Is there ever anything as a just war?

[che118]

I need to answer this question for an essay! Any ideas on how can i write i from a left wing view point, with examples to back it up

[lvatt]

I think the concept of "just war" was originally developped by the catholic church. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first who wrote about it when he said that before taking up arms against a population, that population had to have violated a right. I believe this is more likely a reference to an army fighting another army on the international stage

I'm not sure how this can be seen from a leftist point of view, though. I would say that a war is justified in a context of class struggles, when an exploited population fights against capitalism and the free-market economy that forces them to work like mad for very little money while their bosses don't work at all and make millions. You can say that such a struggle is essential as a parent's duty to protect their children, as in the fighters do not want their children to be exploited in a capitalist country so they fight for a better future for the next generations. You could say that in such a case, the casualties of war will be much lower than the causalties of not fighting a war.

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73209&hl=

There is an identical thread by the same member here as well, btw. They should probably be merged.

[The Douche]

Wars of defense, in addition to class war (which is for the most part a war of defense) are justified.

If your country was invaded tomorrow wouldn't you fight? I would, not for the current regime or the status quo, but I know the result of such an invasion will be worse than what we had before. But I guess you could say that any war which involved repelling an invasion would be an anti-imperialist struggle, which I would argue are also justified.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense, in addition to class war (which is for the most part a war of defense) are justified.

And attack is the best form of defence.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 16, 2007 04:49 pm--> (William Everard @ November 16, 2007 04:49 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense, in addition to class war (which is for the most part a war of defense) are justified.

And attack is the best form of defence. [/b]
Agreed...and I thought I didn't believe in pre-emptive strikes haha.

[Redmau5]

Of course there can be just wars, just as there can be unjust peace.

[bolshevik butcher]

For marxists the question of war is not whether it is "just" or "unjust" as it is to bourgoirse liberalism, the question is one of the class intersts involved. As a socialist I support the working class in their wars, as class conflict at its highest stage often evolves into armed conflict, partiucarlly in defence of revolutions. Likewise I oppose the borugoirse's wars, and we must oppose imperialism in all its forms, and in the wars it unleashes upon the oppressed peoples of the semi-colonial world, and that causes harm to the working class of the imperialist nation as well, in dead working class soldiers, diverted resources etc.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense are justified.
But in every war there is an aggressor and a defender. Does that mean every war is justified?

[rocker935]

I personally would say that no war is just, but that these things are called by different names. I would say that a military class-struggle revolution is much different than "War". I would say that what America is doin in the middle east is a war. But was the EZLN is doing is much different. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by cmoney+November 16, 2007 05:40 pm--> (cmoney @ November 16, 2007 05:40 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 16, 2007 04:49 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense, in addition to class war (which is for the most part a war of defense) are justified.

And attack is the best form of defence.
Agreed...and I thought I didn't believe in pre-emptive strikes haha. [/b]
Few deny that preemptive strikes are unjust; it is preventive strikes which, as Chomsky pointed out in a 2003 response to the invasion of a Iraq, are unjust.

"The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out “preventive war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive(sic). Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive(sic) war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg." (1 (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030811.htm))

Preemptive war was best defined by Abraham D. Sofaer of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University:

" 1. The nature and magnitude of the threat involved
2. The likelihood that the threat will be realized unless preemptive action is taken
3. The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and
4. Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U.N. Charter and other applicable international agreements. " (2 (http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/209))

The distinction needs to be made. Notably, the Bush Administration as well as other liberal democracies have used the term "preemptive war" in lieu of the more correct term, "preventive war" as a means of propaganda.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Goatse+November 16, 2007 08:05 pm--> (Goatse @ November 16, 2007 08:05 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense are justified.
But in every war there is an aggressor and a defender. Does that mean every war is justified? [/b]
I meant it more in a manner of repelling an invasion. All nations have the right to self government, and therefore the right to defend themselves from invasion.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by cmoney+November 17, 2007 02:11 am--> (cmoney @ November 17, 2007 02:11 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:05 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 03:54 pm
Wars of defense are justified.
But in every war there is an aggressor and a defender. Does that mean every war is justified?
I meant it more in a manner of repelling an invasion. All nations have the right to self government, and therefore the right to defend themselves from invasion. [/b]
I know what you meant. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make the war justified.

[50cal_words]

In the case of repelling an enemy who has invaded, I wouldnt consider it a 'war'... War implies that there are two(or more) forces of pretty much similar military capacity(this doesnt mean they are the same size, just the same effectiveness). Repelling an invasion would be called resistance, if done by the people.

[long_live_the_revolution]

irish strougle for independence, for example, or any war against imperialism and opression for creation of a free state

[S.O.I]

word

any wars containing the words liberation, resistance or independance are just

the others are imperialist bullshit

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:21 am
word

any wars containing the words liberation, resistance or independance are just

the others are imperialist bullshit
Liberation of Iraq? ;)

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:21 am
word

any wars containing the words liberation, resistance or independance are just
I agree that wars of liberation are just in principle. But the methods and tactics of some of those involved in wars of liberations certainly aren't justifiable.