'Just War'

[Naur]

I've been reading through a lot of the topics here and something has been sort of tugging at the back of my mind.  Is it possible to wage a 'Just' or 'Righteous' War?
I have long thought that WWII was a 'Just' War,  but that also clashes with the belief of many that there is no reason to kill, ever.   how does this dovetail with certain religious questions.  Can a Christian wage war?  i have heard of something called 'The Soldiers Dilemma' specifically in regards to the commandment, though shalt not kill.   Does it mean though shalt not kill or though shalt not commit murder. is there a difference on the battlefield? 

give me your thoughts. 

[Larry]

I had to Google some of this stuff, because it's been years since I learnt it, but St Thomas Aquinas said that there are three conditions for a just war. It must be started and controlled by the authority of state or ruler, there must be a just cause (eg. self-defence), and it must be for good, or against evil. The church later added that a just war must be a last resort and must be fought proportionally (ie. no more force than necessary).

I personally don't believe that war can ever be justified. Whichever way you look at it, you're still killing thousands of people for personal gain. I agree with the two points that war should only be fought for self-defence and only when no other options are available.

[Solnath]

How was WW II a "just" war? If it was one, all others are as well and the term has no value.

As it has been said, "Thou shalt try really, really hard not to kill anyone... unless they pray to a different invisible man in the sky than you do."

[The Abode]

it's hard to tell whether any war is just. There are always arguments to both sides.

More important is the question: is standing by and be pacifist more unjust than fighting?

The answer to that question is different for every occasion and every involved nation. WWII may not have been just, but there were so many involved for so many reasons, it's hard to make a statement about justification at all.

Standing by while a fascist regime rapes a continent and systematically kills millions: saying war is unjust and thereby doing remaining neutral could very well be considered worse that war itself.

[The Empire]

I belive that war can only be warranted if it's purely defencive. As such, a war ceases to be just the second your forces crosses your own borders as they are then taking up an offencive role. Thus, a "preemptive" strike is always unjust and illegal regardless of any percived threats, real or imaginary.
At the same time, armed intervention can be justified on the purpose of one's forces acting as armed human shields to civilian populations caught between indiscriminate opponents and thus forcing a cessation of hostilities.

[Stillwaters]

I think I bring a slightly different world view to the debate. I am a Christian and spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. For me, there is no moral issue with taking a life during a war. I can argue the point from several Biblical directions. But, it is all summed up that the English translation of the Hebrew sometimes is lacking. The Commandment (or word) would be more accurately translated as 'Thou shalt not murder'. Meaning that in self defense or a time of war, there is no prohibition against taking life.

Aquinas' definition of a just war is based on sound reasoning, but I do not fully buy off on it. By his logic the American Revolution was not just, and I would argue that point to the grave. My personal definition of a just war is much different. The first stipulation is simple. "Is mankind as a whole in a better position because of the war?" If the answer is yes, it leads to the second question: "Is there a valid means to accomplish the goal without a war?" If the answer is no, the war is just.

I find pacifists are usually not acting on principle, but out of fear. You can argue any point from the Bible, but trying to claim war is wrong just doesn't work. If one reads the book of Joshua, it is impossible to claim that the Bible precludes war. Looking at the events of that book in light of Malachi 3:6 it is impossible to assert that war is always wrong. In Luke 22:36 Jesus said "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." That is not a pacifist Lord speaking.

As to WWII, it may possibly be the most just war of all time, particularly if you are a Christian or Jew. God's chosen people were being slaughtered by a madman. He was taking land and subjecting a wider population of Jews to torture and death. He had a stated goal of ruling the world, and we all know what the "final solution" was. In Genesis 12:3 God makes it clear that blessing Israel (meaning the people, not the country) will bring blessings. Cursing Israel will bring curses. Matthew 25:32 and Joel 3:2 further speak to those that support Israel or cause it harm. If you look at it from a non-religious stand, how is it not just to go to war and save people from the horrors that were the death camps?

I may be in the minority here, but I believe every war the US has ever engaged in is a just war.



 

[The Abode]

Interesting points you make there, Stillwaters.

However, I'd like to reply to you by arguing that following your definition of a just war, I don't think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were just. Especially the latter.

In the case of Iraq, I always opposed that war. Not because I didn't want Saddam to be removed from power. Not because I didn't want to fight terrorists (although no ties with al quaeda were known). Not because I feared that a possible involvement of The Netherlands would kill our soldiers or increase the risk of retaliating bomb strikes.

But, because I strongly felt that mankind as a whole would NOT benefit from this war. Especially not the Iraqi people. I feared it would bring animosity and chaos to the land. That it would destabilise the whole region. That it would heighten tensions and violence between the different ethnic and religious groups. That the different islamic sects would polarize and become more extreme. That Jihad-warriors would jump in to recruit and train terrorists, and mingle in the fighting. That an already popular negative stance against the US and the West would turn to animosity and hatred.

Years later, the war in Iraq is far from won, and I think far from just. At least, not just, when I interpret it from your definition. Another person's definition might change the outcome of the equation.

[Stillwaters]

I strongly disagree with you assessment of the war in Iraq. There are no rape rooms, there are no prisons where hundred and thousands of people are held, tortured, and murdered. Children are getting their shots, girls are allowed to go to school, and the schools are not forced to teach lies to prop of Saddam. The average Iraqi is much better off than they were 5 years ago.

The war was just to remove Saddam alone. I will not, and actually cannot, get into all of the reasons leading up to the war. You can choose to believe there were no ties with al Queada or WMDs if you wish, and I will not argue with you. It is something that people have to examine for themselves. As long as you aren't just sitting back and taking the "glowing box's" word on what happened, it is fine with me.

As for Afghanistan, I am actually somewhat offended at the notion that it was not a just war. September 11, 2001 is a historical fact. Planes flew into the World Trade Center. An evil regime known as the Taliban was hiding the people responsible for the cowardly act of terrorism. The conditions people were forced to live in due to a perverted view of Islam kept women as mere slaves. Men could be killed for shaving. Women could be killed for going out in public without an escort. If you honestly believe that mankind isn't better off with those people out of power, I respectfully request that you look at the situation without a bias against the war effort or the current administration.

Iraq is debatable. But, I would answer the call in a second if I was needed there. Afghanistan is beyond debate as far as I can tell. I would have been horrified if they would have failed to invade and eliminate the Taliban/al Queada.

[The Abode]

I did name Afghanistan in my previous post, but mainly made my point with the Iraq war. So please don't be offended about Afghanistan, because I haven't outlaid my points about that issue.

Of course I believe that mankind is better of without the taliban in power.

But please note (and maybe i wasn't totally clear on this) that i made a very technical argument based on the definitions of 'just war'. Strictly following your definition (which may not be mine, i'm very indecided on matters of definition), I think it remains doubtful wether mankind (and not just the average Iraqi) was benefited with this war.

For Afghanistan I'd argue the same: I'm not saying the Taliban should have stayed in power, I'm glad they haven't. I'm not saying 911 shouldn't have been retributed. I was merely thinking wheter mankind was benefited.

I'd be happy to debate more with you on war topics, but maybe we should take that to another thread. Let's keep this on just/unjust definitions.

[Stillwaters]

I'd be happy to take it to a different thread, but I don't know if we've really gotten too far off topic.

As for mankind being better for not having Saddam and the Taliban in power or not- I believe that there is a net gain, therefore mankind is better off. There are three groups of people that are impacted by the war. The American service members (and allies), the terrorists/ba'athists, and the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American service members are doing what they want to be doing. I know hundreds of people that have deployed to the two warzones, an the vast majority are in favor of what we are doing. The innocents in Afghanistan are much better off than they were before. In Iraq the evil of the Saddam regime has been replaced by a danger of sectarian violence. In my mind, the threat they face now is less pervasive than the previous threat. As for the terrorists or Saddam loyalists (of which there are very few), I really don't care about their condition.

Thus, I find the two wars to be just by my definition. In my mind the only possible wars the U.S. has been involved in that could be unjust by my definition are Vietnam and Korea. However, my opinion of communists (as practiced by the Soviets and their satellites) is no higher than my opinion of a modern terrorist.   

Honestly, what I find unjust are the wars we don't fight. The situation in Darfur, the mutilation of young girls across the Muslim areas of Africa, the starvation of the people of North Korea are all things we should be involved in but are not. Inaction when you are needed is one of the biggest problems in my eyes, and it is something we've been guilty of far too many times.

[Delfos]

ah...well...hmmm...yes...maybe not...ok.

I believe this is more about points of view. I don't think it's possible for a 'just war' happen. There's always a slight detail that sparks it, that can be glued to reason.

For the above, everything is possible, but anything exists or happens for a reason, something like karma, but not exactly...karma is bound to fate/destiny, and i believe that the reasons are made in the present. Although that implies that they come from the past, so that's why it's like karma, and that's why it's not exactly like it. Very hard to explain, also very simple, and i don't want to explain.

About soldiers, i think soldiers are bound to rules, so that they do not have such personality of doubt. Soldiers with personality do not follow orders, but it is the way the human being is, i think it's the professionalism of a soldier to hide or not his personality. Anyway, this can give him character, and the character is very important in a soldier, so therefore, every soldier is bound to have a special character for his missions or duties.

That's why things ain't so simple, it's not just right and wrong, black or white, good or evil. That's why most do not believe in an 'axis of evil' *laughs*. This are made simple to a soldier, he has to think of a greater good, he's right and the enemy is wrong, he's good and the enemy is evil..but it's not exactly like that. Most fight for survival, others fight for...what are Americans fighting in Iraq? nothing? well then it's as i said, it's a point of view, Americans fight 'just war', when the 'axis of evil' fights for survival. There's other reasons, I'm just spoiling a bit the  unreasonable belligerence side of USA (and for god sake, i mean the nation or the nation army or whatever you want it to mean, i do not mean the people that live in, ofc you're part of it, but that's your problem, Bush owns you)

[Myroria]

Bush does not own us. Contrary to liberal belief, you cannot impeach someone unless he's done something illegal. Bush himself has not done anything illegal. Hell, Karl Rove is more of a criminal than Bush. We can't impeach Bush just because we don't like him. But just not being able to get rid of him does not make us "owned".

[Khablan]

i do not mean the people that live in, ofc you're part of it, but that's your problem, Bush owns you)

Ah, but Bush does not own me.  He is like the lousy tenant that we have to go through red tape to evict.  His time is fast approaching when he'll have to step down.  In the meantime, we protest against his policies and demand that our government officials do all they can to stop him from causing further damage.  One would hope that the next president will do better than this one.  Not to take issue with what you said, Delfos, but I just wanted to clarify it.

I agree.  Right and wrong, just and unjust, is no simple thing.  There is no true answer to that.  There will always be wars that are just in the eyes of those who wage them, just as those who oppose them will believe them to be unjust.  It is purely a subjective opinion.

Truth is not an absolute, where there is only one right answer.  Think of a sheet of paper.  I stand on one corner, "my" corner of the truth.  I see things from my own perspective; my experiences, what I "know" to be true.  You stand on the opposite corner, "your" corner of the truth, where your experiences may be vastly different than mine, what you "know" may be the opposite of what I "know".  Yet we both speak the truth as we know it.

If you ask the union why they're striking, they might answer that the company is hiring non-union workers - they're putting the union workers out of a job because they can hire non-union to work at minimum wage.  If you ask the company about that, they might answer that they have to hire some non-union workers in order to keep costs down, otherwise they can't be competitive in the market, and their company will fold.  Who's lying?  Maybe neither.  The union sees things from their corner of the truth.  The company sees things from theirs.

Nearly everyone would come up with at least a short list of what would constitute a "just" war.  Much of it would be similar from one list to another.  Still, it is not hard at all for a government to convince its people that a war is necessary, either for its own good, or for the good of some other people who are being oppressed.  It is no simple thing for the common man to know whether they're getting the full picture from what they're told.  I stand in my corner of the truth.  You stand in yours.  Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the whole truth.  Perhaps not.  But the people who stand in complete opposition to each other believe completely that theirs is the "right" view.

[Barceleroth]

Stillwaters: Way to go, brother.  The only thing I can disagree with you on is our involvement in Korea; the country was being invaded by the communist Russian puppet government in N. Korea, the brand-new U.N. and the ideals won by WWII were being challenged in such a serious scale for the first time.  It would have been a tragedy if we had stood by and watched South Korea be snuffed out of existence.  I believe it was a just war, absolutely.

Delfos: Pull your head out of your ass, President Bush doesn't "own" anyone, you knucklehead.  Unlike some countries, our politicians are servants of the people, called, and recalled, at our will.  


When you want to assess whether a war is "just" or "unjust", you have to consider its net gain.  I believe that it is absolutely possible for a war to be 'just.'  I don't see how anyone can't.  Most wars are always provoked, whether for personal gain or whatnot.  Who are we to say it is wrong to defend one's self against such an attack?  Or should we just roll over and play dead, because it's "unjust?"  Come on people, I don't think you're looking at this realistically.  Check out the other options, why don't you, and then give an answer.  

WWII was the "good" fight if there ever was one: we stopped Hitler from permanently conquering half the world.  And I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant, but without U.S. intervention, France, the low countries, Russia, and most likely the entire globe would probably still be run by Nazis, (who would still be in existence, of course, I'm getting the feeling you're not considering that end of it), the Empire of Japan and a fascist Italy would still be would powers, unless Germany had taken those countries too, and the U.S., Britain, and the other free countries might have also fallen at a later date.  Not to mention that the Jewish race would be close to wiped out of existence.  So, if I were you Europeans, I'd shut my trap when it comes to telling Americans how "unjust" WWII was.  Honestly, it blows my mind that people would say such things...  You guys seem to think that everything would be exactly the way it is today, regardless of what happened in the past.  

I'm starting to think you guys needed a few more years with Hitler on top of you to smarten you up.

[Barceleroth]

Bush does not own us. Contrary to liberal belief, you cannot impeach someone unless he's done something illegal. Bush himself has not done anything illegal. Hell, Karl Rove is more of a criminal than Bush. We can't impeach Bush just because we don't like him. But just not being able to get rid of him does not make us "owned".

I'm not positive about the process for presidents, but, living in California, I recently witnessed former Gov. Grey Davis recalled, not because he did something illegal, but simply because the power who put him in office, namely the people, changed its mind when he continued to pile debt on the state economy.


And Abode, if you don't think removing the Taliban and Saddam from world politics was a benefit to mankind, what else do you need?  Do you want somebody to send you a check every month?  Would that make it a benefit to mankind?    Come on, get real, and call it what it is.