Unjust Wars

[tradeunionsupporter]

Have the Democrats took America into more Unjust Wars than the Republicans have ?

[hatzel]

What is an 'unjust war'? That is to say, what is a 'just war' (assuming that 'unjust wars' are just the other ones)?

[Leftie]

When have the US entered a 'just war'?

And I fail to see what you are getting at. Are you saying we should vote Republican because the Democrats have gone into more 'unjust' wars?

[Thirsty Crow]

Have the Democrats took America into more Unjust Wars than the Republicans have ?
I think the whole concept of a "just war" is an ideological obfuscation and mystification when it comes to a rigorous analysis of the causes and functions of war within global capitalism.


What is an 'unjust war'? That is to say, what is a 'just war' (assuming that 'unjust wars' are just the other ones)?I am not entirely sure, but I think that the concept emanates from the liberal theory of foreign policy and rests on the notion of humanitarian aid via bombs and bullets ("The Iraqi people are 'democratically deficient' and we need to bring democracy - and get rid of the dictator - no matter what").

[redSHARP]

oddly enough i asked my self these questions:

Though the US/USSR did not enter WWII to end the holocaust, by liberating the camps did the US/USSR actually do a just thing even if it wasn't their main goal?

I dont think wars are just, but wouldnt a global revolution require wars at some point?

If you knew the country next to you was committing genocide, would you intervene to stop it? Does war, a mean, justify the ends, ending the genocide?

[hatzel]

If you knew the country next to you was committing genocide, would you intervene to stop it? Does war, a mean, justify the ends, ending the genocide?

I feel this is getting to the real hypotheticals. I mean, one can assume that it would be totally impossible for a military intervention to do merely that. Even if some State declared it as their intention, and even if they actually tried to keep to it, and do nothing else, chances are they would eventually do something excessive. That is to say, they might kill somebody who doesn't 'have' to be killed to stop the genocide, or bomb a building of no strategic importance, by mistake or by misinformation. And this is even in our perfect example - in the real world, as we know, the invading forces would probably try to push a few other things, too, which aren't linked to ending the genocide. We could get topical, given Ratko Mladić's recent arrest, to notice a situation where the NATO intervention probably had an impact in ending the war in the Balkans, halting genocide and the like, but, of course, various other agendas were pushed at the same time, some of which may have been fine, some of which weren't.

That's where the issue comes in. We're getting into awfully confusing territory. It's almost like we have to start dissecting every war, and picking out which agendas we consider justified. For instance, we might think that ending a genocide is justified, but if that country then conquers the other, we may think that was unjustified. Then we have to look at every bullet, every shell, and decide whether the killing or this or that person, the bombing of this or that building, had an impact in the ending of the genocide, or whether it was merely intended to forward the other agenda, namely, the conquer of the country. Or, we may notice that bombing some airfield helped with both aims, and then we have to start trying to balance up the two, decide whether the positive impact in helping end the genocide counter-balance the negative impact of facilitating the conquest of the country.

Needless to say, all of the above is very confusing. We can say that it is justified to end a genocide, but in the real world, it's unlikely to assume that a military intervention wouldn't push some other agendas at the same time. It's also effectively impossible to believe that a human military could ever conduct that operation with maximum efficiency; at least one person will be killed or wounded who didn't need to be to end the genocide. And as soon as that happens, even if we think that a military intervention to end a genocide is justified, we notice that elements of the military intervention have, in fact, been unjustified.

I don't think it's possible to say 'this war is justified'. It's possible to say 'this result of the war was positive', which would be the case if the war ended a genocide. But that doesn't make the war itself justified. In fact, all military interventions are merely judged by weighing up the positive and negative results, and trying to decide which 'trumps' the other, to decide whether we think the war was okay or not. Hence, some people look at WWII and say it wasn't all that bad, because at least it stopped fascism. Taking this position comes from the opinion that beating fascism was so positive a result that the various negative results, not least the destruction and loss of life, are reduced to unfortunate side-effects. In other cases, where we disapprove of a war or intervention, we have a tendency to flip it, and say that those positive things that came out of it were fortunate side-effects. 'It was terrible, but at least it achieved this'...

What I'm trying to say here is that one might say that ending genocide justifies war / military intervention / etc., but that's an entirely theoretical statement, as it relies on the existence of a hypothetical 'perfect war', with complete efficiency, and only that one intention. It's a question of philosophy, not one that actually applies to the real world, where military actions can never be as 'clean' as they are in theoretical thought-exercises.

[Wanted Man]

oddly enough i asked my self these questions:

Though the US/USSR did not enter WWII to end the holocaust, by liberating the camps did the US/USSR actually do a just thing even if it wasn't their main goal?

I dont think wars are just, but wouldnt a global revolution require wars at some point?

If you knew the country next to you was committing genocide, would you intervene to stop it? Does war, a mean, justify the ends, ending the genocide?

Comparing "liberal interventions" with WWII is kind of useless because the US and USSR were both attacked.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is no such thing as a "Just War." If you are defending yourself than all is well and good,but if you are the one doing the invading than nothing is able to be justified.

The USSR was attacked,but I've heard leftists claim that Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was,more or less,the fault of the U.S government due to their squeezing of Japanese economical interests.

[hatzel]

There is no such thing as a "Just War." If you are defending yourself than all is well and good,but if you are the one doing the invading than nothing is able to be justified.

Does this not imply that you consider a defensive war to be a just war?

[redSHARP]

Comparing "liberal interventions" with WWII is kind of useless because the US and USSR were both attacked.


alright. then i ask this

what is a "liberal intervention"?
are there other type of interventions?

[redSHARP]

There is no such thing as a "Just War." If you are defending yourself than all is well and good,but if you are the one doing the invading than nothing is able to be justified.

The USSR was attacked,but I've heard leftists claim that Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was,more or less,the fault of the U.S government due to their squeezing of Japanese economical interests.

so in WWII when the USSR crossed into Poland and Germany, were they still fighting a just war or did they become the invaders and thus WWII become an unjust war for the USSR?

I never heard a leftist claim the Pearl Harbor was the US's fault.:lol: That is very interesting.