[Oakshaft]

Ok so in my history class me and a few others are doing this debate thing, our topic is |is war justifiable" we are on the side that says "yes it is", So I figuered I would come here and ask your opinion on this/ask for some good "knockout" points.

This is what I got so far:

I think war is justifiable in the case of ancient greece, all the city states were violent and fiercely independant, obviously they needed resources as the islands of greece were fairly small. So war is justifiable in the need for resources.

[Chunkyman]

A defensive war is justifiable because it is considered a legitimate function of government to defend it's people. Offensive wars are not justifiable because they are not about the defense of the citizens, but an increase of power for the state, which is immoral.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Wednesday, Apr 25 2012, 21:24)

A defensive war is justifiable because it is considered a legitimate function of government to defend it's people. Offensive wars are not justifiable because they are not about the defense of the citizens, but an increase of power for the state, which is immoral.

By current standars. Wich makes the idea of it unjustifiable for moral reasons void.
In my opinion, war is Justifiable. That's why it's so common.

[Rown]

War is confined in its justification.

Defensive war, as stated, is pretty much always justifiable. The individual, and thus the group, has the right to defend itself.

Offense may be a little different. Offense in defense of the self (ex: going to war for resources or pre-emptive action) may be justifiable, but it depends on other factors (ex: how'd the offender come to lack the resources, how credible a threat is the enemy).

Following that framework, so long as your defense is the justification you should be good as far as anyone will care.

Rown

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Wednesday, Apr 25 2012, 19:24)

A defensive war is justifiable because it is considered a legitimate function of government to defend it's people. Offensive wars are not justifiable because they are not about the defense of the citizens, but an increase of power for the state, which is immoral.

I disagree. What about making the citizens of your nation more economically prosperous by using war? What about protecting interests abroad? What if China invades the Philippines, would that be justifiable?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Apr 26 2012, 03:51)

What about making the citizens of your nation more economically prosperous by using war?

That's easy to say if you're not the country being invaded and who's people are being slaughtered. Killing is never morally justified unless in self defense, and that applies to both people and governments IMO.

I think China invading the Philippines for economic interests would be wrong, yes. War is a horrible thing that should be avoided (unless it's self defense).

I'll use the Romans as a historical example. Did Roman conquest help the Roman people economically? Yes (A lot of the time). Was it worth all of the people who died? No.

This post has been edited by Chunkyman on Thursday, Apr 26 2012, 04:52

[Straznicy]

War can be justified, but in my mind the overwhelming majority of wars that have ever been waged lacked legitimacy. I am not a pacifist, in fact I totally reject it as a mantra. Violence and conflict are part of what makes us human, and I sincerely hope they remain so for the sake of our species' survival.

Certain conditions must be met for me to consider a war justified:

• The war must be fought in the name of: removing oppressive forces, liberating a distinct ethnic/social group, overthrowing a corrupt political system, defending a polity against invasion and/or as a preventive measure against a potential, highly likely aggressor. I feel conflicts such as World War II and the IRA's campaign against the British are therefore justified by these parameters.
• It must never be waged for self-gain, be it economic, territorial or political. The list of wars waged with such intent is near-impossible to list, though the most flagrant example in recent history for me is the Iraq War.
• War ought to be launched only when diplomatic means have been exhausted and proved ineffective. There must be a logical chance for success in the conflict.
• Morality should not go out the window. The intentional killing of non-aggressors, wanton destruction of property and any unnecessary harassment of the citizenry are completely unacceptable.
• Opportunities for peace should be seriously considered, but not where they significantly undermine the goals of the war.

I want to make it clear that I am not a warmongerer by any measure. As aforementioned, war should be a last resort, and it should be viewed regrettably.

[sivispacem]

My answer- it depends on the nature of the conflict.

I make a distinction between "limited" and "unlimited" conflict in this aspect. If one assumes that all belligerents in a limited conflict take the correct measures enshrined in law to prevent unnecessary casualties, I see little ethical issue in preventing nations from embarking in conflicts for personal gain. However, the costs of such campaigns have to be weighed up against the outcome for the victor, which means that they're very rarely of any kind of benefit. And engaging in a conflict that isn't likely to lead to benefit for it's belligerent is not only stupid, it's equally as morally questionable as any other military intervention as it places undue and unwarranted stress on two (or more) nations and their populations for no real identifiable purpose. With my Realist hat on, I'll say that powerful nations will always look for excuses to exploit and enhance that power but on the flip side doing so in the bounds of limited warfare limits their ability to do so, and unlimited warfare is almost universally pyrrhic in it's nature for any real victor. So, in the real world, there are limitations placed on the execution of offensive rather than defensive conflict which more often than not render it a bit of a futility.

The idea of not fighting a conflict for self-gain is all well and good in principal, but no nation involves themselves in anything that they don't benefit from in some way, because, well, why would they? It's counter-productive and counter-intuitive to place additional stress on a nation, it's government and populace without some meaningful and beneficial end-game. Even defensive wars, or wars of intervention to prevent atrocities or overthrow corrupt governments (which in itself I think is a bit of a poor example- by whose definition is the government "corrupt"?) will have some positive impact on the victor. Pre-emptive military action, and most kinds of responsive military action, are directly beneficial in their results. Now, if you said "wars conducted solely for self-gain" I'd be more inclined to agree, but only in terms of practicality- the list of conflicts that nations have engaged in solely for self-gain and benefited directly from in the long-term is so small as to be essentially non-existent.

In terms of "unlimited" war, the only permissible unlimited conflict is one of defence against a belligerent whose only aim is complete annihilation of an adversary in political, economic or military terms.

[GOUSN1776]

War may have justifiable reasons. However, it is justifiable in the grand sense of the word? That all depends on where you lie. Are you the ones(s) attacking/invading, defending, or are you the one(s) in the middle i.e. civilians? Depending on where you lie, and if your civilians which side (attacking or defending) will tell you whether or not war is justifiable. It's all on a case by case basis. As for me it's neither justifiable or not justifiable, it just is what it is - war. If it wasn't for war my parents wouldn't have had and do have their jobs and I wouldn't be getting one come June.

[MIKON8ERISBACK]

It is justifiable if it's in the name of defending the Good Side, but only if it's been positively proven that the presumed enemy if expressing ill will towards the Good Side (America and all her allies). Look at the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38 (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT). It's debated as to whether this horrific event triggered by tensions during World War II was justified or not, or whether there could have been a better solution to force surrender or not. After Japan surrendered unconditionally a few days after the attack, the Emperor stabbed himself with a sword in the stomach as a trademark Japanese way of paying for the shame that he brought upon himself and probably in his family. It's humorously referred on the Internet as "Harry Karry".

[Irviding]

QUOTE (MIKON8ERISBACK @ Sunday, Apr 29 2012, 21:28)

It is justifiable if it's in the name of defending the Good Side, but only if it's been positively proven that the presumed enemy if expressing ill will towards the Good Side (America and all her allies). Look at the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38 (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT). It's debated as to whether this horrific event triggered by tensions during World War II was justified or not, or whether there could have been a better solution to force surrender or not. After Japan surrendered unconditionally a few days after the attack, the Emperor stabbed himself with a sword in the stomach as a trademark Japanese way of paying for the shame that he brought upon himself and probably in his family. It's humorously referred on the Internet as "Harry Karry".

No he didn't? Hirohito remained Emperor of Japan until the 80s. There are photos of him with Ronald Reagan.

Anyway, is your post just like sarcastic and cynical or something because I don't get it?

[GOUSN1776]

QUOTE (MIKON8ERISBACK @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 02:28)

It's humorously referred on the Internet as "Harry Karry".

Harry Karry is not an internet term. It's been around for awhile.

[Oakshaft]

It isnt "Harry Karry" its "Hari Kari"

Well, thats how I've always had it anyways

[SagaciousKJB]

All war is justified, otherwise the men waging it would simply be conceding that they were evil. Do you think Hitler didn't think he was justified? How about the war on the Native American and our notion of justification with "manifest destiny". At the end though, most of these justifications are contested by most, whereas some others are pretty widely accepted. A war for conquest or resources is accepted amongst isolationist cultures, but usually not amongst nations of trade and diplomacy. Meanwhile, a defensive war is often seen as just or ethical by most, but there are still a few "pacifists" who feel any war or killing of any type is wrong.

There will always be those who feel a just war is unjust, and that a just war is unjust... It really matters upon which side of the war you are on, and the reality hear is that history is written by the victors. Of course they will depict their interests and motivation for engaging in war as noble, heroic and just, but in the meantime most sensible people realize that it's not always as cut and dry as that. I don't think that any war has been led in America for shear monetary advancement, but on the other hand do you think that the stockholders of Haliburton didn't want Iraq to happen? Think the stockholders of Pepsi wouldn't find a way to justify Vietnam? There's always business in war, do you really think the people that are seeking out that business wouldn't find some convoluted way to justify it if there was back was up against a wall? Simply put, there's no one that's going to say, "Oh, yeah, I know war is bad and we shouldn't be fighting it, but I can make a lot of money out of it."

So there's tons of reasons why war is justified, and I'm not saying that it's all about money... It's just a good example of what I'm talking about. I guess you could relate the same things to arms manufacturers. You're just not going to find anyone that's going to say, "Oh, yeah, war is bad... Justified? Hell no... We're just in it for the money." At least not publicly anyway, there is always the necessity to maintain that facade that war is some kind of justified, necessary evil when in reality there is a direct benefit to it.

That is what I find interesting about modern warfare compared to the nation states of Greece. Whereas our wars are usually justified on one thing, and then the benefits are reaped on another, wars of conquest are justified expressly upon their benefits. In the end though, is it really that much difference?

Even when you're talking about defensive wars, there is a direct benefit to that which is pretty obvious. However what about pre-emptive strikes? Not everything can really be so clearly defined as offensive or defensive. Ultimately actions that might be seen as offensive by some, will wind up being regarded as "defensive" or "justified" based on circumstances.

[Oakshaft]

I wish I had read that before I did my presentation today,

I compeltely forgot everything and got nervous (I hate public speaking) I completely forgot to mention my cuban missile crisis idea, and my "history is written by the victor" idea

[CheesyJ]

It would be better if we didn't have to have wars at all, but unfortunately it's not the case. Wars are a fact of life, always have been and unfortunately probably always will be. In some cases, it isn't justfiable but in a lot of cases it is.

[Toup]

"I have an opinion."

"I have a different one."

Press 1 for war, 2 for debate.
--
Here's my opinion in a short version :

From my point of view, wars are caused by either religion, resources. Basically power.

This leads me to believe war is caused by one's belief in one thing and that right or wrong doesn't exist. So yes, it is justifiable just because you can't change a person's opinion in one subject, and if they see the world a better place if Judaism wasn't practiced, for example, and they start killing Jews, your first instinct as a human being is to fight by the side that you believe is right.

Of course, war can be avoided if one decides to deal with something in a pacific way, of course, not everyone decides to act like this.

This post has been edited by Toup on Saturday, May 5 2012, 17:32

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Toup @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 14:54)

From my point of view, wars are caused by either religion, resources or power.

Aren't these one and the same? Religion is an exercise in power, and resources are both a physical measure power and a product of it. In essence, all you are left with is "power". Which I can agree with as the sole true cause of war.

[Toup]

Resources = materials. Food, minerals, oil, maybe even water in the future. Allows better health and conditions.

+

Religion= Trying to spread the word of the religion you believe in. More population.

=

Power (better economy and bigger territory, more population.)

So yes, that's what I wanted to say, thanks for putting it in the right words.

This post has been edited by Toup on Saturday, May 5 2012, 17:35

[Tom Toole]

Oakshaft: it's too bad that you didn't do as well as you could've in your presentation.

Part 1: Stated reasons for war
[American Wars]
A Global war on terror was declared and Afghanistan invaded in retaliation for the 9/11/2001 blowing up of the twin towers, and in fear of other terrorist attacks.
A Pre-emptive war against Iraq was justified first by imagined connections to Al Queda, then by the fear of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), and finally by the evilness of the deposed dictator.
Wars during the cold war were justified by the red fear - that the communist bloc would take over countries one by one until the center of the capitalist world was threatened - there were justifications of the material sort (Tin in Vietnam), as well as idealistic justifications ("for their freedom").


Part 2: Actual reasons for war
At the same time many of these same events are determined by the way the economy interacts with war, and so in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq big government spending on war was an excuse to spend more money on the economy. (The war that was waged was an expensive war, it did not have to be)

Part 3: Thoughts
Justifiable relates not merely to having a reason but a good reason, a "just" as it says in the word, reason. Justice, Morality, Ethics, are the realms of all men
- but are we to weigh the struggle against oppression of the pro-war american citizen from the ghetto against the struggle against oppression of the afghani civilian or nationalist or taliban?
Surely their true enemy is not each other but the capitalist system, the root of all evil in society.

The only war that would be justifiable would be a revolution, like the French Revolution, like the Russian revolution, but in which the people would create a true non-capitalist economic and political system. The only war that is justifiable is that in which the chained set themselves free, and the slavers are beaten by the people.