February 21, 2006

  • “When is War justified?”



    This is one of three questions posed this week at Socrates Café.



    I’m not what some would consider knowledgeable about politics. In fact, I tend to shut my ears to everything, because to me politics tends to sound like a bunch of immature teenagers whining and fighting over ‘who gets what’ and ‘what goes where.’ But I joined this group to expand my horizons, so to speak, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do. (pardon me if I babble like an idiot for a while . . . sometimes I wonder if I’ve ever really understood the concept of concise.)



    I had no idea how to begin this topic and no idea what to say on this topic, so I thought I would see what others had already posted. It seems to me, that I’m finding a rather resounding answer that War is not justified. (now don’t flame me, I’m not saying everyone said this, nor am I saying that this statement was absolute . . . I’m just using it to ask my own questions.)


    My own first question would be Iraq. Is this war justified? It may have been, at one point in time. But there happens to be so much ‘politics’ messed up in this war, that no one is really sure what we are there for anymore. We caught Saddam Hussein. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, I understand very little of the entire picture that surrounds this war, so I cannot pass judgment one way or another. (I probably shouldn’t have even brought it up. . . obviously I don’t know what the heck I’m talking about. )


    I tend to agree with the others in this, that war is not justified. It’s a weapon used to gain power, an ‘easy way out’, rather than working together and coming up with something that is acceptable on both ‘sides’. Now mind you, finding a situation or a compromise between two countries or nations that don’t see eye to eye could be close to impossible, but I believe that where there is a will, there is a way. But, again, I have questions. What about the nation that is oppressed? What about the nation (or country) that has been under a dominant rule, and is being ruled unjustly? What about the United States and the United Kingdom. Was our Revolution justified? Are there really two answers to this question? What about our own Civil War? I think there is a large population of people that think the Civil War was definitely justified. It was the turning point in their freedom. But does this mean that every war is justified? What would the rules be for a justifiable war? Who would decide these rules?


    So I end up leaving this topic with more questions than answers.  I believe war is justified when one party is being unfairly ruled, or forced, into situations that they do not believe in, or welcome.  When said party has tried all means of communication to bring closure to their issues, and the opressing party refuses to budge.  When said party is in danger of losing lives due to the immovable nature of the opressing party, and solid evidence can be found that the opressing party is in the wrong.  That is when war can be justified. 

Comments (17)

  • agreed on the last paragraph. :) As for Iraq- we can't leave. Yet. The place would be worse off with the same types of ignorant power-mongers wanting to control the masses.

  • Hi and Welcome!  I am linking you now.

  • been a while, thought I might say hi from my new persona I've been lurking in for a while. *grin*

  • I love topics that produces more questions that answers.  They make me think.  And, hopefully, make me a better person for it.  I had pretty strong, immovable views on capital punishment.  Took a lot of criticism for my views but I didn't change.  Then, one day, someone took the time to calmly (without passing judgement) explain their view (which was very different from mine). I began to see things differently because there was no anger or judgement involved. It make me think.  It didn't happen overnight for sure, but my views on capital punishment are totally different now.  So, yay to topics that make us think!

  • Thanks for dropping by.  You brought up some very interesting ideas.

  • Hi, I am your host.

    I love gmmt's comment. The basic principle of Socratic discourse is that we should share ideas and opinions in a rational and non-judgemental way. Another basic principle is that we share ideas with the goal of broadening our own perspecitves and exercising our minds, so your blog fits right in. What a great job you have done on it!

    I have a pretty hard time thinking that war is justified. I do think that it is inevitable sometimes. Those are different concepts. I hear a lot about the responsibility of the United States to other countries. What exactly is our responsibility?

  • Great post ... I will be around later to read more thoroughly and discuss

  • I know this topic is about war in general and not specific historical events, this or that war.  But an example might help express my question better.  In the conflict with Al-Qaeda (sp?), the general American perspective is that we are retaliating to violence done to us on September 11th, and that this is a type of self-defense or at least a justified response to Al-Qaeda's original violence.  However, what is excluded or ridiculed in conversation are the motives for the terrorists on 9/11.  They believed they were responding to oppressive and violent structures of the United States in international activity, and they felt flying planes into towers was a justified response.  Where is the origin of violence, and when can the reactive violence be considered over?  What does it mean for a side to win, and how is this different from an instigation for a future retaliation?  It seems that war is self-perpetuating, and every justification is from one point of view, which necessarily fails to be adequate.  Who gets to determine what is oppressive and what is not?

  • Eddie makes a wonderful point, one that I have been trying to state but not nearly so effectively. In any conflict, both sides think that they are right. Is that valid? Is one side right and one wrong? Is right that absolute, or does it depend on perspective?

  • I dont think the average person ever knows truly what goes on in world politics. they just dont tell us everything. And what we get from the press if biased, so how can we tell? Also there is a history point of view on a lot of what we call 'just' or 'unjust'. We look back at the facts we have now and say, "This was a just war, see this and this." or "This war was so unjust, look what they did!", but we forget that the people in it at the time dont have the 'looking back' advantage. That often times (like with the Iraq thing) we get wrong information, or have to make a decision quickly without all the facts. Sometimes it works out good, sometimes bad. There is also the factor that politics often play a part in what is written in said histories. You mentioned the Civil War, and how the Blacks would argue it was a just war for their freedom, only thats not why that war was started. The Civil War happened to preserve the Union, Lincoln only added the Emancipation Proclamation on to boost moral and give us renewed purpose. It did ultimately mean their freedom, but thats not what the war was about! History, though, plays up the freeing of the slaves in order to GIVE it justification.

    So many angles, so little answers. We just have to do the best we can with what we have.
    Great post!
    ~Mia

  • I would be interested to know what you consider as solid evidence in your last paragraph.

  • So many great questions . . (so little time!) I'm going to try to get to everyones site sometime today. (I hope!)
    ~M

  • I do not have answers either. I think it should be like in a court of law. First price would be to have a clear intent to attack i.e. a letter, tape recording or something similar that is beyond dispute. There must be clear evidence that there is actually weapons ready and in place to action that attack. If the agressor makes threats of attack it should be taken seriously. I think there must be agreement in the world council that the threat is real based on the evidence. The Bush Administration will argue that it is difficult to get that type of evidence when anti-terrorism is the game. They do not operate by conventional means. What is strange to me is that the same administration then went and fought a conventional war against Terrorism by attacking a country. The war against terrorism should be one of deep intelligence and continual dialog to address differences and issues.

  • Zeal, If there were clear evidence, would it have to be shown to the citizens of a country, or would you trust the leaders to act? What if that clear evidence later turned out to be less clear--even a letter or tape recording might end up being later shown false.

    So for example, Iran has made some pretty serious threats agains Israel. Iran continues to fund terrorist organizations that target Israelis and has called for the elimination of Israel. They are now pursuing nuclear weapons and already have the ballistic missile ability to target Tel Aviv. How would you advise Israel?

  • Jon brings up a good point.  Can we trust our leaders to make decisions?  I think it is true that we do not have all of the information that they have and possibly it would not be appropriate for us to have some of it, but how do we know that they are making the right decisions?

  • Jon - thats *such* a good question.  And Nance - that brings up a whole other issue.  Trust.  I'm not very good in the trust department when it comes to politicians.  I know they know more than I do, and it's probably better that way.  But do I trust them to make the right decision?  Gosh . . sometimes, maybe.  But sometimes, no . . I don't.  Who *do* we trust to make the right decision?  We should elect the person we trust the most.  I guess thats why our government, though slightly corrupt, works.  It may be flawed, but nothing is perfect.  At least here, women aren't slaves, and treated like scum (mostly).  At least here *anyone* has a fighting chance to become something, if they want to do the work.  (we also have complainers too, but that comes with the territory).  I think we've got it pretty good! 

    Thanks everyone for such great comments.  I've enjoyed my first experience in the Cafe! 

    ~Mere

  • Yes, our system, though flawed, does work. How can we raise the trust level and make it work even better?

    Thanks for your visit to my site. I am finding that being temporary caretaker of Socrates Cafe in Simone's absence does not leave me time for participating myself, which makes me a little sad. I also neglect my own blog. I did appreciate your comment there.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment