War. Is it ever justified?

[Queso]

These are all ideals that were contradictory to "THE WAY IT IS" dogma of the times. I think it is a disservice to humanity to not try to move forward.

agreed. i noticed in my observations, conversations, and arguements, that a LOT of people are terrified of change. in fact without even knowing what they are saying, they have said they hate it.

to hate change, is to hate almost every single thing.

[alxian]

India dropped an atomic bomb on Pakistan to get Kashmir (a region full of resources) that would be justified

 

i justify war, not genoxide.. excessive force cannot be justified

 

but in terms of that example its prime to my argument, for millenia they've fought and still neither has been able to prove they are dominant.. unfortunately its come to such shows of force as nukes, but thats not the answer. at this point in that issue they should work on dividing the spoils of a war long fought before attrition takes too heavy a toll (it already has).

 

--------------

the invasion of Iraq (for resources: oil)

 

i said i wasn't touching that one. because i would have nuked the entire area. in fact i say nuke all nations that can't solve their own problems after centuries or millenia. they obviously don't understand sharing resources in a global economy will get them farther than destroying each other by fighting their fathers wars.

 

and no i did not say nuke them.. i don't know where you read that.. u'r crazy..

 

the UN is a bunch of puppets... they should have the power to disband governments of dangerous countries and repartriate the land to the larger neighboring nations

[motherengine]

Just as we have worked for any of the causes to better mankind. Abolition, Female suffrage, democracy, etc. These are all ideals that were contradictory to "THE WAY IT IS" dogma of the times. I think it is a disservice to humanity to not try to move forward.

 

unfortunately blood is spilt in the process of any nobel effort of change. resistance to change is inevitable. this is not to say 'oh well' but to understand the dynamics of human society and antisipating how to act when approaching volitale issues. human beings would have to physically change into a new species to not have conflict be a part of their lives. world peace is a delusion not afforded to those who understand human nature is reliant on conflict for its very survival.

[Fishteacher73]

I agree to a point, Mother Engine. See my post #2 under the "Human Division" thread. I feel that although it may always be a part of the human condition less war is better than more war. If humanity as a whole would stigmatize aggression it would produce a much more stable environment and war would be less likely. Also a big factor is the distribution of resources. While most areas have the basic biologic resources to sustain life, humans have devised all kinds of "unnecessary" resources such as precious metals/minerals, oil, etc. This conflict over resouces serves no real biological function and is just an extension of old survival instinct.

[pmaust]

War is not necessary at all. If you will give me your property and give to me your total obediance war can be avoided. You choose. :)

[Tim_Lou]

perfection can never be archieved, nor can peace.

There are always some people who try to disturb peace and order, there are people who rob, people who murder, people who fight... for all sorts of reasons.

to obtain peace, we have police, who implement laws. Sometimes, violence must be used to maintain order.

Similar to the world, there must be law to maintain peace. With laws there comes consequences of violation... and the ultimate "consequence" is war.

[alxfamlaw]

War is simply a means to a political end to serve ones own intitiative through military might. Diplomacy takes a back seat until final victory is at hand.

[Tim_Lou]

That's easy to say if the victims are in Sudan or Rwanda. Suppose the victim you choose not to defend is your mother, or daughter?

I still wouldnt consider doing nothing to relativities whos getting murdered as immoral...

there are thousands of people dying each day because of stravation, so, does everyone have to send all their money to support the poors in order to be considered as moral? it is a personal choice, if one person helps another, thats fine. If one person doesnt help another, thats fine as well.

 

(*off topic :) )

[RiverRat]

Humans are immensely territorial.

 

I have a co-worker that goes ‘nuts’ when someone takes his un-assigned parking space.

 

I had a next door neighbor that threatened me with bodily harm because I inadvertently ran over a 2 ft swatch of his yard (the same day I was moving into the house no less – nice welcoming committee !!).

 

This is just one of a few major human traits that would need to be ‘overrode’ in order for War to disappear from the Earth.

 

As humans we learn very little from the past. WWI did not end all Wars and genocide seems to be a reoccurring fad.

 

I would say that humans have the POTENTIAL to evolve to a warless planet … but … it would take a cataclysmic event to change the current mindset and many, many generations to ingrain it

[motherengine]

good point concerning resources fishteacher. as far as stigmatizing violence as a negative i think violence pretty much stigmatizes itself. i have had a few philosophical discussions that became aggressive and i believe that for some people aggression is a natural response to mental disturbance (or any disturbance for that matter). what is learned is the level of aggression in a given response and how one can resolve fear and frustration without giving in to said impulses. the difficulty lies in communicating available information to those who see no other alternative when confronted by things that disturb them. in other words education for those to whom violence is a final solution. of course this is probably not going to stop individuals in governments from being destructive toward each other. but dealing with the issue of natural resourses would be very helpful.

[alxian]

but dealing with the issue of natural resourses would be very helpful.

 

 

but you did not say how nations should deal with conflicts about resources..

 

and did anyone else say anything about wars based on ideals and theologies?

[pgrmdave]

I still wouldnt consider doing nothing to relativities whos getting murdered as immoral...

 

Then what constitutes immoral? Sitting by and doing nothing is immoral, in my eyes. This, however, does not mean that we need to try to solve all the world's problems at once. In most instances, it is better to act locally, because we can be more effective, however, there is a tipping point at which we need to act globally, i.e. the tsunami.

 

and did anyone else say anything about wars based on ideals and theologies?

 

Remember, we are not asking whether any specific war has been justified, but rather whether war could be justified, at least, that was my understanding of the question.

[sanctus]

Buffy,

you are right with all the history of how Hitler came to power and that's my point if at the end of WWI, people wouldn't have been in such a "revenge-mood" against germany WWII could have been avoided.Or as well, if in the thirties the world have been able to recognize their mistake, they could have made concession to germany what would have tooken away many supporters.

I agree, this are only ifs, but they show that a pacifique alternative was there if the world wouldn't have waited ages to see reality.

 

About your second point, you are right I can't deny that some people may have died for "my freedom" in the cold war, because if we were under Stalin, it would be quite different nowadays around here I guess. The difference is that those people didn't go to war, as I underestand it, to save my freedom, they died on spying missions something that is done as well now when there is no war.

[Buffy]

you are right with all the history of how Hitler came to power and that's my point if at the end of WWI, people wouldn't have been in such a "revenge-mood" against germany WWII could have been avoided.Or as well, if in the thirties the world have been able to recognize their mistake, they could have made concession to germany what would have tooken away many supporters.

I agree, this are only ifs, but they show that a pacifique alternative was there if the world wouldn't have waited ages to see reality.

There's no way to make a "final" call on these points, cuz its definitely an exercise in "what ifs" which unfortunately is true about analyzing whether any political decisions were right. Lets just say that reasonable people can disagree on this one, and there are those who think that even if the Versaille treaty had been fair, the economic upheavals would have still been enough to get Hitler into power: all he'd have to do is come up with some other red herring to put people on his side, there was a real vacuum of alternative politicians, so it would not have taken much, but as you say, its all "what-ifs"....

 

About your second point, you are right I can't deny that some people may have died for "my freedom" in the cold war, because if we were under Stalin, it would be quite different nowadays around here I guess. The difference is that those people didn't go to war, as I underestand it, to save my freedom, they died on spying missions something that is done as well now when there is no war.

Again, this is an issue of interpretation. Whether it was a "Cold War" or a "Hot Peace" is a pretty gray area...

 

Don't give up your principles sanctus! we're dead without people pulling on your side of this issue! The problem in between-the-wars Germany was that there *wasn't* enough argument going on on both sides.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[sanctus]

Don't give up your principles sanctus! we're dead without people pulling on your side of this issue! The problem in between-the-wars Germany was that there *wasn't* enough argument going on on both sides.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

It's again a hidden when-if thingy, maybe even with more arguments......

 

I'll give up my principles when I see a reason to adopt other ones, I won't stick do them at any cost, but as long as I'm convinced they are the right ones....thanks anyway :)

[blah]

Is war ever justified?

I don't think so. Well I'm a pacifist and have opposed almost every war the US has fought, because their has not been enough reason to Go mass murder people. :rolleyes:

War maybe hel,l but itcan be justified. If someone attacks us we have to right to go after them!

[KillMeBySuicide]

war is justified.

 

by defense and by religion.

 

i'm not a fighter either, but using religion as a cause for war is just rediculous.

 

defense can be seen from a different point of view, but still, people should never have to fight, when they can talk.

 

the problem is, not too many poeple in this world can talk any more