FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is it ever right to go to war?





radel
Human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long.

Is It Ever Right To Go To War?
Peterssidan
I think it depends and it will always be different opinions if it was right to start the war. I think if some country is taking something or behave bad like taking someone elses oil. Than it can be right to start a war.
I think Bush have no right to go to all these wars they do! If you fight terrorist you can't begin a war! You have to make other things. spying and find them or something. How could Bush say that oh they might have nucler weapon so we must start war? I you think like that it would be ok to start a war against USA because everyone knows that they have nucler weapons.
Yantaal
"violence begats more violence"

i think that quote is correct.

but i disagree with war, it really does achieve nothing, the only reason i would go to war is if my country was beign invaded and i needed to defend it. who in the right mind starts a war out of choice
rheanna
Bush watched too many Ren and Stimpy shows " He's trying to take over the world" Laughing Twisted Evil
Zampano
It is never morally correct to go to war. The basic human commandment stands eternally:

"Thou shalt not kill."

That stands forever and will never change in whatever circumstances arise.
jwellsy
Radel, I see that the Philippine army has killed another 18 Muslim rebels.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/07/asia/AS-GEN-Philippines-Muslim-Rebels.php

How do you feel about the radical Muslims in your country?

If they wanted to take over your entire country,
would it be worth going to war against them?
Indi
Zampano wrote:
It is never morally correct to go to war. The basic human commandment stands eternally:

"Thou shalt not kill."

That stands forever and will never change in whatever circumstances arise.

i'm sorry, but that has to be the most poorly thought out, vacuous argument i've read in weeks.
  1. "Thou shalt not kill" is most certainly not a basic human commandment. You killed millions of bacteria just farting out that trite phrase (not counting the brain cells you killed as casualities belonging to the people who read it).

  2. What's that? Bacteria doesn't matter? "Kill" only refers to humans? Alright, fine. Consider this. There is a finite amount of resources available on Earth, and we just don't have enough to go around. Around 25000 people will die today because of lack of food. Given that you have access to a computer, it's a safe assumption that you have more than enough food to survive, and very likely enough to food to fend off starvation for at least 2 people, if not more. That means that because you ate today, you killed at least 2 people who would have been able to survive on the food you ate. Unless you can justify that your single life is worth more than the two that die because of you, then if your "basic human commandment" were true, you are violating that basic human commandment just by eating (and the same argument could be extended to breathing or anything else), and there if that commandment means anything, you should kill yourself.

  3. Obviously that would be idiotic, and a moment's thought would have told you this. That's because the real commandment that you lifted does not say "thou shalt not kill", it says "thou shalt not murder". Not all killing is murder. Sometimes it is morally correct - sometimes even morally required - to kill people. It can never be morally correct to murder, by the definition of murder.

  4. Killing in a war is, by definition, not murder. Thus that basic human commandment has absolutely nothing to do with war. Just a moment's thought would have made this clear to you.

  5. But even if that commandment were true, what if i marched my army into your country and destroyed every single house, apartment building, workplace, factory, farm... everything... but i did not kill one single solitary human being? What, is that ok?

------------------

The question if and when it is ever moral to go to war is a good one, and one deserving of complex thought - not pithy platitudes lifted carelessly from mystical texts. But before it can be seriously answered, it has to be defined. What does it mean to go to war? What is a war? These things need to be defined.

And because i know someone's going to jump up and call me anally pedantic because the definition of "war" is obvious, as is what it means to go to war, consider this: Is the "war" in Iraq really a war? Was it ever really a war? What about Afghanistan, is there war there right now? Was there ever? Is it a war if only one side is fighting? What about going to war - is a pre-emptive strike going to war, especially if the enemy never retaliates? Is defending against an invasion going to war? If i fired missles at you and you shot them down... did you fight a war? Did i? Is the war on drugs a war? The war on crime?

A lot of the time, the answer can be found right in the definitions (such as in the case of "kill" vs. "murder" above). By figuring out what a war really is, and what it means to go to war, you may find the answers to the question of whether or not it is moral and when pop right out.
sanzu
Indi i was thinking pretty much everything you said and this part makes a lot of sense to this thread
Quote:
But even if that commandment were true, what if i marched my army into your country and destroyed every single house, apartment building, workplace, factory, farm... everything... but i did not kill one single solitary human being? What, is that ok?


Sure war has started from less but thats pretty much the basis of why people want to go to war someone invades they try to take something that isnt theres. What are you supose to do say "hello take over we wont stop you" no of course not they must retaliate to keep there land freedom and all the rights.

Do i think that murder/killing is justified in all this no. Why should are fellow man have to die to gain or defend. So in my oppinion war could and i stress that word alot be justified under certain cercomstances but that may just be me i dont know about everyone else.
radel
jwellsy wrote:
Radel, I see that the Philippine army has killed another 18 Muslim rebels.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/07/asia/AS-GEN-Philippines-Muslim-Rebels.php

How do you feel about the radical Muslims in your country?
If they wanted to take over your entire country,would it be worth going to war against them?


For me, its really not about this religion versus that religion. I have a lot of muslim friends and most of them dont like what those radical muslims are doing. What they are fighting for is not about religion. Its for some geopolitical ideology. If they ever want to take over the country, civil war would ensue and if ever I'm called to join the army, I would go. It's my duty as a citizen to defend the country im living in, against any threat, internal or external. I would go to war without any doubts. I wouldn't be fighting "muslims" but those who are fighting against my country.

War will always be war. Most are justified, while others aren't. But there is always the same outcome of war. Devastation, destruction, and death.

For war to be justified, these points must be considered:
(1) the ultimate purpose of it is peace; (2) it should be the last resort; (3) violence will be limited to those in arms; and (4) use of minimum force needed for victory.
Bikerman
radel wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Radel, I see that the Philippine army has killed another 18 Muslim rebels.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/07/asia/AS-GEN-Philippines-Muslim-Rebels.php

How do you feel about the radical Muslims in your country?
If they wanted to take over your entire country,would it be worth going to war against them?


For me, its really not about this religion versus that religion. I have a lot of muslim friends and most of them dont like what those radical muslims are doing. What they are fighting for is not about religion. Its for some geopolitical ideology. If they ever want to take over the country, civil war would ensue and if ever I'm called to join the army, I would go. It's my duty as a citizen to defend the country im living in, against any threat, internal or external. I would go to war without any doubts. I wouldn't be fighting "muslims" but those who are fighting against my country.

War will always be war. Most are justified, while others aren't. But there is always the same outcome of war. Devastation, destruction, and death.

For war to be justified, these points must be considered:
(1) the ultimate purpose of it is peace; (2) it should be the last resort; (3) violence will be limited to those in arms; and (4) use of minimum force needed for victory.


Well , in the Phillipines you main danger is from the US. I seem to remember that they were the main sponsors of Marcos during the whole-scale corruption of the 60s and 70s....
Still I don't know much about your country so I'll not go down that route..I agree with your summary of points to be considered in a 'justified' war. On paper they look good but unfortunately, try as I might, I can't think of one single case where these points have held good.
It has long been my conviction that one method of avoiding or limiting war is quite simple - you ensure that the powerful elites will stand to loose as much as the working class cannon fodder. This can be done in several ways.
I like Terry Prachetts jokey idea about politicians in XXX being put in Jail as soon as elected (to save time later). A development of that which I would certainly implement would be to require any sitting government who took the country to war to immediately resign after hostilities at the latest. War has too often used for personal political gain and the balance needs redressing. There would be no shame in a government resigning but it would ensure that war really was a last resort politically.
Next I would make sure that any significant shooting match would trigger automatic national service and there would be a schedule of call up according to role. Politicians, diplomats, senior civil servants and other powers of the establishment would be at the top of the list. They frequently tell us that their motivation is service so I'd just like to give them the opportunity to serve even more. Draft would be on a points system with those in the best position to influence state aggression (senior government/civil service/media/business leaders having a special 'gold card' which would ensure that they and their offspring were at the top of the draft list. Those with the most involvement in allowing the war would follow - back bench MPs, editors and senior journalists, defence contractors, etc. At the bottom of the list would be the poorest on the grounds that the more influence and input you have the more responsibility you should take for a particular course of action. You are responsible for events in direct proportion to your ability to change them and it seems fair that those responsible for taking the country into war should be given the largest burdon of responsibility when fighting that war.
Yantaal
rumour has it, war is bad
tijn01
I don't know why humans fight each other. But I do know that we shouldn't, and that there is never a good reason to hurt someone else. War comes from egotistical power hungry f*ckers in power being faced by other egotistical power hungry f*ckers in power wanting something different to them.
violetgnu
Depends what your moral code is. I happen to believe that killing in itself is not inherently wrong, therefore war is not inherently wrong. I think that wars sometimes lead to interesting technological breakthroughs, and that strategically, they historically have value in occupying territories, although now with an economy in which almost all countries are trading with each other, I can't say how useful it is now to developed countries.

I think that the only kind of war that is wrong is the one that gains nothing for both sides (i.e. territory/resources/political power) - for example a religious war. Keep in mind that I don't think that relgion is the root of all evil, nor money, nor power, but I think that fighting in order to convert someone never works, and is therefore useless, and costly to both sides with the only possible gains being in military technology and the losses far outweighing anything that mihgt come out of it.
laurenrox
Quote:
For war to be justified, these points must be considered:
(1) the ultimate purpose of it is peace; (2) it should be the last resort; (3) violence will be limited to those in arms; and (4) use of minimum force needed for victory.


What do you mean, "It should be a last resort?" What makes an action a last resort? That another country is murdering your people and you have to defend them? Are they stealing resources? Have you tried peace treaties, but they still are murdering your citizens?

Consider this - How much destruction can a country tolerate before they decide to go to war?

If you wait until you have tried everything else, then what will your loss be? How many people will lose their lives before you finally decide to take a stand and protect yourself?
williamcameron
How can one justify a war with rules?

surely a war is just that.. a war. Until someone wins. I never do understand this rules of engagement, and the whole 'we are at war, but you can't kill our people unless we hit you first'..

perhaps the wrong place to view this opinion as I'm sure someone will find fault with it, but its my dimes worth none-the-less.
Bikerman
violetgnu wrote:
Depends what your moral code is. I happen to believe that killing in itself is not inherently wrong, therefore war is not inherently wrong. I think that wars sometimes lead to interesting technological breakthroughs, and that strategically, they historically have value in occupying territories, although now with an economy in which almost all countries are trading with each other, I can't say how useful it is now to developed countries.

This is an interesting moral/ethical code. Under what circumstances, then, do you think killing is justified (apart from self defence)? Presumably from the above you would argue that killing is justified if it brings territorial gain or furthers technological progress?
Bikerman
williamcameron wrote:
How can one justify a war with rules?

surely a war is just that.. a war. Until someone wins. I never do understand this rules of engagement, and the whole 'we are at war, but you can't kill our people unless we hit you first'..

perhaps the wrong place to view this opinion as I'm sure someone will find fault with it, but its my dimes worth none-the-less.


The rules of war are an attempt to minimise the collateral damage and reduce barbarity and unnecessary killing.
Take, as an example, the conventions on prisoners of war. You could argue that 'hell - this is war so kill all prisoners or don't take prisoners in the first place'. The effect would be to dramatically increase the fatalities. If, on the other hand, it is generally agreed that prisoners be treated humanely then this benefits both parties in the war as long as both sides hold to the agreement.
Indi
laurenrox wrote:
Quote:
For war to be justified, these points must be considered:
(1) the ultimate purpose of it is peace; (2) it should be the last resort; (3) violence will be limited to those in arms; and (4) use of minimum force needed for victory.


What do you mean, "It should be a last resort?" What makes an action a last resort? That another country is murdering your people and you have to defend them? Are they stealing resources? Have you tried peace treaties, but they still are murdering your citizens?

Consider this - How much destruction can a country tolerate before they decide to go to war?

If you wait until you have tried everything else, then what will your loss be? How many people will lose their lives before you finally decide to take a stand and protect yourself?

Not to mention how lame point number 1 is.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if everyone agreed with my politics/religion/whatever. Therefore, i would be justified in starting a war for the purpose of forcing everyone that disagreed with me to change their position(s), because my ultimate goal is peace. (Providing the other points are met: (2) that i have tried to convince them to agree with me every other way, (3) that i only actually kill anyone who fights back and (4) that i don't use unnecessary force in exterminating dissenters.)

Um. No.
BrookfieldPC
I honestly think religion is the sole cause of all wars. First off, let's look at what religion really is...

Religion is simply "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience".

When a religion is created, it is usually the ideas of one man or a small group. When these religions obtain followers, they band together to find more meaning to these presented beliefs. When these "followers" have children, normally they are "shoved into" these beliefs and have no chance to find religion for themselves.

This ends up creating a large community of people following beliefs they may not really agree to, but have been forced to follow them. If they change their beliefs, they may be looked down upon by those who care for them. Before I get to far ahead, let's remember that when I say "beliefs", I don't simply mean "belief in god". I mean beliefs as in what is right, what is wrong...what should be done, what shouldn't....what should be believed in, what should not be believe in.

Just because someone follows, say, Catholicism, doesn't mean that they follow the same EXACT beliefs as another Catholic follower. Everyone has their own "hidden" beliefs and when an individual does something wrong and their relgious group or people are then looked down upon for their actions, it is easy to see that this should not be done. Look towards the war in Iraq for example...Al Queda and other terrorist groups terrorize saying things like "Praise Allah" and saying they did it for their god. Is it right for people to attack their religious group, Islam, for what they've done. No. Their choice to kill innocent people was their own, not their religious group's choice.

This I believe is the main cause of war because people of other religions have no knowledge of another group of people and their beliefs and assume they are all the same because they follow the same religion. They forget that everyone has their own true morals and beliefs.
HereticMonkey
BrookfieldPC wrote:
I honestly think religion is the sole cause of all wars.


Been there, done that. All you demonstrate is that you have never picked up a history book in your life, and/or you are an anti-religious fanatic. There are too many wars that have no religious component outside of it's a convenient rallying point; the actual cause is usually something different. And even in wars that were caused in part by religion, there are usually other factors that make the religious component irrelevant.

Yeesh.

Wars, unfortunately, are going to keep going on. Unfortunately, there are few good ways to keep the human population in line, and in that regard they will keep happening until we get our numbers in line with what the environment can handles, and that may be a while...

HM
bond4154
Huh. War, huh?

First off, war does not count as murder, and killing, in the commandments, is basically a way of saying not to harm another person, not necessarily murder. Of course, there are always "special circumstances"; how many wars do you account for in the Bible where God picks a side? =P

Anyhow, war. War is basically a conflict enacting physical hostilities...basically, a solution taken because other situations are otherwise "impossible" (or simply because no one wants to take those solutions). Best way to look at them is that they're a radical way of solving a problem. Point is, war is never right...mostly because the reason why they are started are never right. Most disastrous point I can remember immediately is World War I: It started because got pissed at each other. There was no justice or reason in it, merely provocation. World War II was a little better, but Facism started a lot of it, and, well...we wouldn't have too much of a war if there wasn't all that crap in Europe and Asia, right?

I'm rambling. >_<
Bikerman
bond4154 wrote:
Huh. War, huh?

First off, war does not count as murder, and killing, in the commandments, is basically a way of saying not to harm another person, not necessarily murder. Of course, there are always "special circumstances"; how many wars do you account for in the Bible where God picks a side? =P

I thought 'thou shalt not kill' was quite clear and plain....
laurenrox
Indi wrote:
laurenrox wrote:
Quote:
For war to be justified, these points must be considered:
(1) the ultimate purpose of it is peace; (2) it should be the last resort; (3) violence will be limited to those in arms; and (4) use of minimum force needed for victory.


What do you mean, "It should be a last resort?" What makes an action a last resort? That another country is murdering your people and you have to defend them? Are they stealing resources? Have you tried peace treaties, but they still are murdering your citizens?

Consider this - How much destruction can a country tolerate before they decide to go to war?

If you wait until you have tried everything else, then what will your loss be? How many people will lose their lives before you finally decide to take a stand and protect yourself?

Not to mention how lame point number 1 is.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if everyone agreed with my politics/religion/whatever. Therefore, i would be justified in starting a war for the purpose of forcing everyone that disagreed with me to change their position(s), because my ultimate goal is peace. (Providing the other points are met: (2) that i have tried to convince them to agree with me every other way, (3) that i only actually kill anyone who fights back and (4) that i don't use unnecessary force in exterminating dissenters.)

Um. No.


Exactally. No one's going to totally agree on how things should be in religion, politics, war... anything... otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.

That's another good example of what a stupid war is, and another good example of using the excuse, "well they dont have the same religion as us, so they must be evil," just so they can rally people behind them on going to war.
Related topics
Favourite game? (OFFICIAL THREAD)
WAR OF THE WORLDS!
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Need name of War Movies..
Girlfriend!! Girlfriend!! Girlfriend!!
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
NATO in final stages of prepping for strikes against Iran
who is mohammad? the prophete of islam
I like her....what next?
A pretty, but scary photo
should our countries make Nuclear weapons?
Most interesting war
You judge: Good customer service or bad customer service
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.