Memorial Day.... still struggling with the idea of war and support (page 3)

Jomavrick

Thanks for that Mrs. Jones, I had not heard that before, but it sounds like Charleston!

JeffT

Heathen, you said:

In just about every case the US has gone to war under false pretense .

If we took Texas (plus Arizona, New Mexico and California) from the Mexicans under false pretenses we need to give it back to them.

Justitia Themis

People have the right not to practice or support war - Heathen

Yes they do. They also have the right to look the other way when a woman is being attacked by a man in the street. That is their right.

Embedded in this discussion is the difference between ethically legitimate, justifiable war and ethically illegitimate, unjustifable war.

What Cofty references above is justifiable war, and it forms the basis of the U.N's "R2P" theory (responsibility to protect), which we used to intervene in Libya. Basically, the theory is that all nation-states' borders are sacred, but if a ruler harms his or her own people or allows others to harm them, the rest of the world should intervene to stop the atrocities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

pacifism is completely morally justified

R2P is based in deontological ethics. The ethical underpinning of R2P is the ethical norm that humans have a duty to rescue. The duty to rescue ethos informs us that if you see someone drowning (or being raped), and you are in a position to assist, it is morally unethical for you to walk away. The duty to rescue is codified in most civil law nations, but it is not as widespread in common law nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Extending the duty to rescue to the context of nation-states renders pacifism morally unjustified in some cases.

R2P wars should be distinguished from our past wars of expansion, which were land and resource grabs. However, most of us realize that humans are greedy, and nations misuse the theory of protection to justfy wars that are, in reality, grabs for resources.

Just because a past war was fought under false pretenses (Texas) does not mean we are obligated to unring the (war) bell and give back the land. If such were true, we would obligate the world the un-ring the bell all the way back to the beginning of time. Instead, there is general consensus that it is OK to keep the status quo, and refrain from unjust war in the future.

james_woods

Just because a past war was fought under false pretenses (Texas)

TEXAS???

Remember the Alamo, say I.

ctrwtf

I agree with the above who have opined that war is a horrific reality. I think that there are those like Jehovah's Witnesses as well as other pacificist groups that have the luxury of not taking up arms to support a cause. They have this luxury because, fortunately for them, there are others who will do so.

Where would the witnesses be if the Allies hadn't made a stand against the Axis powers? Don't tell me, Jehovah used the Allies to defeat Hitler and the rest of the Axis of Evil? If so, then we still owe the men and women who payed the ultimate price a debt of honor.

Happy Memorial Day. Oh BTW, grill a dog for me!

CTRWTF

JeffT

I do remember the Alamo. There have been some great movies about it. Unfortunately they all ignore the fact that the people defending the Alamo were foreign invaders. Texas was Mexican territory, Americans had no right to the place.

d

I thank our troops but this war in Afghanstian has gone on long enough.

flipper

BUTTERFLY- I agree with you that war is unethical, morally repugnant, and inhumane. Unfortunately we live in a world that has a lot of unethical, morally repugnant, and inhumane leaders. In fact= our own country built the United States of America on the blood of Native Americans who were slaughtered, murdered, driven off of their own lands , forced onto reservations, had Catholism crammed down their throats - all in the name of America acquiring this land called " land of the free, home of the brave ". Who were the free, and who were the brave ? the f---ing U.S. military ? The Calvary soldiers who slaughtered the Indians ? Uh, no. The REAL brave were the Native people here who got chopped up into little pieces and tried running for their lives in order to survive and maintain some kind of peace and sanity !

War is cowardice in my opinion used by nation's leaders to control money, oil, citizens, and stomp on indigenous people's rights who already live there. Interesting that kinda describes the U.S. of A. in the middle east countries - does it not ? O.K. End of my rant. But this is what I've seen in history. Greedy leaders minimizing the value of normal human population to gain $$$$$ millions of dollars.

So we each need to promote peace in our own small way in each of our communities. Just my 2 cents

cofty

Flipper - Nobody is arguing that war is good but can it sometimes be the lesser of two evils?

If the oppressive Syrian government continue to massacre the rebels and use chemical weapons against them could there be a case for military assistance or do we stick to our principles and watch the killing?

designs

Since the Syrian rebels are not to the liking of the Western powers and Assad has used up his 9 lives are the Western powers letting each side decimate each other in order to move in a political party of their choosing. (Boy hasn't that happened before)

Memorial Day.... still struggling with the idea of war and support

Share this