absolutley. are you suggesting that the allies should have negotiated with hitler?
I am fascinated - how do you arrive at Hitler?
Hitler was the best example for an aggressor - thus his war was unjust too, although probably not by his own standards set out in Mein Kampf. However, had people read the book, they wouldn’t have been so surprised. Nor would people in our time been surprised at the Neocons, if they had read: newamericancentury.org
For more information on Neocons, please read: csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Shalom
Bob
Hitlers war was unjust, granted. Labelling it so does not get rid of hitler. He would probubly have shot you on the spot for suggesting such a thing.
Are you claiming that it unjust to stop an injustice by the only means possible to stop it? I cannot think of anouther possible solution to hitlers armies and their genocide. If his armies refused to stand down, what action would you recomend taking that would allow justice to be served? I would claim that it is an injustice to allow hitler to continue unopposed. The situation in iraq is similar, saddam hussein would NOT step down from power. Negotiations with him to end his tyrannical rule were impossible. There was no way to end his brutal dictatorship but to forcefully remove him from power.
God of all people who we would like to think of as just went to war against Lucifer for trying to attain the throne of the universe did he not?
Hmm, Im having some deja-vu…
But anyway, the key word here is ‘worth’
Who defines what is worth what? To people in power that initiate wars, they are worth undertaking.
To the common citizen, worth can be instilled via propoganda.
Just ask all the people that support Iraq.
If you don’t believe them, just ask the the people that supported hitler.
Once again, I leave off with a quote.
[i]
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII[/i]
No, I quote from before: “a people occupied by an enemy, are more justified to fight against the oppressors.” I believe that people have the right to defend themselves against oppression - but the point that the Bible makes (the ethical ideal of many countries) is that it is the last alternative and sometimes it is even no alternative to other methods of opposition. However, I see WWII as the result of incompetence on many levels - the late entry of the USA due to business ties - and the ignorance of nationalism that was rampant beforehand.
The quote from the satanical corner shows how easy it is regarded to manipulate the masses - as the Bush administration has proven yet again. It is important for people to realise that the methods of manipulation will become more subtle with technological advance and be awake to such possibilities.
From a Christian point of view, as with many other religious systems, aggressive (pre-emptive) war should logically be regarded as the absolute breakdown, not as a natural extension of politics. Democracies vote theoretically representatives of the people, who should act in the interests of the people. We may be in the century when Democracy is put aside, but as long as it is the ‘best we’ve got’ (as against the best there can be), we must urge people to use their vote to assure that the representatives act in their interest - which can hardly be the death of our Men and Boys.
Shalom
Bob
I would urge every one to resist paralleling Hitler with Sadam Husain. the situation is totally different. we didn’t go to war with Hitler simply because he is brutal and aggressive. we went to war with him (or say his country) because he was attacking Poland. Iraq was not like that, it wasn’t really posing a threat to her neibours as no wmd has been found for that use. if you say that it is enough to initiate a war with someone purely because he is brutal to his people then I’ll have to argue with you on that.
Sorry, but that wasn’t the only condition. This war was fought because the responsible administration wanted a success and believed that Iraq would be a doddle. The trouble was that of course the war was a doddle, but the peace wasn’t even considered. The film that has now run in Germany has pointed out clearer than anything I have seen before, that the Bush administration has manipulated public opinion from the start to the finish. He has even misused his Church to invoke a favourable picture.
Here was a conglomeration of exploitative interests at work that didn’t give a damn about how brutal the Dictator was. His past crimes obviously were used as fuel to manipulate public feeling, but we need to completely stop believing or even insinuating that the war on Iraq was commited for anything more than the furtherment of imperial and corporate interests and propaganda to secure the Presidency.
The question was whether war can be just or ethical. My answer is that it is justifiable to protect yourself against oppression, not to oppress. It is justifiable to kill in self-defense, but not as an act of open aggression. ‘You shall not kill’ is not only a commandment in the Bible, but a principle of civilised people throughout the world. But I personally believe in other forms of opposition than with the sword or the gun.
Shalom
Bob
I believe the best definition of war I have ever heard, is that war is the culmination of the clashing of ideas. When two opposing ideas or beliefs come into conflict, there is war.
Not all wars are fought out with arms, but all wars are fought. When the scale of an idea becomes big enough or wide spread enough, the war becomes a more empassioned discussion. Or when the topic is a extraordinarily crucial one, then the stakes of the war become bigger.
I would like to think that someday violent war could be avoided much more often than it is now, but this will take a very long time to accomplish and the human nature of existence right now would have to change.
So, is it just or ethical? Yes and no. It is always ethical and just to disagree. No change ever happens unless someone disagrees with the standard. Many countries were founded this way, many religions came into being, and many political factions would not hold any sway whatsoever is “war” was not conducted.
However, violent war can be just, but is not always. It can also be ethical, but is not always. One thing however, is that war on some scale is always necessary. Remember that some of the greatest changes in world history, for better and worse came because of war.
negotiating with Hitler might have saved the citizens of dresden and many other infernos…
the war in iraq was unjust where it went further than kicking saddam… basicly US messed up there
war is usually pure cruelty, if you can evade killing and hurting people i may in some rare cases agree with war… in some cases war may be necessary, but killing 15000 iraqis and plenty of afghani isn’t…
First of all i’d like to congratulate you on your last two paragraphs and your ability to type alot without saying very much. 
It’s true that great changes came about because of violent wars, but that doesn’t make them ethical. The Roman Empire modernized most of the areas it conquered, and brought these areas out of third-world conditions. But they also stole the native’s land and rights to self determination. Just because change resulted, even for the “better”, does not make an action ethical. I could kill an Islamic fundamentalist extremist who is promoting and facilitating violence, but I’ve still taken the life of a human being, with a family that now has no support.
The problem with asking if war is ethical is that it brings up the question of a standard code of ethics amoung humans. Can all people be held to the same ethical standard, even though ethics are subjective?
I’d have to say that, world-wide standard or not, certainly taking another human’s most basic right to live, no, life is more than a right, its an intrinsic virtue, is unethical.
at this point, the correlation between war and pure cruelty, murder, torture and oppression
is far too great to call war just… can you give me an example of a ‘clean’ war, (such as US government suposedly intended in Iraq, not quite the result… ) anyway
let’s find other ways to solve conflicts … ban war
this is one of the main reasons i want us so badly to make UN work…
The UN can’t work, not the way it’s structured now where the security council can veto any votes by the general assembly. We need some new sort of International Senate. And if the powers that be ever get their heads on straigt they’ll put it in Switzerland and each nation will have one vote. World War II is over, the UN is out-dated.
Agreed and when the Veto happens, everybody is left to try and make a resolution that is a compromise - but without meat - and renders the security council to being a joke.
There must be the possibility of Resolutions against the Empire or it’s interests - even if it is rejected by the Empire itself. The problem is that we want everybody to have a voice so that all interests are represented, but if a country is criticised, it can’t just say I’m not playing ball anymore. Worse still is when Empire says, I’m taking the ball with me.
It was difficul when we had the blocks: Soviet Union, China and Western Alliance. But at least the blocks sought influence amongst the ‘neutral’ or ‘undecided’ states. It was then clear, when one ‘Superpower’ had the world against them, there was a ‘Superpower’ amongst the opposition. Now, this administration is saying that nobody is allowed to criticise us - and if they do, we’ll ignore them.
If the Soviet Union or China tried that, the Americans were the first to jump down their throats. There is an international agreement that even Empire must agree to: If something is good for me, then it is good for anybody.
It is a derivate of the Golden Rule: That which you would have done to yourself, do unto others. What you don’t want done to you, don’t do to others. Something that even Christ adhered to.
Shalom
Bob
well, if UN structure can’t work…
we should either change that structure or find a better one so we can make it work…
any suggestions?
“any suggestions?”
you’re making sound so easy!!!
Yann
Yeah, definitely not easy…
I suggested an “International Senate”, my idea being that each country would elect a number of representatives (a set number for all nations, not proportional to population or anything of the sort). In some countries this/these representatives would be by default the nation’s current executive but in repubulics these senators would be decided by general elections and would not be related to the elections for presidents/prime ministers/etc. Each senator would have one vote in the assembly, and senators from the same country could vote against each other.
The problem with this and every senate is the possibility of corruption and bribary. Which is why senators’ elections will be funded only by a grant from the International Senate’s coffers.
I know this suggestion is a little thin, but I’m sorry to say I haven’t done enough research into political sciences to flesh it out more.
Hopefully an international lawmaking body that is more representative of the people and more even handed in terms of its members’ power will be more able to make decisions as to which wars are “justified” and deal with the people who make “unjustified” wars.
how about we make a new thread for this?
This is in regards to whether or not a war can be ethical.
And really, when you break it down, no its not.
And the west did not go to war with Hitler for the reasons you might think. We always knew what he was doing to the Jewish nation, maybe not to the full extent but they new. They went to war with him when our people changed their minds about fascism. So when you break it down, we didn’t go to war with Hitler on some holy quest to save the Hebrew people, we did it to stop his own political agenda, one that his own nation democratically elected might I add. And the United States didnt even get involved until Japan attacked them, they didnt even care about Hitler. So this method of the western nations forcing themselves onto other countries and making them change their own idea is not a new one, So maybe Bush has read a history book or two.
The war on Iraq may not have been a terrible idea though. It was not a secret that Iraq hated the US and wanted to attack it. If Iraq got their hands on some major weapons it would have been game over. So why is a preemptive strike looked down on?
And as for the UN, I look at it as the Stundent Council of the World, thats it.
One word: RAWANDA.
Yes, “intervention” is a more appropriate a word, but the actions and intentions of such an operation (which unfortunately didn’t occur) run parallel to that of war-more accurately, a morally just war.
Unfortunately moral justification (more often then not) isn’t enough if a state or administrations self interest cannot be adequately satisfied. And of course, the willing are not always the able.