2006-10-03 20:05:19 · 23 answers · asked by smart_eluh 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
good question...many schools of thought...in a word i would say yes...ideally, people working together toward a common end is just that...ideal....reality is there are forces at work that could create detrimental consequence unless action is taken...maybe someday mankind can look back and chuckle to himself...unfortunately today is not that day...the true ninja philosophy is: "the best fight is the one that's avoided" I would say this is true...if the fight "can" be avoided...survival isn't something that you can choose i think...its an instinct were born w/...a mother who has been beaten constantly "will" pull the trigger...not because she has been trained or co-erced in anyway...but because its an instinct were born w/ to survive...to fight for our own survival...I think only when our very survival is at stake war becomes a plausible option...if not survival at stake then perhaps economic sanction or some other diplomatic means could be acceptable..
2006-10-03 20:16:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is one of the main reasons why church and state must never mix...and should always be separate.
The church must always maintain its standards and the ends does not justify the means. Each step at attaining the objective must be regarded as sincere and honest as the desired results within the church.
The state, however, must maintain the security of itself and the security of the people it governs. Alan Dershowitz, famous civil rights and criminal attorney stated, (paraphrase), "if a hydrogen bomb is ever placed in an area in a crowded city, it is the obligation of the authorities to locate that bomb before it goes off, even if it means that the state should resort to torture of the individual who either placed it there who has definite knowledge of its exact whereabouts".
That statement by Professor Dershowitz says it all. The church cannot and must never resort to torture. The dignity and the means by which a church obtains its goals and objectives are judged and will hesitantly resort to the security of the church and its parishioners if any step violates the church's standards.
What President Harry Truman did in dropping the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision to make in light of all the circumstances as Harry Truman was President of the United States. Morally, it can be argued, the dropping of the A-Bomb was wrong.
The state cannot think in terms of the church, nor should the church think in terms of the state.
For the security of the state, yes...war is justified. The security of the United States is not negotiable, to include war and torture as an option.
2006-10-03 21:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War has been going on for centuries & centuries and will continue to happen. Is it justified probably not but when two different groups of people start to hate eachother it is what usally happens. I think the world would be a little nicer if everyone found a good past time that they could enjoy together... Like Smoking some of the "grass" that God put here on the earth.
2006-10-03 20:10:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A classic realist perspective in International Relations is that war is negation by other means. As long as there are the haves and the have knot's there will be war. I am sure in the future their will be wars over water. Is it justified no will it happen yes.
2006-10-03 20:13:09 · answer #4 · answered by joel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, war is never justified. I consider it completely uncivilised. In every war, there are always innocent victims who had nothing to do with the agressor ot the agressed. It is therefore murder - except we try to find fancy names and reasons for it.
If you are in your home with your family, and are killed by another human being, it is murder.
The only reason there are different laws during war time, is because the people who declare war also make the laws. They have some sort of psychiatric problem.
2006-10-04 11:11:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. JFK said "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." Should we have let Hitler continue his massacre? What about Milosevic? Human beings should not stand idly by and watch an entire population be decimated if it is in their power to stop it. If they attack us first I also feel completely justified responding with force.
2006-10-03 20:21:24 · answer #6 · answered by frogspeaceflower 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War usually has to be justified, at least in the eyes of the warriors, who might sacrifice their lives.
there are many circumstances that justify war - external threats to the nation, intervention in another country that harasses a minority or attack one of it's neighbors for unjust reasons
2006-10-03 20:12:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, however these circumstances must be strong enough and not on one person's determination, not unless you're a dictator. It should be passed through the UN process.
2006-10-03 20:16:23 · answer #8 · answered by stj 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes to stop an invading country.....you can say that talking things over is a better solution, but it only works between people with common sense..... unfortunetly politicians have a lack of it
2006-10-03 20:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by mexika_thug 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, if someone invaded my country I would fully support a war to drive them out.
2006-10-03 20:08:45 · answer #10 · answered by dullorb 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋