The Just War. Myth or Fact?

Does necessity make something just though?
You have to take shits to survive, is dumping just?

 

Taking a shit is just. Having to take a shit on someone else isn't.

 

I think we're being a little too liberal with the word "just" here....to the point where "just" kind of loses it's meaning.

 

Hey, you're the one that started the shit analogy.

 

DOUBLE MEANING?!?!

:tongue:

lol sorry neodude

 

is this gonna turn into lsd forum psychobabble again ??

 

Shit happens?

 

We are going to keep the conversation on topic and leave all personal insults aside.

Behave hippies and hipsters.

 

Let me draw an analogy to the situation described in the OP.

A murderer is convicted, sent to jail for life. His childeren (innocent of any connection to the crime and now lacking a breadwinner) suffer in the short term and for the rest of their lives (they couldn't afford college and worked at lousey jobs for 40 years).

Does the damage done to these innocents, make the conviction and punishment of the murderer "unjust"?

 

The only verdict that relieves man of balance owed, or imbalance, is not guilty.

 

War is not good in my own opinion for sure. Though it is unavoidable with this species we call humans.

There would be no war if there was not always a struggle for the elites to consume the world for their own purposes. In our many types of society, money is a large reason as well as education. A incentive for lower class people to try and get them to fight for the elites of whomever they end up serving/leader/president.

These Elite rulers, bankers, and private companies and civilian companies eat up profits from the elite getting the war started in the first place.


A VICIOUS CYCLE INDEED!

 

Eh, wars have nothing to do with the elites vs ethnic/geographical/various demographic and economic concerns.

Also war isn't really human, all kinds of animals fight over resources from food to sex(well generally just the 2 actually for most other animals) War is just politically structured fighting.

 

Remembered this quote from Dazed and Confused........Stopped reading thread.......put Dazed and Confused in DVD player.......Smiled happily

 

Justification for war is held in the eye of the beholder. You can't uphold the actions of the wicked (the guys on the other team) nor can you condemn the actions of the just (the guys on your team). At some point there must be a compromise for the justification from defense to offense, so I'll just say some parts of war are just.

 

Ask Tony, Bair.

 

If a country threatens the security and safety of the United States, or attacks it, then the war is not only necessary, but justified.

 

There is no justice in starting a war. However, in defending yourself, there is no wrong. And joining a war is case-dependent.

 

I think I see what the problem here is.

War is not the reasons you fight it, each side has their own.

It is not your 'justification' for doing it, each side justifies it.

War is killing and destruction.

Each side (no matter how many sides there are), will feel justified for being involved in that war. Each from their own point of view will be right.

But at no point in time, does any of that, make killing and destruction, ie - war, just or right.

 

^ But to be attacked - and for the politician's to not declare war - is to leave your people unsecure, and your nation betrayed.

 

Is it a reasonable solution then, to make war on killer tornadoes?