When is war justified?

[Phlegmak]

War is justified when god orders it.

 

[Mbest95]

When you are attacked or you are allied with another country.

 

[Zebra 9]

Example: the War on Iraq was definitely not justified, as it's pretext was proven false (and international support for it limited - until after the fact, when a new status quo had arisen).

Colorization by me.

Ok, I'm not gona say that I think the US should be in Iraq but I have a few questions for you.
(RED TEXT) Was it proven false before or after the invasion? I'm pretty sure it was after the fact. So we stayed to finish the job of removing Huisane (SP?).
(ORANGE TEXT) So if a bunch of nations get together and decide to attack another it makes it justified?

 

[holy king]

when the helvetii pack their things, burn their cities and try to overrun roman provinces it's justified to annihilate... ehm pacify them.

 

[Zarn]

It is justified when the invaded state has a high percentage of heretics.

It is also justified, when you want their natural resources.

 

[Agent327]

Colorization by me.

Ok, I'm not gona say that I think the US should be in Iraq but I have a few questions for you.
(RED TEXT) Was it proven false before or after the invasion? I'm pretty sure it was after the fact. So we stayed to finish the job of removing Huisane (SP?).
(ORANGE TEXT) So if a bunch of nations get together and decide to attack another it makes it justified?

I just used the example of the War on Iraq as an example of (un-)justified war as it is quite known and fairly recent. Another example might be the invasion of Georgia - which is however a bit more complex.

 

[SG-17]

When that country scout blocks a resource that you need and the only way to get it is kill the scout.

 

[Communisto]

War is justified as long as you are capable of enforcing your version of justice.

Everything else is irrelevent.

 

[MobBoss]

Absolutely no one addressed my earlier point.

Let me ask you all a question:

If I am a leader of my people, and my people are beginning to starve or die for various reasons, and I have tried to deal with the prosperous nations neighboring our lands, but they wont help us, wont trade with us fairly, and are essentially waiting for us to die off as a people prior to subsuming our lands.......am I not justified in taking action to save my people and their way of life by resorting to war in order accomplish this? Or should I simply shrug my shoulders as my people, men, women and children simply starve to death and die because someone might consider my invasion of more properous lands as unjustified or immoral?

 

[Zebra 9]

MobBoss, that would be a situation where the moral action would seem immoral to most onlookers. So yes I say a nation in that situation has the right to defend it self from abuse.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, that would be a situation where the moral action would seem immoral to most onlookers. So yes I say a nation in that situation has the right to defend it self from abuse.

Its not defending itself from abuse...its going to act to survive - to the detriment of others, but if survival is at stake, its not immoral nor unjustified to do so.

 

[Gustave5436]

Absolutely no one addressed my earlier point.

Let me ask you all a question:

If I am a leader of my people, and my people are beginning to starve or die for various reasons, and I have tried to deal with the prosperous nations neighboring our lands, but they wont help us, wont trade with us fairly, and are essentially waiting for us to die off as a people prior to subsuming our lands.......am I not justified in taking action to save my people and their way of life by resorting to war in order accomplish this? Or should I simply shrug my shoulders as my people, men, women and children simply starve to death and die because someone might consider my invasion of more properous lands as unjustified or immoral?

You are combating injustice with more injustice. This is necessary for your own survival, but that doesn't make it just. The just situation would still be peaceful trade and cooperation.

 

[illram]

Never.

10char

 

[Arwon]

Absolutely no one addressed my earlier point.

Let me ask you all a question:

If I am a leader of my people, and my people are beginning to starve or die for various reasons, and I have tried to deal with the prosperous nations neighboring our lands, but they wont help us, wont trade with us fairly, and are essentially waiting for us to die off as a people prior to subsuming our lands.......am I not justified in taking action to save my people and their way of life by resorting to war in order accomplish this? Or should I simply shrug my shoulders as my people, men, women and children simply starve to death and die because someone might consider my invasion of more properous lands as unjustified or immoral?

Are you advocating war against the United States?

 

[Luckymoose]

This world would be better with more wars.

 

[MobBoss]

You are combating injustice with more injustice. This is necessary for your own survival, but that doesn't make it just. The just situation would still be peaceful trade and cooperation.

Of course it is just. Injustice is watching your own people starve. What if your neighbors arent interested peaceful trade and cooperation?

 

[El_Machinae]

War is justified as long as you are capable of enforcing your version of justice.

Everything else is irrelevent.

I think this is a very amazing way of stating your position. I think it assumes relative morality, or at least relative social values. But it's got a pretty good universal base.

 

[Gustave5436]

Of course it is just. Injustice is watching your own people starve. What if your neighbors arent interested peaceful trade and cooperation?

Injustice is injustice, regardless of the circumstances. Theft is not justified just because you're starving. Mass murder is not justified just because your people are starving. Circumstances may necessitate theft or war, but they do not justify it.

Then there's the authoritarian nature of any competitive system; the rulers of your neighbors are the guilty ones, the people they rule over are innocent. Yet it is the ruled, not the rulers, who must die in war.

 

[otago]

Absolutely no one addressed my earlier point.

Let me ask you all a question:

If I am a leader of my people, and my people are beginning to starve or die for various reasons, and I have tried to deal with the prosperous nations neighboring our lands, but they wont help us, wont trade with us fairly, and are essentially waiting for us to die off as a people prior to subsuming our lands.......am I not justified in taking action to save my people and their way of life by resorting to war in order accomplish this? Or should I simply shrug my shoulders as my people, men, women and children simply starve to death and die because someone might consider my invasion of more properous lands as unjustified or immoral?

So why no invasion of North Korea by the USA ?
Or are they just a bit too much of a mouthful ?
If the USA tries to use morality for invasions the question will always be, why invade just the weak countries.

 

[MobBoss]

Injustice is injustice, regardless of the circumstances.

Only a sith thinks in such absolutes.

Theft is not justified just because you're starving.

A lot of people will disagree with this. Would you just starve? Or would you steal to survive?

Mass murder is not justified just because your people are starving.

History disagrees with you.

Circumstances may necessitate theft or war, but they do not justify it.

Of course they do. Justification isnt absolute. War is merely a means to an end, in my humble opinion, war is absolutely justified if survival is at stake.