Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,142
Terror is an idea, not a state. That alone should bring up the question, how do Bigj's conditions apply to that one?
Now, let's examine your statements individually. Bear with me, read what I'm saying before you question how I argue this.
''When sanctions, embargos, inspecters, envoys, diplomats, commitiees etc. have come up empty handed when confronting a problem.''
There are many issues, or problems, that cannot be resolved by the efforts of any of these committees. Suppose they all fail to solve a mathematics problem. By this suggestion, we'd have to declare war on the poser of that problem. This clearly makes no sense, so, alone, this can't be right.
''When the ruler is not following diplomatic guidelines and is not going to back down.''
Diplomatic guidelines are set by a committee, correct? Now, let's assume for the moment that Country A comes up with its own set of diplomatic guidelines, which seem absurd to country B (Ie: all diplomatic relations must be conducted by pregnant women). Country B refuses. Is country A justified in invading because of this? Alternatively, suppose we were diplomatically investigating the meat grading process in country B. They refuse to allow it. Do we then invade? This seems excessive.
''Yet, it is also justifed when a nation is attacked, War of 1812, WWII, Afganistan.''
This seems inconsistent. If we are only justitifed in waging war when attacked, then noone should be allowed to make the initial attack. In other words, if we are always justified when attacked, then any attack is unjust. The attack on Germany by the US was wrong, according to this.
Individually, your conclusions cannot be right. However, they are not meant to be taken individually, you've formed them into a general principle. Let's see if that one's right.
''More or less, war is justified when a viable grievence is unable to be adressed through diplomatic means after intesive attempts.''
If you can imagine a just war where the above is not true, or an unjust war where the above is true, then there is reason to doubt what you're saying. However, leave that aside for the moment. This definition is unsatisfactory. It simply begs the question, 'what is a viable grievance'? That's simply another way of putting my earlier question. What is a good reason to go to war?
------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always
Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
