When is war justified?

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS
I don't understand where all of this is coming from. If you break the "law" in the US, you can be arrested by a police officer, tried by a judge/jury, and sentenced to serve time in jail. The only reason this all works is because there are a lot of police officers, and if you tried to resist them, more would come, until they had you under control (for the most part). Then the judge/jury makes a decision, and it is abided by. Then the warden of the jail will take the person into jail, and not let them out until a predetermined time. This only all works because there are people who will uphold the law, and can force you to either abide by the law, or face punishment if you choose not to. I don't really see any such organization which exists on an international level that would perform these same duties. I mean, what is "international law"? It's only as relevant as the people willing to enforce it...and I really don't see anybody knocking on the US's door and saying, "I'm sorry, sir, you're going to have to come with me...you did a bad thing, and you're going to jail." The only way were able to "enforce the law" against Germany was by defeating them in WWII...short of the whole world ganging up on the US, I do not see any point in debating the "legality" or "wrongness" of this war. The only way it's enforceable is if there are people willing to back it up, and a way to do so with force, if necessary, and this simply exist. I guess I think that this is really a moot point.

You make some good points, and I definitely do agree with you, however the point of this discussion is morality (right vs wrong) not legality (despite what some seem to believe legality is not necessarily the end all, as you pointed out in your post)

Okay, then by who's morality should we be judged? Islamic morality? Christian morality? Stalin & Hitler's morality? Hindu morality? US morality? Chinese morality?

Okay, I guess it makes sense to think about this from a citizen's viewpoint. Should we be doing the things we are doing? I don't know. But I don't really care what the outsiders' view of the situation is. As far as he is concerned, we are protecting our interests, plain and simple. Is it moral for us to protect our interests? I really don't care. Nobody cares what we think about a lot of things. Like I said, who's going to stop us? Remember, God fights on the side of the biggest guns...

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

Thus since this was a continuation of that war, which was only at a point of cease fire, and Iraq repeatedly failed to comply to the terms of the cease fire, its continuation was therefore legal. IMHO

Uhm no: Guy A occupies home of guy B, then Group C (to which guyA and B are member) comes along and drives Guy A out of Bs home. Now Guy D comes along, declares: Guy A u violated the contract that u signed with Group C (even though GroupC disagrees) . Now I will devastate and occupy your home.

To call that legal seems to be quite an interesting grasp of law Sounds more like taking the law into one's own hands, which again is illegal.

Unfortunately you forgot some important details to your very simplified analagy. Guy D is the leader and strongest member of Group C, and provided the primary force to deal with the initial war to get Guy A out of Guy B's homeland after Guy A murdered many of Guy B's citizens and destroyed much of its infrastructure. Guy D, set and established the terms of the cease fire and after such agreement Group C established and created numerous sanctions and an Oil for food program, amoung other interests that certain other members of Group C were not willing to give up as a result of the many infractions of the original agreement, including illegal activities like selling military weaponry to Guy A. It was 12 years that Guy D waited for Group C to get enough balls to take action against Guy A, and only after it was clear that certain elements of Group C were not going to do anything but look out for thier financial gains rather than the welfare of the people of the land of Guy A, and the security of all nations including those of Group C, that Guy D, along with other members of Group C, did depose the leader of the land of Guy A, supported by many resolutions created by Group C over the past 12 years. And yet this too is very much an over simplification of the whole picture, but lays at least a more clear picture of the situation than the afore mentioned analagy.

 

[Moonbeam]

(I seem to recall a large coalition but that was SO long ago) [A coalition of the willingly bribed. We know all about it](Oooh...coersion...such a devious word to apply to the situation...I just hate coersion, don't you?) [ The coersion is well documented and was thoroughly explored here](coersion AND manipulation...wow you've used nearly every conspirist buzzword so far) [ I used the exactly as their definition implies](One of the many many many pieces of intelligence was false so the entirety of the intelligence is? Well I guess it is if there's a Republican in the White House, right?.) [We know that Clinton acted on false intelligence. We don't know if he knew it was false. We know that Republicans suspect him of having ulterior motives](Criminal conspiracy...that's so much better than non-criminal conspiracy. [It certainly is. Otherwise every surprise birthday party would be a crime] Though I do wonder if using the word conspiracy in a conspirist message isn't a little too obvious.)[you would wonder because you can't think or act straight, perhaps](which law?)[international laws defining a just war] (you forgot imaginary) [No and neither did you](our law is based on the notion because law IS the notion? Gotcha. :roll.) [Try to make sense](I thought God was America like you said in your last sentence) [Bush is America, in his mind](Bob Dole is over it...why aren't you?)[Clinton won, Bush lost]

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS
I don't understand where all of this is coming from. If you break the "law" in the US, you can be arrested by a police officer, tried by a judge/jury, and sentenced to serve time in jail. The only reason this all works is because there are a lot of police officers, and if you tried to resist them, more would come, until they had you under control (for the most part). Then the judge/jury makes a decision, and it is abided by. Then the warden of the jail will take the person into jail, and not let them out until a predetermined time. This only all works because there are people who will uphold the law, and can force you to either abide by the law, or face punishment if you choose not to. I don't really see any such organization which exists on an international level that would perform these same duties. I mean, what is "international law"? It's only as relevant as the people willing to enforce it...and I really don't see anybody knocking on the US's door and saying, "I'm sorry, sir, you're going to have to come with me...you did a bad thing, and you're going to jail." The only way were able to "enforce the law" against Germany was by defeating them in WWII...short of the whole world ganging up on the US, I do not see any point in debating the "legality" or "wrongness" of this war. The only way it's enforceable is if there are people willing to back it up, and a way to do so with force, if necessary, and this simply exist. I guess I think that this is really a moot point.

You make some good points, and I definitely do agree with you, however the point of this discussion is morality (right vs wrong) not legality (despite what some seem to believe legality is not necessarily the end all, as you pointed out in your post)

Okay, then by who's morality should we be judged? Islamic morality? Christian morality? Stalin & Hitler's morality? Hindu morality? US morality? Chinese morality?

Okay, I guess it makes sense to think about this from a citizen's viewpoint. Should we be doing the things we are doing? I don't know. But I don't really care what the outsiders' view of the situation is. As far as he is concerned, we are protecting our interests, plain and simple. Is it moral for us to protect our interests? I really don't care. Nobody cares what we think about a lot of things. Like I said, who's going to stop us? Remember, God fights on the side of the biggest guns...

It depends on who is doing the judging and to what end. See it is my contention that too many people put too much faith in judgement. What is a judgement if it cannot be enforced? To someone I'm sure I am a hedonistic heathen, but what stock should I put in their judgement if they are unable to enforce it? This is all beyond the realm of the discussion, except the fact that we are dealing with right vs wrong and if you don't clearly delineate what is to be deemed right, you cannot pass judgement.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS
I don't understand where all of this is coming from. If you break the "law" in the US, you can be arrested by a police officer, tried by a judge/jury, and sentenced to serve time in jail. The only reason this all works is because there are a lot of police officers, and if you tried to resist them, more would come, until they had you under control (for the most part). Then the judge/jury makes a decision, and it is abided by. Then the warden of the jail will take the person into jail, and not let them out until a predetermined time. This only all works because there are people who will uphold the law, and can force you to either abide by the law, or face punishment if you choose not to. I don't really see any such organization which exists on an international level that would perform these same duties. I mean, what is "international law"? It's only as relevant as the people willing to enforce it...and I really don't see anybody knocking on the US's door and saying, "I'm sorry, sir, you're going to have to come with me...you did a bad thing, and you're going to jail." The only way were able to "enforce the law" against Germany was by defeating them in WWII...short of the whole world ganging up on the US, I do not see any point in debating the "legality" or "wrongness" of this war. The only way it's enforceable is if there are people willing to back it up, and a way to do so with force, if necessary, and this simply exist. I guess I think that this is really a moot point.

You make some good points, and I definitely do agree with you, however the point of this discussion is morality (right vs wrong) not legality (despite what some seem to believe legality is not necessarily the end all, as you pointed out in your post)

Okay, then by who's morality should we be judged? Islamic morality? Christian morality? Stalin & Hitler's morality? Hindu morality? US morality? Chinese morality?

Okay, I guess it makes sense to think about this from a citizen's viewpoint. Should we be doing the things we are doing? I don't know. But I don't really care what the outsiders' view of the situation is. As far as he is concerned, we are protecting our interests, plain and simple. Is it moral for us to protect our interests? I really don't care. Nobody cares what we think about a lot of things. Like I said, who's going to stop us? Remember, God fights on the side of the biggest guns...

It depends on who is doing the judging and to what end. See it is my contention that too many people put too much faith in judgement. What is a judgement if it cannot be enforced? To someone I'm sure I am a hedonistic heathen, but what stock should I put in their judgement if they are unable to enforce it? This is all beyond the realm of the discussion, except the fact that we are dealing with right vs wrong and if you don't clearly delineate what is to be deemed right, you cannot pass judgement.

That's what I'm saying. I agree with you. However, we must be clear in declaring our intentions. I, for one, am not interested in supporting countries that cannot support themselves, just for the heck of it; however, if this is in the best interests of the US, then so be it. That is what I am interested in. An honest man will at least tell you what he hopes to get out of the deal. As one of my friends says, it's not our fault that you can't grow corn in sand.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

Therefore, if North Korean forces sweeps through the DMZ and occupies Seoul, murdering civilians and pilfering their natural resources, etech will be there cheering the NK's on. Bravo!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

Therefore, if North Korean forces sweeps through the DMZ and occupies Seoul, murdering civilians and pilfering their natural resources, etech will be there cheering the NK's on. Bravo!

I want you to explain exactly how you came to such a rediculous conclusion as that. Be specific in what statements I made and how you managed to twist and distort and mangle them in your mind to come up with your statement.

I really want to see what you are trying to say or are you just taking a mindless attack? If it is the latter than go back and play in ATOT, I don't want to have to waste the time showing what a fool you are for making such a stupid statement. I will and can, I just don't want to waste time on such as you.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: AvesPKS
I don't understand where all of this is coming from. If you break the "law" in the US, you can be arrested by a police officer, tried by a judge/jury, and sentenced to serve time in jail. The only reason this all works is because there are a lot of police officers, and if you tried to resist them, more would come, until they had you under control (for the most part). Then the judge/jury makes a decision, and it is abided by. Then the warden of the jail will take the person into jail, and not let them out until a predetermined time. This only all works because there are people who will uphold the law, and can force you to either abide by the law, or face punishment if you choose not to. I don't really see any such organization which exists on an international level that would perform these same duties. I mean, what is "international law"? It's only as relevant as the people willing to enforce it...and I really don't see anybody knocking on the US's door and saying, "I'm sorry, sir, you're going to have to come with me...you did a bad thing, and you're going to jail." The only way were able to "enforce the law" against Germany was by defeating them in WWII...short of the whole world ganging up on the US, I do not see any point in debating the "legality" or "wrongness" of this war. The only way it's enforceable is if there are people willing to back it up, and a way to do so with force, if necessary, and this simply exist. I guess I think that this is really a moot point.

You make some good points, and I definitely do agree with you, however the point of this discussion is morality (right vs wrong) not legality (despite what some seem to believe legality is not necessarily the end all, as you pointed out in your post)

Okay, then by who's morality should we be judged? Islamic morality? Christian morality? Stalin & Hitler's morality? Hindu morality? US morality? Chinese morality?

Okay, I guess it makes sense to think about this from a citizen's viewpoint. Should we be doing the things we are doing? I don't know. But I don't really care what the outsiders' view of the situation is. As far as he is concerned, we are protecting our interests, plain and simple. Is it moral for us to protect our interests? I really don't care. Nobody cares what we think about a lot of things. Like I said, who's going to stop us? Remember, God fights on the side of the biggest guns...

It depends on who is doing the judging and to what end. See it is my contention that too many people put too much faith in judgement. What is a judgement if it cannot be enforced? To someone I'm sure I am a hedonistic heathen, but what stock should I put in their judgement if they are unable to enforce it? This is all beyond the realm of the discussion, except the fact that we are dealing with right vs wrong and if you don't clearly delineate what is to be deemed right, you cannot pass judgement.

That's what I'm saying. I agree with you. However, we must be clear in declaring our intentions. I, for one, am not interested in supporting countries that cannot support themselves, just for the heck of it; however, if this is in the best interests of the US, then so be it. That is what I am interested in. An honest man will at least tell you what he hopes to get out of the deal. As one of my friends says, it's not our fault that you can't grow corn in sand.

I'm in agreement with you, I don't understand why my tax money should be sent to help someone where I draw no benefit, that is not the purpose of government. If I wanted to be philanthopic, I would donate to some food fund.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

Therefore, if North Korean forces sweeps through the DMZ and occupies Seoul, murdering civilians and pilfering their natural resources, etech will be there cheering the NK's on. Bravo!

I want you to explain exactly how you came to such a rediculous conclusion as that. Be specific in what statements I made and how you managed to twist and distort and mangle them in your mind to come up with your statement.

I really want to see what you are trying to say or are you just taking a mindless attack? If it is the latter than go back and play in ATOT, I don't want to have to waste the time showing what a fool you are for making such a stupid statement. I will and can, I just don't want to waste time on such as you.

Do you always resort to personal attacks when you find your own logic being used against you?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: etech
Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

Therefore, if North Korean forces sweeps through the DMZ and occupies Seoul, murdering civilians and pilfering their natural resources, etech will be there cheering the NK's on. Bravo!

I want you to explain exactly how you came to such a rediculous conclusion as that. Be specific in what statements I made and how you managed to twist and distort and mangle them in your mind to come up with your statement.

I really want to see what you are trying to say or are you just taking a mindless attack? If it is the latter than go back and play in ATOT, I don't want to have to waste the time showing what a fool you are for making such a stupid statement. I will and can, I just don't want to waste time on such as you.

Do you always resort to personal attacks when you find your own logic being used against you?

No, only when they are deserved.

Now once again, how did you come to such a rediculous conclusion?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech


Now once again, how did you come to such a rediculous conclusion?

etech: Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Czar: Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

etech: When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

The logic you are using there is flawed, just because an official cease fire was never completed, does not make it 'right' to renew bombing of a nation a decade later.

BTW: 'rediculous' is spelled ridiculous. A commonly mispelled word so I'm just trying to help- nothing personal.

 

[Nitemare]

When a democrat is in office?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech


Now once again, how did you come to such a rediculous conclusion?

etech: Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Czar: Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

etech: When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

The logic you are using there is flawed, just because an official cease fire was never completed, does not make it 'right' to renew bombing of a nation a decade later.

BTW: 'rediculous' is spelled ridiculous. A commonly mispelled word so I'm just trying to help- nothing personal.

I wasn't aware of a statute of limitations on military action.
Seems it is your logic that is flawed So just because a country drags it out for 10+ years we can't enforce the cease-fire and back it up with force? Do you have kids?

CkG

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech


Now once again, how did you come to such a rediculous conclusion?

etech: Was the war in 1991 against Iraq justified?

Czar: Iraq was an invasion force so a retaliation was legal

etech: When was the cease fire signed , what were the conditions on which it was signed and were those conditions met?

The logic you are using there is flawed, just because an official cease fire was never completed, does not make it 'right' to renew bombing of a nation a decade later.

BTW: 'rediculous' is spelled ridiculous. A commonly mispelled word so I'm just trying to help- nothing personal.

I wasn't aware of a statute of limitations on military action.
Seems it is your logic that is flawed So just because a country drags it out for 10+ years we can't enforce the cease-fire and back it up with force? Do you have kids?

CkG

CkG, if that argument was the least bit valid, don't you think Bush would have preached about that instead of blatantly lying?