When is war justified?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


But, LoTM, you are consistent in favoring war both on Hitler and on Saddam. If we just take Hitler out of this discussion for a moment, as the politics of NAZI Germany seem to be clouding the discussion a bit, we can assess your views in a more dispassionate hypothetical context.

So you blantantly take his argument out of context?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
what's with your avatar Ned?

War? Justified?

The only justified war is one of self-defense... right?

Japher:

Avatar is Ned. Guess his last name.

(Hint, Australia.)

Self defense only?

Not even when an ally is attacked?

What if the party attacked has no prior relation to you and the reason for the attack is somewhat justified within the politics of the region.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


But, LoTM, you are consistent in favoring war both on Hitler and on Saddam. If we just take Hitler out of this discussion for a moment, as the politics of NAZI Germany seem to be clouding the discussion a bit, we can assess your views in a more dispassionate hypothetical context.

One posts a thread in order to examine a question, not in order to assess a given persons views.

[Japher]

Ned Kelly... I'll read on him tomorrow

Being an ally to an attacked region is not a reason to declare war, that would be a reaction.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So you want to blantantly take his argument out of context?

He made his argument to justify Britain's continuing the war after Poland was defeated and Britain no longer had any hope, short of destroying Germany or attending a European peace conference called by Hitler, of restoring the status quo ante. The war ended up destroying Germany as Britain intended, but it did not result in Poland's freedom, and in the process, tens of millions of innocent people were killed. Even if you were the most avid Hitler-hater that ever existed, this seems to be a bad bargain.

I supported my argument by noting that once Saddam had been ejected from Kuwait, that there was no justification for continuing the war. LoTM disagreed.

Now the two situations are not identical, true. But they are close.

[lord of the mark]

Iraq went to war with Kuwait. Kuwait invoked its right to self defense, and the US responded. No formal guarantee was needed, only the Kuwaiti request.

When Iraq was driven from Kuwait, those nations which had come to the assistance of Kuwait had the right to decide whether that was sufficient to assure regional and Kuwaiti security. A fortiori in view of the fact that the people of Iraq were then in full revolt against the govt of Iraq.

Ned believes that UK and Frances guarantee to Poland only gave the UK the right to fight Germany as long as Germany claimed Poland. He suggests a German offer to negotiate (which he cites from memory and can give no reference for) indicated Hitler was going to give up Poland, and the war was pursued to "Regime change" unjustly by the UK and its allies.

I think in BOTH instances the notion that an aggressor, entirely unprovoked, attempting to destroy the victims very existence as a state, has the right to claim victimization if the original victim's ally chooses to continue the war beyond liberation of the victim, is absurd on its face.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


He made his argument to justify Britain's continuing the war after Poland was defeated and Britain no longer had any hope, short of destroying Germany or attending a European peace conference called by Hitler, of restoring the status quo ante.

for the moment we will ignore the fact that such a call for a conference if it ever existed, was probably not worth the paper it was written on.

We shall also ignore the impact of Neds "distinctive posting style" on the History Forum.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Iraq went to war with Kuwait. Kuwait invoked its right to self defense, and the US responded. No formal guarantee was needed, only the Kuwaiti request.

When Iraq was driven from Kuwait, those nations which had come to the assistance of Kuwait had the right to decide whether that was sufficient to assure regional and Kuwaiti security. A fortiori in view of the fact that the people of Iraq were then in full revolt against the govt of Iraq.

Ned believes that UK and Frances guarantee to Poland only gave the UK the right to fight Germany as long as Germany claimed Poland. He suggests a German offer to negotiate (which he cites from memory and can give no reference for) indicated Hitler was going to give up Poland, and the war was pursued to "Regime change" unjustly by the UK and its allies.

I think in BOTH instances the notion that an aggressor, entirely unprovoked, attempting to destroy the victims very existence as a state, has the right to claim victimization if the original victim's ally chooses to continue the war beyond liberation of the victim, is absurd on its face.

Unprovoked?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I'm chewing on a 5th one--to retake previously captured land. Say, for example, when Egypt and Syria launched the Yon Kippur War in an attempt to retake their own territory. --But how would one separate that from a situation where, say, Mexico invades the U.S. in order to take back California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas? Or France invades Canada in order to take back Quebec?

You really couldn't unless you want to say that time frame mattered and it really doesn't. Or you could say that representative governments should be favored over dictatorships(currently or back when the land was originally gained? either?) but then Israel gets to keep its land, which would be bad apparently.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whoha


You really couldn't unless you want to say that time frame mattered and it really doesn't. Or you could say that representative governments should be favored over dictatorships(currently or back when the land was originally gained? either?) but then Israel gets to keep its land, which would be bad apparently.

Or you could say that Egypt and Syria had an obligation to offer to negotiate with Israel, in some format or other, but that they remained loyal to the Rabat conference 3 nos, no peace, no talks, no recognition, and so although they were aiming at getting their territory back, they were still fundamentally in the wrong.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Unprovoked?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
He made his argument to justify Britain's continuing the war after Poland was defeated and Britain no longer had any hope, short of destroying Germany or attending a European peace conference called by Hitler, of restoring the status quo ante. The war ended up destroying Germany as Britain intended, but it did not result in Poland's freedom, and in the process, tens of millions of innocent people were killed. Even if you were the most avid Hitler-hater that ever existed, this seems to be a bad bargain.

You honestly expect them to negotiate with Hitler at that point?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I can think of four instances:

1) When your nation is attacked or have had war declared upon you. (e.g. U.S. in WW II)

2) When your ally has been attacked, and you two have a mutual defense treaty.

3) When you are fighting under the auspices of the U.N. for collective security. (e.g. Desert Shield/Desert Storm).

4) When attack on your country is imminent. (e.g. Israel is the 6-Day War).

I'm chewing on a 5th one--to retake previously captured land. Say, for example, when Egypt and Syria launched the Yon Kippur War in an attempt to retake their own territory. --But how would one separate that from a situation where, say, Mexico invades the U.S. in order to take back California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas? Or France invades Canada in order to take back Quebec?

QFT

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think in BOTH instances the notion that an aggressor, entirely unprovoked

That's hardly the case at least in regard to Iranq/Kuwait.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You honestly expect them to negotiate with Hitler at that point?

He seems to think that, yes.

He aslo seems to think that Hitlar made an offer that anyone in their right mind would have taken seriously.