Is there such a thing as a just war?
Comments
-
dmclite wrote:
I was out there in 1991. i drove a flail hrough minefields and cleared IED's and Ordanance. The use of DU is entirely justifed against enemy armour when they could be throwing 120mm HE rounds at you. A different perspective comes with experience
Well said. A lot of people are very good at forming opinions from the comfort of their armchairs.
I was on the front line when we invaded Iraq in 2003 and returned twice over the years. The last time not too long ago. Ignoring the politics and legalities of why we were there, I could never say that removing Saddam Hussain from power was a bad thing. Millions of Iraqi's lives have been improved immeasurably. Having seen how their lives have changed, and met and worked with them, I am happy that what we did was right.
My issue is that we seem to have been sucked into going around the world with the Yanks forcing democracy onto everyone. Who says that democracy is perfect, and good? We are the worst country to be trying to sell it to anyone. We have a Prime Minister that no-one voted into power, and no-one wants.
Democracy is massively flawed. By giving everyone the vote, we ask people to make political decisions when they know nothing about politics or how to run a country. Consequently it becomes a popularity contest, and he who has the most charisma shall be Prime Minister. Many voters are forming all their political opinions based on what they read in the Sun.
Don't get me wrong, it probably is the best solution, and I am one of those who knows nothing about politics. But at least I realise that I am in no way qualified to decide who runs the country.0 -
Jez mon wrote:teagar wrote:There seems to be a silent reference point to Britain! "A just war [for Britain]". Any example given here is not an example of a just war, because the war was started for non-just reasons (whether it's fascist expansionism in Europe or Iraq invading Kuwait). You've just given reasons for Britian to join into a war.
I have no beef with anyone so as far as I'm concerned no war is a just war. If I did, i might answer differently!
So preventing the spread of fascism was not a just cause. Whilst history may be the propaganda of the victors, it's pretty damn hard to see the Nazis in anything approaching a positive light. Furthermore, Britain was at risk from invasion in WW2, should the country have rolled over to a regime which was incredibly evil.
The first Gulf War, now that's less black and white. The end result (one could argue) was the current Iraq War. It's proof that whilst the UNs guidelines for how and why a war should be fought sound good, they probably don't work out as the authors imagined.
You've entirely missed the point. In the examples given a war was already being fought. In the WW2 example it was Germany invading Poland, in the Gulf it was Iraq invading Kuwait. In both cases, Britian "joined" a pre-existing war.
Just because Britian arn't involved in the start of the war doesn't mean it's not a war.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:Jez mon wrote:teagar wrote:There seems to be a silent reference point to Britain! "A just war [for Britain]". Any example given here is not an example of a just war, because the war was started for non-just reasons (whether it's fascist expansionism in Europe or Iraq invading Kuwait). You've just given reasons for Britian to join into a war.
I have no beef with anyone so as far as I'm concerned no war is a just war. If I did, i might answer differently!
So preventing the spread of fascism was not a just cause. Whilst history may be the propaganda of the victors, it's pretty damn hard to see the Nazis in anything approaching a positive light. Furthermore, Britain was at risk from invasion in WW2, should the country have rolled over to a regime which was incredibly evil.
The first Gulf War, now that's less black and white. The end result (one could argue)
was the current Iraq War. It's proof that whilst the UNs guidelines for how and why a war should be fought sound good, they probably don't work out as the authors imagined.
You've entirely missed the point. In the examples given a war was already being fought. In the WW2 example it was Germany invading Poland, in the Gulf it was Iraq invading Kuwait. In both cases, Britian "joined" a pre-existing war.
Just because Britian arn't involved in the start of the war doesn't mean it's not a war.
Britian declared war on germany, no declaration was ever put on Poland, Germany just invaded. the declaration came form Britian.0 -
Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:fast as fupp wrote:only if its against them germans
Nowadays, I think we'd be better off if we went to war and they won. Have you ever cycled in Germany, or seen the education a German chilld gets, or been to a German hospital? or taken your kids to a German park?
I'd also rather have my money in a German bank.
I could go on and on...
Go and live out there then, matey. :roll:
Not the rolleyes...not the rolleyes. I'll be weeping into my pillow tonight with the loss of your approbation.
I do apologise for the rolleyes, it was a bit harsh, wasn't it ? Actually I do concur with modern Germany, I lived there for 5 years, very clean and nice. Awesome kebabs too, Gyros with fluffy bread and beautiful herby lamb......sorry, tangent over.
Much appreciated. No offence taken. Where did you live in Germany?
Osnabruck.0 -
dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:There is always cause for war. A military intervention by Nato in Rwanda would have been just, in my opinion.
No oil = no intervention.
I know bugger all about politics but that definitely seems to be the case. Removing some dodgy politic leader just seems to be the way in which a lot of wars are 'justified' to Joe Public. It's definitely not the reason for the war though! If politicians were so worried about corrupt political leaders then why didn't they sort out the mess of Pol Pot's regime?! Oh yeah, because Cambodia has nothing of any value to Western society...0 -
johnfinch wrote:dmclite wrote:War is a bit of a dodgy business, if DU rounds are harder and more penetrating that sabot rounds etc then you take your chances. Soldiers get stabbed in the back, always has happened, always will. We were given all sorts of injections out there that are not on my medical record. Also we took NAPS and BAPS every day (sorry, Nerve Agent Pre treatment Schedule and Biologigal, etc) in tablet form for 3 months, Christ knows what was in them.
The point I was trying to make is that even if DU did save a few lives on the battlefield, with the link to Gulf War Syndrome (which I believe, but am not 100% sure has been made in respected medical journals) and other health problems, surely even taking the civilian population out of the picture, DU would cost more allied lives than it would have saved?
I know that soldiers always have been stabbed in the back. My Grandad was in a Japanese POW camp, and when he got back to Britain he never got any help for the terrible mental scars he picked up from three years of brutality, malnutrition and disease. :x
Hard not to be cynical and think by laying blame on DU rounds for something else a government may not want you to know about is an easy out.0 -
mask of sanity wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:There is always cause for war. A military intervention by Nato in Rwanda would have been just, in my opinion.
No oil = no intervention.
I know bugger all about politics but that definitely seems to be the case. Removing some dodgy politic leader just seems to be the way in which a lot of wars are 'justified' to Joe Public. It's definitely not the reason for the war though! If politicians were so worried about corrupt political leaders then why didn't they sort out the mess of Pol Pot's regime?! Oh yeah, because Cambodia has nothing of any value to Western society...
Yeah, totally agree. Saddam and Mugabe, one had oil one hasn't, both dictators and not very nice. 0 -
softlad wrote:dmclite wrote:
Yeah, totally agree. Saddam and Mugabe, one had oil one hasn't, both dictators and not very nice.
if we're targeting people based on their human rights record, then there's always King Abdullah in Saudi......plenty of oil there....
Way too powerful, too many pockets lined there, too many world leaders on a nice little earner.
0 -
dmclite wrote:softlad wrote:dmclite wrote:
Yeah, totally agree. Saddam and Mugabe, one had oil one hasn't, both dictators and not very nice.
if we're targeting people based on their human rights record, then there's always King Abdullah in Saudi......plenty of oil there....
Way too powerful, too many pockets lined there, too many world leaders on a nice little earner.
Yeah, and think of all those Saudi petro-dollars being used to fund Islamic fundamentalist preachers and publishing throughout the world. 0 -
punctureboy wrote:
I was on the front line when we invaded Iraq in 2003 and returned twice over the years. The last time not too long ago. Ignoring the politics and legalities of why we were there, I could never say that removing Saddam Hussain from power was a bad thing. Millions of Iraqi's lives have been improved immeasurably. Having seen how their lives have changed, and met and worked with them, I am happy that what we did was right.
But I presume that you served in the British-controlled south of the country. Correct?
From what I've read and heard, that was the part of the country that suffered most under Saddam Hussein, and least in the aftermath of war.
In other parts, who knows how many Iraqis lost their lives? And there are an estimated 2-4 million Iraqi refugees who have had to flee their homes since 2003.
Also Iraqi women's rights groups have reported that life is much worse post-war, because of the rise of Islamism.
For example:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html
I'm sure that for many Iraqis life has become much better, but for many Iraqis life must have become a lot worse as well.0 -
Over the last 30 years I can think of a number of Wars that had no oil or other resources behind their prosecution... Sierra Leone, NATO's work in Bosnia, The Falklands... all of those were, in my opinion, just wars also.
The difficulty in any intervention in Rwanda were manifold. Firstly, NATO has no jurisdiction there, secondly, the logistical difficulties in creating a bridgehead into a landlocked country covered in nothing but forest and mountains are immense and finally, even the UN did send it's very finest peacekeepers... They're not allowed to shoot at anybody unless shot at, so they would be essentially powerless against highly mobile, irregular groups of fellas with machetes.
Sorry to bang on about that one, i just think that Clinton et al get a bum rap for that, there was nothing organised they could strike against and logistically it was a near impossibilty."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Over the last 30 years I can think of a number of Wars that had no oil or other resources behind their prosecution... Sierra Leone, NATO's work in Bosnia, The Falklands... all of those were, in my opinion, just wars also.
Sierra Leone is a massive diamond producer. Bosnia - I don't think that the West would want a war to spill over into other European states, and the Falklands were invaded by the Argentines, so that was self-defence (and therefore probably justified), rather than an altruistic war.
I think that in these cases, when war was going on, and the international community did step in, it could be justified, although I suspect the motives are never pure, but out of self-interest.0 -
johnfinch wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Over the last 30 years I can think of a number of Wars that had no oil or other resources behind their prosecution... Sierra Leone, NATO's work in Bosnia, The Falklands... all of those were, in my opinion, just wars also.
Sierra Leone is a massive diamond producer. Bosnia - I don't think that the West would want a war to spill over into other European states, and the Falklands were invaded by the Argentines, so that was self-defence (and therefore probably justified), rather than an altruistic war.
I think that in these cases, when war was going on, and the international community did step in, it could be justified, although I suspect the motives are never pure, but out of self-interest.
Oh I concur completely, nobody has ever gone into a war thinking they would get nothing from it but kudos and thanks. Blood and Treasure and all that.
Sierra Leone is a big diamond producer yes, but Diamonds are a luxury commodity more than a vital cog in the worlds economy and SL had been a failed state, war torn hell hole since the days of Valentine Strasser.
The Balkans had been burning for at least 3 years before Clinton managed to garner enough concensus to try and check Milosovic. That was all about scotching Russia'a influence over Europe's back yard, but had the more immediate and laudable effect of preventing some very nasty ethnic cleansing going down. That is an interesting aside to the debate. If your motivation is political but you help a good number of people who are in dire need, is that a just war?
The Falklands is the best example from my list though, I agree."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:fast as fupp wrote:only if its against them germans
Nowadays, I think we'd be better off if we went to war and they won. Have you ever cycled in Germany, or seen the education a German chilld gets, or been to a German hospital? or taken your kids to a German park?
I'd also rather have my money in a German bank.
I could go on and on...
Go and live out there then, matey. :roll:
Not the rolleyes...not the rolleyes. I'll be weeping into my pillow tonight with the loss of your approbation.
I do apologise for the rolleyes, it was a bit harsh, wasn't it ? Actually I do concur with modern Germany, I lived there for 5 years, very clean and nice. Awesome kebabs too, Gyros with fluffy bread and beautiful herby lamb......sorry, tangent over.
Much appreciated. No offence taken. Where did you live in Germany?
Osnabruck.
The armpit of the world. How I pity you. I went there once and was very glad I was in Herford. I thought where I was was bad until I went there.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm Gyros the only good thing I ever mention about when talking about Germany and its not even German. I tried really hard to enjoy Germany and get to like it. However the local popu;lation ensured that were treated as a second class citizen. Now I know that as an occupying force we were not wanted, but the locals were the biggest bunch of arses I've ever met.Bianchi. There are no alternatives only compromises!
I RIDE A KONA CADABRA -would you like to come and have a play with my magic link?0 -
I think the Vietnamese were justified in going to war against the Americans!0
-
Napoleonic wars trying to stop another maniac dictator taking over Europe in the name of the people,
Ah, there was me thinking that they were fought by two countries intent on world domination trying to stop the other taking their "market share".
The strange thing in history is how many countries switch sides e.g. Spain in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia and Italy in WW2.0 -
Pross wrote:The strange thing in history is how many countries switch sides e.g. Spain in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia and Italy in WW2.
Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.
But then I suspect you knew that and wanted to make another point when somebody picked up on it... go on then, the floor's all yours.0 -
Why is it strange?
Well surely if you feel so strongly about an issue you decide to fight a war over it then you should continue to fight for those beliefs rather than jumping ship when you see what's coming? Particularly strange for the Russians to team up with the Nazis when they are at completely the opposite sides of the political spectrum or is it a case of them being so far apart that they were nearly full circle?Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.
Italy demonstrated their opposition to Nazi expansion by their King inviting a facist to form a government and the country sitting by as he made the country a dictatorship and basically following the same principles as Nazism in Germany. So both these countries took an "if you can't beat them join them" principle because their former 'allies' were no good only to then rejoin the same 'allies' when they were looking like being the winning team. Nice to have such solid idiology!0 -
Pross wrote:Why is it strange?
Well surely if you feel so strongly about an issue you decide to fight a war over it then you should continue to fight for those beliefs rather than jumping ship when you see what's coming? Particularly strange for the Russians to team up with the Nazis when they are at completely the opposite sides of the political spectrum or is it a case of them being so far apart that they were nearly full circle?
I think you're looking there at both Hitler and Stalin being equally cynical. The agreement between them was essentially a carve up of Eastern Europe to avoid a war between the two. It only crumbled when the Germans invaded Russia in 1941."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Pross wrote:Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.
Italy demonstrated their opposition to Nazi expansion by their King inviting a facist to form a government and the country sitting by as he made the country a dictatorship and basically following the same principles as Nazism in Germany. So both these countries took an "if you can't beat them join them" principle because their former 'allies' were no good only to then rejoin the same 'allies' when they were looking like being the winning team. Nice to have such solid idiology!
Well, seeing as Mussolini became leader of Italy a full 11 years sooner than Hitler, I'd say that the policy of fascism was not really implemented with Germany in mind at all.
Mussolini resisted early Nazi attempts at expansionism into Austria, and sought common defence agreements with Britain and France, before eventually realising that Britain and France could not be trusted - as the Czechs found out later on.
Same with USSR. Stalin may have hated Hitler, and tried to organise common defence of Czechoslovakia in 1938, but if you were in his place, would you have trusted the British and the French? I know I certainly wouldn't.
BTW I'm not defending either man, I despise the ideologies of fascism and Stalinism.0 -
Well, seeing as Mussolini became leader of Italy a full 11 years sooner than Hitler, I'd say that the policy of fascism was not really implemented with Germany in mind at all.
I didn't say it was but once Hitler came to power Mussolini gradually increased his co-operation with Nazi policies. His attempts to stop Hitler's expansion into Austria was self-preservation which is what my initial comments alluded to, he tried to run with the fox and the hound and ended up in a pact with Hitler for his own self-preservation and Italy then reversed this when they saw the way the tide was turning. My initial point was that if you are fighting for idiological reasons then you can't really justify switching sides surely (unless you overthrow the original decision maker which I suppose is the case with the Italians).0 -
Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:dmclite wrote:Gotte wrote:fast as fupp wrote:only if its against them germans
Nowadays, I think we'd be better off if we went to war and they won. Have you ever cycled in Germany, or seen the education a German chilld gets, or been to a German hospital? or taken your kids to a German park?
I'd also rather have my money in a German bank.
I could go on and on...
Go and live out there then, matey. :roll:
Not the rolleyes...not the rolleyes. I'll be weeping into my pillow tonight with the loss of your approbation.
I do apologise for the rolleyes, it was a bit harsh, wasn't it ? Actually I do concur with modern Germany, I lived there for 5 years, very clean and nice. Awesome kebabs too, Gyros with fluffy bread and beautiful herby lamb......sorry, tangent over.
Much appreciated. No offence taken. Where did you live in Germany?
Osnabruck.
The armpit of the world. How I pity you. I went there once and was very glad I was in Herford. I thought where I was was bad until I went there.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm Gyros the only good thing I ever mention about when talking about Germany and its not even German. I tried really hard to enjoy Germany and get to like it. However the local popu;lation ensured that were treated as a second class citizen. Now I know that as an occupying force we were not wanted, but the locals were the biggest bunch of arses I've ever met.
Armpit ? I beg to differ, I learned some German, managed to get a nice german girlfriend, (Nicole, blonde) and went to bars in the old town. Never treated like a second rate citizen, I found if you were polite, made an effort with the language and didn't behave like a dessie booted idiot every time you went on the lash you got on alright. I was in roberts barracks, 25 Engr RE, used to walk downtown, have a beer and pizza in marios and then end up in the Green hunter or the sweibel bar. Went ot Broadways, but full of loons and munters. I liked it there, used to go all over at the weekend, Amsterdam, france and hannover. Good Times, 1988-1991.0 -
Pross wrote:Well, seeing as Mussolini became leader of Italy a full 11 years sooner than Hitler, I'd say that the policy of fascism was not really implemented with Germany in mind at all.
I didn't say it was but once Hitler came to power Mussolini gradually increased his co-operation with Nazi policies. His attempts to stop Hitler's expansion into Austria was self-preservation which is what my initial comments alluded to, he tried to run with the fox and the hound and ended up in a pact with Hitler for his own self-preservation and Italy then reversed this when they saw the way the tide was turning. My initial point was that if you are fighting for idiological reasons then you can't really justify switching sides surely (unless you overthrow the original decision maker which I suppose is the case with the Italians).
OK, I get you - you're just reinforcing the point that there is no question of morality/ideology in war?
Well, I agree as I'm sure everyone else does.0 -
Just a thought.
While it's all well and good talking about Hitler this and Stalin that, it takes more than just a chap whose in charge to make it happen! You need everyone else involved in the war to make it happen. If most people were opposed (even in a police state!) it probably wouldn't happen.
Let's have a bit of soft revisionism here. It's not just big men in rooms standing over maps. It's a big complex fabric, of which the big men are certainly a part, but by no means the only part!
In the case of why switch (or not), it's probably in part to do with the said nation's attitude to war, it's political and ideological make-up, it's process of gearing up for war, it's history of feelnigs towards other nations, the make up of the population, etc etc etc.
To take a hypothetical example, if Mussolini wanted to change sides, but the common Italian wasn't keen on donig so, there's not much il Duce could do about it.
It's never simple in history!!
And don't shoot me Johnfich, there's not a whif of post - anything here!
I still find it odd that in many of the posts, a war isn't considered a war untill Britain joins. There was most definitely a war going on before the UK decided to declare war on Germany (in aid of Poland), so the war already wasn't just. Had Germany and Italy not invaded most of Western and Eastern Europe, the war would not have existed. Thus WW2 is not a just war, in the sense that it shouldn't have been a war in the first place.
The UK entry into the war can be easily argued to be just, but the war itself cannot. The same goes for the other examples given.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:Just a thought.
While it's all well and good talking about Hitler this and Stalin that, it takes more than just a chap whose in charge to make it happen! You need everyone else involved in the war to make it happen. If most people were opposed (even in a police state!) it probably wouldn't happen.
Let's have a bit of soft revisionism here. It's not just big men in rooms standing over maps. It's a big complex fabric, of which the big men are certainly a part, but by no means the only part!
In the case of why switch (or not), it's probably in part to do with the said nation's attitude to war, it's political and ideological make-up, it's process of gearing up for war, it's history of feelnigs towards other nations, the make up of the population, etc etc etc.
To take a hypothetical example, if Mussolini wanted to change sides, but the common Italian wasn't keen on donig so, there's not much il Duce could do about it.
It's never simple in history!!
And don't shoot me Johnfich, there's not a whif of post - anything here!
I still find it odd that in many of the posts, a war isn't considered a war untill Britain joins. There was most definitely a war going on before the UK decided to declare war on Germany (in aid of Poland), so the war already wasn't just. Had Germany and Italy not invaded most of Western and Eastern Europe, the war would not have existed. Thus WW2 is not a just war, in the sense that it shouldn't have been a war in the first place.
The UK entry into the war can be easily argued to be just, but the war itself cannot. The same goes for the other examples given.
Seems today in UK a lot of people are opposed or just confused by the war in Afghanistan. It is happening and the big top boys are ignoring all the little people, business as usual.0
