DescentBB

Assuming diplomacy and diaglog completely fail, what would you consider to be a noble cause to go to war.

Bettina

There are no noble causes to declare war, only in defending oneself when war is declared against you.

Literal war or Philisophical war or both?

A literal war that removes the army and leaders.

Bee

Testiculese wrote:There are no noble causes to declare war, only in defending oneself when war is declared against you.

x2

Thread topic is oxymoronic.

Sorry Bet.

Mobius wrote:Thread topic is oxymoronic.

Sorry Bet.

No problem.

"Poor little rich girl".... The statement looks contradictory but the meaning is clear.

Look at my question again.

Bee

My plan: if I kill somebody, I will have a reason other than my country told me to. Chances are I will kill someone who was cheating on my girlfriend than I will kill someone I don't know in a far away land.

I am against war in almost any cases. The only good thing war is good for is for great computer games.

Grendel wrote:

Testiculese wrote:There are no noble causes to declare war, only in defending oneself when war is declared against you.

x2

x3

I think our participation in WWII against the germans was noble and I don't think they declared war on us.

Will Robinson wrote:I think our participation in WWII against the germans was noble and I don't think they declared war on us.

That is a war, democrat or republican, we all can agree on was needed.

Testiculese wrote:There are no noble causes to declare war, only in defending oneself when war is declared against you.

We HAVE to be a bit broader than that. At a minimum, we have to expand this definition in two places.

1: Defending oneself OR ONE's ALLIES
Clearly one not only can justify fighting to defend your friends, but in many cases it would be extroadinarily unethical NOT to defend your allies. Personally I would take it even further, there are times you are ethically obligated to defend someone who can't defend themselves, whether they are your ally or not.

2: change "when war is declared against you" to "when you are attacked"
I'll leave in Bettina's condition that diplomacy has failed. But obviously you must defend your country from attack, whether the opponent has officially declared war or not. I suspect that you intended this one and we are just discussing semantics here?

i'm not sure i'd call defence \"war\", America needn't have declared war to justify it's defence of it's allys. You can defend anyone you want and no-one gets hurt and no-one need declare war. Defence can exist without war, so it can be an entirely passive exersize. Counter-offence too is not really a declaration of war but a response to someone else's offensive/war - so een though it's agressive it still avoids the declaration of war - as counter-offensive is counter to something, you didn't start it.

Will Robinson wrote:I think our participation in WWII against the germans was noble and I don't think they declared war on us.

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 8th, we then reciprocated

CUDA wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think our participation in WWII against the germans was noble and I don't think they declared war on us.

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 8th, we then reciprocated

I guess I'm confusing the official declaration with our sending supplies and men to aid the brits and also flying combat missions before we officially entered the war.

How about this for noble, the american revolution.
Of course the King didn't think it was anything but a dastardly uprising but to me it was a kind of noble cause.

Well, I was looking for more than what was given but thanks for trying anyway.

Bee

Here Bet.
To stop the genocide in Rwanda would be noble by most peoples standards...except the warlords doing the killing there.

To stop America from meddling in middle eastern affairs would be noble by a lot of peoples standards, especially al Queda members.

To stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon system would be a noble cause to the Israeli's.

To keep the federal government from over taxing your cotton exports to europe would be noble if you were a southerner in 1860 America.

You see, the question leaves the definition of noble as wide open as the word 'is' in a Bill Clinton deposition.

I don't believe there is anything noble about war. It's a messy, ugly, tragic business that is sometimes required.

Will Robinson wrote:the question leaves the definition of noble as wide open as the word 'is' in a Bill Clinton deposition.

I believe that there are such things as absolutes. And that some wars were TRULY justified, and others were not.

Of course, that not a very practical stance, because I realize that in reality almost all wars are a mixture of just and unjust.

But, still, I'm an idealist who will say that stopping the nazis was justified and RIGHT in a sense way beyond just our opinions of the matter. And that strapping dynamite onto yourself and deliberatly blowing up non-combatants and children in order to spread your religion is WRONG. Absolutely wrong.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:the question leaves the definition of noble as wide open as the word 'is' in a Bill Clinton deposition.

I believe that there are such things as absolutes. And that some wars were TRULY justified, and others were not.

Of course, that not a very practical stance, because I realize that in reality almost all wars are a mixture of just and unjust.

But, still, I'm an idealist who will say that stopping the nazis was justified and RIGHT in a sense way beyond just our opinions of the matter. And that strapping dynamite onto yourself and deliberatly blowing up non-combatants and children in order to spread your religion is WRONG. Absolutely wrong.

I think if bin Ladden was a true believer then he would be just as justified as the americans were joining against Hitler. In bin Laddens case I don't believe he's a true believer, he's a posuer, a spoiled little rich kid who got all self righteous and filled with purpose for the sake of feeling important and powerful without really having any faith.
He's a pimp and a cowardly thug.

But for those in his world who truely believe that Allah wants them to fight us and that we are devils how can that not be as noble and just as us firebombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima etc.??
It's all relative to ones perspective.

Will Robinson wrote:It's all relative to ones perspective.

Only if truth is relative to ones perspective.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It's all relative to ones perspective.

Only if truth is relative to ones perspective.

Who is the supreme authority on what is true?

Will Robinson wrote:Who is the supreme authority on what is true?

It's a good question. You know my answer.

BUT, lets play devils advocate for a moment. Assume there is no such thing as absolute truth. What does that mean for the universe?

Without some kind of authority behind truth (and morality), do the terms have any meaning at all beyond just personal opinion?

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Who is the supreme authority on what is true?

It's a good question. You know my answer.

BUT, lets play devils advocate for a moment. Assume there is no such thing as absolute truth. What does that mean for the universe?

Without some kind of authority behind truth (and morality), do the terms have any meaning at all beyond just personal opinion?

Yes, they have meaning to those who share your views and values.
And that is why two enemies can each be fighting for the noble and just cause of the same war.

All war is ultimately about property, and the men who wage it nobly are not the ones who will benefit.

*bump*