The primitives ability to ignore their own hypocrisy is astonishing.
JeffreyWilliamson Donating Member (704 posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:34 PM
Original message
Is there EVER a valid reason for a country to go to war?
This spirited conversation got me wondering, aside from a country being directly attacked by another, is there ever valid justification for a nation to go to war?
The rise of a global menace like Hitler? Brutal human rights violations and war crimes, such as the Holocaust? Neither of these situations involved the US being attacked by the Germans but I doubt anyone would seriously say that stopping the Nazis was wrong. If we had not been attacked by the Japanese, would it have become immoral for us to join that war, or would it always have been immoral for us to sit it out?
What about the American Revolution? Our people were oppressed to a degree, but nothing like we have seen in modern times. Was it wrong for the States to wage war on the British, or was it a nobel cause?
If terrorists operating under the support of one nation attack another, is the attacked nation justified in moving against the government sponsor?
Is there ever any situation where it becomes immoral to NOT stand up and do something, even if a nation has not personally been attacked, (the Holocaust example)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8142605
Over to your fellow inmates for discussion ...
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. yes
anyone who thinks war can always be avoided is naive. This doesn't mean it should be the first option though.
Just how many "options" did we give Saddam in the "race to war" again ?
Posteritatis (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. It should definitely be at/near the bottom of the options pile
(Short of a direct attack on a country or its allies, of course.)
It's too complicated an issue to just boil down to one universal answer from on high saying "no," not that there won't be a lot of that. I think it can be avoided a hell of a lot more often than it has been the last several decades, but I'm also a fan of R2P and don't believe there are situations that trump "I can do whatever I want to 'my' people in my borders." There's some governments on this planet which are simply an obscenity, as the Taliban were, and just like at the sub-national level there are going to be times occasionally where violence is the "best," or perhaps only, option to remedy or get clear of a situation.
Others will disagree, of course; I've always remembered a 'great' thread on here a few years ago where a few people were saying that the US should've stopped the Pacific offensive in WWII the moment the Battle of Midway was won. Takes all kinds, I guess.
It doesn't seem to be too complicated for many of your fellow inmates. Provided a Republican is in power the answer is "NO".
I wonder if we're going to continue to see acres of those ghastly "no war" posters that seem to pop up at leftist gatherings.
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Direct attack is the only reason I can think of
Anything else is at best a slippery slope, at worst a crime.
A direct attack. You mean like the direct attack on 9/11 ?
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Once again, he was appeased early on, which allowed him to march
But given that our allies were directly attacked, I believe this would still fall under my original conditions.
For example, if Canada or Mexico were directly attacked, I would support helping them defend themselves, in our own interests.
You have to read the thread to actually see that he's not talking about OBL and Al-Q.
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. In modern times, only if there is genocide going on
Going after Al Qaeda may seem justified, but "war" as a means of doing it doesn't seem quite right, IMO.
What are you suggesting ? That you can sit down with these people and negotiate with them? Are you insane ?
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-26-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. When it can accomplish certain clearly defined, historically, & mutually shared goals and when those
who fight have historically been and currently are Free/Aware enough to make fully informed decisions about any and all alternatives, past, present, and future.
Drugs. You are on them.
