What criteria should be used in a decision making process to determine if a country is justified in considering war as an option? Lets define war as a significant engagement of troops in a hostile invasion of another country and not a relatively peaceful police action used to maintain stability in a world region.
Any thoughts?
Can we define all justifications of war on hostile invasion of another country? Are there not wars that don't involve invasion?
If we were talking justification for war, playing devils advocate I'd suggest that protection of your citizens from agressive encroachment on their lives, land and liberties was justification to start military action (once diplomatic means had failed).
Originally posted by Hand of HecateJustification in the moral sense? If so whose?
What criteria should be used in a decision making process to determine if a country is justified in considering war as an option? Lets define war as a significant engagement of troops in a hostile invasion of another country and not a relatively peaceful police action used to maintain stability in a world region.
Any thoughts?
Otherwise I'm tempted to just say "all criteria", which gives you nothing.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatehttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm#The%20<I>Jus%20Ad%20Bellem</I>%20Convention
What criteria should be used in a decision making process to determine if a country is justified in considering war as an option? Lets define war as a significant engagement of troops in a hostile invasion of another country and not a relatively peaceful police action used to maintain stability in a world region.
Any thoughts?
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThe criteria are not as important, as doing what is legally and morally correct.
What criteria should be used in a decision making process to determine if a country is justified in considering war as an option? Lets define war as a significant engagement of troops in a hostile invasion of another country and not a relatively peaceful police action used to maintain stability in a world region.
Any thoughts?
As an example, the war in Iraq was not justified based on the legal and moral principals of the country that declared war on them. The most striking of these legal breaches was "Innocent until proven guilty".
The flip side of course, is that a country with no legal morals (an oxymoron??), is free to do as they please.
Nothing is perfect, but I strove to provide, at least, a balanced opinion.
What difference does it make? George Bush made up his own criteria for war. He went against the wishes of the rest of the world and bullied his allies into joining him in a blood bath.
And now we are embroiled in a war which may never end, and in fact may spread to other countries as well.
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlPerhaps war is its own justification. Most people evidently like it since its been going on forever and there are always many wars underway in the world at any given time.
What difference does it make? George Bush made up his own criteria for war. He went against the wishes of the rest of the world and bullied his allies into joining him in a blood bath.
And now we are embroiled in a war which may never end, and in fact may spread to other countries as well.
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlQuestion for you: is it wrong to secure a foriegn natural resource if you perceive your countries future depends upon it?
What difference does it make? George Bush made up his own criteria for war. He went against the wishes of the rest of the world and bullied his allies into joining him in a blood bath.
And now we are embroiled in a war which may never end, and in fact may spread to other countries as well.
It is obviously in the best interest of much of the Western world to have a stable Middle East and control over the resources therein. Hence the reason we do absolutely nothing about the Rwandan genocide, there's 2/3 thirds of nothing of value in Rwanda. If they were sitting on millions of gallons of oil we'd be in like flint. This is one of unfortunately dozens of examples of ignored attrocities. However, rightly or wrongly I benefit from the US foriegn policies/wars.