Is War Ever Justified and What are the Aternatives?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good plan! Let's do nothing.

Let's make the USA an isolationist stronghold and see how long it is till the rest of the world comes whining for the USA to get involved somewhere.

When we do nothing, people complain.

When we act, people complain.

Conclusion - People will complain no matter what we do, so we're better off doing the best we can, with the cards we have.

Rocket science?

-=Vel=-

People complain when there are no grounds for acting, understand the big difference? No one said nothing during gulfwar1 since it was a legit war.

If the US acted when it was called for and with a good moral base to act upon, no one would complain, trust me. But you can't just meddle in every friggin world affair when you THINK you have the right to, and I don't understand why some of you fail to get the picture of why this pisses people off. If it one day happens that the US is on the receiving end, I sincerely doubt people like you will argue in favor of another's intervention in your own affairs.

Common sense?

[Sava]

If the US acted when it was called for and with a good moral base to act upon, no one would complain, trust me. But you can't just meddle in every friggin world affair when you THINK you have the right to, and I don't understand why some of you fail to get the picture of why this pisses people off. If it one day happens that the US is on the receiving end, I sincerely doubt people like you will argue in favor of another's intervention in your own affairs.

Well, let's be honest here. There are some hippie peaceniks that protest every military action, just and unjust alike. I fully supported the first Gulf War.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Sava

Well, let's be honest here. There are some hippie peaceniks that protest every military action, just and unjust alike. I fully supported the first Gulf War.

I did too. I still do. In that one it was Iraq the agressor, clear as crystal, and proof of how overwhelimingly in favor the world was that the UN acted very quickly to condemn it and a troops were sent from over a dozen countries. THAT's a coalition.


Hippie peaceniks have nothing better to do in life than to protest. What scares me is that right-wingers like many people in this forum who support military action just and unjust alike seen to come from all walks of life (but they share the same flag...)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
No one said nothing during gulfwar1 since it was a legit war.

Where did you get that idea from? che can tell you better than anyone that there was a popular anti-war movementbefore that one started as well. Hell there was even one in response to the Afghan invasion.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Where did you get that idea from? che can tell you better than anyone that there was a popular anti-war movementbefore that one started as well. Hell there was even one in response to the Afghan invasion.

didn't someone just say that there will be anti-war movements no matter how just or unjust the war is?

on the aggregate however, the world showed MUCH MUCH more support then than now. The average person not counting the extreme left and right did feel that was a just war.

[Ned]

Master Zen, if you could get your focus off the US for just a moment and focus instead on Saddam's Iraq, are you in principle in favor of getting rid of Saddam's tryanny and liberating the people of Iraq?

[Kramerman]

Have you ever thought that perhaps the US is hated BECAUSE of its interventionist tendencies and not the other way around? Other than in latin-america, the US had not been hated before WW2 when it was just as prosperous. See any relation?

what Vel said...
and pre WWII the US was in an economic depression, I wouldnt call that prosperous.

So all failed points are when the US actually didn't even bother to install democracy...

Well actually most are becasue we didnt even change the regime to begin with, actually... and the few times we did, we didnt install a democracy as a new regime.

hmmm...so now you are actually accepting the fact that those interventions were done with utter disregard to the victims.

WTF? I never said otherwise... here, lemme readress my arguement one more time, for those of us that are slow. Mind you, this has been the one thing ive ben argueing for quite awhile because you said something to the effect of the Iraqis would be upset and hate america after the war. I said they most likely wouldnt, because we were going to eventually install a democracy after occupation, as we did in Japan and Germany.
WHEN THE US SETS UP A DEMOCRACY AFTER A REGIME CHANGE, AS IT HAS DONE A SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, IT IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS STATE. Do you now see how your points fail to adress this, as most have absolutely nothing to do with regime change, let alone installing a democracy. They just donet have anything to do with my arguement, whether meant to refute or confirm.

What I see though is that the main critique of this operation has been forgotten: that regardless of the eventual outcome (and I for one truly hope for the sake of the Iraqui people that they do end up in a democracy), the REASONS behind this war are not to "give the Iraqui people freedom". The US wouldn't give a hoot if Saddam were the tyrant he is if he didn't pose a threat to US interests (WMD) and if George Jr. didn't wan't to avenge his daddy's lost chance.

what does this have to do with anything? are you slow? I never said anything about any of this. Of course, WoMD is the major reason for war. Never did i say otherwise. Never did I say this was a war to 'free the iraqi people'.
You are obviously either slow, or desperate to change the arguement, because you now are trying to change the subject.

So now saying that this is a war to liberate the Iraqui freedom is just pure crap. The "liberation" is a sideshow, used to make good out of an otherwise rotten idea.

Nothing is rotten about looking out for the long-term defense of the US. The liberation is not a side show, it is a perk of the war. Your insane bias and hipocrisy against the US is very frustrating and poorly reflects on your part. Would you complain so much if this war were about liberating the Iraqi people? Would it be an unjust war then? If so, then what makes that different from the war now if the end result is the same?

If Saddam didn't have WMD, and if he sucked-up a little more to the US like the Saudi's do, would the US have bothered to invade Iraq even though he is a tyrannical despot? NO and you know it, and that proves the fact that liberating the Iraqui people is not the main objective of this conflict and never will be.

Where the **** did i say the main objective of the war was to liberate the iraqi people? By skewing my arguements, you are only making yourself look desperate.
The war has nothing to do with sucking up, it has almost entirely to do with Saddam having possession of WoMD. If Saudi Arabia was actively persueing WoMD, it would probably be in the same position. But maybe not, as Saudi Arabia is not a belligerent enemy to the US as Iraq is. Why would we let a bitter enemy like Iraq get a hand up on us?. Iran is in much the same situation as Iraq, so soon it may be facing the same consequences.

Is it just too much a coincidence that this sabre-rattling, the labeling of countries into an axis-of-evil, comes AFTER 9/11. Saddam has been the same SOB since gulfwar1 and yet only now do we hear this sudden urge to free the Iraquis. Even before 9/11 this same Bush administration didn't give a hoot.

Total BS. Many have wanted to go after Iraq ever since they failed to disarm their WoMD just 45 days after the cease-fire of GWI was signed, as they agreed to do. Clinton wanted to do something also in 1998, but was restricted to bombardments because he didnt have the political spine to stand up to the oppostion as Bush has.

Nice try but no cigar.

what are you talking about? Your ramblings have still failed to even address any thing close to my arguement. Refute it, or admit defeat, adn then we can move on. All you have done with this post is change/skew the arguement and make up stuff that i said. It is quite frustrating, like im argueing with a child or something.

Kman

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
didn't someone just say that there will be anti-war movements no matter how just or unjust the war is?

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Master Zen, if you could get your focus off the US for just a moment and focus instead on Saddam's Iraq, are you in principle in favor of getting rid of Saddam's tryanny and liberating the people of Iraq?

To answer your question truthfuly and forgetting the whole war business: YES.

I would also love to get rid of the saudi, chinese, north corean, cuban and venezuelan regimes.

I would love even more to get rid of the Bush regime too and liberate the US population from its ignorance.

Hell, get rid of my own government for all I care.

However, I don't think I have to repeat that the original intent of this invasion is not to free the iraqui people so there you have it.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

As I hold my right to ignore your irrelevent arguements until you address mine or admit that US imposed democracies are largely happy and successful.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Didn't you just say that no one said anything about it?

"No one" as in general population - metaphor, get it?

I reserve the right to ignore posts of my choosing until my response to your stupid name arguement is dealt with.

Good excuse when you have nothing intelligent to say about it anyway. I explained my name argument very clear, whether you like it or not that's your business.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman

what Vel said...
and pre WWII the US was in an economic depression, I wouldnt call that prosperous.

Read a little, the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years. And in case you wonder, the economic depression hit the world too so it wasn't just the US in the doldrums

Well actually most are becasue we didnt even change the regime to begin with, actually... and the few times we did, we didnt install a democracy as a new regime.

and you give even more proof of US wrongdoings! Amazing! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

WTF? I never said otherwise... here, lemme readress my arguement one more time, for those of us that are slow. Mind you, this has been the one thing ive ben argueing for quite awhile because you said something to the effect of the Iraqis would be upset and hate america after the war. I said they most likely wouldnt, because we were going to eventually install a democracy after occupation, as we did in Japan and Germany.
WHEN THE US SETS UP A DEMOCRACY AFTER A REGIME CHANGE, AS IT HAS DONE A SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, IT IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS STATE. Do you now see how your points fail to adress this, as most have absolutely nothing to do with regime change, let alone installing a democracy. They just donet have anything to do with my arguement, whether meant to refute or confirm.

And as I said, unlike in WW2 there's really no big incentive to do it so most likely it won't happen (I could be wrong of course). Look at Afghanistan, that model democratic state which it is today still has assasinations, tribal warfare etc. with the US hardly doing anything to make the government work, instead it's just protecting its military installations and searching for Osama...

what does this have to do with anything? are you slow? I never said anything about any of this. Of course, WoMD is the major reason for war. Never did i say otherwise. Never did I say this was a war to 'free the iraqi people'.
You are obviously either slow, or desperate to change the arguement, because you now are trying to change the subject.

Well then, the title of this tread is "is war ever justified". I'm obviously saying some are and some aren't, and THIS ONE AIN'T.

So if you are saying that this in fact isn't a war to free the iraqui people (which as you know I 100% agree) then why does your government insist that that is the main reason in all of Ari Fleicher and Dubya's propaganda speeches? If that's not the main reason why bother to mention it so much as if it were?

Nothing is rotten about looking out for the long-term defense of the US. The liberation is not a side show, it is a perk of the war. Your insane bias and hipocrisy against the US is very frustrating and poorly reflects on your part. Would you complain so much if this war were about liberating the Iraqi people? Would it be an unjust war then? If so, then what makes that different from the war now if the end result is the same?

I'm no more biased than yourself, thank you, and my hipocracy pales against that of your government.

Give me just one example of a war started to "liberate" a people in the most un-selfish and paternalistic way possible.

Where the **** did i say the main objective of the war was to liberate the iraqi people? By skewing my arguements, you are only making yourself look desperate.
The war has nothing to do with sucking up, it has almost entirely to do with Saddam having possession of WoMD. If Saudi Arabia was actively persueing WoMD, it would probably be in the same position. But maybe not, as Saudi Arabia is not a belligerent enemy to the US as Iraq is. Why would we let a bitter enemy like Iraq get a hand up on us?. Iran is in much the same situation as Iraq, so soon it may be facing the same consequences.

Israel has WMD, has never signed the NPT etc. How come we are not seeing the same pressure applied to them? Of course, because they are allies...

Another shot in the foot. You're admitting that even if an ally had WMD the US wouldn't care.

Total BS. Many have wanted to go after Iraq ever since they failed to disarm their WoMD just 45 days after the cease-fire of GWI was signed, as they agreed to do. Clinton wanted to do something also in 1998, but was restricted to bombardments because he didnt have the political spine to stand up to the oppostion as Bush has.

And Clinton was smart enough to realize the dangers of having the world against the US. Have you heard the phrase "with great power comes great responsiblity"? Bush should hear it. He has made US foreign policy a total fiasco and a huge damage to your country's reputation. Get out of your suburban home and visit a foreign country to see what the world really thinks about the US these days. EVEN your allies.

what are you talking about? Your ramblings have still failed to even address any thing close to my arguement. Refute it, or admit defeat, adn then we can move on. All you have done with this post is change/skew the arguement and make up stuff that i said. It is quite frustrating, like im argueing with a child or something.

Kman

Funny how I feel the same... stop arguing the argument and argue the facts. If you can...

[Kramerman]

Read a little, the US had the highest standard of living in the world since the post-civil war years. And in case you wonder, the economic depression hit the world too so it wasn't just the US in the doldrums

Yes, most of teh world was hit by the depression, but among the hardest hit was the US and Germany. You should take your own advice. Considering the conditions that the hoardes of immigrants lived in from the late 1800s up thru the depression, i find that very hard to believe.

and you give even more proof of US wrongdoings! Amazing! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

skewing what I say but again! Did I ever say the US never did any wrong doings? Lemme answer that for you... no, i didnt, anywhere, ever say this.

And as I said, unlike in WW2 there's really no big incentive to do it so most likely it won't happen (I could be wrong of course). Look at Afghanistan, that model democratic state which it is today still has assasinations, tribal warfare etc. with the US hardly doing anything to make the government work, instead it's just protecting its military installations and searching for Osama...

It happened in Panama, and Haiti, and perhaps others too. The US also defended the democratic regime of S. Korea, which seems to be a pretty prosperous place.
Afghanistan is a **** hole. God couldnt make that into a fully functioning regime in 2 years. It will take time. And why do you say the US is hardly doing anything? That is complete BS.

Well then, the title of this tread is "is war ever justified". I'm obviously saying some are and some aren't, and THIS ONE AIN'T.

Yes, that is the title of the thread. Regardless, i made an arguement, and you insulted it but have said nothing to refute it, and instead you have spewed ramblings and come up with new arguements and claiming i have said things that im not even discussing.

So if you are saying that this in fact isn't a war to free the iraqui people (which as you know I 100% agree) then why does your government insist that that is the main reason in all of Ari Fleicher and Dubya's propaganda speeches? If that's not the main reason why bother to mention it so much as if it were?

What is your news source? NEVER has ANYONE in the administration said that liberating the Iraqi people is the main objective. Removing WoMD from Iraw has always been the main objective. Its mentioned often becasue it is a perk of removing Saddam's regime. Its to show the anti-war camp that the war is justified by the ends, if they dont think it is justified by the means.

[QUOTE]I'm no more biased than yourself, thank you, [QUOTE]

then why are your arguements so irrational (ie having little or nothing to do with what im saying)

Give me just one example of a war started to "liberate" a people in the most un-selfish and paternalistic way possible.

Why? There is no such thing. I never said there was.... oh god... have you read i thing ive said? i lack the time and the patience...

Israel has WMD, has never signed the NPT etc. How come we are not seeing the same pressure applied to them? Of course, because they are allies...

This is the dumbest arguement ever. The invasion isnt justified by the fact that Saddam merely has WoMD, its justified by the fact htat he can potenetially threaten us with them, as he is a bitter enemy of the US.... Why ever would the US invade an ally? They do not threaten us, so we could care less if they had WoMD. This is a reduiculous attempt to make the US into a hipocrit, when in actuality there is no relevance between enemies and allies having these weapons. We dont care that France has 'em, we dont care that Britain has 'em. We care that N.Korea does, but as they have ALREADY developed nukes, there isnt much we can do about that unless we are prepared to face the chance that they might use 'em.

Another shot in the foot. You're admitting that even if an ally had WMD the US wouldn't care.

Thats exactly right, the US wouldnt care if an Ally has them. Why should we? they dont threaten us with them, so why wage and expensive and costly war to remove them?
How is this shooting me in the foot?

meh... i lack the time and patience to continue this... maybe later. you havent yet answered many of my questions, adn havent adressed my arguement either, so i wont bother.

[Frogman]

War against Iraq is justified on the basis that Saddam is a brutal criminal who tortures and kills his own people and threatens his neighbors. I am disappointed that the UN can't come together and do something about criminals who run countries. The UN would have been perfectly justified in bringing about a regime change. France, Germany and Russia sold out their obligation to the UN and as a result the UN is irrelevant.

On the other hand, the US has little justification to be the one to decide who stays in power and who does not. We have legitimized first strike against anyone we think is a threat. We were justified in Afghanistan and if Iraq had actually attacked us, we would have been justified in this war.

First strike justification is a much higher threshold than retaliation. We lowered the bar. If other countries adopt our standard for justification of first strike, the world will soon be ablaze.

[Master Zen]

To conclude then,

1) The US has not admitted that having WMD is good only if you are our allies. No, the rhetoric is that WMD are bad, period so I find it rather hypocritical that it blasts one country because of this and not another. If WMD are bad, they are bad no matter what dictator has them.

2) South Korea was a dictatorship for various decades after the Korean war. So technically you supported a dictatorship there too.

3) with a history of 200 years of wrongdoings, what makes you think that something has changed? ESPECIALLY when the US far less restrained now than it ever was.

4) re-read any of Fleicher or Bush's speeches and count how many times the word "liberate" and "free" is used.

In the end you have said it yourself. The war is being waged because an anti-US dictator has or may produce WMD which may hurt US interests in the future. For that reason the US is waging a pre-emptive war. Is that not a blatant war of aggression?

Look how easy it is to re-word it: the war is being waged because an anti-german dictator has or may produce WMD and other sophisticated weaponry which may hurt German interests in the future. For that reason Germany is waging a pre-emptive war. June 22, 1941. Was it justified then too?

The argument of waging pre-emptive wars to protect your interests in the future is the same which every aggressor has used in the history of mankind.

Guess what? I still have patience, too bad I lack time.

See you all in the next war (or if someone else comes with an argument worth countering)