8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
We do know that religious beliefs causes war, but I do not think that relgious beliefs justify war. Some beliefs believe that war is a sin, that you shouldn't do it. Some religions believe that war isn't a sin and you will be pinished if you do not go fight for your god. Document 1 (Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu song of God) , document 4 (Haji according to the Quran 4:74-74) , and document 5 ( Pope Innocent 3 in Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) are grouped together because they believe that you will be punished if you do not participate in war for your god. In documnet 1, they were disgraced they didn't fight.
Competent authority, for example when the United Nations declared the first gulf war. Next was a just intention, not undertaken in a spirit of hatred or revenge such as the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. It must be used as a last resort after all other efforts have failed. An example is in 1939 when the UK declared war on Germany after all else failed. There also had to be a likelihood of success such as in Sierra Leone when the British involvement had total likelihood of success.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
You cannot build up a standing army and then throw it back into a box like tin soldiers. "If this was the true feeling of militarism in America, then militarism assuredly played a role in America entering the war, because America may have subconsciously wanted to prove their strength by helping in this conflict.All in all, there is not one, certain reason that completely explains why America entered World War I. However, there are many reasons, that when combined, form a very reasonable explanation as to why Americans entered the war. This explanation includes events varying from being attacked by outside countries while they were making an attempt at neutrality, to America's relations with Britain, and even inclusive of the possibility that America may have only been trying to prove something to themselves. Conclusively, America entered the Great War because of a variety of reasons.
The intention was to motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts, prevent war and to limit its effects. The conditions of a Just War are: * it must be fought by a legal recognised authority, eg, a government * the cause of the war must be just * the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil * there must be a reasonable chance of success * the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed) * only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved Some wars can appear to meet all of these conditions. For example, World War Two (1939-1945) would appear to have been a Just War: * it was fought by Germany and the Allied countries who were legal authorities * Germany was being attacked for invading other countries * the intention was to correct the evil Hitler was doing for Nazi Germany * the Allies felt that they had a reasonable chance of success and they did win * all forms of negotiation with Hitler and the Third Reich had failed * most of the fighting was limited to the armies concerned and to harbours and munitions sites This looks as though it was a ‘properly constituted’ Just War, but actions like the Allied bombing of Dresden, a two-day raid by almost 2,400 bombers that destroyed the city and killed perhaps 135,000 civilians to virtually no military purpose, certainly broke the final condition. World War 2
Who would have the most happiness (qualitative). However Act Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) would argue that in some situations like war there is not enough time to think about the consequences and so should use the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus has 7 elements about how much pleasure is made: how deep, how long, how certain/uncertain, how near or far, how continuous, how secure, how universal? This method gives Act Utilitarians a method of testing if an action is morally right (if war would be morally right). However critics say that the calculus would only help you guess the future and therefore would act on what would cause the largest quantity of pleasure.
President Bush’s war campaign into Iraq is not justified under article fifty-one of the United Nations charter. That article which gives countries the right to invade another country in order to protect them cannot be used to justify this case. In this war, The United States of America was in no clear and present danger. The strike, which was described by government figureheads as a preemptive move to counteract the chance of Iraqi aggression, falls well beyond the boundaries of fair self defensive
To avoid war in the years 1935 to 1938, Britain and France turned a blind eye to small acts of aggression and expansion, the United States went along with this policy. Even though Roosevelt knew of the threat the Fascist proposed he was still worried about the majority of the isolationist throughout the country. Testing the waters in 1937 he spoke about the democracies teaming up and trying to “quarantine” the problem. The public did not take to well on this idea, and he quickly dropped the subject. Even though that speech failed Roosevelt somehow managed to argue for neutrality but at the same time convince Congress to start building up the arms and increase the military and naval budget by nearly two-thirds in 1938.
Can War Ever be Justified Can war ever be justified? Some people believe it can be in exceptional circumstances, whilst others believe that it can never be justified and there is no circumstance in which it can be justified. ‘In the west there is a long standing culture of differentiating between “just” and “unjust” wars’( taken from an unknown author on about.com.) This is a good example because it shows that even in the same culture people believe different things and that different thing makes war just whilst other things make war unjust. The strongest argument is that war is acceptable if it’s in self defence or in the defence of a weaker power incapable of defending its self against a stronger power; in liberating people from an oppressive dictatorship or government; finally where the conflict will save more people than it kills.