Is all war wrong?

[Skip Intro]

Is there such a thing as a necessary war?

Is war wrong, period, or is some war justified? I am a poor study of history, and I don't know the details and won't pretend to, but I have a sense, from all that I've seen (media), that WW2 was a battle that had to be fought. I don't know why I think this, I can't point to any example other than what I've been told and shown - that hitler had to be stopped. Therefore, if that is true, then some part of that war was just, yes? Self defense is a reason to fight, yes?

But I just read Cindy's excellent piece "So This Is Christmas." She speaks the truth. But she also says all war is wrong. That got me to thinking, is all war really wrong? Its a despicable way for man to behave, killing each other. Its really murder on a grand scale. I have a dim hope that mankind will soon escape this self-destructive behavior. But, until then, is all war wrong? Or are some wars justified?

[rwenos]

1. War and Morality

Philosophers and ethicists have been arguing this one for centuries. Someone attacks your family, you defend it. A country attacks your country, the principle of proportion says it is morally defensible to defend yourself. Can anyone seriously argue with the moral justification of fighting Nazism, or Japanese militarism? Can anyone who erects such an argument seriously deal with the Holocaust or the Japanese rape of Nanking (just to hit the high points)?

Bring it on, Quakers.

[Erika]

3. Can anyone justify our shock and awe campaign in Iraq?

Or our bombing civilian population centers in Japan?

[WindRavenX]

4. The problem is you are viewing things in a vaccum

Can anyone who erects such an argument seriously deal with the Holocaust or the Japanese rape of Nanking (just to hit the high points)?

The Holocaust was a result of centuries of cultural anti-semitism, post- WWI punishment, and a whole lot of other things that could have been changed and could have prevented the Holocaust. The Germans didn't just wake up one day and go "hey, let's gas 2/3 of the Jewish population!". In that sense, WW2 was a "just" war because we had to stop the Holocaust-- but the Holocaust itself could have been prevented had Germanic culture been different.

[MGD]

15. FDR didn't go into WW2 because of the holocaust though.

We just happened to put an end to it through our efforts to protect our own interests.

"the Holocaust itself could have been prevented had Germanic culture been different."
It wasn't just Germanic culture, Jews were hated by the majority of European nations and that's a pretty big "if" to suggest that the holocaust could have been prevented had Germanic culture been different. That's like saying that the snake charmer might not have been bitten by the cobra had the cobra been less snakelike. The cobra is what it is and does what it does because of what it is and the same is true of the 19th and 20th century Germans.

[WindRavenX]

17. you're right that it wasn't just restricted to German culture...

...I guess I was trying to say that if cultural conditions were different in general, like in the US as well, then things might have been different.

But I don't think it's debatable that the very, very deeply entrenched anti-semitism culture in eastern Europe wasn't a huge role in how the Holocaust unfolded.

[lvx35]

6. Gandhi would say its about how you fight.

I think Gandhi would stand for war or defense of country, but he would stand against violence as a means. He considered non-violence to be a method of war, and called himself a 'General'. So I think Gandhi could argue with the moral justification of use of violence even in cases like the holocaust and so forth, but only cause he himself showed the fortitude to lay down his own life in the name of non-violence. I myself don't have that kind of courage, so I really don't think I can argue against using violence in many of these cases without being a hypocrite.

[lvasconcellos]

8. Good point

It's hard to know what we are capable of doing..

[baby_mouse]

59. APPALLING semantic confusion

WAR is WRONG. DEFENDING yourself is NOT wrong.

The act of defending oneself against attack is not war it is only one aspect of war and it's *right*. The word "war" refers to the *situation both sides are in* it's a *condition* not an *act* and it's always the WRONG situation to be in.

This does not conflict with the right to defend oneself in a war. One does not "cause" warfare by defending oneself. This would place effect before cause! One attempts to mitigate the effect of the war by taking out the other side's ability to make it, on occasion the only defence is an attack, to take out th enemies ability to make war, but though it is framed as an attack, it is a defence because the purpose is to end the war, which is RIGHT because WAR is WRONG. The *result* is more warfare, but this is inescapable once one is *attacked*.

THE AGGRESSOR IS ALWAYS WRONG. All war is brought about by aggressors and it's ALWAYS WRONG. It is RIDICULOUS to conflate WARFARE with DEFENCE, cause and effect are different things! That's why we have different words for them!

Aggressors are not interested in ending warfare, they are interested in taking over your country and changing it all around so it's different and suits their interests. This is WRONG.

Even the sick, silly people who *want* warfare understand this, they have simply decided to view Iraq as an aggressor to make it easier. "They bombed us!" is their perpetual cry, i.e. Iraq was the aggressor. It doesn't matter to them what that means so long as they have a bad guy their allowed to shoot. It's pure evil, but it's "good enough for them". :puke:

[WindRavenX]

2. War is failure

The thing about WW2 is that it could have been prevented-- the fighting of WW2 may have been just in the sense that in a vacuum, it was just to end what was happening. But history does not occur in a vacuum-- it is a continuous thing.

[Critters2]

14. There's a good possibility that WWII would not have happened

if the victors of WWI had not insisted on reparations payments. These crushed Germany during the Depression and gave Hitler emotional ammunition.

Vengeance is always a bad idea.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. WW II accidentally mind you, came the closest in the

modern age to a just war... as understood by philosphers... and only accidentally since the hoorrors visited by German and Japanese troops were such that intervention was needed.

That said, war is truly an extension of foreign policy, or the pursuit of such by other means... (Clausewitz)

As a student of history, I can tell you that very few wars ever meet that standard though.

[lvasconcellos]

7. The problem is the question

is too simple. What does "right" or "wrong" mean anyway? It certainly is way down on my list of options for problem solving, but in my heart I know (for example)if someone were to physically threaten to harm my child I would strike out any way I could. I keep thinking we are evolving as humans to get beyond needing to use brute force and murder but these days it's clear we are not that far removed from our bloody cave days.

[The Straight Story]

9. I voted that it is sometimes Justified

because sometimes it is. When and why is the question.

[cboy4]

10. If going after the Janjaweed, for example, to stop the

genocide in Sudan is considered war, then yes, war can be justified.





I think stopping crimes against humanity is "necessary."

So is defending our country from invaders.

I would respectfully disagree with Cindy that all war is wrong...I would want to know more specifics.

Having said all of this, I loathe war....especially the horrors of Iraq.

[otherlander]

11. All war is wrong. Not all fighting is wrong.

[Greg Helmsley]

37. What about the American Civil War?

Without that, slaves wouldn't have been free.

[Seldona]

12. I see it as a self defense issue.

There are times, albeit rarely, when there is a valid threat. Then and only then would I support a war.

Hell, I would have volunteered to fight Hitler and the Nazi's. Would I support any action that ended that war and subsequent atrocities? Certainly. But I would not have been able to sleep knowing we stood by and did nothing while that monstrous war machine gobbled up Europe and beyond, killing tens of millions along the way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. As Gandhi said..

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Swamp Rat]

23. estoy de acuerdo

:thumbsup:

[Raskolnik]

55. The dead may not care, but the living sure as hell do.

You're fond of that quote, but I have yet to see you put it in any sort of context.

I'm fairly certain the majority of western Europe is better off for Germany having lost, no?

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. All war is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary.

The aggressor in any war is wrong. The first to start shooting had the option not to shoot.

But once the shooting has started, defending yourself, or your neighbors may be necessary.

With Iraq, we were 100% wrong. With Afghanistan, we were 100% wrong - with the caveat that we could have attacked Bin Laden without attacking the Afghan nation.

[donheld]

18. War for oil is wrong, a war for chocolate would be

a must. :evilgrin:

[Selatius]

19. A "just war" is a far higher standard to meet than a "necessary war"

If the US were attacked by the Soviet Union during the Cold War through conventional means, the war would cost millions of lives and wreck several continents, but one could easily argue the war was a "necessary" one in terms of the American side, the side that was attacked.

Don't ask me to define what a "just war" would resemble though, as I have difficulty finding examples in history that I would call truly just wars.

One example that might come closest in the modern era to a "just war" could conceivably be launching an invasion into Darfur to kill the Jangaweed militiamen who are perpetuating genocide.

[barb162]

20. Cindy may speak the truth as she sees it but she is not always right

For example, a defensive war is justified.

[demobabe]

21. Other - war is the balance to peace

I'd love nothing more than to see no more wars - ever - there is never a good reason to go to war, really. There is always another way to solve any given problem.

However, the universe goes in cycles - just like we have high tides and low tides, we have war and peace. To say all war is 'wrong' is an oversimplification, and is a naive way to look at the universe. Forget 'right' and 'wrong.' There will always be corrupt assholes bent on power binges, greed, all that good stuff. Those kinds of folks will always gladly lead us into war for their own personal profit.

Why did we allow our troops to go to war this time around? Why didn't we stop them? Why didn't they refuse?

Too much complacency and comfort in our society. Too afraid if we stand up we'll lose our material possessions or freedom... Imagine what the last several years would have been like if we had millions of Medea Benjamins and Cindy Sheehans all doing their high profile protests...

War isn't 'wrong' per se; it's what happens when we allow it to... I believe it's unavoidable based on the nature of humanity.

[ellisonz]

22. All war is wrong.

That doesn't mean peace is always right, but in the semantical terms of this debate...I vote for option 1. The issue lies with the definition of right and wrong, I almost prefer good and evil in this case, however contradictory "good war" sounds. Sometimes there is no choice.

[fujiyama]

24. Sometimes war is simply necessary

To protect the weak. To defend oneself from an aggressor.

Otherwise, one will allow itself to be bullied into submission or destroyed.

[kevsand]

25. Necessity and ethics are two completely different things.

Just because you have to do something, doesn't make it right. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[B Calm]

26. You would think with the evolution of man we would be more

transformed by now..

[dave_p]

27. It depends who's doing the war

There are people you can't trust to wage "just" war.

All the United States' wars since 1945 have been wrong, as well as most that went before.

They weren't waged to make the world a safer place, to defend the weak or to right wrongs.

They were selfish expressions of great-power aggrandizement aimed at gaining power or securing economic interests.

So were most of the wars waged by others. That's because we're nearly all ruled by people who don't care about justice or the security of ordinary people.

We need to stop imagining these people can do other than what they did in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia or Iraq.

They can't, because what we might fondly imagine to be a just outcome is none of their concern.

America needs to break its addiction to war and take its place in a community of nations governed by law, mutual respect and genuine collective security that isn't just for a chosen few.

And that means breaking free of the notion that there can be anything right in killing thousands - or hundreds of thousands - just because you don't like their government.

[Skittles]

28. yes

the fact that a war may be necessary does not mean it is not a failure of human beings to work things out - war is WRONG, PERIOD

[The2ndWheel]

29. As long as expanding circles of influence exist

so will war. It's the only reason America ever started. We owe all we have to empire and war. There would be no progress without empire and war.

[The Stranger]

30. No, it isn't justified. But that hasn't stopped warmongers from trying.

[Greg Helmsley]

52. please explain

nt

[TahitiNut]

31. This is one of the few questions for which the national can parallel the individual.

Consider, for a moment, that each and every person who finds themselves in a combat zone under fire must confront a question such as this. While military training and indoctrination attempts to overcome the ethical/moral dilemma, there are "millions of stories in the naked city." It stops being a sophomoric topic of contemplation (and posturing) over a couple of beers at the college watering hole and becomes very immediate and real. It can become real in some agonizing ways. How about that child or woman carrying a satchel charge? When confronted by an amplacable foe, what are the realistic, rational, and moral options?

[renie408]

32. Dammit, I voted to quickly

I voted that all war is wrong.

I skimmed the post and didn't read it closely enough. Defending yourself is not wrong. If someone attacks you, it is not wrong to defend yourself even if it means the use of deadly force. I believe that for myself on a personal basis and I believe it on a national level. But I also believe that you have to do everything in your power to avoid deadly force and to exhaust every avenue before you resort to force.

[theophilus]

33. Same as killing on the personal level. To defend yourself and your family

I think it is often justifiable. Not pre-emptively, though. I think the agressor must be actually attacking, etc. Warfare of defense of one's borders, citizens, and possibly interests is justifiable. If aggression is directed against you then you can fight back. I think one should never be the agressor, however. Now I know that each case needs to be considered on its own merit. If the ruler takes away your rights and restricts your access to food, clothing, shelter, etc. then I think that is an act of agression, too.

Just don't go to war to take things that are not yours or to do violence to those who are defenseless or now a threat, etc. Then it is the equivalent of murder, imo.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. If Cindy Thinks That Entering War As A Defense Is Wrong, Then It Is She That Is Wrong.

Not sure if that's what she meant or not though.

Fighting a war for defense can be and probably most often is absolutely justified.

I'd limit my answer to the notion that perpetrating an unprovoked war may always be wrong.

[MGD]

35. Ben Franklin said "there never was a good war or a bad peace".

I can agreee with that easily enough. I'm not sure I can agree that "all war is wrong" however. It's just a little too black and white for my brain to wrap around. I think America's involvement in WW2 was absolutely justified. I think Fat Man and Little Boy were justified too and I think after 9-11, a state of war was absolutely justified.

[NashVegas]

42. Ben Didn't Live In My House

There is such a thing as a false peace, with thousands of 'little cuts.'

[MGD]

45. A bitter peace.

perhaps you should leave that bitter "peace" for a better peace then. :shrug:

[Greyhound]

36. If we are directly invaded I would support a war, otherwise it is all wrong

and all wars are crimes.

[MGD]

39. What if we were just directly attacked and; furthermore, what constitutes an "invasion"

the means or the end ends?

[Greyhound]

44. An attack in itself does not justify a full-blown war, IMO, as there may well

still be alternatives that should be explored. An invasion would be just that, an incursion of the U.S. by an armed force.

[MGD]

46. I'm gonna have to disagree.

A violent attack justifies violent retribution. I don't care what Gandhi or Jesus would say or do. We were attacked on 9-11 and war was justified as far as I'm concerned. If it ever happens again, I only hope our war is prosecuted by a competent administration.

and as far as the invasion definition goes, I don't limit my definition by the means of invasion but, rather, by the ends of invasion. I'll just leave it at that.

[Greyhound]

58. Look at what happened in response to the attacks of 9/11.

We devastated one country, but failed to significantly effect the actual attackers, invaded and destroyed another country that had nothing to do with the attack, and let the real culprits get away without even the suggestion of attacking the nation that created and continues to harbor them (Saudi Arabia).

As much as I disagreed with most of their positions, Clinton/Gore had the right idea, terrorism is a law enforcement issue and must be dealt with as such. The military is highly inappropriate to handle this mission.

Blowing the shit out of a nation might be personally satisfying, but in the end, yields no positive results. :banghead::shrug:

[MrCoffee]

38. going to war against the Interahamwe would have been justified, IMO

[TahitiNut]

40. And the Janjaweed?

[MrCoffee]

41. equally justified.

[NashVegas]

43. War Is Always Justifiable On the Defenders' Side

A sovereign nation has the right - and the obligation - to defend its borders. A government that won't defend its people (and help them defend themselves) from invaders has no business standing.

[MGD]

47. Most wars result purely from the concepts of "a sovereign nation" "borders" & "government" though.

If these three concepts were taken away, we would only be left with religion as a reason to fight wars. Alas, these concepts will endure forever though.

[NashVegas]

48. Desire for Expansion, Resources

Those concepts won't go anywhere, either. That the lordlings are currently content to expand on the stockmarket has us fighting wars of economy more than militarily, among the "first world."

[WI_DEM]

49. Was war necessary to stop Hitler? Was a civil war necessary in the USA?

I hate to say it but I think some wars are necessary.

[sweetheart]

50. red

i vote red

no,
no slavery,
ever,
no

Lift me with love, and i will follow you with wings,
willingly ensconscned in it all,
but really, enslaving young adults to die for some pig headed idiot's career,
two more years of bush-murder bullheaded fuckups squandering all money
and goodwill on heinous war crimes. (barfs and is sick) EOP

[ecstatic]

51. Think it should just be a duel in an arena

If men (heads of state) are too stupid or stubborn to talk and work through problems, then maybe they should each just get 10 of their best fighters and duke it out that way. If it's still a tie and all 10 fighters on both sides have died, then it will be up to the presidents themselves to have a duel or sword fight.

Why get innocent civilians involved? And if my idea was the standard, then leaders would think twice about going to war because the chances of winning would be up in the air (no large military to hide behind).

[Karenina]

61. LOVE IT!!!

Leave us ALL OUT OF IT!

The difficulty for Amis is, there is not a single military adventure that has been brought to the mainland. I sincerely believe the BIG REASON Amis DO NOT GET the ATROCITIES their *MIC has visited upon others is that they have NEVER had bombs dropped on their major cities. ON THEIR OWN HEADS.
911 doesn't even come close.

[iamthebandfanman]

53. thats simple, its wrong because

people shouldnt even have to fight with each other!
if people werent selfish , and assholes, then war wouldnt ever be an option.

[MGD]

56. It's a black and white question that has only gray answers. It's anything but simple.

"if people werent selfish , and assholes, then war wouldnt ever be an option"
That's a pretty big if; what's more, it's a gross oversimplification.

[porphyrian]

54. Anything between consenting adults is acceptable.

If they want to kill each other in private, that should be fine. However, I don't think there is a single instance of war in which innocents were not maimed and murdered simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is what makes it patently unacceptable.

[OregonDem]

57. There are 4 reasons that justify entering a war IMO

Notice I said entering not starting..

1. Direct attack or declaration of war from a country.

2. An ally is attacked, in which case an international force should repel the invaders, and possibly destroy the government responsible for the invasion.

3. To gain independance from a tyrant (or overthrow them) with the intent to establish a democratic form of government who respects human rights. Starting a war with a tyrant is unneccessary because the tyrant will seek to start violence once people demand rights.

4. To stop genocide, this should be done by an international force.

[annabanana]

60. War is the failure of mankind to evolve.. . . . . . n/t

[dysfunctional press]

62. hitler had to be stopped, for instance...

and in this country- the south needed to have an attitude adjustment...:hide: