The Just War. Myth or Fact?

But a war doesn't involve just attacked people, it involves all sides of the conflict as well as a much larger group on non-interested people (ie civilians)...

All the official sides will claim it is a Just War for different (and in a lot of cases, opposing) reasons.

Each person who supports it (for whatever reason), will give you justification for their side being involved in it and truly mean it.

But war itself, it is not just, it is not right, it is not fair. It is killing and destruction.

 

Probably all the time; wars ends were justifying that Means. But only God was in touch for that End. But God empties the culture for involvement in this and that; hence, there is no such judgment is realizable for that God during the war, and effectively even after the War (which was the moral decision; who was the moral side). This religious conclusion is stupid if only because human rights are at stake and considered eventually even in historical terms, and therefore, the Just War is a myth for how can a war of National self-determination truly mean human rights?

Karzai is bullshit that way.

 

Depends on who you talk to.

 

I agree war and killing is evil, but if someone is commiting genocide for example isn't just as bad to do nothing and let it happen? In a situation like that I think action should be taken and I don't mean preemptive.

 

I specifically said that sometimes going to war is necessary. I just don't agree that it makes it a 'just' thing to do.

When you make people suffer for the actions of others, it can never be justice.

If you could show me a way in which to wage war and only kill those who are responsible for (using your example) the genocide and those who actively defend them, then I will agree there can be a just war.

But it doesn't happen.

You can make all sorts of reasons as to why sometimes it's necessary to kill civilians in a time of war, and I may even agree with them as being necessary.

That doesn't have anything to do with justice though.

 

I can't come to terms with the idea that a war that ends up killing innocents can ever be considered necessary.

To me that's like saying, "We have come here to save you. During this time those of you that we try to save will be killed in the process". So in the process, we end up killing people that we try to rescue...

I think, what would the civilians think? Are they appreciative of the foreigners intentions or do they see them as people creating more chaos? What about those that just lost their entire family to a 'mistaken' attack on a civilian house? Do they just sit there thinking to themselves how thankful they are for the foreign 'support' or do they just feel lost and hateful towards the incident?

 

Well, what if the UN actually had balls, or some countries acted outside the UN in Rwanda. What if 20,000 people died in the resulting invasion, chaos, and occupation before stability could be reached. Bad right? Well what if those 20,000 saved the lives of over 400,000. What if those dead are dead so the rest of the country and the children of said country have a chance to live in a place that's not a horrible near police state where people are taken off the streets and "disappear" anyways. It's for the greater good.

 

There just isn't any good solution is there. I hope the world eventually has enough law and order that no one has to resort to the idiocy of war.

 

Well said Monkey Boy
No war is "just"
Why can't we all just get along?

 

Because she just HAD to eat that fuckin apple.

War has become a part of human nature. Just or unjust, it will be here forever wheather you like it or not. To try and elliminate it entirely is the same thing as the war on drugs.....a waste of time and money. Good intentions yes, but completely unattainable.

There is no answer to this question, just a lot of personal opinions and beliefs. One mans justice is another mans horror.

 

the only war that would ever be "just" would be one to keep or freedom. and i don't mean the "Freedom" that we have been defending in so many previous wars i mean if an opposing country is at our door threatening to take our freedom from us, this is the only time i would fight.

 

All you need is a dodgy dossier, and with Saddam's record you could sell anything.

 

Would you hold our Islamo-facists neighbors to this maxim, or just Westerners?

Would repeated and continued killing of civilians, women, kids, elderly and destroying of the land constitute a Causis Belli ?

 

You really should read the thread, because you obviously haven't if you are asking me that question.

 

I remember when innocents were killed in the attack on New York. At the time Ward Churchill called the victims "little Eichmans"