Justified war?

[sSsflamesSs]

Can terrorism be classified as justified war?

(Don't just state your opinion...back it up.)

[sSsflamesSs]

I should rephrase that...

Can terrorism EVER be classified as a justified war?

[Anonymouse]

One would argue that what the U.S. does worldwide to other nations is a form of terrorism? That all depends on how you define terrorism.

In any event, read my post to that one guy here that praised the U.S. efforts in killing thousands of Iraqi civilians to "remove" Saddam.

[sSsflamesSs]

I did not create an argument here about the US or any other country. I meant terrorism in general.

The reason I posted this thread is that I came upon an old Philosophy essay of mine from last year which concerned the topic.

[Anonymouse]

Again that all depends on what you mean by 'war'?

If you are referring to the traditional conventional notions of war, then terrorism falls short.

[surferarmo]

Of course it can

Terrorism is definetly a legitimate reason to declare war. 9/11 and the events surrounding is what I would consider terrorism. What we need to establish here is that war is really never opposed or proposed over ideals. There is always some physical gain. From fighting the war on terrorism as I define it, one could argue that we have gained some national security. War is not good, and I am not at all pro war, but I will create a euphimism that I do stand behind and that is pro-necessary. The war that we have recently fought in Iraq I do believe was necessary. Yes Anon, Iraqi civilians did die, and that is horribly disgusting. When you and I say that though, we are discussing our stance on the war in moral terms, and morals are ideologies, and wars are not fought over ideologies. If you want to make that case though, 5000 children under the age of 5 die every month because of Sadam. Men are dragged into torture chambers, women are raped. Though that may have happened during this war, the Iraqi people are now liberated from the rule of Sadam. Even if the state chooses to reform a new dictatorship, they were free to decide that. France, Russia and China did not oppose the war for moral reasons. They opposed the war because they among all other nations are responsible for the arming of Sadam Huessein since the first Gulf War. Basically, in to the point terms, we are killing their customers, and that is not good for business.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Of course it can

Terrorism is definetly a legitimate reason to declare war. 9/11 and the events surrounding is what I would consider terrorism. What we need to establish here is that war is really never opposed or proposed over ideals. There is always some physical gain. From fighting the war on terrorism as I define it, one could argue that we have gained some national security. War is not good, and I am not at all pro war, but I will create a euphimism that I do stand behind and that is pro-necessary. The war that we have recently fought in Iraq I do believe was necessary. Yes Anon, Iraqi civilians did die, and that is horribly disgusting. When you and I say that though, we are discussing our stance on the war in moral terms, and morals are ideologies, and wars are not fought over ideologies. If you want to make that case though, 5000 children under the age of 5 die every month because of Sadam. Men are dragged into torture chambers, women are raped. Though that may have happened during this war, the Iraqi people are now liberated from the rule of Sadam. Even if the state chooses to reform a new dictatorship, they were free to decide that. France, Russia and China did not oppose the war for moral reasons. They opposed the war because they among all other nations are responsible for the arming of Sadam Huessein since the first Gulf War. Basically, in to the point terms, we are killing their customers, and that is not good for business.

5000 children died in Iraq since Gulf War 1 and the UN Sanctions and American and British bombings of no fly zones destroying Iraq's sanitation, hospitals, education, and infrastructure.

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war.

I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

Ever since World War II there has never been a declared war by Congress, as it says so in the Constitution, so what does that tell you about the balance of power here in this country now? And isn't strange that when I read the book "War on Iraq" that the people who lost family and friends in Sept 11 were the onse who didn't advocate war? The ones that had no people or friends that lost their lives, were the ones that jumped for war. Chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld all jumped for joy that now they can have all this immense power they wield to sent American troops from Afghanistan, or Iraq, and wherever else without the authorization or declaration of war on Congress.

Hell I can even make a good case as to prior knowledge of Sept 11. but it would take too much time to list all that information along with mysterious stock transactions. Did you know that the war plan for Iraq existed as far as as the mid 90s?

The war on Iraq saw its motives change several, from "freedom for the Iraqi people" and "democracy" and "freeing them from Saddam's tyranny" and "weapons of mass destruction". Those weapons have yet to be found. On the other side of the spectrum N. Korea openly threatens the U.S. and the U.S. does nothing about it. Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler or Stalin. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole who lost 5000 children a month to UN Sanctions, American bombings, and depleted uranium.

Enforcing the democracy with the whim of a gun and bombings, isn't much of a democracy, but rather an oxymoron. Why risk American troops if they don't want a western style democracy? Hell one can even make the case that this really isn't a democracy since there was no proper election and fraud. Nevermind this was originally a Constitutional Republic, that is not the case now. And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way. The whole world was against American involvement in Iraq. World opinion about America is bad. Yet Americans have their heads so far up their asses they can almost lick their own tongues from inside out. Too many people here rely on the soundbytes of FOX or CNN which are nothing more biased indoctrination agencies. Fox claims it is "fair and balanced"?

[surferarmo]

Re: Of course it can

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war. I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

Right here you contradict yourself anon. The oil field, and oil itself are physical gains. These physical gains do strengthen the muscle of those willing to impose imperialistic ideologies on others, but imperialsm again is about physical gain. There is not much ideology about having a fat ass pocket book at the expense of others. The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

I do know and am aware that Saddam was installed by the U.S. but I will argue that we made a mistake. The U.S. is taking a responsible course of action, and they are ridding the world of that mistake. Hopefully they dont make another one.
Saddam is evil. To say he is not is ignorant. Some countries may consider what we do evil, but anon, you are not going to be killed because you spoke against this war. If I was in Iraq and I spoke against the government I would be killed, and the same goes for anyone that lived under the rule of Saddam. You spoke of the opportunities that this country grants to people in a thread that was concerned with going back to Armenia to hopefully offset extinction. Well I love this country for that reason. This war is protecting your freedom. Obviously, you and all the hippies at my school are not dead. And I embrace your opposing view as it is a right in the consitution.

Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole

Before Germany became a superpower it was xxxxhole from the vindictave treaty of Versailles. The economy was horrible, and it became a superpower throught the leadership of Hitler. I argue that it would not be good idea to let Iraq become a superpower through the leadership under the rule of Saddam.

And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

First of all anon; this is not the issue. I will go on this one tangent for a short bit. The government did get involved, but it was not the social programs that saved the economy. The alphabet soup organizations formed by the lame FDR only provided temporary relief. It was the increased spending in the market during the mass production as a result of WWII that saved America from the great depression. These social programs set up by FDR only hurt the American people today, as you see my beliefs in the "Right or Left" thread that I started. Lets talk about this in that forum please.

You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way.

Anon, it does work that way. Are the turks who committed genocide in 1915 good people? Were they good people when they killed my great grandfather, when they killed your great grandfather, and most of our family members? Like you said, this race is going to decimate over time because of evil acts. You have called people turks in some threads and your tone had bad guy implications. It does work that way. Did you know that most countries wanted Saddam Huessein removed, but only dissagreed on the means of removal? Obivoulsy the UN sanctions and bullxxxx werent working, only killing innocent civilians.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Of course it can

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war. I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

Right here you contradict yourself anon. The oil field, and oil itself are physical gains. These physical gains do strengthen the muscle of those willing to impose imperialistic ideologies on others, but imperialsm again is about physical gain. There is not much ideology about having a fat ass pocket book at the expense of others. The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

I do know and am aware that Saddam was installed by the U.S. but I will argue that we made a mistake. The U.S. is taking a responsible course of action, and they are ridding the world of that mistake. Hopefully they dont make another one.
Saddam is evil. To say he is not is ignorant. Some countries may consider what we do evil, but anon, you are not going to be killed because you spoke against this war. If I was in Iraq and I spoke against the government I would be killed, and the same goes for anyone that lived under the rule of Saddam. You spoke of the opportunities that this country grants to people in a thread that was concerned with going back to Armenia to hopefully offset extinction. Well I love this country for that reason. This war is protecting your freedom. Obviously, you and all the hippies at my school are not dead. And I embrace your opposing view as it is a right in the consitution.

HOW IS THIS WAR PROTECTING MY FREEDOM? Saddam has never threatened me, your statement is unsubstantiated and invalid. North Korea on the other hand, has made many open threats to the United States. First of all you should understand, FREEDOM is merely an idea. There is no such thing as freedom, because both in nature, and in our human made societies there exist limitations. There are limitations in nature, and in our laws that don't allow us to have "freedom" both to fly, to make things move telepathically, and to kill someone and get away with it, or committ some sort of fraud for personal gains. The same applies to EQUALITY. Nothing in nature is equal. No two minds or animals are alike. NO one thinks the same, acts the same or looks the same. There are different capacities, different characters and intellects. It is an art form to try to master and use an idea and feed it to the masses in such a way that they would be willing to fight and defend that idea ( which you previously denied that people fight for an idea )and make them adhere and believe in your cause. The American revolutionaries fought for this idea. The proleteriats in the Bolshevik revolution fought for this idea. I don't want to go on and on but you get the point.

Number 1, no one denies Saddam is evil. Saddam has killed more or less a quarter of a million people in 20 years. That's according to Red Cross, Amnesty International and UN figures. Many question the numbers, but let's say its true. Be it 100 or 100,000, it's heartbreaking and sick, we would all agree. But, do you know how many people WE slaughtered in the last 20 years? Maybe someone should come and try to depose us? How different is this country? This war was primarily a war for Israeli interests. If any politician or media mogul or anyone else dare publically speak against Israel they can kiss their careers goodbye. The amount of power the Israeli lobby and Jews overall in America exhibit can be seen from the U.S.S. Liberty incident when Israel attacked the American ship and until this day it's been kept hush hush and no congressional investigation has ever taken place to hold Israel accountable. I bet those Afghanis really liked the way Americamade their day-glow care packets the same size shape and color as our unexploded cluster bombs 30% of which never detonate, until some poor, hungry Afghani kid walks up and grabs it thinking its food from America. How many were killed in India when the Union Carbide plant exploded due to rank negligence? How many are dying right now due to depleted uranium used in our shell casings and missiles in Iraq? How many people died during the Iran-Contra debacle? How many in Panama, Nicaragua and El Salvador because this gov't wanted to establish its own turf in the international drug cartel? Now you resort to ad homenim attacks surferboy. I honestly thought higher of you but you had to resort to the lowest common denominator. that is not very prudent. You deviate from a rational course and label me a hippie when you have no evidence that I am. Just because I disagree about war, doesn't make me a hippie. If you can't deal with that on its face value, then you are trying too hard to believe.

Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole

Before Germany became a superpower it was xxxxhole from the vindictave treaty of Versailles. The economy was horrible, and it became a superpower throught the leadership of Hitler. I argue that it would not be good idea to let Iraq become a superpower through the leadership under the rule of Saddam.

Germany was allowed to become a superpower. Iraq wouldn't have been allowed so because it was under UN sanctions, constant bombings by US and British forces, it had depleted uranium, bad hospotals, 5000 children dying a month, bad education, basically your analogy holds no water. I suggest you read "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton , you will see how Wall Street financed Hitler's regime from the start, including the Bolsheviks. People like Armand Hammer, J.P. Morgan, Adam Schiff, of Kuhn and Loeb, Rockefellar, the Warburg brothers are but a few who profited from war. War is a racket, as the old saying, goes, and as long as their is war, there is profit to be made.

And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

First of all anon; this is not the issue. I will go on this one tangent for a short bit. The government did get involved, but it was not the social programs that saved the economy. The alphabet soup organizations formed by the lame FDR only provided temporary relief. It was the increased spending in the market during the mass production as a result of WWII that saved America from the great depression. These social programs set up by FDR only hurt the American people today, as you see my beliefs in the "Right or Left" thread that I started. Lets talk about this in that forum please.

Issue or not, is not the point, it is an example of government interference with the economy, which is the antithesis and a direct blow against the idea of capitalism. One would expect such a move in a socialist or communist regime, not in a self styled capitalist nation.

You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way.

Anon, it does work that way. Are the turks who committed genocide in 1915 good people? Were they good people when they killed my great grandfather, when they killed your great grandfather, and most of our family members? Like you said, this race is going to decimate over time because of evil acts. You have called people turks in some threads and your tone had bad guy implications. It does work that way. Did you know that most countries wanted Saddam Huessein removed, but only dissagreed on the means of removal? Obivoulsy the UN sanctions and bullxxxx werent working, only killing innocent civilians.

I was referring to the Iraq war, and as I said it was the morally unambigious nature some of the "patriots" in this country make it seem to be that I find disturbing. Believe me, no one is justifying Turks killing Armenians, nor Saddam killing his own people, but no one rescued Armenians. America to go in Iraq with the premise of "rescuing people from Saddam" is being hypocritical, number 1 because of its actions of killing people in the past and present, and because there are other people in the world who suffer under their leaders, why doesn't the U.S. do a damn thing then? You see thats when it becomes obvious that this isn't a humane cause, but strictly a political maneuver, a neo-con construction for Israel. It's sad that innocent people have to die in the world but that's the way it is because no government comes to their rescue. The U.S. killed many civilians in this war, so it would be foolish to claim that they were there for them in the first place.

The arguments that support this war have so many holes and gaps in logic, that one cannot help but see our leaders for what they are, deceptive chickenhawks who care nothing about the lives of our soldiers, but only their political gains, and to support Israel. That's all.

[surferarmo]

Re: Of course it can

The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

Anon, right here we both said the same thing. Perhaps I wasnt clear, and there was miscommunication amongst the both of us. The ideology and the physical gain feed off of eachother. The physical ideology is the motive. The physical gain is the goal. What does it matter if the US dominates the global market, (not that it isnt already) and we get nothing physical that can insure physical material weatlh? My point is that, no one fights over an idea alone, the idea itself cannot be grasped; like freedom. I am aware that it is not a tangible or possible state in which anyone or thing could exist. Even without the presence of government there is no complete freedom. There is partial freedom which is defined comparitively. I also never called you a hippy. I never said 'Anon, you are a hippy.' I was referring to other people that speak against the war that have not faced punishment by the government because they may do so in this country, and I appreciate that. I expected that you would understand that. We are engaging in mature intellectual conversation here, and there is no need for name calling by any of us. Conflicting interest is the creation of new frontier yet to be discovered, and I embrace opposing views, and any other intelligent people should do the same.

Also, I never said that we, the US, are fighting to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. (I am speaking specifically of Saddam.) I simply meant that it would be an outcome if Saddam was removed.

As far as North Korea, the situation is different. Iraq was a definet victory, and we both know that. First of all, the troops morale, and the county's needed a boost. Kind of like the battle that George Washington won against the Hessians. I forgot the name of the battle but you get the point. A victory would embody this win psychology in the minds of the people. North Korea might be next, I dont know, and neither do you. The political situation in that area is also different. They have a lot more troops, a better trained army, and they for certain have weapons of mass destruction. There are many variables in North Korea. Japan, and South Korea might be unwanting victims if we intervene. Also: whose side is China on? An invasion of North Korea could mean the commencment of WWIII. The political situation over there is very touchy and explosive...literally.

I know my history and I know that we sold Hitler his arms, and ammunition. Never the less, he was a tyrant, which you are aware of, and he escaped his xxxx hole situation. And world conquest came so close to reality.

Back to the capatilsm thing. The alphabet soup orgs. are the anti-thesis of capatilsm. My point is it did not substantially help the economy in anyway, and I dont see your point in bringing this issue up.