Just War Theory

[Joel]

2. The wrong was against the Iraqi people, who could not defend themselves.

This argument means that action in Libya is justified. If the Libyan government is using force illegitimately against its people, another power is justified to intervene.

If I see someone pull a gun on you for no reason, am I justified to shoot them? Why or why not?

 

[JMoney]

This argument means that action in Libya is justified. If the Libyan government is using force illegitimately against its people, another power is justified to intervene.

No, a just war must agree with all of the criteria, not just one point. Libya fails the "last resort" criteria because the civil war in Libya was not a threat against the U.S.

If I see someone pull a gun on you for no reason, am I justified to shoot them? Why or why not?

Yes, as long as I'm not armed. You would be defending an unarmed person. But that's not applicable to just war theory, that's simple law.

 

[Imari]

2. The wrong was against the Iraqi people, who could not defend themselves.

Maybe so. But:

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

In what manner was the American government or military sanctioned by the Iraqi people to use force against the "legitimate" Iraqi government?


I'm pretty sure that none of the wars you listed are just according to the Principles of a Just War that you quoted. If you want, we can go through how each war violates one or more of those principles and you can either explain or adjust your opinion.

==========

I should also point out that this:

I found this, which I mostly agree with.

tends to give the impression that the actual definition of a just war was not something that you considered strongly before writing the paper. Personally, I think it would be difficult to build a cogent argument for something to be just without actually having a clear idea what it means for that to be just beforehand.

Frankly, it should be paragraphs one and two of the essay, that being the central point upon which all your other arguments rest. If the reader cannot identify and agree with your assessment of which wars are just and unjust and why, then there's no point them reading the rest of your arguments.

This is more in the form of writing advice than anything, but you may find it useful the next time you do a similar essay. Particularly when addressing controversial topics, it's very important to establish early clear meanings for key concepts.

 

[Rage Racer]

"War for peace is like ****ing for virginity" (c)

 

[Joel]

No, a just war must agree with all of the criteria, not just one point. Libya fails the "last resort" criteria because the civil war in Libya was not a threat against the U.S.
Yes, as long as I'm not armed. You would be defending an unarmed person. But that's not applicable to just war theory, that's simple law.

What's the difference between the situations? I'm not asking what's legal, I'm asking what's just. Why is it OK in one case for a third party to intervene without a direct threat to them, but in another case it's wrong for a third party to intervene without a direct threat to them?

 

[huskeR32]

There's no contradiction. I never said the UN, the NATO or the world believed it was a threat, I used the vague term "everyone" which I later clarified to be Americans. The Americans believed Hussein to be an international threat. I never said it was an international belief that he had WMD's and should be stopped.

Okay, fine. You didn't intend to imply anyone other than the US supported the invasion of Iraq. Then what exactly is the difference between Iraq and Syria?

Let's start here:

The [Iraq] war's initiation was just because the U.S. believed it was stopping an international threat.

Alright. As recently as two months ago, Libya was requesting assistance to dispose of 850 tons of chemical weapons. That right there is more solid evidence for Syria having WMDs than there ever was for the idea that Iraq had any. Add to that that it's very likely that chemical weapons were used against Syrian citizens in the past few years, and I'd say it's pretty clear that Gaddafi was a threat. He had weapons. He was willing to use them. Period.

So, I'll ask again. What was the difference between the two situations? Why was Iraq just, while Syria wasn't?

 

[JMoney]

What's the difference between the situations? I'm not asking what's legal, I'm asking what's just. Why is it OK in one case for a third party to intervene without a direct threat to them, but in another case it's wrong for a third party to intervene without a direct threat to them?

Because a military serves a purpose. It's more than one guy who has a chance to save someone. A military is funded by its nation, which its purpose is to protect. Militaries cost tons of money, and every action they take should be in the interest of it's people. It cost millions to bomb Libya, but the only cost to the single man protecting someone is one bullet. You can't just simplify the situations to compare them.

Okay, fine. You didn't intend to imply anyone other than the US supported the invasion of Iraq. Then what exactly is the difference between Iraq and Syria?

Let's start here:


Alright. As recently as two months ago, Libya was requesting assistance to dispose of 850 tons of chemical weapons. That right there is more solid evidence for Syria having WMDs than there ever was for the idea that Iraq had any. Add to that that it's very likely that chemical weapons were used against Syrian citizens in the past few years, and I'd say it's pretty clear that Gaddafi was a threat. He had weapons. He was willing to use them. Period.

So, I'll ask again. What was the difference between the two situations? Why was Iraq just, while Syria wasn't?

Are we talking about Syria or Libya? Libya's leader was Ghaddafi. Syria's is Al-Assad, who DOES have chemical weapons. The U.S. never did anything in Syria because of Obama's indecisiveness, and his imaginary "red line" that apparently never existed. If the U.S. did invade Syria I would argue that the cause would be just, and an occupation of U.S. forces in Syria (and Iraq, for that matter) would stabilize the region as long as the U.S. is committed.

 

[Imari]

If the U.S. did invade Syria I would argue that the cause would be just, and an occupation of U.S. forces in Syria (and Iraq, for that matter) would stabilize the region as long as the U.S. is committed.

Go right ahead. Your Principles of a Just War are posted earlier in this thread, run through it and see if you can argue for each point.

 

[JMoney]

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

Sanctions have already been tried, the rebels are losing and an international intervention would be the only way to stop Al-Assad.

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

The U.S. is obviously a legitimate authority.

• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

The U.S. would be redressing the wrongs caused by chemical attacks, thus defending civilians.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The U.S, as a superpower, could easily defeat Al-Assad with proper devotion to the war effort.

• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

Syria with a new government that doesn't kill its own people is preferable to a government that does.

• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The U.S. wouldn't use a drastic action such as nuclear weapons; a conventional invasion would meet this requirement.

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The U.S. would simply avoid civilian casualties to the best of its ability, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

----

There ya go.

 

[Imari]

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

The U.S. is obviously a legitimate authority.

I have to say, it's not obvious to me how the U.S. has authority over Syrian citizens. Nor how Syrian citizens have given the U.S. that authority.

Perhaps you could explain in more detail why the U.S. is a legitimate authority. Remember that if you think it's obvious, it probably isn't and you should just explain it anyway.

• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

The U.S. would be redressing the wrongs caused by chemical attacks, thus defending civilians.

The chemical attacks on U.S. civilians? Or the chemical attacks on Syrian civilians?

As far as I can tell the motivation is for the U.S. to defend Syrians, hence the questions to the previous point.

• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The U.S. wouldn't use a drastic action such as nuclear weapons; a conventional invasion would meet this requirement.

I think what's more interesting about this one is the proportionality to the injury suffered.

What injury has the U.S. suffered that would make any sort of response reasonable?

==========

While you're at it, you might address an implicit assumption in all your statements: Why should Al-Assad be stopped? Or rather, what makes the rebels or IS or any other faction preferable over Al-Assad?

 

[Blitz24]

Many people felt that Hussein needed to be removed because he was such a threat. Problem is, despite being a threat he kept the country in order and the crazy sects of radicals weren't going to remove him.

 

[huskeR32]

Are we talking about Syria or Libya? Libya's leader was Ghaddafi. Syria's is Al-Assad, who DOES have chemical weapons. The U.S. never did anything in Syria because of Obama's indecisiveness, and his imaginary "red line" that apparently never existed. If the U.S. did invade Syria I would argue that the cause would be just, and an occupation of U.S. forces in Syria (and Iraq, for that matter) would stabilize the region as long as the U.S. is committed.

Oh, dear. I fell down a rabbit hole of Arab Spring this and terrorism that, and it looks like I came out on the other side not remembering who we were talking about. My apologies.

Anywho, one link I posted there, concerning the chemical weapons that Libya has requested help ridding itself of, is still relevant. Gaddafi's regime appears to have had weapon-grade chemicals at its disposal. This would appear to constitute a threat similar to Iraq, wouldn't it? I'm still not seeing why one was just and the other was not.

 

[Joel]

Because a military serves a purpose. It's more than one guy who has a chance to save someone. A military is funded by its nation, which its purpose is to protect.

I don't see why that changes the ethics of it. If intervening on behalf of another to save them from an aggressor is just, it shouldn't matter if it's one guy with a gun or a dictator attacking his own citizens. I don't see why there needs to be a threat on US interests to justify these things. Sure that's what's constitutional, but that's not necessarily what's just or ethical.

Militaries cost tons of money, and every action they take should be in the interest of it's people. It cost millions to bomb Libya, but the only cost to the single man protecting someone is one bullet. You can't just simplify the situations to compare them.

If we're scaling it up a few F-16's and some hellfire missiles to combat Gaddafi is probably comparable proportional to US GDP than a couple rounds to an average Joe. I'm not simplifying the situations to be pedantic, I'm trying to get to the principles behind war or any use of force, I don't see a difference in the logic behind defending yourself from a home invasion or defending your nation from a foreign army, just as I don't see a difference between a third party stopping an armed robbery, or NATO intervention against a dictator killing his own citizens.

Why does force only become just when there's a direct threat on your interests? How would you define the interest of a nation's people?

 

[Imari]

If we're scaling it up a few F-16's and some hellfire missiles to combat Gaddafi is probably comparable proportional to US GDP than a couple rounds to an average Joe.

And really, most of that military hardware and personnel probably gets paid for whether they're fighting a war or not.

 

[niky]

I find this laughable, right here:

The course of the war remained just after the U.S. realized there were no WMD's because it was protecting the Iraqi people.

...

Obama had no real reason to drop bombs in Libya, only to support a rebellion.

Muammar Gaddafi had protesters shot in the streets. Protecting the Libyan people is not a just cause?

Let's also remember that Bush never set out to invade Iran, which is working on the nuclear bomb. And that no one has had the guts to invade North Korea, which is doing so as well, and which has a human rights record worse than any of the above.

Or China, which has the nuclear capacity to strike the United States, a dismal human rights record, and which has been actively engaging in military espionage and intelligence warfare against the United States for quite a while. China has always posed a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq... which only posed a possible threat to Israel. So why has nobody invaded China?

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

They weren't. Iraq was under heavy sanctions, and was cooperating with UN inspectors at the time. It was the United States who felt that they were being obstructive, and the UN inspectors were proven right after the war. Nowhere near a last resort, and waged despite the effectiveness of sanctions.

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

Going against the wishes of its allies and the UN in general, the United States lost legitimate authority.

• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

No injury suffered. Self-defense argument shown by evidence beforehand to be faulty, and shown by evidence afterwards to be faulty.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

Define hopeless. Define moral. If one gives one's life to save the life of a civilian, or to allow civilians to flee from harm, is that hopeless? Are all holding actions thus unjust? Would the defense of Stalingrad, Poland or France thus be considered unjust?

• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

Sadly, neither the Afghanistan or Iraqi war did. Or at least such peace will be a long time coming.

• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

@Danoff would have something to say about that. (He did support the Iraqi action, though)

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

I agree in principle, but that's a slippery slope. If civilians contribute in some way to the enemy's war effort, supplying food, munitions or shelter, civilian casualties are unavoidable.

-

In the end, I can't help but look back on this as a sign of everything that is wrong with this philosophy:

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

This does not define a "just" war. It defines a "pragmatic" approach to warfare... or rather, a more opportunistic approach to it.

Basically... you only pick fights you know you can win outright, regardless of your opponent's actual capacity to cause harm to yourself or suffering to others. In other words, countries like China or Russia get a free pass.

This is largely how superpowers wage war. But I wouldn't call it just. Not by a long shot.

To use the term "just" to justify the Iraqi invasion sort of misses the point. The war was not justified from the self-defense point of view by existing intelligence at the time, and if it was justified as a means to protect the Iraqi people, there are a lot of others (North Koreans, Chinese dissidents, Tibetans, etcetera) who likewise need protection but who are simply not getting it.

 

[Liquid]

I do not think there is, or will be, universal acceptance on what constitutes a 'just' war. As others have already pointed out one person's definition will clash with another person's depending on their background and experiences.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

This heavily insinuates that a war of independence or self-determination is not worthwhile from the start; that a minority group of rebels cannot or should not try to tackle an oppressive or occupying government.

Rightly or wrongly, it wasn't diplomacy that led to the Republic of Ireland and don't forget that your own country was codified 13 years after a revolutionary war.

The U.S. is obviously a legitimate authority.

Why? Because it has a big army?

Things like this are why American foreign policy is hated around the world. This is an incredibly arrogant statement and you should really consider more tactful words in future.

Whether people are dying or not, what authority does the United States have to intervene in the sovereignty of another nation? The only legal justification it has is as a member of a multilateral NATO task force or multilateral United Nations Security Council taskforce; two bodies which did not approve of intervention in the second Iraq war, for example.

I am not taking the position that you are wrong but instead trying to draw out more justification from you and to get you to think a bit more. You could very well have an interesting explanation and viewpoint on this but you cannot take it as read that others automatically know what it is.

Let's also remember that Bush never set out to invade Iran, which is working on the nuclear bomb. And that no one has had the guts to invade North Korea, which is doing so as well, and which has a human rights record worse than any of the above.

Or China, which has the nuclear capacity to strike the United States, a dismal human rights record, and which has been actively engaging in military espionage and intelligence warfare against the United States for quite a while. China has always posed a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq... which only posed a possible threat to Israel. So why has nobody invaded China?

[...]

To use the term "just" to justify the Iraqi invasion sort of misses the point. The war was not justified from the self-defense point of view by existing intelligence at the time, and if it was justified as a means to protect the Iraqi people, there are a lot of others (North Koreans, Chinese dissidents, Tibetans, etcetera) who likewise need protection but who are simply not getting it.

And Zimbabweans. I do find it incredibly deplorable that Zimbabwe gets very little coverage. The United Kingdom and the United States actually put Robert Mugabe in power having thrown out the minority but moderate rule of Ian Smith.

Where were we in South Africa during apartheid?
Are we letting Ukraine down as per the Budapest Memorandum?
Should we still feel bad about the Western Betrayal, as it is known in Czech and Slovak?

Edit: By 'we' I mean the United Kingdom as a minimum, from my own country's perspective.

The list goes on. It's interesting how one can pick and choose which conflicts, real and theoretical, are justified but not others when many have the same criteria and causes.

 

[niky]

It goes on an on... Somalia, Darfur, Thailand, etcetera.

-

Also, ironically, while reading up on the "Just War Theory", I stumbled upon this page espousing it... which thoroughly excoriates the Iraqi war. It's a pretty good read, even if it contains a TVTropes-like number of cross-references and additional reading links:

http://www.justwartheory.com/wars.html#IRAQ

Mind you, I don't think all Bush wars were unjust. Desert Storm was not only just, it was necessary to protect US interests.

The invasion of Afghanistan was just, was in direct retaliation for injury suffered, was justified as a means to prevent or hamper further Al Quaeda attacks, and was also justified as an attempt to free oppressed people from Taliban rule.

Iraq? No. Nope. None of the above, except perhaps the last part. An Iraqi invasion would have been justified if George Senior had done it at the end of Desert Storm, dismantling the army of a despot that not even other dictators in the area liked.

But once the peaceful solution had been applied, and applied reasonably successfully, no.

 

[Liquid]

It goes on an on... Somalia, Darfur, Thailand, etcetera.

Not forgetting Palestine, of course.

 

[TheCracker]

The list goes on. It's interesting how one can pick and choose which conflicts, real and theoretical, are justified but not others when many have the same criteria and causes.

The wars that are justified are the ones where oil, or access to oil, are an issue. If there's nothing to be gained financially they/we wouldn't bother going to the effort. Simplistic, i know. But as Niky and yourself have already listed, the countries with civil and localised unrest that offer little in reward for military assistance won't get it.

 

[eran0004]

It's a lot to read in a single block. It would help if you could separate the text into paragraphs.

A few things I noted:

• Wether or not a war is just seems to depend on wether or not the president is Republican. There's no criticism at all of the Bush wars while Clinton and Obama recieves heavy criticism.
  
  
• If having weapons of mass destruction is a legitimate reason for going to war, would you agree that any other nation would have legitimate reasons for attacking the US?
  
  
• Can false intelligence make a war legitimate? Such as in the case of Iraq. Doesn't the government have a responsibility to make sure that their intelligence is correct before going to war?
  
  
• What about drone strikes, are they acts of war?
  
  
• You claim that there were no civilians in Japan in WWII and you motivate it by saying that if there were an invasion of Japan, all able civilians would be called to aid in the defense. Two things:
  
  1. All civilians aren't able. There are children, old, weak, ill and injured who wouldn't have been able to aid in the defense.
  
  2. At the time of the bombings, the able civilians weren't combatants - they were civilians. If you can claim that people who might become combatants in the future are legitimate targets, then what was wrong about the Japanese massacre on civilians in China? What's wrong about acts of terrorism? Such a standpoint would legitimate pretty much any action against civilians in any conflict.
  
  
• The Great War (WWI) is dismissed as being unjust, but why? Were everyone wrong or just one side? Which side? Was Serbia justified in defending itself against an invasion by Austria-Hungary? Was Russia justified in coming to Serbia's aid? Was Germany justified in coming to Austria-Hungary's aid? Or are military alliances unjust? What about NATO then, is that an unjust alliance?

 

[JMoney]

If we're scaling it up a few F-16's and some hellfire missiles to combat Gaddafi is probably comparable proportional to US GDP than a couple rounds to an average Joe.

Because the U.S. consists of 300 million people, who are represented by the actions of their military. The average Joe is his own person, and his actions only affect him, and to a degree his family and friends. Not an entire nation.

And really, most of that military hardware and personnel probably gets paid for whether they're fighting a war or not.

So, militaries pay to built bombs that replace bombs that were never detonated? No. Do troop numbers stay the same, not increase, when a war begins? No. Will fuel for helicopters grow back after it has been used? No.

This heavily insinuates that a war of independence or self-determination is not worthwhile from the start; that a minority group of rebels cannot or should not try to tackle an oppressive or occupying government.

Rightly or wrongly, it wasn't diplomacy that led to the Republic of Ireland and don't forget that your own country was codified 13 years after a revolutionary war.

Not necessarily- "reasonable chance of success" could be interpreted many different ways. The fact that the thirteen colonies were successful only proves there WAS a reasonable chance of success.

Wether or not a war is just seems to depend on wether or not the president is Republican. There's no criticism at all of the Bush wars while Clinton and Obama recieves heavy criticism.

• If having weapons of mass destruction is a legitimate reason for going to war, would you agree that any other nation would have legitimate reasons for attacking the US?

No, because the US does not harbor terrorists and it's responsible with its nuclear weapons.

Can false intelligence make a war legitimate? Such as in the case of Iraq. Doesn't the government have a responsibility to make sure that their intelligence is correct before going to war?

The intel was as correct as it could be without being verified, and it would have been difficult to verify it without invading.

1. All civilians aren't able. There are children, old, weak, ill and injured who wouldn't have been able to aid in the defense.

Like the children who didn't fight when Berlin was under siege?

Or these guys?

2. At the time of the bombings, the able civilians weren't combatants - they were civilians. If you can claim that people who might become combatants in the future are legitimate targets, then what was wrong about the Japanese massacre on civilians in China? What's wrong about acts of terrorism? Such a standpoint would legitimate pretty much any action against civilians in any conflict.

The civilians in Japan were different because the only alternative to the bombings would be an invasion, which definitely would cause civilians to become combatants- and, as I said, cost far more lives on both sides. Japan's invasion of China was an act of imperial aggression, not a final blow to end a war.

 

[Liquid]

Not necessarily- "reasonable chance of success" could be interpreted many different ways. The fact that the thirteen colonies were successful only proves there WAS a reasonable chance of success.

Which is very easy to say after the fact. What I said was, that people wouldn't bother with revolutionary movements in the first place because "What's the point? We're greatly outnumbered."

Only hypothetically can we speak of what if the British colonies hadn't revolted or if the Irish Republican Brotherhood hadn't clamoured together; these people did fight what was surely a fight without a great chance of success and they paid the price in bodies, IRA bombings, burnt churches and dumped tea. Your initial point intimated a lot that people shouldn't bother in the first place.

Should the Tibetans give up?
Should the South Sudanese give up?
Should the North Korean resistance give up?

Two of those three don't stand a chance against what they're up against. So by your definition of a 'just' war they should remain oppressed.

If your retort is "Those people then need US help because they can't fight for themselves" then why isn't the US in all places where separatist movements are ongoing against oppressive dictators? Zimbabwe, for example.

 

[niky]

Not forgetting Palestine, of course.

Ain't going to touch that one with a ten foot pole. Certain interests on both sides are best served by keeping it a conflict zone... which is why peace has so far been impossible.

So, militaries pay to built bombs that replace bombs that were never detonated? No. Do troop numbers stay the same, not increase, when a war begins? No. Will fuel for helicopters grow back after it has been used? No.

Militaries cost money to maintain. It's not as simple as replacing bombs and increasing numbers for each action. In between wars, a country has to maintain a standing army of the proper size to wage whatever war it thinks it will wage.

You can't just draft master mechanics, fighter pilots, snipers, tank drivers and whatnot at the drop of a hat. You have to actively support your military during peacetime or risk having an inadequate one when conflict arises.

And yes, you need to fuel, recharge and maintain those helicopters during peace time, as well. And you need to maintain an adequate stockpile of munitions, and replace those used in training exercises.

Not necessarily- "reasonable chance of success" could be interpreted many different ways. The fact that the thirteen colonies were successful only proves there WAS a reasonable chance of success.

In other words, "reasonable chance of success" is so widely open to interpretation that anything can be justified in hindsight.

View attachment 271222

Let's see. Both Gaddafi and Hussein were multi-decade dictators. Both have killed dissidents. Both have had open revolts against their rule. Both have supported terrorist actions against the West in the past (meaning, in periods prior to their ouster, not necessarily during the period in which they were removed).

The only difference? Trumped up charges of "WMDs" against Iraq, despite proof of compliance with UN demands both before and after the invasion.

No, because the US does not harbor terrorists and it's responsible with its nuclear weapons.

Al Quaeda hated Saddam.

Also, look up "Banana Republic", and the reason the term came to be. Then read up on your history as to which country originally armed and trained the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. And which countries supplied Saddam with the weapons he needed to wage war against Iran.

Then get back to the question.

The intel was as correct as it could be without being verified, and it would have been difficult to verify it without invading.

It wasn't. Not by a long shot.

Also, WMDs is a very political term. Chemical weapons are bombs. But calling them something else makes them sound nastier. Do we invade Syria, Lebanon, North Korea or (insert random fascist/totalitarian country here) because they have bombs that can be supplied to terrorists targeting western targets?

No.

What makes chemical weapons any different?

Like the children who didn't fight when Berlin was under siege?

Or these guys?

Make up your mind. Are you supporting a "Just war", or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable because all civilians can become combatants?

I suggest, also, that you go back and read the link I provided. Because apparently, your idea of a "Just War" doesn't jive with the actual philosophy.

 

[GTsail]

Principles of the Just War

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

What is the purpose of the above criteria?

As others have mentioned, the above criteria for a "just" war seems mis-placed.

Have you heard about the battle for the Alamo in Texas in 1836?

All of the Texans defending the Alamo were killed during the battle. Its my understanding that all 200 of the Alamo defenders were killed during the battle or were executed after the battle by Santa Anna's soldiers as ordered by General Santa Anna (even the few who surrendered (about five)).

Are you saying that since the battle was un-winnable, the Texans were "un-justified" in defending the Alamo?

The Texans should have surrendered or fled the Alamo?

In the same vein:
-------------------
Why can only the mighty have "just" wars?

I gather that you think that the US invasion of IRAQ constitutes a "just" war.

What if the county of Seychelles (by itself) decided to invade IRAQ to liberate the Iraqi people?

Would their invasion of IRAQ be considered an "un-just" war because their invasion would likely fail?


Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Imari]

So, militaries pay to built bombs that replace bombs that were never detonated? No. Do troop numbers stay the same, not increase, when a war begins? No. Will fuel for helicopters grow back after it has been used? No.

That's why I used the terms "most" and "probably".

I'm well aware that there are greater costs to being at war than there are having your military sit at home on base, but you can't ignore that there is a certain level of sunk costs in simply having a military in the first place.


By the way, congratulations on completely avoiding addressing the questions about your justification of potentially invading Syria.

Not necessarily- "reasonable chance of success" could be interpreted many different ways. The fact that the thirteen colonies were successful only proves there WAS a reasonable chance of success.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of statistics.

People win the lottery. Does that mean that there's a reasonable chance of success to win the lottery?

 

[JMoney]

Should the Tibetans give up?
Should the South Sudanese give up?
Should the North Korean resistance give up?

Two of those three don't stand a chance against what they're up against. So by your definition of a 'just' war they should remain oppressed.

If your retort is "Those people then need US help because they can't fight for themselves" then why isn't the US in all places where separatist movements are ongoing against oppressive dictators? Zimbabwe, for example.

Money is why- the U.S. doesn't want to support such a war. Just because it would be just doesn't mean it should happen.

Make up your mind. Are you supporting a "Just war", or are you now saying that civilian casualties are acceptable because all civilians can become combatants?

Only on a case-by-case basis. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were led by cults of personality- in the event of a homeland invasion, it caused or would have caused civilians who are normally non-combatants to fight. In most cases, however, civilian deaths should be avoided for a just war.

What is the purpose of the above criteria?

To prevent pointless wars from occurring. Take the Whiskey Rebellion, for example- a bunch of farmers rebelling against the U.S. government is unjust because the farmers cannot win- and they didn't.

Are you saying that since the battle was un-winnable, the Texans were "un-justified" in defending the Alamo?

The Texans should have surrendered or fled the Alamo?

By only looking at the Alamo, you avoid the bigger picture, being the Texas independence movement. By continuing to fight the Mexicans, the defending Texans killed men that would have later been used in future battles against the Texans- that's not unjust. While it was certain the Texans would lose the Alamo, it's not unjust to keep fighting a battle if there is no chance of success.

What if the county of Seychelles (by itself) decided to invade IRAQ to liberate the Iraqi people?
Would their invasion of IRAQ be considered an "un-just" war because their invasion would likely fail?

Yes, it would, because such a war would be pointless. Soldiers on both sides would die for nothing.

I'm well aware that there are greater costs to being at war than there are having your military sit at home on base, but you can't ignore that there is a certain level of sunk costs in simply having a military in the first place.

That's not the point. The point is you can't compare the actions of nations to three individuals.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of statistics.

Oh, does it? Please, tell me the exact percentage for a "reasonable chance of success". And while you are at it, give me the exact chance of the colonies had in winning against Britain at the beginning of the war so we can see if it was unjust.

 

[Imari]

Oh, does it? Please, tell me the exact percentage for a "reasonable chance of success". And while you are at it, give me the exact chance of the colonies had in winning against Britain at the beginning of the war so we can see if it was unjust.

I'm not the one who quoted the Principles of a Just War originally. You did. If anyone knows the general number, you do.

But the number isn't relevant, I'm pointing out the general ignorance of statistics implied by assuming that the outcome somehow defines the probability. In this particular case, you're assuming that because something happened that there was a reasonable probability of it occurring.

The only thing you can know about the probability of an outcome simply based on it actually happening is that the probability was not zero. It doesn't matter what "reasonable chance of success" is defined as. You cannot know what the probability of that outcome was simply from that one outcome, and so you cannot relate it to any number.

If you wanted to analyse the factors contributing to the likelihood of each outcome and come up with some reasonable estimates that would be different. But you imply that you can understand probabilities from a single outcome, and that's just not true any more than you can determine whether a die is fair by a single roll.


By the way, congratulations on continuing to completely avoid addressing the questions about your justification of potentially invading Syria.

 

[JMoney]

By the way, congratulations on continuing to completely avoid addressing the questions about your justification of potentially invading Syria.

I made my points for Syria, as prompted to. I can't debate half a dozen people at once, and regardless, it doesn't matter because such an invasion will never occur.

 

[Imari]

I made my points for Syria, as prompted to.

And they appear to be faulty, which brings into question the entire foundation of what you're attempting to argue for.

If you can't put together a solid set of justifications to your own set of principles for a fictitious circumstance that was suggested by you yourself, how on earth can you expect to be able to argue for actual conflicts?

I can't debate half a dozen people at once, and regardless, it doesn't matter because such an invasion will never occur.

If you don't want to debate, then don't start. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to be able to defend or explain points that you've made.

Your mistake is that you're attempting to field all the balls one by one instead of addressing the relatively small number of deeper questions that lie behind most of them. It's no wonder you're getting overwhelmed, because lots of people are seeing the flaws in your arguments and they're all asking you about them in different ways.

Look for the common questions and you'll dig yourself out from under the avalanche of alerts much faster.

 

[Exorcet]

Replying to this is easier than reading the whole essay.

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

I don't think this true. A war is just if the side waging it violates no rights. This requires the other side to give up their rights to freedom. You can do that very quickly with an intentional attack. While there are cases where negotiation and such might be preferable, I don't think it must always be required.

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

The U.S. is obviously a legitimate authority.

Being sanctioned has no relevance at all. A rebel group would initially go unsanctioned most likely, but can very easy wage a just war. The US is built on the principle in fact.

As for the US being a legitimate authority, it may be by your definition, but I don't think that definition is part of the definition of a just combatant. The US is not a defacto just combatant.

• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

I think this is reasonable.

The U.S. would be redressing the wrongs caused by chemical attacks, thus defending civilians.

One question would be if the civilians wanted the US's help if the US is not involved for its own self defense. I think that is important.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

I don't agree. It's every individual's right to fight even a hopeless war (one question is, how do you know a war is truly hopeless?). You can't be wrong for justly defending your property. Also, no matter how low the chance of success, it is your choice to decide if that chance is worth fighting for.

I do think that collateral damage is something to consider, but that would really fall on the hands of the belligerent if you're not intentionally ignoring civilians or neutral parties.

• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

That's subjective, so any peace is justified.

• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

I think this is taken care of by making sure that rights are not violated when waging war.

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

I think this is reasonable.

"War for peace is like **** for virginity" (c)

War and peace are reversible though. You can get from one to the other.