Is there such thing as a just war?

John Doe1

and give specific examples

grizzly

War of the Buttons?

RichieC

Ww2. I guess..

Chuck Stone

The War of the Worlds.

Sindri

Legally yes, morally? It gets very murky.


Sorry examples...

Eh **** it ask Aquinas...

No wait, morally you can, but that's relativistic **** and subjective, you could say moral superiority. Legally yes, sovereign states have rights to protect themselves, and are probably morally obliged to do so.

The_Kew_Tour

NO......

Overheal

Nope. No matter what way you swing it there's always some side of a war that you morally disagree with. WWII? You might agree with the Allies, but the Axis started the thing, and they did some pretty reprehensible things, like wipe out 6 million people in droves. Thats before you even begin discussing what the other side did, and dropping the atomic bomb and all that warm fuzzy stuff.

Senna

Their are some "just" reason for all wars to begin, whether everything that happens subsequently is just, no.

krudler

Star Wars

marcsignal

It would be great if they organised a war, and nobody turned up :pac:

Ryan OConnor

It depends what side you're on.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

All of them. Even Hitler felt justified in starting World War 2.

First rule of thumb when starting a war - establish yourself as the victim.

KeithAFC

If it is defending the land, then yes. Depends what side you are on too.

fiinch

up the ra

tim_holsters

A war on THAW.

If you're jack frost.

John Doe1

fiinch wrote: »

up the ra

fenian scum, i challenge you to war young sir

tim_holsters

John Doe1 wrote: »

fenian scum, i challenge you to war young sir

If a second is required I declare my interest. Anti-fenian armband.

John Doe1

tim_holsters wrote: »

If a second is required I declare my interest. Anti-fenian armband.

cool you get the ammo from gaddafi

tim_holsters

John Doe1 wrote: »

cool you get the ammo from gaddafi

No man, closer to home, but thinking on it you could be right.

LH Pathe

No; a war is never just a war. there's always more to it than that...

You'll thank me later?

tim_holsters

LH Pathe wrote: »

No; a war is never just a war. there's always more to it than that...

You'll thank me later?

Pathe you're name has been used to propagandiz numerous wars!

TeddyTedson

John Doe1 wrote: »

and give specific examples

Not if one single civilian get's injured or killed, no.

micropig

John Doe1 wrote: »

and give specific examples

Every war America has been in has been a just war,



at least that what I'm told

Local-womanizer

The war on obesity!

That fat guy that lives down the street from me, I call in airstrikes on him daily.

Specific enough?

tim_holsters

micropig wrote: »

Every war America has been in has been a just war,

Just til it's finished.



at least that what I'm t

Reamer Fanny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo

tim_holsters

Appreciated.

micropig

the war on piracy - because you wouldn't steal a car

CageWager

micropig wrote: »

the war on piracy - because you wouldn't steal a car

Thanks for that sean

Snowie

The nasty side of war well

I would say when people are put threw that machine like structure they call the army you rant designed to think unless told to your designed to take life...
The human brain deals with things differently... the nasty side of war is the human brain.....

micropig

the war on drugs - because you wouldn't steal a bus

Manic Moran

I can think of few that were started with just cause. Maybe the occasional war of independence. Usually the 'just' actors tend to be responding, or piling into an already extant conflict.

Dominican Repubic '65, Grenada, Six-Day, Afghanistan '01 are the obvious ones which immediately come to mind since WWII. Maybe the Soccer War? Panama's also a possibility.

Certainly 'perspective' has much to do with it, Goa or the Falklands, for example would generally qualify as 'just' from the Indian or Argentinian points of view.

Then you also have use of military force outside of normal wars, such as hostage rescue missions like Entebbe.

NTM

im invisible

Falklands? From the Argentinian point of veiw??
There was a thread on this...

Daniel S

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it is defending the land, then yes.

From the British? :pac:

Dravokivich

marcsignal wrote: »

It would be great if they organised a war, and nobody turned up :pac:

Can't wait till armies are made of remote control robots and sent into battle against each other.

Spunge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

Sunnyisland

The war of the roses.





















http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20war%20of%20the%20roses&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_War_of_the_Roses_(film)&ei=ZqknT8ihBYmChQfnnpzGBQ&usg=AFQjCNFfCqZRuraf4vNkBC1Ox5szT5PHzw

biko

When Hitler "took back" Austria, and Poland, and France..

--Kaiser--

Of course there is such a thing as a just war. WWII is a prime example. Sure the allies did a lot of dodgy stuff (carpet bombing Dresden etc..) but the end result was a free Europe and not a Third Reich.

<cue some moral retards with stupid arguments>

davet82

A price war, everybody wins

gbee

There are two type of war.

One is the raiding invading type where superior force arrived and claimed lands for the King or Queen and then settled these lands. Vikings invasion, Mongol invasion, European invasion of Americas.

Then there is a manipulative type of wars where no war was necessary, the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and similar.

The first type of invasion has shaped the world, mostly for the better for both communities who have since gone on to become nations in their own rights.

The second type of war is created for personal greed and the opportunity to seize control of territories without been seen as the aggressor or invader.

gbee

micropig wrote: »

the war on drugs - because you wouldn't steal a bus

It might be so, but keep in mind that the drugs cartels was an undercover operation that was used against the USA [successfully] but all the original drug cartels were US financed.

It's probably better to simply legalise the drugs, lowering their price and spending the billions of dollars n the war in treatment, care and education and of course, job creation.

questionmark?

The West going to war with Yugoslavia after what they were doing in Bosnia was just and saved more lives in the long run.

On another note going to war and carpet bombing anyone or anything involved in the production of such shows as Da onli way is essex innit, tallaghtfornia bud and not been funny but Geordie Shore you know what I meeeean, would be a just war that I would fully support.

lastlaugh

The Hootoo's Vs the Tootsies in Africa a few years ago was pretty justifiable as I remember.

Pissmire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can think of few that were started with just cause. Maybe the occasional war of independence. Usually the 'just' actors tend to be responding, or piling into an already extant conflict.

Dominican Repubic '65, Grenada, Six-Day, Afghanistan '01 are the obvious ones which immediately come to mind since WWII. Maybe the Soccer War? Panama's also a possibility.

Certainly 'perspective' has much to do with it, Goa or the Falklands, for example would generally qualify as 'just' from the Indian or Argentinian points of view.

Then you also have use of military force outside of normal wars, such as hostage rescue missions like Entebbe.

NTM

Grenada, just war??? FFS are you for real? Regan was just trampling a small Caribbean island. The students were not hostages.

"After a study of various U.S. military interventions, political scientist Stephen Shalom (imperial Alibis) concluded that people in the invaded countries (includes Grenada) died “not to save U.S. nationals, who would have been far safer without U.S. intervention, but so that Washington might make clear that it ruled the Caribbean and that it was prepared to engage in a paroxysm of violence to enforce its will.”

But you will probably label the writer a liberal lefty.

Batsy

Is there such thing as a just war?

World War II. If would have been wrong for every country to do what cowardly Ireland did and just sit back and let the Hun invade Europe and make it part of the 1,000 year Third Reich. Thankfully for Europe, Great Britain decided to do something about it.

The First Boer War. Brave, noble British soldiers fighting a bunch of inbred Dutch farmers (who later started the South African apartheid) in southern Africa after they tried to resist British attempts to annex the Transvaal and Orange Free State into the Empire to get the area's rich mineral deposits.

The Sikh Wars of the 1840s. Brave, noble British troops attempted to annex the Punjab for the British Empire. The Punjab's savage, bloodthirsty, primitive, barbaric Sikhs attempted to resist, but were easily beaten.

WWI. Imperialist Germany looked with envy at the mighty British Empire and Royal Navy and attempted to build a navy to rival that of Britain's. Something had to be done to put an end to this, and Germany lost.

Anglo-Zulu War, 1879. Britain tried its best not to get involved in a war with the primitive, backward, savage Zulu barbarians. But Britain quite rightly wanted to annex southern Africa. The Zulu barbarians didn't want this to happen. The British told the barbarians to disband their army or else. The unthinking barbarians refused. Therefore noble, brave British troops quickly showed the savages who's boss. On 22 January 1879, at Rorke's Drift on the Natal border with Zululand, in South Africa, a tiny British garrison of 140 men - many of them sick and wounded - fought for 12 hours to repel repeated attacks by up to 3,000 Zulu warriors. Against the odds, the brave British won. This heroic defence was rewarded by Queen Victoria's government with no fewer than 11 Victoria Crosses, and was later immortalised by the film Zulu (1964), starring Michael Caine.

The Hundred Years' War. A long, medieval conflict which saw English kings attempting to take back land that imperialist France stole off their ancestors a couple of centuries previously. Centuries later the dirty French claim that they were wronged and that it was actually the "imperialist English trying to annex parts of France."

The Napoleonic Wars. Britain kicked the arse of an imperialist, bad-tempered, arrogant little Continental European (not for the last time) because he had the crazy belief that the whole of Europe should belong to his country. On this occassion the arrogant little Frenchman died in captivity on the British island of St Helena.

The Opium Wars between Britain and China, 1839-1860. The Chinese made opium illegal in their country. This rightly angered the British. British merchants still wanted to sell opium in China so they decided to smuggle the stuff into China. The backward Chinese protested against the flouting of the ban, even writing to Queen Victoria. But the British continued to trade, leading to a crackdown by Lin Tse-Hsu, a man appointed to be China's Opium Drugs Czar. He confiscated opium from the British traders and destroyed it. The British military response was severe, leading to the Nanking Treaty which opened up several of China's ports to foreign trade and gave Britain Hong Kong.

The Anglo-Zanzibar War, 17th August 1896. This war was fought between mighty Britain and tiny, backward Zanzibar. The war lasted just 38 minutes and is the shortest war ever to have taken place. The immediate cause of the war was the death of the pro-British Sultan Hamad bin Thuwaini on 25 August 1896 and the subsequent succession of Sultan Khalid bin Barghash. The British authorities preferred Hamud bin Muhammed, who was more favourable to British interests, as sultan. In accordance with a treaty signed in 1886, a condition for accession to the sultanate was that the candidate obtain the permission of the British consul, and Khalid had not fulfilled this requirement. The British considered this a casus belli and sent an ultimatum to Khalid demanding that he order his forces to stand down and leave the palace. In response, Khalid called up his palace guard and barricaded himself inside the palace.

The ultimatum expired at 09:00 East Africa Time (EAT) on 27 August, by which time the British had gathered three cruisers, two gunships, 150 marines and sailors, and 900 Zanzibaris in the harbour area. The Royal Navy contingent were under the command of Rear Admiral Harry Rawson whilst their Zanzibaris were commanded by Brigadier-General Lloyd Mathews of the Zanzibar army. Around 2,800 Zanzibaris defended the palace; most were recruited from the civilian population, but they also included the sultan's palace guard and several hundred of his servants and slaves. The defenders had several artillery pieces and machine guns which were set in front of the palace sighted at the British ships. A bombardment which was opened at 09:02 set the palace on fire and disabled the defending artillery. A small naval action took place with the British sinking a Zanzibari royal yacht and two smaller vessels, and some shots were fired ineffectually at the pro-British Zanzibari troops as they approached the palace. The flag at the palace was shot down and fire ceased at 09:40. The British won without breaking sweat.

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

World War II. If would have (.............)and fire ceased at 09:40.

Apart from arriving with a mobile bridge, you couldn't really be less subtle.

Pissmire

Batsy wrote: »

World War II. If would,...... but were easily beaten. without breaking sweat.

Oops. You forgot to mention the bravery of noble British troops on Bloody Sunday.

DrumSteve

Jihad.

Morlar

A War of Independence against a foreign army of occupation is morally just.

Manic Moran

Pissmire wrote: »

Grenada, just war??? FFS are you for real? Regan was just trampling a small Caribbean island. The students were not hostages.

"After a study of various U.S. military interventions, political scientist Stephen Shalom (imperial Alibis) concluded that people in the invaded countries (includes Grenada) died “not to save U.S. nationals, who would have been far safer without U.S. intervention, but so that Washington might make clear that it ruled the Caribbean and that it was prepared to engage in a paroxysm of violence to enforce its will.”

But you will probably label the writer a liberal lefty.

Never met the man, but I will agree with him that the students don't really enter into the equation. A coup d'etat which murders the prime minister, a request of the local multinational organization (organization of Eastern Caribbean States) which has limited military force of its own (but they sent a few along symbolically) and the request of the representative of the head of state who then appointed a caretaker government pending elections soon afterwards should, I submit, give the operation some legitimacy. The US may have chosen to get into Grenada as opposed to, oh Angola, for the purposes of making the point that the caribbean was its back yard, but that doesn't invalidate the act itself.

NTM