All very well and good, but people go to war in order to loot their opponent and they feel they have a big enough army to do it. They justify it for any old reason. Usually, something noble, like bringing civilization to the other country. Sometimes, not so noble. Of course, the opponent justifies it as self-defense. And that is the way it is. A much simpler version than the academic version.

Rich

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 08:32 PM ----------



Precisely. You give me the war, and I'll show you the bananas that the gorillas are fighting over.

Rich

You think that Belgium went to war with Germany in both World Wars in order to loot Germany?? What about Luxembourg?

What do you think were the bananas Belgium was fighting over when she tried to defend herself against invasion?

It wasn't a story its a statistic. I'll put into percentage: 55% of american soldiers were either killed or wounded in WW1, I believe thats how PTSD was developed in soldiers. But if we were attacked(as at pearl harbor) it would depend on the enemies strategy on how they attacked, but no doubt they would get a response from a giant waking up after being poked repeatedly. Its sad to say we are imperialistic but, our military has no competition with the exception of a nuclear war. You need to understand our high speed special fast teams: SEALs, Delta Force, Special Forces, Rangers, Airborne, Air Assault, I could go on. we have the largest defense budget in the world and consume half of the worlds military expenditures.

I said that attacked countries justify by using self-defense. Read the post.

Rich

Ken I'm sorry man but your question is just to broad to answer, I mean if we were attack we would respond like I said. It all depends on how they attacked us, no foreign enemy will never reach this soil with their own foot unless we were weak and completely destroyed. If they tried to send a fleet of soldiers through sea and air, they would be eliminated before reaching the coast at furthest. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to repeat an surprise attack, because they saw what we did in WW2 to the Nazi's. Its like a cat trying to fight a lion, we have size and strength, their soft and scared.

So, at least in this case, it is not true that countries go to war in order to loot their opponent? And self-defense is not "any old reason"? Well, for the attack on Poland in 1939, Germany claimed self-defense. And Japan claimed self-defense (we were strangling her economically-which we were).

Suppose they attacked us by attempting to cut off our oil, and also, cut off oil from our allies? That would cause chaos in the United States, and in the world.

Yeah, there is always that situation, its a great one to bring up too, I like the intelligence. It just seems to vast of power to do so, depending on who it is, they can only cut off so much you know? Even if ALL oil is cut off, through size from allies, victory only seems plausible, we would do everything in our power to get it back, god dont we LOVE that black blood lol.

I can make it even simpler.

Countries attack to grab and loot. Countries react to defend their loot.

Often loot is such things as water access, mineral access, buffer zone, etc. as well as the normal looting. Show me a war - any war - and I will show you that this is what it is all about. Everything else is a sideshow.

Rich

Belgium and Poland fought not to defend their loot, but to prevent Germany from occupying Belgium and Poland. So, that is the war I will show you.

When would you say that morality is meaningful? You don't think that, for example, the question of whether unarmed civilians should be intentionally targeted is a meaningful moral question? Whether or not you care about it, I mean.

Hey we would of never fought in WW2 without japan striking us.

Poland was mineral rich as well as a buffer against the Soviet Union. Belgium was strategic to attack France and gain valuable water access. In all countries that they invaded the Nazis looted and killed millions of people for land and other type of wealth. Much of it ending up in Swiss banks which is why Switzerland was never invaded.

Rich

Targetting civilians is question a question of the conduct of war -- which you earlier said was irrelevent to the question of Just War. I don't think you can separate the justness of war from its actual conduct. You might have a perfectly good reason for a war, but if you conduct it by releasing a virus that kills all of mankind, then it really doesn't matter how good your excuse was.

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 10:39 AM ----------



It might have been a good idea to have given the Japanese some assurance that we weren't going to attack them. From the Japanese point of view we were heading straight for a war with them in 1942 sine were going to embargo their oil supplies and were building up our forces in the Philipines. They chose to strike first and thereafter conducted the war as unjustly against the DEI and the British Empire and the US as they had against China. Had they conducted their war justly (though how they had any justification in China is a mystery), their case for a just war would be much better.

We didn't just randomly decide to freeze their assets. They were in war with china and they needed to block off china's supply routes so they can have control over Indochina and have a better position against Western powers. We were going to stay out of war with everybody, mind our own business, because we had our own problems over here(great depression, I think thats what it was called). But then they decided to mess with a china and european colonies, block off China's MSR(main supply route) from america and seize control of oil and arms. Taken over military control in southern Indochina was a mistake on their part. They should of never messed with China, because they should of looked at the big picture. We were never going to attack them until they messed with Indochina, its that simple.

They did this to secure themselves in a pacific battle with japan. I don't understand any other option we would of had? Its like not protecting your quarterback with an offensive lineman. The Philippines was in a exposed position 7,000 miles away from us(A huge problem in Pacific Strategy). I still don't understand why you think we shouldn't of had a 'crash' program? It wasn't to start any war, we just needed to secure our new territory.

US strategy in the 1920s and 1930s did not envision seriously defending the Phillipines. Until 1941 the US had only token forces there. In 1941 we began basing B-17s there within range of Japanese bases on Formosa. It think the US was right to try to stop Japan, but wrong to think it could be done without a major war and in any case the build up in the Phillipines was a useless provocation. How Japan could have been handled better in 1941, I don't know.