When is war justified?

[MobBoss]

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.

Because we see our objectives there being reached by a policy of containment, not one of war.

 

[otago]

Because we see our objectives there being reached by a policy of containment, not one of war.

So the objectives of the USA are to leave a lot of people in North Korea to starve ?
The USA could save them by an invasion ?
Why no invasion ?

 

[MobBoss]

So the objectives of the USA are to leave a lot of people in North Korea to starve ?
The USA could save them by an invasion ?
Why no invasion ?

Its the North Korean leadership doing that...not us.

 

[Agent327]

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...?

(Shortened for brevity.)

It would require a UN or Security Council resolution to justify invasion/war. See Bush Sr's Gulf War for precedent.

I'd like to add another example: Israel's democratic regime notorously ignores UN resolutions with impunity. (Most recently: it can be argued that the walling off of Palestinian area denies Palestinians certain basic human rights.)

 

[potatokiosk]

I generally find war acceptable if it's defending the state from aggression or defending a state/group of people who are under attack. That's the basic idea, I don't feel like cluttering my criteria with minor details.

 

[Gustave5436]

Only a sith thinks in such absolutes.

Justice is an absolute, because if it were relative, it would be meaningless. Whether an action is understandable or not, is quite relative, however. It is quite possible to understand why a starving man might be inclined, or even forced by necessity, to commit theft. However, that does not change the fact that he is committing theft.

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

Theft is a lesser evil than death, but it is still an evil.

History disagrees with you.

Again, understandability/necessity do not equate to justification.

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.

Justice is absolute; an act of infringing on the rights and freedoms of others is always an act of injustice, even if it is necessary for your own survival. If you had foresight, and could see that someone would accidentally kill you in the future, it would be necessary (for your own survival, at least) for you to murder him before he could do so. That does not in any way justify murdering an innocent man.

 

[Communisto]

Justice is an absolute, because if it were relative, it would be meaningless.

Justice is absolutely not an absolute. It is a human concept and is meaningless. "Justice" only exists if you have the ability to back up your version of it with force, otherwise it is a meaningless idea.

There is no universal justice, the universe doesn't give a . .. .. .. . about the slave trade, AIDS or war. The concept of fairness and justice exist only within the human mind and is relative to human culture and opinion.

 

[Xyan]

By my book, war is barbarious and will never have a true justification.

 

[Ecofarm]

Um, not killing people and raping and pillaging and taking their stuff so your king can feel like he has a big dick?

War = raping and pillaging? That's not legal in modern liberal democracies. So, first you change the very definition of what we are talking about.

Then, what if the king actually has a significantly large enough dick? How do you explain his actions then?

So, we have a fake definition of what war is and what its purpose is in the modern democratic world AND we have a completely bizarre idea about what causes war.

You expect me to take this seriously?

It seems to me that the above is a plea to make all wars atrocity and to protect dictators. Perhaps it is founded in a desire to present all authority as illegit so as to facilitate other things. Ultimately, it is not a "point" worth considering.

I'd like to add another example: Israel's democratic regime notorously ignores UN resolutions with impunity.

Israel is not at war with Palestine. In fact, Palestine is not a nation, country, state etc. Saddam was at war (see: definition of cease-fire) and in violation of many Ch. 7 UNSCRs.

Resolutions condemning Israel were not made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but rather under Chapter VI, which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are considered by some commentators to have no binding force under international law.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

Why do you want to add the example? Are you saying the world should go to war over a handful of Ch. 6 hand-slaps upon a nation at peace but not one at war with a handful of Ch 7s? Surely the priorities here are obvious and the example of Israel is inept and off-topic.

it can be argued that the walling off of Palestinian area denies Palestinians certain basic human rights

And it can be argued that Saddam gassing towns of thousands and authorizing rape, torture and murder denied Iraqis basic human rights, but the two things are not comparable. And I don't mean to be picky, but "basic" rights? Really, basic? And why the word "certain", does it mean to reemphasize the wall or to present illusional authority; in other words, can you give other examples of the government of Israel systematically denying basic human rights? I don't mean to be so tediously specific, but I really will not be able to stand an answer of "accidental discharge of rubber bullet near detained rioter's lower legs (stubbed toe suspectedly injured during)"... especially if one wishes to present it as "Israeli soldiers shoot prisoners!". Don't hammer-party the question.

 

[Zebra 9]

I'm assuming Gustave5436 believes there is a God. I will agree with him there and on the fact that justice is absolute (because there is a God who will ultimately uphold justice). This may sound like I'm shifting positions. I, in fact, am not. My argument is that it is justified to invade a nation if that nation is permitting abuse to another. The reason I say abuse is that if a nation's people are starving it is probably for one of two reasons: (1) lack of preparation for a natural phenomena (drought, mass flooding, fire, etc.), (2) because of another nations allowing the destruction of infrastructure in another's land from within their borders. If the reason is the first then it is the fault of those in power, invasion therefore is not justified but maybe required (if aid can not be acquired). If it is the second, invasion is justified, since the nation being invaded is suffering from moves of aggression. Now for you nit-picky people the word nation as I use it is in reference to the governing power of an area, whether they actually have the sufficient power to enforce their decisions or not. If they are incapable of enforcement then they should request assistance from others (any victim nation(s) would probably be very willing to help).

I hope I'm clearer then I feel I was in my last post.

 

[MobBoss]

(Shortened for brevity.)

It would require a UN or Security Council resolution to justify invasion/war. See Bush Sr's Gulf War for precedent.

I'd like to add another example: Israel's democratic regime notorously ignores UN resolutions with impunity. (Most recently: it can be argued that the walling off of Palestinian area denies Palestinians certain basic human rights.)

Israel does what Israel thinks is necessary to survive. Why should any nation allow the UN to dictate their survival to them? Especially when it lacks the power to do anything about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find it funny that some people have justified the Rwandan genocide.

Here's an idea, don't unsustainably overconsume your environment. That way you wouldn't have to murder other people after you've made a mess in your own backyard.

 

[Ecofarm]

Here's an idea, don't unsustainably overconsume your environment. That way you wouldn't have to murder other people after you've made a mess in your own backyard.

What about the desert people? What about people who live at the edge of the desert and their only option is to turn plains into desert via animal consumption because only 'lesser' animals can consume the plant growth possible (shrubs and grass that would someday turn into forest) at the edge directly. They should not make more desert; they should just die? Since when do (imaginary) national boundry map-lines determine who should live and who should die according to environmental capacity, and is it fair to set those boundries at an arbitrary time.

Obviously, I'm not arguing against you but with you - this instance.

Evolutionarily speaking, we have three options:

Adapt
Move
Die

Adaptation in the desert and at its edge has peaked. Now what (see also: George Carlin). Ima Carlin Enviro.

Carlin on Food

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, that's unsustainable reproduction, right?
I understand that everyone is deciding whether to be sustainable or to get all the kids they have the urge to, but it doesn't justify the needed murders once you've overconsumed.

 

[MobBoss]

Justice is an absolute, because if it were relative, it would be meaningless.

But what justice is - is indeed relative in different cultures, and from different viewpoints.

Theft is a lesser evil than death, but it is still an evil.

So we are down to quibbling on what is lesser evil?

Again, understandability/necessity do not equate to justification.

I tend to disagree.

Justice is absolute; an act of infringing on the rights and freedoms of others is always an act of injustice, even if it is necessary for your own survival.

I dont see it that way.

If you had foresight, and could see that someone would accidentally kill you in the future, it would be necessary (for your own survival, at least) for you to murder him before he could do so. That does not in any way justify murdering an innocent man.

The obvious counter to your fantasy, if it were indeed accidental, one with such foresight could avoid the 'accident' to begin with without resorting to murder.

Nor would it do any good if one thinks something like the Butterfly Effect would happen....

 

[MobBoss]

I find it funny that some people have justified the Rwandan genocide.

I find it funny that you dont grasp people here arent justifying that at all.

War =/= genocide. One can ensure the survivability of ones tribe/state/nation and not have to commit genocide. There is also the question in regards to Rwanda was survivability actually at stake, or was it just a grab for power?

I think its funny a guy like you didnt comprehend people in this thread a little better.

 

[Ecofarm]

Well, that's unsustainable reproduction, right?
I understand that everyone is deciding whether to be sustainable or to get all the kids they have the urge to, but it doesn't justify the needed murders once you've overconsumed.

I'm talking about being born into an already overconsumed environment. That's the situation we face. Those in the desert are so pissed, they suicide bomb civilians.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Justice is absolutely not an absolute. It is a human concept and is meaningless. "Justice" only exists if you have the ability to back up your version of it with force, otherwise it is a meaningless idea.

There is no universal justice, the universe doesn't give a . .. .. .. . about the slave trade, AIDS or war. The concept of fairness and justice exist only within the human mind and is relative to human culture and opinion.

You seem to be too narrowly defining justice. There are basic ideals of justice that most cultures universally appreciate. So if there is such a justice, it likely revolves around that concept and breaking them doesn't make it any less unjust even when the breaching party may come up with some reasons to justify it. Very basic ideals like right to life without it being taken away arbitrarily is one, even though cultures tend to differ on when someone agrees to forfeit it. But there's always a reason for it, and arbitrary unjustified killings are typically considered universally unjust. Respect is also another; people typically expect to be respected or valued in some form of the other. But the more developed you make your idea of justice, the more likely your idea of justice will be just culture-centric and "Western" and the more susceptible you'll come to find your idea of justice is actually unjust (disrespectful) for others and more likely you'll just be disappointed in the end. (kind of like the quoted passage here).

 

[innonimatu]

No.

A king - Antigonus Gonatas - had had control of the ancient port of Athens, Piraeus, which was critical to the economic and political life of the city and which essentially functioned as a garrison for the Macedonians to control the city. Chremonides, the man who functioned essentially as the most influential in the Athenian democracy, contracted an alliance with Areus of Sparta and several other Greek states, along with Ptolemy III of Egypt, and then attacked the Macedonian occupiers...so a democracy attacked a king who had rightful control of certain territories (granted by treaty) because those territories - "the Fetters of Greece" - were occupied by a garrison that was subjecting Athens to the Macedonian will.

They were rebelling against Macedonian control then, as that was the true purpose of the garrison. IS rebellion self-defense? I'd argue that it is, but because usually only part of a population rebels the situation is usually complicated...
Well, we can't really expect to solve the "fair war" question in a forum thread, when even the Catholic Church spent centuries debating it