Funny, I just read a chapter in a book on something similar to this. I think it is justifiable. The book used an example like this, war on a smaller scale I guess you could say, it was used to prove that pacifism is not good:
Not the exact quote, but you get the gist.
This isn't exactly on war, but on the violence that could be in war. Do we, for example, let the terrorist invade and destroy our country, or go straight to the source and take care of our problems now? We don't want those kindergardeners (civilians) to be killed by the sniper (the antagonizing side) when we have the possibility to stop him. I would have more, but I don't feel like typing too much today. In my words, yes, it is justifiable.
I assume you're talking about the war in Iraq and such. I really don't see how the death of a million plus Iraqis can be really justified. The "terrorists" ability to cause death is nothing compared to a B-2, predator drones, and nukes.
Explain how nuclear power is a good thing. Also, flight would've been become better and better regardless of war.
It's a clean and mostly-safe power source. Sure, if it's screwed up it's disastrous, but it can be a great help. However, its bombs should never be used against living things... They're just too powerful. I pray that they're never again used on this Earth.
I assume your talking about the war in Iraq and such. I really don't see how the death of a million Iraqis can be really justified. The "terrorists" ability to death is nothing compared to a B-2, predator drones, and nukes.
I assume you're talking about the war in Iraq and such. I really don't see how the death of a million plus Iraqis can be really justified. The "terrorists" ability to cause death is nothing compared to a B-2, predator drones, and nukes.
Uh no, i was talking about the war on terrorism in general. I like how the media has completely twisted the idea of the Iraqi war. There were a few reasons we went in. One being that we had intel that there was weapons of mass destruction, though wrong. Another being Sadam mass murdering his people and the people of Kuwait. The final reason being oil. We didn't go into kill Iraqi Civilians, we went in to kill Sadam's men and whoever else was in our way. Though our rush towards the oil did make us look real bad.
(That was written in the terms of the US, so if you're from another country wondering, "We didn't invade Iraq!", I was talking about the US)
Uh no, i was talking about the war on terrorism in general. I like how the media has completely twisted the idea of the Iraqi war. There were a few reasons we went in. One being that we had intel that there was weapons of mass destruction, though wrong. Another being Sadam mass murdering his people and the people of Kuwait. The final reason being oil. We didn't go into kill Iraqi Civilians, we went in to kill Sadam's men and whoever else was in our way. Though our rush towards the oil did make us look real bad.
(That was written in the terms of the US, so if you're from another country wondering, "We didn't invade Iraq!", I was talking about the US)
I didn't say we wanted that many people to die, it's just what happened (btw, thats how many people have died in the war, not how many we killed). Since Saddam killed 50,000-100,000 iraqis, I really don't see how the war (which killed 1,000,000+) helped them.
I didn't say we wanted that many people to die, it's just what happened (btw, thats how many people have died in the war, not how many we killed). Since Saddam killed 50,000-100,000 iraqis, I really don't see how the war (which killed 1,000,000+) helped them.
Ya, again, probably got that from the media which just decided to skew it for the sake of making republicans look bad and democrats look good. If you got it from the Internet, you get a high five. Media is way too bias for their own good.
So 60 million dead and it's ok because it ended a depression?
Look at all the technologies that have come from war. The internet for one. The internet was created by the US because of the Cold War. It was created so that the government would have a means of sharing information across the country during a nuclear conflict.
I would also like to add this. Often times pacifists use the argument that one of the ten commandments say "You shall not kill" when the direct translation is "you shall not murder". Not to offend anyone of a different religion btw, just a common argument. Now murder is the killing of innocents. But when you are killing someone not innocent it is not murder. Therefore stopping a attacking side through war voids the argument of "you shall not kill", at least from the stand point of common religion.
Look at all the technologies that have come from war. The internet for one. The internet was created by the US because of the Cold War. It was created so that the government would have a means of sharing information across the country during a nuclear conflict.
Most tec that comes from war are just bigger bombs. The 1% that helps people does not really justify the billions of deaths caused by war. I really think the universities and DOD would have connected their networks without the treat of nuclear war (Or however the internet came about.)
Ya, again, probably got that from the media which just decided to skew it for the sake of making republicans look bad and democrats look good. If you got it from the Internet, you get a high five. Media is way too bias for their own good.
I think it was NPR. But, it's a single fact. All I said was a million people had died in the Iraq war. I really don't know how you could skew that.
Yes, I believe in some cases war is justifiable and even inevitable. For instance we can take the case of a revolution where a war is preferable and even necessary. The bourgeoisie and rulers will not happily bend over and give back to the people what they had taken from them, and for that very reason force needs to be exerted.
Anyway some food for thought: "Fascists promote violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[7] Fascists exalt militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[8]"
"Offensive" wars of invasion can never be justified. That is just plain bullying for political gain.
"Defensive" wars are unavoidable. In that case people are just defending against the aggressors.
Violent revolutions generally result in just another violent, oppressive regime, therefore, gaining no ground in the long run.
Really, the rule of thumb here is violence only results in more violence, which is never good.
Mankind will never evolve if we continue to rely on violence to solve our problems.
And ANYONE who joins any military, only continues that cycle of primitive violence.
Sorry, mr. "proud" marine(or army, or navy), I have no respect for you. You are just a thug. you are not serving your country, you are serving the agendas of power hungry politicians.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
-Muad'Dib
War can be justified. The real question is if it's necessary. The answer to that, is no. Not really. We could solve our problems in a non-violent way, but people are idiots... So with that said, it is, in a way, necessary and justified.
You can offer to negotiate kindly, but if the other party won't hear you out, then you must apply force if you really want change, and sometimes change is necessary.
I assume you're talking about the war in Iraq and such. I really don't see how the death of a million plus Iraqis can be really justified. The "terrorists" ability to cause death is nothing compared to a B-2, predator drones, and nukes.
It's a clean and mostly-safe power source. Sure, if it's screwed up it's disastrous, but it can be a great help. However, its bombs should never be used against living things... They're just too powerful. I pray that they're never again used on this Earth.
Do you even read what you type?
Ohhh, thats pretty bad. Let me fix that. :smile.gif:
Enjoy.
Twitter: @snuffle1upagus
So 60 million dead and it's ok because it ended a depression?
Uh no, i was talking about the war on terrorism in general. I like how the media has completely twisted the idea of the Iraqi war. There were a few reasons we went in. One being that we had intel that there was weapons of mass destruction, though wrong. Another being Sadam mass murdering his people and the people of Kuwait. The final reason being oil. We didn't go into kill Iraqi Civilians, we went in to kill Sadam's men and whoever else was in our way. Though our rush towards the oil did make us look real bad.
(That was written in the terms of the US, so if you're from another country wondering, "We didn't invade Iraq!", I was talking about the US)
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
I didn't say we wanted that many people to die, it's just what happened (btw, thats how many people have died in the war, not how many we killed). Since Saddam killed 50,000-100,000 iraqis, I really don't see how the war (which killed 1,000,000+) helped them.
Ya, again, probably got that from the media which just decided to skew it for the sake of making republicans look bad and democrats look good. If you got it from the Internet, you get a high five. Media is way too bias for their own good.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Look at all the technologies that have come from war. The internet for one. The internet was created by the US because of the Cold War. It was created so that the government would have a means of sharing information across the country during a nuclear conflict.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Most tec that comes from war are just bigger bombs. The 1% that helps people does not really justify the billions of deaths caused by war. I really think the universities and DOD would have connected their networks without the treat of nuclear war (Or however the internet came about.)
I think it was NPR. But, it's a single fact. All I said was a million people had died in the Iraq war. I really don't know how you could skew that.
Anyway some food for thought: "Fascists promote violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[7] Fascists exalt militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[8]"
"Defensive" wars are unavoidable. In that case people are just defending against the aggressors.
Violent revolutions generally result in just another violent, oppressive regime, therefore, gaining no ground in the long run.
Really, the rule of thumb here is violence only results in more violence, which is never good.
Mankind will never evolve if we continue to rely on violence to solve our problems.
And ANYONE who joins any military, only continues that cycle of primitive violence.
Sorry, mr. "proud" marine(or army, or navy), I have no respect for you. You are just a thug. you are not serving your country, you are serving the agendas of power hungry politicians.
-Muad'Dib
You can offer to negotiate kindly, but if the other party won't hear you out, then you must apply force if you really want change, and sometimes change is necessary.