Just War?

@richrf,

richrf;97045 wrote:

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?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97048 wrote:

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?

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

Rich

@I am question,

I am question;97047 wrote:

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.

So, if attacked, what should we do?

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 10:01 PM ----------

richrf;97049 wrote:

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

Rich

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).

@kennethamy,

Arjuna,

It's important to note that Fotion (the guy whose interpretation I am using) states that just war theory sits squarely between two diverging positions on war. Fotion makes a distinction between pacifism on the one hand, which implies that war in general is immoral and realism which implies that war itself is nonmoral. So basically, war is either devoid of moral or there is no room for morality to begin with. Is there any room for morality within that particular framework? Not really. This is an issue that was pained over by St. Augustine during the 4th-5th centuries C.E. Augustine himself had to come to terms with war (turbulence in the Christianized Roman Empire). Interestingly enough, he came to the same conclusion, that placing morality in the context of war is not possible for all intents and purposes. Not to say that morality hasn't been examined by past scholars as far as war is concerned, like Cicero, Aristotle, Plato, Mo Tzu, and Mencius. Heck, even the laws of Manu and the Bhadavad Gita have morality infused to principles of war. But logically? its not really a practical application to put morality and war together.

As far as war being basically the same as "gorillas determining dominance," war is not nearly so simple. There are ontological complexities in war that transcend morality and most every aspect of philosophy we can think of. That being said, morality deserves a three sided consideration? my side, their side, and the truth.

Richrf,

@post20 - Interestingly enough, I agree. War is not only a means of aggression but also a means of survival. One can think of the Doric invasion of Southern Greece as an example, where climate change forced thousands of northerners to flee to better climate, and in a sense fight for control in one way or another. Survival is the means of justification there I would suppose, and in the case of the Dorians, most of the point Fotion underlines justify their movement (or invasion). Is it "noble" to preserve ones civilization? Probably. Should we treat that motivation with contempt and mockery? Maybe. Humans need to survive, and war is an instrument to the end. I do not agree that your version is a simpler version of the academic version, but a tenth of a half of the whole puzzle. What you say is certainly not wrong, but more can be said.

@VideCorSpoon,

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.

@I am question,

I am question;97066 wrote:

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.

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.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97050 wrote:

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).

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

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97071 wrote:

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 am question,

I am question;97073 wrote:

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.

It is not a question of love. It is a question of survival. So, we would be justified in fighting for it. Unless you think that survival is not worth fighting for. You make it sound as if such a war would be, to use Obama's cliche', a war of choice. It would be a war of necessity.

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 01:02 AM ----------

richrf;97072 wrote:

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.

@kennethamy,

Well you need to look at the contents of the Just War Theory its not just about justification towards the war but what morals we lie on. We will have slight and basic morals that lie upon in the war, but everybody's morals are different. Of course the justification would be: we need to attack because of oil being cut off, but you can look at every war and find its cause or justification. But what Im trying to say is when you actually take another life, who could care less about what was right and wrong, because my interpreter is drunk he's just getting paid to speak, he's not even in the armed forces. So you can find the just cause, thats easy of course, but when you squeeze the trigger, the last thing you will be thinking about is, hey man is this wrong? I think morality is a small concern in war but as years pass we created the united nations and the geneva conventions, just leave this to the cage kickers. Why hold captive to a person who was just shooting at you? I dont know.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97088 wrote:

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.

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

@I am question,

And isn't every war a war of choice and necessity. I mean we needed our freedom in america thats why we fought in the revolution, and a choice in WW2. Hey we would of never fought in WW2 without japan striking us.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;97044 wrote:

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.

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 ----------

I am question;97096 wrote:

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

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.

@richrf,

richrf;97095 wrote:

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

Now, that is enlightening. But what has that to do with Belgium and Poland going to war in order to protect their loot? What loot was that?

@Sorryel,

Sorryel;97172 wrote:

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.

@I am question,

I am question;97208 wrote:

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.

I don't doubt that the USA was justified in confronting Japan, however, if we really wanted to avoid a war, we should not have started a crash program of building up our forces in the Phillipines. I think once the USA decided to build up the Phillipines and instituted a draft and authorized a major increase in the size of the US Navy...nothing short of a major reduction in Japanese aggression (eg not attacking the Vichy Regime in Indochina as you have pointed out) could have stopped a war.

@Sorryel,

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.

@I am question,

I am question;97226 wrote:

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.

@Sorryel,

Sorryel;97236 wrote:

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.

Japan, during the 20s and 30s had set its sites on China and East Asia and already was in the midst of wars with both China and the Soviet Union as well as participating in atrocities including the Rape of Nanking. Clearly the stage was set for an inevitable conflict with all powers that had interest in that region. Japan's military was designed to project power (e.g. its naval fleet) that was destined for war.

Interestingly, they figured out another way to project power other than military means after they lost the war.

Rich

@richrf,

We can only look to the past to observe real all-out war. If the US was seriously afraid for it's survival, I'm pretty sure all moral codes for civilized war would go out the window. We'd finally get to see how much of the nuclear and biological arsenal of the US military actually works... the prospect of which has obviously changed the way modern people see war.

We live in the time of "conventional war" which is complicated by the underlying need for containment. I'm sure many will scoff at the statue in front of the UN which depicts a man beating a sword into a plow... but I think it represents an earnest yearning on the part of a large portion of the earth's population to find an alternative to war.

Maybe a different thread would be better for discussing the perspective behind pacifism, past and present: the rejection of which will require making allowances for war, which is a moral quagmire.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know