Justified wars?

Question

Can you give any solid reasons for what some call justified wars.

Answer 1

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Answer 2

You can debate philosophy as much as you want, but war is not a question of ethics, but of survival.
The simple truth is that a dictatorship (be it religious or political) can, when given time, brainwash it's subjects into supporting the ruler. If you need examples please look up China, North Korea, nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR or today's Iran.
This is done by a simple process of murdering any and all opposition
My "solid reason" is as follows- fewer people die if you overthrow such a regime (the earlier the better) than if you leave it to "flourish"

Of course this assumes that you do not take the "Not In My Back Yard" approach - like in "all is well and good in China so long as I can profit from their slave labour"

Answer 3

In my opinion there are no 'just' wars. There are wars of necessity, opportunity, and convenience. 'Just' implies moral righteousness as the primary motivation. No one society has a monopoly on what is 'Right'. If you examine historical works on a war, you will find that both sides usually had 'causis beli' and believed in the superiority of their cause. This makes declaring one side 'just' near impossible.

Some wars are necessary, some are not. Some benefit mankind, some are pointlessly destructive. To declare some wars 'just' debases the nobleness of the sacrifices of the average soldiers and is incredibly pretentious.

I would suggest reading Howard Zinn's take on 'just warfare', either in 'A People's History' or 'The Zinn Reader'

Answer 4

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ HERE? IF SO THEN I WILL GRANT YOU THAT IT NEEDED TO BE DONE BUT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN FOUGHT IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL. A WAR SHOULD BE FOUGHT TO TOTALLY DESTROY AN ENEMY'S POWER TO RESIST AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN IRAQ. WHAT HAS OCCURRED THERE IS IMMORAL AND SCANDALOUS. SOME PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON D.C. NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES.

Answer 5

I agree with Sentinel. The conditions, however, can very rarely be met today.

Answer 6

you got something i want, but you don't want to give to me.

we going to war.