pothos.org

Of late I hear a lot of rumblings regarding the war in Iraqw as and ilegal war.

Just what is a legal war if there is such a thing. I boubt any wars can be classed as legal. Was it legal for Xerxes to invade Greece. Was it legal for Alexander to attack Persia. Etc etc.

I hear a lot of silly labels attached to war and this is one. Another is the term killed with friendly fire.

So what makes any war legal and some wars illegal.

Kenny

jasonxx wrote:Of late I hear a lot of rumblings regarding the war in Iraqw as and ilegal war.

Just what is a legal war if there is such a thing. I boubt any wars can be classed as legal. Was it legal for Xerxes to invade Greece. Was it legal for Alexander to attack Persia. Etc etc.

I hear a lot of silly labels attached to war and this is one. Another is the term killed with friendly fire.

So what makes any war legal and some wars illegal.

Kenny

The definition has changed over time - I'm thinking most particularly about the medieval period, when the Church developed the concept of the "just" war; which, naturally, meant that one that was "just" gained immediate legality.

But in the 20th century, and especially in relation to Iraq, it is all about who the aggressor is. The Americans did not (officially) send combat troops to Vietnam until they had been attacked by the North Vietnamese (when the USS Maddox was supposedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964); even so, there are some who believe, maybe correctly, that the incident was engineered in order to provide the US with a pretext. In that case it all came down to whether the UN would consider it appropriate and "just" to retaliate. Similarly, as far as Iraq was concerned, the coalition forces went in on the pretext of WMDs - whether or not they existed, it was what gave them the "legitimacy" to intervene without UN censure.

But to be honest, prior to the Christian era, such concepts didn't really exist. Yes, one could argue about whether one side or the other was the aggressor, which was often used as the excuse to maintain moral superiority; but I think it would be wrong to try to affix words like "legal" to ancient warfare in the same way.

ATB

War...huh...yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh ha haa ha
War...huh...yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...say it again y'all
War..huh...look out...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...listen to me ohhhhh
WAR! I despise,
'cause it means destruction of innocent lives,
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes,
When their sons gone to fight and lose their lives.
I said WAR!...huh...good God y'all,
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...say it again
War! Huh...What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...listen to me
WAR! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker,
War. Friend only to the undertaker.
Ohhh! War is an enemy to all mankind,
The thought of war blows my mind.
War is caused and raised within the younger generation,
Induction then destruction...who wants to die? Ohhh
WAR! Good God y'all huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...say it say it SAY IT!
WAR! Uh huh yeah hu!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...listen to me
WAR! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker,
War! It's got one friend that's the undertaker.
Ohhhh! War has shattered many a young man's dream,
Made him disabled, bitter and mean,
Life is much too short and precious to spend fighting wars these days.
War can't give life; it can only take it away
Ohhh WAR! huh...good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...say it again
War!...huh...woh oh oh Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing...listen to me
War! It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker,
War. Friend only to the undertaker...woo
Peace lovin' understand then tell me,
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom,
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way.
Ohhhhhhh WAR! huh...good God y'all...
What is it good for?...you tell me!
Say it say it say it saaaay it!
War! Good God now...huh
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it...NOTHING

Honestly, I think that laws are such that each and every generation can make and change them at will, so it is an arbitrary issue. The problem is that the USA has always tried to be a defensive nation, not an offensive or agressor nation. So that is why some of us believe that George Bush has done America wrong in his offensive pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and want him to get out of it. It is all his war, and by today's standards, he could be considered a war criminal too. But because momentum is on his side, he will never be called to task for it. Yet, he started it. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center, but George uses that incident as though it is his highest card in his game. HIs trump card! He is ridiculous at that point!

jan wrote: The problem is that the USA has always tried to be a defensive nation, not an offensive or agressor nation.

I agree with most of what you've written, but USA has always tried to be a defensive nation? Tell that to the native americans, Mexicans, Panamanians, Grenadans, Guatamalans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Philipinos, etc. Our big wars (Revolution, 1812, Civil War, both World Wars) have generally been defensive, but even Korea and Vietnam were borderline offensive in nature, and many of our smaller wars have been totally offensive in nature. There was a report within the last six months or so (of course I can't find it) that said that the US was at war in some form or another for like 2/3 or more of our existance as a country.

On the war front, we're not that much better than the Greeks and Macedonians were.

rjones2818 wrote:

jan wrote: The problem is that the USA has always tried to be a defensive nation, not an offensive or agressor nation.

I agree with most of what you've written, but USA has always tried to be a defensive nation? Tell that to the native americans, Mexicans, Panamanians, Grenadans, Guatamalans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Philipinos, etc...

On the war front, we're not that much better than the Greeks and Macedonians were.

Yes, the descriptor of "defensive nation" is a misnomer. The last line there I have no disagreement with. The United States has been most pugnacious within its hemisphere of influence and, since WWII, beyond. It has rarely missed an opportunity to pursue its interests.

Many will point to the US attitude to involvement in WWII as proof of its isolationism. This is misleading. The major reason for its "dilatory" approach to WWII was the failure of and utter disillusionment with the "internationalist policy" of Woodrow Wilson. Prior to that the century had begun with the crusading Teddy Roosevelt, an ardent internationalist if ever one existed.

The Europeans, at the time, would not take the US seriously as a player, let alone a determinant, in European affairs and further, it may be cogently argued, it was a large part of the reason for the delay in the armistice. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Wilson understood little of the machinations of Euro realpolitik, and Sir Edward Grey (Foreign Secretary 1905-1916), among others, had some rather pointed observations about his “Fourteen Points”. Congress saw no gain in US meddling in the Euro argy-bargy and voted down Wilson’s Versailles Treaty which included the League of Nations. The US public, still recovering from the depression and defaulted reconstruction loans, was never going to be enthusiastic about another Euro imbroglio.

Having emerged from WWII as the leading power (the Soviet Union notwithstanding), the US lost little time establishing international relationships to suit its purposes. Every US president from FDR on became the de-facto Secretary of State and sought to mold, or in many cases, dominate the foreign policy agenda.

For those who’ve an interest in such Stephen Graubard’s The Presidents: The Transformation of the American Presidency from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush is a magnificent digest of that quintessential “American century”. Really, a must read if ever there was one.

War in my opinion is part of some nations make up and Phsyche. Fighting and battles are inbred within some peoples. As British or English football hooligans I believe that nature is inter within English peoples.

The English have history of been hammered Fighting. The Romans. Vikings etc and as a nation absorbed these things learned from them and adapted into a next generation which was very succesful. In history the English as a rule have always edged there bets with wars. They have known who they can beat. IE native Africans and or Indians. People with hardly anything apart from Spears and Stick. England have been very good with this. But not so easily better than some more equal armies of Europe where diplomacy and bribery serficed until the last resort of war. England had the best navy for centuries which aided its greatness.

As with Britain war and fighting is seasoned within there Phsyche. Fair enough we have lost our share.

The difference is with America they dont they have hardly staret a war they have ever been able to win. They are of the arrogant opinion we have the guns toys and men to do the job. But thar philosophy Im sure is very Darian Persian. Guns toys and nombers mean nothing against brains and thought.

The latest mess/ the American anglo invasion of what was part Persia . Irag.is totally un planned and unthought about. how the British ever got involved is totally stupid. this is one un wnable war with no get out of jail free card.

Kenny

rjones2818 wrote:but even Korea and Vietnam were borderline offensive in nature, and many of our smaller wars have been totally offensive in nature.

Korea and Vietnam were 100% offensive in nature, not at all defensive. That isn't to say that the Americans didn't have justification for them (irrespective of the true 'justice' of their reasons) ... but one only has to look at the map to work out that US involvement in those places can hardly be called "defensive".

ATB