Is There Ever A Just War Anymore?

The motivation for this topic came from watching Saving Private Ryan and exploring the theme of the movie: The justification of why we fight and kill in wartime. (And why we also value life) Many arguments can be made for World Wars I and II being just wars. Less confidant are the undeclared economic/ideological conflicts in Viet Nam and Iraq. The question and focus of this topic is whether or not any War outside of ones own country is ever justifiable. Is the threat of ideological clashes and threats to our national freedoms (and interests) enough justification for the conflicts that we are involved in?Or are we poking the beehive with a sharp stick and spawning the birth of future wars that will be more costly to our populations---not to mention our way of life?My intial opening opinion is that we are never actually justified but realistically are fighting a conflict over resources and alliances that is, unfortunately, necessary for our economic survival in the short range. Morally, I do not see the current war as justifiable.Edited by Phat, : change highlight color of quote

It always involves a judgement call.In my opinion, U.S. involvement in the first gulf war (1991) was justified. The current Iraq war was not justified, nor was U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Publically, the U.S. claimed in both cases that we were fighting for the ideological freedom of people to break the shackles of tyranny.Seems to me we are just pushing for a worldwide market economy, however. Im no Poli Sci Major, however, so I really don't know.

Unfortunately, that can be true for both sides in a conflict. The issue is almost never black and white.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Phat writes

quote:

---

Morally, I do not see the current war as justifiable.

---

Personally, I think freedom from tyranny is always worth any war that would get rid of the tyranny. While I haven't yet made the call on this current Operation Iraqi Freedom, I think the Bush administration fought a right war for the wrong reasons.

In the case of vietnam, the people their fought against what they considered a U.S. imposed tyranny. And that seems to be about what is happening in Iraq, too. In a wordwide market economy, we wouldn't be heavily subsidizing U.S. farming.

How is the U.S. seen as tyrannical? Is it because we insist that the governments that are set up cooperate with our global interests?

Hello NWR. I think I understand that with subsidizing U.S. farming domestically grown crops can better compete with imported crops for the American consumers. But doesn't this work both ways? with the domestic and international markets?Doesn't subsidizing U.S. agriculture also allow our crops to be sold for less to other nations and markets? Doesn't this support Phat's assertion?If this is straying off-topic, then no worries. In addition, I am not asking this as a jab at your intelligence, but to further my understanding of your position.Thanks for your time.

We are outsiders, trying to dictate the form of government. Why would this not be seen as tyrannnical?This is just human nature. Everyone resents an interfering busybody. If the U.S.A. acts as an interfering busybody it will be resented, and seen as tyrannical.

The effect is that African farmers cannot compete with us. So they remain in poverty and have no way out. Our subsidy makes the market anything but free for lower cost farmers in Africa (and other places). Similarly, our restriction on sugar imports has the effect that Brazillian sugar cane growers are not competing in a free market.I'm not making a moral point about farm subsidies. There are aguments both ways on that. I am making a moral point about hypocracy. The U.S. claims to support a global free market economy, but it clearly doesn't. Isn't the immigration bill being considered in congress yet another restriction on a global free market economy?

I couldn't agree more. How the U.S. appears to define global free market economy is simply one that is open to U.S. markets and corporations.I guess my question was concerning the definition of "worldwide market economy", which I thought as simply trade between many nations, regardless of moral or ethical issues.But all is good. I was simply confused over the definition of a word.BTW, thanks again for your help with my previous logging-in problems. Much appreciated.

Hi Phat, My personal view is that military intervention in a foreign country is never justified. By military intervention I mean occupation as has happened in Iraq, with the government overthrown and replaced with a new regime. Part of this is because the people involved in such occupations are simply not trustworthy and don't have democracy at heart (just looking at the rapacious behaviour of western companies in Iraq, for example) and part of it is my opinion that governments can only gain their legitimacy by being rooted in the citizenry, so any new government imposed by the outside world (even if it is a "good" government) lacks legitimacy and will end up being unstable.However I can imagine that peacekeeping operations involving military activity are acceptable. These operations would be limited to simply keeping warring parties apart and perhaps arranging negotiation meetings and conferences and things like that. basically the aim would just be to make some peaceful space where conflicting groups within society can meet and negotiation without fighting.I think that the distinction between war/occupation and peacekeeping is a tricky one, but it's something we need to get right. There is no situation I can imagine where the former is acceptable. And history teaches us that international organizations (such as the UN) and national states (such as the US) have not been very effective in implementing the latter.As you mention "a conflict over resources and alliances" as being realistically necessary, that's something I cant agree with because it necessarily falls into the war/occupation side of things.mickadded in edit:I also wanted to add that I don't find that view of WW1 and WW2 as "just wars" very convincing. WW2 was clearly a just war in the sense that the Nazis and their allies were engaged in genocide and occupation of foreign countries, but this by no means implies that the acts carried out by the Allies were "just". WW2 saw terrible attrocities committed by both sides, and the justice of the cause does not really let the Allies off the hook for crimes such as the use of h-bombs or the firebombing of Dresden. As for WW1, I really don't see how any side in that war could be considered to have acted according to some just principles. It was an imperialist war on both sides, basically trying to set up the balance of power for the 20th century without any particular aim in terms of social justice, human rights or democracy.so I think there is a second distinction to be made - the fact that we might consider a war such as WW2 to be "just" does not mean that specific acts carried out by soldiers in the war are just. The fact that the nuclear bombing of japan took place suggests to me that "justice" wasn't a driving motivation of the Allied forces.Edited by mick, : wanted to comment on the idea of WW1 and WW2 being "just wars"

Well, if we were shut off by China/India and the Third World, our standards of living would be threatened. Is that a justiable reason for war, in the event that diplomacy didnt work?

Hello Phat.I very well should not have jumped into this topic, for my knowledge on the issue is tenuous. Furthermore, my ability to construct a coherent and valid argument is also in its infant stage, but I am willing and eagar to learn, so what the hell. What is meant by the phrase "shut off"? Also, what scenario/s would lead to the U.S. being "shut off by China/India and the Third World"?

I don't see that as justification for war. I do so it as reason to question our committment to global free trade.