It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just War Theory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
for some background: en.wikipedia.org...

Just War theory is basically the idea that Wars should be Just. That there are unjust evils in the world, and that war is what we use to stop these horrible things.

Some have argued that Just War Theory is a major problem. That the idea of Just Wars is what leads to the most savage and destructive wars.

Just War Theory would've, for example, been in operation during the Thirty Year's War in Europe, which were especially savage and intractable conflicts. Both sides felt that their cause was just and moral.

So, the argument goes, we need to rid warefare of justice and morality. The reasoning and criteria for war need to be just as cold and calculating as war itself.

With States acting as 'sovereign actors' on the world field, each utterly independant in their own right, then none should be able to say 'THe people of Nation A are evil, their state and their ideology are evil. We would serve justice to go to war with them'. THen once the "Just War" starts, it never ends until one or both groups in it are utterly destroyed, or are so savaged that they can't fight anymore.

Whereas in the 'realpolitic' wars, the wars seem to be almost over triffles. Like the Prussian empire going to war with the French, not over the idea of a pan-germanic empire struggling against capitalist powers seeking to suppress it, or the expansion of franco-democratic values to the whole of europe, but rather over....particularly plentiful coalfields. But neither nation was as ravaged as after WWII, or the Napoleonic Wars.

So which is better, Just Wars, or Real-Political Ones?

Is the Global War on Terror a Just War, in its theory? Or is it pragmatic? Do we need a calculating bastard like Bismarck today? Could such a person even be elected? Or will the public in a democracy allways back charismatic and passionate leaders (be they good or bad in the end?).




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hi Nygdan, What are wars fought for, either we need the space and resources, the enemy are subhuman and a threat to us or for religeous reasons. Well we the minions are sold a story arent we, we are told that under the guise of the above that we face a threat and we need to do something about it. Its like a play, there are actors, a plot, a villain and some nice scenery to distract us.

And like the proffesionals they are, that is the Despots, Goverments, and the power mad they put on a really good show, so good that we all believe it hook line and sinker. I mean you cannot really blame us because we are conditioned to think the way they want us to anyway, they have done it for years havent they, its the longest running show in History.

So thats whats happens every time, take ww2, history will tell you that Hitler and co were invincible, they had Blitzkrieg and could not be stopped. Well thats not quoite true is it, even at the end of the war horses were still used to pull 50% of equipment around. Germany had no armed forces to speak up to 39 and were surrounded by countries with strong military forces, French troops occupide the Ruhr, you telling me they did not know what was going on.

I mean do you really believe that the British Navy who had cruisers of 10,000 tones armed with 8x8 inch guns thought the Germans could have cruisers of the same weight with 6x11 inch guns and a 4 inch belt could be built. of course not. People knew what the Germans were up to, the whole thing was planned, the powers that be wanted a unified Europe, the Common Market as it was called. Wars are good for business, the people who plan them and profit from them dont do the fighting, their smart they send the cannon fodder to do their dirty work just as they are doing in Irag/Afganistan right now.

So know there are no just wars, wars are planned and formulated by an elite as they have always been. Tell you what discuss it with your mates, say shall we go down the pub or to Iraq to get our legs blown off, what do you think the answer will be. Or if you were one of the plotters and said we can start a war and send the fools off to fight for us and we will make a stack of money what would your answer be then.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   


posted by Nygdan

Just War theory is basically the idea that Wars should be Just. Some have argued that Just War Theory is a major problem. That the idea of Just Wars is what leads to the most savage and destructive wars. So which is better, Just Wars, or 'realpolitik' ones?

Is the Global War on Terror a Just War? Or pragmatic or 'realpolitik' ? Will the public in a democracy always back charismatic and passionate leaders be they good or bad in the end? [Edited by Don W]



I think the notion of a just war is purely a Christian phenomenon. In the formative period of modern Christianity - 325-700 AD - wars were what I would call incessant. And ubiquitous. Everywhere, all the time. People took religion very seriously in that era. God was involved in the day to day affairs of man. Angels. Demons. All active in their daily lives. Those earlier Christians were also handicapped by the perfect knowledge of the divine inspiration of scripture. The Holy Bible was not only true, it was literally true.

Yet a sense of irreconcilable beliefs with practice made it imperative to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the deadly practices of war. The idea of a just war satisfied the very real question of the dire consequences of killing fellow Christians. Hence, the doctrine of a Just War. Now you can do your regular work - killing in war - and still be received into the arms of Jesus on your death.



posted by MagicMushroom

Hi Nygdan, What are wars fought for . . we the minions are sold a story . . we are told we face a threat and need to do something about it . . the despots put on a good show, so good we all believe it hook line and sinker. Wars are good for business, the people who plan them profit from them and don’t do the fighting just as in Iraq and Afghanistan right now . . no, there are no just wars, wars are planned and formulated by an elite as they have always been. [Edited by Don W]



Mr M/M, is this fatalism or just plain old realism? It cannot be gainsaid the R&Fs are not the Movers and Shakers of any society. Yet it seems you are giving too much credit for their organizational capabilities or of the power and efficacy of their arguments. I know WW2 did not start on September 1, 1939, or December 7, 1941. In both cases, factors and forces were long at work leading up to the day and time for the first shot to be fired.

Except for what I call the Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq that started March 18, 2003, no elected leader of the United States has participated in fomenting a war of the 20th century. IMO. Was the March 18, 2003, war a just war? With the certainty of hindsight, I think it was not. But OTOH, I am not aware of anyone here or anywhere who worries about killing other people vis a vis their own immortal soul. Perhaps that is the answer. No one really thinks he has an immortal soul.


[edit on 12/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Hi Don, Its realism, every recorded war in mans history has the same elements, there are no just wars, its a concept of good fighting evil but all wars are evil. The people who die in wars are not the same people who instigate them for their own financial gain and personal quest for power over others.

Your average American or Brit does not want to kill Muslims etc. as most Muslims dont want to kill us. But there are those on both sides who have ambitions of power and wealth, 9/11 was a staged event that had 3 aims, secure oil supplies, take out rogue leaders/countires and to remove potential enemies of Israel.

9/11 was sold to the American public that a peace loving democracy spreading country was attacked and the outrage and patriotism levels went through the roof. Bush and his gang went around the country telling everyone that Saddam Insane was responcible this continued from 9/11 right up to Iraq2. Yet the shambolic investigations etc. on 9/11 could not provide any real proofs so the WMD's were wheeled out to frighten people and to provide support attacking Iraq again.

Anyone with a brain in their heads would know that Iraq did not have such capabilities but Fox News and others sold the story that well and coupled with a rather insular populace the outcome was a resounding success for the war mongers.

The day after 9/11 that bufoon Bush actually said the C word when talking of the War on Teror and Emporer Blair actually named who was responcible for 9/11 which is quite interesting as the feds did not know who was behind the attacks at the time. In their excitement to tell us all that were under attack and going to war again they must have messed up their lines.

So on the back of 9/11 the just cause is we have to take out these rogue states that are a threat to us. In plane English that translates to we have to take out none Capatalist countries and convert them to our ways, then we can rob them or their natural wealth, we can exploit their people, sell them cheap crap at inflated prices, put our own people out of work because we can pay these people a lot less. And the extra bonus for the ME is we can assure Israel its security as were their lackies anyway. They can continue with their Genocide of the Palestinian people unabated because the Palestinians have nothing we want.

After the ME it will be China and Korea set up for same treatment, probaly a conflict will be provoked between Taiwan and China, as the US is backing Taiwan and Japan we know what will happen next.
China poses a very real threat the America's global asperations so some suitable outrage will be perpatrated on the American people, an event far worse than 9/11.

What amazes me more than anything is the way they work the same trick everytime and people fall for it everytime.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

It’s realism, every recorded war in man’s history has the same elements, there are no just wars. It’s a concept of good fighting evil but all wars are evil. The people who die in wars are not the same people who instigate them for their own financial gain and personal quest for power over others.
[Edited by Don W]



Too cynical, Mr M/M. Your description is more apt for aggressors than it is for defenders. And some aggressors would argue the right of preemption when you are certain your enemy is about to do you in. There have been heroes and heroines in the past that waged war for a cause, Hannibal and Joan of Arc come to mind.

In fact, I’m right this minute listening to a book on tape “Washington’s Secret War” by Thomas Fleming. We learned in high school that Washington did not cut down a cherry tree nor did he throw a dollar across the Potomac, but I have learned that Washington was one of the greatest men to have ever lived. He earned and deserves the title, “Father of our Country.”

I say with confidence that without George Washington, there would not be an United Stats of America. A dominion as in Canada, sure, but Mexico’s border would run to Oregon, and Florida would be a territory of Spain. The Dominion of the Americas would number about 35 provinces and the Great Plains would be a First Nations Reserve. The Panama Canal would not have been constructed until the 1930s or even the 1940s. Nor Hoover Dam, nor Grand Coulee Dam nor Bonneville Dam. Imperial valley would be a collection of roadside fruit stands.

Slavery would have been abolished around 1830 and the freed slaves would have been welcomed into society. Things would have been very much different if GW had not survived 3 musket shots through his clothes and 2 horses shot from under him early in his military career. Indeed, GW himself said later that he took that good fortune to be a signal of later great deeds to be done.

King George III said of George Washington, when he surrendered his symbolic sword to Congress in 1783, “He is the greatest man in the world.” Presumably including himself.

More Later.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

The Nine Eleven Event was sold to the American public that a peace loving democracy was attacked. The outrage and patriotism levels went through the roof. Bush and his gang went around the country telling everyone Saddam Hussein was responsible. This story continued from 2001 right up to Iraq2, on March 18, 2003. Fox News and others sold the story that coupled well with a rather insular populace. The outcome was a resounding success for the war mongers. Initially.

After the ME it will be China and North Korea set up for same treatment.
A conflict between Taiwan and China will be provoked. The US is backing Taiwan. China poses a real threat to America's global aspirations, so some suitable outrage will be perpetrated on the American people.

What amazes me more than anything is the way they work the same trick every time and the people fall for it every time. [Edited by Don W]



I agree, Mr M/M, that the GOP and Bush43 co-opted the Nine Eleven Event to save his failing presidency. B43 had inherited a projected surplus of $1.5 trillion, a growing economy and a stock market at 11,000. B43 promptly gave away the surplus to the R&Fs in tax cuts. This scared the begebies out of the big investors, causing the DJIA to fall to 7,000. I imagine B41 called B43 that PM and counseled, “War trumps Economy.”

B43 has presided over the mucking up of the Middle East beyond the worst nightmares of even OBL. Every country in that region is now in play, thanks to B43, VP Cheney of $70 million Halliburton fame, , the Oberfuhrer Herr Rumsfeld and the Birmingham Songbird, Sec Rice. America’s own Gang of Four. It is clear (and sad) to see B43 is completely bewildered. His facade of overbearing, arrogant and dismissive attitude towards others is lifted! His unrestrained self confidence has finally evaporated. He once boasted that he and he alone, is the decider! Now, he can't decide! Shame. Shame on him and shame on those around him. 3,000 KIA Americans and 75,000 or more dead Iraqis to show for this miscue. Shame.

We, or more correctly they, have given the ME over to Iran. We’ll have to wait to see what Iran decides to do with it. I do not think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is serious about Israel. I regard his ranting more as a ‘rally the troops’ cry. The current conference on the Holocaust is just more of the same hoopla.

It is plain that Bush43 did not appreciate the complex relations and interconnections around the Middle East, nor did his advisors. They are riding the (allegorical) tiger! Because B43 decided to go it alone, rejecting the United Nations, and seeking advice of no one living in the ME, other than the masterful con man, Ahmed Chalabi, who the CIA admitted they paid $250,000 a month, gave the only info we had on Saddam’s Iraq. Sweet Jesus! Too much hubris. Too much white powder at Skull & Bones meetings! Too much.

More On China Later




[edit on 12/14/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

After the ME it will be China and North Korea set up for same treatment. A conflict between Taiwan and China will be provoked. The US is backing Taiwan. China poses a real threat to America's global aspirations, so some suitable outrage will be perpetrated on the American people.

What amazes me more than anything is the way they work the same trick every time and the people fall for it every time. [Edited by Don W]



1) South Korea has more cause for concern over DPRK - Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - than either the US or Japan. China is of course, the ultimate puppet-master vis a vis DPRK. The PRC supplies over half its food and 3/4th of its energy. The missile firings were a failure. Whether NK has a “weapon” or a “device” has not been clarified, which is consistent with your hypothesis that America’s R&Fs want to keep the proletariat under a regime of fear. Seoul has enough GDP to bring in NK as West Germany did for East Germany.

The problem is what to do with the 150,000 members of the DPRK Communist Party and 75,000 Secret Police enforcers. South Korea - ROK - Republic of Korea, does not want them loose in the countryside fomenting a take-over. And they are not going to go quietly into the night. As much as I hate to say it, it would be smart for the US and Seoul to pay them $1 million each, and give them passports to the Mediterranean Sea gold coast. Cost: $225 billion. And cheap in my mind. Pay it to them over a 5 years period in equal installments. As in buying out a losing coach’s contract.

2) China is more difficult. The easy half is this: I do not see China and the US being locked into some kind of economic competition for world dominance. China is nowhere without Wal-Mart. And Wal-Mart is nowhere without China. That’s a true symbiotic relationship. China has a lot of unpublicized internal problems rising from the discontent felt by the 1 bullion “inlanders” who are not sharing in the prosperity new since 1977, as compared to the more prosperous 300 million “coastals” who are part and parcel of the Chinese Economic Miracle.

It is proving more difficult every day to keep 1 billion people on the Communist theory while allowing 300 million to go off that regimen and jump onto the capitalist theory. $7 million apartments in Shanghai are not unknown. This when almost all the inlanders are still living in mud huts and think themselves lucky (rich) to have a scrap of corrugated sheet metal for a roof.

3) In 1897, Japan took the island they re-named Formosa, a Portugese word for “beautiful isle.” The inhabitants were compelled to grow rice fo the Empire of the Rising Sun. They did it well as there are no indications the Japanese were uncharacteristically harsh to them as they were to others later in Nanking, Manila and elsewhere. At the end of War 2, the US "gave" the island back to the Republic of China Chiang controlled by Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang Party. The KMT was then locked in a deadly civil war with the Communist 8th Route Army under Mao Zedong. By December 8, 1949, the last of nearly 2 million KMT loyalists had fled to Formosa now called Taiwan. The Commuinists had wrested control of mainland China from the KMT.

The PRC - People’s Republic of China - has never recognized Taiwan to be independent. The PRC asserts it is the legal successor to the 1912 Republic of China formed by Sun Yat-sen on the overthrow of the Manchu's Qing dynasty, the last of the Chinese emperors. As such, the historic territory belongs to the PRC. It is an article of faith of Chinese Communists that one day they will have Taiwan. I think they would be willing to make a deal like that made with the UK over Hong Kong and Portugal over Macao. But I do think this issue will have to be faced, sooner now, rather than still later.

E N D


[edit on 12/14/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Hi Don, You made some good points but getting back to just wars, the war on terror has been sold as a just war. The people who support this war have blindly believed that Iraq was capable of attacking America with WMD's which was a blatant lie. So the people who support this war are basing their feelings and views on a false premise, they are supporting their goverment in this crusade because of what they beleive.

The theory of a just war, in that you take out those who you perceive as an actual threat is still based on the same formula, that is you want to maintain your position of power, you need to be assured of your basic raw materials to run your country, the people have to be in support of your goals, this is done either with 9/11 type events or you impose conditions that will achieve same.

The despots of the last century were adided and abetted by the West, we supplied them with the means to attack us, we knew what they were up to and again the just war theory gets wheeled out to the brain dead and while the cannon fodder die the perps win from both sides of the conflict.
And if someone decided that the US or UK were a threat to their security would they be called heroes for taking us on, no I dont think so.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

Hi Don, You made some good points . . The theory of a just war, is still based on the same formula, that you want to maintain your position of power, you need to be assured of your basic raw materials to run your country, the people have to be in support of your goals . . the despots were abetted by the West, we supplied them . . we knew what they were up to . . the just war theory gets wheeled out to the brain dead and while the cannon fodder die the perps win from both sides of the conflict. If someone decided that the US or UK were a threat to their security would they be called heroes for taking us on? [Edited by Don W]



Believe it or not, Mr M/M, this is the same problem George Washington faced. The Continental Congress was micro-managing the war; the suppliers of food and clothes were overcharging and the solders died for want of food, shelter, fire wood and medicines. The Continental Army enlistment period was 3 years. A private’s pay was $6.75 a month, but in all too many months they did not get paid. The Congress had no taxing power. The Congress petitioned the states to send money, which they usually did not.

When the British moved to capture our capital, Philadelphia, the 3rd largest city in the English speaking world, and the largest over here, Washington had but 6,000 men to defend the city. The British Army had 10,000 men to attack with. Washington asked the Congress to send men from Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania militia had 70,000 men signed up. Congress requested 3,000 to be activated. The best PA could do was 1,500 for 6 months. The British captured Philadelphia. The more things change, the more they stay the same!


[edit on 12/14/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Sweden/Switzerland are nuetral countries they do not pose a threat to anyone and do not have ambitions to rule the world. If an agressor decided to invade their countries then they have a right to defend themselves and that action would be justified. If those countries decided to go futher in their actions then the cause is not just.

America since ww2 is responcible for the deaths of millions of people both civilian and military. It is responcible for the carpet bagging in Iraq/Afganistan, it wishes to rule the world. This is why people call the US the great satan and evil so America cannot claim the moral high ground and say it is protecting itself from potential enemies.

America is seen as the aggressor therefore it cannot use the just war theory especially when the present and previous goverments has used all maner of dirty tactics to further its goals. America was quite happy to keep Saddam in power as a bulwark against the Iranians and was supplied by the West. Once he would not play ball we take him out.

Iran had a chance of becoming some form of democracy in the 50's but the leader was killed off because he wanted to control the oil and not let companies like BP. America is sowing the seeds of its own destruction but then claims its got enemies on all sides, well thats what happens when you play for the big boy stakes.

America and its war on terror is corrupt, even many Americans realise this, only the blind patriots persist in claiming their Goverment is right



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   


posted by magicmushroom

Sweden Switzerland are neutral countries they do not pose a threat to anyone and do not have ambitions to rule the world. If an aggressor decided to invade their countries then they have a right to defend themselves and that action would be justified. If those countries decided to go father in their actions then the cause is not just.[Edited by Don W]



A European military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. 155,000 square miles. A bit larger than California or Japan. Population, 9 million, 2006 CIA est. Median age 40. (US 36.5) GDP per person, $30,000. (2005) Military expenditures as a per cent of GDP: 1.5%. (US 4.1%).

The Bofors 40 mm automatic anti-aircraft cannons were used by all the Allied powers in WW2, paying royalties to the Swedish firm. en.wikipedia.org...

Switzerland. The Swiss Confederation was founded in 1291 as a defensive alliance among three cantons. In succeeding years, other localities joined the original three. The Swiss Confederation secured its independence from the Holy Roman Empire in 1499. Switzerland's sovereignty and neutrality have long been honored by the major European powers, and the country was not involved in either of the two World Wars. Area, 15,700 square miles. Twice the size of New Jersey. Population: 7.5 million, CIA for 2006. Median age, 40. (US 36.5) GDP per person, $32,200. (2005). Military expenditures as a per cent of GDP: 1%. (US 4.1%). Ethnicity: German 63.7%, French 20.4%, Italian 6.5%. All others, 9.4%. (2001)

The Oerlikon 20 mm rapid firing cannons were used by the US all during the WW2, with royalties paid to the Swiss firm. www.geocities.com...

During WW2. Sweden was a primary source of iron ore and lumber to Germany, as well as other raw materials. During WW2, Switzerland was home to all the spies in Europe. Deals were made between belligerents. As in whose rich nationals could get their families out of or into various countries, and etc. Even when you are at war, you need to talk. A lesson B43 missed while at Yale.



America is seen as the aggressor therefore it cannot use the just war theory. America was quite happy to keep Saddam in power as a bulwark against the Iranians. He was supplied by the West. Once he would not play ball we took him out. America and its war on terror is corrupt, even many Americans realize this, only the blind patriots persist in claiming their Government is right. [Edited by Don W]



I could not put it better Mr M/M!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join