Here are my thoughts...
All wars of aggression are illegal. To me that's self-evident. Wars of defense are legal; the individual has a right to protect himself and I believe that extends to a country.
Sometimes, it seems, we can justify going to war outside of those extremes. But when is war justifiable? We get into the grey area where somehow it becomes acceptable to wage war even when the attacker isn't in jeapordy.
During the Cold War we feared the expansion of communist U.S.S.R. to such a degree we came to the defense of countries we believed the Soviets would assimilate. The U.S. was never directly threatened. The thought was in a possible future where half the planet's countries were Soviet satellites. At that point nothing could stop communist expansion. Were our actions justified then in Korea and Vietnam?
Recently we went to war with Yugoslavia to deny its leader the means to drive out rebel ethnic Albanians. We weren't threatened. There was propoganda to the effect that Europe was somehow in danger should Milosovic succeed but it was nonsense. Was Clinton justified in obliterating that nation?
Now we have the mid-east. You have countries with political systems that don't exactly engender human rights. Many of them are oil and natural gas rich and the planet's energy needs are ever thristy making them a tempting target for exploitation.
The CIA has been meddling there for decades, installing a puppet here and there, aiding rebel factions to revolt against these governments...we've even armed some of these nations to try to manipulate the balance of power in the region. Today there is no longer a risk of Soviet expansion into the middle east but concerns of terrorism are at the forefront. Is our continued manipulation still warranted?
So what do you think? When is war absolutely justified? When isn't it? When is it a judgement call? Perhaps after answering these questions we can design a better foreign policy.
All wars of aggression are illegal. To me that's self-evident. Wars of defense are legal; the individual has a right to protect himself and I believe that extends to a country.
Sometimes, it seems, we can justify going to war outside of those extremes. But when is war justifiable? We get into the grey area where somehow it becomes acceptable to wage war even when the attacker isn't in jeapordy.
During the Cold War we feared the expansion of communist U.S.S.R. to such a degree we came to the defense of countries we believed the Soviets would assimilate. The U.S. was never directly threatened. The thought was in a possible future where half the planet's countries were Soviet satellites. At that point nothing could stop communist expansion. Were our actions justified then in Korea and Vietnam?
Recently we went to war with Yugoslavia to deny its leader the means to drive out rebel ethnic Albanians. We weren't threatened. There was propoganda to the effect that Europe was somehow in danger should Milosovic succeed but it was nonsense. Was Clinton justified in obliterating that nation?
Now we have the mid-east. You have countries with political systems that don't exactly engender human rights. Many of them are oil and natural gas rich and the planet's energy needs are ever thristy making them a tempting target for exploitation.
The CIA has been meddling there for decades, installing a puppet here and there, aiding rebel factions to revolt against these governments...we've even armed some of these nations to try to manipulate the balance of power in the region. Today there is no longer a risk of Soviet expansion into the middle east but concerns of terrorism are at the forefront. Is our continued manipulation still warranted?
So what do you think? When is war absolutely justified? When isn't it? When is it a judgement call? Perhaps after answering these questions we can design a better foreign policy.
Facebook
Twitter