Is there ever a good reason to go to war?

Question

Reading alot of the anti-war comments makes me wonder if the liberals think there is ever a good reason to go to war. Just curious....

I'm confused. Alot of you say WWII was justified. And then turn around and say we were not attacked by Iraq and we should not have gone there. In WWII we were attacked by Japan, yet we invaded Germany....confusing.....

Answer 1

Yes
To crush you enemies and see them driven before you.
~Conan the Barbarian~

Answer 2

I am a liberal, and I do think there are reasons to go to war, however our reasons for Iraq were not. Afghanistan was justified, as were WWII, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, things of that nature. Going to war based on faulty intelligence, buttered up and presented to the American public as fact, is however, not a good excuse.

With that said, although I may support our nations decision to go to war at points in our history, I don't think I will ever be pro-war. I think the whole notion of being pro-war is ridiculous, the cost of human life is far to great to not always hold out hope in your mind that there can be a solution to the problem without having to use force, however I know that isn't always possible. So when that happens, I think you should be confident that the cause that our soldiers are fighting and dying for is a noble one, which is not the case today.

If you don't understand why we were in Germany, you should read a history book. We may have been attacked by Japan, but Germany was invading our allie's, not to mention, it was called a 'World War' we were still fighting Japan, the surrender of Japan in August 1945 is what actually brought WWII to a close.

Answer 3

If one is attacked he should go after the attacker. Let me simplify it for you.

John attacks Dan. It stands to reason that Dan should retaliate against John, right? What people are upset about in the current situation is this: John attacks Dan and Dan starts out to go after John but then goes after Jeff instead although Jeff was no immediate threat to Dan.

War is justified as in defence of one's country. It is never to be used as a first strike or offensive means before all diplomacy has been exhausted. Unfortunately some think a very little talk and demands are cause for preemptive attacks on a soverign nation. Most people are now disagreeing with that since it is revealed that Jeff had nothing to do with John's attack on Dan.

Answer 4

No there is never a good reason to justify invading a country and killing it's people. Rarely is it the people. Usually it's a war mongering leaders, and corrupt greed that causes this. Let's not leave out the religious fanatics. This has nothing to do with my political beliefs by the way.

Answer 5

You tell me. Is there anything you believe in so deep, it is worth fighting or dieing for?
We have these boards and free speech because that freedom was fought and died for.

A great man once said......
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

If you truly enjoy the freedoms that you take for granted then this weekend thank a member of the finest military forces on the planet. Thank them for months away from family so you can piss and moan on these boards about politics. Thank them for your freedom to assemble in public and practice religion in whatever manner you choose. Members of the military are very similar to cops, no one wants them till they need them!

Answer 6

Yeah, if we are attacked or if we are defending ourselves. We were not attacked by Iraq. Countries that are supposed to be the force of "good" in the world do not start wars of aggression. I was in favor of invading Afghanistan, but have no idea why we went into Iraq.

Answer 7

Yes, Self defense and backed into a corner. It should not take long to resolve a conflict. Anything else should be called a feud. Iraq is a feud continued from the Gulf War. The strongest emotion spoken by the President still sticks to my mind. "He tried to kill my Daddy" makes me think he had a greater stake in Iraq than our pain of 911.

Answer 8

Two of the fundamental reasons to go to war are:

1. the establishment of a new nation by removing previous rule, e.g. the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

2. when an established nation is attacked, e.g. Pearl Harbor or 911.

The war in Afghanistan after 911 is a righteous war.

Switching from Afghanistan to invade Iraq was turning from a righteous war to an unrighteous war.

As we see today, the intent to invade Iraq had nothing to do with an attack on our nation. We did not invade Iraq for WMD's, or for terrorists or for democracy.

An honest argument might have been made: Iraq has a great deal of strategic oil our nation needs and a troublesome dictatorship therefore we are going to take that strategic necessity for our nation.

Is a strategic necessity a "good reason" for going to war? That is a debate. But any way you cut it and dice it, Iraq is not a righteous war. The troops are righteous, the war is not.

Even if you arrive at the acceptance of a war for energy resources as imperative to the nation, the deceit and incompetence of the "cheapwar.com" approach to Iraq is both disgraceful and self defeating.

If you go to war, for "good reasons" or questionable reasons, go to win. The Administration did not send enough troops and now cannot send enough troops and are up to their ears in a civil war in Iraq.

If you go to war, go to win.

The lives of the troops, reason for going to war aside, have value. Squandering troops lives and limbs is not acceptable.

The incompetence and callous disregard of the troops is coupled with the failure to consolidate, man and fund the initial victory in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a good reason to go to war and win. There is no excuse for failure in Afghanistan by removing the resources needed there, or withdrawing from closing with and destroying the enemy who attacked us on 911.

I support the troops. I will go myself. I am for our nation. I do not accept justification of incompetence by using labels of liberal/conservative to hide behind.

Answer 9

yes there are good reasons to go to war, for example a terrorist attack on your country, or another country attacking you. there are bad reasons to go to war to for example what ever the reason is we went to kosovo, and Somalia.
whether a reason is good or bad to go to war will be a personal opinion, there were people in this country who thought we should have never gone to war against Germany in WWII2, and others who thought we stepped up to late who is right depends on who you were at the time.

Answer 10

Well I can't call myself a complete liberal but I do have some of the qualities. I find there is reason for war at times yes. This particular war no, there was no reason. Well unless you call greed and Oil a reason, which maybe some do.

Answer 11

I think it is approtiate to go to war if yur country is being attacked by terrorists, aka like 911. I don't understand why they went into Iraq they didn't have a right to go there.