I have two thing to say about your post.
First, you are correct in many ways. I'd like to comment on the
"just"ness of a war based on the loss of innocent lives. If it is
more "just" to inflict as little loss of innocents as possible then
America's military is moving very close to the over all goal of zero
collateral damage. In other posts, some say that war is ugly. It
is, normally. But I think if you watch our military you can see the
beauty of a "precise war". Wars are no longer gauged in terms of
bridges bombed, buildings destroyed, or people killed. We used to
count how many buildings were destroyed to judge our progress in war.
But we have evolved to a point which we can destroy a single room in
a building. Vastly reducing collateral damage while precisely
hitting our target. I think that war in traditional, trench war
sense is very ugly due to the high number of casualties in such a
war. Being able to stop specific people without hurting anyone else
is a thing of beauty but only if the cause is morally right
(subjective, I know).
This election year President Bush will be critisized for the War on
Terror. I'd hope that people look at the way we fight against
terrorists. They cause mass casualties of innocent people, while we
target and kill only known terrorists and the rogue nation leaders
that support terror. In fact, we aren't out there killing all of
them. We are capturing them. Surely a war against an enemy whose
primary goal is to kill innocent people, is a just war. Reguardless
of weather we find Weapons of Mass Destruction or not.
The fundamental question is killing ever justified? I think it is if
the death of one can prevent the suffering of many. Sometimes you
have to cut the cancer out to save the patient. If you don't, it
will spread until its evil pollutes all of mankind.
Okay the 2nd thing. My understanding is that America wanted Japan to
strike first because America needed the support for the war. We
thought it was someone else's war until we were attacked. So I
really doubt that Japan's attack was a pre-emtive strike. I think
the leaders of that time wanted justice for the Russo-Japanese war
treaties that America had mediated. The promises of monetary
reimbursement to the Japanese were threatening to our politicians.
We were scared that if Japan had that money, they would build a great
military and eventually come after us. We were afraid of a situation
that we ended up creating. I don't think their attack was just in
the sense you mentioned but it was in the sense of retribution.
Brandon
--- In samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com, golfmandan@a... wrote:
> There are various "just war theories" that have been propounded
throughout history. They usually have certain things in common, but
ultimately, it's impossible to settle it on a philosophical basis.
The idea of a "just war" is one of those things that will probably
always remain a matter of opinion in the public realm, and which no
one will ever prove conclusively to the world. Even among small
groups that hold basically the same worldview, there is no real
concensus. I myself believe in a particular just war theory, but it
certainly isn't convincing to everyone else.
>
> Ultimately, a "just war" is simply choosing a side in the lesser of
two evils. If you consider WWII, which we would say was "just" on the
part of the Allied forces, as they were defending rather than
attacking... millions of innocent, unoffending people (meaning people
who did not believe in the aggression and genocide) were killed, both
on the Allied side and the Axis side. It certainly wasn't ALL the
germans and italians and japanese that were the willing aggressors.
Millions were conscripted against their wills who didn't really
believe in the legitimacy of the Axis side. And on the Allied side,
millions died defending against that aggression. And the Allied
forces even sided with Stalin, who was a brutal murderer who killed
some 40 million of his own people. Allying with such a man is
certainly evil. But the enemy of my enemy is my friend... or so they
say... If innocent people are unavoidably killed, then war cannot be
"just" in a complete and unqualified sense.
>
> We would generally say war is just only for the defending side, and
not for the aggressor. But what if one knows that war is coming, is
inevitable, unavoidable, and you're left with the choice of being the
aggressor or the one who is first struck? Then it seems that maybe
it's okay to be the initial attacker, if war is inevitable. Such was
the case for Japan and it's attack on Pearl Harbor... they felt or
knew that war was inevitable, so chose to strike first rather than be
struck first. We americans always call Japan the bad guys, but from a
different perspective, their attack seems a little more acceptable
(not that I'm saying they were right!!!)
>
> The question of whether or not there is a just war is a very
difficult one. It's not easy to answer. I guess I would end up saying
that war is an inevitable evil, an apparently necessary evil to
combat other evils. Just? Only in a relative or highly qualified
sense. But certainly not completely.
>
> > Eponymous13@a... wrote:
> >
> > Hey.
> > There are such things as "evil" or "dishonourable" wars,
this is true.
> > One thing war always is, and that's UGLY. There's no such thing
as a
> > "beautiful war". That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. If
done for personal
> > greed and aggrandisement, yes, to start a war is dishonourable.
It is not,
> > however, dishonourable to END a war by any means necessary when
the party in the
> > right is the victor, and it is not wrong to keep a war going
until the party in
> > that right (whatever it may be) is victorious. And I must agree
with whomever
> > said that there are both honourable and dishonourable actions in
wartime, on
> > the battlefield and off. War is another part of life, however
ugly it may be,
> > and there are honourable and dishonourable acts in everyday life.
> >
> >
> > Fair enough but how do you define a "right"side in a war. Surely
that is just a
> > matter of oppinion and if so then there is no correct honour,
just how you
> > percieve it?
> >
> > Jonny
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends
today! Download
> > Messenger Now
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
> > Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
> > ---
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >