When was war justified?

Discussion in 'History' started by Betrayer0fHope, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Facts are never clear. I know, that's a contradiction right? There is evidence to suggest a lot of things, and sifting through, and making a judgement is history.
    Those who create history are human, and are biased and make errors. Yet you say
    How can that be ? When the people who write the facts are flawed, can we really call them facts anymore?
    The debate is in deciding what facts are right. Who was the most objective in recording them ?, Who should we believe ?

    You say,
    For whom?, How?, Who did it affect?, Your simplistic view of history may be suitable for everyday life, but it does not suit intelligent discussion.
    For example, Can we say with absolute honesty that Australia was discovered in 1606 ? what about earlier?

    Post colonialists would argue that there are more sides to the story than just white and black, enemy and ally. Post modernists would abandon objectivity.

    So.. Facts ?.. In whose book ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sorry, but you know as well as I that facts are, indeed, facts. All that other garbage is just ...well, garbage.

    Huh? What do you mean "those who create history..." Every single person on Earth "creates history" by just living. Some of it, of course, isn't worth recording, but it's still history, still factual.

    See? Now you're beginning to understand. Facts of history can't be changed by the person who records those facts. Facts are verifiable or they aren't facts.

    Intelligent discussion about events of history is just that ...discussion. But it has nothing to do with facts or changing those facts.

    Can it be verified by historical facts? For example, Sir Who-ever-he-was "discovered" Australia. That's a fact of English(?) history. However, if Joe-Fisherman from Southeast Asian "discovered" Australia on a fishing trip, but never told anyone or recorded the event, then there is no facts!

    Nope. You're talking about historical speculation. And with facts, there are no "other sides to the story" ...there's ONLY the facts.

    And now you see the inherent dangers and difficulties that's involved when we quit recording history and started all the idle, mostly useless historical speculation.

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Hell it turned out that way. I defined justice, "proved" that it was unattainable, and then said that nothing can ever be justified, which, by the transitive law of equality, means that war is not justified. Ever.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    Really, you said NEVER? Not even a defensive war? :bugeye:
     
  8. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Nah. How can you say you were right in not letting those people die?
     
  9. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Ehh, I've been trying to be less nihilistic. I guess if you make a huge ass shield and don't even fire back and make sure none of your civilians suffer because of the creation of the shield than without it, then I guess that's fairly "justified". (ewww at the word

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  10. CarpetDiem Burnin' hours, season days Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    War is always justified to the perpertrators; historians invariably disagree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    But then most historians are mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals anyway, so why should anyone listen to them?!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ain't no other adrenalin rush like full-on combat firefights! Even the best of drug addicts would agree with such a major rush.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  12. Businesswiz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    Yea but common, you think the atom bombs were needed, I did a paper on this, got a c+, A- in the class. But you could have blown an A-bomb over the ocean and sent a wave to let them know shit is real, without having to kill them.

    Then when all fails, go in. But killing is still very very bad. [Preaching Deleted]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2008
  13. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The Japanese hierarchy and military knew all about the atom bomb tests that the US had done. They just didn't tell the people about it, and they refused to believe that the US would use it. They lost their gamble!

    Baron Max
     
  14. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    umm... businesswiz your argument does not make sense - after having Hiroshima leveled by an atomic bomb, the Japanese still did not surrender; it took the decimation of Nagasaki as well to convince them they were through. If they woudnt even surrender after an entire city was destroyed, why would they surrender from watching a bomb over the ocean hurting nobody? also it would be a colossal waste of time and money.
     
  15. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    War can never be justified in the literal sense, eternal war may be good.
    But other than that, I do not think war solves any problems or the weaponry that goes hand in hand. It all a bunch of respect wanting, fear giving endless cycle bullshit.
     
  16. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,140
    Surrender was almost impossible for the Japanese to contemplate. In the absence of atomic weapons, they would have fought almost to the point of starvation and annihilation. The unique nature of the atom bomb made possible their unique acceptance of defeat. It permitted surrender without dishonour.

    The above may or may not be true. I tend to think there's a lot in it. In any case, I consider it to be a matter for legitimate historical discussion.

    Whether WWII in general, or the dropping of the bomb in particular, was "justified" is NOT a matter for historians or history classes. Decent history teachers keep their political/ethical opinions to themselves!
     
  17. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    If you believe your God is telling you to go to war then you are justified. There is no justification for a man to wage war on another man when God does not exist. You need that third party because without it you could probably resolve your differences without firing a shot.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    You don't understand humans very well, do you?

    History is full of humans who couldn't resolve their differences. The courts are also full of humans who couldn't resolve their differences. Human interaction is full of those differences. Humans at a party can't even agree on what to have on their pizzas, for god's sake!

    See? Your statement has no basis in fact, it's just one of those silly little idealistic statements that sounds good, but is impossible to accomplish.

    Baron Max
     
  19. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    NO SHIT!

    Because I think war is justified if God ordains it and if one or both sides share that sentiment then it is practically a foregone conclusion that shooting will start. Without loyalty to a commander God then the chances improve for a peaceful solution, that's all.

    When I said probably it doesn't mean guaranteed, never has. When people resolve issues in court or pizza order differences they don't usually pull out a firearm, yes it does happen on rare occasions.

    Just like that one?
     
  20. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
  21. adam2314 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    409
    Justification.

    WW11 was justified because two countries had an agreement..

    Germany attacked Poland.

    Britain politely requested that they desist and leave..

    Germany did not..

    So..... What do you do ???.. Leave your mates in the shit ??.
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Most people here would say 'yes, leave 'em in the shit'. Except they wouldn't actually come right out and say it. They'd give all sorts of "reasons" and "excuses", but the end result would be to leave 'em in the shit.

    Baron Max
     
  23. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    World War II is also justified to stop the Holocaust. Thats all the Holocaust justified.
     

Share This Page