Under What Circumstances is War Morally Acceptable?

[mattclearing]

There was a pretty heated debate about military service in a thread that got locked a few minutes ago, and it got me to wondering about how people here feel about war in general.

I'm curious as to when people here think the state-sponsored killing of fellow human beings and incursion into sovereign territory is justified.

The second two options mean specifically to repel invaders and or reciprocate state attacks on US or allied foreign installations, as indicated. (Edit: To my understanding, this would qualify Afghanistan but not necessarily Iraq.)

Edit again: To add "War is never justified"

[skids]

1. What, no category for stopping genocides? n/t

[mattclearing]

5. I think that falls under category one.

I didn't there to be combined categories, so anything that doesn't involve the U.S. or U.S. allies goes there.

Edit: However, peacekeeping missions may not necessarily be considered war. A bit of a gray area, I guess.

[bryant69]

7. That would be a foreign policy goal outside of defense

I would assume.

The problem with this sort of poll is that people can kind of put in their own worst-case/best-case scenarioes

"American troops invaded Hondurus today because one of their citizens had acted rudely to an official of General Moters."

"American troops invaded Hondurus today to stop the wanton slaghter of hundreds of thousands of innocents."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[faithfulcitizen]

35. I assumed it fell under "defending our allies"

:shrug:

[McCamy Taylor]

92. Victims of Genocide are, by definition, our allies, because they are "us".

[lcordero2]

2. There are NO AMERICAN interests outside of the United States

The only interests that are outside the United States are corporate interests. Soldiers should, under no circumstances, not be forced to protect corporate interests.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

[Ravenseye]

3. Defense of ourselves and our friends

If a foreign power were to try to invade us or an ally, we must defend them. There's no question in my mind. War is horrible, but to not defend ourselves, or our friends would lead our planet on the road to tyranny where Adolf Hitler / Saddam Hussein types would dominate.

To use military power for anything other than straight defense though seems suspect. Preemptive attacks are just that. If someone comes up to you and says "I don't like you" and you punch him, then you're the aggressor. If the person comes up to you with a baseball bat, and says "I'm carrying a baseball bat, what are you gonna do about it." and you punch him. You're the aggressor.

Golden Life Rule 1 - Never throw the first punch.

[StellaBlue]

4. Self-defense only

There is no pacifist option in your poll... I suspect a lot of DUers would not be prepared to check any of those three statements...

[Ravenseye]

9. I can't really understand a 100% pacifist response

It's not that I don't get violence being anathema. It should be to everyone sane. What I don't get is the people who think if they're not violent that the world won't be run by people like Hitler and Hussein.

If Europe had been pacifists, Hitler would have conquered at least Europe, if not more, and how many more Jew, Gypsies, Gays, and Poles would be dead.

You have to be able to defend yourself. That's just it though. Defense. To attack someone first, you become the aggressor and that's just wrong.

[Angry Girl]

12. Defending yourself is OK, but not KILLING!

There's always another way.

[Ravenseye]

17. It's a last resort

Violence as anythign other than a last resort is utterly wrong from a personal standpoint to a national one.

There is a point though where you have to stand up to bad people and that means fighting. Fighting in this sense will lead to killing. Otherwise we'd all end up under a tyrannical choke collar.

[mattclearing]

15. I can appreciate this.

While I long for a wholly pacifist world, I understand that day is not at hand, and other options may have to be considered to avoid out and out tyranny.

[StellaBlue]

94. Yes

I largely agree with you.

But then I think of the glimmer of hope provided by Gandhi's nonviolent kicking-ass-of-the-British-Empire... there is DEFINITELY more room for nonviolent action (as opposed to appeasement/inanction).

The horror of WWII should've been stopped by German people being intelligent and well-informed enough to not fall for Hitler's propaganda and agenda. It should've stopped when people saw their neighbors (Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals), being rounded up and disappearing. It should've stopped with no soldiers being willing to torture and slaughter millions of innocent civilians.

World war was not the only possible outcome.

This is what I can't make the RWers I know understand. It's a moral imperative. Once you know something is wrong, you have to try to stop it. Not ignore it, hoping it won't affect you, hoping it will go away.

Edited to add: AND, why is killing always the necessary outcome of every international/intertribal/intergroup dispute? What happens when the killing is done? The problem is still resolved, only tons of people are dead, mutilated, psychologically scarred, raped, abused, homeless, famined. Why not just solve the problem like human beings with BRAINS to begin with? Or, as I have always advocated, and many on these boards have echoed, let each and every war be volunteer-only. We didn't have a standing army until the post-WW2 era, if I recall correctly. Do you think *co would've gotten enough people to VOLUNTEER for his misadventure in Iraq? No way - it wouldn't have happened. Or, better yet, have the leaders who are posturing duke it out against each other (the obvious downside to this being that leaders would be picked, prehistoric chieftan style, based on who was the strongest and most Terminator-like... oh, wait, that happens, anyway!).

But there will always be a small number of young men who think war is some kind of sport, who think it's 'adventurous' and 'glorious'. What idiots. I suspect very, very few women of any age would rush to war in a heated frenzy like that. But it happens with every conflict.

[SlipperySlope]

6. I picked the first one!

The second and third were focused only on territory. I would support war, for example, to support freedom of the skies and freedom of the seas.

If every commercial ship coming in and out of the United States was being sunk in international waters, even though that isn't our territory, we would need to act.

[mattclearing]

8. Interesting...the pirate defense!

:D

[rman]

79. Sinking a commercial ship would be an act of war

Military response to that would be self defense. Though it would not be an excuse to annihilate any supposed enemy.

[Angry Girl]

10. Killing is NEVER justified. PERIOD!

[mattclearing]

11. I happen to agree with you. Luckily I can't vote in my own poll. n/t

[MildyRules]

13. I hope you're not the president

if we're ever invaded! :-)

[Angry Girl]

16. Still no need for KILLING! (Or torture for that matter) Ever!

[MildyRules]

19. If someone is about to kill me or my family

Then I NEED to kill them first. Period.

[Angry Girl]

54. Break their arms and legs, but killing is really not neccesary.

[MildyRules]

55. I'll decide how to deal with a threat to me and mine

and decide what's necessary or not. If it's kill or be killed, I'm killing.

[Angry Girl]

60. Killing by mistake, when you're defending yourself and yours,

I can see how that can happen. But to set out with the goal to kill a person is premeditated murder.

[Ravenseye]

61. Nobody is talking about premeditation

We're talking about being put in a position of no choice.

If a maniac kidnaps an 11 year old girl. He's barricaded himself and he has a gun on the girl. He's going to kill her, he's not threatening. He's going to kill her, and then rape her dead body and mutilate her. The only way you're going to stop him is if you put a bullet in his head with a sniper bullet. You've tried talking to him over a bullhorn, you've tried reasoning with him, but you can't get close enough to him to stop him, and he won't listen to you.

Now he's turning the gun on the girl.

You shoot him. It's not premeditated murder. It's defense of an innocent by killing a madman.

Sometimes you have no choice.

[Angry Girl]

65. Why do you have to KILL him though? Why not maim him?

[Ravenseye]

70. What if you have no choice?

What if the only shot you have is one through a window where you can only see his head? What if he has a bomb also strapped to his chest that he can detonate with one thought and kill himself and the innocent girl? What if the only way is to shoot him in such a way that you just 'turn off his lights', which they can do by the way.

What if he had a nuclear bomb that would kill everyone in New York City or over 10 million people. Not a dirty bomb, a real one. 10 megaton.

*snicker as an aside my cat just started snoring next to me. nothing like an old snoring cat.*

Anyway what if the only sure way to prevent him from detonating it is to 'turn him off'. You shoot his leg, he sets off the bomb. You run at him with a bat, he sets off the bomb. You have no choice.

[Angry Girl]

75. OK, ok! You got me there!

I think I would like to trade places with your cat now! :-)

[Guaranteed]

80. Because you're not willing to take the chance of him raping,

torturing, or killing that girl, which he's poised to and already declared that he would do.

[MildyRules]

63. What goal?

I'm responding, not talking about anything that is premeditated.

[Angry Girl]

66. When you are a soldier and are given a gun to use to kill,

The solider thought about it. The soldier's CO thought about it and trained the solider to do so. Killing is the goal. How is this not premeditated?

[MildyRules]

71. Nice try.

You tried to switch topics. Go back to the "Killing is never justified," whackjobedness please.

Also, it's NOT premeditated because the future circumstances are unknown.

[Ravenseye]

73. It's preparedness

premeditated is consideration or planning of an act beforehand.

preparedness is the state of having been made ready or prepared for use or action.

Premeditation implys that giving the soldier a gun you're planning a specific act of usage, whereas preparedness is the state of being prepared to use such a weapon.

Almost no soldier wants to go and kill people. It's like Mr. Miyagi said in Karate. You learn Karate so you don't have to fight. You arm soldiers so you don't have to fight.

Sometimes though Johnny just needs a beatin'

[Ravenseye]

58. There are plenty of ways it's necessary

Sometimes you just don't have the option of breaking their arms and legs. Legal and diplomatic means should always be the first recourse, but sometimes you have no other option but to put a bullet into someones head to prevent them from doing harm to innocents.

[Angry Girl]

64. This is one of the reasons I'm against guns - your choices are fewer

If I use a wooden stick to defend myself and permanently injure the attacker, I can live with myself the next day. If I accidentally kill them, I could live with that too. But to use a gun with the intent to kill? There's definitely alternatives!

[Ravenseye]

67. There is no difference between a gun and a stick

They are just things one uses. You swing a baseball bat at someones head with even a moderate amount of force and that person is going to be seriously damaged, if not dead.

What we're talking about is both intent, and action. If your intent is to kill someone, when there are alternatives, then that is wrong.

If you kill someone as a last resort, whether you do it with a gun or a baseball bat makes no difference. You're still doing the killing.

As far as a home defence proposition I'd agree with you. Guns are far more dangerous overall than baseball bats.

AS far as national defence I can't agree with you. If someone comes at you with a machine gun, you can't meet them with a flower or even a baseball bat. It's a quick road to a victory for tyranny and evil, and your children would be slaves to it.

[Angry Girl]

74. Much, much easier to accidentally kill with a gun than a stick

And I've forgotten what we were arguing about.... I thought we were talking about when war is morally acceptable. I still say it's not.

Besides, who is judging who's good and who's evil in a war? Kind of a tricky issue that.

[Ravenseye]

76. You know what. You're right, we got off topic.

I can't agree that it's morally unacceptable. It's disgusting, horrific, and should be beyond rare. In certain cases though there is no black and white moral truth. Without at the very minimum a good national defence we would be at the mercy of every two bit tyrant in the world. Freedom would cease. We would become slaves, as would any part of the world who followed us.

That is unless someone else protected us.

It's not morally unacceptable to fight to protect yourself.

To invade another country to get large no-bid contracts to your buddies? Highly morally unacceptable.

[Angry Girl]

81. Yeah, killing for oil/money is definitely immoral!

THAT is something we can ALL agree on!

And for what it's worth, I was reading just yesterday about this guy in Texas whose community was clobbered by Rita. He said everything was cool at his house until three punks jumped his fence, looking for trouble -- at which point the guy grabbed his shotgun and scared them off. I definitely wondered what I would do in that situation.... I probably would have wanted a shotgun too. I don't know if I would have used it but.... *sigh*

[Ravenseye]

84. I tell ya it all gets wierd when its you under the gun

believe me. I know how easy it is to be a life loving pacifist even in this country. Live, spend time with friends, enjoy the outdoors, a good drink at an outdoor cafe....*sigh*

Yet when you or your loved ones are threatened it all goes out the window.

My wife wont' let me get a shotgun. I want one just in case of this sort of thing. I refer to it as my Mad Max gun. If the world goes to shit around you, you need to protect yourselves from the madmen. She thinks i'm nuts. I probably am.

Anyway, my point is your point. It's NEVER ok to use violence on ANYONE unless you are under attack. That attack can take the form of someone pointing a gun at you on the street, invading your country with tanks and troops, or arming a nuclear weapon strapped to their chest. It doesn't SEEM morally acceptable to every kill anyone, or even use any type of violence on them. Yet it must be.

[Ravenseye]

14. What if...

...you had the chance to kill one person who was about to kill two people. If you kill the one person he won't kill the other two.

Or how bout a suicide bomber. If you kill him everyone else on the bus, including 4 infants, will live. If you don't, you and 28 people including the 4 infants will die.

Is killing that suicide bomber to save 28 people not justified?

[MildyRules]

18. Of course it is

I pity anyone who cannot see that.

[really annoyed]

27. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion

We're talking about war, not suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, the majority of wars are not for noble causes.

Therefore, I can completely understand what Angry Giri is expressing.

[MildyRules]

32. It has everything to do with her post

which said killing is NEVER justified. Not war, KILLING. She's wrong; sometimes it is.

[Ravenseye]

41. She said Killing is never justified

So she's saying that in that instance killing isn't justified to save those people.

If you're going to use absolutes then stick to them. She said it's never justified. I think the world is a bit less black and white than that. Killing is the last resort, but sometimes maniacs push you to that poitn and you have to be prepared to defend yourself and other innocent people or the world will be a much much worse place.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Martin Luther King junior said it best

"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere."

[reorg]

36. the suicide bomber

thinks that killing 28 people will save his own people, thousands or millions of them, from being killed.

I hope you are not defending his logic.

[Ravenseye]

46. No his logic is wrong

I am not aware of what the logical thought to suicide bombing is. There is no logical connection between blowing up a bus with 28 innocent people on it and 'saving his people'. If anything such an action logically can be seen as counter productive.

I'm defending the action of someone killing this person to save the lives of the 28 innocent people. That's completely logical.

Logic is cold. Sometimes the logical action requires killing.

[reorg]

77. You say you are not aware of the logical thought behind suicide bombing

Well, like in your own little game of logic, the suicide bomber attempts to prevent a greater evil by carrying out something which he may consider also evil, but less so.

So maybe he is wrong in his assumption, and his action is counterproductive. Maybe, subjectively, he did the right thing but, objectively, is proven wrong later. Does the same morality test of logic apply to your police action of killing this one person "to save the lives of 28 people"? Subjectively, the sharpshooters may have wanted to kill just this one person they assumed to be a suicide bomber. Objectively, however, they may be proven wrong later, because this person may not have been a suicide bomber at all, or the bomb would not have gone off, or they accidently killed all these 28 innocent persons together with him.

[Ravenseye]

78. It's not logical thought

it's irrational thought. I'm surprised you're unaware of that.

Please explain to me the logic of the suicide bomber. It's bad logic. Incorrect. Irrational. Illogical. Just because someone has a thought, and thinks it's logical, doesn't make it so. That goes even for me and you.

There is no LOGICAL reason to bomb a bus, especially when all evidence points to those types of actions being counterproductive to the causes of the aforementioned suicide bombers. I understand WHY they keep doing it, I just don't understand the logic of it, because there isn't any.

The fact that you would twist that...well that's messed up.

[reorg]

89. so you admit it

"Just because someone has a thought, and thinks it's logical, doesn't make it so." :-)

Your argument in favor of the morality of "kill a few in order to save many" is incomplete because it is abstract to the extreme. Try and apply it in concrete circumstances and you may see that the real world is not that simple.

Or maybe you can't see that as long as you imagine your abstractions unaffected by your very own subjective reasoning, symphathies and interests?

I would think it is much more useful to try and understand what makes someone to become a suicide bomber, rather than engage in mind games about what it would take to take them out. The latest result of the shoot to kill policy for suspected terrorists in Britain should make one think. And what about if we take your example one step further? Such as the proposal to "automatically" obliterate within 24 hours of an attack the village where a suicide bomber resided? This "cold logic" is the logic of the military. It is hardly pacifying and the more it is applied by a society, the more it becomes militarized, a fortress, and a threat to the rest of civilisation.

[indepat]

20. Apparently for some 40+ or -% of Americans, it's when a Repub President

says it is justified: we will just have to trust him.

[mattclearing]

21. I think that falls under option one. n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

22. "... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

From the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Facts...

Articles of Impeachment: http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_articles

[txaslftist]

23. Number 3 Above, plus..

..when necessary to throw off an oppressive government that denies you your basic rights.

[mattclearing]

24. That would be a revolution, and probably fits under two and three. n/t

[Ravenseye]

25. Can Someone who thinks War is never justified explain something to me.

if you think war is never justified. What do you think would happen if the nation took that stance. What would happen to our country if we disarmed completely. melted down the weapons to make ploughshares so to speak. Got rid of all weapons in toto.

What would happen to our country? To you?

[mattclearing]

26. It depends.

I think the world could enter into global accords by which the practice of war was made illegal. Theoretically, if everyone signed on, war would cease to exist. Any aggressor would be repelled by the rest of the world. I'd like to see that happen, but I don't think this world is ready yet.

[eggman67]

33. By what means?

Any aggressor would be repelled by the rest of the world.

How would they go about repelling them?

[MildyRules]

38. STOP MAKING SENSE!

[mattclearing]

42. With Mace?

I don't know. I'd like to think that it's possible, though.

[txaslftist]

48. With nonviolent, passive resistance.

It would last about six months, then they'd be in charge.

[Ravenseye]

50. Six months is very gracious

I give it less than six weeks. Six days before the bulk is done.

Imagine the march on Washington last Saturday. Imagine if 100,000 people showed up to protest the illegal ruler in place and the military came in with attack helicopters and tanks and just started shooting machine guns and killing everyone, or dropping gas and killing 100,000 people.

I guarnatee you it'd be a generation before another march occured.

[txaslftist]

69. Well, I was assuming an aggressive country the size of Portugal

taking over the entire rest of the pacifist world...

I factored in travel time.

[Ravenseye]

72. lol

good point.

[Ravenseye]

37. Yeah see, that uses violence

'Any aggressor would be repelled'

by violence. and killing. So it's not pacifist.

[mattclearing]

40. True.

But there would have to be some kind of counter measure to act against those breaking the treaty.

[Ravenseye]

49. Well that's my point

Aggressive war is bad, but you have to be prepared to defend yourself, and that means being prepared to kill. There are maniacs and tyrants and there will be all new ones in the future. If we aren't prepared to take lives if someone attacks us, then you can kiss your way of life goodbye.

[really annoyed]

28. War is not necessary

But national defense is. Usually, that does not lead to war.

[Ravenseye]

39. I agree

but see i'm asking the people who say it's never justified, even for national defence, to explain how they think the world would be if we acted that way on a national basis.

How would Europe look right now, if all the countries other than Germany had been pacifist in 1939?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. We'd probably become civilized and learn how to live with others.

What we're doing now, sure isn't working.

[Ravenseye]

51. Right

Is that before or after we're annihlated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. If we no longer pose the threat that we do to the world, why would "they"?

"They" being the bogeyman of the week that keeps the capitalists in the war profiteer business.

[StellaBlue]

95. If every nation took that stance

What would happen?

Both are totally pointless hypotheticals, though.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. My opinion on war

is that it's only okay if we are attacked and have to get the person who attacked us such as with BinLaden and 9/11 (if you believe the official story). In the beginning he was in Afghainstan (or so we were told) but now he's supposivley in Pakistan. We should help out with Afghainstan if they asked us to and we're able to but I think we should always try to find means of responding without resorting to violence and killing. War doesn't do anybody any good. For us being in Iraq now and killing loved one's etc. we're causing us to create thousands of more Saddam's and Usama's which won't work out in the long run. If a country needs our help and asks us and we have a plan that will go quickly and the troops are prepared with armor etc. and we have the support of Congress and the UN then we should try to help. Wars can be pervented by working as a world community together with the UN and sharing intelligence and protecting your boarders and not pissing people off. I think we shouldn't have any millitary presence in the middle east once we do leave Iraq. Even Pat Buchanan understands why they hate us. Cause we're there! I remember watching a documentary on Saudi Arabia from CNN about democracy there and at one point I remember in the documentary someone told how a lot of middle eastern Muslims think of the Western societies as really evil etc. so that's another reason they don't like us. They don't want their countries to turn out like the United States. Funny how Canada never seems to piss anybody off. We should learn their secret(s).

[wuushew]

34. Getting Osama is a law enforcement matter

his version of mass murder was no different than the Libyan model. Sanctions and international pressure eventually won out in the Lockerbee case.

I can't accept that if a country refuses extradition or American pressure the result must be bombs dropped on poor people.

Crimes committed on American soil must be stopped and prosecuted here not exported in some vague quasi-legal war on terror. Of course if we minded our own business in the first place we would never have been attacked to start with. I agree with with he poster who said corporate interests are not national interests.

[mattclearing]

44. I agree that Osama is a law enforcement case.

As it is, he is our ticket into any conflict we want. He pops up in Afghanistan, we go there. We insinuate he is in Iraq or Iran, and we must go after him. It is not reasonable to expect to violate a nation's sovereignty for one person.

[Bridget Burke]

45. But the War on Terror made Bush a Popular Wartime President!

A great crime was committed on 9/11. But if Osama went to trial, he might name his accomplices.

[rockymountaindem]

43. If option one includes war to stop genocide,

then option one is my view. But I must say that option is in kind of a gray area.

[AX10]

47. Justifyable reasons for war:

-War is justified for:

1) The defense of US sovereign territory
2) War is justified for the defense of allies.
3) War is justified in order to keep peace IN THE LONG term(Global Stability).

***There must NEVER be any "Pre-emptive" wars***

***In all cases, diplomacy must be the first route***

***War must ALWAYS be the VERY LAST OPTION, to be used ONLY after a long and exhaustive process of diplomacy has been taken***

The War in Iraq fits NOT ONE of these three criterion. As a matter of fact, the Iraq was has destabilized the Middle-East. Bush has made the ME a breeding ground for those who wish to harm us.

[rasputin1952]

59. Just a thought as per your no pre-emptive wars...If people and countries

ceased attacking each other, there would be no need for a 'defensive' war...:)

Someone has to 'pre-empt' the situation, no attacks, no wars...would be nice...O8)

[WilliamPitt]

52. Poland 1939

[Qibing Zero]

57. Good answer. nt

[Qibing Zero]

53. Killing is only justified in defense of life

That's my personal moral view on it. Property and territory and such are just ideas. They just aren't worth killing over. I don't agree with our imaginary borders, but sadly I'm forced to live with them. Europe has the right idea going though...

Invasion from another country really depends on the goals of said country, and the current stance of the one you live in. If a Hitler is posing a threat to the entire world by going after world domination, yes, you must fight. However, if tomorrow bush declares himself dictator and declares war on the world, and the EU countries and others from the UN come to liberate us, what are YOU going to be doing?

Repression and defense of liberty are extremely hard to argue for, because they are relative to not only each person, but toward the perspective of the mind. It all depends on what level of freedom you're used to. My personal stance is to only resort to violence when you have exhausted other means and you have good reason to fear for your life. An example would be if the government kept taking away freedom after freedom, and protesters were starting to get killed or were disappearing.

Then again, in today's world, if the governments turned against the people, I doubt we would be able to fight. That's why the government must continue to be the people. We've been moving away from that, and we're getting into dangerous territory.


As for war, I would personally like to see the 'war' as we know it become obsolete as people realize there is NO need to continue viewing the world as one country vs. the next. The driving force behind every war is always either misunderstanding, or manipulated fear/hatred/loathing of 'the enemy'. Either way, it's usually the belief by both sides that the other side is out to get you. In a perfect world, we would always help out those being repressed and killed by their governments, but we of course don't live in that kind of world. People still want to create power struggles, and control as many resources as they can.

I think a body like the UN is necessary until we reach a stage like one I've mentioned. The reformed UN that leaders like Chavez want (without such bias, and without the 'veto' votes) would be the ideal system for not only managing world peace, but for discussing just exactly when 'war' is justified. Unfortunately, the power-hungry assholes that run our country believe that the US is always right, and can do whatever it wants in the world. That's why, today, we're more of a threat to the people of the world than anyone.

So, you never WANT war, but at times it can be necessary. I think when situations are brought up we need to analyze every detail then decide whether or not it's justified, and that there's no way to make a blanket statement for when war is okay and when it isn't. As much as I want to say 'War is never necessary!', I know that the world will probably let me down and it will come down to it again in the future.

[Spike from MN]

56. Uh, when the government is corrupt and only represents

corporate interests instead of the will of the people?

When elections are rigged and the people "elected" as a result refuse to look into the matter?

Or maybe "... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Yeah, that third one especially. I'm against war but that's one I could get behind.

[Tight_rope]

62. A famous quote on "WAR"...

War is simple an extension of politics by other means!

[tomg]

68. Inso far as I'm a pacifist, this is a

no-brainer on one level and one of the most morally complex on the other. So I was responding to the question as written: "morally acceptable." And the answer is never. The deeper question for me, and I guess for any pacifist/co, is "under what conditions would you serve in the military as a non-combatant." As a result of the Gillette case, in the United States we cannot decide that some wars are moral or immoral and others are not. Even for a pacifist, under the law, the position has to be absolute; that is, you are either willing to serve in non-combatant ( medic et al.)role as a CO-1AO or you will not and are CO-1O ( I think my designations and law are still right - 15 years ago and draft counseling) under all circumstances. That is, of course, for many of us, a very false set of distinctions. One of the ironies, of course, is that even if you are a CO-1AO (I was CO-1O in 1970, which explains the CO-1O), I don't think you have the option of saying - "this is non-combatant and still aids in the death of others" ( say, writing PR for the military) versus "this is non-combatant and aids in the preservation of life" ( medic). A friend of mine got caught in that.
I am 55 now, so I doubt anyone would want me in the military under any circumstances ( well, maybe in some Arnold Schwarznegger/ Kevin Costner/ Patrick Swayze/ Mel Gibson post-apocalyptic world, but barring that). I also know a lot more than I did thirty five years ago, and what I know is just how complex the issue actually is.

So as to the questions ( which are a tad tilted?)
1) "desired foreign policy/geopolitical goals outside the scope of national defense" - too many holes, as in aggression, oil; in other words, desired by whom? You mean the good guys like Bush?
2) "for the defense of US sovereign territory alone" - getting closer, but there are other cases
3) "and that of its allies." - as in, say, Saudi Arabia.

I do need a choice that allows for the prevention of genocide or as support forces under the leadership of United Nations ( and preferably the two are together) to stop international aggression.
Sorry my answer is so long, but, honestly, for me this is a morally complex question, and I've lived with it for a long time.

[mattclearing]

83. No problem.

I indicated that prevention of genocide would fall under the first option, as unfortunate as that is to lump it in with oil wars and wars of aggression.

I didn't want people to feel like they would want to choose both A an B, or A and C, so I made the categories as broad as possible.

One should assume that if one believes A, that we assume they also accept B and C.

I hope this helps.

[tomg]

90. No problem at all, really.

I sort of figured that was what you were doing. I was trying to get across that even for pacifists the whole question is still pretty complex, that there are different kinds of pacifists, and that it is not all that static and rigid. Thanks for the poll, though. I really like it when I have to re-think my positions.

[xchrom]

82. murder is never justified

killing may very well be.

the same with war.

[Ron Green]

85. War is not justified if you're the strongest of all nations.

It is then your moral responsibility to wage diplomacy until the cows come home.

[MildyRules]

86. Like during WWII?

[Ron Green]

88. No, not like during WWII, when we were not so clearly that much stronger

than Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. It turned out ok, but there was clearly a danger to the world from the Axis powers. It's much different now, when we invade and occupy a country that didn't even have an air force.

[BigMcLargehuge]

87. I voted sovereign territory and allies... but I believe there is another..

level of abstraction. There could also be a case made with regard to restoring human rights in cases of extreme abuse, such as the Holocaust, or a complete breakdown of society that threatens to spread throughout a region, such as parts of Africa. The problem is that we pick and choose based on more business friendly and almost arbitrary reasoning with regard, especially towards African countries. The west as a whole has put that entire continent through the ringer and now that the countries there are independent, have avoided intervening other than to play one repulic against another. It's sad really.

[DanCa]

91. In self deffense only

If someone hits you you have the right to hit him back. Thats as basic as it gets . You do not have the right to go around bullying people and wrecking havock based on lies and policies.

[McCamy Taylor]

93. Should have a separate "Peace Keeper" question.

[mattclearing]

96. It falls under the first option.

I didn't want people's viewpoints to fall into multiple categories, so they are as broad as possible.