If Hitler had won the war he would have been justified, why? Because he can decide it was justified by winning, that's simply how it works, it's the same with deciding who's good and who's evil, the victor gets to decide it, so yes, war can be justified, pretty much anything can be justified
If a country and its leaders are dealing with an irrational dictator, diplomacy will most likely fail. While diplomacy should be the first course of action, war should follow if it is clear that talking things out will not work. Sometimes, a country has to go to war to protect its people with strength.
War is sometimes a necessary evil to fight for those that cannot fight for themselves. For example, war can overtake an oppressive government that shows little compassion and help towards its citizens. War is justified to help the people that struggle to survive in their homelands when they are being oppressed.
War is justified in some cases. This does not, of course, mean that war is a good thing in any sense; however, there are moments in history when aggressors, such as Hitler and Hirohito, arise, and a nation must defend itself and its ideals from destruction. War is not justified as a tool for imperial expansion or the bolstering of national pride, but it is a necessary evil when other nations use war for those reasons.
As long as their is human existence, there is going to be war. Though war is never the desired outcome for any conflict, it is unrealistic to think that it is not justified in some cases. Without war, tyrannical aggressors can have free reign to do as they choose. A war is sometimes necessary for the good of humanity.
Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world where resources are infinite and humans aren't greedy. Diplomatic solutions can work on fringe issues, but when two groups are deeply entrenched in their views, it is impossible to convince them to compromise. I do not advocate for violence, but unfortunately it is necessary to dissuade others from harming you and sometimes to settle disputes. War is justifiable in the sense that you are protecting yourself or protecting your interests or perhaps even protecting others. Violence is just a fact of the human experience; sometimes it is better to be proactive in order to minimize future violence.
I totally support if a country needs resources and others block their transactions or declare some kind of embargo on that nation, that they have all the right to fight back and take what they must for the benefit of the Nation. Lives will die even more if you stand around and do nothing. Wars must be fought for the greater of the people of the nation, not for rich corporations.
I believe that in some instances war is most certainty justified and by the other side of the house saying it primitive and that its selfish is also irrelevant. If another Hitler figure appeared and started breaking international treaties and human rights then war is no doubt justified. By saying its selfish does not account for these scenarios.
I would like to stress that this is not a preemptive war. By the second person saying that it would destroy parts of a country in a preemptive war is irrelevant. I am not saying we should justify going to war for no reason, i am saying that in some instances it is entirely justified.
I totally think that when your own country is in danger from an enemy, that a war against that enemy is justified. I believe there are many ways that a war is justified. One is, if a country's state is threatened by another country, I believe an intervention, a war, can be justified to prevent the destruction of a country.
Primitive behavior such as warfare result from selfishness, greed, and misunderstandings. We should totally avoid warfare and look to better understand our differences and use non-destructive ways to resolve them. In the long run this planet is just a dot in a great enveloping cosmic arena, which exemplifies our responsibility to be kinder to each other and work together to understand why we're even here in the first place.
Wars are just about who's more selfish. 'Hey, that guy over there has more land than me! Let's go kill him!' When you say "If a country's state is threatened by another country, I believe an intervention, a war, can be justified to prevent the destruction of a country." Not only is this counterintuitive, it's also a very single minded view of things. Attacking a country, thereby destroying several parts of that country, to prevent a war that would destroy a country is self-contradictory. You're starting a war to prevent a war? Wow. How ingenious of you. Also, if all countries and peoples were to stop forcibly taking what isn't theirs in the first place and simply ASK for that thing, be it land or resources, we'd get along a lot better.
Im, thinking war in a very non-american way.
As in its not this poetic justice of America defeating the evils of the world.
More of a realistic way described in the Art of war (both Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli), and Clausewitz's On War.
War is just an extension of politics, and is a failure in Diplomacy.
So no, every war has the potential of being prevented.
Just the fact of the matter is, it isnt. And doesn't make it Just.
Wars is just an excuse when two countries do not wish to talk it out in a gentle manner. There are other ways to stop wars such as through negotiations, and peace talks. Some might argue that if they fail, war is inevitable, but the leaders could have been more patient till things are settled.