can we justify war ?

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
How many anti-warists would be willing to tell me that the American War for Indepence was wrong, the American Civil War was wrong, and the allies involvement in the World Wars was wrong?
Click to expand...

Hi Virginia. I think it's important to take into account things out of their historical context and into their respective motivations. I.e., take it out of "rationalization" and into actual justifications.

The opposing arguments, in both the U.S. Revolutionary War and the U.S. Civil War, are that of self-determination vs territorial integrity. In the Revolutionary War, it was self-determination that won out, while in the Civil war it was territorial integrity that won out.

Historically, whoever wins gets to say they were right. Remove the historical advantage, and you find a paradox in ideology.
 

DeletedUser

"All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers"Now i remember who said this George Washington
 

DeletedUser

terrorists don't have a religion

there nothing like " a good Christian, or a bad Christian " (this is just an example), only there r good humans and bad humans, and terrorists fall into the second category
 

DeletedUser

I disagree with you nakshtrap. The definition of "terrorist" is an opportunistic one. The greater power calls the lessor power a terrorist. The greater power wishes for a conventional war, but the lessor power realizes they have no chance of winning a conventional war, so they choose to fight an unconventional war.

The notion that war is fought by soldiers alone is a disturbing misprint on what is perceived as "civilized." In our particular societies, we have separated citizens into castes. They fight, or they do not. They are military or they are civilian.

The advertised notion is that those who fight, those in the military, should be the only ones targeted in a war. But, this is a notion of convenience and of arrogance. One cannot dictate to the opposition just how a war is to be fought. One can only deal with a war in the manner it is presented. One doesn't stay "protected" by merely choosing not to fight. The ruling caste cannot hide behind their warrior caste and think they are immune to injury or repercussions, merely because they are not warriors.

The barbarism of war exists. The barbarism of illegal actions are a balancing contrast to the civility of modern day life. The military/police serves as a barbaric extension of a civilized society but, the actions of persons within that civilized bubble, which foster hostility and suffrage in other nations, cannot be dismissed merely because they hold a teacup. There are consequences to exploitation of other nations, of those less fortunate, those less civilized. A war fought on lands far from home does not justify an opulant lifestyle at home. In fact, it condemns it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

what i hate the most is the children r forced to participate in the wars
 

DeletedUser

You see the have no hearts just kill and keep killing till death and also its the thing what soldier do in war many show brutality towards enemy but still we saw them Greater than Terrorists
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
I disagree with you nakshtrap. The definition of "terrorist" is an opportunistic one. The greater power calls the lessor power a terrorist. The greater power wishes for a conventional war, but the lessor power realizes they have no chance of winning a lessor war, so they choose to fight an unconventional war.

The notion that war is fought by soldiers alone is a disturbing misprint on what is perceived as "civilized." In our particular societies, we have separated citizens into castes. They fight, or they do not. They are military or they are civilian.

The advertised notion is that those who fight, those in the military, should be the only ones targeted in a war. But, this is a notion of convenience and of arrogance. One cannot dictate to the opposition just how a war is to be fought. One can only deal with a war in the manner it is presented. One doesn't stay "protected" by merely choosing not to fight. The ruling caste cannot hide behind their warrior caste and think they are immune to injury or repercussions, merely because they are not warriors.

The barbarism of war exists. The barbarism of illegal actions are a balancing contrast to the civility of modern day life. The military/police serves as a barbaric extension of a civilized society but, the actions of persons within that civilized bubble, which foster hostility and suffrage in other nations, cannot be dismissed merely because they hold a teacup. There are consequences to exploitation of other nations, of those less fortunate, those less civilized. A war fought on lands far from home does not justify an opulant lifestyle at home. In fact, it condemns it.
Click to expand...

Quoted so it shall survive the spam.
It's one of the few sensible things said in a few pages.
 

DeletedUser

gizmo501 said:
war is justified if it is a war to protect other people.

look at world war 2 and Hitler. do you think it was Justified that we went after him for killing the Jewish people
Click to expand...

True that was justified. Thank god for the many brave lads who came here to fight for our freedom.
But the cause of the war was not a necessary evil. Hitler started it and THAT can't be justified.
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
How many anti-warists would be willing to tell me that the American War for Indepence was wrong, the American Civil War was wrong, and the allies involvement in the World Wars was wrong?
Click to expand...

Ok, Virginia. Let's dance.

The American Revolution: I have covered this in several debates (but not on this forum), and unless you have some radically new arguments, I have heard everything you have to say. I still can't see the justification for it.

US Civil War: Emancipation was good, but it wasn't the cause of the war. However, I would still consider this war as a "necessary evil". And that's the closest a war can ever come to being a good thing.

WW1 / WW2: Bad things, but they stopped worse things from happening. So again: necessary evils.
 

DeletedUser

WW1 was the worst thing to have happened to humanity at all, until that point in time. What "worse thing" did it stop from happening? I would like some clearer explanation for your "necessary evils". Political and social change cannot be considered an excuse, many countries have achieved independance without resorting to war, and with the example set by Ghandi we should realise that non-violent means can be as effective as any other for bringing about reform.
So far the only justification I can understand is for taking part against the axis in WW2, but as others have pointed out, they were the aggressors, and totally unjustified.
 

DeletedUser

I think it's important to remember that many conflicts are perpetrated by amoral persons. Such was the case with WWII (Hitler) and what has been happening in Burma. Also, certain acts within a conflict are simply not okay, whilst others can be construed as necessary. So, while we can attempt to analyze the bigger picture, we should not lose sight of the smaller, nor should we attempt to plus-size the moral rights of a particular stance in a conflict whilst ignoring the moral wrongs also committed.

What i'm saying is: There are plenty of bad things that happen in a war, many of which have no impact on the final outcome. It is convenient to "weigh" the good with the bad and say a war is right but, it is not appropriate and nor is it morally right.

I think that is part of the debate here, in that some view the good and others view the bad, and weigh the outcome on what they perceive as heavier. The thing is, good is good, but bad is irreconcilable. Right is not right merely because there is more right than wrong.
 

DeletedUser

Precisely, the ends do not justify the means. Especially if the means involves killing and destruction on the scale of war.
 

DeletedUser

WW 2 was the worst thing to happen in the history of wars, compared to it, WW1 looked a lot less threatening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top