Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

What justifies war? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:52:43 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
What justifies war to you?

(approximate examples in parentheses- don't get hung up on them in particular, they're just examples and you may disagree on whether they are true or should apply, which isn't the point)


Death to your fellow countrymen at the hands of foreign agents/terrorists/soldiers? (Afghanistan, Serbia, Japan)

Atrocities committed by another government on their own people? (Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya)

The aggressive advancement of an ideology that you deem dangerous and immoral? (Germany, Hezbollah)

Unauthorized invasions and power-grabs? (Germany, Iraq, France, Soviet Union)

To secure stability which will ensure the reliable flow of crucial natural resources? (all of North Africa and the Middle East- take your pick)

All of the above? None of them? Some other reason not given?

This thread is for your opinions, not what you believe to be the real motives of real governments. If you had the ability to unilaterally wage war, or avoid it, what would your parameters be?
She
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:19:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe

I hate saying this, but I would probaby give a green light for defence in front of unauthorized invasions.
All listed things are similar, somebody has done something to someone and what would be our reaction. I would never attact other country and innocent people there, as defence, I would send people to war to protect innocent form invasion in their one country. I am aware of aggresion around us, but I just wouldn't be able to force myself to do it in any other circumstances than the ones I've said.
Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:43:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Great question! I'm sure I will have more to add as the debate heats up.

I tend to think we should avoid all out war except in very extreme situations. World War 2 is my idea of a war which had to be fought, completely justified under any parameters. Germany was aggressively taking over other countries, harming its own and other nations' citizens, and showed no intention of stopping until it had conquered the entire world. After that example though, I tend to back off a little.

If agents of a foreign country attack your country, then I think they have pretty much declared war, so you have to fight. But I do not see an attack from a third party organization as justification for attacking a country. I see that as a criminal act, and not a political one, and believe it should be treated accordingly.

In situations where atrocities are committed against a people by their own government, I believe that other countries should intervene, but I think they should do so as a police action, or peace keeping mission than an invasion. Meaning their first priority is to stop the illegal and harmful behaviour, rather than demolish one side or another. Those who have committed the crimes should be brought to justice, and an attempt should be made to rebuild the country under rules which work for the entire country, rather than just shifting the power to the opposite end of the spectrum until the former power, now feeling slighted, rises up to try and take back power.

Aggressive advancement of an ideology is a tricky one. Xuani mentions Germany, and in that case, it wasn't so much the ideology, as the implementation of the ideology that justified it. Communism is one that I never understood as a justification for war. Same with any country which decides to run itself according to religious laws be it the Church of Islam or the Church of England. If those are the ideals of the people, why can't they live by them? So in general I am against war for stopping or advancing an ideology.

Unauthorized invasion or power grabs. Kind of similar to my answer about an attack on your people, where I think if you are attacked, or if your ally is attacked, I think war is justified, however I'm not sure that I think Canada is justified in declaring war against Australia if it decided to attack New Zealand. With the world so interconnected now though, I don't expect to see much of this type of action anyway.

And lastly, to secure the stability of natural resources is the worst justification for war, possibly short of "sport." How do I justify killing thousands of people just so I can buy gas for $1.20/litre rather than $1.90? There are better ways to create stability, or even better, learn to live without. Are we so entitled now that our solution is to take from someone else, rather than figure out a way to exist without the things we don't have? I was taught in my high school business and politics classes that Japan has focused on efficiency since the 1950s because it realized that it didn't have an abundance of natural resources and didn't want to have to rely on another country for its existence. I think that's a mindset we all need to copy.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:00:46 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 689,307
Just a thought, but, there is no need for all out War. With the way that the World Community is slowly, I mean S.L.O.W.L.Y coming about. The threat to the purse is mightier than any ideology.

Force, the threat upon its own citizens, and neighboring nations is a consideration, and an unfortunate need for active military. However, a good pull on the purse strings will have any moron (Khadaffy duck, Mikhail Myasnikovich (Prime Minister of Belarus), and other International hoodlums) rethinking their political and ideological venture.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:48:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,224
Location: United States
Any time one person infringes upon the freedoms of another, in my mind, that's cause for war. If it's just two guys, then it'll be a small fucking war. If it's two countries, and one country is infringing upon the freedoms of the other, then yes, the second country has every right to go to war over it. If those two countries happen to be of little consequence to me, then I'll probably not want my kinsmen being involved in their war. If those two countries (or even one of them) are important to me in any way, then I'd have to judge the cost of getting involved in the war against the cost of letting things proceed apace.

But, in basic, it's all about freedoms, babe. Don't infringe upon mine, and you won't get warred upon.

BTW - Excellent question!
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:42:57 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,489
Location: Cakeland, United States
Warning - This is very graphic but suitable for Think Tank placement.
Only click and watch this video link if you are mentally and emotionally stable.
It has been broadcast on The Discovery Channel.


Is this enough justification for a unilateral declaration of war?

I have no answers, just questions.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:11:20 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,715
Location: Your dirty fantasy
A country is justified to go to war under real threat of aggression or invasion by another country, I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Countries go to war to secure resources and because of political pressure from allies far more often. Fine. What I hate is the bullshit freedom banner that gets waved in front of the faces of the uneducated masses, most of whom are responsible for filling up those oh so 'coveted' military placements. When I see rational about going to war because "they hate our freedom" or media reports congratulating the use of force because "now women can go to school and not have to wear burqas" or "democracy makes everyone so happy," it really turns my stomach. That's not why your sons are at war. They are not fighting for old school noble ideals or charging the battlefield in a new age version of Braveheart. If that was the case, then the world would not have stood by during Rwanda, Darfur and assorted genocides, or turned away from the atrocities in the Congo, or the starving forgotten orphans in the video WMM posted.

War isn't altruistic. It's for greed, need and political gain and ego. I may not agree with it, but unfortunately that is just a reality. What I do wish is that there was less BS and deluded reasoning behind the real intentions. I think people should have a right to know what they are really fighting and dying for... because freedom and liberation still seems to be what a lot of front line military still think is the main reason. Which is another unfortunate incentive for keeping the masses uneducated when you live in a country that likes to go to war (often).

Personally I think war should be used as a last resort and I think you should have an intelligent long term understanding of what you're getting into. Iraq will never end, and that should have been obvious upfront.

subside
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:38:51 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 12/2/2010
Posts: 11
Ideally, nothing justifies war, but in the real world it will become unavoidable. Darfu, Congo, Rhwanda these were civil wars. Internal disputes that in theory outsiders should not get involved with-just like our Civil War between the states. In fact the UN Charter specifically states no country is to interfere with the internal conflict of another nation. This generally relates to the charter's view on self determination. However, Darfu, Congo etc should have been addressed by the western nations. What makes these civil wars diffrent is exactly what was mention in one of the above- widespread (not isolated random) crimes against humanity were/are still being commited-horrible attrocities. The west did get involved in bosnia, but not those other area-why? because of geo-political concerns. Bosnia, Kosovo etc. were part of europe and threatenen to destabilize the surrounding european nations with refugees, economic chaos etc.

So, where horrific crimes against humainty are involved-yes war is justified. The problem is that countries cant agree on what type of force to use or whether they have the resources and can afford to spend those resources half way around the worl. Is africa more important than Europe.

Also, war can be justified when one country threatens another. Again, the UN charter specifically provides that a nation has its right to defend and protect itself. Thus, clearly if ther is a clear and present danger of attack, i belive a country has the right to go to war to defend itself. However, here, here again the problem is what is clear and present, how rea/crediblel is the threat? Is this just a pretense to start the war for a country's benefit.

Oppression in a country does not necessarily mean crimes against humanity. Religious , societal norms, or internal predjudice is does not necessarily rise to the level of justification to go to war. These may be revolting to some cultures, but interferring would be chauvanistic.

So in conclusion war , I believe is justified if the situation involves (1) crimes against humanity; (2) protection and a "clear, present , credible threat, to your country; or, (3) if a country has been premptively attacked.

The botom line is nobody wins in war. Both side lose, but one sometimes loses more
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:56:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 689,307
"I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes." Douglas MacArthur
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:28:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 689,307
Quote:
A country is justified to go to war under real threat of aggression or invasion by another country, I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Countries go to war to secure resources and because of political pressure from allies far more often. Fine. What I hate is the bullshit freedom banner that gets waved in front of the faces of the uneducated masses, most of whom are responsible for filling up those oh so 'coveted' military placements. When I see rational about going to war because "they hate our freedom" or media reports congratulating the use of force because "now women can go to school and not have to wear burqas" or "democracy makes everyone so happy," it really turns my stomach. That's not why your sons are at war. They are not fighting for old school noble ideals or charging the battlefield in a new age version of Braveheart. If that was the case, then the world would not have stood by during Rwanda, Darfur and assorted genocides, or turned away from the atrocities in the Congo, or the starving forgotten orphans in the video WMM posted.

War isn't altruistic. It's for greed, need and political gain and ego. I may not agree with it, but unfortunately that is just a reality. What I do wish is that there was less BS and deluded reasoning behind the real intentions. I think people should have a right to know what they are really fighting and dying for... because freedom and liberation still seems to be what a lot of front line military still think is the main cause. Which is another unfortunate incentive for keeping the masses uneducated when you live in a country that likes to go to war (often).

Personally I think war should be used as a last resort and I think you should have an intelligent long term understanding of what you're getting into. Iraq will never end, and that should have been obvious upfront.



All of this^^

For instance.

Rumsfeld saying that we would have gone to war with Iraq, WMD or not. It was in an interview, look it up, scary shit.

Most people don't understand that our ENTIRE reason for being involved int he middle east is because all oil in the entire world, is bought or sold by the dollar. If the price of oil falls, the amount the dollar is worth, falls at the same rate. If you know this, then you are suddenly able to understand all middle eastern conflicts.

Libya-

We put Gaddafi in power, because he was willing to buy and sell oil in US dollars. His people rose up, saying wait a minute, all this money is going to the US, and it's our oil. We see BP and Exxon taking all of this natural resource, we need to do something quickly. Thus begins the rebellion, and because the US can't back an evil dictator, Gaddafi hates us now, and is threatening to opt out of the "buy in US currency" deal.

Eygpt-

Mubarak was put into power, also by the United States, for the same purpose. With a little extra. We all know the US hates muslims, and Mubarak is a secularist, while the rest of the population is Muslim, therefore, non-secular. So copy and paste everything from above, and apply it to Mubarak.

Iraq-

This is a little different, Sadam Hussein actually was going to go off the "buy and sell oil in only US dollars" plan and switch the Euro. This is simply unacceptable. The US invades Iraq under the banner of WMD, after 9/11. (BTW Hussein and Bin Laden HATED each other, Bin Laden's other goal, besides demolishing the united states was to obliterate Hussein) Of course as americans, we have no knowledge of anything, so we say "ok right-o war=good". We remove Hussein, "peace" is restored, and Iraq is now selling oil in the US dollar again.

If you are reluctant to believe any of this off the cuff (which you should be) it's all out there in the internet, use google, look the information up, form your opinion.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:55:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 689,307
WellMadeMale wrote:
Warning - This is very graphic but suitable for Think Tank placement.
Only click and watch this video link if you are mentally and emotionally stable.
It has been broadcast on The Discovery Channel.


Is this enough justification for a unilateral declaration of war?

I have no answers, just questions.


Yes. However, the nuclear power of this atrocious monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship keeps one weary of sanctions/actions, and provocation. You don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out. And, thanks to world politics, we created (Europe, America, and others) it. Just like we created WWII. Wiki Treaty of Versailles, and you'll get perspective.

Hopefully, our dumb dumb's are smarter than their dumb dumb's. And war will not be within a stones throw.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:42:22 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,489
Location: Cakeland, United States
LadyX wrote:
What justifies war to you?

Atrocities committed by another government on their own people? (Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya)

All of the above? None of them? Some other reason not given?

This thread is for your opinions, not what you believe to be the real motives of real governments.


This is my opinion (tongue in cheek) as are most of my, ummm...opinions.

I would commit US military might, topple dictatorships which I had propped up for decades, just so I could realize financial gain under the table. Every fledgling new government needs revenue generators AND a Central Banking Enterprise! I would commit US Forces to the task of promoting NWO and call it something else, so the rest of you would think it was a good thing and not realize what I'm really doing.

Til it was too damned late and it already was running smoothly. But that's just the tin-foil salesmen in me, shining through, now.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.