When is war justified? Liberals, please respond.

[jkarolyi]

Living here in the den of liberals that is LA, I'm trying hard to understand how they think. Please answer the following questions for me.

I see bumper stickers everywhere around here that say "War is not the answer". Really? Never? When Japan attacked Pearl harbor, only diplomacy should have been called for?

1. Is war justified if American soil is attacked directly?

Adolf Hitler never bothered America or destroyed anything significant of ours (that I recall), yet we declared war on Germany and slaughtered many of their soldiers and citizens who got in our way. Thousands of our soldiers gave their lives.

2. Is war justified when our allies are attacked even though there is no direct threat to our nation?

Everyone I know here was opposed to the Iraq war even when it was generally thought that Saddam had WMDs that could reach our allies. For the purposes of argument, lets assume he did have WMDs and this was known through intelligence from many nations.

4. Is war justified when an enemy has WMDs that could hit our allies?

And finally,

5. Is war justified to contain or destroy a spreading ideology that goes counter to American ideals. (Hitler's genocide, Soviet Communism, or Afghanistan and Saddam's terrorism support)

Thanks for your participation.

[speeder]

Is this one of those trick questions, where I am admitting that I am a liberal if I answer?

Actually, I do not think that there is any absolute rule about going to war except that it is necessary and other options are not available/viable. Bush flunked every conceivable test of worthiness to expend human life on this one, the sane part of the world tried to tell him not to do it yet but he was in a hurry.

[pohsche]

I don't know if I can answer this question because I don't title myself as a liberal or neocon or anything else for that matter. It is interesting that you mentioned Pearl Harbor as an example of when a nation needs to get into a war. Having spent many years of my early life reading, researching, and even talking to many people involved in Hawaii that day, the real reason "Pearl Harbor" happened is much different than what the hokie movies or your school text book told you took place. I personally only agree in defending myself, and even then, as we have found from grade school and bar fights, it only tends to escalate the revenge emotion on whoever gets their ass whooped. I believe their is a higher ground that we should make all efforts to aspire to. But then again, when we depend upon a square box for our thinking rather than actually communicating with people who have different views than us, what chance do we have of bettering ourselves and the people around us. And by the way, all wars that the US has been involved in this last century were because of oil(including Pearl Harbor) and natural resources that our business infrastructure needed to protect for profits. Before you rip on me, do the research with books and other sources. We currently are trying to spread our ideology to other countries who have no desire to change. How do I know? Because how would you feel if the conditions were reversed. You would resist at any cost and kill anything that moves. That is exactly what our young troops face everyday in the current situation. Would I fight? Hell yes. Now? F*ck no.

Alan Poh
'77 Carrera 3.0

[DaveE]

I'm a liberal. I know a just war when I see one. This isn't one.

[techweenie]

A lot of the trouble we get ourselves into comes from "anthropomorphizing" nations.

Countries are not individuals. Countries should act in their own self-interest. There have been wars fought over insults, over vendettas and over real, significant causes.

The key reason for going to war is an attack on our country or its vital interests -- that is, the stuff we need to survive. Japan attacked the US because we were cutting them off from resources they needed. They were thereby justified in attacking us. And therein lies the problem.

One country's expansionism is another country's 'imminent threat.'

What separates a 'good country' from a 'bad country' is how well it sticks to its principles. If the rules are: we will interfere with you all we want, but don't bother us, then we do not appear to be a nation of principles.

[David Harris]

Originally posted by speeder
Is this one of those trick questions, where I am admitting that I am a liberal if I answer?

Actually, I do not think that there is any absolute rule about going to war except that it is necessary and other options are not available/viable. Bush flunked every conceivable test of worthiness to expend human life on this one, the sane part of the world tried to tell him not to do it yet but he was in a hurry.

The sane part of the world is that Germany,France,Russia the same one that was making money on food for oil...And who gave Bush his marching order/////read this and maybe you will understand but I would not bet on it.////////////// http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

[azasadny]

Originally posted by DaveE
I'm a liberal. I know a just war when I see one. This isn't one.

I'm NOT a liberal but Dave's comment strikes a chord with me... Amen!!

[pwd72s]

A personal war damned near started once, long ago. A guy I knew in high school said to Cindy: "Gee, I don't know what's keeping me from jumping all over you." When I graduated from high school, I was 5' 8", 140 pounds. This guy, a football player then, was pretty big, by high school standards. Then, a decade later? I put my cue down, put my face in his,and said: "Bob, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm 6" higher, 40 pounds heavier, and a ****!NG lot meaner than I was in high school! I'm what's keeping you from jumping all over her!" I told him he should leave the bar, or I'd drag him out of it, and we'd "talk" outside. He left. That showed wisdom on his part. I was more than willing to get it on. Techweenie? I disgree. Countries ARE individual...be it the entire USA after 9-11-01 or today. Sometimes, as horrible as it is, you gotta demonstrate might. It gets that basic, be it nations, or a couple of guys in a bar. Like the football player years ago, sometimes only force, or the willingness to back up the threat of it, works.

[Dantilla]

Those who seriously believe that "violence is never the answer" should demand that all police officers nationwide give up their weapons immediately.

[widebody911]

Ah, yet another attempt to justify Iraqnam via ring-around-the-rosie strawman logic. Well done!

[Moses]

I wish the threshold to war was higher. Before going to war, I think the Commander in Chief should feel such a sense of urgency and desperation that he would put himself and his family at risk to engage the enemy. Sadly, this is not the case.

I cannot think of a US military action less necessary than the current debacle in Iraq. It makes me feel sad for the servicemen, their families and our country.

[jyl]

To me, asking what is a "just" war is not such an interesting question. It invites all sorts of philosophical debates which end in an impasse between irreconcilable moral positions, sort of like theological debates.

Or maybe they end in pool hall analogies, which don't recognize that invading a country isn't like giving your high-school nemesis a bloody nose, but is more like pulling out a shotgun and killing him along with a couple of bystanders aka "collateral damage".

As a practical person, I would instead ask what is a "wise" war.

By "wise" I basically mean "will the benefits to the USA outweigh the costs".

I would look broadly and "benefits" and "costs". So, for example, "benefits" could include: suppressing future terrorism, leading other countries to view the USA positively or act the way we want, sustainably lower oil prices in the long-term, and so on. "Costs" could include: financial costs, deaths and casualties among US forces, inciting future terrorism, leading other countries to view the USA negatively, creating divisions among US citizens, and so on.

If the Iraq war is a wise or an unwise war - that's something I think we can rationally discuss.

Could you have a "wise" war that is not a "just" war? Sure - wars of conquest, for example. Think Cortez in the New World, or the US Army vs the American Indians. But so many wars are unwise, that we might as well apply that test first, before getting to the moral imponderables.

Anyway, I think the Iraq war is definitely not a wise war. The benefits are almost imperceptible (oil is >$60, there was no WMD arsenal, terrorism is hardly being "suppressed", etc) and the costs are massive ($300 billion and counting, 1,800 US deaths plus 12,700 wounded and counting, anger from most of the rest of the world, etc). That's my opinion.

Casualty stats: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

[HardDrive]

Well said jyl.

You not going to get any 'War is not the answer' BS out of me.

But this thing is a disaster, and I don't mind offering up a big ass I TOLD YOU SO to the supporters. I am astounded at how naive people can be.

War in Afghanistan? Well planned, well executed, and serves multiple strategic goals. On top of it, we got credit for ousting the Taliban. Any such benefits to be had in Iraq? None.

It was a poor BUSINESS decision.

[fintstone]

When should we go to war? The first time Saddam had his troops fire on a US jet....many years ago

[MikeCT]

Mutant space gorillas, planning the complete destruction of the human race; everyone could get behind that.

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
When should we go to war? The first time Saddam had his troops fire on a US jet....many years ago

I always see thls argument from you and other Bush supporters, so tell me:

What type of missiles was he firing at our jets? I certainly never heard of one being hit, could they all have missed? Or were they some completely useless triple-A guns that were merely symbolic for him, like Palestians throwing rocks at Isreali tanks?

I'm completely serious w/ this question.

[fintstone]

Actually he had both AAA and SAMs. He tried very hard to shoot our planes down. Fortunately our range exceeded his and the air is the "high ground". Typically we were able to destoy SAM sites before they could actually fire because they identify themselves as preparing to fire by locking on with the radar. The SAM radar lock is considered hostile....like a gunslinger going for his gun first. Eventually he would probably have gotten lucky...like they did in Yugoslavia.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Here are some fun numbers.

War cost: $300,000,000,000

Iraq population: 26,000,000

$ spent per Iraqi: $11,538


Fiscal '05 Federal Outlays: $2,400,000,000,000

U.S. Population: 300,000,000

$ spent per U.S. citizen: $8,000


And don't get me started on the ROI of the spoils of the war, a limited oil supply that isn't even ours against more debt with China than we will ever be able to pay back.

20 years from now, Bush will be looked upon as the worst president since Grant.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
20 years from now, Bush will be looked upon as the worst president since Grant.

Now Shaun, don't misunderestimate him! (He may be worse than Grant)

[kach22i]

Our standards are written in the Constitution.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Now that I've read this, looks like Congress should be setting the standards at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and not the Whitehouse or Pentagon.