When is war justified?

Of course, "defense of the homeland" can be interpreted many different ways, and the definition stretched to suit one's intentions.

Some may want this to mean that we should be limited to digging in and fortifying our nation's borders and coasts from direct invasion. Others - and by this I mean darn near everybody I know - reads this to mean that we should send our military beyond our borders to "go get" those who would do us harm.

Then it's a question of whether we should wait to engage in warfare until after the harm in question is done (Pearl Harbor), or strike preemptively at threats in order to prevent such harm (Iraq 2003).

I would argue that anyone's defense of their homeland would be promoting the ideals and morals of their own. Obviously one's own defense ideally would prolong their existence(and their citizens).

For an agressor to wage war on another's turf and claim that that Nation's ideals and morals are wrong is a daunting global/political move. The real question is where do you draw the line of one's defense of their homeland? And the answer? ideals or constituents?

Personally I wage war for Oil. Having lived in Texas now for 3 years, going on 6, I would have to say Oil is where it is at!

I voted for cost/benefit, but it kind of hurt to do it. Although 'benefit' and 'cost' are dependant on one's moral view of the world, I don't see how decisions could be made in any other way.

Ideals and morals is the closest reason why "war" should be raised, but the hardest part is determining whose ideals and morals you should be using. We are a relativistic society and sometimes traditions in other parts of the world are seen as abhorent through our eyes but what right do we have to say that they are wrong.

While I ask what right do we have to say that someone else is wrong, I do believe that human freedom is the ideal and moral that comes the closest (what ever that might look like for each society). We, as a nation, have realized our role more than others to try and further the idea of freedom and reduce suffering as much as possible. As we turn into a global society, we must hold ourselves in higher regard and look not only what is good for our country but also for the greater good of the world. With that said, these are not easy decisions and not always about the sacrifice of one for the many.

Oh c'mon. Who voted for "Never?"

I think the best test case I ever heard for someone that says "never" or who claims to be a pacisfist is this:

1. Ensure their viewpoint.

2. Confine them in some way so that they can't move.

3. Make a fist, and firmly punch their arm. Not hard enough to bruise, but enough to be annoying and irritating.

4. Regardless of anything they say, continue.

5. If you get tired, hungry, etc., switch out with someone to conduct 2 through 4.

6. Wait for them to react in one of two ways:

a. they remain pinned and abused until they die, thus proving their point

b. anything else happens and you prove yours.

Bottom line: talking and/or doing nothing doesn't always work. Sometime you have to fight, or be destroyed. And if you argue that being destroyed is justified, then we don't even stand on even enough grounds to have this conversation.