that one. There's the ideological side to me that wants to say "no! if only we could all learn to work together..." but then there's the cold cold rational side that wants to disagree. On a side note, a friend of mine who was in the Marines once told me at a bar "man, getting people to stop fighting wars would be like telling a man not to f***, you can say it.. but is he going to do it? Not unless you cut his balls off."

Power Hungry Midget

I suppose it's in our nature to be violent and to fight over things but we have evolved into a society where it is possible to avoid violence. We no longer need to fight in order to survive. We don't need that patch of land a few miles a way so we can graze our cattle. There is a line used by Virgil in The Aeneid "War down the proud, so that the empire lives in peace." or something similar. I think that fighting a war to ensure peace is a double standard because you aren't ensuring peace if you are creating another war. Obviously if you're fighting the war to avoid another war which would put you in a losing situation, then perhaps it's just. As much as we debate it, it's probably all relative. It depends upon people's views towards violence and their morals. I dislike using morals in debates  because I feel morals are both objective and subjective and the same time and morals are therefore an oxymoron. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

Futendra

I think there is, look at bush, do you think it was for oil? that he never could get because the oil wasnt owned by the presidents, but by sheiks

Power Hungry Midget

Yes but during the invasion of Iraq, some of the oil was burned in the conflict. I don't know how much but it would increase the price of Iraqi oil. That way if Bush had bought into Iraqi oil through someone prior to the invasion, he could've profited. Personally I think it's a bit far fetched. The invasion of Iraq was approved by the UN and it was not just American troops who invaded. The invasion of Iraq could seem justified to some, as the Americans and the coalition forces were actually liberating a lot of people from oppression only to replace it with theirs.

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

Futendra

Quote from: Power Hungry Midget on January 03, 2011, 10:30:43 am
Yes but during the invasion of Iraq, some of the oil was burned in the conflict. I don't know how much but it would increase the price of Iraqi oil. That way if Bush had bought into Iraqi oil through someone prior to the invasion, he could've profited. Personally I think it's a bit far fetched. The invasion of Iraq was approved by the UN and it was not just American troops who invaded. The invasion of Iraq could seem justified to some, as the Americans and the coalition forces were actually liberating a lot of people from oppression only to replace it with theirs.


Bush hes grandpa got depressive from an iraqian (or whatever it is) and bush just hated those people, he got president and he prob searched some stuff to kill iraqis, lil basterd, luckily it only were some year, not like hitler...

Power Hungry Midget

Yeah but Bush was just Dick Cheney's puppet. Read the book Angler, you'll learn a lot about it.

The plot thickens......

I have a mind to join a club and then beat you over the head with it.
     -Groucho Marx
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
     -George Bernard Shaw

http://xkcd.com/303

Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.
    -Oscar Wilde

Kagutsuchi

January 06, 2011, 05:21:58 am #11 Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 05:23:08 am by Kagutsuchi
Americans have always been too big on conspiracy theories for my taste tbfh.

War in self defence is always justified. The governments purpose is to defend it's citizens against enemies. What should USA have done after 9/11? They had to do something to defend their citizen, though how Iraq got into that picture I fail to see. USA have always been too fond of getting involved in other peoples problems, like they are the worlds police force. And if you love conspiracy theories, probably motivated by oil and gas etc.