No war in particuler, but do you think war can ever be justified?
What if we are attacked? What if we attack for the better of the country?
So many people say that war is never justified, but I disagree.
Whats your thoughts?

No multiple choice?

I noticed that after, but I dont think theres a way to edit the poll.
Sorry :/
ANSWER THE SELECTIONS THAT SAY "OTHER" IF THEIR ARE MULTIPLE THAT YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR AND EXPLAIN IN THREAD

I'd say that if your land was being attacked by another land then you should have the right to defend yourself.

Many wars are only manufactured by arms dealers so they can make lots of money for themselves.

Another reason is to put fear into people so they will do as they are told or else they get sent away to a war.

So there are justifications for wars but not all of the time.

I'd say that if your land was being attacked by another land then you should have the right to defend yourself.

Many wars are only manufactured by arms dealers so they can make lots of money for themselves.

Another reason is to put fear into people so they will do as they are told or else they get sent away to a war.

So there are justifications for wars but not all of the time.

agreed.

I do not consider it to be "war" to intervene on behalf of human rights.

I do not consider it to be "war" to intervene on behalf of human rights.

Any act of strong disagrement between one or more living things can be considered war.
War can even be acted upon yourself.
War ussaly ends in violent attempts of domantion, but it doenst have to be.

I think war is justified if it's used as a means to defend against extortion or other injustice. What is not justified is when we use war as tool to commit extortion or other injustice against others.

If a bully walks up to you and demands your lunch money, saying he'll hurt you if you don't concede, then (if you can), it is your civic duty to beat the shit out of him. Otherwise, he's just going to go do it to someone else.

Terrorism always takes exactly this form. "You do X for us, or Y will happen to you."

The pacifist response is to refuse to give the bully what they want, and then just let the bully beat you up for it. (But still not concede.) The trouble is that, if you go that road, the bully eventually starts using methods that put you in the hospital or kill you.

The intermediate response is to refuse, then only engage in the minimal amount of fighting necessary to defend yourself. Maybe they pull out a club, and you just block and/or dodge all of their attacks until they get tired of swinging. Trouble with that tactic is eventually the bully will get the idea to ambush you with some friends, or kill you in your sleep, or they might just get lucky after they try enough times. It's a supreme form of arrogance to think that you can win a purely defensive war without inflicting any harm on your enemies. Besides, the other problem is that they'll never stop bothering you, unless it costs them something.

its ****ed up that kides in this world ar in war. Its ****ed up that kids have to try to cope with this bull ****. So how are we going to deal with it.if we cant even deal with are own ****. So what are we going to do. Just drop a nuke on them what. please email back.

I think the problem with most wars in this world is that they are not attempts to institute social justice. The one war I can be sure was justified would be the American Revolutionary War fought against Great Britain. Without it, the USA would have not have become a democracy.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars claim justification in a similar way, but apparently the people there don't want us to intervene in the way we're doing it, and/or we are failing in our objective anyway, so we might need to call it off.

All war is justified!
By someone, somewhere, for something...

I think being physically attacked, preferably in a direct invasion, is the one true justification for war. Period.
One exception is if you have a legitimate ongoing treaty/relationship with a country AKA a true alliance of some sort.
And the caveat there would be if the ally had been attacked. And the ally had not blatantly provoked the attack.
Of course a second caveat would be NOT to enter such a treaty with just any country, including but not limited to countries with a history of troublemaking or provocateuring.
Choose your allies wisely! Such as a country who also believes in the above.
Peace at all costs.
Only attack when in defense.
No hasty preemptive air strikes in another country based on this or that intelligence reporting.

Oh, yeah... no staging some event to make it look like the other side. False-flag. Unfortunately, the suspicious clues indicating such an attack only come out after a hasty retaliation, when it is too late to halt an escalation to war. But that's just my opinion... oh! Conspiracies... :rolleyes:


I do not consider it to be "war" to intervene on behalf of human rights.

Well, shiver me timbers! :xctd:
Every damn country should be at war, then? I'll go get my slingshot! Mexico's first. Then I'll be in Canada in a week. And then... garsh. Probably Belgium. Then Iraq. Then Israel. Then Iran. Then South Africa. Then back to the US. And then Denmark. Then the UK...

I'll probably take shore-leave after that.

If you can make a financial profit from it such as America supplying jobs to many of its government workers and contractors, or the arms industry making money selling guns and bullets I can see why war would be an attractive option.

For most of us I suspect we'd rather live in peace and if we had our choice the money for war would be spent fixing pot holes in Omaha.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I will say that wars are natural. It is nature's way to limit overpopulation. Justification for it is really irrelevant...

Just look at any predator species. What happens to them when they get too big in numbers? They either die of starvation or they fight for hunting land, eventually reducing their numbers. Same with humans...

...and before some idiot says that peacefully everyone could have enough food, no, EVERY land has a carrying capacity and peacefully (without any population controll) sooner or later we would always surpass that with all these advantages in medicine and such...

Anyone can give reasons for going to war, but does that really justify it? Humans lie, cheat, steal, deceive, and use violence from infancy. War is a natural part of humanity. Peace is learned, not war.

Read Mahabharat. It explains the reason to go to war that is just. Human philosophy has not changed since, in any measurable way.

Read Mahabharat.

Lemme guess: women, land, food, resources, jealousy, greed, etc.etc.etc.

More interesting question would be, why we shouldn't be waring all the time???

Read and find out....:)

I don't read dead people's books. After all, they are dead for a reason...

Just to play the devil's advocate, I will say that wars are natural. It is nature's way to limit overpopulation. Justification for it is really irrelevant...

Just look at any predator species. What happens to them when they get too big in numbers? They either die of starvation or they fight for hunting land, eventually reducing their numbers. Same with humans...

...and before some idiot says that peacefully everyone could have enough food, no, EVERY land has a carrying capacity and peacefully (without any population controll) sooner or later we would always surpass that with all these advantages in medicine and such...

Your post is Malthusian in nature.

This may be a good practice in the US.

I have run the numbers from here
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

by 2050
A total of 85 million will be on the free public health care system paid for by everyone else.
65 million will be on welfare, food stamps, headstart, aid to dependent families, EIC, etc, etc.

You know why?

The poor out-breed everyone else and then expect others to pay for their children.

They consider these payments a "right".

We have no natural mechanisms to control this over breeding.

peacefully (without any population controll) sooner or later we would always surpass that with all these advantages in medicine and such...

so use population control.


Anyone can give reasons for going to war, but does that really justify it? Humans lie, cheat, steal, deceive, and use violence from infancy. War is a natural part of humanity. Peace is learned, not war.

whether its natural or not, i think people conduct or enforce many types of behaviour that aren't natural.

so use population control.

War IS a population control. No dead man ever made love to another human... And actually killing of women is a more effective way of controlling population....

War IS a population control. No dead man ever made love to another human...

but they have had love made to them

We have no natural mechanisms to control this over breeding.

That is correct. All the human and PC birth control methods don't work. The Chinese system actually worked but we look at them as human right trespassers and they are still growing as a nation just with a smaller pace. Not to mention they have an artifical man surplus.

Hey, I know a method that decimates males!!! It is called war....

That is correct. All the human and PC birth control methods don't work. The Chinese system actually worked but we look at them as human right trespassers and they are still growing as a nation just with a smaller pace. Not to mention they have an artifical man surplus.

Hey, I know a method that decimates males!!! It is called war....

Well, given the fact that women are also in war, that implies it is equal decimation.

I am sorry, but I do not see it as a human right for someone to have children they cannot pay for and then ask me to pay.

Well, given the fact that women are also in war, that implies it is equal decimation.

In modern wars it can be, but generally more men died in wars then females, which is fine since less male are needed to maintain the same population.


I am sorry, but I do not see it as a human right for someone to have children they cannot pay for and then ask me to pay.

it never held back people from having children....

http://fruitfly.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/redneck.jpg

In modern wars it can be, but generally more men died in wars then females, which is fine since less male are needed to maintain the same population.



it never held back people from having children....

http://fruitfly.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/redneck.jpg

Wow, is this a picture of you and one of your family reunions?

The water is a little muddy. I'll bet the family has to git out of the water quick with the leaches and all.

joke

It is called muddiving for a reason...

Anyone can give reasons for going to war, but does that really justify it? Humans lie, cheat, steal, deceive, and use violence from infancy. War is a natural part of humanity. Peace is learned, not war.

I have to concur with this, mostly. On an individual level, I try to practice pacifism in personal conflicts. In a more broad sense, say on a national level, war is justified in self-defense. I would consider a man like Hitler and his actions a justifiable reason to go to war; if he had not been forcefully stopped, his evil would have continued to spread throughout Europe and perhaps the world. With that said, I believe that as man evolves, the species will tend towards cooperation and peace, not heightened conflict.

I tend to make a distinction between wars of defence and wars of NOT defence

Simplest example: Indian soldiers killing, raping, torturing Kashmiris = NOT defence. Indian soldiers protecting borders from enemy invasion = defence.

Ultimately though, I think wars serve political power and not peoples interests. Borders are as artificial as our need to defend them. Ultimately, the invaders too are paid cannon fodder for some political agenda and have more in common with the people they kill than those who send them to kill and be killed. When the bad guy is defined by which side of a fence you are on, it may be time to consider removing the fence altogether.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I will say that wars are natural. It is nature's way to limit overpopulation. Justification for it is really irrelevant...

Just look at any predator species. What happens to them when they get too big in numbers? They either die of starvation or they fight for hunting land, eventually reducing their numbers. Same with humans...

...and before some idiot says that peacefully everyone could have enough food, no, EVERY land has a carrying capacity and peacefully (without any population controll) sooner or later we would always surpass that with all these advantages in medicine and such...

I agree that it is natural, probably a trait we got from our own evolution process, but nuclear bombs are not a natural situation. Natural behavior only makes sense when you are in the natural environment for which it was designed.


Lemme guess: women, land, food, resources, jealousy, greed, etc.etc.etc.

More interesting question would be, why we shouldn't be waring all the time???

Because nuclear weapons would absolutely certainly be brought into the fray.


Your post is Malthusian in nature.

This may be a good practice in the US.

I have run the numbers from here
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

by 2050
A total of 85 million will be on the free public health care system paid for by everyone else.
65 million will be on welfare, food stamps, headstart, aid to dependent families, EIC, etc, etc.

You know why?

The poor out-breed everyone else and then expect others to pay for their children.

They consider these payments a "right".

We have no natural mechanisms to control this over breeding.

I think we're afraid of marginalizing any one group now, because war has become like a bunch of fighters gathered together in a sealed basement, each with a sword in one hand and a hand grenade in the other.

The trick is figuring out how to square off and kill each other with the swords, but without any of the losers deciding to throw their grenades out of desperation when the battle starts going against them.

We should declare war on any country that has a literacy rate of lower than 70%, especially if people from that country visit the USA and declare Americans to be "stupid" because they encountered different customs and norms from what they are used to. If the US were to declare war on such a country, I would gladly fire the first shot.

However, I will not assign a word that is rooted in the meaning, "confusion," to a calculated military procedure that is designed around the principle of causing as few casualties as possible. If we were referring to a prolonged string of military engagements that resulted in more destruction than necessary for the errand for which they were intended, then I would call it "war."

My view is that war sucks, but is sometimes necessary because there are things that suck even worse than war.

Personally, I don't think that war is morally defensible unless you're responding to an attack or a credible threat of attack.

My view is that war sucks, but is sometimes necessary because there are things that suck even worse than war.

Personally, I don't think that war is morally defensible unless you're responding to an attack or a credible threat of attack.

agreed, war does suck, but it is needed at times. Hell, if we wouldnt of gone to war with Nazi Germany and Japan we would probably be speaking German about our great dictator.

We should declare war on any country that has a literacy rate of lower than 70%, especially if people from that country visit the USA and declare Americans to be "stupid" because they encountered different customs and norms from what they are used to. If the US were to declare war on such a country, I would gladly fire the first shot.

However, I will not assign a word that is rooted in the meaning, "confusion," to a calculated military procedure that is designed around the principle of causing as few casualties as possible. If we were referring to a prolonged string of military engagements that resulted in more destruction than necessary for the errand for which they were intended, then I would call it "war."

I hope that the admins see that im not being insulting when I say this, but that was one of the stupidest, immature, and irresponsible things I have ever read. I mean please tell me you were kidding? Thats called genocide. I think you really need to rethink what your views on everything are. You posted very hateful things on my thread about gay rights, about how "homophobes" need to die. Stop being so hateful dude.

I hope that the admins see that im not being insulting when I say this, but that was one of the stupidest, immature, and irresponsible things I have ever read. I mean please tell me you were kidding? Thats called genocide. I think you really need to rethink what your views on everything are. You posted very hateful things on my thread about gay rights, about how "homophobes" need to die. Stop being so hateful dude.


He wasn't talking about eradicating them. The #1 best justification for war that I can think of is a war to remove a failed, or unpopular government and then install a new and better one. For example: The American Revolutionary War.

If a country has a literacy rate lower than 70%, that's a failure on the part of their government. That government should be forcibly removed and replaced with a better one that will put a higher priority on education.

He wasn't talking about eradicating them. The #1 best justification for war that I can think of is a war to remove a failed, or unpopular government and then install a new and better one. For example: The American Revolutionary War.

If a country has a literacy rate lower than 70%, that's a failure on the part of their government. That government should be forcibly removed and replaced with a better one that will put a higher priority on education.

So its another countries responisblty to govern another? Many countries see Americas government a failuar so should they come replace our government?

agreed, war does suck, but it is needed at times. Hell, if we wouldnt of gone to war with Nazi Germany and Japan we would probably be speaking German about our great dictator.

Things didnt work out too well for Mussolini.

War is the continuation of politics through other means.

(Clausewitz)