Justifications for War

**John Scott** · 03-11-2005, 05:30 PM

I was thinking about the Civil War. Today, people say that the war in Iraq caused more deaths than it saved. The same could be said of the Civil War. That doesn't make the civil war, or the invasion of Iraq, unjustified. IMO.

The Civil War was largely about liberating slaves. Lincoln knew that a liberation proclamation would result in the secession of Southern states whose economy depended on slavery, but he also knew that slavery was wrong.

The Civil War cost us 863,153 lives. And that's just the death toll. Not to mention mained and crippled folks. Did we save that many lives? Not at all! The tide was turning against slavery at the time, and laws were offering more and more protection to slaves. It had become a capital offense to kill a slave unless the slave was involved in an insurection. And by the time the Civial War (1861) came about, slavery had been abolished in many European countries. Slavery was abolished in the UK in 1833. In 1848, slavery was abolished in France. The trend would have eventually reached the Southern United States.

So, in all probability, the Civil War cost more lives than it saved. But does that suffice as a criteria?

I would suggest that a war is justified if it stops injustice upon one person, even if it saves no lives and costs a million lives. We have a moral obligation to defend freedom and fight injustice.

docquesting · 03-11-2005, 05:31 PM

Do we really need another thread on this.

gorillaboy · 03-11-2005, 05:33 PM

I don't hear many people make that argument against the war though.

I think the motives are the problem most people have.

Jazzee · 03-11-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docquesting

Do we really need another thread on this.

You don't have to post in the thread or even read it.

**John Scott** · 03-11-2005, 05:35 PM

I'm not wanting to discuss individual wars. I'm looking for a census on the theory of war.

gorillaboy · 03-11-2005, 05:39 PM

I think we should fight wars only in defense of OUR freedom.

And I don't think we've ever done that.

**John Scott** · 03-11-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorillaboy

I think we should fight wars only in defense of OUR freedom.

And I don't think we've ever done that.

So we shouldn't fight to defend the freedom of others or stop injustices? Like the holocaust?

docquesting · 03-11-2005, 05:47 PM

I think about 90% of our wars have started becuase of us being attacked first. But I agree with John mostly on this subject so I prbly wont comment much. An interseting article that might not apply to this thread but here goes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aq_drone_chase

Atom · 03-11-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

So we shouldn't fight to defend the freedom of others or stop injustices? Like the holocaust?

Good question. If it had to be yes or no, and without an example, I think that my answer would be yes, we should, and circumstances should dictate if it should be changed to no, rather than the other way around.

{X}Yes, we should unless...

No, we shouldn't unless...

Either way seems rather moot without circumstances, though. But that would be my yes or no answer if I had to give a general one, I think.

**South** · 03-11-2005, 06:58 PM

I realize the thread isn't specific to a particular war, but give me these first few lines for the record and I'll reply properly.

The South seceded almost immediately after Lincolns election. He was a known abolitionist but had no chance of ending slavery as president. It was protected by the constitution meaning it would have needed a two thirds majority to change which would have been impossible with the union intact.

The south knew he didn't have the power and that the best way to guarantee the continuation of slavery would be to perpetuate the union and as such the constitutional protection.

What's more, Lincoln said during his Inaugural Address

Quote:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

The Imancipation Proclomation wasn't written until two years into the war when northern support for the war started to weaken. The winners of wars get to write the history books, but that war was no war over slavery.

Thanks for the soap box. Now for the thread response.

War is justified by any people suffering an injustice themselves, as for our (or any) outside involvement that gets tricky. What we consider injustice they may consider culture. In events such as the holocaust and currently the middle east it's a no-brainer. In such cases I think we have to start thinking human to human, not country to country.You should no sooner watch innocent people get slaughtered by a dictator across the sea than to watch it happen next door.

notepad · 03-11-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I'm not wanting to discuss individual wars. I'm looking for a census on the theory of war.

Historically and invariably, all wars have been created by a financially elite ruling class ...either out of a dispute between themselves, or to create a particular scenario to further an agenda ...an agenda that has little to do with benefiting those who are coerced into fighting and who ultimately die in these wars.

As for the Iraq war ...it is, and was never a noble war ...it is not a war to protect our people, or to defend our country, nor to save our way of life.

The war against Iraq is an illegal occupation of a sovereign country ...it is U.S. sanctioned strategic genocide of innocent Iraqis ...people who were practically helpless to defend themselves against a more powerful, invading aggressor intent on sacking their country and stealing their natural resources.

Anyone who believes differently is sadly misinformed.

Unless we are asked, unless we as a nation are absolutely committed to helping another country defend its people against an invading army, the U.S. has no right whatsoever to take preemptive military action against foreign countries ...for any reason

The invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were based on lies. Those lies began with U.S. government controlled demolitions of The World Trade Centers on 911 and its atrocity then used to instill anger and revenge against nonexistent terrorists.

...course that's being addressed in another part of the forum.

As for a theory on war, a defense plan ...that's simple. Guard and protect the U.S. borders out to 200 - 300 miles, period. Air recon a little farther ...soldiers & troops should never leave the U.S. , nor set foot on foreign soil.

If wars are to be fought, let those who would be doing the actual fighting decide whether it's worth it ...and not let the decision be made by a bunch of profit hungry bankers.

# # #

**John Scott** · 03-11-2005, 08:51 PM

Notepad. I was actually listening to a person speak out against the invasion in Iraq, and was ready to debate him, until he uttered the words, "...and you know that the CIA hired Osama to destroy the world trade center..."

Point is, hysterical rhetoric makes debates useless. We first must accept that REASON and FACT must dictate the course of the debate, not wild, baseless speculation.

Ferre · 03-11-2005, 08:59 PM

I wouldn't call the fact that those buildings came down because of an inside job is speculation.

If you really look at all the given evidence of who could have been organising 9/11 there are much, and I mean loads more 'circomstantual evidence' that Israel/CIA did it than that there was any involvement from Afghanistan or Iraq.

So all the circomstantional evidence points to Israel/CIA and Afghanistan and Iraq are being invaded.

That really makes sense. Really.

notepad · 03-11-2005, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Notepad. I was actually listening to a person speak out against the invasion in Iraq, and was ready to debate him, until he uttered the words, "...and you know that the CIA hired Osama to destroy the world trade center..."

Point is, hysterical rhetoric makes debates useless. We first must accept that REASON and FACT must dictate the course of the debate, not wild, baseless speculation.

I totally agree ...that reason and facts must designate our debate ...and I would be obliged to follow those guidelines.

As for the CIA hiring Osama to destroy the WTC buildings ...that's crap.

However, the CIA and the media (which are pretty much of the same body) are certainly guilty of misleading the public in a campaign geared toward blaming Osama ...thus using that pretense to summarily wage war against invented "enemies."

Exactly what wild, baseless speculation, or hysterical rhetoric are you referring to?

I would be happy to provide any facts that you might require.

# # #

**John Scott** · 03-11-2005, 09:16 PM

Little problem there, Ferre. Osama claimed responsibility for the attacks.

littleFella · 03-11-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

I would suggest that a war is justified if it stops injustice upon one person, even if it saves no lives and costs a million lives. We have a moral obligation to defend freedom and fight injustice.

Although you wish the thread to be about the theory of war, I think I would argue against using The American Civil war as an example of justified war, the way you presented it. Yes, it lead to the abolition of slavery, and indeed Lincoln was against slavery but for all I know he was rather against an expansion of slavery, rahter than abolition. At least officialy.

The Amercian Civil war is also known as The Secession War, and for a reason. It wasn't the North that invaded the South to help the Slaves. It was rather the South that decided it was strong enough to go on on its own. So the North got pi$$ed off and attacked the southern "gentlemen". The slavery thing was kinda "while we're at it we may as well...".

As for the general theory of war ethics (since this is what I think you mean) a war is always justified. The winner decides about the criteria.

When I was being indoctrinated in my home country the justification was simple; communism is supreme liberator of the masses, so any war by a communist country with the USSR at the lead is justified.

The Western war ethics was (is) pretty much the same. The only difference is the choice of those pesky words like the ones which find their way on banners and flags of various types and colors, and occasinally on pre-election bumbers stickers.

As for the numbers (saving one by sacrificing a million), it's a tough one.

<edit: usual typos>

gorillaboy · 03-11-2005, 09:20 PM

CNN and the CIA
(old news)

http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

GEWbert · 03-11-2005, 09:20 PM

John, just point one thing out to you on the Civil War. It was not about slaves at all. It was over the 10th Amendment and State's Rights.

Now, without getting into a big long historical speech, basically, Lincoln knew that the Border states between the Union and South could be persuaded to join the North if the issue of slavery was a minor thing. Lincoln used slavery as a platform to seem more righteous.

It's one of the more common misconnceptions of American history, similar to the idea of the first Thanksgiving.

And in terms of whether or not the Iraq war is justified, i think personally it is. Simply because a cruel despot was removed and free elections were held and the people are free. Look what it has done in the Middle East, democracy is spreading. Lebanon and Egypt are just 2 examples. Palestine and Israel are talking (yes i know it's not technically related, but both sides are supportive of democracy and against terrorism)