Justification of War

[Red_Praetoria]

Ive searched alittle for a similar topic but could not find one.

It seems there has been a rather lot of discussion lately on why the US is in Iraq, why NATO invaded Afghanistan and the possibilities of new wars (especially here in the political mudpit). Im now asking what your definition of a "just war" is, and Ive also created a poll to ask if you believe any war can truly be justified. My question is what do you consider a correct war, and if so which wars have been fought for noble reasons?

[jankren]

The War in Afghanistan is a just war in my opinion. But not Iraq.

[Serious Spamurai]

The War in Afghanistan is a just war in my opinion. But not Iraq.

A just war, but they should've supported Jamiaat after the Russian invasion instead, or at least helped out the Northern Alliance when the Taliban were driving them back, rather than going in just for Bin laden, if he didn't have a non-hostile Afghanistan, he'd have been in trouble when the Sudanese kicked him out.

[Scipio praeditus]

The War in Afghanistan is a just war in my opinion. But not Iraq.

The War in Afghanistan was a just war, untill they installed a dictator and turned it into a record breaking poppy farm (If your'e wondering poppy's are what heroin is made of).

Wars can be just, but only when they are in defense of a nation (i.e. people).

Aggresion cannot be justified.

[Simetrical]

Is it right to interfere in another country to stop an act your country considers bad, immoral?

Your phrasing presupposes a sort of relativism. If something is wrong, is it right to stop it with violence? It depends how wrong it is, and how wrong violence is. It's not a question you'll get uniform answers to.

If a country is massing armies, missles, ect near your border and you do not fully know there intent but suspect they are planning to attack you is it just to take offensive action? (Considering the attack could come at any moment and theres no real chance for diplomics)?

I think it's fairly clear, yes.

I am not saying that war is sometimes necessary, but it is never just, and stems from the inaction of good people.

But would you say that there could be a war in which one side acted justly? For instance, was various countries' self-defense against the Nazis just?

The War in Afghanistan was a just war, untill they installed a dictator and turned it into a record breaking poppy farm (If your'e wondering poppy's are what heroin is made of).

Hamid Karzai was democratically elected in internationally-audited elections and is not a dictator. Afghanistan has always had a drug-trade problem, which the Taliban cracked down on very heavily in their draconian fashion, and which has now considerably worsened with their unlamented departure (so they made the trains run on time, in other words). Of course, the central government in Afghanistan is weak, with a lot of power held by warlords, but that's not America's fault either.

Freedom House describes Afghanistan as "Partly Free", with a rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 7 (7 is worst), compared to a score of 7 (Not Free, worst score possible) before the US invasion.

[bushbush]

this is really a subjective question, it really depends on your personal views.

for me, I believe there are true evils in this world and sometimes sadly war is the only solution to check them.

think WW2. Nazis and the Japanese, consider what they were doing. I think actions like invading nations for imperialistic reasons, mass murder of civilians are enough to called "evil" and they deserve to be beaten back with force (no other choices really)>

[hellheaven1987]

Am I the only one vote "NO"????:hmmm:

[GeneralLee]

Yes, something has to keep me employed .

[Pontifex Maximus]

The American Revolution was a justified war in my opinion, so yes, it can be justified.

[Heinz Guderian]

The name of this forum is Total War Centre. You aint gonna find many peaceniks, liberals and hippy tree huggers like me. Even i voted yes and i wear sandals to lectures.

[General A. Skywalker]

The American Revolution was a justified war in my opinion, so yes, it can be justified.

Agreed, but I think from British point of view.

[Georgy Zhukov]

When to halt a genocide, or some other human crime then yes, I believe its a just war.

[s.rwitt]

Even i voted yes and i wear sandals to lectures.

I told you you're gay.

[Heinz Guderian]

I told you you're gay.

lose the moustache and we'll talk.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

If you want to talk absolutes, yes. If you want to talk specifics, then its more complicated.

[Last Roman]

yes, war is always a tragedy but sometimes two wrongs make a right.

[Farnan]

This is more of a question for the Ethos.

Moved.

Thank you
TWC's Secret Police

[Gaidin]

Justification for War: "HE STARTED IT!" /eight year old voice
Justification for War Mk II: Ask the winner, he'll know.

Now that realism is out of the way...I lack a sarcastic reply so uhh...no unrealistic reply.

[Chaigidel]

the real question is there any reason not to have wars? what does humanity deserve but what it wishes upon itself?

[Simetrical]

One way a war can be just when its overall benefits, to the populations concerned, outweigh its costs, as judged by the populations themselves. The cost of innocent death is high but not infinite: there are benefits that will cause people to accept it. Most obviously, the death of some innocents is justified by more numerous others being allowed to live, who would otherwise have been killed. It would be nice to wash your hands of their deaths and claim you can't trade one person's death for another, but that's not an attitude I believe in.

This justifies wars that the populations of all participating nations support. If the populations of two nations were to desire war, war would be justified. This might be the case, for instance, in the case of a Western nation overthrowing an unpopular dictator. The only affected party in that scenario who's against the war is the dictator and his supporters. Their opinions are outweighed by those of the other participants: dictators do not derive any sovereignty from the consent of the governed and represent only themselves, and their small group of supporters.

The American Revolution has been mentioned. In the judgment of most contemporary Americans, the loss of American lives was outweighed by the prospect of freedom. But that does not itself justify the war, because British died as well, and the British would have preferred that the war not have occurred. So you have to introduce an additional justification: war for democratic self-determination can be just as well.

Likewise, I think it's safe to say, a preemptive war to counter a clear and present danger from another nation about to invade (say, the Six-Day War) is just, if the invader's war is not just to begin with (so only arguably the Six-Day War). This is not, after all, really starting a war, just moving up its date slightly to the aggrieved party's advantage.

Is it ever just to oppose a just war? Probably not.

What other types of wars might be just? What about when a population does not want to be invaded, but a minority of that population is being abused? If the abuse is clear enough, such as genocide or other mass killing, then you might have moral grounds to justify the war there as well.

It would be interesting if a simple and coherent list of reasons could be drawn up. In particular, I think most analyses omit my first justification, which seems to me the most obvious*― and lately quite pertinent, too, with the dictator-toppling that's going around.