Just War Theory

[niky]

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.

Nope.

Any foreign occupation will lead to civilians becoming combatants. Reference Afghanistan. Reference Iraq. Reference the occupation of the Philippines, of France, etcetera.
What percentage of the population must become combatants for a war to become either just or unjust?

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.

In history, a succession of asymmetrical conflicts against a stronger foe, even without clear victory, has forced that stronger foe to abandon occupation of a held territory. Reference Afghanistan - Russia.

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.

In other words, everything is justifiable in hindsight. What would have happened if Texas eventually fell? Then the Alamo was an unjust action? As said, you can't base justification a war merely on outcomes. All you will get from that is "might makes right."

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.

Before the war? Zero. Against an overwhelmingly superior British Army, with no standing army of their own, there was no chance of success. By your logic, it was an unjust war.

Once they declared revolt, they had a modest, perhaps 30:70 chance of success. They had almost as many soldiers as the British, but were under-equipped, poorly organized and lacked the money and power the British had. Still an unjust war, by your logic.

It was only midway through that beaurecratic blunders on the British side, as well as a lack of support from across the Atlantic started showing. And even then, without military geniuses like Washington leading, the colonies may have simply lost, outright. The Revolution was not a war won by statistics, like the long and grinding World War, but by cunning and guile.

-

Brings to mind, really, Vietnam... where Vietnamese guerillas had no statistical chance against the United States, but won, anyway... simply because the US didn't have its heart, or its head, in the game. Mahatma Gandhi's peaceful rebellion in India, as well... or the bloodless "People's Power" revolution, in the Philippines. Standing up to fight or to resist, you can lose battle after battle... but if enough ants chip away at a mountain, even they can wear it down.

(well, in a figurative sense)

In other words... if we're talking about "winnable" wars... every war is winnable, given enough time and perseverance.

-

Again, hindsight. You can't declare a war just or unjust (by your reckoning, following the "winnable war" rule) in hindsight, because the statistical data at the start of the war will not always back it up.

 

[Danoff]

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.

Wrong. Any government that violates the rights of its people opens itself to force used against it (including the US).

• 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.

Wrong. Not only is this completely arbitrary, but it misunderstands the nature of rights and actions. A war is just if the war is waged against those who have lost their rights. Doesn't matter by whom.

The U.S. is obviously a legitimate authority.

Hah!

• 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.

Wrong. The purpose of the war can be anything - from money to power to aiding the oppressed. What justifies the means is not the ends but the beginnings. That the people the war is fought against have violated the rights of others is what matters.

• 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.

Wrong. A hopeless war fought on just grounds is a just war.

• 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.

Wrong. The goal can be anything - including to better position yourself for another just war. What makes the war just is not the ends but the beginnings.

• 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.

Almost right. Yes the war must be fought with proportionality, but most would assume that unequal weights would get assigned to various acts that cannot be objectively assigned unequal weights.

• 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.

Define civilian. Define what a civilian target is. Define what a non-combatant is. Is someone who builds a tank a non-combatant if they don't drive it? Is someone who feeds the guy who builds the tank a non-combatant? Is someone who votes for money to be spent on the tank a non-combatant?

The degree to which you neglect or intentionally harm the innocent affects your own legitimacy and opens you to force in return.

 

[Lizard]

I was using MLA format.



95- from a liberal professor, no less. The points I lost were mainly due to formatting errors in citations.



I can't post my well-written essay under that horrendous title and OP



Libya and Iraq were different because Saddam Hussein posed an international threat- while he didn't actually have WMD's, everyone believed he did, so invading Iraq was justifiable. Libya, on the other hand, was a conflict contained in one place. Ghaddafi wasn't a threat to the U.S. or Europe, so he should have been left alone.

Going back because I only just read it.

You answered one of my comments. Now try for the rest.

And 95? With such glaring errors as failing to define terms and claiming debatable points as fact without adequate sources? Wow.
We hardly ever use MLA in the UK so I have never seen it so sorry for questioning the reference style.

What you are talking about are Muslim Extremist groups that are impossible to eradicate.

Yes I was.

2 points though.

They are mostly politically driven not religious. You find people joining their cause and reading up on the fundamental basics of Islam once they get there.
They wouldn't have the support if America and allies had stayed there. And by stayed there I don't mean the army. I mean helping rebuild the country but no we all went our job is done good bye so people were left in anarchy and poverty. Exactly what gets dictators and radical groups into power.

 

[JMoney]

Any foreign occupation will lead to civilians becoming combatants. Reference Afghanistan. Reference Iraq. Reference the occupation of the Philippines, of France, etcetera.

Some civilians, perhaps, but certainly not all. Not on the level of Nazi Germany, or theoretically Japan.

In history, a succession of asymmetrical conflicts against a stronger foe, even without clear victory, has forced that stronger foe to abandon occupation of a held territory. Reference Afghanistan - Russia.

That doesn't make the resistance unjust.

In other words, everything is justifiable in hindsight. What would have happened if Texas eventually fell? Then the Alamo was an unjust action? As said, you can't base justification a war merely on outcomes. All you will get from that is "might makes right."

No- as I said, the Alamo was only a part of the war, one battle. The Texans knew that they could succeed by revolting in the first place, and the Battle of the Alamo was part of their path toward independence. Even if Texas had fallen, justifying only the Alamo wouldn't matter- the Texan's cause would still be just.

Before the war? Zero. Against an overwhelmingly superior British Army, with no standing army of their own, there was no chance of success. By your logic, it was an unjust war.

"Zero" chance means that it would have been impossible, which clearly wasn't the case as they did win. Keep in mind that the colonies technically didn't start the war, the British did. The colonies knew a war would likely result after submitting the Declaration, but the Declaration spoke of no war to be waged. The colonists didn't want a war to occur, but they believed that fighting a war they would likely lose would be worth the risk- and the reward would be far better than living under British oppression. The colonies knew they could get support from France ad Spain, and if they could last long enough, the war would become unpopular in Britain, just like the Vietnam War did in America.

Wrong. Any government that violates the rights of its people opens itself to force used against it (including the US).

I agree- that's why the invasion of Iraq was just.

Wrong. The purpose of the war can be anything - from money to power to aiding the oppressed. What justifies the means is not the ends but the beginnings. That the people the war is fought against have violated the rights of others is what matters.

The points make it clear that the fight to redress a wrong suffered must be proportional to that wrong.

Wrong. A hopeless war fought on just grounds is a just war.

Absolutely not. Say Italy bans Catholicism- that may give the Vatican police the right to try to take over Rome and legalize it because it is the right of the people to practice religion, but it wouldn't be justice at all. The Vatican would be crushed, and lives would be lost for nothing.

Define civilian. Define what a civilian target is. Define what a non-combatant is. Is someone who builds a tank a non-combatant if they don't drive it? Is someone who feeds the guy who builds the tank a non-combatant? Is someone who votes for money to be spent on the tank a non-combatant?

I suggest you read my essay- specifically the paragraph about obliteration bombing.

 

[niky]

Some civilians, perhaps, but certainly not all. Not on the level of Nazi Germany, or theoretically Japan.

Japan, theoretically, yes. Germany, most likely, no. Otherwise, Berlin would not have been a ghost town when the tanks came rolling in.

That doesn't make the resistance unjust.

Which is exactly the point. Basing justification for the war on outcomes, in hindsight, is completely misleading. Basing it on expected outcomes, is also misleading. Because any outcome is possible, and any war is possibly winnable, given enough time and perseverance.

No- as I said, the Alamo was only a part of the war, one battle. The Texans knew that they could succeed by revolting in the first place, and the Battle of the Alamo was part of their path toward independence. Even if Texas had fallen, justifying only the Alamo wouldn't matter- the Texan's cause would still be just.

Even if Texas had fallen, the war would be just? By your argument, a war that is not winnable is not just. You must decide whether you hold that maxim true or not.

"Zero" chance means that it would have been impossible, which clearly wasn't the case as they did win. Keep in mind that the colonies technically didn't start the war, the British did. The colonies knew a war would likely result after submitting the Declaration, but the Declaration spoke of no war to be waged. The colonists didn't want a war to occur, but they believed that fighting a war they would likely lose would be worth the risk- and the reward would be far better than living under British oppression. The colonies knew they could get support from France ad Spain, and if they could last long enough, the war would become unpopular in Britain, just like the Vietnam War did in America.

Nobody knew what would happen with any certainty. Again, you're using hindsight for justification.

I agree- that's why the invasion of Iraq was just.

So, would an invasion of the United States, which supported Saddam's rise to power, and which provided him with arms, and which violates the rights of its citizens every single day, be a just war? This is the question you should be asking yourself.

-

We've read your essay, and find it wanting.

The language used clearly carries a political bias, finding fault along political lines instead of despite them, rather than examining each case in specific detail.

You have yet to provide any reason why Iraq, a country already shackled by sanctions and heavily monitored by the UN, and having already dismantled its chemical arsenal (as proven by inspections both before and after the war) is a greater threat to the West than a place like Libya, whose leader has terrorist ties, and in which the formenting revolution posed a danger of inspiring greater radicalism and spreading influence for terrorist groups like Al Quaeda and, now, ISIS.

There is just as much reason to intervene in any of the countries involved in the Arab Spring as there was to invade Afghanistan (which, to me, was the one true "just war" under GWB's administration). Afghanistan, of controversial recent conflicts, is one of the few cases where "just war" is is actually applicable, to some extent.

Until you actually apply the rules of just war evenly and without bias, your arguments will remain weak.

-

Again, I suggest reading the link I provided, as it provides an unbiased look at the "Just War Theory" and how it applies to recent actions in the Middle East. Though it's even more critical than I am of those.

http://www.justwartheory.com/

In addendum:

"Americans are tempted to overreach, to overestimate the innocence of our own power, and thus also overestimate its possible effectiveness."

If you would like to use hindsight for one thing, use it for this. Recognize what mistakes were made and why, and how they can be prevented in the future.

 

[eran0004]

View attachment 271222

I'm not taking this ****. I responded to your text with respect and tried to present my concerns as reasonably as I could. And what do you do? You post a gif.

Here's a book you might find interesting: http://lccn.loc.gov/2006047964

I'm done here, have a nice day.

 

[Liquid]

In all fairness to @JMoney689 I think it would be beneficial to analyse one particular war, do it from the first diplomatic feelers to the final parting shots. See whether that particular war was 'just' or not according to your own conventions.

Then, do it for one or two more wars. Compare and contrast your findings, bonus points if you choose three wars which didn't involve the United States. You might find yourself reprofiling and redefining exactly what a just war is in your own mind. Currently there is a heavy lean towards having a set of criteria and trying to shoehorn wars to fit those definitions; "this war had x" and "but this war had y" while cherrypicking what members' questions you give answers to.

I think we all would be interested in your findings, but of course this would be your own free time you'd spend doing it.

 

[JMoney]

I'm not taking this ****. I responded to your text with respect and tried to present my concerns as reasonably as I could. And what do you do? You post a gif.

Here's a book you might find interesting: http://lccn.loc.gov/2006047964

I'm done here, have a nice day.

I posted a GIF rather than a written response because I thought what you said, that Clinton and Obama took more criticism than Bush for their wars, was laughable. Bush took probably 3 times as much criticism as Clinton, and twice as much as Obama for the Libya bombings, although there's no real way to measure it. I meant no disrespect.

Even if Texas had fallen, the war would be just? By your argument, a war that is not winnable is not just. You must decide whether you hold that maxim true or not.

That's not the case- there have been many wars fought on just grounds that have been lost. Mexico in the Mexican-American War, for example, which was included in early drafts of the essay but later got cut due to length requirements. Another case would be Britain in WWII, who would probably have lost if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved.

So, would an invasion of the United States, which supported Saddam's rise to power, and which provided him with arms, and which violates the rights of its citizens every single day, be a just war? This is the question you should be asking yourself.

As long as all of the other requirements for a just war were met, yes.

In all fairness to @JMoney689 Currently there is a heavy lean towards having a set of criteria and trying to shoehorn wars to fit those definitions; "this war had x" and "but this war had y" while cherrypicking what members' questions you give answers to.

I'm "cherrypicking" because I'm clearly not getting anywhere with Libya, and I'm starting to think bombing it could be argued either way, in truth.

 

[Lizard]

And still ignoring me I see. Do you just have no answer for me?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So "Just" Wars can be started based upon mistaken information?

And the war is still "Just" after the information has been found to be false?

Respectfully,
GTsail

DUH Murica, come on now.

 

[GTsail]

I asked:

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?

Your response was:

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

So, by your definition, Seychelles can't come to the aid of the oppressed Iraqi citizens because that would be engaging in an "un-just" war. Hmmmm...

Does it also follow that if IRAQ invades Seychelles (for the beaches) can the good people of Seychelles defend themselves or would any defense be labeled an "un-just" war? Must Seychelles surrender their beaches to any invaders or get labeled as engaging in an "un-just" war?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Joel]

Another case would be Britain in WWII, who would probably have lost if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved.

That's an interesting thought considering a rag tag RAF with a handful of extra pilots from New Zealand, Canada, Poland, and a few other countries won the battle of Britain. And that the Kriegsmarine was decimated in Norway while the Royal Navy still had a huge home fleet with nearly 80 ships including 8 battleships. Good luck bringing troops across the English channel in slow, difficult to maneuver, and unarmoured ships that don't have any air superiority, and sailing into the wheelhouse of the world's most powerful navy.

The UK with a bit of help defeated the Germans in the air, and had such a huge advantage at sea that the Germans were forced to abandon their plans to invade. In 1940. 15 months before Pearl Harbor.

 

[niky]

Another case would be Britain in WWII, who would probably have lost if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved.

In other words, fighting a losing battle, for a hopeless cause, saved by Deus Ex Machina... still a just war.

Ergo: a war that you cannot hope to win can be considered just.

Congratulations. Your axiom requiring a war to be "winnable" is now completely invalid.

Also, what Noob said.

As long as all of the other requirements for a just war were met, yes.

Direct attacks on Arab people and states? Supports dictators and fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia)? Has caused great strife in the region? Yup. Yup. Yup.

All other non-war means exhausted? Considering the United States doesn't negotiate with "terrorists"... yes.

Winnable war? Considering we seem to agree that wars that aren't outright winnable but which may contribute to a victory down the line can be just, I think we're all set to begin justifying the pipe-bombing of American military installations around the world.

-

The only question left is: What's considered a proportionate response? The killing of a few dozen US military personnel? A few hundred? A few thousand? Tens of thousands?

 

[JMoney]

@niky, @Noob616 There is a big difference between fighting a war that you will probably lose, which can be just, and fighting a war which you certainly WILL lose, which is unjust because it's pointless. And unless you are Russia, China, North Korea, or some sort of coalition, a successful invasion of the United States in 2014 IS impossible, and thus unjust. Britain could have defeated Germany in WWII without America, but it was unlikely. It was POSSIBLE, but not PROBABLE- that does not make it unjust. It must be IMPOSSIBLE to be unjust.

@GTsail290 I would argue that if Seychelles had invaded Iraq in 2003, it would have been unjust because the invasion would have been ineffective. In the case of Iraq invading Seychelles, I would argue that defending their home, even by fighting an opponent nearly impossible to defeat, would be justifiable. Defensive wars are almost never impossible to win even against massive odds, reference Vietnam.

@haitch40 I don't know what you are talking about, I've addressed all of your posts by some way or another, possibly by replying to others who made similar arguments.

 

[niky]

It must be IMPOSSIBLE to be unjust.

Impossible in what sense?

If the goal of a war waged is to hasten the end of an unjust occupation, then every single rebellion can be considered just, whether it is winnable or futile.

Your measure of success isn't in who is the last man standing on the battlefield. It's in whether the political, economic or social aims of either side have been achieved, regardless of the tactical positions in the conflict.

You don't have to beat a superpower down to the ground to make it capitulate. Again, the US War for Independence, the Russian Afghanistan conflict, the Vietnam War, the Gandhi resistance, etcetera.

-

It's the same with any insurgent attack on US Armed Forces in the Middle East. You don't have to destroy the US military to win. You just have to make the United States so sick of fighting that they simply leave.

-

As for invading the United States... you don't have to destroy the US to beat it. You simply have to cause enough damage to bring the US Economy to its knees. Or you simply have to disrupt the American way of life in a way that achieves a similar effect.

-

Funnily enough, this line of thinking has inspired a google search, which turns up this page, which points out the same fallacies with this item as I have:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/success.shtml

In fact, there are quite a number of good counter-arguments to the entire theory, there, as well.

-

The "Just War" doctrine argues only from a position of strength, secure in that strength, without considering the realities of war and those involved in conflict. It's an idealist notion in the same sense as Marxism, in that while its axioms sound very noble on the face of it, its application to real life is quite limited.

 

[JMoney]

There are two alternatives to just war theory: Pacifism and Realism- Pacifism calls for an end to all warfare, which I would call hopelessly idealistic, while the realism belief states that all is fair in war. I recommend this article, which I cited in the essay: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/. Specifically, the section on ethics of war and peace.

 

[Joel]

@niky, @Noob616Britain could have defeated Germany in WWII without America, but it was unlikely. It was POSSIBLE, but not PROBABLE- that does not make it unjust. It must be IMPOSSIBLE to be unjust.

That doesn't make sense unless your win condition for Britain was for them to go on the offensive and conquer Germany (which is absurd). I don't know how you could say that it was unlikely for Britain to win a war against Germany without America when that's exactly what they did more than a year before the US even thought about joining the war in Europe. The superior German land army is irrelevant to the UK if it's sitting in France with no way to get across the channel.

1939- War begins.
1940- Dunkirk
1940- Battle of Britain is won, Germany has no way to invade Britain
1941- Pearl Harbor, Germany doesn't invade Britain
1942- Germany doesn't invade Britain
1943- Germany doesn't invade Britain
May 1944- Germany still doesn't invade Britain
June 1944- Americans, Brits, and Canadians invade France

Thank god America saved Britain. If it weren't for them this site would be administrated by @Hungersnot

I'm not trying to downplay the US efforts in WWII, the bombing runs the US air force did, the man power on D-day and afterwards, and of course the entire Pacific campaign. But to act as if the US was a saving grace swooping in to save the Queen is just flat out wrong. Does that mean WWII was an unjust war for the US to enter? Of course not. It does mean that it's an unjust war under your criteria you've listed though.

 

[JMoney]

But to act as if the US was a saving grace swooping in to save the Queen is just flat out wrong. Does that mean WWII was an unjust war for the US to enter? Of course not. It does mean that it's an unjust war under your criteria you've listed though.

What? If Britain wasn't saved by America, then how does that make the American cause unjust by my criteria? Why are France, Belgium, and the Netherlands worth any less saving than Britain? A big part of this debate has been you guys flipping my logic to come up with conclusions that don't make any sense. WWII was by no means an unjust war conducted by the Western Allies... although the Soviets are another matter.

One thing you failed to mention in your little timeline was V-2 Rockets that were hitting Britain beginning in September 1944- without the Americans, Britain would have been severely weakened by those rockets, and without a western front to worry about Germany could have devoted more troops to fight the Soviets, which would have stopped the Russian advance or at least slowed them down. With Britain slowly weakening the Luftwaffe would eventually have taken another crack at an air battle- this time using ME-262's and perhaps even the Ho IX stealth jet fighter. Just because Britain lasted until mid-1944 certainly doesn't mean it would have lasted forever without the Americans.

 

[Team THRT Drift]

 

[GTsail]

What? If Britain wasn't saved by America, then how does that make the American cause unjust by my criteria? Why are France, Belgium, and the Netherlands worth any less saving than Britain? A big part of this debate has been you guys flipping my logic to come up with conclusions that don't make any sense. WWII was by no means an unjust war conducted by the Western Allies... although the Soviets are another matter.

I get that you aren't implying that it was "un-just" for the United States to enter WW2 to help Britain.

But by implying that Britain was "likely" to lose the war to Germany without US help, you are implying (using your "just-war" criteria) that only militarily strong allies can come to Britain's aid. Weak Countries cannot join on Britain's side because there is still the likelyhood that Britain would lose the war (until the US enters the war), and any "weak" County that came to Britain's aid would get labeled as fighting an "un-just" war.

Another example:
I will try to apply the proposed "just-war" axiom to Luxembourg:

Germany invades Poland on Sept 1st, 1939.

----Poland asks for help from their great friend and neighbor: Luxembourg.

----Luxembourg says: Let me check my "Just War" playbook..........

----After some thought, Luxembourg says: Nope, sorry, we can't help you. You are going to lose. So it would be "un-just" to fight along-side you while you lose.

Germany invades Luxembourg on May 10th 1940.

----Luxembourg says: Let me check my "Just War" playbook.........

----An addendum to the playbook allows a County to defend itself from attack, no matter what the odds are of success, so Luxembourg does its best to fend off the German invasion without worry of being labeled as participating in an "un-just" war.

Is the above example a fair presentation/reading of this part of the "Just War" criteria?

The above example shows why I don't agree with this part of your proposed "just" war criteria. I feel that it would be "just" if Luxembourg came to Poland's aid on September 2nd 1939, even if the United States or the United Kingdom had not yet entered the war against Germany and therefore there might be little chance of a successful response by Luxembourg and Poland to Germany's invasion.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Imari]

Surely there's some sort of inverse Godwin's law where anyone who claims that America saved the world loses the thread.

 

[Dagger311]

Surely there's some sort of inverse Godwin's law where anyone who claims that America saved the world loses the thread.

But they did.

 

[Imari]

But they did.

I see your Captain America and raise you a Willis:

 

[Joel]

@JMoney689 I didn't flip any of your logic. You said it was unlikely Britain would have won without America, and that entering WW2 was justified to save the UK. Which is "back to back World War champs" t-shirt level ridiculous. There's actually a very compelling argument that the war would have been over quicker if America remained in a non combat role and escorted ships instead of slowing down weapon shipments to spend 2 years building an army.

the Netherlands

America didn't save them either.

 

[JMoney]

Armageddon? Don't even go there...

But by implying that Britain was "likely" to lose the war to Germany without US help, you are implying (using your "just-war" criteria) that only militarily strong allies can come to Britain's aid. Weak Countries cannot join on Britain's side because there is still the likelihood that Britain would lose the war (until the US enters the war), and any "weak" County that came to Britain's aid would get labeled as fighting an "un-just" war.

While it was unlikely that Britain would have won against Germany without the U.S, it was still possible, and thus justifiable to fight back. Any smaller nation (let's say Mexico) that would help the British would be fighting a just war, as the British weren't so bad off that defeating Germany was impossible. If a smaller country got involved, their odds would increase.

Is the above example a fair presentation/reading of this part of the "Just War" criteria?

If Luxembourg helped Poland the day after the start of the invasion, it would be perfectly justifiable, but if Luxembourg got involved at the end of the invasion, when it was certain Poland would lose, and if Luxembourg knew for certain that Britain and France would not get involved, then it would unjust because they would be getting involved in an unwinnable war, which is pointless. Especially considering that it was very likely Germany would eventually invade Luxembourg, and using its troops to defend another country would leave its defense weakened. That would violate the primary responsibility of any military- to defend its home country- and be very unjust.

 

[Joey D]

I don't really want to read some high school kid's essay since I was a high school kid once and rarely knew what the hell I was on about with a paper, but something stood out to me:

@niky, @Noob616 There is a big difference between fighting a war that you will probably lose, which can be just, and fighting a war which you certainly WILL lose, which is unjust because it's pointless.

Going by this statement, you must think the American Revolution was an unjust war since the probability of the Colonist winning was so staggering low that in the 1770's one could have easily said they will almost certainly be defeated...and badly defeated at that.

Also, on a separate note about your paper itself. The reason you probably scored decent marks on it was not because of the content but rather because you followed the directions and included what the teacher had asked for. I used to write papers on such bizarre out there topics throughout high school and into the first part of college that there was no way any educated person would believe it, however I still scored high marks for my writing and ability to follow the instructions of the assignment. So what I'm getting at here is that you really should take a more humble approach when presenting something you wrote for a school assignment.

 

[JMoney]

Going by this statement, you must think the American Revolution was an unjust war since the probability of the Colonist winning was so staggering low that in the 1770's one could have easily said they will almost certainly be defeated...and badly defeated at that.

I've addressed the American Revolution in past posts.

The class was a college-level course taught by a college professor in my senior year, to be precise. The assignment's guidelines were to write an informative essay that was slightly argumentative in nature, and the subject was up to us as long as it was important. I chose to write about just war theory because war was a subject I had a lot of prior knowledge in. I definitely wasn't writing to fill requirements.

 

[Joey D]

I've addressed the American Revolution in past posts.

You did? I went back and searched for "American Revolution", "Revolution", and "Revolutionary" in the three pages of this thread and didn't get any hits. I apologize if I missed it but I couldn't find where you had addressed this specifically.

The class was a college-level course taught by a college professor in my senior year, to be precise. The assignment's guidelines were to write an informative essay that was slightly argumentative in nature, and the subject was up to us as long as it was important. I chose to write about just war theory because war was a subject I had a lot of prior knowledge in. I definitely wasn't writing to fill requirements.

Ummm, are you sure? Because you listed the requirements in the few sentences prior to your last statement.

The only reason I bring this up is because earlier in the thread you seemed surprised that a "liberal" professor gave you a high mark, when in reality the professor probably just thought you were going on about something and he/she was just looking to verify you met all the requirements, which as you've stated to be an persuasive essay on an important topic. You also seemed to be rather less than humble by discounting the specific thread in which forum members read each other's work, which struck me as odd too, since your paper wasn't peer reviewed or could even be quoted as a source of truth.

 

[Liquid]

What? If Britain wasn't saved by America, then how does that make the American cause unjust by my criteria?

Because you are equating "America enters the European theatre of a conflict fought in three distinct corners of the world" to "American saves Britain".

No-one has yet doubted that American intervention was unjust but you are making too great a leap with nothing to back it up.

 

[Imari]

The class was a college-level course taught by a college professor in my senior year, to be precise. The assignment's guidelines were to write an informative essay that was slightly argumentative in nature, and the subject was up to us as long as it was important. I chose to write about just war theory because war was a subject I had a lot of prior knowledge in. I definitely wasn't writing to fill requirements.

Notice that none of the requirements are that the arguments be accurate.

What was the course? I'm guessing it wasn't politics, or anything actually relevant to the subject material if you had free choice of topic. Hence your grade has no actual bearing on the strength of your arguments, more on the "quality" of your writing.