BF2S Forums In your opinion, when is war justified?

I'd like to point out that BN never called people in the army drones.  Quite the contrary, Agamemnar said that when someone joins the army they have to follow orders, but that doesn't mean they have to be a drone.

On the topic of Israel, I refer to the overall conflict, rather than specific flashpoints (i.e. Six Day War), which was begun by Jewish immigrants who formed terrorist groups far more brutal than any who attack the West today.  Many Jews talk often about the Holocaust, but are quick to forget about the atrocities committed by Zionists.

lowing wrote:

I know war is justified when all of the anti-american people in the world start screaming and crying for us to help them against their own oppressive governments or to repel some invasion of their land.

So, you've been to war more than once why?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-31 00:15:53)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

splixx wrote:

BN wrote:

Hitler said it was time to go.

Bingo

whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit. 

so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN.  Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck.  But regardless,  as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose. 

im not white asshole

Blindly following orders is no excuse.  At Nuremburg, in the WWII war trials, there were officers who claimed that they were only following orders by gassing the Jews and, quite rightly so, they were convicted.

Moving to present day, if you are ordered to do something illegal like shoot an unarmed civilian - would you do it?  I would hope not - I would hope that you would question the order.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

splixx wrote:

BN wrote:

Hitler said it was time to go.

Bingo

whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit. 

so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN.  Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck.  But regardless,  as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose. 

im not white asshole

hmm... i guess that your asshole is brown as everyone elses?

and btw your "no questions asked" comment is the reason to most of the cruelty in war... soldiers that dont think and just carry out orders.
hehe and "redneck", arent all americans rednecks? thats what the tv says anyway...

Actually, they're getting into an argument about nationality.

spacepelle wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

splixx wrote:

Bingo

whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit. 

so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN.  Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck.  But regardless,  as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose. 

im not white asshole

hmm... i guess that your asshole is brown as everyone elses?

and btw your "no questions asked" comment is the reason to most of the cruelty in war... soldiers that dont think and just carry out orders.
hehe and "redneck", arent all americans rednecks? thats what the tv says anyway...

I love how the majority of the Europeans constantly bash the Americans, call us red necks, lazy, stupid, etc.
I used to think that the American public was stupid for believing all the bull shit that is said on TV the radio and in the new papers, but after a while Ive started to notice that most Europeans can be stupider.
Sorry about that, lets get back to the topic, and please stop bashing us when you have no idea what the fuck we are like except what your extremely biased media says.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Seeing all these war posts in here made me curious. Do you need to be attacked personally? Do you just need to know that they will attack? Do you feel that war is never justified? I'll post later how I feel.

P.S. Please keep Iraq out of this. I want it to be more philosophical. I'm sick of hearing people bitch about that war.

If they pose a threat to your country.  Why would anyone allow a country to gather strength and then attack. If the country is already attacking it feels awefully damn certain it will win and typically does unless there is an intervention. 

And no the country doesn't even need to be able to attack directly or militarially.  It could be as simple as another countries citizens not respecting your borders or trafficing illegal substances into your country.  A hostile country is a hostile country. 

I also feel any country that does not observe basic human rights is fair game.  We are all humans and that has no borders.  Even if the Nazis didn't attack anyone, the death camps needed stopped and were a threat to peoples basic human rights. 

I do not feel it is ok to claim a country as yours after you have defeated it, ever.  This leads to expansionism.

Of course it is always ok to come to the aide of your allies when they are in need of help due to any of the aforemetioned reasons.

Spearhead wrote:

Capt. Foley wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Only if human rights abuses are in the extremes, is what most of you mean to say.  Is having someone live in a 12 by 9 cell for 20 years human rights abuse?  I think so.  That's the standard for Floridas death row.

Practically every country abuse human rights in extremely minor ways.  But it's the big abusers like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, USSR, etc. that it is justifiable for, I think.

You kinda forgot China, Vietnam still, North Korea, bunch of African countries, and a few Middle Eastern Countries.

Do you know what etc. means?  I was stating a few for an example.  Imagine that.  Since you're making a complete list, you kinda forgot Cuba and other South American countries.  DOH!

That is some funny shit.   "etc stands for Example"

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

i thought etc stands for etcetera

That there is just crazy talk.  Why would you think that etc stands for etcetera.

btw: say "Fish are friends not food" in a British accent.  It's fun.

Major_Spittle wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

i thought etc stands for etcetera

That there is just crazy talk.  Why would you think that etc stands for etcetera.

btw: say "Fish are friends not food" in a British accent.  It's fun.

i tried, i sounded like a pirate

BN, they were discussing the requirement that military personnel follow lawful orders.
You stated "If you want to be a drone and accept everything your president says as fact, go right ahead.
I am too smart for that."  I am sorry if I took your quote out of context.  It seemed to me that you were saying that you were smarter than military "drones" who follow orders.

aardfrith wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

splixx wrote:

Bingo

whoever -karma me calling me redneck is one stupid racist peice of shit. 

so i guess every soldier fighting in the war is a nazi, is that what your saying BN.  Because as a former soldier, i had no choice on whether or not to goto iraq you dumbfuck.  But regardless,  as a soldier, my job was to fight in war, a job that I chose. 

im not white asshole

Blindly following orders is no excuse.  At Nuremburg, in the WWII war trials, there were officers who claimed that they were only following orders by gassing the Jews and, quite rightly so, they were convicted.

Moving to present day, if you are ordered to do something illegal like shoot an unarmed civilian - would you do it?  I would hope not - I would hope that you would question the order.

although I see where you are going with this, I think your argument is flawed. There is a difference between the strategic decision to go to war and a tactical decision / order given in a specific battle situation.
The decision to go to war is taken by politicians, the civil leaders of a nation.
Orders on the battlefield are given by military personnel and they are subject to very strict rules ( SOP, ROE, you know it better than I do ).

In other words, as far as the political decision to go to war is concerned, you'll have to trust your elected government, because after all, they are the highest authority in your country.
Military personnel, on the other hand, has to stick to a set of more or less fixed rules that determine what is a lawful order and what isn't. And those rules apply to everyone in the system, General or PFC.

the problem with the definition of a "justified war " is that it is based on the concept of war being an armed conflict between two sovereign nations. I do believe we all agree that any nation should be allowed to defend itself against a military attack. But this "classical" definition of war dosn't really apply to modern times any more.

Most of the conflicts we see today are
1.) attempts by western nations to remove dictators
2.) pre-emptive strikes against possible future enemies or to remove a possible future threat
3.) attacks against multinational terrorist organizations

these days, it's most likely a mix of all of the above.
But nothing of that is covered by the classical definition of "justified war".

Personally, I do believe that the only justification for war is a direct military attack by a sovereign nation.
But I am a realistic person. Every nation defines its security interests differently, and in the end, the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must ( yes, I stole that quote ).

Iran will be the test.

- they have a democratically elected government
- they have not attacked anyone
- they do not violate any international treaty in a way that would justify a military attack
- they are not in violation of UN sanctions

a side note to the "removal of a dictator" argument. I bet my ass, if 09/11 hadn't happened, the US would not have attacked Iraq, human rights violations or not.
This "fight for freedom and democracy" is bullshit anyway. Lots of nations violate human rights and have undemocratic governments. Yet, we only see conflicts in those regions that also happen to have a lot of natural resources, namely oil.
Those strategic interests ( economic interests, that is ) will always override human rights interests.

Justified or not, in the end, there is nothing the UN can do to prevent pre-emptive wars by superpowers if those superpowers also happen to hold a seat on the security council.

B.Schuss wrote:

the problem with the definition of a "justified war " is that it is based on the concept of war being an armed conflict between two sovereign nations. I do believe we all agree that any nation should be allowed to defend itself against a military attack. But this "classical" definition of war dosn't really apply to modern times any more.

Most of the conflicts we see today are
1.) attempts by western nations to remove dictators
2.) pre-emptive strikes against possible future enemies or to remove a possible future threat
3.) attacks against multinational terrorist organizations

these days, it's most likely a mix of all of the above.
But nothing of that is covered by the classical definition of "justified war".

Personally, I do believe that the only justification for war is a direct military attack by a sovereign nation.
But I am a realistic person. Every nation defines its security interests differently, and in the end, the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must ( yes, I stole that quote ).

Iran will be the test.

- they have a democratically elected government
- they have not attacked anyone
- they do not violate any international treaty in a way that would justify a military attack
- they are not in violation of UN sanctions

a side note to the "removal of a dictator" argument. I bet my ass, if 09/11 hadn't happened, the US would not have attacked Iraq, human rights violations or not.
This "fight for freedom and democracy" is bullshit anyway. Lots of nations violate human rights and have undemocratic governments. Yet, we only see conflicts in those regions that also happen to have a lot of natural resources, namely oil.
Those strategic interests ( economic interests, that is ) will always override human rights interests.

Justified or not, in the end, there is nothing the UN can do to prevent pre-emptive wars by superpowers if those superpowers also happen to hold a seat on the security council.

Can you come to the United States and run for president?  Please?