ForumGarden

Have a look at the history of some of the religious wars fought in europe for real confusion. Both sides were "just" and fought in the name of religon. It's when religon and ecomomics get mixed in that things get really vicious. You can also find an economic reason behind most wars as well if you look hard enough, struggles for power dressed up in the morality of the day with the justification being used to persuade people to fight for a cause.

Or how about your own civil war (Iassume you are american) was that a just war or were the reasons economic or was it a mixture of both. Both sides believed in the justice of their cause, who was right, were the protagonists manipulated. What is it that makes men stand up facing each other with muskets and kill or be killed.

In older times things were simpler it was tribe against tribe in a brutal battle for survival, were those wars just, what made one more warlike than another? Or consider just flat out empire building, you can see what the rulers got out of it, but what made the ordinary soldier fight? Plunder yes but where there was no plunder to gain.

Had a look for the book you mentioned this was one of the links.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_justwar.html

from the article

We need to look carefully at the kinds of war being fought today, especially with the development of new and more sinister technological weaponry. We need to ask who decides on whether war is declared - and why? Ordinary people don’t get asked whether they think a war is just - they get told by a so-called ‘legitimate’ authority. The notion of ‘just’ implies a sense of justice. Can we have a full sense of justice where killing is involved? Conflict resolution means expanding justice through achieving a situation in which all parties can speak of their needs and values together. Gandhi maintained that nonviolent campaigns are an effort to find the truth of the situation through struggle. The truth of the situation entails the justice of the situation.


Have a gander at these, only comment i would make is who decides when war is just? Be wary of people who have the answers.

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/toffler.html

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/inde ... t_id=10145

The Hitler/Bush question does give me pause.

The only defense, in my mind, for killing is self-defense and then only if the attack will not stop short of death. Then can we consider ourselves "good" people if we say "Well, he's not trying to kill me so it's not my problem." If someone asks for help, do we say no? What if they are unable to ask for help? But then, are we declaring war or are we merely defending against the war actions of another?

What is a non-violent defense against an individual or state that does take war action? When do we consider it self defense and when does the retaliation become warful action on behalf of the defenders?

I am not a supporter of war. But I am a supporter of self defense. I kinda think if Bush wants to "help" Iraq he should go there himself along with anyone else who wishes to help and ask them if they need assistance. If someone shoots at him. Shoot back. Just make sure his aim is true.

posted by gnr2

So, essentially i want to know, how is a war legtitimate, acceptable and perhaps even "legal" and if these criteria are met is it infact "just"??


look at it this way, under what circumstances would you be prepared tp go to war yourself, i.e. put yourself in harms way for the defence of your country?

WW1 all sides thought their side was just, ww2 the same liebensrum was a just cause to those involved nazis or not and many were happy to go along with it. so were the british wars of empire legitimate and justified to many at the time, its only in retrospect we judge them as wrong.

Both sides in iraq think their cause is just. The terrorists thought their cause was just and the means justified, GW thinks his cause is just and the means justified. Actually i don't think the terrorists are right or just but you could level the same charge at the western powers to some degree as well. a hundred years from now you might be able to look back and come to some concluscion.

I think it's something each generation has to work out for itself.