Yes, war can be justified, when your enemy ignores all diplomacy and other tactics you are forced into war. Example: WWII. Hitler ignored all diplomacy killed millions and invaded the hell out of everything. Thus fighting him is a just war. No?
The world you live in would not be here without it. You wouldn't even be on this forum without it, or even on the internet. Your computer would not be what it is today.
And no, you would not have any canned food.
War is easily justified. Just look around you. The very metals in your home were originally meant to kill each other with.
You can't just assume all of that. The world might be a better or worse place. I'm pretty sure all the metal that is in homes was originally meant to kill each other.
Some wars can be justified but other that are based on greed,money,power ect... cannot. An unavoidable justified war would be like WWII mentions by 314d1 and on the other hand would be like the Iraq war.
Hmmm... do you honestly think they would go to Iraq was to kill genocidal maniacs? Since I bet government is mainly directed and influenced by powerful people and big businesses I don't think they would care about genocidal maniacs but that they would be more interested in oil. Judging by this article about how easy people and even the best intending procedures can become corrupt I would say you don't have a firm grasp on the underlining issues.
Even if copper was designed to knives and spear it was mainly used for hunting and survival not killing each other.
The oldest smelted copper artifact found (a copper chisel from the chalcolithic site of Prokuplje in Serbia)
War and killing on behalf of government is a valuable and indispensible tool for establishing control and order, that can potentially lead to a better world if combined with strategic planning and propaganda.
Saddam killed about 300,000 under 25+ year regime. About 200,000 Iraqis have died in the 7 year war. Tell me which side is more genocidal...
I think it's important to look at the long term benefits of the US/UK invasion, regardless of the cynical motivation behind it. Now that there is relative stability less Iraqis are dying, and in the long term, they are probably better off. I am also curious as to your source, as I have read of much higher estimates of Saddam's regime. You also have to look at how many of his soldiers he condemned to death by starting the Iran/Iraq war.
Excellent point. Especially when we consider what it means to be justified in going to war. For that matter, "war" is an awfully broad topic. It seems like it would be much harder to justify nuclear war than, say, stopping the German advance.
The OP really is horrible, but maybe we can make something of this. Does justification simply mean giving reasons for going to war? If that's the case, then every war is justified - presumably any country would have some sort of reason for going to war. So we need some normative approach to this kind of justification. What sorts of reasons are the right ones for going to war? So far, we have saving lives, protecting oneself, and perhaps tangible benefits. Is it even possible to axiomatize this kind of notion?
Yes, war can be justified, when your enemy ignores all diplomacy and other tactics you are forced into war. Example: WWII. Hitler ignored all diplomacy killed millions and invaded the hell out of everything. Thus fighting him is a just war. No?
Well Hitler was getting rid of smokers, lowering crime in his country, (this is good to me but probably debatable) killing the mentally retarded, banning smoking in open places, killing communists, killing handicapped ect...
But on the bad side of things he massely killed blacks, jews, burned literature that disagreed with anything he said, he took away freedom of speech, ect...
Now to answer this topics question:
[quote]justice = opinion. Can an opinion be the truth?
Better a free man with a rifle in hand then an oppressed slave in a peaceful nation.
Though, one must always take the decision to go to war very seriously, no matter how good the intentions it will end up horrible for many people. On the Iraq example, yes, Saddam was a horrible leader who needed to loose power, though he also stabalized his country. The invasion of Iraq could lead to them one day better than they did but they still have a way to go. If we were truley in the buisiness of liberating we'd be more interested in Iran and especially North Korea. But, I guess some good can come from bad.
Better a free man with a rifle in hand then an oppressed slave in a peaceful nation.
Freedom is always worth the price. Always.
Well Hitler was getting rid of smokers, lowering crime in his country, (this is good to me but probably debatable) killing the mentally retarded, banning smoking in open places, killing communists, killing handicapped ect...
But on the bad side of things he
Wait a minute.
killing the mentally retarded, banning smoking in open places, killing communists, killing handicapped ect...
So we need some normative approach to this kind of justification. What sorts of reasons are the right ones for going to war?
I think in some cases the reasons for going to war can be justified. like protecting ones self. I would consider killing a person who broke into your home intent on harming you justified. War for this reason is basically the same thing but on a bigger scale.
Well Hitler was getting rid of smokers, lowering crime in his country, (this is good to me but probably debatable) killing the mentally retarded, banning smoking in open places, killing communists, killing handicapped ect...
But on the bad side of things he massely killed blacks, jews, burned literature that disagreed with anything he said, he took away freedom of speech, ect...
I find it interesting you have no issue with taking away some peoples right to live but not others.
