[Mature] What is a Justified War?

[Krillin]

This is a trial run for debate at Chubbs. This thread carries a "Mature" tag, which should also be read as a "Spam-OFF" thread. Be respectful of one another; be intelligent in your posts; be concise, but thorough.

The question is, what, exactly, is a justified war? The topic is removed from the Iraq War, though that will probably be the main example that is debated here.

Thought of in another way, what grounds, if any, justify war?

[Raditzu]

Point of clarification, are you talking about what justifies attacking someone else, or does this also extend to engaging in combat as an act of literal self-defense?

[Krillin]

The topic includes any form of violence toward another party, from pre-emptive action to actual self-defense.

[Bardock]

Self-preservation, if anything, would be the only justification for war. If you're about to be stomped into the ground, don't just sit there and take it up the ass. Otherwise, I don't see a point to it, other than the fact that I believe human beings are naturally violent creatures.

[Bojack]

Self-preservation, if anything, would be the only justification for war.

So you support the Iraq War?

[Zangya]

So you support the Iraq War?

I really don't want to get into this, but I just had to state my opinion. The Iraq War was begun on a matter of principle, and although I may not agree with how it was executed, I still think that we must finish what we started. It's our fault for getting into this mess (and you can't blame it on George Bush -- after all, Congress, which is elected by the people, like the president, agreed to the war) so it should be our burden to get back out of it. Learn from our mistakes.

EDIT: To stay on topic, I agree with Bardock.

[Josh]

Really I don't think there is a way to have a justified war, just that with the level human society is at that it's a necessity at times.

[Bardock]

Self-preservation, if anything, would be the only justification for war. If you're about to be stomped into the ground, don't just sit there and take it up the ass. Otherwise, I don't see a point to it, other than the fact that I believe human beings are naturally violent creatures.

So you support the Iraq War?

No, I don't. The Iraq War, for us, is not about self-preservation. The Iraq War is not even about 9/11. The Iraq War was somebody putting Saddam's picture front and center by associating him with an event that had nothing to do with him. The reasons we went in there were completely obfuscated by the presidency and the media, and anybody who was paying half attention would have realized that. If the US was "up in arms and defending our nation against terrorist attack," we went after the wrong guy. Therefore, I do not believe the Iraq War is about self-preservation, and thus, I do not support it.

Self-preservation, to me, is about fending off an invading country that wants to uproot the current system to put their own in place, a la, an empire. However, the 9/11 attacks were about sending a message, not necessarily eradicating the whole country.


EDIT: Let me clarify one thing: I support our troops, not the war.

[Burter]

I agree with Bardock. Going to war with Iraq has nothing to do with self-preservation, at least not OUR self-preservation.

I'd very much like to see you, Krillin, state your opinion rather then instigate us into it.

[Krillin]

I don't have many opinions. Just a few strong ones.

I don't have any on this particular issue. That's why I picked it.

[Bra]

I believe a war of self-preservation - of life and of safety - is justifiable. Therefore, purely as an example, I won't argue why I think the way I do, I believe the war in Afghanistan is totally justifiable. The war in Iraq, which, thankfully, Canada has no involvement, is not.

Like Bardock, however, I will never blame the soldiers for doing their job. The fault is of politicians who have no understanding of war, not of the men and women who have volunteered in the spirit of protecting their homes.

However, Zangya has a point. Now that there is a war in Iraq, the onus is on the Americans to finish what they started. Don't leave the country in shambles just because public opinion tells you to.

The public is quick to forget the aftermath of such rash decisions. Vietnam, for instance, went to hell the minute America pulled out.

[Belle Hibiki]

Off the top of my head:

- In cases of self-preservation, such as defending oneself against annihilation by an attacking force.

- In cases of the protection of sovereignty and rights, either of states, classes, races, or individuals.

- And I really want to say 'in terms of ideals', but then that opens the door for every crazy to have a justified war because of a screwed up moral structure.

[Bardock]

I also want to say, that the number one reason that is never ever justifiable for war is religion.

[Violet]

I also want to say, that the number one reason that is never ever justifiable for war is religion.

Agreed, it's a ridiculous reason to go to war, and an even more shame to lose lives just because someone prays to a different invisible guy.

[Kirano]

The day the world goes into war over religion is the day God will come down from heaven. I really believe that.

[Aero]

A war can be justified by not only self-preservation, but to preserve the peace in other countries.


An example of this would be if Iran truly did make a nuclear weapon and used it on Israel. I think it would be necessary for another nation to to step in and take some type of action.

[Pink Underoo]

The problem with attacking a nation after they make a nuclear weapon is that they'd have nuclear weapons.

The real response to the threat of a nation that's developing nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against one own nation/allies, should there be no political recourse, is the pre-emptive strike.

The justification for war is pretty simple: there is a limited amount of space/resources/power in the world, and everybody wants more of it and not everybody gets along. Iit comes down to whether or not your nation/allies are the dominate force or the dominated - and that at times is decided by war.

[Krillin]

The justification for war is pretty simple: there is a limited amount of space/resources/power in the world, and everybody wants more of it and not everybody gets along. Iit comes down to whether or not your nation/allies are the dominate force or the dominated - and that at times is decided by war.

That's an explanation as to why there is war. Specifically, the topic is about whether or not war is justified, and if so, in what cases?

Is a resource war justified if success means procuring the resources necessary to remove poverty in a home country? How about the removal of many forms of disease? The provision of expected luxury? Lower gas prices?

The real drive behind this topic is not so much to provide a line between a "good" war and a "bad" war, but the definition of that line itself. What objective factor, if any, provides the justification for a war?

Or is it, rather, subjective, thereby allowing a religious conflict to be justified, if one or more of the parties involved are sincere in their convictions?

[Pink Underoo]

Let me rephrase: do you want to be dominated, or to dominate?

The third option, where everybody holds hands and sings coom by ya, only exists the land of unicorns where every rainbow ends in a pot of gold.

[Bra]

I'd have to agree with you.

Humanity is too fallible to let something is ridiculous as peace and happiness thrive.

Especially with the growing power of hateful nation states like China and North Korea.