|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Just Wars?
|
Llareggub
Shipmate
# 10210
|
Posted
Something that has concerned me for some time now is the concept of a just war. A number of threads make reference to the concept but, as far as I can ascertain and I am, admittedly, relatively new to The Ship, it has not been discussed as a concept in its own right.
Can there be a just war? Perhaps there can, but I am not convinced. And even if wars can sometimes be just, it’s only in very limited circumstances and subject to conditions much more stringent than are typically applied to decisions to go to war. Subsequently, most wars are unjust.
Is such a view non-controversial?
[ 14. February 2006, 03:47: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
I think that there are just wars, and there are unjust ones.
Just ones would include World War 2 (stopping the Nazi's) and the RPF assault which led to the Rwandan genocide ending.
I think that just wars are ones with clearly defined and worthy goals. Some revolutions are "just" wars, and I think that there's an argument for saying that sometimes we need wars. We advance considerably in technological terms due to some wars, and sometimes it is necessary to have a war for a country to progress, by that I mean revolutions.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The Christian tradition has a well thought out definition (usually with 6 requirements - not just a feeling that a cause weas just) of a Just War. It borrowed from Greek philosophy and was adapted and added to by Augustine and S. Thomas Aquinas.
One of the tenets is that civilians should not intentionally be killed. With the advent of nuclear weaponns and the knowledge that so-called smart bombs are nothing of the sort, arguable the Just War tradition is obsolete.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Llareggub
Shipmate
# 10210
|
Posted
But does this not mean that we do not apply the same moral standards to killing in war as to killing in any other area of human life. Isn't that a double standard?
Secondly, I am not sure about using simple utilitarian judgements about the 'greater good' is sufficient to justify the taking of human lives
--------------------
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I agree with Zorro. Although I'm not sure about the "need to advance technologically" part.
The problem is that it is not always easy to decide if any particular war is just. People do not have access to the same information that leaders have. There is always a certain amount of deception and self-serving.
Hardly any wars are pure-as-the-driven-snow examples of innocent angels defending themselves from rampaging monsters.
My way of thinking about it is to start from very obvious examples, where virtually no one would disagree. Then you work back to a more uncertain position by adding mitigating circumstances.
At some mysterious point the war changes from being a just war to being an unjust one. People will naturally disagree about what that point would be.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
Freddy said;
quote:
I agree with Zorro. Although I'm not sure about the "need to advance technologically" part.
Cheers for the "I agree with Zorro," bit, but I never actually said that we need to advance technically, so wars are in some ways good, I was meaning that technological advancement can be a pleasant side-effect of wars.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Llareggub:
But does this not mean that we do not apply the same moral standards to killing in war as to killing in any other area of human life. Isn't that a double standard?
Secondly, I am not sure about using simple utilitarian judgements about the 'greater good' is sufficient to justify the taking of human lives
I agree, which is why I think the Just War doctrine was an accommodation to worldliness and that pacifism is a more Christian response - but I don't want to derail this thread from Just War as there is much fruitful discussion to be had on it.
One problem with the Just War idea is that all other attempts must be triend and failed - while everyone is talking the enemy is stockpiling weapons. Had many wars started more quickly, they would have been less severe.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Llareggub
Shipmate
# 10210
|
Posted
quote:
I think that just wars are ones with clearly defined and worthy goals. Some revolutions are "just" wars, and I think that there's an argument for saying that sometimes we need wars. We advance considerably in technological terms due to some wars, and sometimes it is necessary to have a war for a country to progress, by that I mean revolutions.
This is simply a justification on the basis of the ‘greater good for the greater number’ Certainly we sometimes have to do things to prevent worse things happening, but when it comes to taking human life we would not normally regard it as acceptable merely on the grounds that it will do more good in the long run
--------------------
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
A just war would be a war that has good clearly fighting evil....and I have yet to see one of them.
I have, however seen a lot of wars between empires, some of which were more abusive than others, but all of which were abusive.
There is no way, for example, that either side of WWI could claim to be fighting for "Good" considering both sides thought it acceptable to send millions of men to their deaths in the trenches.
Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).
Ooops ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Gets off soapbox ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 03. January 2006, 16:19: Message edited by: Teapot ]
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
James Mc
Procrastinator
# 3414
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One problem with the Just War idea is that all other attempts must be triend and failed - while everyone is talking the enemy is stockpiling weapons. Had many wars started more quickly, they would have been less severe.
A problem with not following the Just War path, is that "all other attempts" sometimes succeed, stopping wars which may have otherwise flared up. I have wondered in the past if the "peace at all costs" mentality and the League of Nations structures (though not the inequities, obviously) that came out of the First World War had been available before it had started, we might have avoided the needless slaughter on the western and eastern fronts between 1914 and 1918.
Britain and other western European democracies of the late 30s certainly pursued all paths (including appeasement) to avoid war between 1936 and 1939. If we had not done, and had gone to war over Czechoslovakia in mid 1938 or Anschluss with Austria in early 1938, or even the Rhineland in 1936, we would have been even more unprepared than we were, and quite possibly could have lost.
Posts: 905 | From: London, UK | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Freddy said;
quote:
I agree with Zorro. Although I'm not sure about the "need to advance technologically" part.
Cheers for the "I agree with Zorro," bit, but I never actually said that we need to advance technically, so wars are in some ways good, I was meaning that technological advancement can be a pleasant side-effect of wars.
Sorry. I misread. I agree.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
No worries, Freddy. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(sorry, wrong smiley)
[ 03. January 2006, 16:34: Message edited by: Zorro ]
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Llareggub
Shipmate
# 10210
|
Posted
Is there however a right to self defence? Does that justify war?
--------------------
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Llareggub:
Is there however a right to self defence? Does that justify war?
Well, if we could make ourselves invulnerable there would be no need for war.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).
Can consequences of a war make the war itself unjust? Personally, I don't think so. Besides, so far as WW2 is concerned, I believe Winny C flagged up the dangers of a Europe under Stalinist Russia but the Americans (and prolly the Brits too, not sure) didn't have the stomach to continue to the point where Russia was kicked out of Europe.
I would say that WW2 is a good example of a just war.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Can consequences of a war make the war itself unjust? Personally, I don't think so. Besides, so far as WW2 is concerned, I believe Winny C flagged up the dangers of a Europe under Stalinist Russia but the Americans (and prolly the Brits too, not sure) didn't have the stomach to continue to the point where Russia was kicked out of Europe.
I would say that WW2 is a good example of a just war.
Gonna have to agree to differ on that one littlelady (why do I feel I should say that with a John Wayne accent?!! ) as I reckon WWII was a war between a whole hoard of evil empires…..and Winny C was almost as callous as Hitler (which you can see in his memoirs etc).
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Gonna have to agree to differ on that one littlelady (why do I feel I should say that with a John Wayne accent?!! )
No idea. But if you start walking like him too then I'll get worried ...
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Similarly WWII, usually flagged up as a "just war" against the "evil nazis"...however the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips).
So the just-ness of a war is determined by the acts of the countries after the fact? If that's the case then the U.S. is now de-segregated and Russia is moving away from its former enslavement and killing of innocent victims so the war is now just by your standards since we are now "just".
And everything I just said was just as absurd as what you said in your post, since I don't believe what I just posted. The justness of a war is not defined by how countries behave after the fact.
I'm sorry Teapot, I am as relativistic as the next guy, but there are ways of drawing lines as to the worst of two evils. The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not. Trying the just-ness of the war by how stupidly various countries behaved on non-war related issues after the fact is a bit absurd.
I believe that very very few wars can be labelled just, but they are out there. One measurement is how happy the bulk of the civilian people are that they were saved. Afghanistan would be a good example of a just war, Iraq, probably not (although history will decide). WWI and WWII would probably qualify as the liberated population was relieved to be free of the Germans.
I would add though that war sometimes just has to be filed under "Shit Happens". I do not think that war is never the solution. Every piece of land in the world has been fought over except in the extreme north and south where survival is the war. It is part of our being, part of our nature. Maybe when the Bonos, RuthWs, and Teutonic Goddesses (peaceniks) of the world have the numbers and the means then we might be able to use other means, but in the mean time war is a necessary evil at times.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So the just-ness of a war is determined by the acts of the countries after the fact? If that's the case then the U.S. is now de-segregated and Russia is moving away from its former enslavement and killing of innocent victims so the war is now just by your standards since we are now "just".
It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting.
quote:
I'm sorry Teapot, I am as relativistic as the next guy, but there are ways of drawing lines as to the worst of two evils. The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not. Trying the just-ness of the war by how stupidly various countries behaved on non-war related issues after the fact is a bit absurd.
To quote a new TV programme…”Balderdash and piffle”. A war is a fight between two or more powers for the dominance of their way of being. America was a power of racial segregation (and that’s before we even get to the govt supported arms manufacturers who armed Berlin….hmmm vague reminiscences of somewhere sandier…..).
quote:
WWI and WWII would probably qualify as the liberated population was relieved to be free of the Germans.
Until they realise that they were gonna get shafted by the Soviets, the Americans or the Europeans instead…..
quote:
Every piece of land in the world has been fought over except in the extreme north and south where survival is the war. It is part of our being, part of our nature.
Quite appropriately, that is extract of domesticated bovine. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It is the nature of settled agriculture to fight wars of expansion, but that was not the way of humans for a VERY long time and so all of its values do NOT have to be embraced.
[ 03. January 2006, 18:28: Message edited by: Teapot ]
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
You say "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting." but you earlier stated "the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips". Which is it, values then or now?
The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.
You also said that "A war is a fight between two or more powers for the dominance of their way of being". While true, as you know there is also these little things called values that often govern "their way of being". One Power had values that resulted (ultimately) in De-Segregation and more freedom for the masses. The other Power resulted in Genocide, Invasion, Authoritarianism over its masses and all around nastiness.
quote:
"Until they realise that they were gonna get shafted by the Soviets, the Americans or the Europeans instead….."
Um, you do realize that the soviets are out of Eastern Europe, the U.S. helped rebuild Western Europe at great expense, and well, the Europeans were the ones liberated, right?
quote:
It is the nature of settled agriculture to fight wars of expansion, but that was not the way of humans for a VERY long time and so all of its values do NOT have to be embraced.
Um, show me a prolonged period of time where there wasn't war. Dates please.
[ 03. January 2006, 19:37: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Can consequences of a war make the war itself unjust? Personally, I don't think so.
The Just War theory has consequences as one of its tenets. As nobody has yet spelt out how the Christian tradition defines 'Just War', perhaps I should:
1. It must be called by a lawful authority
2. It must have a just cause (Right intention)
3. It must be fought in a just manner (e.g. should only aim to kill combatants, not civilians (unless indirectly, the law of 'double effect')
4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun".
MG, you forgot the Gypsies.
In fact, if we hadn't gone to war, given Hitlers total insanity, probably anyone who wasn't blond and blue-eyed would have been gassed, or used as lamp shades.
Which leads me on to leo's point, where he translates this:
quote:
4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences
as justification for not going to war, in case there are consequences beyond the war itself.
leo, I would contest your interpretation of this point. How have the costs of fighting WW2 outweighed not fighting? Are you saying that the freedom of France, Belgium, Britain, possibly America (since he had plans to attack there), Russia (since he tried attacking there), and numerous other countries were not worth it? When war was declared on Germany, no-one had any notion that ultimately half of Germany and other European nations would end up being under the hideous chains of communism for a further 40+ years. How could they have had? We went to war for noble reasons - initially to fight not for our own freedom (since we had not actually been attacked at the time we declared war) but for the freedom of our allies in Europe. Just as America came to help fight for her allies in Europe.
Whether or not you or others believe that WW2 was misguided now, surely it is erroneous to project our knowledge after the event upon the decisions of people before it even happened? Given the world as it was in 1939 and all the attempts for peace beforehand, I think point 4 was well and truly met. It was decided that, given what was going on in Europe, the cost of not fighting outweighed the cost of doing so.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
It is difficult to argue that WW1 was a "just" war- everyone who took part at the beginning was as excited about the idea as if it was just a football match. The Empires had used their weapons to subdue unarmed or lightly armed aboriginals in various continents, and they had to come to understand the implications of using those weapons against each other. In the end (after WW2) they had learned that using those weapons was NOT a Good Idea, and we got the (rather imperfect) United Nations and European Economic Community, just as the United States very gradually learned from the aftermath of the Civil War.
Once you had WW1 and the not-very-good settlement of 1919, which allowed Hitler and Mussolini to flourish, WW2 was clearly a "Just" War, if only because it did more-or-less stop many of the nastier ideas that various Christian states enjoyed- effective apartheid in the US, actual apartheid in South Africa, anti-aboriginalism in most countries, anti-Jewishness in most countries (all somewhat imperfectly)
The people of the UK clearly went into the war "because it was a job that had to be done", sacrificing their Empire as they did it. The Americans have gained a form of Empire, and are now working out the implications of that- almost well in Afghanistan, and as poorly as the British in Iraq.
Intervention in Serbia would have been a "Good Thing" if people had been more sure of themselves, just as intervention in Rwanda was clearly necessary (and shamefully late). These two examples would not necessarily have been a full-scale war, rather a show of force might have had the desired effect.
But some of the effects take generations to develop, so we have to look back to see if the original supposition of justice was in fact true.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As nobody has yet spelt out how the Christian tradition defines 'Just War', perhaps I should:
1. It must be called by a lawful authority
...
I agree that the standard list for a just war includes the first point, but this seems highly suspect to me. The largest list of reasonable candidates for Just War status (at least to my mind) would consist of revolutions. They would be excluded from consideration as just from the git-go by this constraint. However, for those of us weaned on Enlightenment thinking, a government gains its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The government will, of course, continue to be lawful (as it is the one making the laws) until it is overthrown. So it seems that revolutions are special cases where the first proviso just doesn't apply. And, if we say that the only law intended by the first proviso is international law, then it doesn't tend to apply to a country's internal affairs in the first place.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So presumably there are Just Revolutions and Unjust Revolutions, and some of them are just revolutions (presumably just for the Hell of it)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.
I agree that it was right to fight WW2.
However, it is worth noting that Hitler and Mussolini were both elected democratically. Prior to WW2, the biggest mass murderer in the world was Stalin (not elected democratically, IIRC, but nonetheless on our side).
The reason we fought Hitler but not Stalin was nothing to do with the Jews. It was essentially because we were worried they would try to invade us if we left it much longer.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The reason we fought Hitler but not Stalin was nothing to do with the Jews. It was essentially because we were worried they would try to invade us if we left it much longer.
Actually, I thought it had something to do with Poland and some treaties and the fact that we'd done nothing but flash a piece of blank paper at the cameras following the invasion of ... sheesh, I've forgotten how to spell it! Sorry to all Czecs! (Which I'm not even sure I've spelt correctly! )
Obviously - it goes without saying - that the spectre of invasion was part of the story. But not the whole story. And the treatment of the Jews was known about prior to declaration of war (although the concentration camps apparently were not).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You say "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting." but you earlier stated "the sides who won continued to be oppressive (obvious examples can be seen in segregated US, Stalinist Russia, and hey simply in Wage Slavery culture that now has Europe in its grips". Which is it, values then or now?
Well, it was immoral then, for the values on each side were oppressive. And we are still stuck with oppression today which only goes to show who won.
quote:
The values at that time can be generally lumped as "Democratic Republics" versus "Authoritarian Fascists that kill Jews, Homosexuals, and the Mentally Incompetents for fun". I'm not sure which values you consider paramount.
Would they be the same “Democratic Republicans” who beat up people just for being black, or heaven forbid, drink from the wrong water fountain?
quote:
You also said that "A war is a fight between two or more powers for the dominance of their way of being". While true, as you know there is also these little things called values that often govern "their way of being". One Power had values that resulted (ultimately) in De-Segregation and more freedom for the masses. The other Power resulted in Genocide, Invasion, Authoritarianism over its masses and all around nastiness.
Well, one power lost but yes it was doing evil before that point. Of the others….one got much much worse (Stalin’s Russia), one got real greedy, invaded numerous countries, gave “most favoured nation” status to a country infamous for its torture (china), sold WMD to countries then complained that they had the, locked up people without trial….etc etc, and another stuck its head up the ar$e of the second one or went back to watching its soaps whilst all this happened
quote:
Um, you do realize that the soviets are out of Eastern Europe, the U.S. helped rebuild Western Europe at great expense, and well, the Europeans were the ones liberated, right?
The Soviets were there for a long time, still affect such countries (have a word with Chechnya and the Ukraine if you don’t believe me) and the Europeans were not Europeans but free French, Spanish, Norwegian, Swiss……now they are stuck with a parasite the size of the moon who is happy to invite Mugabe to trade talks….
quote:
Um, show me a prolonged period of time where there wasn't war. Dates please.
Show me written history that is not from the settled societies.
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Um, Teapot, you wouldn't be anti-American would you?
Did I understand your latest post to include a claim that America is a "parasite the size of a moon"? I hope I misunderstood you, but it definitely appeared to be what you were saying.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
Lol no littlelady, its the EU that's a parasite the size of the moon
[ 03. January 2006, 21:46: Message edited by: Teapot ]
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Lol no littlelady, its the EU that's a parasite the size of the moon
Phew! *mops brow*
That's ok then!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Teapot
You are still referencing the after-effects of the war as being somehow relevent to whether the war was just. It is not. As You Said: "It is measured by the values of those forces fighting, at the time of the fighting."
History is of course written by the victors. However, I think that we are discussing things that are not "History from the victors" because the History of Segregation was written by the blacks and the Holocaust is only doubted by bloody fools, and I do not take you for one.
If you can show me how getting beaten up because you are black or drank from the water fountain equates to 9 to 26 million Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies , and others killed than you are a post-modern moral relativist of the highest grade, if one can call that "highest". I am sure the Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies, and others killed in the holocaust will respect your historical opinion.
P.S. I personally am in favor of Most Favored Nation status for China, as not doing trade with Authoritarian Communist states has worked so well with Cuba. Not.
[ 03. January 2006, 23:11: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FiliusSyon
Shipmate
# 10722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not.
I would like to call your attention to a few isolated incidents like the eradication of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Enemies at the gates are still good reasons to go to war, though, which certainly holds for Britain in WWII.
--------------------
----
"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."
- John K. Galbraith
Posts: 220 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure that most of Europe and North America in 1939 were fairly thoroughly anti-Jewish- witness the well-known remark by a Canadian immigration official that "One Jew was too many" as he ordered the ship St. Louis back to Europe with over 900 of "them"- and it is quite clear that much of the US was anti-black enough to have a low but definite assault and murder rate of blacks because they were black.
BUT we did all learn from actually seeing the death camps and from having blacks and native "indians" serving in our forces that maybe they were people as well. The Civil Rights movement would never have happened without the shift of attitude brought back by those who served "over there", just as the emancipation of women finally came around. The attitudes leading to oppression of identifiable groups are still at work, but the situation is somewhat better. People actually challenge the more far-out bigots, which didn't happen much in 1939!
It is convenient for present-day politicians and other bigots to try to forget the lessons we learned, because the negative attitudes are thoroughly ingrained. This means that we have to keep on working on improving the attitudes, a process that will take several generations, if the Irish or Serbian attitude to religious tension is any indicator.
It certainly doesn't help to nit-pick about might-have-beens, unless you want to really irritate certain mythical beasts with long ears (as happened to me the other day) Every war must be "unjust" to someone, but some wars are, on the whole, "Just" for a significant number, including future generations.
At the same time, the Law of Unintended Consequences will continue to operate.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
To certain individuals on this thread.
There was a video made of the liberation of Belsen. Watch it. Research the actions of the Japanese Unit 731. Then come back and tell me that, deeply flawed or not, the British and Americans were not at least a cut above that. And that it was not worth fighting to prevent even more such atrocities than the Germans and Japanese were given time to carry out.
Yes, Churchill was a bastard. Stalinist Russia was comparable to Nazi Germany or the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (see the Holodomor for a good example) - and I regret that we didn't have the ability, never mind the will to overthrow Stalin. Nevertheless, sometimes war to end evil is the least bad option available - and as such it can be described as a Just War. World War 2 was one such.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FiliusSyon
Shipmate
# 10722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To certain individuals on this thread.
There was a video made of the liberation of Belsen. Watch it. Research the actions of the Japanese Unit 731. Then come back and tell me that, deeply flawed or not, the British and Americans were not at least a cut above that. And that it was not worth fighting to prevent even more such atrocities than the Germans and Japanese were given time to carry out.
Yes, Churchill was a bastard. Stalinist Russia was comparable to Nazi Germany or the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (see the Holodomor for a good example) - and I regret that we didn't have the ability, never mind the will to overthrow Stalin. Nevertheless, sometimes war to end evil is the least bad option available - and as such it can be described as a Just War. World War 2 was one such.
If you are talking to me, there is no shame in calling me by name.
I do not think we need to compare war atrocities here, because frankly, the axis leads both in size and severity. Still, these incidents clearly were atrocities.
I am in a quarrelsome mood today, so I will add another thing: Is just cause sufficient for a just war, or is a certain conduct of war required? If so, where do you draw the line between just and unjust conduct?
Of course, I consider this question somewhat academic.
--------------------
----
"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."
- John K. Galbraith
Posts: 220 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FiliusSyon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The U.S., U.K., and other allies performed as justly and admirably in WWII as they could for the times, and the Nazi leadership did not.
I would like to call your attention to a few isolated incidents like the eradication of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Enemies at the gates are still good reasons to go to war, though, which certainly holds for Britain in WWII.
Dresden was an atrocity, fair enough. But it was no more than a drop in the bucket of the atrocities committed by Germany upon the Allies. One serious moral failure does not a Nazi Germany make. The nazis did more than their fair share for a century or twenty.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was more than justified by the Japanese civilians and Allied lives it saved from the invasion of Japan, as those that it killed.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
In all this argument about just and unjust war, please remember this little quote from me (and probably others - I forget where I heard it first)
To the victors belong the history
Which is to say, that those who win determine the justness of a war.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Add to Japanese atrocities the Rape of Nanking.
A few cites:
History Place
The Forgotten Holocaust
I'm sorry but nothing, nothing, nothing done by the Allies comes up to this for sheer evil.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteCanada:
In all this argument about just and unjust war, please remember this little quote from me (and probably others - I forget where I heard it first)
To the victors belong the history
Which is to say, that those who win determine the justness of a war.
And you can relegate that conventional wisdom to the shitpile it belongs when it comes to WWII. Sometimes Conventional Wisdom is little more than bullshit with a sugar coating.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sometimes Conventional Wisdom is little more than bullshit with a sugar coating.
Some may even call it an oxymoron.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think there are three phases to be distinguished: prior to the war, during the war, and after the war. The "Just War" doctrine deals basically with the time prior to the war. A good write-up of the traditional teaching on this can be found here. Clearly, the decision of going to war against the Nazis and their supporters was just, no matter of what happened after.
During the war we have to consider mostly "Justice in War", that is, how combatants should behave while fighting. For example, we can discuss whether carpet bombing of cities is just. Perhaps the decision whether to end fighting or to continue is a sort of on-going "Just War" question, but generally this question comes to the foreground again only after much blood has been spilled. Many actions of the Allies during their just war against the Axis were possibly not just. For example, Dresden and Hiroshima are questionable. (I don't want to do discuss that now, my point is simply that one can doubt the justice in war of actions taken during a just war.)
After the war we can make a judgement of whether the outcome indeed justified the means. Again, in the case of WWII there can be no doubt that it did. Nobody could seriously wish for a Europe unified under Hitler. It doesn't matter in that regard that Stalin wasn't removed as well. Other wars we may well consider unjust by their outcome. Some people may consider the Iraq war to have started as a Just War and as being carried on by the US mostly with just means. But still, if in the end the outcome is to destabilize the entire region, put in place a Iran-style theocractic tyranny and kill and destroy aplenty along the way, then we may well judge the war unjust in hindsight.
I think it is important to distinguish these phases concerning justice and war. Otherwise we end up judging people unjustly. If you consider that the Just War doctrine concerns the question of whether it is just to start a war, then perhaps it is not so unreasonable to believe that there can be Just Wars. For example, waging war against Joseph Kony's LRA woulde seem eminently justifiable to me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
....waging war against Joseph Kony's LRA woulde seem eminently justifiable to me.
Ah, that would be just, but is it wise?
A thing that was learned by the U.S. in Vietnam/Somalia and Russia in Afghanistan is that for a war to be wise it needs a few things:
1. A clear mission objective.
2. Overwhelming Force
3. An exit strategy.
In the case of a war on the LRA, I am not sure that we would have some of those three. For one thing, if the objective was to kill off the LRA, who would replace them? History in Africa has shown that would be the next LRA or maybe worse. Not much of a mission. It might also be very hard to form an overwhelming force.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The difference is that the LRA has earnt the universal fear and loathing of the local population. However kills J. Kony et al will be carried shoulder high through the dusty tracks of Gulu.
Which is something it wasn't always possible to say of those other examples.
Museveni, by the way, is doing his best at a just way. Unfortunately the army seems to not be the best equiped or best disciplined recently.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you can show me how getting beaten up because you are black or drank from the water fountain equates to 9 to 26 million Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies , and others killed than you are a post-modern moral relativist of the highest grade, if one can call that "highest". I am sure the Jews, homosexuals, mental incompetents, gypsies, and others killed in the holocaust will respect your historical opinion.
How many civilians were killed in the first 2 uses of nuclear terrorism (where the US admits they targeted two civilian cities for the terror effect it would have)? Why did the US wait to enter the war until after Pearl Harbour (which, evidence now suggests, they knew about in advance...)? What of Churchill who accepted Auschwitz etc as collateral damage rather than let on the allies had broken the Enigma code?
quote:
P.S. I personally am in favor of Most Favored Nation status for China, as not doing trade with Authoritarian Communist states has worked so well with Cuba. Not.
Nice.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Personally, I have never viewed Winston Churchill as some kind of hero like many have (who perhaps now will be sadly disillusioned). He was a man of his time called to do a job that I certainly would not have wanted to do. So the possibility that his attitude was not always saintly, or that his decisions may seem harsh or even barbaric sometimes, does not surprise me.
Whatever people might think of the blanket bombing of Dresden et al, there was the blitz first. Not only this but had those blanket bombings not occurred, would the Nazis have stopped? Would they have been convinced that their time was up? The same applies to Japan, which had a culture engrained with not losing face under any circumstances whatsoever. How many allies were to die before Japan stopped? Faced with such scenarios, what were the leaders of the allied nations supposed to do? It was a truly tough call.
It is so easy to judge the decision makers now, 60 years on, as if we know what we're talking about. We don't. Most of us probably weren't even born then.
So far as the victory quote is concerned, were we the victors? We won in that we stopped the Nazis and the Japanese of the time. But so many of our own people died and were hideously injured that I'm not sure we had a victory as such. We fulfilled the original purposes of the war.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
When you fight evil with evil, what do you end up with regardless of who wins?
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The lesser of two evils.
[ 04. January 2006, 09:26: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think I'm missing a trick here, anyway.... aren't we all perfect Teapot? How than could WC have fought evil with evil?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
When you fight evil with evil, what do you end up with regardless of who wins?
I'm confused again. Are you implying the allied countries all had evil governments, evil people or were just evil per se?
Or is this about the EU too?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
