Has there ever been a just war?

[starshiptrooper]

But if an american raped someone from another country and that country tossed a missle our way we could desimate them in response, killing thousands? Interesting.

Yes, one American raping somebody is a crime. A country that shoots a missle at us is committing an act of war. :nunchuk:

Wow that is a bit of historic revisionim. So Lincoln didn’t emancipate the slaves in America.

Lincoln did not free the slaves in the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the territory that the United States controlled. It was directed at the CSA. It was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. Lincoln however did ensure that it would be possible to do this by leading the United States to victory.

 

[tafan]

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this. Why are you arguing with me? My list provided above certainly excludes me from the peace-at-any-pricer label.

 

[CaptFun]

…Does the Church really prohibit duels?

Whoops.

Not if Catholic High School football is any indication!

(Actual interjection at my Catholic High School on “GAME DAY”) :

… now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

Teacher : “Our Lady of Victories …” :knight1::knight2:

Boy’s Class: kpeople: - "PRAY for us!"

… that is to say - "Kill Central High!"

 

[catholictiger]

Not if Catholic High School football is any indication!

(Actual interjection at my Catholic High School on “GAME DAY”) :

… now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

Teacher : “Our Lady of Victories …” :knight1::knight2:

Boy’s Class: kpeople: - "PRAY for us!"

… that is to say - "Kill Central High!"

we are the same way here at seminary. Every year we have a flag football game against the other seminary here in the state. after every practice someone yells our lady of victory and we yell Pray for US.

We lost last year after winning 4 straight years we look to take it back this year and start a new streak.

(kept names out of it for personal reasons)

 

[JIB]

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.

No, Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves. The 13th amendment ended slavery.

I wouldn’t count the confederate war deaths because they did not fight to end slavery. I also wouldn’t count Germany deaths from WW2 when counting people that died to end Nazism.

I never said the number of casualties makes a war just or unjust.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t know…I have not studied the Church’s teaching on “just war”.

Isn’t this a very important point in the context of this discussion, though? I thought we were talking about “just war” in the context of the Church’s teachings on just war theory?

As for the American Revolution-it’s another war that’s a lot more complex than it seems. Both sides made mistakes, and both sides had some legitimate points. Whether or not it was a just war is a complex question because of the variety of reasons that contributed to it-some legitimate, some misguided, and some selfish.

You have to remember that the war was not “About taxes” any more than the Civil War was about slavery. Yes, in one sense it was about taxes, and however you slice it they were a huge contributing factor, it was less about being angry about taxes and more about what that represented-the lack of an ability to try and make decisions and set up a government for their own people. Also, after the (idiotic) Boston Tea Party the British really did start acting like tyrants.

Did they have a legitimate claim to self-government? Interesting question. They had really been governing themselves for quite some time before Britain entered into the equation again to ask for taxes to fund the Napoleonic Wars. The thing is,they really were a distinct entity from that point with real differences from the British Crown. On the other hand, the Crown DID have a legitimate claim over them as a governmental body-after all, they were still technically British subjects in a British colony, so in their eyes they had every right to tax them.

Let’s also not forget the Olive Branch Petition. Some people think it was a legitimate offer of truce and peace. Others think it was a sop to the moderates. I’m not sure, but the fact remains that it was offered and was turned down, whatever the reasoning for it was.

 

[GEddie]

Isn’t this a very important point in the context of this discussion, though? I thought we were talking about “just war” in the context of the Church’s teachings on just war theory?

As for the American Revolution-it’s another war that’s a lot more complex than it seems. Both sides made mistakes, and both sides had some legitimate points. Whether or not it was a just war is a complex question because of the variety of reasons that contributed to it-some legitimate, some misguided, and some selfish.

You have to remember that the war was not “About taxes” any more than the Civil War was about slavery. Yes, in one sense it was about taxes, and however you slice it they were a huge contributing factor, it was less about being angry about taxes and more about what that represented-the lack of an ability to try and make decisions and set up a government for their own people. Also, after the (idiotic) Boston Tea Party the British really did start acting like tyrants.

Did they have a legitimate claim to self-government? Interesting question. They had really been governing themselves for quite some time before Britain entered into the equation again to ask for taxes to fund the Napoleonic Wars. The thing is,they really were a distinct entity from that point with real differences from the British Crown. On the other hand, the Crown DID have a legitimate claim over them as a governmental body-after all, they were still technically British subjects in a British colony, so in their eyes they had every right to tax them.

Let’s also not forget the Olive Branch Petition. Some people think it was a legitimate offer of truce and peace. Others think it was a sop to the moderates. I’m not sure, but the fact remains that it was offered and was turned down, whatever the reasoning for it was.

Methinks you have the years slightly garbled; the colonial policies of Britain in 1773 were not related to the Napoleonic wars. The French Revolution had not yet occurred.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Methinks you have the years slightly garbled; the colonial policies of Britain in 1773 were not related to the Napoleonic wars. The French Revolution had not yet occurred.

ICXC NIKA

You’re right I think, I’m thinking of the Seven Years War which manifested in the colonies as the French and Indian War. At least, I’m pretty sure this time…

Thanks.

 

[CaptFun]

we are the same way here at seminary. Every year we have a flag football game against the other seminary here in the state. after every practice someone yells our lady of victory and we yell Pray for US. <AH! You were supposed to just* THINK* that. It must be PRAY for us - as Our Lady loves to pray but doesn’t cotton to favoritism. uch:

We lost last year after winning 4 straight years we look to take it back this year and start a new streak.

(kept names out of it for personal reasons)

LOL a Just War is more certain against a “public school” (though one must not cheat).

Your story reminded me of our 5th grade “Pagan Baby WAR”.

My Catholic school dealt with its most rambunctious boys with creative seating. In a class of 60 (!) Rows 1,3,4, and 6 were girls - rows 2 and 5 were boys. This kept boys from sitting next to one another and cracking each other up etc.

“We” were also “outnumbered” two-to-one which brought out some competitiveness.

There was a large chart on the wall for supporting “The Missions”. Little paths snaked toward a “goal” at the top of the chart. Little “steps” at 5 cents each got a team closer to the goal - which was to save Pagan Babies by getting them baptised.

Boys were RED. Girls were BLUE. For months, due to their numbers the girls were way ahead. We paid scant attention until the girls reached the goal FIRST. And a certificate was put on the wall. And they got to pick a NAME for the saved baby - who was of course a girl!

WELL. Boys will be boys. The contest was ON. For such a high goal … the cost of milk money might be overstated to parents with the overage going toward RED bricks on the Pagan Baby trail. We caught UP. And named our baby boy ***WOLFGANG! ***(hey, he was a saint!).

After THAT every uncashed empty pop bottle refund or lost coin in a couch was sent Aftrica way by suburban Catholic boys - saving infant souls at a rate dwarfing those goody two shoe GIRLS.

The girls caught our competitiveness (to our admiration actually) - but when one boy
gave his $5 of birthday money and bought his OWN pagan baby in one fell swoop - we “lapped” the girls and won what is still perhaps the male sex’s greatest oppositional victory of all time (or does pre-puberty even count)?

It was considered the ultimate sacrifice at the time - but the kid who did it wasn’t likely to ever catch the winning touchdown … yet was treated with a bit of awe by classmates of either sex ever after!

That “treasure in heaven” speech of Jesus’ had us convinced the kid was a saint too. :extrahappy:

It was a war. It MUST have been JUST, right? Now if we can just get the UN to save pagan babies. Or even just stop letting them be killed in stupid abortions.

 

[CaptFun]

No, Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves. The 13th amendment ended slavery.

I wouldn’t count the confederate war deaths because they did not fight to end slavery. I also wouldn’t count Germany deaths from WW2 when counting people that died to end Nazism.

I never said the number of casualties makes a war just or unjust.

Your point about the 13th is a legal one. But at the time Lincoln made his declaration (and America was legally founded by one of those - due to its win in its war) - he was commander in chief of a country at war and (officially or just ACTUALLY) was under military occupation and rule in whatever “slave state” it controlled. Eventually all of them. *****

The 13th more or less ratified what was a fait accompli.

Which doesn’t make you wrong of course - except perhaps if you thought Lincoln’s declaration was a mere speech or rhetoric. It had POWER and effected the freedom with instant military enforcement where Union troops ruled.

As interesting as your point about the 13th Amendment is … one must ponder in this age where the Supreme Court seems to be the final word that the “Dred Scott Decision” (which ruled that a black slave was property before being human - rather like an unborn baby today) *** - HAS NEVER BEEN REVERSED!

---

I personally believe that yes, there have been just wars. But also injustices within them. And we must be wary of war or justifying ourselves.

Self-defense is always an option open to us - but killing out of necessity and regretfully (like a doctor who must operate on a pregnant woman - and the trauma of it causes her to lose her child in the collateral damage of saving her) is part of morality. Revenge and hatred are not of the Lord. Nor profiteering and pillage.

Saying “There’s no such thing as a just war!” goes too far IMO - but those who say such things probably won’t start an unjust war - so are more friend than enemy to me, even if we disagree on the intellectual thing.

***** - paragraph tied the Guiness Book of World Records for most phrases in parenthesis!

 

[Jocko_VT]

You’re right I think, I’m thinking of the Seven Years War which manifested in the colonies as the French and Indian War. At least, I’m pretty sure this time…

Thanks.

This is definitely correct. And after generations of salutary neglect fro England, the post-war meddling provoked some serious backlash.

 

[CaptFun]

How in the world were Korea and Vietnam just?

Korea - Keeping our part of a treaty. Defending defenseless nations against aggression as had not been done by the useless League of Nations when Fascist Italy invaded peaceful Ethiopia in the 1930s.

North Korea backed by the Soviet Union’s arms and equipment nakedly invaded the peaceful South and the UN condemned it and ordered the north to back off. They didn’t. Russia walked out of the UN in protest, and the rest of the countries voted to intervene. Mc Arthur saw that the UN troops were almost run off the Peninsula by the time he took over - so he invaded at Inchon, defeated the Communist army and took over the entire peninsula up to the Chinese border.

Some halfway sympathetic to the new Mao Chinese Communist Government folks in the US Defense Department (IMO but due to evidence I saw) ordered Mc Arthur not to bomb the bridges over the Yalu River (as this would be a “provocation” of Red China) and when he didn’t in came SCADS of so called Chinese “volunteers” that routed the Americans until they held the line near today’s DMZ. Eisenhower two years later negotiated a cease fire that exists today. The war (technically) isn’t over.

WHAT might NOT be so just was negotiating away the freedom of those areas the Chinese took into slavery (North Korea).

Vietnam - another treaty broken by the Communists but honored by us to our SEATO ally, the free country of South Vietnam. It was just to keep our promise to those who could not defend themselves against aggression (rather like Kuwait, except the Communists fought a phony guerilla war they passed off as a revolution - as if the Viet Cong had factories or grew sophisticated arms on trees!).

Richard Nixon succeeded Kennedy and Johnson, and continued to prosecute the war, but promised “Peace with Honor”. He eliminated the draft bit by bit (reducing it first to a lottery and only drafting SOME of the eligible 18 year olds - of which I was one who was able to keep a student deferment). He pulled troops back home bit by bit in a strategy called “Vietnamization” turning over security to the native people. Like we are doing today in the Middle East. He negotiated a peace treaty that got our POWs back-- for total withdrawal of US troops in January of 1973. And North Vietnam violated the treaty once the US left.

The US perhaps ought to have come back and routed the (then) nakedly invading North Vietnamese Regular Army - but congress and the Senate did not support that as they were busy trying to impeach Nixon for not helping them prosecute the Watergate burglars to their taste.

Communist atrocities equalling anything that justified other wars made a graveyard of South Vietnam and Cambodia. But Communists must not be criticized some say … THAT would be against PEACE!

** I COULD say that Vietnam WAS unjust -** but probably for OPPOSITE reasons than those oft heard – i.e. ** “WE** were against ***‘the people’ ***” garbage one hears. In World War II - our soldiers were drafted and risked their lives - but were allowed to “win”. End Nazism, and Fascism, and Imperialism by the Empire of Japan. Victory.

In Vietnam (especially) somehow drafting soldiers to be perpetual sitting ducks for whatever guerilla attack was being cooked up seemed to be OK. There was no march to Hanoi or Haiphong. However when we finally bombed those critical cities the enemy released our POWs and signed the “peace treaty”.

These things said - it IS not bad to question ourselves regarding “just wars”. But if I meet a Korean or Vietnam vet - or a Gulf War Vet, I will consider them first as defenders of others and people of honor. America “took over” not one square YARD of any of those countries (excepting embassies - and whatever bases the host nation asked us to use to protect them).

The title of this thread is a question. But it’s a pacifists question. Pacifism is not necessarily virtuous in all cases. It can be cowardly, foolhardy, selfish and traitorous (surrendering to evil) at times.

All the spiritual battles of the Bible become wrong if pacifism is an absolute. Jesus gave evil its hour on the day he became the ultimate pacifist (pacifism is not always WRONG either !) on the day He let himself be crucified. And there were times when he rebuked those who used the sword (Peter - and those who later would “live by the sword”). But He also told his disciples to sell a cloak or two and have a sword handy (for some reason - hmm - what would you need a sword for?).

St. Paul fought the good fight and spoke of wearing spiritual armor. St. Michael battled Satan. Jesus Himself leads an army against evil in the book of Revelation (when He comes as the Lion instead of the Lamb). The book ENDS with peace and mercy though, so … it is good to always discern each case in the Holy Spirit and be led by His truth.

PHEW - nice to end on an UP note! In the end, for those who are saved, ETERNAL Peace! :heaven: :extrahappy:

 

[andrewstx]

Personally I think the last just war was WWII.

Korea and Vietnam to me were fought defending extreme right dictators from equally evil communist dicators. I think there were no “good guys” in those two.

 

[JerryZ]

to continue my own disucssion on this

Actually Hitler was the one that started the war if I remember my history correctly, he, I mean the Germans invaded Poland just hours after the British PM Chamberlain had returned to UK showing, waiving the peace treate he had signed with Hitler.
The ink was barely dry and the Germans attacked Poland.
So true and true Hitler was the agressor as well as other things.

 

[JerryZ]

Personally I think the last just war was WWII.

Korea and Vietnam to me were fought defending extreme right dictators from equally evil communist dicators. I think there were no “good guys” in those two.

Well Communism IS evil, hello! no religion allowed. What am I saying you would not be able to voice your opinions on those regimes.
How many people did Stalin and Mao kill of their own people?
Not to mention Pol Pot.

 

[sedonaman]

…
How many people did Stalin and Mao kill of their own people?
Not to mention Pol Pot.

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

 

[exnihilo]

Actually Hitler was the one that started the war if I remember my history correctly, he, I mean the Germans invaded Poland just hours after the British PM Chamberlain had returned to UK showing, waiving the peace treate he had signed with Hitler.
The ink was barely dry and the Germans attacked Poland.
So true and true Hitler was the agressor as well as other things.

Hitler did indeed invade Poland. What is most strange about WWII is that the Soviets invaded Poland just sixteen days after the Germans. The British and French declared war on Germany based on the fact they had an alliance with Poland for mutual defense. What is odd is that they did not declare war on the Soviets but rather allied with them.

The more I’ve studied WWII the more I’ve realized this was not the great holy war it was made out to be. In the end we gave half of Europe to the Soviets who were brutal murderers with a particular hatred of Christianity. It seems to me the Soviets were the most evil country in the war and the US, Britain and France supported them.

 

[andrewstx]

Well Communism IS evil, hello! no religion allowed. What am I saying you would not be able to voice your opinions on those regimes.
How many people did Stalin and Mao kill of their own people?
Not to mention Pol Pot.

I said “equally evil”, thats not good enough?

But radical right dictatorships are also evil and have killed their own citizens as well. Hitler I remind you was a far right dictator. In Germany there was no freedom of speach and children spied on their own parents.

And more recently a bishop was slaughted at the altar by a right-wing dictatorship.

I dislike all dictatorships equally, they are all in my estimation evil.

 

[GEddie]

I said “equally evil”, thats not good enough?

But radical right dictatorships are also evil and have killed their own citizens as well. Hitler I remind you was a far right dictator. In Germany there was no freedom of speach and children spied on their own parents.

And more recently a bishop was slaughted at the altar by a right-wing dictatorship.

I dislike all dictatorships equally, they are all in my estimation evil.

Indeed.

And the Axis attacked first; and the Western world had no hope of surviving a war against both the Axis and the CCCP together.

No, the Allied leadership were not angels and WW2 was not a holy crusade. It was just nations with still a remnant of human dignity and freedom, versus nations with none at all, doing what they needed to to survive.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

No, the Allied leadership were not angels and WW2 was not a holy crusade. It was just nations with still a remnant of human dignity and freedom, versus nations with none at all, doing what they needed to to survive.

ICXC NIKA

And for that reason it was as just a war as a war fought by fallible, sinful, flawed human beings can be on the part of the Allies. War itself, as Augustine once said, is a result of the Fall.

And I am very glad that it was fought and that because of it we have a democratic Japan, Italy and Germany today with excellent human rights records, freedom of speech etc. and the menace of the horrendous ideologies of Nazi racialism, Italian fascism and State Shinto are gone forever. All thanks to the sacrifices of Allied men and women.

Although of course, it was totally unjust from the German and Japanse perspective ie

“…Hitler’s war, unfortunately, is not a just war and therefore God’s blessing cannot be upon it…”

- Vatican Radio, October 6th 1940

The Church opposition to Nazism, the Nazi occupation of Poland, its solidarity with Poland etc. all come together to confirm that the Allied cause was a just defense against an unjust aggression, and therefore as ‘just’ a war as sinful humanity could wage, even though all war is immoral in another sense (since innocents will always perish and great suffering and destruction will always ensue).

In my honest opinion, if World War II cannot be called a war with a just cause on the part of the Allies then the answer to this thread’s question is, no, there has never been a just war since I doubt that the world will ever see a man quite like Adolf Hitler ever again, nor do we find Nazism and Imperial Japanese State Shinto often in the annals of history.