Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

right - correctness .

[Ben Kenobi]

So right merely means the same as getting the answer correct on a spelling test?

Now that's shallow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again (I'll quote myself):

How is the truth shallow?

[Ben Kenobi]

We don't learn anything from your statement.

That's why I think it's shallow.

You offer no insights.

And you think you've found the truth?

What is right is far more than the correct answer on a spelling test. It has far more significance, of much greater concern.

[Velociryx]

The problem with the whole "turn the other cheek" concept is that it doesn't work unless everybody plays along*. If one side turns the other cheek, and the other side sharpens their swords and axes, at the end of the day, we'll have lots of dead cheek turners.

If this is the "price of peace" (and it is), then the price is too high.

War is justified because force MUST be met with force when all other expedient options fail.

Note that I did *not* say when "all" options fail.

War, and the conditions leading up to it are subjective in their nature, and each side decides when enough is enough.

Might does not make right. Might makes the power of enforcement of one's will possible. That's all.

Sometimes, the enforcement of one's will can be for the greater good, and sometimes it can be purely for gain of one kind or another. In our history, we've seen some of both, though mostly the latter variety.

We are a warrior-race. Killer apes. Evolution did that to us, and a scant few thousand years of relative civility aren't going to effectively counter hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary success.

We scraped and clawed our way from fruit-picking to tool making, to tool using, and wasted NO time in putting those tool-making and tool-using skills to work in perfecting the art of war, which is, by the way, an entirely human endeavour.

Our success cannot be disputed. There are no other races of hominids left alive on planet earth, though there is substantial evidence that there used to be, but we used our two greatest attributes (as mentioned before, success in fighting and success in fvcking), to dominate the planet. If it presented a threat to us, and we could not bend it to our will (ie - the domestication of certain wild animals along the way), we destroyed it or decimated its numbers sufficiently to drive it out of our primary living areas.

We're good at war. We excel at it.

In more recent times, we have shown a certain aptitude toward other, less destructive skills too. We've invented certain fineries....poetry, the arts, splendid archetecture.

But make no mistake....these newfangled inventions we so cherish are *luxuries*, not natural, inborn, given rights that will always be. At the core, we are still very much the killer ape, and should a select population intentionally lower their guard and pretend that they are otherwise is an open invitation to be utterly dominated and destroyed by those who are more comfortable with their baser natures. If you ("you" in this case, being used generically, to represent any group who foolishly believes that here, in today's world) think you can simply declare yourself above the "primitiveness and barbarism" of war, and somehow gain immunity from it, then you are sadly mistaken.

One day, again, assuming we don't kill ourselves off with our exquisitely honed warring skills, the hope is that we can outgrow and move beyond that which has prompted our meteoric rise and success.

But don't count on it in your lifetime.

Or your children's, for that matter.

-=Vel=-

* in much the same way that the communist ideal can't and won't work, cos invariably, someone refuses to play along and grabs power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So right merely means the same as getting the answer correct on a spelling test?

Now that's shallow.

I never said might makes right. war is a method, a means, not a thing in itself. As such, there are times when war is the only means you can use to achieve your goal, be the gol moral or immoral. As such war has no inherent ethical value. It is what you are fighting for that gives the action its morality.

[FrantzX]

"War is war; destruction is destruction. You think this is obvious. But war is not destruction, it is victory. To achieve victory, simply appear to give the opponent what he wants and he will go away, or join you in your quest for additional power."

-- Datatech Sinder Roze
"Information Burns"

[Imran Siddiqui]

You offer no insights.

Only if you close your mind. It's a very descriptive statement of how the world works. Those with might decide what is right and just. That is the way it has always been and how it will continue to be.

What is right is far more than the correct answer on a spelling test. It has far more significance, of much greater concern.

No it doesn't. Because what is 'right' to you, means nothing to the people that are calling the shots. Who cares what you think is right?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The short answer is yes.

War is justifiable.

Some people who fancy themselves "enlightened" and "above" the notions of war...the notions that sometimes force must be met with force are denying some of the more basic facts of our nature as a species.

That's all well and good, but their high-minded denial does not change the way the world is.

People hate. People steal. People starve and torture each other.

Sucks, but it's the truth.

And if you project weakness, then others who think themselves stronger WILL attempt to take what you've got by force.

If you don't like it, be prepared to shoot back.

If you are not prepared to shoot back, that's certainly your choice, and you will be ushered quietly off the world's stage.

-=Vel=-

My words exactly. Its the law of the jungle out there. Sure, we have a UN and other charades that put on the illusion of international civilization, but in reality its just a fight for survival.

Some think it would be ideal that the US and others pacify, and completely dump their militaries, but if the US and others did this, some wouldnt and take advantage of it. There are a lot of real jerks out there, who are willing to put many others in pain for their own self-gain. Unless your prepared to accept this pain without a fight, a military, and thus the probablity of war, is necessary.

Kman

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

You offer no insights.

Only if you close your mind. It's a very descriptive statement of how the world works. Those with might decide what is right and just. That is the way it has always been and how it will continue to be.

So we should just accept it? There's a book about that same thing going to the extreme. It's called 1984, I suggest you all read it.

No it doesn't. Because what is 'right' to you, means nothing to the people that are calling the shots. Who cares what you think is right?

So we should just shut up then too...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So we should just accept it? There's a book about that same thing going to the extreme. It's called 1984, I suggest you all read it.

Yes, because 1984 actually seems like it will happen in this 'might makes right' world. The people with might will REALLY let the government has that much power? Don't think so.

And you already have accepted it, over and over. If you didn't, you'd go somewhere where there wasn't a government. Even if you revolt, you accept that 'might makes right'. You simply want to see someone else with the might.

So we should just shut up then too...

If that makes you feel better . I don't care if you shut up or not, because it doesn't matter (unless you happen to be an elected representatve). Do what you want.


Oh, and C-Beast!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
And if you read Sun tzu, for him killing in war is secondary, and in fact, usually the result of ones failure to win the "war" any other way.

Absolutely.

Sun Tsu listed 5 ways to win, what the US is doing now (attacking cities) is the lowest.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman


My words exactly. Its the law of the jungle out there. Sure, we have a UN and other charades that put on the illusion of international civilization, but in reality its just a fight for survival.

Some think it would be ideal that the US and others pacify, and completely dump their militaries, but if the US and others did this, some wouldnt and take advantage of it. There are a lot of real jerks out there, who are willing to put many others in pain for their own self-gain. Unless your prepared to accept this pain without a fight, a military, and thus the probablity of war, is necessary.

Kman

The problem is that the US has never stopped for a moment to think about consecuenses of its actions. It acts supposedly to correct a wrongdoing (usually result of a previous stupidity - i.e. bin Laden) yet doesn't go back and analize where the problem started.

Superficial solutions to deep problems aren't worth a thing at all, you're only covering a festering wound with a bandage. US Leaders should sit down and think what has REALLY casued the problems in the middle east and thus find a better solution. War in Iraq, ok so Saddam is toppled and the Iraqui people are "liberated", and all those orfans all those people who had something to lose now have one more excuse to blow up airliners. And soon enough another madman will emerge, maybe not in Iraq but somewhere else and once again the US will be called in to "liberate" the poor souls, and so forth and so forth.

The problems in Iraq and the middle east will not be solved by a few smart bombs (or 10,000 of them). Each problem is the result of a previous problem left unresolved (and don't start saying 9/11 is the root of all evil because it's not).

What's really a shame is that we truly never give peace a chance and when we go to war we do it for less than noble reasons.

-MZ

[Urban Ranger]

My view is, when the US start becoming the receiving end of invasions, the pro-war camp's perspective of war wil fall in line with the rest of the world.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My view is, when the US start becoming the receiving end of invasions, the pro-war camp's perspective of war wil fall in line with the rest of the world.

Yep, suddenly all the warmonger will turn peaceniks. Oh I hope I live to see the day

War is only nice when you're sure to win it, and half-way around the world.

[Mr. President]

My alternative for this war in Iraq, though, is to give supervised humanitarian and social aid to Iraq and educate it's people and bring it into a first world nation, it'll change slowly over time and with the Iraqi people in control of it's destiny, instead of an imperialist dictator forcing change and subjugating the land for it's own purposes.

That sounds very nice. But being a First World country is something that nations are born to.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Master Zen



War is only nice when you're sure to win it, and half-way around the world.

Obviously.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
War is only nice when you're sure to win it,

If you didn't think you'd win, you wouldn't wage it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

If you didn't think you'd win, you wouldn't wage it.

What country in their right minds would start a war they know they would lose??? Even the most desperate believes they have a chance of victory, or at least not losing (i.e. Japan 1941)

[Kramerman]

Superficial solutions to deep problems aren't worth a thing at all, you're only covering a festering wound with a bandage.

no, thats called appeasement, and to a lessor extent, containment. The US is currently performing surgery on the wound...

US Leaders should sit down and think what has REALLY casued the problems in the middle east and thus find a better solution.

They have, and they, as the US's elected leaders, believe this to be one of the best solutions (remember, there are no good solutions, only bad ones. SOme are not as bad as others however...)

War in Iraq, ok so Saddam is toppled and the Iraqui people are "liberated", and all those orfans all those people who had something to lose now have one more excuse to blow up airliners.

Perhaps for a year after the war. Then they'll see a big change in how much better their lives have gotton, unless, of course, they think like this: 'Those dirty Americans! how dare they topple our dictator and bring a functioning secular democracy to our country that actually makes sure we have enough to eat and clean water to drink!'

And soon enough another madman will emerge, maybe not in Iraq but somewhere else and once again the US will be called in to "liberate" the poor souls, and so forth and so forth.

Well, if the madman presents a great enough threat, or potential future threat to the US, as Saddam has, then yes, we will take him down. The US will not roll over and die. Many people hate, and want to see us destroyed. We arent just gonna sit here and take it, were gonna fight back. If it is one country after another, as you say, then so be it, at least at that rate soon the world would be purged of dictatorships

The problems in Iraq and the middle east will not be solved by a few smart bombs (or 10,000 of them). Each problem is the result of a previous problem left unresolved (and don't start saying 9/11 is the root of all evil because it's not).

And invading Iraq and setting up a democracy in the ME is a step towards that. With Saddam no longer threatening our oil interests, we can pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, which has inflamed many muslims because they are "infidels poisoning the holy land". Invading Iraq is a step towards many progressive ideas to help put out the fire in the ME (long term of course, we must think in the long term). There is a lot more to explain, but i am low on time, perhaps later... its just kinda short sighted to suggest what the US is doing now will only create more harm. It is a possibility, but so is the opposite.

What's really a shame is that we truly never give peace a chance and when we go to war we do it for less than noble reasons.

We gave peace a chance for 12 years. I agree, peace must be given a chance, but there is a point that we crossed where it becomes dangerous not to act with force.

Kman

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

no, thats called appeasement, and to a lessor extent, containment. The US is currently performing surgery on the wound...

yeah, just when the cancer spread all over the middle east since waaay back

They have, and they, as the US's elected leaders, believe this to be one of the best solutions (remember, there are no good solutions, only bad ones. SOme are not as bad as others however...)

There are no good solutions?? Thank heavens you are not in elected office...

Perhaps for a year after the war. Then they'll see a big change in how much better their lives have gotton, unless, of course, they think like this: 'Those dirty Americans! how dare they topple our dictator and bring a functioning secular democracy to our country that actually makes sure we have enough to eat and clean water to drink!'

And I suppose the people of every other country the US has invaded believes the contrary... ok, right...

Well, if the madman presents a great enough threat, or potential future threat to the US, as Saddam has, then yes, we will take him down. The US will not roll over and die. Many people hate, and want to see us destroyed. We arent just gonna sit here and take it, were gonna fight back. If it is one country after another, as you say, then so be it, at least at that rate soon the world would be purged of dictatorships

Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking that's going to get alot of people killed. Ever wonder that the rest of the world does not agree with the way most USians thinks? Ever bother to care why?

And invading Iraq and setting up a democracy in the ME is a step towards that. With Saddam no longer threatening our oil interests, we can pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, which has inflamed many muslims because they are "infidels poisoning the holy land". Invading Iraq is a step towards many progressive ideas to help put out the fire in the ME (long term of course, we must think in the long term). There is a lot more to explain, but i am low on time, perhaps later... its just kinda short sighted to suggest what the US is doing now will only create more harm. It is a possibility, but so is the opposite.

So you are admitting that it is not necessarily good, and past experience shows that toppling dictators does not leave countries in the right hands forever. I am amazed that 90% of all people from the US I've ever talked to think as you do. It's a shame because with such an educational system I would expect people to open their minds a bit, stop believing all the crap their government dishes out and realize once and for all that the war in Iraq is being waged for less than moral reasons.

It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

[Ned]

War is justified (i.e., offensive war is justified) if its objective is to restore law and order, all other reasonable means have been taken, an ultimatum has been given, and then only if a coalitiion of nations bands together to restore law and order.

War would be unnecessary if there was an international government, law and a police force. However, there would still be force - but it would be in the form of police enforcing the law as opposed to armies enforcing the law.

The alleged problem with the Iraq war is not that Iraq was not in violation of law, but that some (French) did not believe in giving Saddam a deadline - an ultimatum. This was also Schroeder's problem as well.

As well put by his CDU opponent in the last election, the problem with Schroeder's position -- of taking the option of force off the table -- is that the likes of Saddam will never voluntarily comply with the law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


It's funny but during World War II, a TRUE war of liberation, US operations were given names reflecting overwhelming force: Dragoon, Overlord, Cobra. Now, when public opinion is not so favorable, you change the names to something only Stalin would have made up: Operation Iraqui Freedom. Jesus, what a cheap propaganda tool AND THE US POPULATION BUYS IT!! hilarious. Even Gulf War I, a true war to stop aggression, was named Desert Storm.

Ever wonder why they do that? What's in a name? Because when you name an operation like Desert Storm it's because you are so damn sure that world opinion, righteousness and truth are behind you, so you don't mind if it has a kick-ass name. When you KNOW that it is a blatant war of aggression to satisfy Georgie Jr's urges then you have to give it an "ethical" sounding name. Pathetic. As cheap as propaganda can get. What more proof do you need than this!

I don't know where you get off saying this is an American invasion. There is a coalition of 50+ nations involved in the war against Saddam. Endless repeating of the same false mantra will not change the facts.

But as to the name of the operation, yeah I kind of agree that it is wimpy.

I would have like something like "Endless Thunder" signifying the power of the bombing campaign.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


I don't know where you get off saying this is an American invasion. There is a coalition of 50+ nations involved in the war against Saddam. Endless repeating of the same false mantra will not change the facts.

Now its 50+? AFAIK know there's 2 slugging it out unlike GW1. Using that same argument is like saying that there's a coalition of 150+ nations against the US because they are not supporting it. And would the UK gone at it alone? Ha! You know perfectly well it is a US invasion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Now its 50+? AFAIK know there's 2 slugging it out unlike GW1. Using that same argument is like saying that there's a coalition of 150+ nations against the US because they are not supporting it. And would the UK gone at it alone? Ha! You know perfectly well it is a US invasion.

I think you mix up the fact that the US military is leading the effort with actual support for what the coalition is doing. For example, we consult closely with our partners concerning both military and political strategy.

What upsets the French and the Germans is that we do not consult them on the future of Iraq.

I wonder why?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned


I think you mix up the fact that the US military is leading the effort with actual support for what the coalition is doing. For example, we consult closely with our partners concerning both military and political strategy.

What upsets the French and the Germans is that we do not consult them on the future of Iraq.

I wonder why?

And who's bright idea was it in the first place? Turkey's? Italy's? I think not.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Ned


I think you mix up the fact that the US military is leading the effort with actual support for what the coalition is doing. For example, we consult closely with our partners concerning both military and political strategy.

What upsets the French and the Germans is that we do not consult them on the future of Iraq.

I wonder why?

Well, if you oppose France, you oppose the WORLD.... at least that's the impression I get when I read the complaints on various boards and such.

Yep, it's all a unilateral effort by the USA... which is why we apparently annexed the UK, most of Eastern Europe, Australia... etc.

[Ned]

Just a bit to support what I say:

"Thousands of leaflets bearing a personal message from Tony Blair to the people of Iraq are to be distributed by British troops, it has emerged. In the leaflet, printed in Arabic, Mr Blair promises Iraqis that Britain will help them build a "new, free and united Iraq", run by and for its own people. As soon as dictator Saddam Hussein is overthrown, he says, coalition troops will make the country safe and "work with the United Nations to help Iraq get back on its feet".

On the point of who "thought" of using force - of course it was George Bush - president of the United States. Nothing at all gets done in this world unless we take the initiative. We learned this when we stood back and let the French run the UN operation in Bosnia. When they let Sebrenicia happen, we knew that we had to take the lead. The US, lead by president Clinton, fixed Bosnia and then fixed Kosovo. Bush is simply carrying on in the steps of Bill Clinton and fix up the mess of Iraq that began when Saddam invaded Iran.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Just a bit to support what I say:

"Thousands of leaflets bearing a personal message from Tony Blair to the people of Iraq are to be distributed by British troops, it has emerged. In the leaflet, printed in Arabic, Mr Blair promises Iraqis that Britain will help them build a "new, free and united Iraq", run by and for its own people. As soon as dictator Saddam Hussein is overthrown, he says, coalition troops will make the country safe and "work with the United Nations to help Iraq get back on its feet".

So NOW they want to work with the UN??? Hypocrites. If you want to work with the UN you do it when it favors you and when it doesn't. Sidestepping it when it suits your ends just goes to show what the US and UK really think of it.

On the point of who "thought" of using force - of course it was George Bush - president of the United States.

So it is a US invasion after all...

Nothing at all gets done in this world unless we take the initiative. We learned this when we stood back and let the French run the UN operation in Bosnia. When they let Sebrenicia happen, we knew that we had to take the lead. The US, lead by president Clinton, fixed Bosnia and then fixed Kosovo. Bush is simply carrying on in the steps of Bill Clinton and fix up the mess of Iraq that began when Saddam invaded Iran.

And since when has the world appointed the US as the official "fixer" of world problems (most of which it has helped contribute to happening)? There are countless other countries in a mess which the US does not bother to "fix". Why it chooses Iraq is proof enough of less than noble intentions.

[DinoDoc]

Sidestepping it when it suits your ends just goes to show what the US and UK really think of it.

Where you whining this much when the EU avoided a Russian veto and beat the snot out of Serbia?