ethopoeia wrote:Can an unjust war be won?
Italicization mine.But, in order to be just, a war must be justified. No nation can undertake unilateral military action without breaching the international legality
Deudeditus wrote:it's not a war.
ethopoeia wrote: As an example, the logic of the South African Apartheid regime, though being extremely violent, was not a war strictu sensu, but rather a colonisation of African lands by European settlers and all "Law and Order" policies allowing for white racist domination.
ethopoeia wrote:1. I tend to see the conquest of the Americas (and Africa, Asia...) as a phaenomenon of colonisation rather than strict war, its main pattern being the creation of European settlements overseas
ethopoeia wrote:On the other hand, you have a point as well that the notion of "justice" -as the very notion of war- is mutable. What is just today may be unjust tomorrow.
edonnelly wrote:ethopoeia wrote:On the other hand, you have a point as well that the notion of "justice" -as the very notion of war- is mutable. What is just today may be unjust tomorrow.
Shouldn't the same caveat apply when trying to apply 21st-century notions of what is "just" to actions that occurred centuries ago?
IreneY wrote:should the US i.e. decided to attack -unjustly- i.e. Greece do you really think that they wouldn't win? Yes they would. We's surrender.
ethopoeia wrote:In the case of the current war, there exist worrying signs that America (the world's largest oil consumer) is waging a war for resources in Iraq (the world's 2nd largest oil producer), oil being the strategic resource #1.
ethopoeia wrote:The fact that the current President is an oil tycoon, and second of an oil tycoon Presidential dynasty, confirms the oil-dependency of the American economy, as well as Arab outrage that the object of war was actually the Iraqi oil reserves.
edonnelly wrote:This is an argument I hear again and again, but it doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) there is no scenario where the US is going to just take the oil from Iraq and (2) since we're going to pay for the oil anyway, we could have just as easily bought it from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If it were just about the US needing oil, and nothing else, there would never have been a war. Plenty of other countries (France, Russia, etc.) proved that you easily give Hussein what he wants (money) and get what you want (oil).
I do think oil is the major contributing factor, though. Not because the US wants that oil, but because the oil resources give whatever government that controls that land almost unlimited resources. A dangerous government with no resources is not much of a threat, but one with near infinite cash flow is a threat to the whole world. Even if the US were completely oil-independent, the rest of the world's oil needs would have provided more than enough money to make Iraq a world threat and would have necessitated the war.
Amadeus wrote:attacking a sovereign country just because they can manipulate their own natural resources is most certainly unjustified.
edonnelly wrote:Not because they can, but because of how they already had.
(PS, nice selective highlighting of my post -- specifically not highlighting my qualifiers).
Bert wrote:Sure it had significant effect.
edonnelly wrote:This is an argument I hear again and again, but it doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) there is no scenario where the US is going to just take the oil from Iraq and (2) since we're going to pay for the oil anyway, we could have just as easily bought it from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.ethopoeia wrote:In the case of the current war, there exist worrying signs that America (the world's largest oil consumer) is waging a war for resources in Iraq (the world's 2nd largest oil producer), oil being the strategic resource #1.
IreneY wrote:Aha! So France for instance was blinded to the danger Saddam posed to humanity and traded with him? All the countries that were against the war where just too stupid to see that he had to be stripped of his resources?
IreneY wrote: Was overthrowing him an afterthought? I mean after being stripped of his resources he didn't pose a threat right? I can't see people saying "reasons to go to war: a) overthrow Saddam because he's a tyrant b) see that he has no resources after we are done overthrowing him.
is it a case of attacking any goverment we don't like and has resources? Like S. Arabia whose goverment is not democratic either? Theoretically speaking it could become a threat to the whole world. Why didn't the US attack USSR? Lots of resources and a genuine world threat according to some (I do know the reason but that's one of the points isn't it?). China can be viewed the same way too can't it?
Bert wrote:What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda
Bert wrote:Stripping him of his resources is one and the same thing as overthrowing him.
You cannot take away his resources but leave him in power.
IreneY wrote:Saudi Arabia does not give indications of the cruel oppression and terrorism that Saddam did. Neither the USSR not China were by any means rich countries. North Korea poses more of a threat.
What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda. In my estimation that is the only argument that can be used to support the claim that the US is only looking out for its own financial welbeing.
IreneY wrote:USSR and China didn't(don't) suppress populations sth cruel? Didn't (don't) they have as much potential harming power as Iraq? Why?
ethopoeia wrote:Yesterday President George W. Bush aknowledged in a press conference that the U.S. "is not winning in Iraq".
No. The US can't win. Why? Because the US has no clue what they are doing or why.
my advice to the SOLDIERS (who probably don't have time to ponder the quandries of the justice or injustice of war and signed up for gods-know-why) is kill 'em all, let the gods sort them out.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests