Is Offensive War Ever Justified?

[David Floyd]

In yet another spin-off from another thread, I have another question/topic for discussion.

Is it ever justified to fight an aggressive, offensive war?

I say that no, it is not. Even if the nation we are invading is absolutely immoral, it is still wrong to force people who don't necessarily agree to fund the war or to fight it. Further, I believe that it is murder to be the first person to kill in war, so in that sense, offensive war is mass murder.

[Asher]

When a nation commences in ethnic cleansing, an aggressive, offensive war is certainly justified by the international community.

*whacks the mole*

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is it ever justified to fight an aggressive, offensive war?

It depends.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It could only be if the second party broke a deal that you both agreed to.

[statusperfect]

Offense is the best defense

[Pekka]

In general? No.. but there are few scenarios where war could be possibility as aggressive maneuver.

[SlowwHand]

I find it hard to picture you standing flat-footed while someone flattens your nose, David.
Sometimes the inevitable, is inevitable.
You strike back, whether your nose is mush or not.

[orange]

Sloww - that's not an offensive war...

I am against single nation offensive wars, but feel that action through the UN is fine.

[SlowwHand]

Yes it is, orange. Same as what David is trying to lay the groundwork for in this, another whine thread.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well in my opininon you have to have a pretext to war.

And today we have the UN and the security council. So until everyone agrees there should be no offensive war. In the case of Iraq, you have to find that they have broken the deal (ie... that they have WOMDs) and than that they are still unwilling to let go. (do not let the weapons inspectors disarm the weapons and continue work). Well then you have to ask Saddam or the regime to go out politely (which they will most likely refuse), get everyone to agree that this is unacceptable in UN - which shouldn't be hard at that stage, and attck as last resort action.

Well it doesn't seem to me that the US is going that route at all. They are more attack first think later... few thousand dead more or less... that was never an issue anyway.

[SlowwHand]

It's not really on the offensive, as it's instigated; but to argue using David's attitude and reference, one must call it on the offensive.

[Az]

Yes it is justified, If the happiness that the consequence of the war is bigger than the suffering of the war.

[chequita guevara]

It depends. If allegations of Serbian genocide against Albanian Kosovars had been true, the war would have been justified, IMO. Fortunately, and unfortunately, there was no genocide in Kosovo (I say unfortunately because that means we waged a war against the Yugoslav people for no good reason).

Offensive war can also be justified if you are overthrowing a puppet state errected of part of your territory, as both the North Koreans and North Vietnamese tried to do (on in the later case, succeeded). The Union was certainly justified in attacking the Confederacy.

[SlowwHand]

That's EXACTLY right, Che.
What's often ignored is that both South Korea and South Viet Nam were distintly different countries from their Northern counterparts.

[chequita guevara]

Me thinks you misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both cases, the war waged by the North against the South was justified, as the Northern states were indigenous states, while the Southern ones were created by and propped up by outsiders. Of course, after more than fifty years, today the DPRK would be unjustified in trying to overthrown the RoK, especially as the RoK has finally became semi-democratic.

[SlowwHand]

I should have known better.

[Demerzel]

War has always been mass murder wrote legit.

Imperialism was all about who you could beat up to gain what you wanted. War was just an extension of diplomacy in those days. Now attacking other countries for gain is most likely to have you labelled the international pariah and if you took a country with oil, you'll have the USA after you.

[Arrian]

Northern states were indigenous states, while the Southern ones were created by and propped up by outsiders.

On please. Che, you have got to be joking. The North wasn't "propped up by outsiders?" Nawwwww, Uncle Joe didn't have anything to do with it.

Edit: North Korea. I think you've got a point about Vietnam.

-Arrian

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Me thinks you misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both cases, the war waged by the North against the South was justified, as the Northern states were indigenous states, while the Southern ones were created by and propped up by outsiders. Of course, after more than fifty years, today the DPRK would be unjustified in trying to overthrown the RoK, especially as the RoK has finally became semi-democratic.

Is Taiwan justified in attacking China?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
On please. Che, you have got to be joking. North [Korea] wasn't "propped up by outsiders?" Nawwwww, Uncle Joe didn't have anything to do with it.

Yes it was, but only after a proto-state had already been established throughout the entire country. The DPRK is the successor state to the proto-state. In the the US occupied zone, the proto-state was abolished and then massacred. A new state was created out of fascists and Japanese collaborators. Stalin supported and deformed the original state in Korea, which became the DPRK. If Korea had been left alone by outsiders, the whole country would have been the DPRK.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DaShi
Is Taiwan justified in attacking China?

In 1949, yes. In 2003, no.

[DaShi]

oh.

[Arrian]

As I undestand it, Che, the proto-state was in the middle of a civil war when Soviet troops marched in from the north, and then US troops marched in to the South.

I agree that Korea would have been better off without outside meddling (that includes 1910-1945 Japanese colonization of course). However, that is unfortunately what happened - and I submit to you that SK is a much better place than NK, and that speaks volumes (and that is DESPITE the nasty military government they had in SK for decades).

-Arrian

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Asher
When a nation commences in ethnic cleansing, an aggressive, offensive war is certainly justified by the international community.
*whacks the mole*

That is a "Police Action" not a offensive war.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DaShi
oh.

Before you bum out too severely, remember Che is giving his personal wannabe communist opinion.
It's not necessarily correct.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Before you bum out too severely, remember Che is giving his personal wannabe communist opinion.
It's not necessarily correct.

Yes it is.

[SlowwHand]

While you're here, get those boots yet ?

[Tripledoc]

If attacking a certain economic entity, because that country refuses to produce enough to satisfy structural weaknesses in the other agressor economy - or if there is simply not enough money funds to pay for resources from external sources, then the expansion of territory and taxbase is justified on short to midterm economic terms. In the long term the ignored structural weakness will only be excerbated and must be met by future expansion. However, I don't think a strategic blitzkrieg economy can fully function under the present circumstances.

[Garth Vader]

I find it hard to picture you standing flat-footed while someone flattens your nose, David.
Sometimes the inevitable, is inevitable.
You strike back, whether your nose is mush or not.


He is asking if it's alright to flatten that nose first, if guy you are flattening is only talking trash about you, but not actually doing any harm to you.

[SlowwHand]

And Iraq is not just talking. They're just not doing, what they were told to do to end the Gulf War, as I said.

Look at WWII, as another example.
Japan was to not have a military. They accepted the terms and had no military.
Iraq accepted terms, and promptly renigged.