When is war justified?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course you could have negotiated with Hitler... ask Czechoslovakia!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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

No.

I thought their lack of negotiation justified given Munich.

But still, we have our modern day example of Bush invoking multi-lateral negotiations after Dear Leader showed us he could not be trusted. I think, given what happened after the fall of Poland, that one more shot at negotiations would have been the better course.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Most wars have underlying disputes. That was my point.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
But still, we have our modern day example of Bush invoking multi-lateral negotiations after Dear Leader showed us he could not be trusted.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying the LotM is calling for invasion of NK?

edit: nevermind, I guess you are just saying that they should have negotiated with Hitler again.

But Hitler was a deal breaker.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying the LotM is calling for invasion of NK?

No, I think that wars should be avoided like the plaque and every opportunity to resolve disputes through negotiations should be taken before one resorts to arms.

I think that both WWI and WWII were both avoidable. Britain and Poland might have had to give up the corridor, Danzig and perhaps Silesia. But it would have regained its independence.

But most importantly, millions upon millions of lives would have been saved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious




edit: nevermind, I guess you are just saying that they should have negotiated with Hitler again.

But Hitler was a deal breaker.

True. That is why I think the next set of negotiatios should have included both the USSR and the US so that Hitler would have to take on all major powers if he were to break any further deal.

Which is what Bush is trying to do with NK, I think. Dear Leader cannot be trusted. But if Russia, China, Japan and the US are all signatories to any deal, he would have to think twice about breaking it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


No.

I thought their lack of negotiation justified given Munich.

Which is it?

The Brits were responsible for the carnage that followed or they were justified and the guilty party were the Nazis?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


True. That is why I think the next set of negotiatios should have included both the USSR and the US so that Hitler would have to take on all major powers if he were to break any further deal.

Uh-huh. Of course the Senate would have fallen all over themselves to ratify an agreement that committed the United States to war, or maybe NOT A HOPE IN HELL!

And of course, including the Soviets when they already had a publically announced pact with Hitler would have seemed very reasonable to people in London.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Which is it?

The Brits were responsible for the carnage that followed or they were justified and the guilty party were the Nazis?

Both were to blame, of course.

[notyoueither]

So's FDR and the Yanks, according to you.

Heck, if you work at it long enough you could blame Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Hindus in general for good measure.

What meaning has this 'blame' word you speak of?

[notyoueither]

What about the odds of the Senate of 1940 ratifying a treaty that could obligate the United States to go to war, Ned?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


True. That is why I think the next set of negotiatios should have included both the USSR and the US so that Hitler would have to take on all major powers if he were to break any further deal.

And then what? The US mobilize for war? Hindsight it 20/20. I don't see how you could say that Hitler would let go of is goal to conquer Europe just because of this hypothetical agreement, and he only would have made it if it would have made the agreement if it would have helped him do that.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Z, I didn't see on your list that war is justified to remove a loud-mouthed dictator who is ruthless to his political enemies. You do seem to agree that the state you make war on has to have done you harm or have, as you say, the authorization of the use of force against by the UN.

From your list, I see no justification for a Bush I march on Baghdad. Agreed?

Agreed.

To go to war to interfer with the internal affairs of another county is a violation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which has been the cornerstone of international relations since it ended the 30 Years War.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about the odds of the Senate of 1940 ratifying a treaty that could obligate the United States to go to war, Ned?

Despite not being Ned, I'll answer that:

Roughly zero. Maybe a negative number.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And then what? The US mobilize for war? Hindsight it 20/20. I don't see how you could say that Hitler would let go of is goal to conquer Europe just because of this hypothetical agreement, and he only would have made it if it would have made the agreement if it would have helped him do that.

I see. "Goal of conquering Europe."

That was in all the American propaganda films and literature at time. Makes it true, of course.