Is War Justifiable?

If I recall right, most Americans, and most Australians (where I live) and most Brits supported the war in Iraq. Apparently at the time it started, most thought it was justified ...

Recent opinion polls show that 76% of Australians oppose their country's participation in a US-led war, while 57% support joining military action that has UN backing.

How do you determine the causes of an international war? Where are you going to get your information from? What is a reliable source? Is it complete, or are you only getting part of the picture?

If I recall right, most Americans, and most Australians (where I live)and most Brits supported the war in Iraq. Apparently at the time it started, most thought it was justified (not as many in Australia as in America, but the point is the same)

Disrupt the systematic killing by systematically and indiscriminately killing? Well, there’s some argument for that...if the prevailing culture/beliefs/politics/economy of the country allow it. Otherwise your actions can contribute to many more deaths than the deaths you are trying to prevent.

So how many people is it justifiable to kill (directly + indirectly), to prevent systematic killing?

Odd, most people thought it was very justified. It’s only hindsight that made those people change their minds. Funnily enough, most people still believe that our governments wouldn't lie to us about such things, even while believing that all politicians are liars...go figure.

I heard lots of people sprouting stuff about regime change, removing a murdering dictator etc.

Easy enough to convince oneself of the fact long after the fervour has died down that there wasn't popular support.

Still, 57% approving with UN backing is a majority.

Still, 57% approving with UN backing is a majority.

The American & Australian & Brittish governments pushed hard for UN backing, so most either supported or just sat back satisfied. I remember very few being dubious about the WoMD argument - most seemed to believe it.

Disrupt the systematic killing by systematically and indiscriminately killing?

Straw man fallacy. I never said anything about indiscriminate killing

So how many people is it justifiable to kill (directly + indirectly), to prevent systematic killing?

Those who attack the innocent, make themselves liable to attack. This does not mean, of course, killing with no constraint whatsoever.

Nor was it a necessary last resort even if the Saddam did have WMD's. So I'm not sure whether the populace support for the United States was even there to begin with.

Easy enough to convince oneself of the fact long after the fervour has died down that there wasn't popular support.

I am talking about Iraqi support. As soon as it became obvious there were no WMD's, and that the main justification for going to war was predicated on a fictitious lie, how do you think most Iraqi's felt? As the war progressed, and more innocents die, and you were an Iraqi civilian, what does common sense tell you how you would feel?

Do you live a very sheltered life? War, which you are talking about, involves indiscriminate killing to some degree " it’s impossible to avoid, most anywhere, but especially in an city setting.
Destroy a hospital? You’ve indirectly killed heaps. Bullets missed your target? So many will that they without doubt will take out many innocents. Being shot at from a highrise? You just sit there taking the fire for fear of hitting an innocent? Are your targets always right when you call in an airstrike? What about your intel? (obviously this part has proven flawed over and over again). Let the missile go...oh wait, a civilian is moving close to the target....Take out an electricity station? Great military strategy and will indirectly kill lots of civilians too. Cause the economy to collapse? That’ll kill people indirectly too. The list of how you directly and indirectly kill people indiscriminantly goes on and on.

Disrupt the systematic killing by systematically and indiscriminately killing?

Straw man fallacy. I never said anything about indiscriminate killing

An answer that directly avoided the question. One of the great western fallacies of western invasions (for example, for ‘regime change’) is ‘we’ don't wish to know how many more we have killed than were being killed in the country already. It keeps peoples consciences cleaner.

Keeping track of your statements would help - you directly talked about support before the invasions, and now are claiming you were talking about general support after it was found that womd did not exist.

First, I have no idea how it avoided the question.

So how many people is it justifiable to kill (directly + indirectly), to prevent systematic killing?

Like I said, when I say that humanitarian intervention is justifiable cause for war, no where do I mention anything about indiscriminate killing.

Second "great fallacies of western".....what? Third, people actually do care how many are in fact killed. Many soldiers care, which is a lot less than you can say for yourself.

Keeping track of your statements would help - you directly talked about support before the invasions, and now are claiming you were talking about general support after it was found that womd did not exist.

I never onece say there was support the Iraq invasion of 2003. Tell me where I state such a claim.

So how many people is it justifiable to kill (directly + indirectly), to prevent systematic killing?

Indiscriminate killing is an integrated part of war - War involves indiscriminate killing. You mention it by default when you talk going to war for humanitarian intervention. Are you of the belief it doesn’t?

So tell me, how many Iraqi’s are reported to have died directly and indirectly from the Iraq War? How about from the embargo’s placed on Iraq after desert storm? As a general rule, very few people know the answer to these questions...how then can you claim people (in general) do care?

You probably need to look closer at the english - I never said you made that claim. Was the general support low, high, moderate, non-existant? One can mention ‘support’ as a generality of topic, without it meaning ‘positive support’, or ‘high support’. The 3 quotes directly preceding what I said, should have been self explanatory, without me needing to say a thing " that you unfortunately cannot keep track of what you are claiming in regards to support.

So how many people is it justifiable to kill (directly + indirectly), to prevent systematic killing?

Use common sense. Depending on what is at stake, whatever is necessary, proportional, and within constraint. It obviously varies depending on the causes,and the context of the situation. What else could the answer be?

Indiscriminate killing is an integrated part of war - War involves indiscriminate killing. You mention it by default when you talk going to war for humanitarian intervention. Are you of the belief it doesn’t?

Somehow you assume that, yet make no argument to support your conclusion.

War, which you are talking about, involves indiscriminate killing to some degree " it’s impossible to avoid, most anywhere, but especially in an city setting.
Destroy a hospital? You’ve indirectly killed heaps. Bullets missed your target? So many will that they without doubt will take out many innocents. Being shot at from a highrise? You just sit there taking the fire for fear of hitting an innocent? Are your targets always right when you call in an airstrike? What about your intel? (obviously this part has proven flawed over and over again). Let the missile go...oh wait, a civilian is moving close to the target....Take out an electricity station? Great military strategy and will indirectly kill lots of civilians too. Cause the economy to collapse? That’ll kill people indirectly too. The list of how you directly and indirectly kill people indiscriminantly goes on and on.

People like to call this ‘collateral damage’...but what they mean is ‘destruction and death caused by their actions, that weren’t intended, but they did in fact cause’ Not even your own generals believe they will ever be able to stop collateral damage, so how you think anyone can is beyond me..

So tell me, how many Iraqi’s are reported to have died directly and indirectly from the Iraq War? How about from the embargo’s placed on Iraq after desert storm? As a general rule, very few people know the answer to these questions...how then can you claim people (in general) do care?

What? This makes no sense. If you are going to present an argument, be clear about it. People obviously care about who dies in war. That is common sense. Other than that, I have absolutely no clear what you are attempting to argue.

Mention it be default? What are you talking about? The point of humanitarian intervention is that stopping a genocide is a just cause for war. How war is waged is a distinctly different question.

Actually, you need to stop making hasty generalizations and misinterpreting my arguments.

The Iraq 2003 invasion was an unjustified war. It was unjustified because the cause for war, was a fictitious lie (no WMD's). The point of my argument, which you obviously misrepresent, is that support for the war, Iraqi or American, should be based on the just causes. This war has no just cause, therefore, there should be no support.

Whatever objection you are trying to make, is unclear.

****Nor was it a necessary last resort even if the Saddam did have WMD's. So I'm not sure whether the populace support for the United States was even there to begin with.

Easy enough to convince oneself of the fact long after the fervour has died down that there wasn't popular support.

This war has no just cause, therefore, there should be no support.

"Is War Justifiable?"
And if so, under what conditions?