Can War Be Justified?
Debate Rounds (3)
I look forward to reading you argument.
My opponent has provided an idealistic solution to a world that is in no way utopian. Most issues are never worth fighting over. But some are. Let me provide my opponent with a hypothetical example so he can decide what, in his defenseless world, he would do about it.
In 1994, the Rwandan Genocide began. The Hutu majority in Rwanda, led by nationalists, began the genocide of the Tutsi people, as well as moderate Hutus. The genocide caused 800,000 deaths. Rwandans against the killings formed the Rwandese Patriotic Front, and declared war against the Hutus in order to stop the murder of innocent people. After an effective military offensive in July, the RPF gained control of Rwanda and the genocide stopped.
Was the RPF"s revolution unjustified? Would my opponent have preferred the Rwandan citizens to sit back and watch their neighbors and loved ones be slaughtered? It should be noted that genocide is not war. War is defined as the armed conflict between two opposing forces. In this case, the original slaughter of the Tutsi people represented just that: a slaughter in which one armed force murdered the opposing people.
Again, I maintain that most wars are unjustified. Wars fought over trivial economic issues, or the crimes of the few in a country are completely unjustified. But the naive statement that all wars, over all issues are unjustified is incorrect.
That is an example of WW2. Hitler stated that another world scale war would bring Germany its reputation and honour back. Its quite clear that Hitler had no intention to benefit Germany, himself being Austrian. He hated the Jews and wanted an excuse to slaughter millions of innocent Jews, most of whom caused no problems to the German society, so a world war was legible. Of course this isnt the only reason to start another war, but , I would think, was important to the build up.
You said that my 'idealistic' world would be defenceless, but just because our nations are peaceful, you would think its got no form of defence? Let me give you an example:
For many years, Iceland has been one of the most peaceful countries on our planet
( http://nomadcapitalist.com... )
but does than necessary mean that is go no military or front line defence?
Iceland has no standing military, but its in strong relations with NATO, along with an Iceland Air Defence System. Units subordinated to the National Commissioner also take part in Iceland's defences. Foremost of these are the National Security Unit, which handles intelligence operations and the special unit V"kingasveitin, a highly trained and equipped counter terrorism unit which is part of the National Police force.
That to me, and to a majority is not defenceless. Perhaps Iceland has such a low violence rate because of its highly developed defence unit.
Also, it notable that Iceland played no/little part in fighting in any of the World Wars, which brings up the saying 'The best for of Offence is Defence'.
As of now, I still believe that war isnt right. 'War brings peace' is not a valid excuse because after every war of every nation, peace shortly followed, partly because of realisation of actions, but mainly because of lack of resources. And because of this, war, not defence or punishment but war, cannot be justified.
Con is arguing that under no circumstances can war be morally justified. I am arguing that war, in some circumstances, can be morally justified. Specifically, I believe that war fought to end humanitarian crises or colonial subjectification is justified, but only after all diplomatic measures have been exhausted.
Con stated that he saw "no faults in defence," and that, "if the opponent attacks in order to stop future threats," the course of action is "sensible." Both of the possible courses of action listed in the previous sentence are examples of war. As I put in my prior argument, war can be defined as the armed conflict between two opposing groups. As such, fighting a defensive war, according to my opponent, is completely justified, as is attacking one"s opponents to ensure the safety of one"s nation. And in a couple sentences, Con"s argument crumbles. He has just given two examples of "justifiable war" that go squarely against his firm anti military stance.
I don"t think that Con really understood the point of the Rwandan revolution during the genocide. He assumed that the revolution occurred after the mass killings. It did not. The RPF essentially ended the genocide, corresponding to Con"s view that attacking to defend one"s self was morally justifiable. Why, then, is Con so against all wars?
This was quite an interesting debate. I enjoyed arguing over this topic. Hopefully people will realize that, while war is always horrific, occasionally it can be morally justified.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.