Is war ever justified?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Intentionally killing, no, but it is an inevitable result of any war, justified or unjustified. Innocent civilians were killed during World War II, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have entered the war. There is a difference between killing civilians in an attempt to expand a totalitarian ideology (Nazis), and unintentionally killing civilians in an attempt to spare the population from greater harm in the future.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, but in World War Two, "innocent citizens" absolutely were tergetted as a tactic by Allied nations against Germany.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

That is, at best, an oversimplification of the Combined Bomber Offensive. There is certainly much that could have been done better in its prosecution—particularly as it pertains to Bomber Command—but to claim it was only about killing German civilians is not accurate.

Nowhere did I say or imply that the bombing of German cities was only about killing German civilians. So your post is, at best, an oversimplification of my post.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Had Hitler won WWII he would be an hero now.
He would be remembered as one of the greatest man in history, maybe the greatest.
But he lost, so he is a criminal.
Stalin won so he was considered an hero for a long time by millions of people, but now communism is not really en-vougue, so many people in the West criticize him..

Stalin is one of the most reviled people in history and rightly so despite being on the winning side in World War Two. So that rather puts a dent in your theory that Hitler would be a hero if only he had won World War Two.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Stalin is one of the most reviled people in history and rightly so despite being on the winning side in World War Two. So that rather puts a dent in your theory that Hitler would be a hero if only he had won World War Two.

This is your opinion as you come from the West:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...4BR17620081228

Stalin was immensely popular in most countries of the world when communism was en-vogue, say in the 50s, 60s.
Kennedy is still much popular in the US.
Maybe you yourself regard him as a good president
Mao is popular in China.
Showa Tenno is popular in Japan.

The ones who are not popular are Hitler and Mussolini, as they lost.
Japan also lost but the country was not really invaved, so ShowaTenno is still popular in Japan
There is no war criminal who was regarded as a criminal if he won the war

http://www.scienceguide.nl/media/683...ey%20upton.jpg

[Giz]

Originally Posted by KatieG

I appreciate what you're saying but my father was a retired Marine and taught for 2 years at the Naval War College.

I think that if you'd ask him, he'd say that if someone declares war on you, then you are at war. (And not simply in a state of "la Resistance!")

Originally Posted by KatieG

WWII. Well, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. An aggressive move by the Japanese. Would we have entered the war in the Pacific if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened? We'd been helping the Allies in Europe under the table for years before we finally made the move to step in there also. Treaty with a another nation to come to their defense if asked.

"Treaty with a another nation to come to their defense if asked. " - I'm sorry?

Originally Posted by KatieG

The Civil War. I would argue that war fought for many reasons, none of them moral.

Well, preventing an unjustified secession. And then there's that other thing that mattered to quite a few folks... what was it, something between the 12th and 14th amendments...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giz

And then there's that other thing that mattered to quite a few folks... what was it, something between the 12th and 14th amendments...

Snickerdoodles?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

This is your opinion as you come from the West:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...4BR17620081228

Stalin was immensely popular in most countries of the world when communism was en-vogue, say in the 50s, 60s.
Kennedy is still much popular in the US.

Yeah, people loved Communism back in those days...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...lution_of_1956
"In the immediate aftermath, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested. Eventually, 26,000 of these were brought before the Hungarian courts, 22,000 were sentenced, 13,000 imprisoned, and several hundred executed. Hundreds were also deported to the Soviet Union"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring
" the leadership of the Warsaw Pact countries worried that the unfolding liberalizations in Czechoslovakia, including the ending of censorship and political surveillance by the secret police, would be detrimental to their interests."


Hmmm, compare that to the US response to France withdrawing from NATO command in 1966... Kennedy (in office when France began withdrawing in 1962) comes off rather well I'd say...

[Giz]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Snickerdoodles?

It's where I keep 'em

[KatieG]

Originally Posted by Giz

I think that if you'd ask him, he'd say that if someone declares war on you, then you are at war. (And not simply in a state of "la Resistance!")




"Treaty with a another nation to come to their defense if asked. " - I'm sorry?




Well, preventing an unjustified secession. And then there's that other thing that mattered to quite a few folks... what was it, something between the 12th and 14th amendments...

I would ask him but he's dead. I talked with him many times about war, politics and the combination of the two. He was a soldier. Fought in WWII in the Pacific, in Korea, and was a battalion commander in Vietnam. He never thought Vietnam was what "he" considered a moral war but that's where the Marine Corps sent him.

The definition of moral is where it's possible to get all tripped up. What you define as moral may not be the same as mine. Makes it a real problem when countries become involved.

The American Civil War is a whole universe of contradictions. Yes, it was to free the slaves. The North gave no thought as to what was going to happen to those 10s of thousands of slaves suddenly freed. Where will they live? How will they live? What will they eat? How will we provide for all these people suddenly turned loose on the economy in the South after the war?

The US has treaties with many countries who want the US to act as mean big brother and possible policeman if they get in trouble. That's how we ended up in Vietnam. To a slightly different degree, it's how we got into WWII.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Giz

Yeah, people loved Communism back in those days...

So what..??
I did not say that all people loved Stalin, I just said that he was popular among many Communists circles in Europe.
Where do "many thousands" of Hungarians disprove what I said?
Please have a look at the Italian PCI (Italian communists party) leader Togliatti` s speech at Stalin` s death when he called him "a giant of human thought", "his name will be remembered as one of the biggest steps of the glorious evolution of humankind"..

US response to France withdraw from NATO have little to do with what I said.
Kennedy` s role in US involvement in Vietnam may prove a more appropriate example to our discussion.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

This is your opinion as you come from the West:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...4BR17620081228

Well, thank you for telling me where my opinion comes from. Presumably all your opinions are determined purely by where you come from, right?

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Stalin was immensely popular in most countries of the world when communism was en-vogue, say in the 50s, 60s.

You mean that Stalin was popular among the Communist Parties of the World. Even this is only a qualified yes given that the Soviet Union's own Communist Party even denounced him and took his body from Lenin's tomb and buried him under the Kremlin walls.

Quote:

Kennedy is still much popular in the US.

Popular for his wartime stuff? I doubt it.

Quote:

Maybe you yourself regard him as a good president

Well, why don't you tell me what I think and the geography that formed my thoughts. You seem to be able to attribute people's beliefs with an astoundingly reckless confidence.

Quote:

Mao is popular in China.

His popularity has actually taken a massive dent and I know plenty of Chinese people who have lots of bad things to say of Mao.

Quote:

Showa Tenno is popular in Japan.

Would you like to substantiate this? To the extent that anyone has an opinion of him in Japan, he's generally seen as a little old man who was into growing bonsai trees.

Quote:

The ones who are not popular are Hitler and Mussolini, as they lost.

Haphazard contradiction coming right up...

Quote:

Japan also lost but the country was not really invaved, so ShowaTenno is still popular in Japan

Japan was invaded and occupied for years. General MacArthur practically ruled the place as his personal fiefdom until the early 50's. One of the reasons for Hirohito's relative popularity - as you see it - is his rehabilitation by MacArthur and the belief that by retaining him it would seem to legitimize the US occupation. All the rest of his war-time cabinet were hanged or committed suicide.[/quote]

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, thank you for telling me where my opinion comes from. Presumably all your opinions are determined purely by where you come from, right?

Differently from you, I try to think independently

Originally Posted by angrysoba

You mean that Stalin was popular among the Communist Parties of the World. Even this is only a qualified yes given that the Soviet Union's own Communist Party even denounced him and took his body from Lenin's tomb and buried him under the Kremlin walls.

And the person who denounced Stalin was Kruschev, who was corresponsible of many of Stalin crimes.
As for Stalin popularity, read the link I gave

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Popular for his wartime stuff? I doubt it.

Popular for what does not matter, according to some polls it is number 2 after Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tates#ABC_poll
How many people in the US think that JFK was a war criminal?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, why don't you tell me what I think and the geography that formed my thoughts. You seem to be able to attribute people's beliefs with an astoundingly reckless confidence.

I have given you evidence

Originally Posted by angrysoba

His popularity has actually taken a massive dent and I know plenty of Chinese people who have lots of bad things to say of Mao.

Sure.
What is the face that you saw in that Chinese note?
How many people in China think that Mao was a criminal?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Would you like to substantiate this?

Sure.
Try to have a look at how many Japanese companies are called "Showa".
How many people in Japan think that Showa Tenno was a war criminal?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Japan was invaded and occupied for years. General MacArthur practically ruled the place as his personal fiefdom until the early 50's. One of the reasons for Hirohito's relative popularity - as you see it - is his rehabilitation by MacArthur and the belief that by retaining him it would seem to legitimize the US occupation. All the rest of his war-time cabinet were hanged or committed suicide.

And so what?
People can not read books?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Differently from you, I try to think independently

Doesn't do you much good, by the looks of things.

But where do you get off assuming that other people believe something because of where they are from and that you believe things because you think independently. It's an obnoxious and supercilious thing to say.

Quote:

And the person who denounced Stalin was Kruschev, who was corresponsible of many of Stalin crimes.
As for Stalin popularity, read the link I gave

So even his comrades turned against him. Ah well. As for the poll it doesn't do what you says it did, which is to show Stalin's popularity in the 50s and 60s.

Quote:

Popular for what does not matter, according to some polls it is number 2 after Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tates#ABC_poll
How many people in the US think that JFK was a war criminal?

According to you, what Kennedy did in Vietnam is relevant to this thread and not the other stuff. It seems that when it is convenient to you then his wartime stuff is irrelevant. Don't you think his popularity came from his alleged civil rights records and his good looks?

Quote:

I have given you evidence

Evidence of what?

Quote:

Sure.
What is the face that you saw in that Chinese note?
How many people in China think that Mao was a criminal?

Mao's on the notes! Big deal! Andrew Jackson and Alexander Hamilton are on notes and it has absolutely no relevance to their popularity.

Quote:

Sure.
Try to have a look at how many Japanese companies are called "Showa".
How many people in Japan think that Showa Tenno was a war criminal?

Those companies were likely founded in the Showa era, which is where the name will have come from. There are plenty of other companies in Japan named Meiji and Taisho and Heiwa. It reflects their vintage. That is all. And how many Japanese think Hirohito was a war criminal? Very few but that's a different issue and besides he was never put up before the Tokyo war crimes tribunal so that's all that most people will need.

Quote:

And so what?
People can not read books?

No, you argued that Japan was not invaded. It surely was. Can you not read books?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

A war is supposed to be between armies.

That's fine in theory. In practice, not so much. Armies cannot exist nor sustain themselves in the field without the efforts of civilians.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Claiming that the civilian is not innocent because they may have financed the war is a bit hardcore.

To use an analogy, what degree of responsibility does the person laundering the money for an organized crime family bear for the crimes committed by that family? They may not have perpetrated murders or assaults themselves, but the persons doing the laundering are nevertheless an important part of the organization's operation and function.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I wouldn't go there. First of all, when there are civilian casualties, nobody can tell which civilians supported/financed the war and which didn't, so this is a moot point.

Who works in the factories which produce the weapons of war? Who mines the raw resources which are used in those factories? Who works in the electrical plants that provide power to the mines and factories? Who grows the food that feeds the armies? From whom are the new soldiers recruited or drafted?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by KatieG

WWII. Well, we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. An aggressive move by the Japanese. Would we have entered the war in the Pacific if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened?

Yes, you would have, as the raid on Pearl Harbor was but one of numerous assaults launched by the Japanese in concert with that attack. The Philippines were attacked within hours of the Pearl Harbor raid, and that attack, absent any raid on Pearl, would still have meant war between Japan and the U.S.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Nowhere did I say or imply that the bombing of German cities was only about killing German civilians. So your post is, at best, an oversimplification of my post.

Fair enough, perhaps my phrasing needed better work. I'd still disagree with your statement, "... in World War Two, "innocent citizens" absolutely were tergetted [sic] as a tactic by Allied nations against Germany" depending on exactly what is meant by civilians in this context (i.e. the persons themselves or their homes, businesses, and societal infrastructure).

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But where do you get off assuming that other people believe something because of where they are from and that you believe things because you think independently. It's an obnoxious and supercilious thing to say.

Supercilious..
Yes.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

So even his comrades turned against him.

Yes, after he died.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Ah well. As for the poll it doesn't do what you says it did, which is to show Stalin's popularity in the 50s and 60s.

As there were many popularity polls in the USSR during Stalin

Originally Posted by angrysoba

According to you, what Kennedy did in Vietnam is relevant to this thread and not the other stuff. It seems that when it is convenient to you then his wartime stuff is irrelevant. Don't you think his popularity came from his alleged civil rights records and his good looks?

Absolutely yes.
People are stupid and they do not care if Kennedy murdered millions in Indochina as long as he had good looks and spoke well.
Same goes for others, Hitler was quite good at his speeched as well.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Mao's on the notes! Big deal! Andrew Jackson and Alexander Hamilton are on notes and it has absolutely no relevance to their popularity.

How many Americans consider Andrew Jackson and Hamilton as criminals?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Those companies were likely founded in the Showa era, which is where the name will have come from. There are plenty of other companies in Japan named Meiji and Taisho and Heiwa. It reflects their vintage. That is all.

So, if in Germany someone founded a company during the `30s and called it "Hitler Inc." do you think that today they could go away with it?
Think with your own head..

Originally Posted by angrysoba

And how many Japanese think Hirohito was a war criminal? Very few but that's a different issue and besides he was never put up before the Tokyo war crimes tribunal so that's all that most people will need.

Good.
Then we agree on this.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

No, you argued that Japan was not invaded. It surely was. Can you not read books?

Japan was not invaded.
Japan was bombed twice on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 and then surrended few days later.
Invasion of Japan was planned for 1946 but never materialized, at least, in real terms.

[BNRT]

Originally Posted by Hutch

Well put.

Just saw this in the news; I wonder what his view of this question might have been: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20034347

Thank you. However, I don't really get what that article has to do with the current subject.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Supercilious..
Yes.




Yes, after he died.



As there were many popularity polls in the USSR during Stalin



Absolutely yes.
People are stupid and they do not care if Kennedy murdered millions in Indochina as long as he had good looks and spoke well.
Same goes for others, Hitler was quite good at his speeched as well.



How many Americans consider Andrew Jackson and Hamilton as criminals?



So, if in Germany someone founded a company during the `30s and called it "Hitler Inc." do you think that today they could go away with it?
Think with your own head..



Good.
Then we agree on this.



Japan was not invaded.
Japan was bombed twice on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 and then surrended few days later.
Invasion of Japan was planned for 1946 but never materialized, at least, in real terms.

I think your argument is far too scatter-gun to profitably engage with.

I will point out a few things though. Showa refers to the reign of an emperor. It doesn't refer to an ideology so your attempts to equate it with Hitlerism is as tedious as any other you can find in the annals of Godwinism.


Also, Japan was bombed more than on the 6th and 9th of August. It was bombed quite a lot. Whether Japan surrendered and then was invaded or whether it was invaded an occupied after a struggle on the beaches is no meaningful distinction. Japan was invaded and occupied. You may as well concede this point as you are trying to argue is that people who win wars are necessarily promoted as justified heroes. Japan emphatically lost the war and Hirohito is not worshipped as a hero in Japan.


Also, polls conducted under Stalin are basically meaningless, so I have no idea what your point is there.

Ultimately, the point you are making that Hitler would have been a great hero had he won the war is not proved.

[UTLonghorn]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

The question is not correctly written.
Justified on the eyes of.. who?
God, the King, the people .. ?

As from what history shows us, wars will be definitely justified by the people (well, 95% of them) assuming that that particular war is won.
Had Hitler won WWII he would be an hero now.
He would be remembered as one of the greatest man in history, maybe the greatest.
But he lost, so he is a criminal.

Hitler is considered a "criminal" because he, as the historical record shows, was responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews, as well as 5 million others (Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled children and adults, etc...). And, as angrysoba pointed out, Stalin is still considered a mass murderer despite him being on the winning side in WWII.

Quote:

Stalin won so he was considered an hero for a long time by millions of people, but now communism is not really en-vougue, so many people in the West criticize him..

Stalin is still considered a hero among many Russians because he transformed the country from an agrarian society into an industrial superpower. However, he did so at the cost of millions of lives, and is rightly regarded as a tyrant among historians. Even most mainstream Marxists dissociate with Stalin, and view him as an aberration from "true" Marxism. Most historians knew about the nature of the Stalinist regime, but couldn't really put any numbers behind anything until the release of the Soviet archives, which pretty much confirmed everything they had written about him for decades. It's not like he was praised, and then all of the sudden criticized just because the Soviet Union, and its associated political ideology, were no longer relevant.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Hitler is considered a "criminal" because he, as the historical record shows, was responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews, as well as 5 million others (Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled children and adults, etc...).

Totally irrelevant.
JFK is responsible of one or two millions deaths for scaling up the Vietnam war and nobody in the US considers him a mass murderer.
Showa Tenno is responsible of being involved in Japan` s atrocities in WWII (some 20 million deaths) and nobody in Japan would consider him a mass murderer.

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

And, as angrysoba pointed out, Stalin is still considered a mass murderer despite him being on the winning side in WWII.

Angrysoba has probably been raised in the West or in a family with Western traditions.
Stalin is considered a mass murderer by.. who?
By Western historians, the same people who say nothing about Reagan` s atrocities in South America

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Stalin is still considered a hero among many Russians because he transformed the country from an agrarian society into an industrial superpower. However, he did so at the cost of millions of lives, and is rightly regarded as a tyrant among historians.

Historians.. who?
Western historians?
Communist historians?
Chinese historians?

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Even most mainstream Marxists dissociate with Stalin, and view him as an aberration from "true" Marxism.

The same people who maybe consider Mao as the "true" Marxist.
Or Lenin, another good guy.
Think with your own head, if Stalin was considered so badly, why he remained in power so long?

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Most historians knew about the nature of the Stalinist regime, but couldn't really put any numbers behind anything until the release of the Soviet archives, which pretty much confirmed everything they had written about him for decades. It's not like he was praised, and then all of the sudden criticized just because the Soviet Union, and its associated political ideology, were no longer relevant.

Because people in the USSR needed to look into "archives" to know about the millions that Stalin sent to camps in Siberia?
Please, use your own head.

[UTLonghorn]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Totally irrelevant.
JFK is responsible of one or two millions deaths for scaling up the Vietnam war and nobody in the US considers him a mass murderer.
Showa Tenno is responsible of being involved in Japan` s atrocities in WWII (some 20 million deaths) and nobody in Japan would consider him a mass murderer.

We're comparing JFK to Hitler now?

Quote:

Angrysoba has probably been raised in the West or in a family with Western traditions.
Stalin is considered a mass murderer by.. who?
By Western historians, the same people who say nothing about Reagan` s atrocities in South America

So the right to life is a western contruct? How about the right to not be killed or sent off to a gulag? Are you really trying to argue that Stalin wasn't a tyrant? The evidence of his crimes are very easy to find and read about, and backed up the Soviet Union's own documents. Ever heard of de-Stalinization under Khrushchev? Even his own comrades didn't want anything to do with him. Historians aren't going around just making up crimes and attributing them to Stalin.

Are we to assume that Hitler didn't really commit his crimes because it's nothing but evil Western historians writing about them?

Quote:

The same people who maybe consider Mao as the "true" Marxist.
Or Lenin, another good guy.
Think with your own head, if Stalin was considered so badly, why he remained in power so long?

Is that a joke? How does any totalitarian leader stay in power?

Quote:

Because people in the USSR needed to look into "archives" to know about the millions that Stalin sent to camps in Siberia?
Please, use your own head.

It was the opening of the archives that revealed the extent of his crimes to the outside world, and confirmed what had been written and known about him for decades. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

We're comparing JFK to Hitler now?

No.
Just making a list of people who caused 100000+ deaths, they are both in the list

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

So the right to life is a western contruct? How about the right to not be killed or sent off to a gulag?

What about the right of South American people not to be ruled/slaughtered by a Western-backed dictator?

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Are you really trying to argue that Stalin wasn't a tyrant?

No, but tyrant does not necessarily has a bad meaning per se.

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

The evidence of his crimes are very easy to find and read about, and backed up the Soviet Union's own documents. Ever heard of de-Stalinization under Khrushchev? Even his own comrades didn't want anything to do with him. Historians aren't going around just making up crimes and attributing them to Stalin.

Crimes are called "crimes" depending on which side you are on.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered a big crime by the large majority of the Japanese, but not by the large majority of the Americans
As for Khruschev, I beg you to notice that he took part in most of the crimes that you attribute to Stalin, so go figure..

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Are we to assume that Hitler didn't really commit his crimes because it's nothing but evil Western historians writing about them?

I did not talk about "evil" historians
I am saying that Hitler` s "crimes" were not considered as "crimes" while he was in power.

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

Is that a joke? How does any totalitarian leader stay in power?

With the support of large spats of the population?

Originally Posted by UTLonghorn

It was the opening of the archives that revealed the extent of his crimes to the outside world, and confirmed what had been written and known about him for decades. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

I am going even further telling you that even before the archives were opened people in the USSR (especially, the victims) knew about Stalin` s crimes.

[Ron_Tomkins]

What about the Israel attacks on Gaza? Is that justified?

[h.g.Whiz]

A war that gains no resolution definitely isn't justified!

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by coalesce

When your land is invaded in an unprovoked fashion. Here in the US, we've never had to face that situation, being buffeted by two oceans and two large nations to the north and south. Ask the Belgians in 1914 if they thought war was justified.

Michael

Well, the pre- U.S. Americans had to face pretty much that. Of course most of them are extinct, so have no opinion on the matter.
Is war ever justified?
Of course it is. It's justified by genetic selection, just like any other aspect of natural selection.
It's justified by profit in goods, power and land.
It can be justified in any number of ways.

As can anything. Language is good that way.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

In my opinion, it isn't. War, to me, is the extension of a very basic primitive principle: That in an argument, when both parties can't reach an agreement, one of them will typically will recur to physical violence.

What's your take on War? Is it ever justified? Is it ever "the right thing to do"?

Whenever the aggressors refuse to stop the aggression it is necessary to clean their clocks for them. WWII definitely the thing to do after the Nazi/Japanese/ etc. agression began. Vietnam, not so much(US involvement...)

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Doesn't do you much good, by the looks of things.

But where do you get off assuming that other people believe something because of where they are from and that you believe things because you think independently. It's an obnoxious and supercilious thing to say.

"I have an independent mind, You are eccentric, He is round the twist." - Bernard Woolley Yes Prime Minister

[Noztradamus]

Quote:

MP says violent youth not being 'culled' by war
A WA* Labor MP has told state Parliament more violent people are on the streets because they are not being sent off to war.

During Parliamentary debate about the classification of video games, the Labor member for Forrestfield Andrew Waddell said the people who commit the violence would have in the past been sent off to war.

"The reality is we are not culling the young anymore," he said.

"We are not sending them off to a foreign battlefield to actually kill other people and so consequently that is why they are on our streets.

"That's the reality, we haven't had a major conflict in a very long time."

There it is: war promotes peace on the streets. What more justification go you need?

Think how much safer would Chicago, Washington, and LA be if the urban youth were sent overseas to do what they were meant to do: kill and die.


(* For Shermans: WA means Western Australia, not Washington)

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I mean, if you want to find a really classic example, why not reach back to antiquity? Two armies march out into an open field, have at each other, and whichever side loses, its civilians surrender peacefully to the winner. As always, Technically Correct is the Best Kind of Correct.

A delightful idea, if it ever happened. But it didn't. What actually happens is the victors then proceed to rape and murder the civilians, taking anything they feel like.

The fact is, as anyone familiar with military history knows, warfare has maintained a surprisingly constant trend of increasing civility over time.

Moderns wars like Afghanistan and Iraq are remarkable for their incredibly low body counts.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The problem is that throughout human history we've usually gone to war over issues far less dire and destructive than the war itself.

That's debatable.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I think you'd first have to answer if there is actually such a thing as an innocent civilian, and if so, what conditions or circumstances render them innocent. In a state of total war between industrialized nation-states (i.e. WWII) the military could not exist without the effort of the civilian population.

In a country engaged in total war, there is, by definition, no such thing as a civilian, only combatants. Those who claim otherwise do not understand what total war is.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

What about war against a nation whose people have been attacking your shipping lanes? I mean, take Persia in the reign of King Xerxes I. These damn Greek pirates kept attacking his trade convoys and do horrible things to his diplomats every time he tried to negotiate!

Or there is the case of Saladin. A rogue French knight was attacking pilgrim caravans to Mecca, plundering trade on the Red Sea and generally making the civilized lands uncivilized. The Crusader Kingdoms supported the French bandit so what could Saladin do but declare war?

Palestine/Israel.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by KatieG

Sorry to be so long in coming back and addressing the responses to my post. There is no such thing as a moral war because war itself is not moral.

If you invade another country, their response is to defend themselves. That in itself is not war on their part. The invading country chose to do so for whatever reasons, most likely financial or politcal.

A jihad is not a moral war. War is being waged on innocents, people who were not involved in the original offense. The aggressors can claim religious backing for their attacks, but it's their religion. They can say what they want to justify it, doesn't make it moral.

Coming to the aid of your allies is possibly moral, but only that you had treaties with them to help them defend themselves against aggressors, not that your ally was actually the good guy. Such as was the case with Vietnam.

That depends on your moral values.

To a Muslim jihad can absolutely be moral. Indeed, some of them consider it a moral imperative.

Originally Posted by KatieG

In all of written history, is there a single war that was fought for moral purposes?

All of them.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, Japan was bombed more than on the 6th and 9th of August. It was bombed quite a lot. Whether Japan surrendered and then was invaded or whether it was invaded an occupied after a struggle on the beaches is no meaningful distinction. Japan was invaded and occupied. You may as well concede this point as you are trying to argue is that people who win wars are necessarily promoted as justified heroes. Japan emphatically lost the war and Hirohito is not worshipped as a hero in Japan.

Actually, I would argue that Hirohito is very highly regarded in Japan. He may not be "worshipped" as a "hero", but those a weasel words. His tomb is an incredibly important site, and when he died he had an enormous state funeral, attended by a great range of world leaders.

Perhaps more to the point however, the Yasukuni Shrine dedicated to the soldiers of Japan who sacrificed their lives to the Emperor in WW2 includes a large number of Class A, B and C war criminals.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by gumboot

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
In all of written history, is there a single war that was fought for moral purposes?

All of them.

.
Well... about 50% of them are fought to keep the bad guys out. That's moral.
It's the invasions that are immoral.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Well... about 50% of them are fought to keep the bad guys out. That's moral.
It's the invasions that are immoral.

Not to the people that start them.

[h.g.Whiz]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Not to the people that start them.

Which, would be the invaders, correct?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well they were innocent in the sense that they weren't military. How "innocent" anyone is in a time of total war is difficult to determine. However, I would say that they were as much innocent citizens as those bombed in Coventry.

Innocent does not equal non combatant does not equal innocent.

Ron, to answer your OP question in another way: sometimes.
Ron asks: What about the Israel attacks on Gaza? Is that justified?

Is it a war?

For our German friend, Verklagekasper: well said, about pacifists.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by gumboot

That depends on your moral values.

To a Muslim jihad can absolutely be moral. Indeed, some of them consider it a moral imperative.

That's a good point. Immoral wars are usually the ones that other people engage in. The ones that "we" engage in are the moral ones.

A strict interpretation of turn the other cheek would mean that even defensive wars are unjustified, while another person might argue that even offensive wars for certain purposes are justified if they're for the greater good, say, to end genocide in another country.

[jj]

Is self-defence justified? If so, then yes, war can be justifiable. g'day.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by jj

Is self-defence justified? If so, then yes, war can be justifiable. g'day.

In a related but not identical thought, evil prospers when good men do nothing.