never. theres never a good enough reason to go to war. it can always be settled in some other rational way.
The only time a nation has the right to go to war is when they are attacked. Our entry into WWII after Pearl Harbor is a good example. No amount of negotations would have stopped Hitler and the Japanese Imperialists. Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% opposed to the war in Iraq. In the case of Iraq the US was the aggressor. Rumsfeld helped make up an excuse for Bush to invade Iraq just like Himmler made up an excuse for Hitler to invade Poland. Himmler's plan, as evil as it was was, quite ingenuis. Bush's excuse was down right transparent and full of BS.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing034.htm The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. 'Valid' "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added. He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections. And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added. When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." I don't think kofi and others can count .. lost track of the resolutions .. more than 2 though. You can not have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm This debate about how wrong the war was goes on and on and has done for way too long.. the more time passes the more dated the arguements become and the actuality of present events make the old arguements seem well old.. I constantly hear 'no wmd' well don't gloat because if you continue with other notions a lot of anti war protestors spout out these have been proved to be unfounded or just wrong .. as these people are not accountable well they get away with being wrong..and they never have to apologise what excuses would these be..did the sheep aka the rest of the coalition believe Mr Rumsfeld.. endless amounts of time has been poured into the american arguement.. maybe it could be focused on the other nations and see how much all this holds up then ?.. i suppose we are far too scared of 'america' and fearful of 'regime change' and being nuked by trigger happy gun ho americans..right ?.
Here are what I think are legitimate reasons for going to war: 1. Self-defense. If a state is attacked or is in imminent danger of being attacked, it has the right to go to war. (Ex: WWII) 2. Overthrow of an oppressor. A state has the right to resist an oppressive occupying force, or to secede from an oppressive state. (Ex: America during American Revolution, Confederacy during Civil War) 3. To stop genocide. A state has the right (and if its armed forces are large enough, the obligation) to stop genocide in any other state, if it is likely that the casualties from any war would be less than the casualties from the genocide. (Ex: Kosovo, what we should've done in Rwanda and Darfur) I would also add that nuclear proliferation with countries like Iran may be grounds for some tactical air strikes against nuclear facilities...but I don't think it calls for a full-blown war. I guess that nuclear proliferation is a watered-down version of my #1 reason, and as such, it calls for (to put it bluntly) a watered-down version of war.
That assumes that all the players in a conflict are rational, which they very often are not. You could talk until you were blue in the face, but Hitler wasn't going to settle for a peaceful negotiation. If one or more of the parties involved are belligerent enough, what makes you think that there's always a "rational way" (other than war) to settle the issue? That's just wishful thinking. What is true, and what one wishes to be true are often very different...
I agree with that.. unfortunatly its difficult too distinguish between anti iraq war and no war at all people... they never realy say imho.
Excuses. 1. WMDs' chemical,biological,nuclear etc...2 Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Nigeria 3.Iraq was tied to Al-quaida and was behind 9/11. Just a few of the excuses that the Bush regime oops I mean administration cooked up.All these excuses have been disproven. What gets me is that John F. Kennedy had indisputible,concrete evidence of WMD's(in this case nuclear ICBM's) right in our own back yard. He took care of the problem without going to war. Some wars such as WWII were more than justified.The Iraq war is in no way justifiable. btw: The Civil War had nothing to do with Northern oppression. The rich slave owners conned the poor white southerners into doing the fighting for them. Technically speaking The Confederates were the aggressors because they fired the first shot when Gen. Beaureguard ordered the bombardment of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbour. But that is besides the point and is kinda off topic.
It looks like Bush wants to do it again with Iran. He's trying to get support from Europe and Russia in his recent trip to have the Iran nuclear issue referred to the U.N. security council. I suspect Bush will manage to get some sort of inspection team issued to Iran (although they have been and already are undergoing inspections). He then could have a semi-legal argument of claiming Iran isn't complying fully with inspections and use that as an excuse for military options. I hope it doesn't come to this again.
