Has there ever been a just war?

[Vouthon]

Brother/sister Tafan,

I would question Vietnam as having a just cause. I certainly do not consider it to have been a Just War

World War I is extremely complex. I think that it could easily have been avoided if only world leaders had exhausted all possible diplomatic efforts to resolve regional disputes. In this respect I support Pope Benedict XV’s neutrality during the war. It was in many respects a useless slaughter, however the atrocities committed by the Central Powers either closely before or during the war (ie the Herero Genocide in 1908 committed by Germany and the Armenian Genocide committed by Turkey during the war) are crimes against humanity not equivalent in any way to actions taken by the Allied Powers. On the other hand though, one of the Central Powers - Austria-Hungary - was led by Blessed Karl of Austria who was the only world leader on either side to condemn the use of posion gas. So its not cut and dried however I am not certain whether the war was just or unjust on the part of the Allies. Certainly, Germany had been expanding its Empire in Africa and the Kaiser had a radically aggressive foreign policy which exacerbated tensions and helped cause the war. All the Powers must share blame (even Great Britain had a navy build up), however I am glad that Germany and the Ottoman Empire did not win the war, and in my opinion the biggest share of blame lies with Imperial Germany whose Kaiser was positively gagging for war.

If you want to know why just check up the Hererro Genocide of 1908: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide

On 2 October 1908, General Von Trotha issued a warning to the Herero people who were under German colonial rule:

“…I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Hereros. The Hereros are German subjects no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer. I announce to the people that whoever hands me one of the chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000 marks for Samuel Maherero. The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the ‘long tube’ (cannon). Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people…believe that the nation as such should be annihilated, or, if this was not possible by tactical measures, have to be expelled from the country…This will be possible if the water-holes from Grootfontein to Gobabis are occupied. The constant movement of our troops will enable us to find the small groups of nation who have moved backwards and destroy them gradually…"

Jan Cloete, acting as a guide for the Germans, witnessed the atrocities committed by the German troops and deposed the following statement:

“I was present when the Herero were defeated in a battle in the vicinity of Waterberg. After the battle all men, women, and children who fell into German hands, wounded or otherwise, were mercilessly put to death. Then the Germans set off in pursuit of the rest, and all those found by the wayside and in the sandveld were shot down and bayoneted to death. The mass of the Herero men were unarmed and thus unable to offer resistance. They were just trying to get away with their cattle.”

Trotha argued that there was no need to make exceptions for Herero women and children, since these would “infect German troops with their diseases”, the insurrection Trotha explained “is and remains the beginning of a racial struggle”. German soldiers regularly raped young Herero women before killing them or letting them die in the desert.

Survivors, majority of whom were women and children, were eventually put in concentration camps, such as that at Shark Island, where the German authorities forced them to work as slave labor for German military and settlers, all prisoners were categorized into groups fit and unfit for work, and pre-printed death certificates indicating “death by exhaustion following privation” were issued. The British government published their well-known account of the German genocide of the Nama and Herero peoples in 1918.

Many Herero died later of disease, overwork and malnutrition. Eugen Fischer, a German scientist, came to the concentration camps to conduct medical experiments on race, using children of Herero people and mulatto children of Herero women and German men as test subjects. Together with Theodor Mollison he also experimented upon Herero prisoners. Those experiments included sterilization, injection of smallpox, typhus as well as tuberculosis.

It is argued that the Herero genocide set a precedent in Imperial Germany to be later followed by Nazi Germany’s establishment of death camps…Mahmood Mamdani argues that the links between the Holocaust and the Herero Genocide are beyond the execution of an annihilation policy and the establishment of concentration camps and that there are ideological similarities in the conduct of both genocides. Focusing on a written statement by General Trotha translated as:

“I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood… Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.”

Mamdani takes note of the similarity between the aims of the General and the Nazis. According to Mamdani in both cases there was a Social Darwinist notion of “cleansing” after which “something new” would "emerge.

(continued…)

 

[JIB]

Those are completely no-brainers.

In both cases, there was a communist invasion and we were coming to the defense of nations being invaded.

to go down the list of requirements in the catechism (paragrph 2309)

1. Looking at the history of the evil that followed in every country which suffered a communist takeover, it was certain the damage to South Vietnam and South Korea would be lasting,grave, and certain.
2. There was no hope of non-violent resolution of the conflicts
3. There was certainly a prospect for success in both cases (eventually realized in Korea, not in Vietnam)
4. The evils of communism certainly made a war a proportional response.

The only argument against these wars being just falls along the lines “it was not our war”. That, in and of itself, has never been held to be a Catholic position against a just war. It has always been recognized that one nation can legitimately come to the defense of another when the 4 basic restrictions are met.

What about proportionality, malum en se (agent orange, napalm), and distinguishing between military and civilians?

Over a million civilians were killed in North Vietnam. *Most *people killed in North Vietnam were civilians. Then you have the lasting effects of agent orange on the populace.

Don’t forget My Lai or any of the other atrocities against civilians.

 

[Vouthon]

And on the Armenian Genocide: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

The Armenian Genocide also known as the Armenian Holocaust, was the Ottoman government’s systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland within the territory of the present-day Republic of Turkey. It took place during and after World War I and was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert. The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. The Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy.

It is acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides, as scholars point to the organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians, and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust. The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events…the Ottoman military uprooted Armenians from their homes and forced them to march for hundreds of miles, depriving them of food and water, to the desert of what is now Syria. Massacres were indiscriminate of age or gender, with rape and other sexual abuse commonplac

The Turks crucified, drowned and burned people.

The Armenian Genocide inspired Hitler.

See this Daily Mail article from 2007: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479143/The-forgotten-Holocaust-The-Armenian-massacre-inspired-Hitler.html

While the brunt of the genocide fell upon the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Armenian Catholics would see 19 eparchies, 156 churches and chapels, 110 missions, 148 schools, 32 monasteries and convents and six seminaries destroyed. 7 bishops, 130 priests and 47 nuns and as many as 100,000 Armenian Catholics died, including Blessed Ignatius Maloyan. Most Armenian Catholics would flee Turkey for Lebanon and Syria. The Armenian Catholic Patriarchate would be transferred to Bzoummar, Lebanon.

The Martyrdom of Blessed Bishop Ignatius Maloyan (from the Vatican website):

*On June 3, 1915, Turkish soldiers dragged Bishop Maloyan in chains to court with twenty seven other Armenian Catholic personalities. The next day, twenty five priests and eight hundred and sixty two believers were held in chains. During trial, the chief of the police, Mamdooh Bek, asked the Bishop to convert to Islam. The bishop answered that he would never betray Christ and His Church. The good shepherd told him that he was ready to suffer all kinds of ill-treatments and even death and in this will be his happiness.

Mamdooh Bek hit him on the head with the rear of his pistol and ordered to put him in jail. The soldiers chained his feet and hands, threw him on the ground and hit him mercilessly. With each blow, the Bishop was heard saying “Oh Lord, have mercy on me, oh Lord, give me strength”, and asked the priests present for absolution. With that, the soldiers went back to hitting him and they extracted his toe nails.

On June 9, his mother visited him and cried for his state. But the valiant Bishop encouraged her. On the next day, the soldiers gathered four hundred and forty seven Armenians. The soldiers along with the convoys took the desert route.

The bishop encouraged his parishioners to remain firm in their faith. Then all knelt with him. He prayed to God that they accept martyrdom with patience and courage. The priests granted the believers absolution. The Bishop took out a piece of bread, blessed it, recited the words of the Eucharist and gave it to his priests to distribute among the people.

One of the soldiers, an eye witness, recounted this scene: “That hour, I saw a cloud covering the prisoners and from all emitted a perfumed scent. There was a look of joy and serenity on their faces”. As they were all going to die out of love for Jesus. After a two-hour walk, hungry, naked and chained, the soldiers attacked the prisoners and killed them before the Bishop’s eyes. After the massacre of the two convoys came the turn of Bishop Maloyan.

Mamdooh Bek then asked Maloyan again to convert to Islam. The soldier of Christ answered: “I’ve told you I shall live and die for the sake of my faith and religion. I take pride in the Cross of my God and Lord”. Mamdooh got very angry, he drew his pistol and shot Maloyan. Before he breathed his last breath he cried out loud: “My God, have mercy on me; into your hands I commend my spirit”.*

This is a photograph of innocent Armenian Christian women who were crucified in mock imitation of Christ during the Genocide:

http://www.turkishforum.com.tr/en/content/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/image007.jpg

I would have been sincerely worried by a German or Ottoman victory in World War I.

What Germany and Turkey did respectively to the Herero/Namaqua people and the Armenian/Greek Pontic and other Christians of the Ottoman Empire, was completely horrendous.

Coupled with the aggressive German foreign policy, and the danger of a resurgent Islamic Caliphate (Ottomans) which declared Jihad on the West, I think that although World War I was a catastrophe that could and should have been avoided, the Allied Powers had more moral cause to defeat the Central Powers rather than the reverse.

There is a myth that Germany was not dangerous or racist prior to the Nazi era and people often defend the Ottoman Turks. I see things a little differently.

 

[tafan]

Vouthon:

I would question Vietnam as having a just cause. I certainly do not consider it to have been a Just War

Why? Which criteria was not met?

As to WWI, yes certainly a complicated case, but it was unjust from ALL sides.

 

[tafan]

What about proportionality, malum en se (agent orange, napalm), and distinguishing between military and civilians?

Over a million civilians were killed in North Vietnam. *Most *people killed in North Vietnam were civilians. Then you have the lasting effects of agent orange on the populace.

Don’t forget My Lai or any of the other atrocities against civilians.

I did not say it was executed it a just fashion. I explicitly stated I was justifying the case, not the method of the various wars. IMO, you will not find any single war in history that was executed in a completely just fashion, by any side. War is hell, and we are a fallen rallen race, it is unreasonable to expect a war to be completely morally executed by every participant. That does not make all wars wrong to have taken place.

 

[tabycat]

Switzerland practices national defense. The usa has bases all around the globe and gets in wars all over the place even if not directly attacked. National defense, it seems to me, is to prepare and be prepared in the event of an attack…not to stick military bases all around the globe. So if we practiced national defense we would mind our own business while preparing and being prepared should we be attacked. I think the us military does just a tad more than that with it’s budget and it’s practices. Does that make any sense

I know where to put a military base that gets closed overseas: your backyard. Then you will be nice and safe from everyone.

 

[CaptFun]

For the most part God does not command a war (as below). It is to be remembered that Jesus Christ is the “way, the truth, and the life …” but also the “resurrection.”

So if HE commands a war - He can raise back up the (now punished justly) people he condemned in the flesh to whatever eternal reward they might have upon purification.

It is appointed for all men to die, then comes judgement, it is said.

In THIS case death (which of course would have come to all the Amalekites somehow by now - and came to even the victorious Israelites later) came via a command of God to his
Holy People. The war was JUST because of its obedience to God’s command. In fact it was JUSTICE that was done according to what God was telling Samuel.

In this case, and this will horrify some, Saul’s seeming “mercy” or pragmatism - his deviation from the plan of God actually - is condemned and (in what will further horrify others of the popular mindset - it horrified ME, though I can be instructed) God’s prophet Samuel executes what seems to be a helpless prisoner. Albeit that Agag had done so to people himself and perhaps didn’t deserve BETTER than his subjects who were less guilty.

God of course can resurrect and forgive and reward whom He will. Man cannot, so
lightly considering things a “Just War” might be just as dangerous as NOT fighting a “Just War” (or fighting one badly as Saul seems to have done - though humanly, I’ll confess that he seemed to do MOST of what was commanded yet displeased God by changing things on his own).

There may be other examples in the Bible. Self-defense is of course just, since it takes just one side (an aggressor) to make a war. Surrender to aggressors is not a commandment (though Jesus did it on the day of His passion - and on a personal level one may turn the other cheek).

Can a nation turn the other cheek and not defend its citizens from evil aggression, extermination or slavery? This is almost a counter-question to that above - and may be no easier to answer.

1 Samuel Chapter 15

1 Samuel said to Saul: "It was I the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the LORD.

2 This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.

3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’"

(Scripture continued in next posting - hold on to your hat!)

 

[sedonaman]

I would argue it from a couple of stand points. First of all, it was a war against taxes. Now, this could still be justified, certainly the English were trying to impose onerous taxes and trade restrictions on the American colonies. However, the imposition of these taxes were largely an over reaction to the fact that colonial trade was completely untaxed and/or the colonists were ignoring all of the taxes. More importantly, it is not clear at all that all other means of resolving the disputes had been exhausted. There were certainly political parties in England who wanted to resolve the problems in a more fair fashion, but the colonists largely wanted to just pay no taxes (although they certainly had a large advantage tax wise over English based merchants). OTOH, theEnglish were certainly stupid in the entire affair and conducting policies that were completely against their own self-interest.

Well, the Declaration of Independence lists a lot more than taxes as reasons to sever ties. But as long as you mentioned taxes, why did the crown place an import tax on products from the colonies if they were suppose to be part of the British Empire? Then there is the question of what the colonies got for paying the taxes.

 

[CaptFun]

**(Scripture Continued from previous) **

1 Samuel Chapter 15

1

Samuel said to Saul: "It was I the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the LORD.

2

This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.

3

1 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’"

4

2 Saul alerted the soldiers, and at Telaim reviewed two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.

5

Saul went to the city of Amalek, and after setting an ambush in the wadi,

6

warned the Kenites: “Come! Leave Amalek and withdraw, that I may not have to destroy you with them, for you were kind to the Israelites when they came up from Egypt.” After the Kenites left,

7

Saul routed Amalek from Havilah to the approaches of Shur, on the frontier of Egypt.

8

He took Agag, king of Amalek, alive, but on the rest of the people he put into effect the ban of destruction by the sword.

9

He and his troops spared Agag and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to carry out the doom on anything that was worthwhile, dooming only what was worthless and of no account.

10

Then the LORD spoke to Samuel:

11

3 “I regret having made Saul king, for he has turned from me and has not kept my command.” At this Samuel grew angry and cried out to the LORD all night.

12

Early in the morning he went to meet Saul, but was informed that Saul had gone to Carmel, where he erected a trophy in his own honor, and that on his return he had passed on and gone down to Gilgal.

13

When Samuel came to him, Saul greeted him: “The LORD bless you! I have kept the command of the LORD.”

14

But Samuel asked, “What, then, is the meaning of this bleating of sheep that comes to my ears, and the lowing of oxen that I hear?”

15

Saul replied: “They were brought from Amalek. The men spared the best sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the LORD, your God; but we have carried out the ban on the rest.”

16

Samuel said to Saul: “Stop! Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” “Speak!” he replied.

17

Samuel then said: "Though little in your own esteem, are you not leader of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king of Israel

18

and sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and put the sinful Amalekites under a ban of destruction. Fight against them until you have exterminated them.’

19

Why then have you disobeyed the LORD? You have pounced on the spoil, thus displeasing the LORD."

20

Saul answered Samuel: "I did indeed obey the LORD and fulfill the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought back Agag, and I have destroyed Amalek under the ban.

21

But from the spoil the men took sheep and oxen, the best of what had been banned, to sacrifice to the LORD their God in Gilgal."

22

4 But Samuel said: "Does the LORD so delight in holocausts and sacrifices as in obedience to the command of the LORD? Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission than the fat of rams.

23

For a sin like divination is rebellion, and presumption is the crime of idolatry. Because you have rejected the command of the LORD, he, too, has rejected you as ruler."

24

Saul replied to Samuel: "I have sinned, for I have disobeyed the command of the LORD and your instructions. In my fear of the people, I did what they said.

25

Now forgive my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD."

26

But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, because you rejected the command of the LORD and the LORD rejects you as king of Israel.”

27

As Samuel turned to go, Saul seized a loose end of his mantle, and it tore off.

28

So Samuel said to him: "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.

29

The Glory of Israel neither retracts nor repents, for he is not man that he should repent."

30

But he answered: “I have sinned, yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel. Return with me that I may worship the LORD your God.”

31

And so Samuel returned with him, and Saul worshiped the LORD.

32

Afterward Samuel commanded, “Bring Agag, king of Amalek, to me.” Agag came to him struggling and saying, “So it is bitter death!”

33

And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” Then he cut Agag down before the LORD in Gilgal.

34

Samuel departed for Ramah, while Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul.

35

Never again, as long as he lived, did Samuel see Saul. Yet he grieved over Saul, because the LORD regretted having made him king of Israel.

 

[GEddie]

Switzerland practices national defense. The usa has bases all around the globe and gets in wars all over the place even if not directly attacked. National defense, it seems to me, is to prepare and be prepared in the event of an attack…not to stick military bases all around the globe. So if we practiced national defense we would mind our own business while preparing and being prepared should we be attacked. I think the us military does just a tad more than that with it’s budget and it’s practices. Does that make any sense?

Or we could use a sports analogy. You can be on the offensive or on the defensive. But if there is no game happening one can focus on practicing defense to improve the teams defense to have the defense ready if and when they ever have a game.

Except that in sports, if you train only defense, there is no point in ever playing a game, because you are not prepared to win.

In the same way, if you are not prepared offensively with an armed force, you might be able to hold off any attacker, but you cannot win a war. To do that, you have to make the enemy cease and desist, on your terms.

Switzerland is an inland nation. They have no alternative but to fight on their soil. USA is a coastal nation. We can wait to fight in our coastal cities, or we can use ships and planes to carry the fight to the enemy. For this country, “the best defense is a good offense.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[tafan]

Well, the Declaration of Independence lists a lot more than taxes as reasons to sever ties. But as long as you mentioned taxes, why did the crown place an import tax on products from the colonies if they were suppose to be part of the British Empire? Then there is the question of what the colonies got for paying the taxes.

Well, the Declaration of Indepence occurred after the start of the war. In general, the disputes resolved around trade restrictions and taxes. And I am not saying those taxes or laws were just; just that the evils they entailed did not justify warfare and that all non violent means of resolving them were exhausted.

 

[sedonaman]

Switzerland practices national defense. The usa has bases all around the globe and gets in wars all over the place even if not directly attacked. National defense, it seems to me, is to prepare and be prepared in the event of an attack…not to stick military bases all around the globe. So if we practiced national defense we would mind our own business while preparing and being prepared should we be attacked. I think the us military does just a tad more than that with it’s budget and it’s practices. Does that make any sense?

Or we could use a sports analogy. You can be on the offensive or on the defensive. But if there is no game happening one can focus on practicing defense to improve the teams defense to have the defense ready if and when they ever have a game.

Do you not really understand the difference between defense and offense? And are you not capable of extrapolating that understanding to the military? That seems odd to me.

Of course I do, but what’s wrong with making sure mine is the same as yours?

What you have described is what the U.S. practiced between WW-I and -II, sometimes called isolationism. This works as long as there are no Hitler wannabees around. But it can also be viewed as a form of appeasement if there are. The Japanese started their conquest of Asia in the early 1930s, and the U.S. did little more than place an embargo on them until the attack on Pearl Harbor changed everything. The do-nothing attitude we communicated told them we wouldn’t miss a few islands here and there, so it actually started a war instead of preventing one.

I am reminded of a story of and American general and a British general in NATO having a discussion in which the Brit said, “The trouble with you Americans is you have no historical perspective.” The American responded that after WW-I and before WW-II the U.S. had no say in European affairs, and it took Europeans only 20 years to start another war; but after WW-II it had a great deal to say, and 65 years later there still has been no European war. The U.S. doesn’t just go into another country and tell it we are going to build a base [that’s an invasion]. The host country has to agree to it, and a Status of Forces Agreement is drawn up. So it is not the presence of our military bases that necessarily causes conflict, it’s just that people are no damned good. :sad_yes:

 

[sedonaman]

… all non violent means of resolving them were exhausted.

You know what? The “last resort” test has been much mis-used and abused. Suppose the resolution for the Iraq War, for example, had been written on the underside of a rock on the planet Pluto. Would the Just War Doctrine require we launch a mission to Pluto and find that rock? Of course not, so the “last resort” has to be the last reasonable resort. After all, one side can always ask for another meeting, without the intention of solving anything.

 

[tafan]

You know what? The “last resort” test has been much mis-used and abused. Suppose the resolution for the Iraq War, for example, had been written on the underside of a rock on the planet Pluto. Would the Just War Doctrine require we launch a mission to Pluto and find that rock? Of course not, so the “last resort” has to be the last reasonable resort. After all, one side can always ask for another meeting, without the intention of solving anything.

I don’t disagree with this. And looking at it from a historical perspective is also not necessarily a fair way to judge past leaders, who were evaluating these issues in real time.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t disagree with this. And looking at it from a historical perspective is also not necessarily a fair way to judge past leaders, who were evaluating these issues in real time.

The point is there are always other “resorts” that can be considered, but are they reasonable? I have never gotten an answer to this question and never will, because once a peace-at-any-pricer says we have to do “X” and we do “X” but it solves nothing, the “last resort” excuse loses its usefulness.

HST, let me try a different approach by contrasting two contemporaries. Neville Chamberlain was a seasoned politician and diplomat with lots of experience. What was Hitler? A lowly uneducated peasant paper-hanger, but he outmaneuvered Chamberlain. How? By all accounts, Chamberlain should have been the much smarter of the two.

 

[FaithBuild18]

…Does the Church really prohibit duels?

Whoops.

 

[Bill_7154]

I know where to put a military base that gets closed overseas: your backyard. Then you will be nice and safe from everyone.

If anyone invades this country, or any country in which I live, I am pretty certain of one thing. That they are not coming for MY stuff. They may come for the white house, they may come for Bill Gates Stuff or Warren Buffet’s stuff, but they are going to ignore MY stuff. So this is why I do not even fear a foreign invasion.

Should one happen, I would take up arms to defend the lives of myself, my family, and others should they be in jeapordy…but they are not coming to ‘sack’ or ‘plunder’ my goods or lands or belongings. Hence, I don’t fear invasion at all. Plus I simply am content in my prayer with God as my Lord and Savior so in general do not think of wars or violence or fear of such things.

I have been the victim of violent crime, but I do not ‘fear’ this either. In fact I have been the victime of violent crime more than once. And still do not fear it. I fear things most people don’t fear, and don’t fear most things that most people do fear.

So I think that the troops are going to keep marching by where I live and go for the nice big houses with lots of gold and jewels. Not my measly belongings.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Except that in sports, if you train only defense, there is no point in ever playing a game, because you are not prepared to win.

In the same way, if you are not prepared offensively with an armed force, you might be able to hold off any attacker, but you cannot win a war. To do that, you have to make the enemy cease and desist, on your terms.

Switzerland is an inland nation. They have no alternative but to fight on their soil. USA is a coastal nation. We can wait to fight in our coastal cities, or we can use ships and planes to carry the fight to the enemy. For this country, “the best defense is a good offense.”

ICXC NIKA

To effectively train defense you must use offensive strategies. So those engaged in the training, assuming they rotate roles, get trained in offense and defensive strategies while still focusing on defense. This is correct, isn’t it?

Of course we could train more effectively for offense by waging war with everyone and their mother…but I don’t think that would be neighborly.

 

[JerryZ]

False on so many levels.

First, 622,000 was the total number of deaths. I don’t think the Southerners were giving their lives to end slavery.

The war was fought to keep the South in the union. Lincoln said himself in his inaugural address that he’d support an amendment keeping slavery. He just wanted the Southerners to keep paying their taxes. Lincoln only used slavery as a political tool to gain support when he needed it. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily issued to keep European powers out of the war. The end of slavery was a by product of the war, not the justification for starting it.

Wow that is a bit of historic revisionim. So Lincoln didn’t emancipate the slaves in America. As for your casualty number why would you not count the other side deaths? did they not die as a result of that war?
The number of casualties does not make a war just or unjust.

 

[GEddie]

You know what? The “last resort” test has been much mis-used and abused. Suppose the resolution for the Iraq War, for example, had been written on the underside of a rock on the planet Pluto. Would the Just War Doctrine require we launch a mission to Pluto and find that rock? Of course not, so the “last resort” has to be the last reasonable resort. After all, one side can always ask for another meeting, without the intention of solving anything.

Going to Pluto would indeed have been reasonable, as it would have cost far less financially, and infinitely less humanly, than fighting.

ICXC NIKA