The blog of Gow (Tannicus), fiction and ramblings of the Coyote.
Trying to define whether war can be justified as wrong or right...
Published on November 8, 2004 By Grim Xiozan In Politics
Can war be justified as completely wrong or right?

Does Diplomacy fail? How many times does it fail before a war ensues or should fail before conflict happens?

Can the loss of life be equated with the loss of life with inaction?

Will I get to the commenting on the topic at hand or will I keep asking questions?

How many of think war is wrong by a show of hands?

People who think war is right?

So, what is the correct answer than?

I know I said I was going to actual get to commenting at the topic at hand, right?

On Time, On Target, On Topic!!

War can neither be defined as right (hooray for the anti-war people) nor can it be defined as wrong (hooray for the war people) and that is the definition put into its simplest terms.
For one if war was always wrong than what would be the point in fighting back at all? If war was always right than how come we are not still in World War 2 or 1 right now?

From Evil comes great good and from Good comes great evil.

People shout that the Iraq war is wrong by stating that the Shia are being killed by US Forces and that 100,000 have died so far (a number that is even contested by the IraqiBodyCount orginaztion). If the war is so wrong than why do the Kurds and Chaldeans are so grateful to the United States and denounce with great zeal anyone who says Saddam was good or not that bad.

The funniest one (and sad at the same time) reason I have heard used so far on JU was that Iraq was an not that great but if you kept your mouth shut Saddam would not hurt you? Says who? An American? An Australian? A Brit? A German? A French?
If the situation in Iraq was that GOOD under Saddam where you only had to keep your mouth closed than why were people dieing regardless of not breaking that rule? Why were women being raped by the two angels, Saddam's sons? Why do the Kurds and Chaldeans look at the people who remark with that comment with complete and utter disdain plus hatred?

Could it be because the situation in Iraq was worse than that?

So what if Saddam never harmed Americans if that was the case than we should have never got involved with World War 1 or 2!!

I know some will say the Germans did attack us in World War 1 with the sinking of the Luistania but the glaringly forget the DAMN SHIP WAS LOADED TO BARE with supplies (i.e. weapons, ammunition, etc.) bound for England, a direct violation of agreed upon rules by the parties at war, the Germans were justified in sinking it even though the US used Innocent people to shield a supply convoy!! Yes, brutal is it not, to use innocent people to shield a supply shipment, right?

Than you have World War 2, initially it was Japan that attacked us outright but what increased tensions between the US and Germany was not the pact Germany made with Japan but the presence of "Liberty Ships" in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Europe sending supplies to England, some of them got sank by U-boats but what did anybody suspect would happen in those U-boat patrolled waters during a TIME OF WAR? FDR is responsible for taking us to war with Germany because he sent the Liberty ships into those waters that he was warned before than that those waters were patrolled by U-boats and that they would sink any ships in that zone. These Liberty Ships were not sunk in US Waters, people!!

FDR's new deal program took a long time to get the people out of depression and he needed a quick boost, so arms deals went on with England when World War 2 began and FDR jumped on the chance to get the US involved by ignoring warnings that were given about Pearl Harbor and sent ships into Foreign Waters against any semblance of non-interventionist policy.

A tidbit of info about the Social Security System the original system proposed by a guy named Francis Townsend asked that a national sales of 2 percent be imposed to pay for people over the age of 65, the government in turn rejected the plan and put in a plan of their own that REQUIRED workers who reached the age of 65 MUST RETIRE, and it was not until Congress eliminated it in 1986 that it was changed. Conflict Theorists point out that Social Security did not come about because of the generosity of FDR and Congress but instead developed because of the struggle between two different interest groups.

In 1950, 16 workers paid for one retiree, in 2000 4 pay for 1, and estimate for 2030 is an questionable 2 paying for 1. (Source Social Security Administration; Statistical abstract 2001: Tables 525, 528)

Now, before I get to FAR off topic I will now return to the subject at hand, and apologize for the Social Security tangent!!

War what is it good for...

Most people say absolutely nothing and to them I say what you don't like your telephone, microwave, internet, computer, medicine?
War is good for something if anything it breeds innovation in fields that normally do not progress that fast without it.
Is that a reason to accept war?
No, but we cannot simply dismiss war as something that is completely wrong...
What about it being right?
No, war does cost human lives and whether the cost of lives is justified can only be determined by the number of lives saved by action as opposed to the number of lives that might be lost due to inaction.

Diplomacy never fails it always works and if Bush tried a little harder this war could have prevented!!

To that I say where have you been? Are the concerns of the Kurds and Chaldeans not taken into consideration when you brush the war off as wrong?

If diplomacy never failed the United States would still be an English Colony, Hitler would still be in power, etc.

Diplomacy does fail; in fact it failed several times in a country known as Iraq. One time a President ordered troops to free another country known as Kuwait from the grasp of Iraq. Other times when it failed a President just issued an order to drop bombs to open up negotiations again. Than finally when there was a breakdown of diplomacy (i.e. resolutions passed and ultimatums given with no reply or concern given back from Saddam) an invasion ensued because the implied risk or threat was greater than inaction.

Dance Fanatica!!

Well I will continue this discussion later, probably after tonight's first ever unofficial Allen County Libertarian Meeting, unofficial because we are coming together for the first time to look at options in founding the local party. That and I have philosophy class to attend, lunch to eat, etc. Plus I have little things to do and a lot of time to do it in. Scratch that, reverse it.

Tanz mit Laibach und mit B Mashina!!
Dance with Laibach and with B Machine!!

Wir tanzen mit Demokratie!! (?)
We are dancing with Democracy

I learn some German from the groups I listen to, but do not make the mistake of calling Laibach German for they are not German but Slovenian they just happen to sing in German.

Plinko Pope Grimmy Grim Grimster X the 49th

I hope you enjoyed this little foray into the philosophy or reasoning behind my views on the issue of war and diplomacy.
I will reply to comments and continue on where I have left off plus expound further on things that need clarification.

Comments
on Nov 08, 2004
The ad placed by the Imperial German Embassy under the ad for the last voyage of the Lusitania:

Notice! Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. --Imperial German Embassy

People also seem to forget that the Lusitania was equipped with 12-six inch guns, making it better equipped for battle than the ships defending the English Channel.
on Nov 08, 2004
People also seem to forget that the Lusitania was equipped with 12-six inch guns, making it better equipped for battle than the ships defending the English Channel.


Good lord, talking about being loaded to bare with weapons and supplies.

Thanks for the info.

Now I am off to philosophy class.
on Nov 08, 2004
I must say that is a better title for this entry too...
on Nov 08, 2004
Hmm, well I popped on to look at something and nobody has replied to this article besides you, history.

Is it too complex, or are they waiting for me to continue the whole deal before commenting, oh well.

Got to head off now to the Libertarian Meeting, oooooh spooky!!

Grimstar Xunner Plinko!!
on Nov 09, 2004
The finished product (finished until I think of adding more material or after my Philosophy class paper) is located HERE

*Note: I moved it to the Philosophy section because that is where I think it belongs since it has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican conspiracy theories or political verbal assaults but more to do with the Philosophical understandings behind war in my view. Hopefully in the least it sparks PHILOSOPHICAL debate but I worry that some will just post comments without thought.

Oh well, I must remember to take the BAD with the GOOD and vice versa.

Plinko for the people on JU!!
on Nov 09, 2004
Insightful from me.

I thought this article was really good. You show that even though War is usually started from the unjustice, moral blindness, and human error it teaches us good lessons and sometimes it prevents even more loss of life. It can hardly be argued that there is no benefits from war although wether these benefits outweigh human life is debatable. Then again there is also the question of what people and countries earn from the spoils of war should be proportional to the sacrifice and effort that they put into fighting the war.

I liked this article.