"Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 10:51 AM
RE: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
(15-11-2013 09:16 AM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Just wars defined for the purpose of this thread would be: handing over your body to an over arching authority (usually the state), to give you sanction and means to kill foreign people in order to prevent (foreign or domestic) people from being killed.

So, say, killing several thousand men, women, and children is some far off village, because it prevents similar or greater number of men, women, and children closer to your residence from being killed.

The position made in this thread is that it is never the case. And when it is, it's an abnormality.

There were some arguments made that, even if the wars aren't just, killing for money, or due to ignorance, is partially excusable. And also some sort of "just following orders" is an acceptable argument. Maybe we can get something better..

I think just about every war is a just war from one side's point of view.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2013 11:22 AM by ridethespiral.)
RE: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
So I agree with the OP for the most part, the one exception is that I don't cast blame on soldiers, they are no more to blame for their actions than the children of fundamentalists, indoctrinated in a culture of a war, hate, exeptionalism and what have you. A handful are natural born killers but most are just poor kids from the midwest or blacks and hispanics out of the inner city just looking to support themselves and get an education, fed lies and half truths by recruiters circling the inner city like vultures... and it is all too clear that war tears apart the good ones, the schism is palpable. I don't have a particularly high reverence for soldiers post the greatest generation/the Wolfowitz doctrine (more sympathy really) but I certainly don't hate them.

...No the blame lies solely with the engines of power and policy.

[Image: military-War-is-a-racket-quote-General-Butler.jpg]

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
15-11-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
(15-11-2013 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think just about every war is a just war from one side's point of view.

Very true.

Nobody goes about with a mindset of "let's do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons - what could go wrong with that?"

No one is the bad guy in their own minds. Up to and including the Nazis (LOL GODWIN - sorry, too much PJ lately).

War is a continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz said. By which he meant that it is a means of achieving goals. Most political actors would presumably think their own goals are just goals.

And besides - is not the defender in any engagement at least partially justified in their own defense?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
(15-11-2013 02:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 10:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think just about every war is a just war from one side's point of view.

Very true.

Nobody goes about with a mindset of "let's do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons - what could go wrong with that?"

No one is the bad guy in their own minds. Up to and including the Nazis (LOL GODWIN - sorry, too much PJ lately).

War is a continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz said. By which he meant that it is a means of achieving goals. Most political actors would presumably think their own goals are just goals.

And besides - is not the defender in any engagement at least partially justified in their own defense?

Good points, though I was primarily considering the view of the defender. It is unusual to have two aggressors, though not unheard of.

I'd really like to get cljr's views on this, too. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
Remember the scene in Borat when he's in the rodeo in front of an unsuspecting crowd and says "We hope you kill every Iraqi" and many in the crowd cheered this call to commit mass genocide and slaughter 33 million people who've done nothing to us? Such people have, imo, the same inclinations as any serial killer. The problem is that as civilians they would get derided as villains and given the electric chair if they indulged in their blood-lust fetish to kill people. Joining the military is the only obvious choice since it lets them give in to their violent urges, and yet they're treated as heroes and offered a paycheck. Kill a fellow American, you're a monster, kill someone who doesn't have a US passport, you're a hero.

Watch the video leaked by Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. If you listen to the audio alone, you'd think you're hearing some guys playing Mortal Kombat on X-Box. They're having a great time slaughtering a bunch of innocent people, laughing when they see the bodies keep moving, and goading each other "hit 'em again". There is not one ounce of remorse. And this doesn't appear to be a fringe, extreme case because nobody else in the Apache, nor the people in central command listening, seemed to find anything unusual about it.

If you genuinely believe that all people are equal, then, imo, it's hypocritical not to treat them the same way we would any other serial killers just because their victims are foreigners.

However, it's hard to generalize. There are obviously lots of decent, kind people who join the military genuinely believing they are making a sacrifice for their country.

As far as the war being "just", imo, in nearly all wars, one side is fighting a just war (those fighting in their home country to defend foreign invaders), and one side are heinous, violent monsters. _IF_ the US was attacked and Americans volunteered to sacrifice their lives to defend this homeland and protect their neighbors, THEN they are heroes imo. Sadly, though, out of all the US wars, the only time we've been attacked and fought defensively is Pearl Harbor and arguably 9/11. In most wars, like Iraq, the US is the attacker. And in such cases, the brave Iraqi's who stand up and risk their life to defend their homeland are heroes. It's absurd that when the soldier fighting an invader is on OUR side, he's a hero, but when he's on the OTHER side, he's a terrorist insurgent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:27 PM
Re: "Just wars are the exception, not the rule." Thoughts?
I would say obviously it's just for people to defend themselves if it's a logical scenario of their right. I wouldn't call that a just war since it's viewing one side.

I'm pondering if a just war is possible given some obscure scenario. My only idea right now is if there is a natural diaster that destroys two groups homes and they both try to flee to the same grounds for safety.

Obviously they could find peace which makes it hard to call them warring just, but if one group says eggs must be cracked thin side up and the other says crack them wide side up, fighting will commence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: