When is war justified? What do you believe?

[ruaidhri]

This thread is a continuation of a thread created by Idlethought back on October 11, 2005 with the simple title of War www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1352.

The question really is: When is war justified? What do you believe?

Below is a slightly edited restating of my comments in that thread. Do you agree, disagree or simply don’t give a damn? Most importantly, why?

Personally, I believe war is a most interesting topic. It affects us all rich and poor and citizens of large and small countries. No one is exempt from its impact on their life.

Way back in 1967, I took an evening course at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI to discuss the justification for war. This was during the days of Vietnam. The students in the class were universally against the war. Many were in college to avoid being drafted.

The very first day the professor asked the class what they would do if Canada held all the water necessary for America’s survival and suddenly refused to share. There was a lot of sputtering in that class as the students didn’t really have answers. With that simple question, he turned the discussion away from the general topic of War to the more specific question of is War ever justified. Of course the question then becomes: How justified? Without water all in America would soon die. We would have no option but to take the water and by doing so go to War.

Why do people really go to war? I could come up with a lot of words including, religion, jealousy, power, greed, revenge for immediate wrongs, retribution for historical injustices, and empire building. I sure you could think of many more reasons. But when is war justified? When is there truly no other option? When does the damage done by war pale in comparison with the damage that would have been done had there been no war?

Personally, I have had the fortune/misfortune of being born in a powerful country with awesome military might. I have lived through my country’s (USA) involvement in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the cold war, and both the Iraqi wars, not to mention numerous military interventions of various sizes and intent. When I was a young man you had to wait until you were 21 to legally drink or vote. Yet, you were subject to the draft at 18 and you certainly could die for the right of others to drink and to vote.

I completed my active military obligation in 1966. I walked out of the military and into a society of youth inflamed about America’s involvement in Vietnam. Nobody wanted to go but all young men were facing the draft. Students got college deferments and feared graduation. People married and had children before they were prepared to saddle the burden of parenthood. A vast number of the potential soldiers were opposed to the war. They didn’t believe it justified.

Ultimately, it was the poor and largely minority young men with few options in life that were drafted and served. Many died or were seriously injured both physically and mentally. Obviously, this was unfair and the draft law was eventually changed. The new law replaced exemption with a lottery based on your birth date. If you were lucky you knew that it was unlikely that you would ever be called. But those with birthdays pulled first out of that big drum were assured that they would be drafted and soon. Life became a gamble. What would you have done if your birthday was one of the first called? Would you have served or would you have fled the country so someone else had to serve?

Protests flourished throughout America. A lot of people were screaming “Hell No, I Won’t Go!” A number fled to Canada or just disappeared. There is little disagreement that Vietnam caused a major rift between the America’s generations. The “older” generation or “the establishment”, as it was then called, was primary composed of people that had survived both the depression and WWII. They couldn’t understand the youths’ reluctance to serve their country as they had 20 years previously.

At home, America’s President (Lyndon Johnson) was attempting to fight two wars, one in Vietnam and the other against poverty and racial ignorance. He wanted guns, butter and racial equality. Unlike our current President, he did at least understand that he couldn’t accomplish anything without money and he did increase taxes to pay for his actions instead of depending on future generations. This, more than our youth dying in a Vietnam jungle, pissed off many of the same people that had supported him and the Vietnam War.

Many of these old time Democrats didn’t agree with his and his political party’s support of social welfare and racial equality and crossed over to the Republicans. It was one thing to fight a war against Commies and another to take money from their pockets and give it to poor Americans in the form of aid or relief. They certainly didn’t wish to promote racial equality. Johnson’s guns and butter policy split the conservative wing from his party and allowed Republicans to control America’s executive branch 70 percent of the time following Lyndon Johnson.

Today, we’re in Iraq. Our military men and women are facing death just as they did in Vietnam 30 and 40 years ago. Why? Is that war justified.? We certainly don’t have a draft today that would inflame those that don’t want to go. We have an all volunteer army. But, people aren’t enlisting like they used to. More are getting out following their enlistments. We have serious shortages of replacements for the men and women serving in Iraq. Do you believe America will reinstate the draft? They certainly could. What do you think would happen if they did? Would you protest especially if personally threatened? Would you give up your freedom and possibly your life to comply with that draft notice?

The big question is: Is the Iraq war justified? Do we need Iraq’s oil? Now that we’re there, is our gas any cheaper? Was our objection to Iraq’s government adequate justification for invasion? If that’s true, what about North Korea any many other oppressive countries? Should we invade them also? What about another country possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Is that justification for preemptive war?

An interesting question is: Who is more dangerous to world peace, Iraq or the United States? Was Iraq involved in the attack against America on September 11, 2001? Everyone in the government says no, including George Bush. Yet, many people still believe they were and it’s definitely to our current government’s advantage that they continue to believe that there was a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Bottom line, outside of actual homeland defense are wars ever justified?

[Jay]

I believe war should never have to be justified. To take a made-up example, should you feel the need for fossil fuels in Russia, then you can offer monetary gain for that country in return for those fossil fuels.

One might tell me to stop being so naive, but I don't think that's the case at all. Everyone wants to advance their own agenda, be top dog, lord it over the next man; so much so that they don't stop and think that they could make a tidy profit without being greedy, while coming to an agreement that is advantageous to the other person as well.

I'm not going to launch into a discussion of all the ifs, because that would take all day, wouldn't change anything because this isn't the UN or Parliament and none of us would get anywhere. But it really does make me boggle at humankind's greediness when I see in the media news of disagreements between whatever country because the one that holds the weaponry, or goods, or fossil fuels, or insert your own example, is being a greedy bastard.

People ask me why I have no faith in humanity. It's not a joke; this is one of the reasons.

War is unavoidable, though. Most of the time war is simply a disagreement between two or more groups that could easily be remedied if one lowered their demands - as described above. Sometimes you just get random loonies that invade countries for the first reason pops up in their head.

If this is the case and your country is being attacked, self-defense is perfectly justified.

Bottom line: Starting a war over matters such as one country needing what another has, and not wanting to meet the demands of that greedy country so they decide to barge on in and take what they want anyway, is not justified. Defending your homeland against random loonies is perfectly okay.

[Kuri]

Anything you do effects others in either a possitive or negative way, simply because war has a generally more large scale effect doesn't mean it should be treated differently. As far as I'm concerned war is justified when there is a net gain.
Having a more... compassionate attitude isn't really fitting to me because that's like saying when is it justified to eat a loaf of bread. If you eat the bread that's bread that somebody else can't eat now, are you more deserving than they are. Maybe they are starving, maybe you are starving.
Everything has an equal possitive and negative aspect by nature, you do something if more of the possitive aspect favors you or if the negative aspect isn't valued as detrimental.

[Jay]

As far as I'm concerned war is justified when there is a net gain.

That's just it though, you should be able to get mutual gain without HAVING to bomb the other fucker back to 1678.

[Praetorian]

I think the major problem with war is that no party is ever truely inherently "evil" or "good". People tend to think far too much in black and white, and not enough in the gigantic grey area in between. I think we can all agree that the Third Reich was led by people that were most definitely what we would deem "evil". But most of the men that had to serve in their military were simply lied to. They were not evil. They were merely subjected to years of propaganda altering their perception of the world. I'd say they couldn't help it. They were made to believe they were fighting for a good cause as much as the allied thought they were.

Why do we think that our ways of thinking are somehow better than those of other "cultures?" I'm having difficulty explaining myself in English. But I think that, before fanatically supporting a war, people must first try to imagine being placed in the enemy's shoes. Much like people should regarding politics, and basically everything in life.

During the cold war, people in first world countries - especially in the USA - were made to believe that communism was evil. Similary, the same thing happened in the Soviet Union regarding capitalism. Opponents of communism thought, among other reasons, that communism was often brutal and stalinistic in nature. In the Soviet Union, however, people were led to believe that capitalism was only fueled by greed and corruption, where those unable to fend for themselves starve and die.

People just need to learn to pause for a moment to think "Woah. Why do I think these people are evil? How can I be sure I have not been subjected to lies and propaganda? How can I be sure I'm not simply reacting from emotions, rather than rationality? Why do those people think what we're doing is evil? Do they have a point?"

If people did, the world would be a much better place. Sadly, people always seem to think that what they think is right, and everything else MUST therefore be wrong and stupid and evil.

[Kuri]

I didn't say mutual gain ^^, I mean a net gain for one side or the other. Though it could be a mutual gain.
Actually I think justifying war in this way would make for fewer wars, because it's diffiult to achieve a net gain from war that's greater than gain which could be achieved in other ways. Also there's more risk in war, so your gain isn't guaranteed.

Is it okay to add a side question here? If not just says so and I'll edit it out. But since we're talking about when is it okay to go to war, what do people think about what's okay to do during war. Should there be war crimes, should countries be held to chivalry? Or is war the taking of human lives, and there can be nothing civil about it?
I don't really know how to make my decision about war crimes, on the one hand I think people should be held to certain moral guidelines... on the other hand if I take that approach war isn't usually going to be considered moral to begin with.

[Anders]

If war is justified by the net gains the victorious country enjoys, I wonder when I'll be seeing the price of gas sink below $1.00 again? (edit: Sorry, I couldn't help it.)

[Jay]

I didn't say mutual gain ^^, I mean a net gain for one side or the other.

Okay. How about we put you in charge of say... Russia.

Now, let us assume that America wants Russia for themselves because there's lots of big open spaces in a place that size where they can conduct military experiments without being in the spotlight.

America invades Russia. You're just going to sit back and say "oh, no, that's alright, that's justified - having our land would be a net gain for them, so it's quite alright! Come on, come all, and don't forget to take one of our beautiful Russian women home with you!"?

It WOULD be a net gain for one side, which is what you're saying.

[General_Admission]

The big question is: Is the Iraq war justified? Do we need Iraq’s oil? Now that we’re there, is our gas any cheaper? Was our objection to Iraq’s government adequate justification for invasion? If that’s true, what about North Korea any many other oppressive countries? Should we invade them also? What about another country possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Is that justification for preemptive war?

Obviously, the war isn't lucrative to the US. The whole idea of nation building is flawed. I'm all for capitalism, open market, less government, less restrictions. I wish the US was like Hong Kong. Investment in Iraq is failing & if wars were privatized we would have pulled out way sooner.

We should have invested more in alternative sources of energy. Perhaps I would be reading about new nuclear reactors in popular science that are self sustaining, safe, and their waste products could be recycled, if we had pulled out sooner. We had the Integral Fast Reactor (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/ifr1.html) back in '96. The internet was just starting to get going in '93 & it has advanced so fast, think what would have happened if we hadn't abandoned nuclear power so long ago? We could be seeing Generation_IV_reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor) today.

This cheap, safe, and environmentally friendly source of energy could have allowed us to get into fuel cells much quicker or something similar.

The economy is only limited by the extent of human imagination. Fighting a war for oil stability is counter to that.

An interesting question is: Who is more dangerous to world peace, Iraq or the United States? Was Iraq involved in the attack against America on September 11, 2001? Everyone in the government says no, including George Bush. Yet, many people still believe they were and it’s definitely to our current government’s advantage that they continue to believe that there was a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Specific people? Perhaps. The nation as a whole? No.

& that goes for a lot of places.

Bottom line, outside of actual homeland defense are wars ever justified?

Only if the job description includes having sex with foreign girls regularly. :watson:

[Kuri]

You always do what favors you the most, less loss = relative gain. So as russia you fight back in the hopes that you don't lose as much and therefore have a relative gain compared to if you just let them invade.
Unless there was a circumstance where say your country was failing and you actually felt the people would prosper under foreign control, then you'd just give into demands.
Always do what you think benefits you the most, you missed the point. Everybody works for their own favour, that doesn't mean that if something benefits one person but is detrimental to you it's okay because it helps that person. It means it's okay because everyone is going to work for themselves without care or concern for other's losses.
Think I said that so it makes sense that time, maybe my wording was a little off at first.

[Jay]

I getcha. Gotta look out for yours truly, right?

[Kuri]

Yup, everything works based on the invisible hand of the market.. Why? Because it's easy

[Trump]

I do not think war is ever justified because there is always a way to avoid it if people are willing to compromise. For example, if Saddam had compromised and let weapons inspectors do their thing, it might have ended differently. If Saddam had even made superficial efforts to stop terrorism, it might have ended differently. And really, the USA has coexisted with Cuba for many many years even though we have hated the regime in power. Granted, there have been some very close calls, but eventually there was compromise and war was averted.

So then you have to ask, if people are unwilling to compromise is war then justified? And then there is no answer. There are pros and cons to war. War stimulates the economy, it stimulates research, and it stimulates politics. In the case of Iraq the war effort hopes to bring improvment to the quality of life of the Iraqis while improving the economic stability of the US. But the disadvantages range from the most serious being loss of life and property, to less serious including drafts and disruption of the people's way of life (rationing, etc).

Then everyone values the effects of war differently. What is the value of human life? What is the value of your brothers life vs the value of some random Iraqi's life? What is the value of unrestricted oil flow from Iraq and what is the value of democracy in Iraq? Everyone will have a different answer to those questions.

Personally, I feel that those who cannot compromise should not be in power. If you cannot work for the good of the world in addition to the good of your country (or yourself) then your life is not worth the ground you stand on. When this situation becomes clear, I believe war is justified.

[NERD]

I recently saw a film called "Why We Fight"- if anyone else saw the film, you are all welcome to write your own impressions about it. The film started out with the farewell speech by President Eisenhower, which warned about the booming armament industry in the US, and how we should beware of it, that we should not support an industry that will profit from waging wars.

Here's the transcript of the speech- read on from Part III, which is the warning of military industrial complext by Eisenhower.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeches/eisenhower001.htm

Here's a quote from the transcript as well.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

I wish I had something better to say, but I suggest give the transcript a quick read, and think on it. The defense establishment only grew much bigger in recent years, from Reagan's Star Wars project to the current administrations' War Against Terror, its involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

When is war justified?

When I say so.

[smokingmonkee]

The question really is: When is war justified? What do you believe?



It's not...

[Duke Luke of Juke]

My opinion is that war is justified only when there is the threat of imminent danger, and peace talks have proven ineffective. The line to be drawn is whether or not a country should go to war when that imminent danger is directed towards another country (i.e. should a country go to war to defend another?) and its people, or only in the cases when danger is directed towards themselves. If we have the power to protect another country, should we? I feel that we should. I don’t hold the ultimate opinion that some countries, and some groups, are ultimately good or evil, which some people hold—so it muddies things, a bit. Who do we fight on behalf of, and who do we fight against? I don’t know. Which situations are worthy of declaring war as a result of, and which aren’t—that I don’t know either. I only know that I feel there are cases when war is warranted, such as the persecution of Jews during the Second World War. I feel that as we have to power to snuff out acts of persecution throughout the world, we should. We have the power to protect people that have no protection, and I feel that it’s our responsibility to. But on the other hand, I don’t agree with going to war for reasons such as to procure oil reserves, or as a result of the vague possibility of a country holding weapons of mass destruction, which are the primary reasons I’ve heard for our having gone to War with Iraq.

The big question is: Is the Iraq war justified?

I guess it depends on what you feel our reason for invading was. If you feel it was in order to establish a democratic government in the Middle East, as I do, then it wasn’t justified.

[drdan]

well, when someone, like a big country attacks you that is one reason for justifying a war. There are other reasons but I'm on my pda and it takes to long to type.

[Idlethought]

I believe war should never have to be justified.

This is going to be somewhat hypocritical, but nothing is absolute. Off of the top of my head I can really only think of one reason for War, and that is in self defense. Our military exists to protect our country, not to attack others unprovoked. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, there's no justifiable reason for War.

[Hitokage]

My question - How good is an army made of people who don't believe in what they are fighting, who don't believe in killing other people?

I could not kill another person in a war. I believe I could kill in self-defense. Yes, I am female and the chances of ever being drafted, even if it should change, are slim. The idea of the draft is stupid. Obviously we are having less people joining the military for a reason. This is a generation of people who are not only lazy, but they do not WANT to fight.

[Pierrot le Fou]

As stated, if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and obviously this is from the perspective of the warring party, then war is justified in their minds. However, war is one of those things that's very difficult to predict the consequences (both positive and negative) of. Jay simplified it to this:Okay. How about we put you in charge of say... Russia.

Now, let us assume that America wants Russia for themselves because there's lots of big open spaces in a place that size where they can conduct military experiments without being in the spotlight.

America invades Russia. You're just going to sit back and say "oh, no, that's alright, that's justified - having our land would be a net gain for them, so it's quite alright! Come on, come all, and don't forget to take one of our beautiful Russian women home with you!"?

It WOULD be a net gain for one side, which is what you're saying.There are so many problems with your line of thinking. First of all, the benefits of Russia's land have to be contrasted with the difficulty in actually controlling that giant land-mass when it's across the world from your center of power. Secondly, Russia has nuclear weapons, which means the potential consequences of invasion could involve nuclear war. Furthermore, you have to think of the attitudes of other countries toward a nation that invades another country for no other reason than land. The benefits would NOT outweigh the consequences.

And generally that's the case -- without a compelling interest in the conflict, either moral, economic, or for the sake of self-preservation, it is incredibly difficult to justify (or gain) from a war.

Anyone who says that war is just never justified is living in a dream world. And also thinks that America shouldn't have been founded. The Revolutionary war seems like a pretty-good example of when war is justified (either the American or the French for that matter). In both cases you had monarchs oppressing their subjects, rather oppressively in the eyes of the subjects, and the people rose up to free themselves. Toss in the philosophy of freedom which was going around, as well as the economic reasons for war (taxes or the taking of wealth), and you have a perfect synergy of all three reasons for war.

But most reasons AREN'T that pretty. The reasons for the Korean war (moral), the Vietnam war (moral), and the Iraq War (moral) tend to be a bit muckier because, well, they're fighting for some concept rather than anything tangible, which tends to make it hard for folks to accept. Dead bodies, after all, are very tangible, and when compared to fighting 'communism' which leaves no corpses, or 'terrorism,' or promoting 'freedom' those bodies tend to win out as a justification for or against the war.

I think that in a Democratic (or representative democracy, or whatever you want to label the US) society, the two things that mix together like ammonia and bleach are the draft and a war on moral grounds. Wars on moral grounds are hard to stomach to begin with, as the costs of war rise, and the benefit is something abstract, people get more frustrated with the cost:benefit ratio. To be quite honest, the average person doesn't really care about a war across an ocean until it starts affecting his bottom line, or him personally.

And that's why the draft becomes the catalyst for turning a war into an entire disaster for a democratic society. Not only do you have those economic losses for some abstract concept, but you also have the chance of losing a child to some conflict that you don't really give a shit about anyway. For all the bleeding heart liberals in the world, far fewer care about the Iraqi children than their own hides. That's opinion and generalization, of course, but I'm going to go out on a limb with it.

As much as people claim that this is for someone other than themselves, the fact is that it's overwhelmingly in their best interest to prevent having to go to war, and that seems to me like a far more likely reason for their action than a bunch of people they've never met.

If there was a draft, I would get more involved in getting out of Iraq. I'm not really at risk of getting drafted, mind you, as the 18-19 year-olds would be going before I was, and it'd take a LONG time before my number came up, but like Hell I'm going to take the chance that it does. I'm fine with the Iraq war so long as it doesn't affect the US economy too much (and please don't try to convince me that Bush has ruined the economy with this war, I don't want to hear it), and so long as it doesn't have a chance of getting me killed (again, don't rant about how this will cause terrorism in the US which could kill me). Maybe that makes me a bad person in some people's eyes, but it's just my entirely rational belief that people halfway across the world dying shouldn't cause me too much gnashing of the teeth lest I grind them down by the time I'm 10 years old.

So in summary: war is justified when the benefits outway the consequences. The draft + democracy + moral grounds for war = disaster.

[Matt W]

As far as I'm concerned war is justified when there is a net gain.

PLF
So in summary: war is justified when the benefits outway the consequences.

This seems to justify war for economic reasons, and colonialism. It seems to be saying its okay to kill people, maim people, destroy lives and the environment if it benefits you economically. That to me is wrong. I think Jay is right, though Russia might not have been the best example to use. What if instead we attacked a small country that was not technologically advanced and did not trade much with the rest of the world, so no one really cares about them. Are you saying it is justifiable to attack that country, kill the people and take their resources if it would be a net gain for us? If so, then is robbery ok, is murder? Your attitude seems very laissez-faire, which I am against in economics, but especially for war, and doesn't seem to take into account morals.
I personally believe military action is justifiable in two situations: 1. the obvious, self defense and 2. to stop genocide
To answer Ruidahri's big question, no Iraq was not justified at all.

[Kuri]

I like it, and indeed it's based on laissez-faire principle. So your situation would be okay.. Now you probably think it's mean and people are dying just so somebody else can live better off, but that's war people die and it's the way of the world people work for their own benefit
If everyone takes care of themselves then everyone is taken care of

[Pierrot le Fou]

How is it not justified? In an eternal objective sense of 'justice?' Yes, invading another country is a bad thing, and I don't particularly think it would be a good idea for Russia to decide, for instance, that Estonia has enjoyed its independence too much and invade. However, I don't pretend that were the reasons there for the re-inclusion of Estonia into Russia, that it wouldn't be justified in the eyes of the Russians doing the invading.

If we were to talk about cosmic justice and some objective principle that's removed from the real nitty-gritty real life situations in which justice comes up, we'd be talking about a fantasy world where war would simply not exist, because killing someone is just never a just thing, and therefore wouldn't be done. The reality is that justice and justification are always relative to the person perpetrating and action, and the person receiving the effects of that action.

To give an example, a US soldier crippled by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) may not think that the attack on him was justified. The person who created that device thought it was. So is the act justified or not? It depends on where you look at it from. If you are on the 'Iraq war is bad' side, then you likely take the perspective of the person who thinks that he is justified in fighting against foreign intruders. If you are on the 'US Soldiers are liberating Iraq' side, then you likely think it was not justified, as they guy was just doing his job and trying to help.

In the cosmic sense, it's unjust that someone just got his legs blown off, but in the cosmic sense, the invasion wouldn't have happened in the first place because the act would exist in a vaccuum -- something it doesn't actually do in reality.

And quite frankly, I think that you are rather ignorant of history and reality if you think that the invading of smaller countries is a definite no-no and is entirely unjust, as I don't see you protesting US involvement in Guam, Saipan, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Furthermore I don't see you railing against the Indonesian government for being a slew of different cultures under one country, or a bunch of other similar instances of a bigger nation taking over a smaller one. Or does it cease to be just once the smaller nation is assimilated into the society as a whole?

Which would bring up another problem with your argument -- if an unjust act is no longer unjustified once time passes, how could that unjust act have been entirely unjust in the first place? As I said earlier, it's because no act exists in a vaccuum.

A war for economics is perfectly justified in the eyes of the country perpetrating it. And I'm shocked that you picked that out of the reasons for war to focus on, as a war based on moral principles seems to be a much stickier reason in my humble opinion. But that's a digression...

Saddam felt justified in taking over Kuwait for economic reasons. So he went to war. The US felt justified in taking Kuwait back from Iraq for economic reasons. So it went to war. And such is the way wars generally work -- joining for personal gain (either economic, moral, or self-defense). This is why we haven't gone into the Sudan, why we didn't bother doing the same with Rwanda as we did with Iraq, and this is why wars like the two World Wars got so bloody huge -- everyone had a stake in the outcome, so they joined up.

So rather than assuming that I'm stating that all these types of wars are good things (which I never stated), understand that they are all justifiable things (which is an entirely different issue altogether).

Any act of killing other people in a vaccuum devoid of other surrounding issues is going to be unjustifiable. That's why people have so much trouble with war and other issues involving killing folks -- they get hung up on the fundamental 'killing is wrong' point and ignore the surrounding issues. While I'm sure that killing poor Japanese in WWII was a bad thing, I would hope that you realize the alternative being worse.

See my point?

[jindojim]

This is such a complex topic that really, one could write tomes on why war is or isn't justified.

But, if one argues that war is unjustifiable simply on the grounds that killing is wrong, I don't think that's a valid point at all. One's individual morals and opinions should not be the grounds for arguing the justification of something as broad as War. Rather, to see if War is, in fact, justifiable, one must consider carefully whether it benefits the nation-state. And most certainly, no nation enters War without seeing itself gaining more than it will lose in the war. Thus, initially, in the point of view of the nation-state, really all Wars are justifiable. The problem is that, during a particular war and in hindsight, often the situation becomes such that the nation stands to lose more than it initially thought it could gain from the war. In this case, the debate of whether the particular war is justifiable becomes a controversial issue.

And for those going out and actually sacrificing themselves for the US, really, the justification for War is a moot point. It's a job they are sent to do, and it's their duty to simply carry out orders, regardless of how they may personally feel on the matter. Yet while soldiers are emphasized and glorified as the selfless heroes of War, wars are not fought and won with soldiers and brute manpower alone. A large part of War is made up of the diplomatic battles and concessions that are made in the background. This aspect must also be considered to understand partially how War functions.

(I want to write more, but I don't have the typing stamina that PLF has -_-)

[Nikon]

When it comes to the issue of war I like to look back at one of my favorite authors, Mark Twain, and this quote from The Mysterious Stranger.
Although it was writen more that one hundred years ago I believe it is still relevant to today's world.

"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one -- on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful -- as usual -- will shout for the war. The pulpit will -- warily and cautiously -- object -- at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers -- as earlier -- but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation -- pulpit and all -- will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

[Jay]

There are so many problems with your line of thinking.

I know. :D I wasn't intending it to be a holeproof argument. Just something to pass the time at roughly 4am...

This is going to be somewhat hypocritical, but nothing is absolute. Off of the top of my head I can really only think of one reason for War, and that is in self defense. Our military exists to protect our country, not to attack others unprovoked. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, there's no justifiable reason for War.

YEah, that's what I was thinking too. I'm not going to pretend I'm educated on this subject; I quit school at the end of year 11 and since then I only have what I've picked up in life on my own.

I don't care how it sounds. Invading another country to advance your own agenda is not justified. I can't think of a single example where compromising an agreement that is mildly advantageous to both parties, rather that really advantageous to just one party, would not work.

[Matt W]

How is it not justified? In an eternal objective sense of 'justice?' Yes, invading another country is a bad thing, and I don't particularly think it would be a good idea for Russia to decide, for instance, that Estonia has enjoyed its independence too much and invade. However, I don't pretend that were the reasons there for the re-inclusion of Estonia into Russia, that it wouldn't be justified in the eyes of the Russians doing the invading.

If we were to talk about cosmic justice and some objective principle that's removed from the real nitty-gritty real life situations in which justice comes up, we'd be talking about a fantasy world where war would simply not exist, because killing someone is just never a just thing, and therefore wouldn't be done. The reality is that justice and justification are always relative to the person perpetrating and action, and the person receiving the effects of that action.

To give an example, a US soldier crippled by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) may not think that the attack on him was justified. The person who created that device thought it was. So is the act justified or not? It depends on where you look at it from. If you are on the 'Iraq war is bad' side, then you likely take the perspective of the person who thinks that he is justified in fighting against foreign intruders. If you are on the 'US Soldiers are liberating Iraq' side, then you likely think it was not justified, as they guy was just doing his job and trying to help.

In the cosmic sense, it's unjust that someone just got his legs blown off, but in the cosmic sense, the invasion wouldn't have happened in the first place because the act would exist in a vaccuum -- something it doesn't actually do in reality.

And quite frankly, I think that you are rather ignorant of history and reality if you think that the invading of smaller countries is a definite no-no and is entirely unjust, as I don't see you protesting US involvement in Guam, Saipan, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico. Furthermore I don't see you railing against the Indonesian government for being a slew of different cultures under one country, or a bunch of other similar instances of a bigger nation taking over a smaller one. Or does it cease to be just once the smaller nation is assimilated into the society as a whole?

Which would bring up another problem with your argument -- if an unjust act is no longer unjustified once time passes, how could that unjust act have been entirely unjust in the first place? As I said earlier, it's because no act exists in a vaccuum.

A war for economics is perfectly justified in the eyes of the country perpetrating it. And I'm shocked that you picked that out of the reasons for war to focus on, as a war based on moral principles seems to be a much stickier reason in my humble opinion. But that's a digression...

Saddam felt justified in taking over Kuwait for economic reasons. So he went to war. The US felt justified in taking Kuwait back from Iraq for economic reasons. So it went to war. And such is the way wars generally work -- joining for personal gain (either economic, moral, or self-defense). This is why we haven't gone into the Sudan, why we didn't bother doing the same with Rwanda as we did with Iraq, and this is why wars like the two World Wars got so bloody huge -- everyone had a stake in the outcome, so they joined up.

So rather than assuming that I'm stating that all these types of wars are good things (which I never stated), understand that they are all justifiable things (which is an entirely different issue altogether).

Any act of killing other people in a vaccuum devoid of other surrounding issues is going to be unjustifiable. That's why people have so much trouble with war and other issues involving killing folks -- they get hung up on the fundamental 'killing is wrong' point and ignore the surrounding issues. While I'm sure that killing poor Japanese in WWII was a bad thing, I would hope that you realize the alternative being worse.

See my point?

I just looked up the definition of the word Just in the dictionary:
1. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: reasonable
2. acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good: righteous

It seems to me your arguing based on number 1 in the definition, while I am arguing based on number 2.
I was not trying to say that those going to war do not think it was justifiable, and that they didn't have real reasons for going. I was saying that in my opinion, going to war over economic issues is morally wrong, i.e. unjustifiable to me. I thought the topic question was our own beliefs on when war is justifiable or not, and I only think it is when in self defense or to stop genocide. I actually think we should have gone into Rwanda, and we should stop the genocide in the Sudan now. Its funny, but the Iraq/Kuwait/U.S. example was one I considered using to make my point. To me, the fact that we chose to go to war in Iraq in 1991 cause of economics, and refused to do anything about genocide in Darfur because it doesn't really effect us economically is messed up and morally wrong, and I think its unjustifiable (in my eyes).
I chose not to talk about using moral reasons for war because as you said, it is much murkier, and I didn't disagree as much with what you said about it. However, I am anti going to war to stop communism or for democracy at the barrel of a gun.
I think economics is really what drives war. The military industrial complex and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and Bechtel and how much money they can make off war, that is why wars are fought, and its a terrible reason for our soldiers to be dying, and a terrible reason for our country to be killing people.

[Kuri]

I just looked up the definition of the word Just in the dictionary:
1. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: reasonable
2. acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good: righteous

It seems to me your arguing based on number 1 in the definition, while I am arguing based on number 2.
*snip*
I chose not to talk about using moral reasons for war *snip*

Seriously I think it's kind of ridiculous to argue concerning the secondary meaning in this sense because killing people will never be just, but going by the first meaning.. Well my opinion was pretty much the same as PlF's right?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Exactly Kuri. Discussing this in the great abstract realm of actions devoid of context is silly, because no war exists outside of some context.

You can argue that going to war for economics is immoral if you'd like, but it's certainly justifiable in the context of the original question.

[gyoza]

I feel a lot of the things on this thread have struck me on a personal level. Presently a large portion of Singapore's drinking water is supplied by Malaysia and while the relationship between both countries could be worse, if for some reason Malaysia decided to cut off the water supply it would constitute a crisis for Singapore. Also, in less than 2 years I'm required by law to return home to serve in the military.

Despite the fact that some of these issues are very real for me I never gave them much serious thought, so excuse me if I repeat a lot of what has already been said. I can understand and identify both sides, and while I (ever the idealist) would like to believe war is never justified, PLF makes a compelling point that you cannot divorce actions from their context.

Nevertheless, following that thread of reasoning, actions + context = subjective. As Trump said, everyone has a different moral system and places different values on things. You and me will very likely place very different relative importance on the life of an American, the life of some Middle Eastern dude, ideological freedom, economic benefits, etc. If you argued that a war was justified because it was economically beneficial and provided stats to back it up, then it would be impossible for me to rebut from an economical point of view. But, say, if I placed greater relative importance on human life, and argued that the war was unjustified because it led to so many casualties, then we would be at an impasse.

Basically, I'm trying to say that even if you take actions in context, every party involved will have their own reasons why war is or is not justified. Saying war is justified because of the economic benefits, or unjustified because of the casualties, are both taking actions within context, but they are very much as subjective as trying to judge wars by an overarching moral principle.

At the end of it all, I don't really know what my stance on war is. I definitely think all other alternative must first be used, but then failing that, the leaders have to make a responsible decision. Very obviously much easier said than done. :boggled:

[Trump]

The military industrial complex and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and Bechtel and how much money they can make off war, that is why wars are fought, and its a terrible reason for our soldiers to be dying, and a terrible reason for our country to be killing people.

This is something I have to deal with every day because I work for one of the companies you mentioned. On one hand, they pay my salary and allow me to live pretty much how I want to. I'm not rich, but I make enough to be content (and I still see room for growth of my career). The sad thing is I hate war, I hate killing, and in the grand scheme of things I think there is really no reason for it. But I've also just accepted that there will be war, and there will be killing no matter what I do. Thankfully I don't work on missles or munitions directly but on targetting and navigation systems (and only a tiny portion of the test and validation process at that). Since people are going to fight no matter what, whether using stones and clubs or missles and guns, I figure I can at least I can help give the advantage to the side I believe in.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Nevertheless, following that thread of reasoning, actions + context = subjective. As Trump said, everyone has a different moral system and places different values on things. You and me will very likely place very different relative importance on the life of an American, the life of some Middle Eastern dude, ideological freedom, economic benefits, etc. If you argued that a war was justified because it was economically beneficial and provided stats to back it up, then it would be impossible for me to rebut from an economical point of view. But, say, if I placed greater relative importance on human life, and argued that the war was unjustified because it led to so many casualties, then we would be at an impasse.

And that's exactly why within a country some people think a war is justified and in their best interests, and simultaneously some don't. Many people think the Iraq war is justified, in our best economic interest, and in our best moral interest. Some even believe it's also self-defense. Others think that it's immoral, and certainly not self-defense, and purely economic, which makes it bad since it's against their morals or whatnot.

Is the Iraq war justified? Well, it depends on who you ask. And in a Democratic society, it actually matters what people think (unfortunately). However, the system that is represented by the US government thinks the war is justified, otherwise it wouldn't still be going on. So, well, I s'pose it's justified for now, but as costs rise, and public opinion falls, that may change.

It's like the bombs dropped on Japan during the war -- you'd be really hard pressed to say they were misguided at the time, considering the circumstances they were dropped in, but after a nuclear arms race and potential world destruction, they seemed like a rather unjustified action. Ah the fun of subjectivity and relativism.

So pretty-much I'm saying that you have it right gyoza -- it is subjective. It'd take a real idealistic nut-job to state that war is NEVER justified, even in their mind though. If, for instance, the Maldives had contructed a doomsday device, and the only way to stop their plot to destroy the entire world was to go to war with them, well, I'd sure as Hell hope that everyone would agree that it's a good idea to go to war to save the world.

As I said, anyone who doesn't think so is a nutjob in my book.

[Klilynkun]

nutjob

Please keep your sexual references to yourself sir :cop:

[Pierrot le Fou]

Please keep your sexual references to yourself sir :cop:
For fuck's sake, please try to let a serious topic continue to be serious. You're trading in a decent thread for a gag that ceases to be funny around the age of 12.

[Klilynkun]

For fuck's sake, please try to let a serious topic continue to be serious. You're trading in a decent thread for a gag that ceases to be funny around the age of 12.


aw....

:::buries face in pillow:::

[chad mullet]

It's like the bombs dropped on Japan during the war -- you'd be really hard pressed to say they were misguided at the time, considering the circumstances they were dropped in, but after a nuclear arms race and potential world destruction, they seemed like a rather unjustified action.



Why does the fact that there was a nuclear arms race in the years after WW2 make the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 unjustified? The circumstances of that time were not changed by what took place later.

I do not follow your logic.

[Kass]

Please keep your sexual references to yourself sir :cop:

Please stop trying to derail threads here. That is what Padded Walls is for.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why does the fact that there was a nuclear arms race in the years after WW2 make the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 unjustified? The circumstances of that time were not changed by what took place later.

I do not follow your logic.
I was basically discussing an example of how gyoza's arithmetic is applied to a real situation:
actions+context=subjective
At the time that the bombs were dropped, the actions along with the context (the tail end of a long war with recent battles causing huge casualties to both sides) made the action seem justified. However, as time progressed, and the context changed (an arms race with the same weapons as were used, the suffering of the people who had been exposed, etc.) the subjective opinion of the act became a little murkier, and less justifiable than it was before because of the added information.

The point is that justification IS subjective, that an act that seemed justified at the time may seem unjustified now, and there is rarely an absolute sense of whether something, in the end, was ultimately justified or not.

Take, for instance, a police officer. A police officer is patrolling at 2am, and sees a guy running out of a convenient store only to have the clerk follow out and yell after him. The police officer chases after him and tells him to stop, which he does, only to reach towards his pocket for something at which point the officer shoots and kills him.

Now in the context (2am, running from a store, clerk yelling after him, reaching into pocket when stopped by police) this may have seem like a justified reaction. Now had he forgotten his wallet at the convenient store (hence the yelling clerk) and had assumed the police officer was the clerk (yelling after him) and had forgotten his wallet (hence checking his pocket), the action suddenly seems a lot less justified. Now the courts will rule whether this was excessive force or not, and that too will be subjective. The newspapers will have a spin, which will also be subjective. And the people who hear about the event will have their own subjective opinion too.

But nobody can say whether or not, ultimately, it was justified -- they can only discuss its justification in context (of the law, of the situation, of whatever). That's what I'm saying about justification, it's always contextual. Discussing whether or not war is justified in an absolute sense is a job for metaphysics or ethical systems -- not for a discussion of the justifications for actual real-life wars.

[Trump]

In regard to dropping the nukes on Japan, even today many arguments can be made to why that was the right thing to do. I agree those bombs caused a lot of suffering for the people of Japan, but it also brought a VERY quick resolution to what would have been a very long and drawn out conflict. This conflict would have caused a signficant amount of suffering to people from both countries though in different forms. A naval, island hopping, guerrilla conflict would have been very nasty for both the soldiers and the economies of the countries involved. Would I have made the same decision? I don't know, but I know there are many reasons why it was a good idea.

[gar-ry]

Specifically on the Iraq war, it's easy to forget that there's more than the US fighting there..

There's little chance our leaders in Australia would consider bringing our troops home before the Americans leave, although the public opinion has generally moved quite a long way since the war started... a long time ago.
Of course, the war in Iraq can be seen as justifiable economically. However unfortunately for the (comparatively small) number of Aussies over there, they won't get to return home until the US is finished, in what has become quite an imperialist war. Invading a country with the leading pretence of regime change, to create a US friendly state isn't that far removed from the European Imperialist nations of over 100 years ago.
</rant>

Basically, I would say that for Australia the war isn't justified. We send our troops over there, but so far the biggest discovery that's been made is that our government was bribing Saddam. The stupid government here would have been better off not to get involved in the war.

[Trump]

Why were you bribing Saddam?

[Jay]

That wasn't bribes, that was kickbacks. And to the best of my knowledge, WHY hasn't been ascertained yet.

There's reports coming out for a while now, that actually hold water, of the government having had knowledge of these kickbacks for the last 6 or so years. Incompetent fucking cunts.

[ruaidhri]

Very interesting responses to the question when war is justified. As I read through all the opinions I was of course thinking about my own. How would I answer the many questions I asked in my original post?

Really, why do people go to war? I believe Pierrot le Fou responses show an excellent understanding of the basic causes for war. And, certainly, Matt W has properly separated the two different interpretations of “justified”.

I agree with Pierrot, nations consider war justified when “the benefits outweigh the disadvantages … from the perspective of the warring party”. Pierrot went on to note, however, that history has proven the outcome and cost of war are often hard to measure and predict. But, then, Matt W correctly pointed out that just because a nation believes a war monetarily feasible does not make it morally just.

Certainly, people start a war to win something be it freedom, more land for expansion, natural resources or for a host of other net gains. People do profit from war. Sadly, it’s usually not the person actually fighting and dying.

Self Defense. We all pretty much agree that we have not only a right but an obligation to protect ourselves. Certainly, if attacked we would respond and fight to preserve our land and our way of life. We would protect our homeland. Few would deny a nation’s obligation to protect itself from its enemies. But, sometimes nations by themselves are too small to protect themselves from a larger threat so they band together in alliances where an attack on one is an attack on all the members of the alliance. That also is homeland defense because it is the alliance that the members must protect to be themselves protected.

Certainly, there are sections of the world that are more critical to America’s and the world’s economic well being. I doubt there would be little argument that the Persian Gulf is just such an area. We need their oil to survive. So does the rest of the world. What happens in the Persian Gulf affects all nations.

Protecting America’s interests in the Persian Gulf are far more important to our national well being and economy than preventing genocide in an African nation. In a backward sort of way we could even consider protecting our interests in the Persian Gulf a form of homeland security. Of course, now we are threading on truly dangerous territory. We are saying that our interests override others’. Without proper support we could easily find ourselves in a quagmire with no gain only losses. We could win the battles and lose the war.

As I’ve written many times. I am a liberal, the old fashioned kind of liberal. You could even say I have a bleeding heart. I believe in all for one and one for all. I believe that if Christ were alive today he would also be a “bleeding heart”. Now, I’m not a believer in any religion but I sure do like Christ’s teachings. It’s too bad that so many people have his picture on their walls and not in their hearts.

In the 1960’s, I, like many returning servicemen and servicewomen objected to the Vietnam War. I had supported Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election because I incorrectly believed he would limit our involvement. I supported Johnson’s war on poverty. I supported Johnson’s war on racial inequality. But, ultimately, I felt the bad of the Vietnam War outweighed all his good works. I supported Eugene McCarthy’s campaign for President.

Today, as in the 1960’s and 1970’s many of the men and women in uniform are not from the more affluent sections of our economy. The truth is that military recruiters don’t do well at the High School my sons attended. The kids parents could easily afford to send their sons and daughters to the best colleges. The kids didn’t need the military to move ahead. That was and remains one of the primary reasons America’s youth enlist in the all volunteer military. But, now, the threat of having to go to war and possibly dying or suffering unimaginable injury is all too real. From a personal perspective the benefit no longer outweighs the risk. Enlistments are down.

Actually, I don’t believe conscription is a real threat. That, would be the final stupid act of any President. The American people, particularly the affluent and powerful wouldn’t stand for their kids being forced into uniform. The people would not accept anything short of a physical attack by an Army of invaders as justification for a draft.

Again, personally, I love my country. If my sons were in danger of being drafted I would suggest they do as I had so many years before. I would suggest they join the Coast Guard. I would much prefer they fight to protect actual American soil.

I don’t believe we should have invaded Iraq. We were not told the truth. There weren’t weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not in league with Osama Bin Ladin. Actually, Iraq was more a danger to its own citizens than to any other nation. Now, we’re told that we went to war to bring democracy to Iraq. That, I believe, is a load of garbage. Democracy can’t be forced on people. Mostly, it depends on the minority accepting rule of the majority. That works in America and Europe and in many other countries. But, its not the way politics works in the Persian Gulf. There are far too many hatreds and a general unwillingness to work together for the common good. Sadly, I fear, that strong dictatorial leadership best controls the warring factions present in the Persian Gulf. How long will America have to lose its youth and bleed dollars before we realize that we won the battles and lost the war.

I don’t want America to be the world’s policeman. I don’t want to tell the rest of the world how they should act or what type of government they should have. I simply want to live in peace in the little corner of the world I call my own. Yes, when someone overtly threatens my little corner, I will rise up and defend my way of life. But, I don’t believe Iraq was justified under either of the two definitions offered by Matt W.

[dama rei]

I believe that there will never be a hard and fast answer to the question, "when is war justified?"



To Michael Moore, the Iraqi war is not justified, because he could go on eating chilli dogs and hearing himself talk if he'd never even heard of Iraq.


To the families(if any were left) of the thousands Kurds that Saddam gassed the war is justified. (gee, how do you gas thousands of people at once without it being a weapon of mass destruction?)





Despite my lack of objevtivity, you get my point.


What is unjustified for one, will be justified for another.

[chad mullet]

I
At the time that the bombs were dropped, the actions along with the context (the tail end of a long war with recent battles causing huge casualties to both sides) made the action seem justified.

So you agree that at the time the action WAS justified, given the circumstances?

President Truman had to deal with what was taking place at the time and took [as he was bound to] the opportunity to end the war swiftly.

[Orclover]

"War, War never changes" -Vault Dweller

The question is actually meaningless as war being enacted as history will prove is not a go/dont go scenario. We are humans, we wage war, we wage war of some kind against somebody every generation, its what we do, its what we are really really good at. The reasons are pointless to anyone but ourselves and really they are all good enough for us to fight so it doesnt matter. To say that we will stop all wars is as niave as saying that there will one day be no death penalty in the world. We do these things for the same reason that a group of smelly monkeys in the congo will tear an outsider limb from limb and feast on his privates even though the outsider may be trying to woo his way into the new tribe, because its in our nature. Hell its who we are.

People argue that the only time war was justified was against the Nazi's, and only because they were committing genocide. Heh yea whatever, go tell that to the Hutus and Tutsis, complete lack of anglo boots on the ground trying to break that up.

So in my not so humble opinion the justification is pointless, as it will always be justified to the people who actually participate in the conflict. What you think on the sidelines matters very little.

[Marth]

War can be justified for several reasons.

Self-defense.
Revolution under an oppresive government.
Fighting for freedom of others.

War sucks, but it is justifiable under some circumstances.

[Kuri]

How do you decide if a government is oppresive? How do you decide who should be free?

People have some crazy ideals they'll say your oppressing and such things.

I think defining war as justified for those reasons is a little too loose

[Jay]

And even if you can define oppressive, how do you define TOO oppressive? What's too oppressive, quashing the public's right to free speech? Taking away other rights? Forcing through stupid laws that only exist to serve the current Government?

Or something else entirely?

[jindojim]

I argue that war is justifiable under ALL circumstances, at least initially. One can oppose the oligarchical decision to go to war, but the fact that they can dictate if a nation GOES to war in the 1st place makes it justifiable to them. And since they are the ones enforcing the decision to go to war, they must think their position is justified, even if the populace is against them. So as long as the decision to go to war is given to those few in power to wage war, if they say that the war is justified in their eyes, their followers, since represented by those few, appear to also say that the war is justified. Thus, if a nation has the appearance of supporting a war, once could say that they do view the war as justifiable, despite those in opposition to it. Really the justification of a war is only debated really in hindsight or as the war is progressing negatively, once the net gain that the war was supposed to bring no longer seems plausible. For example, the criticism for the War in Iraq becomes really a heated topic once it appears that the US doesn't really gain anything for their presence there. But previously, when no one really knew that the war would appear unjustified, people were completely in favor of the war or arguing against it primarily because they were wary of the Bush administration's real intentions or general foreign policy, rather than against war itself.

[Kuri]

I dunno if I read that right, it was pretty nifty thinking if I did.

But I got that you figure if you have the power to go to war then war is justified... or something like that.

but the fact that they can dictate if a nation GOES to war in the 1st place makes it justifiable to them

[CNagy]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stewart Mill

This is really just my favourite response to anyone who says that war is never justified.

[Vincent]

CNagy thank you thank you, I was just about to put that exact quote on this reply, that totally pwns all naysaying ninnys (i love alliteration) (and assonance) (oh thats connsonance too yum)

[K2Grey]

It hardly pwns anything.

Cute quotes or sayings do not a substantive argument make.

Having said this I feel it is very difficult to claim that war cannot be justified unless we are to suppose that the evils of the world will go away on their own, or that moral righteousness is achieved by sitting behind one's borders ignoring what occurs in the outside world.

[Renter]

A war has been justified if you won. If you lost, you were the bad guy.

[MrQ]

Today, we’re in Iraq. Our military men and women are facing death just as they did in Vietnam 30 and 40 years ago. Why? Is that war justified.? We certainly don’t have a draft today that would inflame those that don’t want to go. We have an all volunteer army. But, people aren’t enlisting like they used to. More are getting out following their enlistments. We have serious shortages of replacements for the men and women serving in Iraq. Do you believe America will reinstate the draft? They certainly could. What do you think would happen if they did? Would you protest especially if personally threatened? Would you give up your freedom and possibly your life to comply with that draft notice?

The big question is: Is the Iraq war justified? Do we need Iraq’s oil? Now that we’re there, is our gas any cheaper? Was our objection to Iraq’s government adequate justification for invasion? If that’s true, what about North Korea any many other oppressive countries? Should we invade them also? What about another country possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Is that justification for preemptive war?

An interesting question is: Who is more dangerous to world peace, Iraq or the United States? Was Iraq involved in the attack against America on September 11, 2001? Everyone in the government says no, including George Bush. Yet, many people still believe they were and it’s definitely to our current government’s advantage that they continue to believe that there was a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Bottom line, outside of actual homeland defense are wars ever justified?

I think the draft topic is bit rediculous to engage in. It was a rumor spread with the intent of rallying people against Bush. Its just not going to happen.

Your statements might need some facts to be taken seriously. Recruiting levels appear to be same or higher some months or lower during others.

The oil idea is a bit rediculous as well. We import the majority of our oil from Canada/Mexico. In the past 16 years the most oil we have imported from Iraq was roughly 7% of our total in a year. I posted a link from an official source in a previous thread. Going off memory here so unless this figure has shot through the roof in 2005, I am correct.

Preemptive wars are a touchy subject. Various people will agree/disagree. I for one, when we have 13 years of intelligence, former presidents, foreign presidents etc. all saying roughly the same thing about Saddam of course I am all for striking first. I would much rather our enemies die before we do. When dealing with WMD's we dont have the luxery of EVER being wrong if we dont take action. Keep that in mind. Its not like it was in days past.

There is a link between Saddam and Al Quaida. This is an established fact. If you missed it I will gladly post some sources for you. I dont think anyone said Saddam had something to do with 9/11 specifically. Thats crazy. Did he finance terrorist groups and provide aid to Al Quaidas top dogs. Yes. Keep in mind though the reasons for the war are many and I dont think its fair to post these obviously weak justifications and ignore the main ones.

[ruaidhri]

Mr. Q., I don’t agree that you have the facts. Facts today are spin. Everyone can quote facts to back up their position. Before I retired I worked with numbers. When the numbers didn’t suit my boss he’d tell me he wanted different numbers. I always delivered.

Now, if you had read my second post on this topic you might realize that I asked the questions in the original post to find out what other people believed. I stated my own opinions in my second post. I am not totally blind to the need for military action. In fact, I even made a stretch and suggested that a war in the Persian Gulf could be considered homeland security. However, I don’t believe for a second Iraq held the threat of WMD over the United States. I don’t believe Iraq was in bed with Osama regardless of what “facts” you might produce. Remember George Jr. produced “facts” that got us in this war in the first place.

Now we’re told that our goal, our purpose, for being in Iraq is to bring democracy to the people. How many ways can I say “baloney”. Democracy, as I stated in my previous posting, depends on the minority accepting the rule of the majority. That, I don’t believe, is going to happen in Iraq. We need to stay in Iraq to prevent a bad situation we created from becoming even worse, which it would if we suddenly pulled out. Also, it wouldn’t look good for our President to admit he made a mistake, which he did.

Regarding enlistments I have found conflicting reports in the news media. Assuming the Military is meeting their goals I am nothing short of amazed. Why is it then that our National Guard and Reserve units are returning again and again to combat zones? Why is it that the government has even called back inactive reserves. Sure, the military is a good way for a kid from a low income family to get a job, training and an education. It’s also a damn good way to get dead.

Will we have a draft again? I certainly don’t believe that will happen.

Do I believe we’ll “win” in Iraq. No, I don’t. I just hope we don’t lose. That’s why I’m not for an immediate withdrawal. If things are bad now they would be catastrophically worse if we left the scene.

Do I support George W. Bush? Well, he’s my President and I respect the office. However, I do not respect the man. I didn’t vote for him in either election. I accept that he was the winner. But, the truth be told, I miss Bill.

[Jay]

Oh, well said, mate.

[Anders]

So if a pre-emptive war is the right thing to do when our country is threatened, then why didn't we fire every nuclear warhead we have at Russia when we had the chance? By your logic, since the Soviet Union was actively moving nuclear weapons (WMDs) to Cuba (with the intent to be able to strike the US), we should have sent the Soviet Union back to the stone age.

As for your ironclad link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda... Washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

If you really want a better source than the conservative biased Washington post, Read chapter 10.3 of the 9-11 commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm). The only people that still say there is a link are sitting in the Whitehouse or on Bush's cabinet.

[Langosta]

That wouldn't be pre-emptive now would it. It would be pre-emptive to launch an assault before the soviets ammased their arms.

But then again, why not go ahead with the assured mutual destruction.

[K2Grey]

Well, a pre emptive war's primary purpose is to get rid of the enemy before he can screw with you. At the time of the Cuban Missile crisis, I believe the Soviets had methods to deliver nuclear weapons to the US. Not necessarily enough to blow the entire country up, but enough to blow a good deal of stuff up (then again, I am not a historian).

Maybe you'd have a better argument if you picked an earlier time period, when we had the nuke and they didn't, or when they didn't have ways to deliver it to us quickly.

[Renter]

Ah, Clinton. The first guy in 6000 years to get Muslims and Jews to the conference table. He was one of the best presidents you've had in a long time. Too bad the american alleged democracy is just popularity, and not based on any kind of talent. *sigh*

[Trump]

Because most people with talent are smart enough to stay far far away from the presidency :(

[Hira-Kata to Sawa]

Because most people with talent are smart enough to stay far far away from the presidency :(

Ross Perot ran twice, but did anyone care? No... he coulda turned things around.

[MrQ]

Mr. Q., I don’t agree that you have the facts. Facts today are spin. Everyone can quote facts to back up their position. Before I retired I worked with numbers. When the numbers didn’t suit my boss he’d tell me he wanted different numbers. I always delivered.

Now, if you had read my second post on this topic you might realize that I asked the questions in the original post to find out what other people believed. I stated my own opinions in my second post. I am not totally blind to the need for military action. In fact, I even made a stretch and suggested that a war in the Persian Gulf could be considered homeland security. However, I don’t believe for a second Iraq held the threat of WMD over the United States. I don’t believe Iraq was in bed with Osama regardless of what “facts” you might produce. Remember George Jr. produced “facts” that got us in this war in the first place.

Now we’re told that our goal, our purpose, for being in Iraq is to bring democracy to the people. How many ways can I say “baloney”. Democracy, as I stated in my previous posting, depends on the minority accepting the rule of the majority. That, I don’t believe, is going to happen in Iraq. We need to stay in Iraq to prevent a bad situation we created from becoming even worse, which it would if we suddenly pulled out. Also, it wouldn’t look good for our President to admit he made a mistake, which he did.

Regarding enlistments I have found conflicting reports in the news media. Assuming the Military is meeting their goals I am nothing short of amazed. Why is it then that our National Guard and Reserve units are returning again and again to combat zones? Why is it that the government has even called back inactive reserves. Sure, the military is a good way for a kid from a low income family to get a job, training and an education. It’s also a damn good way to get dead.

Will we have a draft again? I certainly don’t believe that will happen.

Do I believe we’ll “win” in Iraq. No, I don’t. I just hope we don’t lose. That’s why I’m not for an immediate withdrawal. If things are bad now they would be catastrophically worse if we left the scene.

Do I support George W. Bush? Well, he’s my President and I respect the office. However, I do not respect the man. I didn’t vote for him in either election. I accept that he was the winner. But, the truth be told, I miss Bill.

If facts today are spin, then can you how can you believe anything? How can you support your position if you believe all facts are spin?

Anders,

Pre-emptive war, IF you take what I said into consideration, then yes, I believe it is the right thing to do. In your scenerios, um no.

Heres my iron clad links between Al Quaida and Saddam. Good luck refuting ALL of these.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/263ztejm.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=208308

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Im sure many of you will still believe only what you want, which is why I fear for the youth in America.

[Trump]

Refute them? It's easy, they are all news journals with their own agendas. They are twisting words and digging out details to make things seem like they want them to. I mean every one of those articles contains endless amounts of "seemingly" and "purported" and "alledged" and fragmented quotes that don't mean anything when taken alone.

Call them soft facts maybe, or pieces of the puzzle, but to say that definately proves your point is stupid. Are you saying you believe everything the press or politicians tell you? I sure hope not! The point is, the public does not *know* one way or the other.

[MrQ]

Refute them? It's easy, they are all news journals with their own agendas. They are twisting words and digging out details to make things seem like they want them to. I mean every one of those articles contains endless amounts of "seemingly" and "purported" and "alledged" and fragmented quotes that don't mean anything when taken alone.

Call them soft facts maybe, or pieces of the puzzle, but to say that definately proves your point is stupid. Are you saying you believe everything the press or politicians tell you? I sure hope not! The point is, the public does not *know* one way or the other.

If you can be specific, that would help your credibility. Your blanket statements are worthless.

[Jay]

"I mean every one of those articles contains endless amounts of "seemingly" and "purported" and "alledged" and fragmented quotes that don't mean anything when taken alone."

What, that's not specific enough? The articles point out ALLEGED ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Houssein, not any REAL evidence. Merely sensationalism on the part of the journalists.

Hey, it sells papers. Who can blame 'em?

[crow-kun]

War is always justifiable. It's like not taking a bath for a week and when you do its the greatest thing in the world.

[MrQ]

"I mean every one of those articles contains endless amounts of "seemingly" and "purported" and "alledged" and fragmented quotes that don't mean anything when taken alone."

What, that's not specific enough? The articles point out ALLEGED ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Houssein, not any REAL evidence. Merely sensationalism on the part of the journalists.

Hey, it sells papers. Who can blame 'em?

No its not. Its obvious you didnt read them at all. I can clink on the 2nd link and see hillary clinton saying that saddam had links to al quaida. You can read the sources for the information in the articles. Most of them are not papers guy.

If you are going to refute a specific item, say General so and sos report, then do it. Blanket statements are worthless in discussions and you OBVIOUSLY didnt read anything. Thanks for trying.

And here is why I posted the links, this is my original point.

"Did he finance terrorist groups and provide aid to Al Quaidas top dogs. Yes"

The first opposition to this with the 9/11 commission had more to do with Sept 11 and Saddam. Which I have said repeatedly, that no one is making that case.

[Jay]

I can clink on the 2nd link and see hillary clinton saying that saddam had links to al quaida.

Bats have better eyesight than birds and a truck won't hurt you if you stand in front of it while it's moving.

Go ahead, go stand in front of a truck and see if I'm wrong.

[jindojim]

Just because you found it on the internet doesn't mean it's correct, Mr. Q
The internet can be very misleading, with all sorts of "facts" existing, which may actually be completely false.

World net daily is a conservative themed newspaper, therefore making their reporting biased. (background from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily)You are not going to find any sort of evidence to refute the claim that Saddam and Al Quaeda, as it is the same sort of things the President and his administration are going to be using to "prove" that a connection is going to exist.

Even more so for jrwhipple.com, who appears to be reporting from a very right wing position. His signature ["Words Start Wars - Guns End Them!"
-J.R. Whipple (Who has more guns than words;-) ] also makes him appear much less credible. If you cite him as a legitimate source, then you seem to enjoy taking quotes out of context.

Did you even read the MSNBC.MSN article?? Or did you just pick out the bits and pieces you thought were most relevant to your case, rather than assume a neutral point of view? Well, here's some evidence against your own case, directly from your own citation.
But, as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism official, says, the Feith-Carney memo omits the rest of the story: that bin Laden actually rejected the Hijazi overture, concluding he did not want to be “exploited” by a regime that he has consistently viewed as “secular” and fundamentally antithetical to his vision of a strict Islamic state.

The NYSun article doesn't even have anything to do with the link between al-Quaeda and Saddam. It just says that Iraq may have put their WMDs in Syria.

National Review Online: again, articles taking a very conservative outlook.
(background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review)

Weekly Standard: again, neoconservative outlook.

I'm not saying there isn't any connection between al-Quaeda and Saddam. It's not something that really can be proven or disproven in my opinion by both parties. But I'm highly opposed to citing very biased sources as fact and proof, as those are the least likely to be credible. It shows you don't have a critical eye for things. As ruaidhri suggests, "facts" are highly interpretable. You can use them in a number of ways to lend credibility to your argument. And people who don't really criticize the source just because it looks "official" and "legitimate" tend to simply accept the argument without really thinking for themselves.

[DesertLily]

Sweet, Clinton SAID they were tied. If a person said something, it MUST be true!

[MrQ]

Just because you found it on the internet doesn't mean it's correct, Mr. Q
The internet can be very misleading, with all sorts of "facts" existing, which may actually be completely false.

World net daily is a conservative themed newspaper, therefore making their reporting biased. (background from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily)You are not going to find any sort of evidence to refute the claim that Saddam and Al Quaeda, as it is the same sort of things the President and his administration are going to be using to "prove" that a connection is going to exist.

Even more so for jrwhipple.com, who appears to be reporting from a very right wing position. His signature ["Words Start Wars - Guns End Them!"
-J.R. Whipple (Who has more guns than words;-) ] also makes him appear much less credible. If you cite him as a legitimate source, then you seem to enjoy taking quotes out of context.

Did you even read the MSNBC.MSN article?? Or did you just pick out the bits and pieces you thought were most relevant to your case, rather than assume a neutral point of view? Well, here's some evidence against your own case, directly from your own citation.


The NYSun article doesn't even have anything to do with the link between al-Quaeda and Saddam. It just says that Iraq may have put their WMDs in Syria.

National Review Online: again, articles taking a very conservative outlook.
(background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review)

Weekly Standard: again, neoconservative outlook.

I'm not saying there isn't any connection between al-Quaeda and Saddam. It's not something that really can be proven or disproven in my opinion by both parties. But I'm highly opposed to citing very biased sources as fact and proof, as those are the least likely to be credible. It shows you don't have a critical eye for things. As ruaidhri suggests, "facts" are highly interpretable. You can use them in a number of ways to lend credibility to your argument. And people who don't really criticize the source just because it looks "official" and "legitimate" tend to simply accept the argument without really thinking for themselves.

Im sorry, the Washington Post is definately not biased. Right. Which is the first source that was posted as "evidence" against my position. Are you kidding me?

Stop bringing up biased sources as a reason to not look at the issue. This is rediculous as I have said that ALL reports are going to have some kind of bias even if its little.

Obviously one cant trust everything one finds on the internet, if you believe that was my point you clearly missed it.

I was confirming the link between Saddam and Al Quaida, specifically what he has been known to do in the past. Nothing more, nothing less. To suggest otherwise when you have an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows this to be true is a bit silly.

You have democrats, generals, foreign int, officials, american intel, republicans, etc etc all confirming this as true. I think I can make an educated opinion on what I believe when I examine it ALL instead of relying on the local newspaper and mainstream media which has PROVEN their bias against President Bush.

[Jay]

Mr Q, go stand in front of that moving truck for me and see if it runs you down. I said it won't, but you seem to believe everything you read on the internet, so I just want to see if I'm right or not. :innocent:

[MrQ]

Mr Q, go stand in front of that moving truck for me and see if it runs you down. I said it won't, but you seem to believe everything you read on the internet, so I just want to see if I'm right or not. :innocent:

Your brilliance is staggering. Im speechless.

[Jay]

I get that a lot. :D

[jindojim]

I'm not Anders....that wasn't my post. I never listed the Washington Post as a source. Nor do I say they're not biased....but it is definitely a more credible source than the majority of the ones that you've listed, since it attempts to present both sides of the issue.

The problem with your sources is not that they are biased but rather that they are INTENTIONALLY biased. Most media is biased in one form or another, but the most of the sources you listed see themselves as having a specific political affliation. Which is much less credible than the Washington Post or other daily newspapers, which do attempt to stay as neutral as possible, even if they do show a little bias.

You indirectly hinted that you trust the majority of things on the internet though through your sources. I'm not saying that it is your point, but you clearly do try to use misleading and highly biased sources as evidence for your point. Which is the part that I'm arguing against. It's not your viewpoint that I have issues with. It's your references. I would argue against the same thing if someone with the standpoint that there is no connection between al-Quaeda and Saddam listed a bunch of sources from clearly liberal media.

(Also, "rediculous" is spelled "ridiculous"...)

[ruaidhri]

Politics is a difficult topic to discuss and remain civil. By its very nature it brings out deep rooted emotions that border on love and hate. I am no exception. I fight hard battles within myself to remain cool.

But, I also get disgusted, angry, fume and pound the desk. You just can’t see me. Then, after I’ve collected my thoughts and held down my emotions, I attempt to write a friendly response. You see, in my long life I’ve discovered that I can really like people with whom I strongly disagree on political issues. It’s possible I could even like George W. Bush on a personal level. God knows, I don’t like him as a President.

Certainly, there are members that have taken upon themselves the task of defending every opinion and action to the right of center. Often, their method is to demonize the left and to create confusion. They present “facts” that are nothing more than spin. Now, I’m not saying that the left doesn’t use a lot of the same tactics. It’s just that I believe those on the right are the black belts in bending the truth while those on the left are still wearing white belts and learning how to spell obfuscation.

I believe, in the world today, it’s not the truth that’s important; it’s what the majority of people believe to be the truth. That’s why spin has become so important. But, eventually, even spin can’t refloat a ship that's been sunk. When it comes to Bush and Cheney, fewer and fewer people are in a believing mood.

I personally believe the George Bush wanted to invade Iraq and created reasons to justify the action. Apparently, more and more people share my belief. The question is really what they are going to do at the polling booth next November.

On the question of whether or not the Iraq war is just, Matt W. gave two dictionary definitions of the word “just”.

1. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: reasonable.
2. Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good: righteous.

I don’t believe the U.S. invasion fulfilled either of those definitions. And, no, Mr. Q. I’m not going to offer “facts” to support my belief. Why? Because you wouldn’t accept them just as others won’t accept yours.

Do I propose the U.S. immediately pack its bags and leave Iraq. No I don’t because that also would not be reasonable or righteous. Somehow, I believe we have to help the Iraqis create a stable government regardless of its eventual political form, which, very possibly, would not be an ideal representative democracy. I would hope that this becomes more than an American objective and leadership is quickly assumed by the United Nations. The objective should be what is best for Iraq, not the United States.

[MrQ]

I'm not Anders....that wasn't my post. I never listed the Washington Post as a source. Nor do I say they're not biased....but it is definitely a more credible source than the majority of the ones that you've listed, since it attempts to present both sides of the issue.

The problem with your sources is not that they are biased but rather that they are INTENTIONALLY biased. Most media is biased in one form or another, but the most of the sources you listed see themselves as having a specific political affliation. Which is much less credible than the Washington Post or other daily newspapers, which do attempt to stay as neutral as possible, even if they do show a little bias.

You indirectly hinted that you trust the majority of things on the internet though through your sources. I'm not saying that it is your point, but you clearly do try to use misleading and highly biased sources as evidence for your point. Which is the part that I'm arguing against. It's not your viewpoint that I have issues with. It's your references. I would argue against the same thing if someone with the standpoint that there is no connection between al-Quaeda and Saddam listed a bunch of sources from clearly liberal media.

(Also, "rediculous" is spelled "ridiculous"...)

Media is intentionally biased. What gave you the impression it wasnt? Did you see the link I posted that addressed the Washington post article?

Where do the articles I list say they are for the republicans? What I see is the other side of the link debate but you see it as bias. Not quite fair is it?

I see no problem with the references considering, if you actually read them you can see the sources they use for the reports. This is what you dont get.

The majority of evidence from various angles, as I mentioned (dems, repubs, diff int etc) show this link. Why wouldnt I make an opinion based on so many varied and opposing sources? What you are saying would only make sense if I all did was post conservative sources but I did not.

Thanks. I am not perfect and dont catch all of my spelling mistakes.

[MrQ]

Politics is a difficult topic to discuss and remain civil. By its very nature it brings out deep rooted emotions that border on love and hate. I am no exception. I fight hard battles within myself to remain cool.

But, I also get disgusted, angry, fume and pound the desk. You just can’t see me. Then, after I’ve collected my thoughts and held down my emotions, I attempt to write a friendly response. You see, in my long life I’ve discovered that I can really like people with whom I strongly disagree on political issues. It’s possible I could even like George W. Bush on a personal level. God knows, I don’t like him as a President.

I actually dont care about partisan lines. I am an independent. I am not bothered that on this website an alarmingly 85% of you uphold the democratic positions of our day. Maybe less but I rarely see a different viewpoint. We wont agree on much but I will definately speak out on what I perceive to be wrong.

Certainly, there are members that have taken upon themselves the task of defending every opinion and action to the right of center. Often, their method is to demonize the left and to create confusion. They present “facts” that are nothing more than spin. Now, I’m not saying that the left doesn’t use a lot of the same tactics. It’s just that I believe those on the right are the black belts in bending the truth while those on the left are still wearing white belts and learning how to spell obfuscation.

This paragraph is like WOW. Ive seen the complete opposite and I am not a republican. I wonder why?

I believe, in the world today, it’s not the truth that’s important; it’s what the majority of people believe to be the truth. That’s why spin has become so important. But, eventually, even spin can’t refloat a ship that been sunk. When it comes to Bush and Cheney, fewer and fewer people are in a believing mood.

Maybe to some people, but to me, truth is important. I actually started listening to O'Reilly lately and I like him. I am sure you and most others on the board however cant stand him and will brandish him right wing. Even though, after listening to him for a few months I think its clear he is definately not a right winger.

I personally believe the George Bush wanted to invade Iraq and created reasons to justify the action. Apparently, more and more people share my belief. The question is really what they are going to do at the polling booth next November.

On the question of whether or not the Iraq war is just, Matt W. gave two dictionary definitions of the word “just”.

1. Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason: reasonable.
2. Acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good: righteous.



Check the 2nd link I posted above that lists the almost 10 years worth of quotes from our leaders. I think its safe to say everyone for the most part wanted to get rid of Saddam. I dont blame them one bit. If you check the reasons for going to war you should remember he violated the sanctions and had a chance to step down to avoid the war. He did not. In a post 9/11, we do not have the luxury to ever be wrong about someone getting WMD's. Once we are wrong 1 time it means the death of countless American citizens. While we have to be very careful to not make war with everyone or make war quickly I will still support pre-emption because the alternative is far worse in my opinion.

I dont have to be a republican to look back at how the events of the past 3 years have unfolded to recognize that Bush did not lie us into war. Did Great Britian lie? Did Russia's intelligence lie? Did our numerous INT agencies lie? No. They were not 100% accurate and no intelligence is. I can accept that. We have lost 2200 Americans since then but Id like to hope their deaths have not been in vain. Good will come from Saddam being ousted when the country of Iraq is stabalized, we will be better off for it in the long run.

[jindojim]

Why wouldnt I make an opinion based on so many varied and opposing sources? What you are saying would only make sense if I all did was post conservative sources but I did not.

That's EXACTLY what I am saying. That you posted only conservative sources. Please check your sources' political affliations and what people say about them. Almost all of them come from conservative sources. And the MSN article contained information that opposed your viewpoint while the NYSun article wasn't even relevant.

[MrQ]

That's EXACTLY what I am saying. That you posted only conservative sources. Please check your sources' political affliations and what people say about them. Almost all of them come from conservative sources. And the MSN article contained information that opposed your viewpoint while the NYSun article wasn't even relevant.


Look within the sources for the sources, is exactly what I am saying. How can you label russian intelligence "conservative"???

[jindojim]

If I stop replying back to you, will that make you happy?

[MrQ]

If I stop replying back to you, will that make you happy?

Happy? I am happy anyway. I fully understand your point but the difference is that I read the resources I posted. They quote various people and sources and my whole point this time has been those sources cant be considered conservative.

[Kass]

Bats have better eyesight than birds and a truck won't hurt you if you stand in front of it while it's moving.

Go ahead, go stand in front of a truck and see if I'm wrong.

Knock off the spam and hijacking. Now.

[Kass]

Mr Q, go stand in front of that moving truck for me and see if it runs you down. I said it won't, but you seem to believe everything you read on the internet, so I just want to see if I'm right or not. :innocent:

And the trolling.

[Anders]

I dont have to be a republican to look back at how the events of the past 3 years have unfolded to recognize that Bush did not lie us into war.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

Edit: yeah Psychochink- you're right. I didn't catch that.

[Psychochink]

^ Uh...other way, dude.

[Trump]

Check the 2nd link I posted above that lists the almost 10 years worth of quotes from our leaders. I think its safe to say everyone for the most part wanted to get rid of Saddam. I dont blame them one bit. If you check the reasons for going to war you should remember he violated the sanctions and had a chance to step down to avoid the war. He did not. In a post 9/11, we do not have the luxury to ever be wrong about someone getting WMD's. Once we are wrong 1 time it means the death of countless American citizens. While we have to be very careful to not make war with everyone or make war quickly I will still support pre-emption because the alternative is far worse in my opinion.


What does the 2nd link have ANYTHING to do with your point? You were trying to prove a link between Saddam and Al Queda and you post a link of random presidential quotes?? W...T...F... No one, and I mean NO ONE, is arguing that the goverment liked Iraq and wanted to keep that regime in power. What exactly are you arguing? This is why I do not like your posts. They are not focused and usually degenerate into political ramblings of one of the political parties. Then you try to back up your side with even more political ramblings and web site that don't analyze both sides of the story. I don't care if those web sites quote reliable information in certain places, the whole idea behind those articles is to take the bits of information that support their idea and ignore everything else. Since you quote this information, doesn't that make your arguments just as invalid? You state political ideas like they are facts and when people try to argue against your point of view you respond by saying we ignore the (arguably insubstantial) facts. It is more than I can take.

Here's an example of how absurd some of your posts are. NEWS FLASH!! THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND AL QUEDA!!! No crap, we've been trying to exterminate them for years but you neglected to mention that fact now didn't you!!

[MrQ]

What does the 2nd link have ANYTHING to do with your point? You were trying to prove a link between Saddam and Al Queda and you post a link of random presidential quotes?? W...T...F... No one, and I mean NO ONE, is arguing that the goverment liked Iraq and wanted to keep that regime in power. What exactly are you arguing? This is why I do not like your posts. They are not focused and usually degenerate into political ramblings of one of the political parties. Then you try to back up your side with even more political ramblings and web site that don't analyze both sides of the story. I don't care if those web sites quote reliable information in certain places, the whole idea behind those articles is to take the bits of information that support their idea and ignore everything else. Since you quote this information, doesn't that make your arguments just as invalid? You state political ideas like they are facts and when people try to argue against your point of view you respond by saying we ignore the (arguably insubstantial) facts. It is more than I can take.

Here's an example of how absurd some of your posts are. NEWS FLASH!! THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND AL QUEDA!!! No crap, we've been trying to exterminate them for years but you neglected to mention that fact now didn't you!!

The 2nd link has Hillary Clinton, a favorite democrat today talking about the ties Saddam had with Al Quaida and other terrorists. Again, giving aid and housing terrorists not planning Sept 11.

Actually, I try to keep my responses to the point but considering its usually me vs all you can see it gets kinda of hard to address everything in a perfect manner. But the rest of your paragraphs dont equate to me. My arguments are sound. My posts are not absurd at all. Whats absurd is the sheer number of ignorant people on these boards including yourself.

[Trump]

OK, half of the quote is referencing information we KNOW to be incorrect and you expect us to just ASSUME the rest is true? If anything, since the first bit was wrong I'm inclined to believe she had no clue what she was talking about in the whole quote. So how does that article even support your arguments?

When you intially used that link it was "good luck refuting all of these" and then people challenged their credibility. Now you are using that one of all of them to try to justify yourself? That is just absurd. It's not even worth arguing any more because it won't do any good. The level of absurdity you bring to the table can't be refuted. At least now I understand why you just spout the political BS like you do.

[Anders]

Mr.Q, do you have anything else to say? Or are you to the point where you just want to put other people down? If you have nothing further to contribute, stop posting.

[Jay]

but considering its usually me vs all

Ever occur to you there's a REASON for that? :sarcasm:

[Beowulf]

I actually dont care about partisan lines. I am an independent.
:liar:

That's nice, but I don't believe you.

My arguments are sound. My posts are not absurd at all. Whats absurd is the sheer number of ignorant people on these boards including yourself.
:'(

[Jay]

lol .

[MrQ]

Mr.Q, do you have anything else to say? Or are you to the point where you just want to put other people down? If you have nothing further to contribute, stop posting.

Where were you when Jay said this to me first?

"Bats have better eyesight than birds and a truck won't hurt you if you stand in front of it while it's moving.

Go ahead, go stand in front of a truck and see if I'm wrong."

Or

"Mr Q, go stand in front of that moving truck for me and see if it runs you down. I said it won't, but you seem to believe everything you read on the internet, so I just want to see if I'm right or not"

Yea I didnt think so. Now take your lame policing elsewhere. Get over the fact that at least 1 person on these boards dont conform to the usual drivel thats presented on here.

[MrQ]

OK, half of the quote is referencing information we KNOW to be incorrect and you expect us to just ASSUME the rest is true? If anything, since the first bit was wrong I'm inclined to believe she had no clue what she was talking about in the whole quote. So how does that article even support your arguments?

When you intially used that link it was "good luck refuting all of these" and then people challenged their credibility. Now you are using that one of all of them to try to justify yourself? That is just absurd. It's not even worth arguing any more because it won't do any good. The level of absurdity you bring to the table can't be refuted. At least now I understand why you just spout the political BS like you do.

You need to be more specific when you say "the information that is known to be untrue." I posted like 15 links. No one has really addressed what was detailed in them. Only blanket statements from what I am gathering.

[Beowulf]

Get over the fact that at least 1 person on these boards dont conform to the usual drivel thats presented on here.
GOLD STAR FOR YOU!!

http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/members/images/gold_star_poster.jpg

[MeneerDijk]

Ok people, let me step in before it goes out of hand, if you can't play nice together you shouldn't play at all. Stop calling eachother names!

[Jay]

A gold star AND A COOKIE! :D

http://www.supereggplant.com/archives/pink%20cookie.JPG

You may eat the gold star and hang the cookie on the board, but at the end of the year you lose privileges for the end-of-school trip because you ATE THE FUCKING STAR, you idiot. :bang:

[ruaidhri]

Mr. Q., I’m sorry that recent comments insult you. But, you have also been insulting to others. Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion. Are you truly surprised that the vast majority of members on OP9 do not share your opinions? Have you ever considered that Perhaps it’s partially because of your delivery.

There are a number of people on this forum that hold different positions on issues from my own. In a number of instances they’ve convinced me to reconsider my own position. They didn’t insult me and put me on the defensive. Their goal was to inform, not win a battle. They didn’t walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

What do you do that’s wrong? You attempt to overwhelm what you consider your opponents. You throw out a list of sources for your opinions as “facts” that you say “can’t be disputed.” Well, you’re wrong. Your bane is that OP9 does have many intelligent members, some of which do actually take the time to read your links and understand their contents. When they question your sources and the one sided reporting, you fly off the handle and call them ignorant. Why? Because they don’t agree with you?

I don’t know what you plan to do with your life but I suggest you calm down and realize what I've been writing from the beginning. Today’s truths are covered in spin. If you want to “open eyes” appeal to people’s reason, compassion and shared experiences. Most important, when they disagree with you, and many will, don’t insult their intelligence. The only thing you’ll win is an enemy.

[MrQ]

Mr. Q., I’m sorry that recent comments insult you. But, you have also been insulting to others. Yes, everyone has a right to their opinion. Are you truly surprised that the vast majority of members on OP9 do not share your opinions? Have you ever considered that Perhaps it’s partially because of your delivery.

There are a number of people on this forum that hold different positions on issues from my own. In a number of instances they’ve convinced me to reconsider my own position. They didn’t insult me and put me on the defensive. Their goal was to inform, not win a battle. They didn’t walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

What do you do that’s wrong? You attempt to overwhelm what you consider your opponents. You throw out a list of sources for your opinions as “facts” that you say “can’t be disputed.” Well, you’re wrong. Your bane is that OP9 does have many intelligent members, some of which do actually take the time to read your links and understand their contents. When they question your sources and the one sided reporting, you fly off the handle and call them ignorant. Why? Because they don’t agree with you?

I don’t know what you plan to do with your life but I suggest you calm down and realize what I've been writing from the beginning. Today’s truths are covered in spin. If you want to “open eyes” appeal to people’s reason, compassion and shared experiences. Most important, when they disagree with you, and many will, don’t insult their intelligence. The only thing you’ll win is an enemy.

Where have I been insulting first, show me if you would be so kind.

No, I am not surprised that the majority of the kids on here do not share my opinion.

I assure you, I dont have a chip on my shoulder. Its funny I get these kinds of posts but the horde of posts of people doing what you are accusing me of doing are largely ignored. I find this comical.

I never said that what I say cannot be disputed did I? I presented a challenge which is a bit different.

If OP9 contains a good amount of intelligent people who actually read and goto the links I have posted I am truly unaware of this considering the responses.

Some people are ignorant of the truth. You still have not answered my question to you in regards to "all information is spin." How can you trust anything if you believe every fact is spin?

[Trump]

Let me help jog your memory...

Whats absurd is the sheer number of ignorant people on these boards including yourself.

As a response to a logical argument, that is very insulting.

[ruaidhri]

Mr. Q., quite honestly I’ve found that discussing anything with you is both frustrating and fruitless. From my perspective, I don’t believe you consider the other person’s opinion. You don’t recognize gray areas; it’s all black and white. Now, of course, I expect that’s exactly what you’re going to say about me and everyone else on OP9.

You say you don’t know where you’ve been insulting. I hope you don’t mind if I use your first post in this thread as a representative example of the hostility between the lines of your posts. You view every action as an attack not simply on the issue but also the person expressing an opinion opposite from your own. That doesn’t win friends.

In your very first sentence in response to my question about the possibility of a draft you wrote: “I think the draft topic is bit rediculous to engage in. It was a rumor spread with the intent of rallying people against Bush. Its just not going to happen.” I never wrote we would have a draft, I just asked the question: What if? Actually, I also don’t believe it’s likely to happen short of an actual invasion. But, you assumed that I was intent on rallying people against Bush. You wrote that my even bringing it up was ridiculous.

Then you questioned my statement about recruitment levels. You wrote that I needed “facts” to be taken seriously implying that what I was writing was baseless and without merit. Insulting? Yes! Incidentally, I checked your statement regarding enlistments and found that there might be truth in what you wrote. I am surprised but still question why so many Reserve and National Guard units are being sent back into action multiple times if recruitments are up.

Next, you question my specific statement about the justification for the Iraqi war stating that also was “ridiculous”. Wow! You sure know how to make friends and build alliances. I guess according to you we don’t need Iraqi oil as we’re quite happy paying over $3.00 a gallon for gas. But, then, again that has nothing to do with my original question as all I was simply questioning was our reason for attacking Iraq. Obviously, it wasn’t for the oil. Agreed!

Yes, America is the big guy. We have the weapons and the resources to kill everyone on the planet. We could fry everyone in a nuclear blast. You imply that anyone that disagrees with you about the justification for preemptive wars are living in an unrealistic state of mind. After all, as you said, “Its not like it was in days past.” Ok, I agree, we can protect ourselves. In fact, we can eliminate everyone that disagrees with us. The question is: Is that really the type of country you want to be a part of? If it is it’s too bad you can’t go back in time 60 to 70 years.

I never wrote that I was opposed to military action. I even wrote that I could consider protecting the Persian Gulf a part of homeland security. I also wrote that I couldn’t support immediate withdrawal. I definitely want to protect America’s interests. But, I do believe our government shouldn’t mislead us into war, which is what I again believe happened.

Of course I’m crazy that I even suggesting that our government attempted to link Saddam with 9/11.

Then, in your most immediate post you referred to the members of OP9 as “kids”. I believe the average age of OP9 is a bit higher than “kids”. And, even the “kids” appear to have a good head on their shoulders. Maybe you should try not looking down your nose at other people and realize that you are not superior.

You say you don’t have a chip on your shoulder. Everything you write proves otherwise.

If you truly have no impression of intelligence on OP9, why do you remain as a member? If we all are as stupid as you imply, why do you even bother?

Yes, the truth is out there. You can get it from many sources. But my sources are probably different from yours so, of course, mine must not be the truth. Yours, of course, are always sacrosanct. They are never wrong and should never be questioned.

I appreciate that there are members like Trump that actually do take the time to review and analyze your links. But then, according to you his statements were worthless.

Bottom line is that I don’t find you a very nice person. But, then, that’s my impression based solely on what you write and how you treat others.

[jindojim]

Well, if you're going to place so much faith in quotes, especially from that redneck heap of garbage known as jrwhipple...here's a quote for you.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

So damn true...

[Beowulf]

Where have I been insulting first, show me if you would be so kind.

No, I am not surprised that the majority of the kids on here do not share my opinion.

I assure you, I dont have a chip on my shoulder. Its funny I get these kinds of posts but the horde of posts of people doing what you are accusing me of doing are largely ignored. I find this comical.

I never said that what I say cannot be disputed did I? I presented a challenge which is a bit different.

If OP9 contains a good amount of intelligent people who actually read and goto the links I have posted I am truly unaware of this considering the responses.

Some people are ignorant of the truth. You still have not answered my question to you in regards to "all information is spin." How can you trust anything if you believe every fact is spin?
That entire post is a contradiction to his first sentence in it...
:liar:

[MrQ]

Mr. Q., quite honestly I’ve found that discussing anything with you is both frustrating and fruitless. From my perspective, I don’t believe you consider the other person’s opinion. You don’t recognize gray areas; it’s all black and white. Now, of course, I expect that’s exactly what you’re going to say about me and everyone else on OP9.

No, I believe in gray areas and I do consider other's opinions.

You say you don’t know where you’ve been insulting. I hope you don’t mind if I use your first post in this thread as a representative example of the hostility between the lines of your posts. You view every action as an attack not simply on the issue but also the person expressing an opinion opposite from your own. That doesn’t win friends.

Wow. I said INSULTING FIRST. Big difference. I dont view differences of opinions as personal attacks what are you talking about?

In your very first sentence in response to my question about the possibility of a draft you wrote: “I think the draft topic is bit rediculous to engage in. It was a rumor spread with the intent of rallying people against Bush. Its just not going to happen.” I never wrote we would have a draft, I just asked the question: What if? Actually, I also don’t believe it’s likely to happen short of an actual invasion. But, you assumed that I was intent on rallying people against Bush. You wrote that my even bringing it up was ridiculous.

I was specifically talking about the idea of the draft. I didnt say YOU or did I even suggest that YOU invented the idea to rally people against Bush. Obviously this was spread during the 2004 election season from the democratic side as an attempt to get support against Bush. My opinion of the draft idea is that it is a ridiculous topic to engage in. There is nothing wrong with my opinion.

Then you questioned my statement about recruitment levels. You wrote that I needed “facts” to be taken seriously implying that what I was writing was baseless and without merit. Insulting? Yes! Incidentally, I checked your statement regarding enlistments and found that there might be truth in what you wrote. I am surprised but still question why so many Reserve and National Guard units are being sent back into action multiple times if recruitments are up.

Yes, I question just about everything. I wanted some data on recruitment levels because last I checked they were on the rise. You can interpret this as you will but your statements implied a truly negative picture of the military and I wanted some facts to back that up. If you find that me questioning statements like yours and others insulting then that sounds like a personal problem.


Next, you question my specific statement about the justification for the Iraqi war stating that also was “ridiculous”. Wow! You sure know how to make friends and build alliances. I guess according to you we don’t need Iraqi oil as we’re quite happy paying over $3.00 a gallon for gas. But, then, again that has nothing to do with my original question as all I was simply questioning was our reason for attacking Iraq. Obviously, it wasn’t for the oil. Agreed!

I specifically said the "oil idea." This idea is that we made war with Iraq because we wanted the oil. I find this ridiculous because we have never got more than 7% of our years total from Iraq. If we wanted oil we should of invaded Canada since they export the most to us. If your oil statements was not this idea then pardon me, I misunderstood because this is a common belief on these boards and among the far left today.



Yes, America is the big guy. We have the weapons and the resources to kill everyone on the planet. We could fry everyone in a nuclear blast. You imply that anyone that disagrees with you about the justification for preemptive wars are living in an unrealistic state of mind. After all, as you said, “Its not like it was in days past.” Ok, I agree, we can protect ourselves. In fact, we can eliminate everyone that disagrees with us. The question is: Is that really the type of country you want to be a part of? If it is it’s too bad you can’t go back in time 60 to 70 years.

No I dont imply anything. I CLEARLY said pre-emption is a debate where many people will agree/disagree and then I gave my reasons for why I am FOR pre-emption. I am not talking about the USA being the big bad military power of today. I am arguing that we cant ever be wrong if we dont take pre-emptive measures against people we perceive to have WMDs. One mistake and we lose. Obviously we cant make war with everyone so that is why I am all for intelligence reform and exhausting all other measures before war.


I never wrote that I was opposed to military action. I even wrote that I could consider protecting the Persian Gulf a part of homeland security. I also wrote that I couldn’t support immediate withdrawal. I definitely want to protect America’s interests. But, I do believe our government shouldn’t mislead us into war, which is what I again believe happened.

I dont believe 15 intelligence agencies being convinced that Saddam had WMDs equates to the govt. misleading us into war. I see it a terrible mistake that shouldnt happen again but I dont accept as deliberate deception.

Of course I’m crazy that I even suggesting that our government attempted to link Saddam with 9/11.

Which part of the govt. says this? I have never heard someone saying that Saddam had something to do with 911. Someone credible I mean.

Then, in your most immediate post you referred to the members of OP9 as “kids”. I believe the average age of OP9 is a bit higher than “kids”. And, even the “kids” appear to have a good head on their shoulders. Maybe you should try not looking down your nose at other people and realize that you are not superior.

You say you don’t have a chip on your shoulder. Everything you write proves otherwise.

I didnt refer to all the members of 0P9 as kids. Stop taking my comments out of context. I said I am not suprised that THE KIDS on here do not share my opinion. Thats a BIG difference. Ive seen many posts by ages 12 and up. I am not looking down my nose at anyone and I am not superior to anyone in this regard. I dont have a chip, you are inventing one to make you feel better.


If you truly have no impression of intelligence on OP9, why do you remain as a member? If we all are as stupid as you imply, why do you even bother?

Context sir. I said a GOOD amount of intelligent people. I did not say everyone on here was a dumbass. This is valid.. look at bobs posts and eyezonme to get an idea among the many others..

Yes, the truth is out there. You can get it from many sources. But my sources are probably different from yours so, of course, mine must not be the truth. Yours, of course, are always sacrosanct. They are never wrong and should never be questioned.

I appreciate that there are members like Trump that actually do take the time to review and analyze your links. But then, according to you his statements were worthless.

Bottom line is that I don’t find you a very nice person. But, then, that’s my impression based solely on what you write and how you treat others.

Nah, what you are stating here is absurd. I like the idea that I can be questioned because you know I am going to question you. Trump has not took the time to analyze anything from what I have read. You have taken my words out of context just as much as the next guy.

I am nice but I am not a drone. Sorry if you cant accept that.

[Beowulf]

To sum up the good MrQ:

I AM NEVER WRONG!
DO NOT QUESTION ME!
I DO NOT INSULT EVERYONE YOU RETARD!
I AM THE ALL-POWERFUL OZ!
WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

[Trump]

Mr Q, do you not read a whole post and get the main idea? Taking bits and pieces is all well and good, but YOU MISSED THE POINT! Taking apart a post line by line accomplishes nothing! Raidhri provided a list of things you have said in order to prove a point. Actually, it was more to disprove a point of yours, you claim your posts were not insulting and he tries to prove otherwise. It wasn't a battle about facts or opinions. Instead it was trying to describe how your words are interpreted by other people. Obviously, you interpret them VERY differently than EVERYONE else. It doesn't matter what you meant by something, if someone finds it insulting, there isn't anything you can do about it except maybe apologize or at least recognize that it might have been insulting. You can refute it if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that people found it insulting. Instead you have to go pick apart the post piece by piece to refute EVERY LINE?? Get a grip on the big picture and focus on the main idea. Every post you make nit picking details while ignoring the big picture just hurts your case and reduces your credibility.

And you might just be surprised, most of "the kids" you actually WERE referring to likely have many years on you. It's just that the kids around here can't figure out your point likely because its so garbled and lost in nitpicking details that it takes far more time than most are willing to give to an internet forum.

[MrQ]

Mr Q, do you not read a whole post and get the main idea? Taking bits and pieces is all well and good, but YOU MISSED THE POINT! Taking apart a post line by line accomplishes nothing! Raidhri provided a list of things you have said in order to prove a point. Actually, it was more to disprove a point of yours, you claim your posts were not insulting and he tries to prove otherwise. It wasn't a battle about facts or opinions. Instead it was trying to describe how your words are interpreted by other people. Obviously, you interpret them VERY differently than EVERYONE else. It doesn't matter what you meant by something, if someone finds it insulting, there isn't anything you can do about it except maybe apologize or at least recognize that it might have been insulting. You can refute it if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that people found it insulting. Instead you have to go pick apart the post piece by piece to refute EVERY LINE?? Get a grip on the big picture and focus on the main idea. Every post you make nit picking details while ignoring the big picture just hurts your case and reduces your credibility.

And you might just be surprised, most of "the kids" you actually WERE referring to likely have many years on you. It's just that the kids around here can't figure out your point likely because its so garbled and lost in nitpicking details that it takes far more time than most are willing to give to an internet forum.

Let Rudhari answer for himself.

?? I mentioned the names of some of the kids? I must of missed it.

If someone makes claims and takes my words out of context, of course I will refute it. If you have a problem with that, why are you even responding with this rubbish?

[Anders]

What is it going to take? How can we convince you that your views may not be 100% correct? We've established that all of your previous arguments are invalid because the information you based the opinions on are flawed. How can we show you that you might be mistaken if you won't even question your own stance?

I don't believe that name-calling has any place in a debate forum. You don't just go out and call someone an "asshole"- even if every bone in your body tells you they are the biggest "asshole" in history. On that same note, you don't disrespect people on the forum. Even if someone challenges your post, providing overwhelming evidence to prove your opinion is wrong. Treat everyone with respect. When I read your first post on page 3, I immediately felt that you were attacking posters- not opinions. From the look of the responses that followed, I can see that you offended more posters than just me. If you wonder why people are telling you off /assaulting you personally, I suggest you look at how your posts are worded, and how other people may interpret your posts.

Edit: I just fixed the problem. MrQ is the only member on my ignore list.

[Jay]

I'd advocate giving up and ignoring him. Ignorance is bliss, fellas.

[Fizban]

ruaidhry, thank you for starting this thread. I dont know how to say this, the only phrase i can think of is life-changing, but it is nowhere near that, closer to extremly thought provoking. I mean this in the best possible way, if i was a bit younger i feel this would be very life changing (not that im very old, just turned 17 in fact). I was quite pleased with how you handled MrQ's comments, and I would like it if everyone on this thread would please stop responding to MrQ. I don't know if that will stop him entirely, but i would like the quality debate on this thread to continue. I look forward to reading all of your thoughts in the future.

[Beowulf]

I would like it if everyone on this thread would please stop responding to MrQ. I don't know if that will stop him entirely, but i would like the quality debate on this thread to continue. I look forward to reading all of your thoughts in the future.
Fine...







PARTING SHOT!
http://www.nataliedee.com/042006/dont-be-late.jpg

[Hage]

Don't you guys find it pretty stupid you're arguing about how to argue?

[Trump]

Well it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who can't provide reasonable or even remotely logical arguments. =(

[Anders]

Hage, you're absolutely right. It's unfortunate that we've had to even discuss how to contribute to a civilized debate. It's a waste of time and a distraction from the real issue/debate the thread was created for.

Everyone wants to contribute and if everyone has the exact same stance on every issue, there is no debate. I was the admin. for a college Democrat forum where everyone on it basically had the same ideas and felt the same way about current issues. It was the most boring thing imaginable. There were a couple good debates, but that was it. Needless to say, there hasn't been many posts in the last few months.

The goal of a debate (at least by my definition) is to take an issue where people don't see eye-to-eye and learn from eachother. My goal is to change your mind about your opinions. Your goal is to change mine. Hopefully the debate ends when both sides reach a common ground that they can both agree on. Problems start to arise when one more sides of the debate decide not to change their minds or even compromise. When it is perhaps better to agree to disagree, some people decide the only explanation is that the people on the other side are stupid and/or ignorant. The person then stops debating the issue and starts attacking the people who disagree with him/her. That goes against all of the rules of debate and it can really upset people on a personal level.

When people start intentionally insulting or belittling other members, I think it is appropriate to say something to try to stop it from escalating any further.

I apologize for the long post- which had no real connection to the actual topic of this thread.

[Praetorian]

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for the lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

I just felt this quote was appropriate for this thread. It was said by Hermann Wilhelm Göring (January 12, 1893 – October 15, 1946).

[R.L.M.]

This whole topic is absolutely pointless and everyones opinion is dead wrong.

I'll answer the question.

"When is war justified?"

When somebody pisses off America. Nuff said.

[NERD]

This whole topic is absolutely pointless and everyones opinion is dead wrong.

I'll answer the question.

"When is war justified?"

When somebody pisses off America. Nuff said.

Are you trying to copy Mr.Q and piss everyone off, or just being sarcastic?

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in a text format.

[Jay]

This whole topic is absolutely pointless and everyones opinion is dead wrong.

I'll answer the question.

"When is war justified?"

When somebody pisses off America. Nuff said.

You're wrong.

[羽之助]

Yeah. It's Canada. That's the only time war is justified. Because we would carpet their country with marijuana bombs.

[Beowulf]

I'd prefer to shift this into a more philosophical approach. Hopefully this will stem some of the anger and strong emotion running through this thread.

Now I, personally, am opposed to war. War is only to be used in self-defense. I really do abhor violence, as it really solves nothing. Even when war is used in self-defense we must be careful not to lash out in retribution (whether rightfully or not) or become no better then our aggressors.

I believe the great Friedrich Nietzsche said it best:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
~Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

How true it is. The terrorists who assaulted us in 9/11 were truly monsters of the highest caliber. We defended ourselves, then lashed out in righteous fury. We endeavored to strike them one thousand times harder then we had been struck. We are fighting monsters true, but at what point do we have to stare into our abyss and ask whether we have become monsters? When warring against our terrorist foes, at what point do we ourselves become terrorists?

[Trump]

When do we become terrorists you ask? When we purposefully focus our attacks civilian targets only for the purpose of death and fear. Terrorists don't discriminate between military targets and civilian targets and their goal is to inspire fear and hatred.

From what I can tell, we are trying to minimize civilian and economic casualties while focusing on the military targets.

[ruaidhri]

Beowulf, a very interesting post! I agree.

I wish to add that even going to war in “self defense” can be viewed as aggressive. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, the Persian Gulf is vital to American interests. Our government could, and apparently does, consider it vital to our security. Anything that negatively affects the Persian Gulf therefore becomes a threat against the U.S. and our reaction could and is considered “self defense”.

So, how much force is necessary. Both my sons have had extensive martial arts training from the time they were 5 and 6 years old. Their Grand Master was also a police officer and training officer involved in training many departments throughout the country. He taught his martial arts students the same way he taught his police students. Primarily, when you defend yourself that defense lasts only so long as you are threatened. When the threat is no longer evident your actions are no longer self defense but rather offensive. For the martial artist that means if someone attacks you and you take them down and they are no longer a threat the law prevents you from continuing to attack that person as you would then become the aggressor. The same goes for the police. But, it’s not so easy for the military. Destroying civilian authority creates a vacuum that leaving only worsens. Ultimately entering into wars to defend our interests could, I believe, do more harm than good.

I’ve lived through a number of wars. Always they’re accompanied with both significant patriotism and protest. Certainly we must react to direct attacks against our nation. The problem arises when the attacks aren’t so direct. Also, once we enter the mouth of the beast its sharp teeth prevents us from easily exiting.

Trump, I also agree with you that the U.S. government and military does not officially and knowingly attack non-combatants. But, even here there are gray areas. The torture of prisoners is not a noble act. The unanswered question is: How high up was the torture authorized and how high would it have to be authorized to be “official”. Also, when non-combatants are mistreated by a foreign power’s military does it make any difference to the victims if that mistreatment was properly authorized? And, would they be wrong to react in order to save their own lives thereby making themselves combatants? Again, it’s far easier to get into war than to get out.

I’m glad this thread is once again exploring war in general. I look forward to reading both of your posts.

[Jay]

Oh mate, when we're talking the kinds of numbers you need for a concerted war effort - or a defense of your land and resources - what's over the top? Shooting someone who's trying to shoot you? Bombing the enemy's base to erase their threat?

Or torturing them so that their screams send a chill through the spine of all that hear it, with the intent of sending a clear and obvious warning to the enemy that this is what they face if they proceed?

Or something else entirely?

With the numbers you're talking about in this kind of thing, you may be able to set the benchmark for the whole, but you'll never be able to police the individual. So in the long run, it's all up in the air.

[ruaidhri]

Jay, you also are correct. What’s over the top? Obviously Americans invading the small island of Grenada is far different from Iraq. It didn’t take much for the U.S. to “win” in Grenada and we didn’t stay long following the victory. But, the more concerted the effort, the more dangerous the action. When can a nation truly justify their actions as a defense of their land and resources?

Certainly, we’re all fooling ourselves if we honestly believe in a “civilized” war. Of course the victims on both sides scream and suffer. Obviously, it’s those very screams that to some are a deterrent. Or, so we hope. The problem is that those same screams are also a call to others to engage in a never ending exchange where retribution is the goal and terror the ultimate weapon of the weak against the strong. The question is how a bomb delivered by an individual is any different from bombs dropped from a plane? Both are indiscriminate in whom they kill and maim and terrorize.

Yes, Jay, you are right. In all the history of man we’ve never been able to avoid war. We can intimidate nations to a degree but we’ll never be able to fully police the individual.

[JudoPorkChop]

Hiya, old man.


Ultimately entering into wars to defend our interests could, I believe, do more harm than good.


That right there is the core of my beliefs about war. One should only be willing to engage in combat when basic human rights are being trampled upon, lives are endangered, and there is absolutely no other road to take. To do otherwise is far too costly, both financially and socially.

Look at the war as it is now. It's obvious that this has absolutely nothing to do with any level of human interest. On one side, there is an ever-growing insurgency, fueled with each civilian casualty. They are doing what any reasonable person would in the face of an invasion: fight for what they call home. On the other side, there is a great amount of doubt as to what they are actually doing in combat. Those who enlisted to defend their country and its people are now faced with being part of an invasion and occupancy force, and though it is not their will to be there, they must fight as a matter of survival. In the end, all that comes of this is death, loss, and sorrow.

If it is not in the defense of basic human freedoms or human life then it is not worth it. There is no need to bring "freedom" to those untroubled by their oppressor. There is no need to bring "salvation" to those who do not share your religion. There is no need to bend the world to any one world view.

[ruaidhri]

JudoPorkChop, this thread has a membership of contributors that I greatly respect. You are most definetely one of those members.

There truly is no victory in war only pain and suffering on all sides. Even "justified" wars are horrific and have undesired results. The costs are always more than expected and the benefits doubtful. Yet, nations continue to rush into battle and only negotiate when forced.

[Darth_E_]

What surprises me is why you people haven't questioned the war BEFORE it started? Why do you not question the information you hear or see on the media before believing? Not until feeling pain and remorse over the dead did people start questioning war and it's motives. The fact that your government is still playing on the 9/11 tune to brainwash it's citizens into believing that everyone with a turban on his head and a beard on his face is going to blow themselves up whenever they see an american ahead. Perhaps that wasn't the case before, but it sure is more likely now, thanks to the supposedly "anti-terrorist" war.

Undoubtedly, the U.S has the strongest military in the world at the moment, but on the other hand, they have created alot of enemies with their wars and hypocritical foreign policies. We all know from history that even the greatest empires will fall down and become powerless someday, and the U.S sure ain't gonna stay powerful for eternity. When that time comes, the enemies you have created now will come haunting you down , and your future generations will pay the price for this generation's foolishness. All of this just makes me thankful that I am no american.

Just my two cents.

[Jay]

What surprises me is why you people haven't questioned the war BEFORE it started?

Because planes crashed into buildings so people started looking for someone to take it out on?

[Beowulf]

What surprises me is why you people haven't questioned the war BEFORE it started? Why do you not question the information you hear or see on the media before believing?
We did. Unfortunately we don't really have a say in what our government decides upon when it comes to war.

Undoubtedly, the U.S has the strongest military in the world at the moment, but on the other hand, they have created alot of enemies with their wars and hypocritical foreign policies. We all know from history that even the greatest empires will fall down and become powerless someday, and the U.S sure ain't gonna stay powerful for eternity. When that time comes, the enemies you have created now will come haunting you down , and your future generations will pay the price for this generation's foolishness. All of this just makes me thankful that I am no american.
This would have been true. 60 years ago. True, empires rise and fall (at one point the Roman Empire controlled 1/3 of the earth's population!) but in the day and age of global economy its in everyones best interest to keep America functioning. The enemies that we're making now are already doing a good job of "haunting us down." I'm curious as to what countries you're speaking of. Mexico? Canada? Those dastardly Cubans?


Because planes crashed into buildings so people started looking for someone to take it out on?
Sadly Jay, America functions on what I like to call, "The Alarm Clock Effect." You see we American's love to ignore a problem until it personally affects us, then when the alarm is sounded, we try to fix it after the fact. Pearl Harbor is a good example of this.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I would highly recommend against taking Nietzsche and his aphorisms at face value, especially from Beyond Good and Evil. The entire book is filled with verbal tricks, sarcasm, a outright lies.

The gist of the book tends to be that philosophers shouldn't lower themselves to the level of the average man. So when he talks about fighting with monsters, he is probably just reinforcing the point that he was making about not lowering yourself to the level of others lest you become one of the others.

Just a guess, of course, but I would argue that said aphorism has little, if anything, to do with war.

[Beowulf]

Just a guess, of course, but I would argue that said aphorism has little, if anything, to do with war.
Ok, where's your argument?

[Pierrot le Fou]

Back on page 2 or 3 of this thread.

[Beowulf]

Back on page 2 or 3 of this thread.
Ummmm. Ok.

What does your war argument have to do with the relevancy of Nietzsche again?

[Pierrot le Fou]

You brought up Nietzsche. You seemed to be misunderstanding his point while claiming that 'he said it best' in your post. I tried to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that Nietzsche was likely not talking about war, and that his intention in the quote was probably closer to the reverse of what you seem to think it was.

God forbid.

[Trump]

In the 2000 elections, I voted against Bush for many reasons. One reason among many was that I was afraid of what he would do with the military. On CNN today there is news about the former director of the CIA claiming there was information proving that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction but the Bush officials sort of ignored the information because it did not fit their policy. As much as I hate to admit it, this does not surprise me. It is frustrating that the power to make this type of decision rests in the hands of so few top executives, but that is the way the goverment is set up so we have to work with that. All that I can hope for is that people learn their lesson and take more time to consider their choices when voting. Unfortunately, I do not believe we have had a good alternative recently either.

About the torturing I try to give the organization the benefit of the doubt. The highly publicized torture seemed to be more people fooling around than it was some structured torture designed to extract information. I can't imagine that sort of thing was authorized. I could understand if it was perhaps overlooked by a superior, but not authorized. As to other types of torture, behind closed doors to get information out of people, I have no idea. I haven't heard any reliable information about the existence of this type of thing so I just hope it doesn't exist.

To me, the current Middle East situation just depresses me. It is true terrorism over there when they start blowing up the people living next door. I could understand targetting US troops, but they are targetting the police force made up of their neighbors! Whatever they may think about the US troops, you have to think your own citizens would be trying to help! And they not only target the Iraqi police, but they target restaurants and other completely civilian targets to just cause death and fear. They target religious sites and other civilian target indiscriminately. To me, these people are going to hell for even considering these actions and if there isn't a hell, it will be created just for them. They are truly terrorists with no agenda beyond fear and hate. I believe that any actions attempting to curb this violence helps make the world a better place.

[ruaidhri]

Yes Trump, aren’t we humans horrible? We can be incredibly cruel for no apparent reason or goal. I too am confused as to why the Iraqi terrorists target their own neighbors. I do understand that they harbor strong hatreds for different sects of their faith but I don’t believe their religion sanctions murder.

Following WWII hard core Nazis in Germany carried out considerable terrorist activities. Germans that complied with the American, Russian, French and English occupation were targeted by the German Werewolf, which attacked occupation forces, assassinated many postwar German leaders and issued numerous death threats. The purpose of this organization was simply to not give up and to continue to resist Germany’s occupation. They didn’t recognize Germany’s surrender. Their targets were primarily German citizens.

Now, I don’t believe many Iraqis wish the return of Saddam Hussein or his government. The Iraqi terrorists don’t march under a single banner such as Nazism and their terrorist acts are considerably more indiscriminate. This confuses me; just what do they wish to accomplish with their actions? What would they consider victory? No, I don’t believe the German Werewolfs are comparable to today’s Iraqi terrorists.

So, how should the U.S. react to the Iraqi terrorists. I don’t believe the American people or the rest of the world would sanction the severe repercussions suffered by the postwar German Werewolfs. Then, American, Russian French and English reaction was severe. When the occupying forces caught a member they executed them. This continued for a couple of years following the war until the German people themselves became united, took to the streets and protested the terrorism. The question is: If we’re not prepared to scare them into compliance can we hope to stop them from killing each other and us?

I also did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. But, he won and became our President. I tried to support him as our leader because that’s what we should do in a representative democracy. But, I’ve learned that recognition does not necessarily demand support. This is a lesson I’ve had to relearn several times over my lifetime. I sometimes wonder if our economy requires a war for every generation. It sure appears we have one.

[delen]

I believe there is never justification for taking the life of another human being against their will.

[ruaidhri]

Delen, I understand your objection to taking a life regardless of the reason. How could any war be just. How could killing anyone not be murder? When you take a life your robbing them of everything they ever were or ever could be. It truly is the ultimate crime.

Going back to my very first post on this thread, I took a class on war back in the late 1960’s. The students were fearful of Vietnam and the draft. They objected to war and could see no just cause.

The first question the Professor asked was: If Canada controlled all the water for the United States and suddenly refused to give us any would we be justified in forcibly taking the water even if it meant war? Obviously, we need water to live; without it, we’d die.

The door was cracked open. If it were just to fight for personal survival, what about the survival of your family and your community? If it were just to fight for the water than what other causes would be just? If your neighbors were attacked and you could help them, should you step forward or just let them be hurt and perhaps killed? And, if you were capable of helping and preventing the injury or death yet neglected to take action would you in any way be culpable?

Obviously, these were difficult questions to answer especially for the war protestors of the Vietnam era. Sometimes we have no choice but to fight. And, when we fight, sometimes we kill.

If someone were attempting to kill me certainly I would fight back with every ounce of my strength. If I truly feared death and had a gun, I would use it to save my own life. I would also use that gun to save the life of my family and community. Oh, I’d prefer not to be put in the position to have to make that decision but if I were I would defend myself, my family and my community.

I’ve always believed in the Golden Rule. I’ve always tried to treat everyone with respect. But, in order to do that you must first respect yourself, which means to protect yourself from harm.

Like you, I object to taking a life. It’s a horrible act. But, it happens, every day, every hour, every minute and every second. That doesn’t make it right but it does make it a threat that we must recognize and if necessary defend ourselves against.

[Beowulf]

You brought up Nietzsche. You seemed to be misunderstanding his point while claiming that 'he said it best' in your post. I tried to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that Nietzsche was likely not talking about war, and that his intention in the quote was probably closer to the reverse of what you seem to think it was.

God forbid.
Yeah, let's break this down a bit:
I would highly recommend against taking Nietzsche and his aphorisms at face value, especially from Beyond Good and Evil. The entire book is filled with verbal tricks, sarcasm, a outright lies.

The gist of the book tends to be that philosophers shouldn't lower themselves to the level of the average man. So when he talks about fighting with monsters, he is probably just reinforcing the point that he was making about not lowering yourself to the level of others lest you become one of the others.

Just a guess, of course, but I would argue that said aphorism has little, if anything, to do with war.
So what your saying is that Niestzsche was reinforcing his belief that you shouldn't lower yourself to others levels. That's actually what I thought it meant, and that's how I used it in my post (which I'm now doubting you actually read).
We are fighting monsters true, but at what point do we have to stare into our abyss and ask whether we have become monsters?
I must confess Pierrot, you confuse me. Here I thought I was making a point concerning us lowering ourselves into giving the terrorists exactly what they want (a high profile, high civilian casualty war), then we would eventually become terrorists.
And here I thought the book warned readers about believing to deeply in "certain truths" often framed within the dichotomy of binary opposites (good vs. evil, black vs. white, heaven vs. hell).
I thought it was good if a bit misogynistic toward the end. I encourage you to read it.

-----------------------------------------

I believe there is never justification for taking the life of another human being against their will.
Is it wrong for a dog to take the life of another dog? For a cow to murder another cow? Why does a life have so much more signifigance if its a human one? I always thought that was a good question.

[Trump]

I think there is a distinct difference between the German Werewolves and the current terrorists in Iraq (and elsewhere). In Germany, they had idenity, purpose, and what they believed was the support of the general population even if they didn't voice it. Like you said, when they were found they were executed. But how can you find a terrorist who hasn't committed a terrorist act yet? Suicide bombers only get one shot! So execution them doesn't phase that type of person and finding them is far more difficult. Even their goals are different. They don't necessarily want to kick out an occupying army, instead they want to kick out their neighbor! Anyone with a different religion should be killed and it is a holy task to carry that out. While Jihad is defined as war, it follows different rules. There are no borders, no compromise, so how do you fight back? Before the war even began, I knew Bush had completely underestimated the scope of this task.

[Darth_E_]

Jihad is defined as war, it follows different rules. There are no borders, no compromise, so how do you fight back? Before the war even began, I knew Bush had completely underestimated the scope of this task.

Jihad means to struggle within self, or against the enemies that try to kill you - not war. So practically, when a muslim is trying to avoid earthly temptations, that is called jihad. When a muslim is voicing his voice against oppression, that too is called Jihad. And ofcourse, when a muslim is fighting to protect , that is called jihad too.

Now why do iraqis bomb each other ? There is a long conflict between arabs and persians in that region throughout their history. Shiites consider sunnis as hypocrites who need to be killed, while sunnis consider shiites a group out of islam. To make things worse, you have kurds in northern iraq who are trying to get their independent state. So it all boils down to this : the sunnis who used to be in power are now a minority with no major political influence, the shiites are now on political stage ( and under iranian influence, are trying to get the sunnis out ) and the kurds are trying to get their own state. Many arabs nowadays wish the return of saddam, not because they love his tyranny, but because at least in his days, there was security. People didn't have to walk with a bulletproof vest on their body whenever they walk out of the streets.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Nietzsche was writing about philosophy. The book was written with the belief that some people are better than others. The aphorisms are directed at those better people. The aphorism in question is not about lowering oneself, in general, to the level of others, but rather specifically about smart people bothering to screw with the ignorant. It has absolutely nothing to do with war, unless you believe that somehow the terrorists or people who wage pointless wars are somehow amongst the folks that Nietzsche would be addressing in his book.

Hint: They aren't the type of folks he was writing for.

There are a trillion quotes that mean what you are trying to twist Nietzsche's quote to mean. There is no reason to take what he said out of the context it was written in (Beyond Good and Evil) in order to make a point that would be better suited with a different quote.

Catch my drift?

[ruaidhri]

OP9 offers us such an interesting forum where we can find all the faults and solve all the problems throughout the world. If only that were true and problems could be solved simply by considering the alternatives. But, we know that isn’t the way the world works. We know that war is a horrible alternative to anything. Yet, throughout history the people of world have suffered its consequences time and time again. There truly is no such thing as a good war. They’re all bad because they all result in death and destruction.

Trump, I agree. I also do not see a true correlation between the German Werewolve actions following WWII and today’s Iraqi Terrorist actions. Your right. Even if we were willing to use the brutal force we applied against the German Werewolf resistance, I don’t believe we’d end the suicide bombers or the other terrorist acts. I don’t see any way we could convince or compel the sunnis and shities to coexist peaceably what less expect the Kurds to give up their dream of a independent homeland. Actually, I doubt if Saddam himself would be able to reestablish control even with our help, which we obviously wouldn’t offer.

Like all Americans, I was shocked, angry and extremely saddened by the September 11th attacks. I supported the effort to destroy the Terrorists. I supported the American invasion of Afghanistan. They were, I believed, directly related to the attacks on America and I wanted to hit back at those that cause our injury. I agreed that it was vital to our security that we react quickly and decisively. However, I was, and remain, very opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I didn’t see them as the immediate serious threat suggested by our President. I feared another Vietnam where victory was never in sight.

Do you ever just get feelings that something isn’t right, that it wouldn’t be a good idea to walk down that dark alley? That’s the way I felt about Iraq. I wish our President has hesitated before sending the Calvary into battle. I wish he had taken the time to look at the entire picture, not just the initial military victory. I wish he had realized that just as certainly as we could use our technology and weaponry to win the battles the odds were against our being able to win the war without the cooperation of all sides in Iraq. I wish he had realized that it takes but a small minority to prevent that from happening. Yes, I agree, our President completely underestimated the scope of filling the void following Saddam’s defeat.

Darth_E, I question if Americans really attempt to understand other cultures. We’re too busy enjoying ours. Your post was very informative. The opportunity to select your leaders through a democratic process has little value if you’re afraid to step out into the street and cast your vote. If the Iraqi government can’t bring order then it has failed. I doubt many disagree that Saddam was brutal to the point of being evil. Yet, he maintained order. There was domestic peace. Now, there’s only chaos.

So, is the Iraq war just? No, I personally don’t believe it ever was. It was a mistake that will cost the American people countless lives and lost opportunities for many years to come. At this point, I believe, all we can hope for is that the situation doesn’t get worse. If the President of a corporation had made as serious an error in judgment as our President, I expect he would have been fired.

Today, the United States has the most powerful military in the world. If we’re not careful, we’ll defeat ourselves by overextending our capabilities and losing our resolve to continue the never ending battle.

Pierrot, you most likely are correct. But, what difference does it really make? If the quote was taken out of context that doesn’t mean that the words failed to create the image Beowulf intended. The thread is about war and when it is justified not what Nietzsche intended when he wrote the statement.

[Artie]

I'm still pretty ignorant on war, so I won't pretend to know what really happens and the pros and cons of it.

That being said, it all comes down to the kind of person you are. Taking your example, would you kill another life so you could live? If Darwin is to be believed, then yes, you would.

Then again, could you really live with doing that? I might live physically for the rest of the day, but once you take that life it's gone. Just like the water will be once you finish it.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You're right -- it is about war. The quote was not which made the argument about war weaker in my eyes. I was pointing that out. I prefer to inform people when they make a mistake than just letting it slide, because if you don't know what mistakes you make, it's far more difficult to fix them.

[Beowulf]

The quote was not which made the argument about war weaker in my eyes. I was pointing that out.
Really? I don't remember you saying that.

I prefer to inform people when they make a mistake than just letting it slide, because if you don't know what mistakes you make, it's far more difficult to fix them.
Wow, and all this time I just thought you were being a dick. My bad.

Like all Americans, I was shocked, angry and extremely saddened by the September 11th attacks. I supported the effort to destroy the Terrorists. I supported the American invasion of Afghanistan. They were, I believed, directly related to the attacks on America and I wanted to hit back at those that cause our injury. I agreed that it was vital to our security that we react quickly and decisively. However, I was, and remain, very opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I didn’t see them as the immediate serious threat suggested by our President. I feared another Vietnam where victory was never in sight.
I agree, I supported the Afghanistan War as well. Shame we never actually finished it.

Darth_E, I question if Americans really attempt to understand other cultures. We’re too busy enjoying ours. Your post was very informative. The opportunity to select your leaders through a democratic process has little value if you’re afraid to step out into the street and cast your vote. If the Iraqi government can’t bring order then it has failed. I doubt many disagree that Saddam was brutal to the point of being evil. Yet, he maintained order. There was domestic peace. Now, there’s only chaos.
We also have to keep in mind that very fact. Saddam was a military dictator and as such, ruled with fear. This is very first time anyone in Iraq has had any sort of freedom with their government. To make the transition from hiding in backrooms to voting in the streets can be a scary one. Just look at Russia, it's been awhile for them and they still can't seem to get it quite right.

So, is the Iraq war just? No, I personally don’t believe it ever was. It was a mistake that will cost the American people countless lives and lost opportunities for many years to come. At this point, I believe, all we can hope for is that the situation doesn’t get worse. If the President of a corporation had made as serious an error in judgment as our President, I expect he would have been fired.
Goddamn the fact that this war is shaping up to be more like Vietnam every day.


Today, the United States has the most powerful military in the world. If we’re not careful, we’ll defeat ourselves by overextending our capabilities and losing our resolve to continue the never ending battle.
Just like the Romans.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Please, Beowulf, go back and read my original post in regards to Nietzsche. I'll even post it here for you because I'm such a gentleman:
I would highly recommend against taking Nietzsche and his aphorisms at face value, especially from Beyond Good and Evil. The entire book is filled with verbal tricks, sarcasm, a outright lies.

The gist of the book tends to be that philosophers shouldn't lower themselves to the level of the average man. So when he talks about fighting with monsters, he is probably just reinforcing the point that he was making about not lowering yourself to the level of others lest you become one of the others.

Just a guess, of course, but I would argue that said aphorism has little, if anything, to do with war.

Is it being an ass to explain that the book is not about war, but rather about philosophy, and that the aphorisms are referring to philosophers lowering themselves to the level of the average Joe -- not about religious fanatics becoming the monsters they claim they are fighting against?

Because the way I'd read it is a rather concise and polite explanation of why the aphorism didn't have anything to do with war. When I'm not polite, it's pretty easy to tell, but that wasn't one of those occasions.

I tried to correct and assumption that you made about one of Nietzsche's quotes, because I didn't think it helped your discussion about war. And I did state that, in the original post, to which you got all pissy. So rather than getting irked at me for politely pointing out a mistake you made, how about you simply acknowledge that, quite possibly, Nietzsche wasn't writing about war.

[Trump]

There was such a huge difference between Afghanistan and Iraq that I'm not sure what the president was thinking. The Afghan situation was almost a guerrilla war and did not have much to do with the goverment of the country. We had troops over there, but we were working in conjunction with the local forces and forces from other countries right? Iraq just took it to a whole new level where we decided to make a regime change for them and I cannot justify that.

Another interesting thing I have thought about. One reason I voted against Bush in 2000 was because I was scared about what he would do with the military and it seems my fears were confirmed. I almost voted against Kerry in 2004 because I was scared about how he would get us out of Iraq. I think I'm glad we didn't get to find out if I was right on this one too.

[Beowulf]

Is it being an ass to explain that the book is not about war, but rather about philosophy, and that the aphorisms are referring to philosophers lowering themselves to the level of the average Joe -- not about religious fanatics becoming the monsters they claim they are fighting against?

Because the way I'd read it is a rather concise and polite explanation of why the aphorism didn't have anything to do with war. When I'm not polite, it's pretty easy to tell, but that wasn't one of those occasions.

I tried to correct and assumption that you made about one of Nietzsche's quotes, because I didn't think it helped your discussion about war. And I did state that, in the original post, to which you got all pissy. So rather than getting irked at me for politely pointing out a mistake you made, how about you simply acknowledge that, quite possibly, Nietzsche wasn't writing about war.
Jesus Christ dude, I got it okay!? I was just using the quote to further my argument and therefor thought its original relevance didn't matter. You know what though? You win. You're the smartest man alive and you win everything. Happy? Now can we please get back to the discussion at hand!?

-------------------------------------------------

There was such a huge difference between Afghanistan and Iraq that I'm not sure what the president was thinking. The Afghan situation was almost a guerrilla war and did not have much to do with the goverment of the country. We had troops over there, but we were working in conjunction with the local forces and forces from other countries right? Iraq just took it to a whole new level where we decided to make a regime change for them and I cannot justify that.
I agree, Afghanistan was really a rather simple war to win and hold as they didn't have the sense of nationalism that the Iraqi's seem to possess.


Another interesting thing I have thought about. One reason I voted against Bush in 2000 was because I was scared about what he would do with the military and it seems my fears were confirmed. I almost voted against Kerry in 2004 because I was scared about how he would get us out of Iraq. I think I'm glad we didn't get to find out if I was right on this one too.
That right there is why Bush won.

[SlickWilly440]

I ware is justified if that war would end all wars, but that will never happen.

[Jay]

Say what now?

[ruaidhri]

SlickWilly440, the only war to end all wars would be a global thermonuclear war because following the war there would be no one left to fight a new war.

The question raised by this thread is: When is it appropriate to take up arms? Would you, for example, defend yourself and your family from a foreign invader? If necessary to stop them from harming you and your family, would you kill the invader? The question then becomes how far does your willingness to engage in war extend? Would you be willing to enter into treaties for mutual defense? Would you view certain areas of the world as vital to your own national interest and thereby worth defending? And, finally, would you believe that wars of conquest are justified in order to expand your dominance over other peoples?

World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars. It wasn’t. So was World War II. It also wasn’t. The sad truth is that there will continue to be wars as long as people and nations have something to gain or lose.

The question remains: When would you participate?

[Trump]

Well, let me ask in return, What do you mean by participate? Front line soldier or back line communication support? Does working safely away in HQ on a another continent count as participating? What about helping to build a missle to be used in the war? For example in world war 2 many women went and got jobs to support tasks that many men had been called away for, is that also participating?

[ruaidhri]

Trump, extremely interesting question. My first response was yes, supporting a war is participating in that war. The people behind the lines support the people on the front lines. People that profit from the development, manufacture and distribution of the weapons of war are participating. I even believe that the people earning wages associated with war production are participating.

But then you asked what about the military serving in another part of the world totally divorced from the war action. That brought your question closer to home. I didn’t support the Vietnam War. The U.S. had conscription. I could be drafted into the Army, join another service, flee the country or go to federal prison for draft evasion. My solution was to join the U.S. Coast Guard. I figured I’d rather save than take lives. Yet, the Coast Guard was and remains a military service. They have weapons and they use them. In fact, while I was in the Coast Guard, they were seeking volunteers for assignment to patrol boat duty in Vietnam. So, did I participate? Although I never went to Vietnam, I do believe I indirectly assisted by supporting the system. True, I didn’t fire a single shot but because I wasn’t available for the Army someone else took my place. Perhaps, the same could be said of the war protestor that fled the country, evaded the draft or went to federal prison. Someone always took their place.

Also, we all pay taxes. A considerable portion of each tax dollar is spent on defense and on making war. That’s also supporting a war. The truth is that if you are part of a country it’s almost impossible not to be associated with its actions.

So, participation becomes a matter of degree. In my question to SillyWilly440 I asked him what it would take for him to participate. I meant direct participation where he would be willing to join the military and carry a weapon into battle. I was seeking the point at which he would rise up and fight for himself, his family, and for his ideals.

[Trump]

Hmm... another thought, what about the medics out there trying to save whatever life they can? They don't lift a finger to hurt people but are still out on the front lines. You could argue their purpose is to "reuse" man power but I think many of them would disagree.

Personally, I don't think I could point a gun at someone unless he was actively attacking me. I could defend my home and country from agressive invaders but that is it. I wouldn't live somewhere I am not willing to defend in that way. But to take the fight into someone else's home means I would have to fight people with this same idea and I do not think I could do that. I might support the country in other ways, but I would not be personally involved in the killing, I would not make the final decision that this person needs to die.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I absolutely agree with you. In fact that’s why I chose to join the Coast Guard for four years rather than be drafted into the Army for two years. When I joined John Kennedy was our President. I knew Kennedy. I knew his family having worked for them during the campaign in Wisconsin. I was very idealistic. Vietnam was not a big issue when I joined the Coast Guard in March 1962.

I knew there was trouble brewing in Vietnam but it when I joined the Coast Guard it was mostly confined to a few monks burning themselves to death. I suspected that Vietnam could explode and that if I went into the Army there was a good chance I would be called to fight. I didn’t want to kill anyone. So I chose to support my country in a way that did not involve my harming another human being. Certainly, I realized that the Coast Guard was a military service and that they did have weapons and they have fired those weapons in the course of their duty. But, I also realized that the Coast Guard’s primary role was to save, not take, lives.

Back when I entered the service it was very difficult to get Conscientious Objector status. As I remember, we were told that you had to be a long standing member of a religious group. Years later, I worked with a man that had refused to be inducted into the Army during the Korean War because of his objection to killing. The Army didn’t accept his objection and he spent several years in Leavenworth Prison.

Because I was in the Coast Guard, I never had to face the dilemma of killing someone before they killed me. Now, of course, if I were directly attacked or if my family were directly attacked, I would use whatever means of defense necessary to stop the attack. However, I would only take up arms in response to the most immediate need for self defense.

[bigchris1313]

Justified War is a bizarre notion. Justified implies the existence of justice.

Justice only exists in a society with laws, governed by a common power. Until the world is united under a single world government (the UN is nothing like it), no super-state exists. International law is a misnomer. It does not exist.

Because of the lack of international law, wars between states/groups within the states/boys named Kevin are all neutral. They are neither just nor unjust, because international law does not exist.

As far as when wars should be fought, they should be fought to further the the realist interest of governments. The war in Iraq, for example, was not based on realist premises. It should not have been fought because the benefits of the war were not greater than the costs. It was a war based on ideological grounds, which cannot exist in the realm of international relations; however, it, like any other war, certainly cannot be considered unjust.

[Praetorian]

From Wikipedia. Although not directly related to the subject, I still think people should read it.


Psychological theories

Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While these theories may have some explanatory value about why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adapted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.

If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir. It has, however, been observed that while men often fight wars that last for years, wars fought with female leadership are over in a matter of weeks.

Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal.

A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals.

In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about a state of constant war being used as one of many ways to distract people. War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a state controls its people and prevents revolution.
[edit]

Anthropological theories

Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live.

Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.

[Trump]

Interesting. I like that last theory the best of the ones mentioned. To say it is men and not women, and that people are inherently violent is being terribly stereotypical. Some people are violent and some people aren't.

And if it is evolutionary, why don't we see herds of lions attacking herds of tigers for territory? You can use other animals in that example and if there are examples of this I'd be interested to see them. Sure, individuals fight, but that is usually where it ends.

So to me it does seem cultural or at least ideological. The greed or pride of an individual, nationalism, and unbending ideologies like those found in religion (or some combination of those three) can be seen in every war to date.

[bigchris1313]

To hell with psychological theories. It's much simpler than that. War should be a calculated, rational decision. In the words of Robert Heinlein:

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple. War is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force."

Calculated. Simple. Rational.

[Trump]

Calculated. Simple. Rational.

What human race are you talking about? It sure isn't ours!

[Beowulf]

Calculated. Simple. Rational.
What human race are you talking about? It sure isn't ours!

http://www.lawtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/images/hitler-nazi-rally.jpg

No kidding Trump...

The last thing we can call our species is calculated, simple, and rational.

[bigchris1313]

we can call our species is calculated, simple, and rational.

You can't honestly be serious. You don't think human beings are chiefly rational creatures? It's our only evolutionary advantage.

What, besides reason, can explain how advanced our civilization has become? We've progressed infintely farther than any other species on earth, and it isn't just because of our opposable thumbs. We have the ability to create structures of unimaginable size and power, and we have the ability to destroy the entire planet.

How can you seriously argue that?

[Nightowl]

The question i have before we justify war . what type of war are we talking about ? War based on religion and ideas . War based on gaining resources . Then you have to ask is the life and damage to things worth what you get out of it . The idea of war as evil or not needed is a new idea to human history . If you go back far enough it becomes less about Ideas and more about resources . How do i get said deer from joe in the next cave over . How do i protect said deer from Al in the next cave over . well i use this brain that i have devolped to hunt deer and use the tools that came from it to do to al or joe what i did to deer . Now the requestion i have is when war becomes unjustifaible have we turned a corner in evolution that we may need to abrace or reject ?

[Destiny]

I never got the impression that anybody is reading my posts, but since this is something I am reading actively on at the moment:

According to several scholars what we are experiencing now is the shift between the so-called 3rd Generation Warfare and 4th Generation Warfare. The 3rd generation was started by Napoleon with the rise of the nation-state and individualism as a basis for nationalism. As people started identifying themselves with something bigger than their immediate surroundings, promted of course by the industrial revolution in the early 19 century, war became nation-centered. Clashes on the battlefield were no longer pre-engineered dances. Winning was based on the unity of the big 3 - information, technology, human resource. Consequently, what justified war was the so-called national interest, the tangent point of the social contract between the people and the state.

There is a dispute as to whether 4th generation warfare, or counterinsurgency warfare, is a separate generation or merely a completely different branch of revolutionary action. The term guerilla goes back to the Spanish insurgency in the 19 century against Napoleon and has been widely spread in the Turkish emprie before it fell appart in the late 19 century (which by the way got my country free, yay). Almost all agree, though, that we say the last of the nation vs. nation big clash on the battlefield in WWII. Since then, in Vietnam, Malaysia, numerous South American countries, in which by the way the insurgents were trained by American seals, guerillas have been the only organized threat to the ones in power. One of my favorite sub-topics in this kind of conflict is - how do the under-trained, with inferior gadgets and under-financed defeat countires like the US and the UK (though many argue that the US didn't lose in Vietnam and Iraq and that the UK won in Malaysia) ? The first to actually put this in writing was the person of Mao, who says something in the line of, insurgents are the fish that swim in the waters of the civilians. Insurgents attack the weakest spots, retreat when pursued and disappear in the sea of disgruntled average people. Their justification is usually connected with the majority of the people in a country being ill-treated and deprived of their basic living minnimum. One might trace this to the recent demonstrations in France against the government attempting to "run away" from the social contract and leave all these matters to the people and their employers. The French being French, and the ones who actually started the Human Rights movements and the civil society, they disagree. Funny thing is, there are similar laws in practice in Japan, with the result of one quarter of the working population on part-time contracts. "The French, after all, refuse to be Japanese." hehe

In the modern world, representative democracy has deprived every person of the right to decide whether or not they want to go to war. In societies like in France, where the people are highly aware of their rights and obligations as members of the civil society, the individuals as a mass have the power to stand against the government. In countries with a totalitarianist regime choice in itself is not an option since it is against the principles of the establishement. In countries like the US and Japan, countries that try to maintain their integrity and prosperity against a world that is becoming globalized and allowances need to be made for countries that are underdeveloped and lacking in liberties, the people have become too complacent and secure in their way of living to actually protest actively. There hasn't been an actual war in the US since what, the Civil War? Europe still remembers WWII, possible the biggest massacres in history. China, the Koreas, the ex-colonies in SE Asia and Africa, there are hundreds of wars that are still fresh or still running. If people from those countries could tomorrow have their say whether to keep fighting, would they keep laying their lives for the cause? Or would they go home? If they could have a decent living, I think not one would remain on the battle-field.

War has changed as the human societies evolved, technologically and culturally. The world is getting smaller and smaller and the people are getting more and more aware. If those scholars that I am reading are right, we have the 5th generation warfare brewing under our very noses. What would it be?

[Destiny]

"All men dream: but not equally, Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

It is not so much the reason for the war that matters, it is how much people believe in it, in the end. What we believe in is shaping the world we live in.

[Trump]

Destiny, I think you are right that war is changing. I actually think war in the definition of clashing armies is going away completely. I think the guerrilla/insurgent warfare is all that will remain in terms of fighting. The next generation of warfare? It will have to be either economic or information based and likely won't use guns at all.

[Destiny]

We are only speculating here, but I think you might be right. Armies against armies is too expensive and politically complicated when you have so many interests in the markets, what Thomas Friedman called the Electronic Herd. Insurgency being the 4th generation is an interesting theory and quite well supported in a very good book called "The Sling and the Stone" by T. Hammes. If he is right, we should have seen already the first signs of the 5th generation warfare, and if it IS connected to informational and economical confrontation, maybe it will be something similar to the Cold War? Will it include terrorist attacks on foreign soil, prompting the economical instability that the US is experiencing now?
This thread is talking about justification, and I am also wondering what can be a possible one for a cold war. Economical domination, advanced imperialism, or an ideology? :watson:

[Collapse]

I'm also a skeptic to how far our minds did go in terms of civility because we all still indulge in our primal instincts.

A sad irony, I agree, where people would use brute force in solving problems yet tell me that they're all civil? Bullshit. Pen's mightier than the sword? Sure, without the brute force.

I believe that conflict is unavoidable but slaughter is. Sad thing is, others will be hawks instead of doves.

[bigchris1313]

I'm also a skeptic to how far our minds did go in terms of civility because we all still indulge in our primal instincts.

A sad irony, I agree, where people would use brute force in solving problems yet tell me that they're all civil? Bullshit. Pen's mightier than the sword? Sure, without the brute force.

I believe that conflict is unavoidable but slaughter is. Sad thing is, others will be hawks instead of doves.

Man is civil? Perhaps. In a society he is coerced partially into civility, at the risk of endangering his well-being at the hands of law enforcement and the judiciary.

But in the realm of international politics? Madness. No common power: no law, no injustice, no civility.