Can there be a just war?

[FascistLibertarian]

I do not think there has ever been a just war.

War is horrible and people on both sides do awful things.

There have been wars that had to be fought, but no war is 'just'.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's because "justice" sips meekly from the fountain of POWER.

[kimmy]

I do not think there has ever been a just war.

War is horrible and people on both sides do awful things.

There have been wars that had to be fought, but no war is 'just'.

If the war had to be fought, then it was just. Pretty much by definition, yes?

-k

[geoffrey]

There have been wars that had to be fought, but no war is 'just'.

Contradictory statement, at least a little bit?

[August1991]

I do not think there has ever been a just war.

I have a simple answer to this statement.

The Montreal policeman who shot and killed the shooter at Dawson College did a good thing. The policeman prevented further mayhem.

More generally, an individual cannot deal with a psychopath alone. In a civilized society, individuals organize to deal with them. This constitutes a just war.

[FascistLibertarian]

I dont think its contradictory.

I dont think there are any just wars but the conclusion that I draw from that is not that we should never fight.

The Montreal policeman who shot and killed the shooter at Dawson College did a good thing. The policeman prevented further mayhem.

More generally, an individual cannot deal with a psychopath alone. In a civilized society, individuals organize to deal with them. This constitutes a just war.

When people organize in a group it will come to pass that some of them will act in a bad manner.

Further even by following orders they can do bad things.

If someone can come up with a just war (and I hope they can do better than ww2) I would love to hear it.

We clearly had to fight ww2, but it was not a just war.

[Posit]

Given that armies prepare for war during peace times, it is apparent that one cannot maintain a top-notch armed forces without exercising it in real battle. Wars are equally necessary to the arms makers, trainers and suppliers to the armed forces. War is about keeping the economy going, not about liberating oppressed peoples.

Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~David Friedman

War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. ~John F. Kennedy

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. ~Ernest Hemingway

War would end if the dead could return. ~Stanley Baldwin

In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war at the same time. ~Albert Einstein

War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace. ~Thomas Mann

[kuzadd]

No such thing as a "just war" it is a slogan to sell to the populace the justification for slaughter by calling it "just."

after all what sounds better, we must fight a "just war"

or we must 'slaughter a bunch of innocent people, to attain out goal'

I mean, they are both reflective of the reality.

pretty obvious which is the better sales pitch now isn't it.?

"Just war" draws to mind justice and righteosness, wow!

That sounds good.

[Army Guy]

That would depend on your defination of a Just War, take alook at the below web sites and then let us know what constitutes a just war. I think there defination is a little broader than yours.

Because a few of your group acts in a bad manner does not make a just war unjust, if that is your defination then you'd be right, No war , no peacekeeping operation, has been just.

Read those links and then tell me WWII were not just.

wik

very deep

[kuzadd]

That would depend on your defination of a Just War, take alook at the below web sites and then let us know what constitutes a just war. I think there defination is a little broader than yours.

Because a few of your group acts in a bad manner does not make a just war unjust, if that is your defination then you'd be right, No war , no peacekeeping operation, has been just.

Read those links and then tell me WWII were not just.

wik

very deep

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

"Just war is a specific concept of how warfare might be justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, tradition, or historical commentary."

"Just war" is a specific concept if how war may be sold,( justified) in accordance with a particular situation (not necessarily truthful), then expanded or supported by doctrine (code of beliefs, such as bringing freedom) tradition ( it's our duty) or historical commentary ( Saddam was bad he gassed Kurds)

Just war is a sales pitch, a way to sell a war, to make it acceptable and palatable.

That's all it is.

[White Doors]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

[Army Guy]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

I think you jumped on this way to soon. according to the references it just may fit.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Really, are you telling me i can throw out all my history books then, perhaps you can provide a few references to back up that claim.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

Again perhaps you can provide a ref of when the allies knew of the concentration camps, and the final solution, and maybe you can put a time frame into when mother russia stopped getting her ass kicked and started to kick ass, and started marching thru Europe.

"Just war is a specific concept of how warfare might be justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, tradition, or historical commentary."

"Just war" is a specific concept if how war may be sold,( justified) in accordance with a particular situation (not necessarily truthful), then expanded or supported by doctrine (code of beliefs, such as bringing freedom) tradition ( it's our duty) or historical commentary ( Saddam was bad he gassed Kurds)

Just war is a sales pitch, a way to sell a war, to make it acceptable and palatable.

That's all it is.

Thats your opinion of the article, certainly selling it to the public would be part of it, but it does not sum it up completely. i see it rather as a guide line to a nations leader or government to which they should goven themselfs when discussing the use of force...and when using force to solve a grave problem, and after the war... perhaps you can give references why WWII would not fit into any of those guidelines set out in the refs i provided.

FascistLibertarian if i interputated is comments correctly had said if someone had committed one crime or had done something bad during the conflict that it would be a unjust war...However according to those that have studied it thats not true.

[ScottSA]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me...

[kuzadd]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

actually you shouldn;t talk because you look a fool.

By the allies, I am including the US, by the time the US got to Europe, get a map and look at how much Russia had advanced, they were stopped in Germany , on there way through.

Ergo, Russia was kicking butt, and all of Europe was going to fall to the communists.

go read a book or ten!

[kuzadd]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me...

see, people who don't have a clue embarrass themselves over and over. Look at a map, okay?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2

Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front.

"Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. "

"It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier."

Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place.

Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia.

Ok, now could the non-informed get back on topic, or please inform themselves!

[ScottSA]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me...

see, people who don't have a clue embarrass themselves over and over. Look at a map, okay?

Perhaps after looking at a map, you ought to glance at a timeline. You really ought to back away from this argument as quickly and as quietly as possible.

[kuzadd]

Again perhaps you can provide a ref of when the allies knew of the concentration camps, and the final solution, and maybe you can put a time frame into when mother russia stopped getting her ass kicked and started to kick ass, and started marching thru Europe.

The Allies inc. the US knew, it is documented in this book

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Intelligence-Naz...n/dp/1880875268

U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis (Paperback)

by Richard Breitman (Author), Norman J. W. Goda (Author), Timothy Naftali (Author), Robert Wolfe (Author) "NEARLY SIXTY YEARS after World War II, the American public and media continue to investigate troubling questions: Who knew what about the Holocaust, and when?..

Though Breitman being an American tries to downplay, the knowledge the US and Britian had of jews and others being rounded up and imprisoned/killed, it nonetheless, is a interesting book.

I've read it.

There are other out there if you are so interested.

Russia didn't get her "ass kicked" revisionist western history, at it's worst.

[kuzadd]

Perhaps after looking at a map, you ought to glance at a timeline. You really ought to back away from this argument as quickly and as quietly as possible.

not only have I looked at a map, I seen a timeline, read books

and why oh why did you leave the rest of my post out,

here it is ,

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2

Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front.

"Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. "

"It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier."

Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place.

Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia.

you are not worth my time!

[ScottSA]

Russia didn't get her "ass kicked" revisionist western history, at it's worst.

I'm not sure why the USSR retreated in full rout all the way to Moscow, leaving their equipment and dead strewn all along the way. Perhaps you could explain this to us?

[kuzadd]

Russia didn't get her "ass kicked" revisionist western history, at it's worst.

I'm not sure why the USSR retreated in full rout all the way to Moscow, leaving their equipment and dead strewn all along the way. Perhaps you could explain this to us?

why don't you ask some scholars?

why was half of Germany communist and half not?

what troops occupied eastern germany if they were all the way in Moscow?

lol.

clearly not worth my time!!!!

[ScottSA]

Perhaps after looking at a map, you ought to glance at a timeline. You really ought to back away from this argument as quickly and as quietly as possible.

not only have I looked at a map, I seen a timeline, read books

and why oh why did you leave the rest of my post out,

here it is ,

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2

Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front.

"Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. "

"It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier."

Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place.

Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia.

you are not worth my time!

I'm afraid you just don't get it. You're not even arguing the same point. No one is disputing the fact that the hardest fighting took place on the eastern front. In fact, Stalingrad was probably the most vicous battle in human history. But that's not the point. The point is that the USSR entered the war well after the allies, so it's silly to argue that the allies entered the war to stop the USSR. Further, the first year of the barbarossa invasion saw the USSR in full rout, and it was widely expected across the globe that the USSR would be overrun by 1943 at the latest.

[myata]

Using the analogy of our day to day life, any warlike (i.e violent and damaging) action by an individual agains another, which is not in direct and immediate protection of their or other's life is against the law. I.e. one can't go and blast their neighbours home because they think that neighbour could be plotting against them. It's a simple definition, but it would clear a lot of confusion, if used consistently. The threat must actual, immediate and serious, or you cannot respond with a war, period. Obviously it would immediately rule out infamous justifications like:

- Nazis attack on Poland based on staged assault on German border checkpoint in WWII;

- US war on Vietname based on allegedly staged incident with a patrol ship; even if it weren't staged, the threat to the US was not immediate or serious to begin a full blown war.

- Coalition war in Iraq: again, no actual, immediate or anywhere serious threat is sight.

On the other hand, these wars can be considered as justified because they resulted from actual, direct and immediate threat:

- Allied coalition in WWII;

- Kuweit war

[cybercoma]

If the war had to be fought, then it was just. Pretty much by definition, yes?

-k

I don't think that's necessarily so. If a nation attacked Canada and we had no choice but to go to war to defend ourselves, it may seem as though the war is just; however, the reason for the invasion begin with is most certainly not just and we'd simply be dragged into an unjust situation.

[kuzadd]

I wanted to say army guy, thanks for being an honest debater, but, Can there be a just war, I don't see it, given the fact that the history of war is not just, the reasons for war are not just, always it seems war is used a s a means to steal land, resources, etc., and not much else.

if there is anything JUST ( righteous) about war, it is in the people who fight back, who defend, to keep , what is theirs, theirs homes, theirs families.

That is all the just (justice) I can see in war, much anything else, reeks of conquest.

good-day to you!

[ScottSA]

If the war had to be fought, then it was just. Pretty much by definition, yes?

-k

I don't think that's necessarily so. If a nation attacked Canada and we had no choice but to go to war to defend ourselves, it may seem as though the war is just; however, the reason for the invasion begin with is most certainly not just and we'd simply be dragged into an unjust situation.

That's not what 'just war' refers to. It refers to either side in the war, not the war itself. One can say, without contradiction, that the aliies fought a just war and the axis did not. Or vice versa, I suppose.