Para Bellum - "Prepare For War."
 

This is an organised debate by ZenitYerkes and myself.

We have seen in the past how war can devastate human spirit and nation alike. In so many ways. I ask, is war a necessary evil? Or should it be avoided at all costs. So we must ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Is war necessary or useful?

2. In a global sense -not only from the perspective of the winners-, does the damage war produces justify the benefits obtained?

3.Are there any alternatives to war?

I don't like war, but I am politically minded and I can easily define the benefits, in my opinion. But we must also ask, how do we measure justification? Morality? Religious teachings? The impact on human spirit?

I stand behind "just" wars, that's where I stand. Wars that lead to moral stability. If peace is threatened then a I believe in pre-emptive strike. Where there are those that cause pain, I wish to be there so that they may not continue to do so. In my opinion, that is the definition for a just war.

I don't condone war, I find it abhorent, but I will accept it if it fits within my criteria of "just".

Where do you stand?

1. If we're being attacked, then yes I believe war is useful.

2. If the good side conquers over the evil side, then I'd say the benefits outweigh any damage caused.

3. If the issue can't be dealt with in a reasonable manner, then no.

I find it quite laughable that we start wars about imaginary things.

^And, well, basically that.

Aside from winning, what are the benefits?

If you are in defense of the innocent, defending your people from harm, and putting your life on the line, you can't be far from good. :)

We will fight terror with terror!

Had to do it :P
I will return with a better answer later

What and who triggers war?

I think that all the questions and answers about war have their base on this question. Why is war started, and by who? Who has the right -or, better said, the power- to decide to put several lives at their service?

And the answers, although may vary, point to the same object: the State.

It's not that if we were living in anarchy there wouldn't be any kind of violence or murder; but it's the State what organizes "massive" war. The more people a State has under its rule, the more soldiers it can have. What's more, if it wasn't a democratic State, people could be recruited forcedly.

War is a reaction of the powerful. To what? An aggression or an obstacle. And the following question should be, for who?

In the case of the States devoted to their people (and also in other cases, devoted to the people which are not only under their rule), it'll only react if the population is suffering from an aggression, or rather from an obstacle that make them suffer from hunger, diseases,... in a few words, any situation that could make the living impossible.

However, in the case of States that put their interests over their ruled ones', they react having received an aggression such as for example a disrespectful treatment; or an obstacle, such as opposition to their plans or ways of governing. These States can ever harm their own population (as in dictatorial repressions).

In my opinion, the only justified war is the one which the States devoted to their people do. War should be a means to protect, instead of harming. Thus, war should be used to prevent the enemy from keep taking lives and resources.

However, who starts war? I say it is the State focused on its own interests; because those can't see the damage they produce to their people and their enemies, and rather simply attack following their plans.

I might be showing more thoughts on war I have later, as the debate keeps going.

There are many who take this point very seriously.

If the war is just then you can say peace is a benefit. Along with the rewards such as the restoration of morality and stability.


Gah! I agree with you. How did that happen?

If it were only so simple. Remember history is written by the victors. I have a feeling that in many if not most wars both sides feel justified. Both sides are "protecting the innocent." I'm sure if you asked an Al Queda member they would insist they are "protecting the innocent." Here in the US we don't see it that way.

One thing is certain. The barriers to starting a war are much greater in a democracy than in a dictatorship.

Luckily I don't live in the U.S as a third party I can still see the justification of taking down Al Queda. In no way can they be said to be protecting the innocent. In my opinion the only justification the United Nations has in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pre-emptive strike on terrorism before it can spread overseas. If terrorists think that blowing up planes mid-flight is protecting the innocent then they can think again.

That's why there's so much hate in the world.

So there are only benefits for the winner. Like I said, aside from winning. There are no "global" benefits to war.


He said if one asked a member of the Al Queda, not if one asked you. You have to admit, he's right in saying that "in many if not most wars both sides feel justified."

I think it's far more likely that they just don't like the US.

Unfortunately.

No. There will be benefits on a global scale, but only if the victors fought in the name of reducing misery.

Yeah I know that, I then stated what I know to be right. I don't care what Al Queda think about what they're doing, they've lied to themselves under the guise of religion and maybe even they know that what they're doing is wrong. But in all rational measure, Al Queda have got it wrong.

All of western civilisation at that.

Seems logical.


"Some men just want to watch the world burn."


They don't seem to hate Canada as much.

At a certain moment both sides say they are protecting the innocent because they both are receiving fire from the enemy. No war is began simply because "we're protecting the innocent so we kill you LOL".

If we attack it's because we're being attacked (agression), we have an opposition that prevents us from achieving our goals; and also because we consider something or someone a threat to ourselves, this is, preventive attack.

In the case of the US and Irak or Iran, Bush considered them a threat to world peace; although I highly doubt that is the only reason of his actions and suspect there are personal interests on these war operations.

Whereas in the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban attacked first, and the US responded. I don't believe it's a balanced reply to their attacks, though; but that's just me. I think the people living there might be different to you, but they are still persons: and they suffer hard from both sides. Also, troops can't be there forever, and it's likely a radical Muslim government to be established by then.

Ah, religion is a tool of the powerful...

Canada has the second biggest oil reserves in the world. Oil brotherhood. :D

Well, in the case of Bush's war there is likely a hidden motive, also, Afghanistan has 1.5 trillion in mineral wealth untapped. But irregardless of any hidden motive there always needs to be some form of justification acceptable to the moral standards of the global community. That justification can be seen in both Iraq, Afghanistan and soon to be Iran if they're not too careful.

I wonder who is stupid enough to actually use nuclear weapons knowing the whole occidental and Non-Muslim community will blow them up with their nukes.

Question: knowing how destructive nuclear bombs are, can we justify their use?

They should be used only under exceptional circumstance. Although the main reason for their existance now is to prevent war rather than wage it. Oh the irony. ;)