h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Having done a project on this subject for my philosophy class this year, I'm quite familiar with the Just War Theory.
And I concluded that war is never justified. This is largely because there is never an excuse for killing and violence. And also, when the idea of war is proposed, NEVER is there a complete exhaustion of alternatives. Peaceful solutions should always be sought. And I am certain, that with enough effort, war can be prevented.

When it comes to war, I think the main thing to do is to prevent any future cause for war by carefully considering the consquences of actions made by countries, and political parties. However, in this day and age it seems as though some countries don't want to look for peaceful solutions, or find ways for everyone to all get along and be the best of friends with all neighbours, near and far. Personally, I think this is due to the fact that everything and everyone is influenced, coaxed, and motivated by money and greed. If only we could exchange kindness as a new form of currency....perhaps we would never resort to war.

Communism or Utopia (Nowhere) as Thomas Moore coined it, is a great idea. The only problem is that it involves people. Your proposal has the same ring to it. Perhaps you live in a monastery away from other people and you and your brother monks may live a life such as the one outlined. However; in the real world there are always people who would attempt to accost you by force. Be it the mugger on the street, the punk with a car bomb, or the dictator with death camps and ovens. All of these should be dealt with in the same manner and disposed of with the same amount of afterthought you use after squashing a cockroach.
Perhaps if this were used more often then we would live in a world where reasonable people could negotiate in good faith instead of where tin despots wish to be the next Hitler.

"War is NEVER justified"

So I take it you have no principles that you would fight for? - Pull the other one. This nonsense that war is never justified is exactly the sort of childish rubbish that plagues all attempts at intelligent debate on the matter.

War is a terrible terrible thing, people dying horrible painful messy slow deaths, those that don't are scared physically or mentally, often both. There is wide-spread destruction of property.... War should never be entered into lightly, as its consequences can never be fully predicted, nor can they be contained once we have embarked on it.

But none of this implies that war should always be avoided.

The Salmon of Doubt - you say: "NEVER is there a complete exhaustion of alternatives." This is correct, one always has the option to capitulate. The point isn't that there are NO alternatives to war left (even though people sometimes like to pretend that). The point is that all the alternatives are worse. That was certainly the case in Sept 1939 for the UK, and I'd also say (much more controversially) that we'd reached that stage in our dealings with Saddam.

You also say: "I am certain, that with enough effort, war can be prevented." This is completely false. People have greatly varying views and beliefs about the world, and - most importantly - they sometimes have differing opinions about what constitutes a reasonable (or fair) settlement to a problem. Where there is no agreement about what would constitute a reasonable negotiated settlement, or even any agreement about the basis for negotiation conflict is inevitable. If one side believe it can never win then it will capitulate and accept the settlement imposed on it, otherwise a war will break out. This is exactly whats happening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians about the basis for a negotation; at least a large minority of Palestinians don't accept that Israel has a right to exist, and similarly a significant minority of Israelis don't want to allow a viable Palestinian state. Until these attitudes change there will never be a peaceful settlement to the conflict.

The belief that war can always be avoided if only good men can prevail is not only utter nonsense, but it is dangerous nonsense, and will lead ultimately to much worse conflict. It is only by accepting the inevitability of conflict, and engaging in timely (often military) intervention that the impact of wars can be lessened.

I can't say I agree that war was the only option as far as Saddam Hussein is concerned. Exactly what were we going to war for in that case? It has never been clearly explained. What principles were we out to fight for? If we recall, Colin Powell went to the UN arguing that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat due to the existence of weapons of mass destruction OR the technology to develop them. We have yet to uncover those weapons but we keep hearing that discovery is imminent. When it became more apparent that perhaps those weapons didn't actually exist, they put the spin on that we were fighting for Iraqi freedom, however it's come out that there might not be any democratic elections allowed because they fear the Iraqi people will vote in a government that the US and others don't really care for. That kind of shoots the "defending democracy" theory in the foot. So...what principles exactly were we fighting for?

I don't personally think war is inevitable because of the inevitability of conflict. If you set up a situation that has an inevitable outcome, you have no need to search for alternatives. The inevitability of war is, in my opinion, constructed so that when war does break out, we don't have to waste too much time thinking about why it shouldn't. We can just tell ourselves that due to factors X and Y, it was the only viable option.

At times war IS justified, I think many agree with that point and only few utopians disagree. As for the recent Iraq war, I agree with above message that it is entirely unclear why we went to war. Even worse they were constantly shooting all kinds of propaganda towards us so we would be behind a war for 'unknown reasons' (my own theory is that that war was started simply because the world would no longer 'laugh' at George Bush, but then again its only a theory...)
'
Anyone interested in philosophy should read Jean - Paul Sartre's play "Le diable et le bon Dieu", It starts where the commander of an army is about to destroy a whole village and kill everyone only because he CAN. He does it for the sake of doing evil and no one can convince him not to kill, that is until someone convinces him that evil is easy and it is a whole lot more difficult to do good.

From that point on he totally changes his behaviour and is set out to do good and nothing else. This change actually creates more harm and more war (and more killing). In the end he learns that the only way for him to do good, is to do 'evil'.

It was the first french book i read, and I still find it one of the best books ever, even if it's a play.

Justice is a term invented by humans and has no reality outside of the human mind. Therefore as justice can be defined as whatever the wagers of war want it to be, ergo all wars are just!

A trite comment I know but if you try appealing to higher powers like Truth and Justice to decide if a war is right or wrong you've failed straight away.

If you believe as I do that the war against Iraq was wrong (although the toppling of Sadaams evil regime is a bonus), you need a better reason than abstract concepts like Justice.

Eccentra, I suggest you go back and re-read what I said a bit more carefully. I did not say that war was the only option wrt Iraq, only that all other options were worse.

Your last paragraph is typical of the vacuous waffle that is often trotted out by "peace activists". The point is that we all have principles that we will never compromise (don't you?). Sometimes because of this it is impossible to find a settlement that all sides can agree is reasonable, when this happens conflict of some sort is inevitable (don't fall into the trap of believing that in this case one side must be "right" and the other "wrong"). The belief that a negotiated settlement can always be found is dangerous because it means real, fundamental differences are not faced up to until they are too big to ignore, and then a much more massive, and destructive conflict results. That was the mistake made in the 1930s, although it was for the very good reason of not wanting to repeat WW1 that the UK and France allowed Germany to become so powerful before trying to stop it.

On Iraq: The threat posed by Saddam was that he had an ambition to get nuclear weapons - if you disagree, how do you explain his behaviour since the first Gulf War in 1991? Saddam's history shows that he is a reckless gambler, with a total disregard for human life, who regularly misjudges his opponents; he could not have been reliably deterred. He would then have been a threat to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and all his other neighbours. The result would have been massive nuclear proliferation in the middle east, and a consequent destabilization of the region. I believe it would have lead to a nuclear war in the ME as Saddam tried to expand his influence, and/or annex territory (Kuwait, the SW Iran oil fields, or the NE Saudi oil fields). Its clear that under no circumstances should we have allowed Saddam to get nuclear weapons. The question then was how to stop him. The only alternatives, in my judgement, were war or containment. I believe that containment would have been more costly and risky, and stood less (much less) chance of sucess that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam (as we did). Containment would have required sanctions, and inspections. Sanctions were being regularly undermind by France, Russia, and China (and others), even if they were agreed to by the UNSC, I doubt they'd have lasted more than a couple of years. Inspections would have required a huge army to be maintained on Iraq's borders - with huge destabilizing effects in the region. One of the main reasons given by Osama bin Laden for the Sept 11th attacks was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. A policy of containment would have had to last 20 years, maybe more (Saddam is/was in his mid 60s, and one of his sons, or another Bathist might have taken over on his death). I don't believe for one moment that such a policy could have been sustained for 2 years, let alone 20. We faced two very unattractive options over Iraq, but the right one was chosen, even if the US made a complete mess of executing it. I believe the world is a safer place today than it would have been, had the US not invaded Iraq.

It really depends on who's bidding for war. Was Hitler's and Japan's war of aggression just? Of course not. Was the Allied response just? Yes it was. If you think otherwise, did you really want to live in a world controlled by Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese Empire? If you think there are no just wars, then either you're a severely disillusioned peacenik or you're living in a fantasy, make-believe world where you think there are no evil people or monsters out there. What happens when the civilized world (especially the effete United Nations) does not respond to obviously pernicious, psychotic, and cruel actions of despots and dictators? History is full of the effects of these inactions: Stalin's massacre of various Soviet peoples (i.e. the Kulaks), Pol Pot's killing fields, and more recently the Balkans and Rwandan ethnic cleansings. Was it right that we attacked Iraq? Yes, since he clearly had the markings of a desperate aggressor who did not think twice about murdering, starving, and destroying his own people, much less other nations. Are we justified in now trying to stop North Korea, Syria, et.al. in their quest for chemical and nuclear weapons? You think about it.

I think, perhaps, you may be misreading MY post. You were comparing the situation with Hitler and the situation with Saddam Hussein, implying they were similar and implying that both wars were fought for similar principles. I was disagreeing with your statement regarding Saddam Hussein, stating that the governments have been touting the principles behind the war all the while being very aware that they are changing what those principles are weekly. We started with the principle of world safety and since that has turned out to be questionable, we are now moving on to the principle of "democracy," which is now turning out to be questionable.

As far as the quest for nuclear weapons and safety, it has been brought up often that we SUSPECTED Saddam Hussein had nuclear capacity, but we KNEW North Korea did. Technically, based on your argument, NK posed and still poses the greater threat.

I don't really see what you mean about the waffling. I think what I said is a reality. If you predetermine the outcome of any situation, you remove the possibility and reason for searching for other outcomes. It seems obvious to me that if you decide beforehand what the end result will be, there is really no reason to search further for other possible outcomes.

Eccetra, if you think that I was "comparing the situation with Hitler and the situation with Saddam Hussein, implying they were similar and implying that both wars were fought for similar principles." then you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I only mentioned the two examples of WW2 and GW2 as cases where our options where not exhausted, but where war was the least bad option. I was not attempting to say that WW2 and GW2 were fought for similar principles. Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer.

I agree with you that the US & UK govts justifications for GW2 have been at best confused, but I stopped listening to what govts said their reasons were a long time ago.

On Saddam and nuclear weapons: I don't believe that Saddam had nuclear weapons, and I don't believe that he had significant chemical weapons; even if he had the agents he did not have the capacity to deploy them in a militarily meaningful way (any fool with some chemical agent can attack defenceless civilians). The point is Saddam had an ambition to get nuclear weapons, and 12 years of sanctions had not convinced him to abandon that ambition. It is that ambition, combined with his character, the general instability of the region, and the leverage given by oil, that made Saddam so dangerous. It does not follow from this at all that just because NK has nuclear weapons it was more dangerous than Saddam.

I understand that this is supposed to be a talking point and the idea to create conversation. The Stimulator in this case may even work for the site and with all the people pointing in different directions we seem to have lost the thread... to which the answer is... "Yes, there are just wars."

Eccentra said "If you predetermine the outcome of any situation, you remove the possibility and reason for searching for other outcomes. It seems obvious to me that if you decide beforehand what the end result will be, there is really no reason to search further for other possible outcomes."

Thats true, but has nothing to do with anything I have said. I said that sometimes, because of irreconcilable differences, war is inevitable. I said nothing about deciding "beforehand what the end result will be". The only way to discover if differences are irreconcilable or not is to get together and talk about the problem. But if it becomes obvious that there are irreconcilable differences further talk is pointless; trying to pretend that a negotiated settlement is possible just makes the war, when it comes, much worse.

A lengthy discussion of this point was held by the Borderlands Books crew and some authors at the last party of this year's World Horror Convention. While it would be beyond my skills to encapsulate their debate here, I recall that "Nver Just" didn't survive the first few rounds.

Geoff Cooper (www.geoffcooper.com) can probably do a decent job of killing this notion.

- emc

Which really just proves how good some people are at debating. It doesn't disprove that 'war can never be justified' seeing as you have to have a concept of justice that is universal - which we don't. hence it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion about this argument from any logical position.

One of the weaknesses of any argument about the justness of war is that it's a question that can never be answered in specific cases until well after the war has either been fought or not. And even then, that can only be argued based on what we're taught to believe about situations that have happened in the past. History is taught in a way that helps to uphold social structures and ideologies. For a good example of this, read Lies My Teachers Told Me by James Liebow. A very good read arguing why history can and should be taught in a way that can analyse the past critically.

I, personally, cannot take an absolutist position on whether or not war in general is always or never just simply because it is my opinion that most absolutist opinions are wrong. I have certainly never said war is never just. I think it's fair to say that the war waged against Hitler was a just war. I believe a greater good was achieved, however the costs were and are always high and that is where I question anybody's kneejerk response that the only way to deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein or anyone for that matter is war.

First of all, Although I didn't read all the posts, of what I did read I have to say I agree with Eccentra. You make some very good points which somehow don't enter the mind of others, even after you've made them.

Was the war against Iraq a just war? To be honest I don't know. Time will tell. if the people of Iraq are better off in the long run yes, if they're not than no. Why the war was fought I don't know, what I do know is that it wasn't fought to free the people of iraq, Otherwise why not go in and free other countries (hasn't zimbabwe been in the news recently? something about starving people...)

Was is for world safety? I don't think so, North Korea springs to mind again, although it must be said that attacking North Korea would be a bad move. It could start WW III, and a nuclear one! So don't have any hopes that anyone will be declaring war on NK, because they'd have to be pretty stupid to do so.

The war against Iraq was fought because the US KNEW they were going to win, they have weakened sadam's defences for more than a decade. Sadam had NOTHING and they knew it. THey starved their prey and went in for the kill. Now I wonder Why? In the eighties the US FULLY SUPPORTED the Saddam regime in the war against Iran, something a lot of people have forgotten about. Saddam even then was starving his people, he wasn't any different when it came to treating the people of Iraq. yet he received full support by the US. What a great man he was in fighting such a 'just war' against IRan.

Funny how everybody forgot about that episode, or is it because certain governements don't want us to remember??? So everyone who believes the war was for humanitarian reasons, No governement would spend $$$$$$$ just for humanitarian reasons, no way. It'd be a total waste of money.

Sadam just didn't want to play anymore by the US's rules. He had to be kicked out, although why excactly as said before by me and many others that is simply something we don't know ( and perhaps will never know). Anyway time to move on and install someone they can trust. I have to say if ever a democracy is established in Iraq, well I'd be pretty damned surprised.

But if they do get a democracy resulting in a better quality of life for the general population, well then I'd have to say: yes it was a just war. Until then, I'll just wait and see.

First of all, Although I didn't read all the posts, of what I did read I have to say I agree with Eccentra. You make some very good points which somehow don't enter the mind of others, even after you've made them.

Was the war against Iraq a just war? To be honest I don't know. Time will tell. if the people of Iraq are better off in the long run yes, if they're not than no. Why the war was fought I don't know, what I do know is that it wasn't fought to free the people of iraq, Otherwise why not go in and free other countries (hasn't zimbabwe been in the news recently? something about starving people...)

Was is for world safety? I don't think so, North Korea springs to mind again, although it must be said that attacking North Korea would be a bad move. It could start WW III, and a nuclear one! So don't have any hopes that anyone will be declaring war on NK, because they'd have to be pretty stupid to do so.

The war against Iraq was fought because the US KNEW they were going to win, they have weakened sadam's defences for more than a decade. Sadam had NOTHING and they knew it. THey starved their prey and went in for the kill. Now I wonder Why? In the eighties the US FULLY SUPPORTED the Saddam regime in the war against Iran, something a lot of people have forgotten about. Saddam even then was starving his people, he wasn't any different when it came to treating the people of Iraq. yet he received full support by the US. What a great man he was in fighting such a 'just war' against IRan.

Funny how everybody forgot about that episode, or is it because certain governements don't want us to remember??? So everyone who believes the war was for humanitarian reasons, No governement would spend $$$$$$$ just for humanitarian reasons, no way. It'd be a total waste of money.

Sadam just didn't want to play anymore by the US's rules. He had to be kicked out, although why excactly as said before by me and many others that is simply something we don't know ( and perhaps will never know). Anyway time to move on and install someone they can trust. I have to say if ever a democracy is established in Iraq, well I'd be pretty damned surprised.

But if they do get a democracy resulting in a better quality of life for the general population, well then I'd have to say: yes it was a just war. Until then, I'll just wait and see.

oh and one more thing.

Anyone who thinks the US are going to 'free' the other 'evil regimes' don't keep your hopes up.

It started with Iraq and that's where it will end. No other countries will 'liberated'.

Skatehorn 'So I take it you have no principles that you would fight for?'
One might fight in self-defence - having principles does not justify aggression.

'The point is that all the alternatives are worse.'
Still not a justification. If you believe strongly enough in non-aggression, yes you might accept the consequences of being passive.

'sometimes..it is impossible to find a settlement that all sides can agree is reasonable, when this happens conflict of some sort is inevitable'
Conflict is not inevitable, it is a consequence of at least one party refusing to compromise & choosing to impose their view.

Bluto - 'Justice is a term invented by humans and has no reality outside of the human mind. Therefore as justice can be defined as whatever the wagers of war want it to be, ergo all wars are just!'
Well said.
Many folk have rationalised why particular wars took place, as a lesser of two evils - but to my mind none have staisfactorily justified war.

I notice that arguments have centred on recent wars where we have declared war & been the 'winners'. Would it be so easy to argue a case for a war that was lost?

I can see why, given specifc circumstances & a particular train of events, there comes a time when war is inevitable, but that does not make it just.

I have read most of the post and this idea of a "Just War" is to my mind irrelevant Justice/Injustice is just pure semantics, war is wrong! Saying that is there ever a good/just/right reason for going to war? Yes if you are fighting an invader who has decided that you have something that they want.

Ok so if the Iraqui people are better off from this (which I do not believe unless the coalition forces leave soon, and a vast amount of help is given to them) then so much the better. But what about this nonsense that Saddam was making (God how I hate this phrase) Weapons of mass destruction, maybe he was, but then who are we to say nay? How many of these weapons are held with the US/UK/France/Russia etc., etc.. Who says that these people are responsible enough to have these weapons? I think that the recent invasion of Iraq proves otherwise, does anyone honestly think that if the US/UK lost that war and found Iraqui troops on their borders that they would hesitate for a second to drop a few nukes on Iraq?

I seem to remember that the main reason that NATO/UK/US and the rest did not go into Bosnia was that, yes thousands of innocent people were being "ethnically" cleansed but, it was an internal affair and they had no remit to go in. Seems to me that the main reason that they put forward for going in this time was to "save the Iraqui people from a terrible dictator" am I the only person that finds this statement to be inconsistant with the fact that they could not protect the hospitals/schools etc but managed to protect the Oil Ministry?

The US said that they would help Afghanistan after they kicked out the Talliban, I think that the Afghans are still waiting, as is the UN for the money that the US owes them.

The US has, as I think someone has previously stated, sponsored terrorism all over the world for their own ends. They trained Ho Chi Mihn, Osama bin Laden, supported Saddam, gave millions to the IRA, the list goes on and the US will go on supporting terrorism while it suits them to do so.

War in certain circumstances is right, in defence and to stop the continuing deaths of many innocents. A pity that some of these warring African nations dont have oil, they would no longer have a problem.

Steve