under what conditions is war justified and who should determine whether a country goes to war?

Answer 1

When it is in a nation's best interest to do so. The person who retains the authorization to go to war should determine whether to go to war.

In the US, only congress can declare war, but the President has prerogative powers that allows him/her to act on a moments notice to kick whoever's *** needs kicking.

Answer 2

I used to believe that if we fought for freedom (ours or to give others freedom) we would be justified to go to war. However, as my mind grows, I have changed my views, and not just because of the Iraq War. It seems to me that every country in the world will eventually reach peace. For some countries it will take a lot longer than others. However, we have no right to take peace away from any country. Regardless of the country or reason. We must first have peace in our own nation before we can tell others how to reach peace. If our own peace is disturbed by an outside country, it is not only just, but honor to revenge such a wrong and bring peace to the country that broke peace with us. Therefore, for the exception of maybe the Afghanistan War in 2002, we have not had a justified war since World War II.
Now that we are in the Iraq War, we cannot withdraw. It is a dishonor to abandon the Iraqi people after we have caused so much chaos. It is a dishonor to ourselves to abandon a goal we made just because it is a little difficult. We must regain all the honor we have lost at all costs so that we can hold our heads up high and truly call ourselves Americans. When countries are in danger, who do they call? America. We need to show the world that we will help wherever we can, no matter what the cost is. We need to stand strong in the face of the terrorists. Not all the people of Iraq hate us. In fact, most are thankful for the overthrow of Saddam. And those who aren't thankful will eventually be thankful once they see what peace and prosperity we can give them. We cannot back down from a fight we have begun. We must finish this in the name of not George Bush, but in the name of Freedom, Honor, and America!

Answer 3

Self defense is the only justification for going to war. Defending others, freeing the oppressed stopping genocides are not justifiable reasons for going to war. I would also include providing UN peace keeping forces or meals on wheels programs are a misuse of the military.

Congress has the responsibility of Declaring war. But the U.S. has not declared war since WWII. There seems to be some aversion to actually declaring war. So Congress has shirked its responsibilities by passing these "Use of force" resolutions.

As for Iraq I say it was a justifiable war. Saddam was like a mad man with a gun threatening to kill you. You don't have to wait for him to pull the trigger and hope his first shot misses before you take him out. As it turns out it was a toy gun, oh well. Pull a toy gun on a cop and see if the fact that it was a toy gun makes the bullet wounds any shallower. The nation building stuff we are doing right now is another matter and looks to me like a misuse of the military.

I think if Congress weren't a bunch of invertebrates they woud go ahead and declare war on Iran and Syria right now.

Answer 4

The only just wars are wars of liberation. Only the people of a country should have that right.

Answer 5

"just war theory" is bogus. That’s the right to commit aggression, plain and simple.

In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" — all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.

The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. The concept was restated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State."

That applies to the invasion of Iraq. Also relevant are Justice Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg: "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." And elsewhere: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

For the political leadership, the threat of adherence to these principles — and to the rule of law in general — is serious indeed. Or it would be, if anyone dared to defy "the single ruthless superpower whose leadership intends to shape the world according to its own forceful world view," as Reuven Pedatzur wrote in Haaretz last May.

Let me state a couple of simple truths. The first is that actions are evaluated in terms of the range of likely consequences. A second is the principle of universality; we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones.

Apart from being the merest truisms, these principles are also the foundation of just war theory, at least any version of it that deserves to be taken seriously.

Answer 6

To protect and defend it's Country. The Commander-in Chief should determine.

Answer 7

War should take place only when there is an imminent threat to a nation. It is foolish to go to war for any other reason. I know my opinion might noit be popular, but it is the right thing to do.

Answer 8

Self defense or the defense of another is the only justification for war.

In the case of Iraq, were we being attacked or under imminent threat of attack? Its very hard to prove either way. But, as you can see, since we started fighting in Iraq there has been no further terrorist event in the US. Coincidence? maybe.

Answer 9

To protect your and the interests of your allies.

In the US, the House and Senate
In the UK, Parliament

Answer 10

When the United States is attacked we should retaliate swiftly and annihilate the enemy.