what constitutes a just war?, what do you think? Options

[gotblog4me?]

What do you think constitutes a just war? in my opinion the only type of just war I can think of is in self-defense, or in defensew of weaker allies, does ne1 else think otherwise? or are u just completely agaisnt war, period?

[*mipadi*]

In today's world, it seems to be best to adopt a policy of having a strong military for two primary reasons:

1. Defense of the country;
2. Deterrant.

Even with a large military like the US, we barely have the capabilities to invade and occupy a country, as Iraq has shown us.

Ideally, I don't feel that it's necessary for any country to act as policemen for the world and deal militarily with others; however, realistically, sometimes a country must use their military might to protect others, such as in Bosnia, and such as we should be doing in places like Darfur. However, I think the "war" should be made up more of quick surgical strikes that don't necessitate a long-term occupation (such as in Iraq).

[youdrivinmegrape...]

I'm pretty much against all war. There's always otehr ways to solve problems. Unless there's a situation where half the country is in danger, we don't need war.

[*kryogenix*]

War is justified when it benefits the country going to war.

[*mipadi*]

War is justified when it benefits the country going to war.

So Germany's attack on Poland, that provoked World War II, was justified?

[not_for_anything]

I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing.

[technicolour]

I don't quite see how people can be anti-war. We can't go around saying VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER! PEACE!. if you do, you are living in a screwed up reality.

seeing as there were no WMD

Click Here.
Yea, i know it is a republican site and i can see that, well, you being anti war are most likely liberal, but, well, Bill Clinton was/is one too...


Pride may be considered an issue, but really, it's more making sure your country can defend those who need to be defended and to kick whom ever's ass that needs to be kicked. Protection, more so.

[Spirited Away]

I think I got the following sentence from a final fantasy game/movie.. whatever..

There is no right or wrong side in a war, just two sides holding different beliefs.

So either side fighting the war will say our reasons for war is justified and the other is not. However, history will write itself that the winner of the war is right, and thus, justified. Therefore, justified causes for war be damned.

I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing.

What are you saying about the Vietnamese? I think you meant Iraq... But um... please don't say that the Vietnam war was uncalled for because it demeans the lives of those who fought for freedom and against oppression.

[sammi rules you]

^ she's right..

err, we didn't fight for oil in vietnam. we were helping the democratic half of vietnam against the communist half.

[*nightmare4taki*]

There is no right or wrong side in a war, just two sides holding different beliefs.

I heard that same thing in that movie samurai X or something similar to that.


Out of all honesty, in my opinion I think a just war is when your intentions are to help others or someone is an actual threat to the life of your country. The Iraq War on Terrorism seemed like a good idea on paper but in actuality really nothing good has come out of it. The American troops have done all they can to help out but yet some people are still resistant and honestly I really cant blame the resistant for their actions. Its no different from Russia coming into the U.S. and telling them what kind of government will be established and how it should be operated. Although Americans may feel as though a democracy is the best form of government, that may not be necessarily how every person feels. Really and truly although a war may be just in some peoples eyes it may not always go as expected just like in the case with Vietnam, your just fighting a hopeless battle. The only reason I would approve of a country going to war these days is if another world war is about to break out.

I got a little off topic. LOL

[not_for_anything]

But why is it our business to go invade their country?, and I'm not actually that liberal...

[Spirited Away]

But why is it our business to go invade their country?, and I'm not actually that liberal...

If you're asking about Vietnam, it's because of the Red scare and the fear that communism might fall into the domino effect in Asia. The south appreciated American interference by the way. They never complained until US troops pulled out so suddenly.

If you're asking about just any invasion, you might have a better chance of getting a good answer by asking a simple question with not so simple an of answer: "why war?".

Although Americans may feel as though a democracy is the best form of government, that may not be necessarily how every person feels. Really and truly although a war may be just in some peoples eyes it may not always go as expected just like in the case with Vietnam, your just fighting a hopeless battle.

Democracy is the best form of government according to Vietnamese Nationalist... That's why they fought against the spread of Communism. What are you trying to say exactly?

[*kryogenix*]

So Germany's attack on Poland, that provoked World War II, was justified?

Remember, Justified != Right.

  I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing.

How about learning history before holding an opinion?

[aera]

^=]

if we could avoid war...that would be great. but we cant. i think war is actually ok, if there is a reason. like self defense, a threat, whatever. right now, i think our war is pointless. did we find any weapons of mass destruction? no. but if they really did pose a big threat, then i would have been all for it.

[not_for_anything]

And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.

[*kryogenix*]

And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.

i don't know all of history, but I have the sense to check my facts before posting.

you can hold an opinion, but if you want respect, hold an informed opinion.

we did not go to vietnam for oil.

[not_for_anything]

but was the war justified? not really...just beacuse capotilist people hate the communist doesnt mean we should attack them because we think we have a better system, and the oil was a perk, but still probably the motivation to get us over there

[Spirited Away]

And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.

Hell no it was not to save Vietnam. It would be ridiculous, and quite naive to believe that the US, or any other country for that matter, would go to war without expecting some kind of reward or positive turnout for themselves. We all know it so there is no need for you to tell the rest of us that the US intended to save Vietnam... There is a great flaw in wording. The correct way to say this would be the US intended to prevent communism from spreading to Vietnam.

Hippies took to the streets because they saw monks burning themselves. Yet, they failed to see the story behind the images, behind the photos. Where is justice in oppressing the people? Where is justice in taking lands, rightfully belonging to my ancestors for generations away from my family? Where is justice in incarcerating thousands upon thousands Nationalist soldiers while using endless kinds of torture? If you want more information on this I will supply it. It's so easy to say the war was unjust from the point of views of those who do not understand the pain of loss, but you know, there are more than one point of view.

but was the war justified? not really...just beacuse capotilist people hate the communist doesnt mean we should attack them because we think we have a better system, and the oil was a perk, but still probably the motivation to get us over there

Tell me how much you know about the Vietnam War because it seems to me you are in desperate need of a lesson. Of course, I am also in a desperate need to educate those who think they know the war when the only source they have is from secondary, and oftimes one-sided sources.

And how the heck do you get oil mixed up in the Vietnam War...

[not_for_anything]

well educate me if you would like, but what are you really trying to say? That I am wrong, or that Vietnam was wrong...and maybe i am getting oil mixed up with something else in vietnam

[Spirited Away]

well educate me if you would like, but what are you really trying to say? That I am wrong, or that Vietnam was wrong...and maybe i am getting oil mixed up with something else in vietnam

What on earth are you talking about? What does the Vietnam War has to do with oil?

Yes, I AM saying that you're wrong. I can't even understand what you're trying to say about the Vietnam War. How can you, someone who has no understanding of the war itself, say that it's wrong?

[*nightmare4taki*]

Although Americans may feel as though a democracy is the best form of government, that may not be necessarily how every person feels.

Really and truly although a war may be just in some peoples eyes it may not always go as expected just like in the case with Vietnam, your just fighting a hopeless battle. The only reason I would approve of a country going to war these days is if another world war is about to break out.

Democracy is the best form of government according to Vietnamese Nationalist... That's why they fought against the spread of Communism. What are you trying to say exactly?

Im going to separate these statements in my quote from earlier today.


I never said anything about a Communism or any other form of government being better then a Democracy. I was speaking in terms of the people Iraq not Vietnam when I said they may not necessarily want a Democracy form of government established. In other words in the U.S. the government was built and found by the people so why can't we let them establish what ever government suits them, is all i was trying to say. When I brought up the Vietnam war I was saying that it was hopeless in constantly fighting because in some cases you never knew who your friend or enemy was. I know this because my school history teacher fought in the war and he told us this first hand. So basically what i mean is when your fighting a war there is a losing side but with the loss of life its hard to say a certain side won.

[*kryogenix*]

but was the war justified? not really...just beacuse capotilist people hate the communist doesnt mean we should attack them because we think we have a better system, and the oil was a perk, but still probably the motivation to get us over there

yes it was justified. it was to prevent the spread of more communist states (which meant more soviet allies). there was a geniune fear that all of Asia would fall to communism. that would have been terrible.

[Spirited Away]

I never said anything about a Communism or any other form of government being better then a Democracy. I was speaking in terms of the people Iraq not Vietnam when I said they may not necessarily want a Democracy form of government established. In other words in  the U.S. the government was built and found by the people so why can't we let them establish what ever government suits them, is all i was trying to say. When I brought up the Vietnam war I was saying that it was hopeless in constantly fighting because in some cases you never knew who your friend or enemy was. I know this because my school history teacher fought in the war and he told us this first hand. So basically what i mean is when your fighting a war there is a losing side but with the loss of life its hard to say a certain side won.

I never said you said that Communism is better than Democracy. You said that others may not feel that Democracy is good for them. I didn't deny it. I only said that Nationalist Vietnamese knew what was good for them, which was Democracy. I did not realize you were speaking of the Iraqi.

As for the Vietnam War, it's interesting that your teacher should say that. Though he felt that it was hopeless, nationalists never gave up. Even after the fall of Saigon and even now. While he thought it was hopeless, there were Vietnamese who were tortured to the point of insanity at one point in time who now still fight the battle. Hopeless is point of view, you see.

Also, the US never lost anything but perhaps pride. I've heard so many people, and even read in textbooks that says the US lost the Vietnam War... which is a silly thing. What did the US lose exactly? Compare loss of pride to loss of pride AND freedom, homeland...

Anyway, back to topic.

Hmm, maybe I did hear it on Samurai X... I don't remember anymore.. but I will try to find out if the quote was ever said in Final Fantasy. Oh wait.. this isn't the topic either... LOL.

[sadolakced acid]

all war is justified.

that being said; the justifications provided aren't always good, and are made up for convienece. but it is justified.


there are no winners in war. there is only a side that lost more, and a side that lost less.

that being said; a just war is one in which everyone loses the same amount or nobody loses at all.

and, as everyone loses in war, the only just war is on in which everyone dies.

so; MAD is the only justified war.

[*kryogenix*]

there are no winners in war.  there is only a side that lost more, and a side that lost less.

that being said;  a just war is one in which everyone loses the same amount or nobody loses at all.

what do you mean no winners? what about a war where one gains territory? surely the side that one is the winner.

are you saying the US didn't win the Spanish-American war? Did they lose the same as the Spanish?

[sammi rules you]

And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.

...i reeeeally think you're getting vietnam mixed up with iraq. how in the world are you involving oil with vietnam? most of the oil we want is in the middle east..which is not where vietnam is. we went to vietnam to help the democratic south fight against the communist north.

wow, you really need to go to history class. sure we don't know everything about history, but you've proven we certainly know more than you do.

[sadolakced acid]

what do you mean no winners? what about a war where one gains territory? surely the side that one is the winner.

are you saying the US didn't win the Spanish-American war? Did they lose the same as the Spanish?

ehh. countries can 'win'. the people in the war cannot.

[*CrackedRearView*]

I find it hilarious that this 'just war' crap is brought up only when a Republican dives into a war.

Because if you're Republican, you most certainly have ulterior motives! [/sarcasm]

[technicolour]

touch my monkey Posted Jun 15 2005, 1:38 PM
  QUOTE(not_for_anything @ Jun 14 2005, 4:05 PM)
And at the ripe old age of 16 kryogenix know all about history, well anyway I am allowed to hold an opinion, thats what debate is, ok so now were back to listening to what the news tells us the war was for, because it was not to save vietnam...then why were all the hippies preaching in the streets...it was more than just about getting their loved ones home in one peice, it was about how unjust the war was.






...i reeeeally think you're getting vietnam mixed up with iraq. how in the world are you involving oil with vietnam? most of the oil we want is in the middle east..which is not where vietnam is. we went to vietnam to help the democratic south fight against the communist north.

wow, you really need to go to history class. sure we don't know everything about history, but you've proven we certainly know more than you do.

You're getting mixed up. ^^The last person i quoted is right.

[gotblog4me?]

I find it hilarious that this 'just war' crap is brought up only when a Republican dives into a war.

Because if you're Republican, you most certainly have ulterior motives! [/sarcasm]

for the record, I'm all for this war, and I support Bush!

[_suzie_]

''I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing''

i agree. vietnam does have oil although this isnt the reason it was invaded. the real reason was to stop communism taking full control in asia, as someone's mentioned before, as the domino effect.

ive noticed alot of you have been talkin about democracy and upholding it....probably without realisng that Bush's administration is extremely facist in nature. facism is just as bad as communism. neither gives a shit about the people who bear the brunt of their regimes. heres a nice quote, someone on here has it as their signature aswsell:

"America is a melting pot: the people at the bottom get burnt while all the scum floats to the top"

id change the word 'america' to 'western society' though, cuz its pretty much all the same.

[*CrackedRearView*]

''I too am anti-war, unless there really is a reason, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganastan, all were uncalled for...seeing as there were no WMD, we had no business in Iraq, and well we should have left the Vietnameese alone with their oil!, unnecessary deaths...no reasons, except pride. I guess only wars i can understand are religious wars, although I dont understand how they think they are serving justice..by more killing''

i agree. vietnam does have oil although this isnt the reason it was invaded. the real reason was to stop communism taking full control in asia, as someone's mentioned before, as the domino effect.

ive noticed alot of you have been talkin about democracy and upholding it....probably without realisng that Bush's administration is extremely facist in nature. facism is just as bad as communism. neither gives a shit about the people who bear the brunt of their regimes. heres a nice quote, someone on here has it as their signature aswsell:

"America is a melting pot: the people at the bottom get burnt while all the scum floats to the top"

id change the word 'america' to 'western society' though, cuz its pretty much all the same.

Left the Vietnamese alone with their oil?

What is it with the people in this forum and thinking that the Vietnam War had something to do with oil?

[shoots himself]

[sikdragon]

"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[*mipadi*]

"Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum"

Ah yes, but that quote is a descendent of Flavius Vegetius Renatus's quote, "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem," which means, "Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle;" which goes to say that the quote is not encouraging offensive combating, but using a powerful military as a deterrent.

[sikdragon]

My implication was self defense.

[sadolakced acid]

Ah yes, but that quote is a descendent of Flavius Vegetius Renatus's quote, "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem," which means, "Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle;" which goes to say that the quote is not encouraging offensive combating, but using a powerful military as a deterrent.

powerful militaries sitting at home with nothing to do are awfully prone to overthrow thier ruler, expecially when the cash runs dry.

it's more economical to send them into a war. also gives you a reason to raise taxes.

[sikdragon]

In modern society those things you speak of are not necassary.

[*mipadi*]

In modern society those things you speak of are not necassary.

What is not necessary?

[sikdragon]

sorry,

powerful militaries sitting at home with nothing to do are awfully prone to overthrow thier ruler, expecially when the cash runs dry.

it's more economical to send them into a war. also gives you a reason to raise taxes.

[sadolakced acid]

^

oh but they are nessicary. why else do powerful countries like to send 'peacekeeping' missions? their military has to do something, or else there is dissent, and armed dissent is something every country doesn't want.

[sikdragon]

i'm talking about lack of cash and overthrowing. That sounds more like merc's to me. The united states military is always working a lot of times behind the scenes.

[sadolakced acid]

i'm talking about lack of cash and overthrowing. That sounds more like merc's to me. The united states military is always working a lot of times behind the scenes.

that behind the scenes work is something an army shouldn't do. case in point- iraqi war has summoned the soldiers as is thier job.

however, these behind the scenes jobs aren't being done.

the army has helped with firefighting and disaster control.

the california national guard and florida national guard should be at home, in anticipation of the hurricanes and earthquakes. but some of them are probably in iraq.

the money running out won't happen. but US soldiers are mercs. the army is using bribery to get new recruits.

[sikdragon]

volunteers aren't mercs. Volunteers are compensated for their service. Merc's go where the money goes. When i say behind the scenes i mean things that aren't on the news.

[sadolakced acid]

like stationed in the DMZ (pulling out) or in germany (pulling out)?

[sikdragon]

Wherever the president sends them.

[sadolakced acid]

Wherever the president sends them.

like somolia?
or that place where the event that "black hawk down" is based on happened?

our military would not be able to stay at home for longer than 10 years, i'd say. pentagon top brass would get restless, etc.

they can only play wargames so much.

even if it is a logistics operation, like distributing tsunami aid, the military has to be doing something.

the problem is when there isn't anything good left, and all the wargames have been played.

then either your military atrophies or you send them off to a 'conflict' or 'peacekeeping operation' somewhere.

[sikdragon]

You make it sound like we have one camp where the military is constantly training. When the military isn't serving they go back to their homes. They live amongst those they served for.

[sadolakced acid]

i'm more of talking about the brass when i'm saying there'll be discontent.

higher ranking officers, etc.

[sikdragon]

that's what we have MP's for.

[*mipadi*]

You make it sound like we have one camp where the military is constantly training. When the military isn't serving they go back to their homes. They live amongst those they served for.

Activity duty personnel don't. When you're active duty, the military is your job. You train every day, every week, all year. You do physical training and basic martial exercises everyday, and contribute to base maintenance, when you aren't actually on a military exercise.

It's the reservists and National Guard who go back to their families and other jobs most of the time. It's the National Guard who is supposed to help defend the US's borders, and help in times of flood, fire, etc., but Bush seems to have turned them into the International Guard, and sent them abroad, for some reason. Our military is stretched thin, and we have very little personnel at home to actually protect the US in the event of attack.

[*CrackedRearView*]

oh but they are nessicary.  why else do powerful countries like to send 'peacekeeping' missions? their military has to do something, or else there is dissent, and armed dissent is something every country doesn't want.

They don't. They pack teams composed of soldiers and MPs from several different countries into a useless little institution called the UN.

And then they go fail at said 'peacekeeping missions'.

[sikdragon]

Activity duty personnel don't. When you're active duty, the military is your job. You train every day, every week, all year. You do physical training and basic martial exercises everyday, and contribute to base maintenance, when you aren't actually on a military exercise.

They're not active duty all the time. After they've served they go back home until they're called again.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Activity duty personnel don't. When you're active duty, the military is your job. You train every day, every week, all year. You do physical training and basic martial exercises everyday, and contribute to base maintenance, when you aren't actually on a military exercise.

It's the reservists and National Guard who go back to their families and other jobs most of the time. It's the National Guard who is supposed to help defend the US's borders, and help in times of flood, fire, etc., but Bush seems to have turned them into the International Guard, and sent them abroad, for some reason. Our military is stretched thin, and we have very little personnel at home to actually protect the US in the event of attack.

Elaborate, because last time I checked, the military is 1.5 million-strong, with thousands coming out of high school to enlist.

[andriaalazing*]

nothing.

[*mipadi*]

They're not active duty all the time. After they've served they go back home until they're called again.

You're thinking of reservists, not active-duty personnel.

Elaborate, because last time I checked, the military is 1.5 million-strong, with thousands coming out of high school to enlist.

Here's an article on how the Army is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals. Google and you'll find information on how the Marines are having similar problems. Why do you think the US is using primarily National Guardsmen and reservists in Iraq? It's because we don't have enough troops to fight a war on two fronts.