Can war ever be truly justified?
absolutely
Only when you don't have the luxury of imagining a justification.
>>582096
underrated post
>>582087
Defensive war is justified in many cases for most people.
>>582087
>asking such a question, one which mankind still struggles with to this day, on 4chan
>>582087
Can peace?
>>582163
What a retarded thing to say.
>>582163
I imagine that sounded deeper in your head.
>>582129
I've never understood this. War is always about one side attacking and the other defending. Just because you're defending and justified in defending doesn't mean the other guy is justified in attacking.
>>582163
DARKNESSSSSSSSS
>>582247
>Be farming community that bothers nobody.
>Suddenly nomadshit barbarian raiders attack your village to steal your shit.
>YOURE NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL FOR DEFENDING. STOP DEFENDING YOURSELF.
>>582260
kek
>>582163
I thought you might be onto something. But then I thought a little more and couldn't make any sense of what you wrote. At this point I realized that you probably had no idea either, so I stpped thing about it.
>>582087
In defense.
Jus ad bellum
>>582087
It keeps happening, so yes.
No, but rape can.
>>582334
bu where do i fin bellum
Yes, the Russian Revolution.
>>582613
This, comrades.
War is necessary.
"Theories apart, if a man’s blood does not boil in righteous indignation against wrong, he is dead, however splendid the theories of life he may have enshrined in the little circle of his brain. War is an evil like an earthquake, but passing through it is a natural discipline for humanity. The clouds gather, the rain falls, the sun shines, no one can interfere and modify the phenomena. So with war."
>>582286
Are you me?
>>582247
And when it's two attacking?
Only if you win.
>>582268
>Not at all what he said.
Re-read, shitposter.
Helmuth Von Moltke the elder sums this shit up pretty well
>>582649
>War is necessary.
Yeah, only when it's not YOU fighting it.
>>582660
Yes, but with a temporary lapse in the ability to spell.
>>582649
Necessary isn't the appropriate word to use at all. Try inevitable. War can't be avoided indefinitely, and is almost never the correct answer, but states should never ever loose the capacity or will to fight when it can't be avoided.
>>582615
It really helps when you use anime in your propaganda.
will we ever have another european war in our lifetime?
>>584645
There's no way the refugee situation will end without violence. Either the right is going to start lynching muslims and muslim sympathizers, or the muslims will start killing europeans once their numbers get high enough.
>>584669
Muslims have already been killing Europeans though.
Its sort of why there's a rise in anti immigration sentiment in the first place.
There must be war. God wills it.
Why would war need to be justified?
The fact that a state is going to war basically signifies that it's given up on conversation and is resorting to brute force of arms, at least until later negotiations take place. Call me edgy but I really don't see what justice has to do with something like war. It's inherently disruptive to order and peace.
>>582087
War and exploitation are the very preconditions of all life whatever.
>>584669
>Either the right is going to start lynching muslims and muslim sympathizers, or the muslims will start killing europeans once their numbers get high enough.
Jesus christ, no wonder you right wingers are so paranoid. Every single Ahmed annd Abdul is out to kill you and rape your wife, so obviously it's justified that you want to kill all the darkies. Even with the recent attacks, your chance of actually dying from a terrorist is fucking trivial. You're 100 times more likely to die from something mundane like a car crash or lung cancer or a heart attach but nobody cares because those things don't have beards. Even in the UK the Muslim population is under 5% and in America it's fucking 1%. You're a pussy.
>>584740
Since 1789 when wars became "national" in scope, the ability of a state to mobilise its resources in the form of the popular mass nation has been essential for war efforts.
In order to do so states "justify" wars to the mass of their population.
States therefore seek out "justifications" of war, so as to be able to prosecute war.
>>584773
That's a practice far older than 1789, friend. There's a reason the phrase "Cassus Belli" is in Latin.
>>584773
I understand this is important for international relations, but I still see it as disingenuous. In any case, I think much of the population would be happy to fight a war with little justification other than national interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FTHXgmzURM
>>584804
>There's a reason the phrase "Cassus Belli" is in Latin.
Yeah, a "cause" of war which involves a partial justification to an elite is really different from national justifications. I mean it is the difference between master morality and modern norms.
>>582371
If not bait, explain.
>>582087
When some asshole throws the first punch, you have the right to punch back.
Also, there are times when an ideology arises whose brutality in unprecedented and whose followers are so blinded that they cannot possibly be reasoned with that the only option is to fight. And in such a fight, you must be willing to commit everything to it, and you must take from your enemy everything he holds dear or gives him the hopes or means to prevail. Only once his spirit and will to fight is totally broken will he cease to be a threat.
Pic related
>>584912
If someone destroyed you life it would be best to rape them horribly because then they have to live with that. Or some girl with the dragon tattoo/spit on your grave shit.
>>585021
>When some asshole throws the first punch, you have the right to punch back.
>what is provocation
>what is criminal law
I'm not sure you have the right to beat up a guy in a wheelchair if you're raping his burning sister before him. It might seem fair to you in defending yourself, but your useless simplification can just fuck right off.
>>584772
This
>>585021
>there are times when an ideology arises whose brutality in unprecedented and whose followers are so blinded that they cannot possibly be reasoned with that the only option is to fight.
This too. Just look at ISIS or Nazi Germany (although to be fair, a few of the Western Allies (Australia and America) did cunty racial things to their own non-European populations and God forbid the Soviets' track records on political lines).
>>585078
How would you rape someone on fire?
>>585096
Because they're hot, duh
>>585105
How, not why. Like how much on fire are they? How is their poon not completely dry? Spit only hoes so far
>>585078
Defending another person should be counted as self defense in my opinion. Since you're risking your ass if you decide to intervene.
>>582163
I hope that maybe one day there might be. It's hard to imagine at this point peace being possible, but Europeans of previous centuries would never imagine a peaceful European Union would be possible.
>>585091
The difference between the shit the Western Allies pulled before the war was that there was still something resembling accountability in those countries. When extreme acts of racist violence occurred, there were protests and open debate about it, and someone was held responsible either socially or even on occasions, criminally. These were countries that although they didn't always live up to the standards of freedom and liberty they espoused, they at the very least tried to. Even the Soviet Union in a twisted way attempted to live up to this (many of the perpetrators of Stalin's purges later wound up being the victims in it's final stages as Stalin used them as scapegoats for atrocities he personally ordered).
The Third Reich on the other hand abandoned all pretenses of seeking liberty and justice ruled over their subjects like mad dogs. There was no compensation for lost property or unjustified killings, and those who protested were almost always met with violence.
Ironically the Nazis' cruelty brought those were once the most bitter of enemies the best of friends. Even in Jim Crow dominated America, the grandsons of slaves, slaveholders, and abolitionists were wholly united in the fight against Hitler.
>>585149
Up until the 1960s in Australia Aborigines weren't allowed to vote or weren't even considered people.
>>582615
>using a direct product of capitalism and westernization of japan to promote comunism
>>585161
That's not entirely true. Aboriginals had the right to vote (at least in theory, although often not in practice) South Australia and that whole "Aboriginals were wildlife under the Flora & Fauna Act”" meme is nonsense.
That said, the Lost Generations was an abomination all on it's own if you ask me.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2013/06/03/were-indigenous-people-regulated-by-the-flora-fauna-act/
>>585188
That's exactly Marx's point about communism being the inevitable result of capitalism.
I think it fundamentally comes down to a question of authority. Wars are generally horrible sooner or later. Simple enough to come to that conclusion. They are also a collective processes. And historically they are almost always forced on the collective without full consent of all the participants.
So it comes down to a question of if the participants who are suffering as a consequence of the war really care enough about whatever the central conflict is about to die horribly. 99% of the time I'm guessing the answer is no. Despite propaganda people don't really care about who owns what side of the river to the point where they want to lose a an arm and get a raped daughter out of the deal. Most issues people would care enough to kill/die about would be individual spats where someone got murdered over owed money or some such, not a war. The case for sincere collective interest is pretty weak, I think, and almost always actually heavily biased towards the interests of elites - whom also tend to start, fund, and direct wars. This is probably why war is so rare between democratic, economically collaborative nations.
>>584772
Alright, look. You obviously thought this up between bong hits so I'll go easy on you. No one (outside of /pol/, who are meaningless in the grand scale of things) is arguing that they're all out to get us. If they were all out to get us, we'd be calling this World War III right now not... whatever the fuck it is this year. There is a large-scale humanitarian crisis underway and people are fleeing that. It's only natural that they would.
It is also only natural for a militant organization with a demonstrated ability to carry out large scale attacks in the west to get as many sleepers as they can into western societies under the premise of asylum-seeking. This is a justifiable risk and one that keeps policy wonks on both sides of the political divide awake at night.
You, however, use it as the opportunity to score cheap points against people who don't share your views. Bla bla right-winger. Bla bla paranoid. There's a reason why people don't worry about those things as much: They're the products of random chance. Get clobbered by a chunk of falling masonry as you walk down the street? Accidentally tip a vending machine onto yourself? Drop dead of an aneurysm in the middle of a restaurant? These things are going to happen. Terrorism is different. It is enacted by human hands. There is will and sapience behind it. We can implement policies to mitigate that threat and that's a far sight better than hiding your head in the sand as you suggest.
>>585078
Actually, the guy in the wheel chair would have the right to beat you up or shoot you for that matter. He would be defending himself as in the scenario that you outlined, the "you" is clearly the aggressor.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're a Brit.
>>582087
Justified?
Justified?
Nothing is justified. Justification does not exist- it implies that there are bad things or good things. Nothing is good, nothing is bad. There are only opinions on the matter that vary between person and there is nothing that makes a single person right. It isn't about whether or not a war is right or wrong- what matters is dropping bombs on somebody so they can't bomb you in turn. It isn't about righteousness, it's about survival and conquest.
>>582087
I guess I look it at like this war can only be justified if it used to stop something more horrible than war. What is worse depends on your morals.Now this might sound silly but I am exaggerating to make a point. If a country decided that from this point on it is going to delimb and eat half it's children I believe it's neighbors would be justified in going to war to stop them.
>>582244
this
>>582087
I'm not one to glorify war, but it seems that no matter how hard one tries to remain peaceful, there's always some assholes out there who are willing to use violence to take things from you and/or hurt you. Some organizations are fundamentally expansionist and violent, and can't be reasonably negotiated with.
