Is Offensive War Ever Justified?

[David Floyd]

In yet another spin-off from another thread, I have another question/topic for discussion.

Is it ever justified to fight an aggressive, offensive war?

I say that no, it is not. Even if the nation we are invading is absolutely immoral, it is still wrong to force people who don't necessarily agree to fund the war or to fight it. Further, I believe that it is murder to be the first person to kill in war, so in that sense, offensive war is mass murder.

[Asher]

When a nation commences in ethnic cleansing, an aggressive, offensive war is certainly justified by the international community.

*whacks the mole*

[DinoDoc]

Re: Is Offensive War Ever Justified?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is it ever justified to fight an aggressive, offensive war?

It depends.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It could only be if the second party broke a deal that you both agreed to.

[statusperfect]

Offense is the best defense

[Pekka]

In general? No.. but there are few scenarios where war could be possibility as aggressive maneuver.

[SlowwHand]

I find it hard to picture you standing flat-footed while someone flattens your nose, David.
Sometimes the inevitable, is inevitable.
You strike back, whether your nose is mush or not.

[orange]

Sloww - that's not an offensive war...

I am against single nation offensive wars, but feel that action through the UN is fine.

[SlowwHand]

Yes it is, orange. Same as what David is trying to lay the groundwork for in this, another whine thread.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well in my opininon you have to have a pretext to war.

And today we have the UN and the security council. So until everyone agrees there should be no offensive war. In the case of Iraq, you have to find that they have broken the deal (ie... that they have WOMDs) and than that they are still unwilling to let go. (do not let the weapons inspectors disarm the weapons and continue work). Well then you have to ask Saddam or the regime to go out politely (which they will most likely refuse), get everyone to agree that this is unacceptable in UN - which shouldn't be hard at that stage, and attck as last resort action.

Well it doesn't seem to me that the US is going that route at all. They are more attack first think later... few thousand dead more or less... that was never an issue anyway.

[SlowwHand]

It's not really on the offensive, as it's instigated; but to argue using David's attitude and reference, one must call it on the offensive.

[Az]

Yes it is justified, If the happiness that the consequence of the war is bigger than the suffering of the war.

[chequita guevara]

It depends. If allegations of Serbian genocide against Albanian Kosovars had been true, the war would have been justified, IMO. Fortunately, and unfortunately, there was no genocide in Kosovo (I say unfortunately because that means we waged a war against the Yugoslav people for no good reason).

Offensive war can also be justified if you are overthrowing a puppet state errected of part of your territory, as both the North Koreans and North Vietnamese tried to do (on in the later case, succeeded). The Union was certainly justified in attacking the Confederacy.

[SlowwHand]

That's EXACTLY right, Che.
What's often ignored is that both South Korea and South Viet Nam were distintly different countries from their Northern counterparts.

[chequita guevara]

Me thinks you misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both cases, the war waged by the North against the South was justified, as the Northern states were indigenous states, while the Southern ones were created by and propped up by outsiders. Of course, after more than fifty years, today the DPRK would be unjustified in trying to overthrown the RoK, especially as the RoK has finally became semi-democratic.