What are your ethics regarding war?

[Guaranteed]

Let's try a less inflammatory post.

Myself, I'm actually coming to contradictions, here, in particular when I think of our actions in WWII compared with what Al Qaeda did today.

But what do you think? When is war justified?

On edit: Alternatively, when is war *necessary?*

[lvx35]

1. When the people choose it

When the people, presented with complete and accurate information, deem it necessary.

[Iris]

18. The people don't choose war.

The powerful and rich choose war.

The people end up fighting in the war, but it always goes back to a bunch of old, fat men making decisions for everyone else.

[lvx35]

31. exaclty!

If the people choose to put their lives on the line, you can bet there is a damn good reason!

[Iris]

54. see your point, now.

and it's a good one!

[Crunchy Frog]

38. My Viking ancestors chose war alot.

They seem to have deemed it justified based on what they could accomplish for themselves through looting and pillaging. I'm not sure I would regard it as justified, and I'm not sure that the criteria of the people choosing it means that it actually is justified. I certainly doubt that the people being looted and pillaged thought it was justified.

[lvx35]

46. The question is did they have accurate information in their hands?

Or was there some wierd guy in blue body paint telling them that they would all dine in Valhalla if they died in combat?

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I think they had pretty accurate information.

I've been reading about them in Jared Diamond's book Collapse. It seems they knew there was lots of good booty to be had from looting and pillaging, and that they also knew that the areas were very vulnerable and poorly defended. As people in the rest of Europe got better at defending themselves, the Viking attacks declined and stopped. It seems to have involved pretty rational calculations on their part. It certainly seems to have been more about immediate benefits to themselves, rather than the possibility of dying and going to Valhalla.

I think alot of decisions to go to war, historically, have been about how much can be gained by looting, pillaging, and taking what other people have. People may make a very rational decision to go to war on that basis. I don't think that necessarily makes it justified.

[lvx35]

57. Its a good point.

The argument you make is in many ways a Republican one, in that you are asserting the rights of the individual over the rights of the majority, but in this case I can see your point. If you had a weak old lady who could certainly be killed, and 10 of the 18 other people in the villiage wanted to kill her and divy up her land, it would not be right. But I still hold a great deal of faith in people, and I believe in most cases they would not vote to kill the old lady.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. I don't really understand what you're saying

when you say that I am making a Republican argument or asserting the rights of the individual over the rights of the majority. Could you clarify please?

I was simply giving my response to your statement that war is justified if the people choose it. I gave an example where the people chose it and where I do not believe that it was justified. I honestly don't understand what is Republican about that.

Maybe you think that it's Democratic and progressive to justify hordes of Vikings looting and pillaging defenseless villages. Until you clarify, I will assume that is what you mean and state my emphatic disagreement with you.

[lvx35]

61. Its republican in the original sense of the word.

In a democracy, the ideal is that the majority is trusted with all decisions, through democratic process.

In a republic, it is belived that the democratic majority can in fact be wrong, therefore they should not have absolute power.

You are arguing that the democratic majority of vikings is wrong, and therefore you are arguing that that there should be principles which not even the democratic majority can overturn. You are arguing for a republic.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Umm, okay.

It probably would have made more sense if you hadn't capitalized the word "republican" since the capitalization is generally used to denote the party rather than the system of government, but I accept your explanation.

Yeah, I do believe in limits on absolute majority rule. If a majority believed that adulterers should be stoned to death, I would think the majority was wrong. I think that's why we have things like a consitution. I definitely prefer a system of laws based on principles to a system of mob rule.

[lvx35]

63. Agreed. That's why our democratic republic is good.

I hope we can keep it strong through these challenges we are facing.

[Deja Q]

2. It no longer matters; we're all stuck in a nasty situation.

Self preservation is all that is left.

[bullimiami]

3. when there is no other option.

only.

[Guaranteed]

6. I tend to think that if you're *choosing* it, you're doing something

wrong.

It's something that one should only be pulled into through a direct, terrifying (no connection to "terrorism" necessarily intended) attack.

Like Pearl Harbor. We didn't choose to enter into WWII. The Japanese chose for us. And we had to beat them, or....or I don't know. I don't even know what would have happened.

Further, when that line has been crossed, I'm not sure that, since you already have waited so long, you really have a choice when it comes to "pulling punches." (i.e. bombing civilians) When you've already been attacked, and seen the intentions of the person attacking you, I don't think you can afford that, even if it means killing innocent people.

Now, before I was saying that Al Qaeda wasn't justified in attacking London. With this view- it's tougher to say. They attacked us first, but then WE attacked IRAQ. Of course, ridiculous.

Would Al Qaeda then be justified in the attacking the civilian people of our ally who helped us to attack Iraq?

[Career Prole]

4. When someone can point out Al Qaeda on a map we should invade.

Otherwise discussing war with them is a pointless exercise.

[TwentyFive]

5. Either as a last resort - or limited to bombing to take out weapons prod.

An actual, all out war should almost never be necessary - especially when we are so much more powerful than any other nation.

Beyond that, limited actions like going into Afghanistan, or bombing campaigns against weapons facilities can accomplish 90% of what we need to do - while avoiding most unnecessary loss of life.

[Guaranteed]

13. That's a really good point, at this point in our history.

When it comes to other countries- I don't think ANY country is ever going attack us again. Not with 1000's of nukes in our arsenal. It's ludicrous to even think that.

But these smaller groups, within these countries....now we're back to having to invade again, unless we're going to drop a nuke on a whole bunch of truly innocent people (as opposed to being part of a massive war machine working against us). They may have some hand in helping the terrorists, but not nearly as much. They just don't even have the means.

[TwentyFive]

20. Yes, Our military needs to be more like Surgeons - less like destroyers.

It's like going in and cutting out the diseased cells, while leaving the innocents untouched.

If Bush was a surgeon, he'd cut out entire organs just to get a few cancer cells. That said, surgery is a last resort option...just like the military.

[Guaranteed]

22. Totally, absolutely, agreed.

Nukes and Special Forces.

That's all we should need, now.

[Pepperbelly]

7. That is an interesting question ...

As I consider it, I first realize that we may or may not be privvy to a more-or-less complete record of the circumstances leading to any of history's wars. Remember, the victors always write the history so the totality of the record, even for something as ancient as the Trojan War or as recent as WWII, there are huge blocks of fact of which we are unaware. Always, beneath the surface, the world teems with covert intelligence operations from virtually every state in the world.

The motives of leaders are always unclear. The best we can ever do is guess. A spotless leader with spotless intentions could just as easily be the product of good ass-covering as it is of reality. So we always have a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the information that we have.

And that's not even getting into out post-industrial explosion of information and propaganda. It is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. The performance of our media serves only to muddy the waters even more.

So sure, it would be very easy to draw lines, to argue that this action justifies that action but no matter what, we cannot know the true circumstances. I think it serves us to look askance at EVERY war for a very long time.

[Bellamia]

8. *necessary*?

When all other means of getting along in one's own country, meeting the peoples' needs, and getting along with the rest of the world and helping to meet global needs, fail.

[sweetheart]

9. A warrior takes the war internally

A warrior defeats violence in their own heart and makes peace with
their footprints. A nation of warriors brings about peace and justice
with their actions.

A really good warrior wins without a fight. It is deft economic
preemption that is the weapon of the adept warrior. Once upon a time,
the american treasury was the cutting edge of the american war machine,
levelling opponents without a shot fired.

When there is no war, we give up war, and for the price of the assault
on iraq with weapons, we could have purchased 300,000,000,000 dollars
worth of goodwill around the world. We could have ended the spread of
AIDS, malaria and world hunger for the price of the iraq war. A
true warrior is aware of these lost tradeoffs, before the fact.

The war of terror is not a "peace without terror" by the ontology and
the framing of its very existance.

[Redstone]

14. Damn, sweetheart (if you don't mind me calling you that),

your post is thoughtful and well-written.

300 billion bucks sure would buy a lot of food and medicine and books, woudn't it?

Redstone

[knowbody0]

15. imagine a thinking nation

rather than a waring nation. we have the biggest guns. we are the bully of the planet. our invasions and occupations beget terror and terrorists. the big corporations get bigger with war. our leaders boast that it is easy to recruit Iraqis into the military because there are no other jobs in Iraq.

[IChing]

23. Nice one sweetheart very much in the Tao.

"The very concept of war is out of date,"
"Destruction of your neighbor as an enemy
is essentially a destruction of yourself."

Our out dated thinking causes the never-ending cycle of violence
We need to find new ways to address the grievances of all concerned
you do not fight darkness with darkness, but with light.

[sojourner]

25. well said. n/t

[fujiyama]

35. Good post

What you are saying (especially about a good dighter winning WITHOUT a fight) reminds me a lot of "Art of War" by Sun Tzu.

[The Magistrate]

10. Much Better, Mr. Looney

Would that my time just now permitted an extended response.

[Guaranteed]

21. That's alright, come on back. nt

[cynatnite]

11. Only as a last resort

I would prefer our leaders playing chess, sword fighting or anything else than war.

I watched 'Embedded' today and one of the reporters called war an interesting name. 'Noble Porno'.

[Guaranteed]

16. LOL

Well it's definitely porno. Definitely obscene. About as obscene as it gets.

[Oversea Visitor]

12. Peasant never wanted war

Its the Leader with vision of conquest greatest who normally are not interested in the wealfare of the people that go for war.
Then the peasant get turn into cannon fodders thrown against each other "Fight or Die".

War cannot be avoided when this kind of leader comes into power and is not stop. A matter of time when hell break loose.

It is sad that I have to witness such a leader in power but maybe we all can pass this 3 more years quietly. Maybe or we will all witness WW3.

[katsy]

17. When America is attacked on our own soil...

and the enemy is identified without question.

Also, by U.N. resolution in support of our allies, and only as a last resort.

NEVER based on lies.

NEVER for corporate interests.

NEVER when the enemy became an enemy because of American meddling in the affairs of their country. That is why, IMO, terrorism targeting us exists. Because we threatend a foreign people's way of life. It is not up to us to "win" democracy for others. They will never appreciated that for which they have no vested interest in working towards.

Besides, look at the mess in our own country... who wants to emulate this? Looky here! Become unemployed, outsourced, underemployed, overworked, bankrupt, homeless and with no aspirations for bettering the life of your children all in 6 short years! whooopeee! No thanks.

We can't lead by example, so we attack with WMDs.

[Guaranteed]

19. Welll...now I think we're getting into a gray area...

You said that when an enemy became our enemy because we were meddling in their affairs....

Let's say that we were meddling in the oil affairs of Saudi Arabia, pushing them around a bit...and one of the sons of one of their oil barons decided he didn't like it anymore, and decided to attack the WTC...

You don't think we'd be justified in hitting back?

[katsy]

33. Very gray area..

and I haven't given it as much thought as I should.

Yes, I would be for taking that little bastard out and would rely on the U.N. and allies to make it happen. I would even be for going in and assassinating the criminal.

But I wouldn't blast innocents to smithereens without any forethought as what would happen after the blasting was done. I wouldn't render saudi arabia uninhabitable for the populace which may be as victimized by their leaders as we were by the attack.

And I wouldn't consider hitting some other country, like Iraq, because a saudi hit us.

I wasn't against going after bin laden in afghanistan. Not that I trusted bush or his cronies to act honorably. I didn't even think he would get bin laden because of a lack of faith in this administration's capabilities. But bin laden chose to attack our country and I could accept hitting back hard.

The real dilemma for me is why a country that insists it's the greatest democracy in the world, the richest country in the world, the mighty military power... has to meddle in the oil affairs of a foreign country.

[Raiden]

24. Interesting question

Most importantly, I think that the government should be open with its citizens about any military action. Any time we compromise the lives of our young people, the government should have to keep the public informed as much as possible. Dissent should not be discouraged under any circumstance.

Point 1) I believe that war is acceptable in the event that we are attacked or face an imminent threat which can be dealt with in a realistic manner. War is also acceptable to prevent or end genocide.

Point 2) The US should never hastily enter any war. We should as a nation look at every possible solution before war. War should ONLY be a last resort.

Point 3) There should never be ANY profiteering from military action.

Point 4) When the US engages in a war, we should exhaust diplomatic means to win international support for our cause. By seeking recourse from our allies, we put ourselves in a better position among the international community - and therefore we are put in a better position in any military conflict.

Point 5) Attacking civilian targets is unacceptable. The US should have to abide by international laws and rules of engagement. This includes listening to the demands of the UN.

Point 6) Any time we commit ourselves to a fight, we should be in a position where the war is winnable. The government should confer with the military leadership in a constructive way and we must have a workable exit strategy. The US should never engage in a unilateral war against the will of the international community.

Point 7) Any time we enter a war, it must be based on honest pretenses!


I think that about covers it

[JHBowden]

26. War is an often useful means.

I clearly have no problem using war as an early option under certain conditions and circumstances.

For instance, I believe free nations can justifiedly go to war to end genocide, stop weapons proliferation by unfree nations, and to end operation of international terrorist organizations.

[Guaranteed]

27. Great point. Clinton was justified.

But then Bush justifies his war similarly. So then are we getting into intentions?

[JHBowden]

28. Yes.

If Hussein wasn't letting inspectors into his country, I would have supported the idea of war there. In fact, until October 2002, I did.

[Cleita]

29. The kind of military we should have is

one that can defend our nation against aggression, but our military should never be used to raid other countries. That makes us no better than the Huns of the Dark Ages. In a true Democracy this never would have happened.

I have always believed that every high school graduate before the age of 25 should do a stint in the military, so in case we do have a war like WWII we can have a trained force to call to duty. Also, I think the stint in the military should be mandatory or a draft, but going to war should be voluntary. I say this because in a just war, able bodied people will volunteer in droves to defend their country.

In a concocted war like Iraq, only the career military should be called on to go and if there aren't enough volunteers from the rank and file, there really won't be a war, IMHO.

I also believe there should be honor in the military, like you don't bomb or shoot anyone who isn't another soldier with a weapon aimed at you. That was the original intent of bombs, to destroy military installations of the enemy, not to bomb cities full of civilians.

I am just sick of how our present military has been brainwashed to believe this is a just war. Their lives are being thrown away for greed and the spoils of war to be enjoyed by the armchair generals far from the action.

Also, why can't our military be kept busy with explorations of sea and space for the sake of improving our science. I think this would be a useful function for the military and not accompanied with the horrors of war.

[cynatnite]

30. You're talking about changing the very core of our military

It won't happen because of the make-up of the military. It's vital for a functioning and cohesive military that all take the same training and the same risks. There are outs for those in the military who don't want to fight.

I loved the military when I was in and the last thing the military needs to be involved with is science and exploration. I'd rather let the scientists handle it until we evolve enough to have the two work together.

Those serving in the military are not brainwashed. This is a myth that I've never been able to figure out why it keeps being propagated. Troops think. A lot of them may not think like you or I do, but they are far from brainwashed. There is a mentality, but it's not brainwashing.

Also, in the military you will find a brotherhood and sisterhood. Re-enlistments are higher than expected. A lot of the reason isn't because of bush and his war. It's mostly because they have the kinship and caring for one another in such a horrible time that they are willing to risk and give up their lives for each other. The guilt of leaving those behind to fight while a soldier gets comfort at home can be overwhelming.

Please don't make blanket judgments about the military in such a way.

[Cleita]

34. I wouldn't dream of making a blanket judgement of your

military other than the statement I made about the brainwashing that convinces teenagers this war is just. I can't believe anyone who 'thinks' would think this war is just.

As for science and military not blending well, it seems to me that scientists invented aircraft, ships, rockets, nuclear bombs and many other military and scientific hardware that needed military personnel to use them. Weren't the astronauts military?

No, I know this isn't your military. I hope it's the military of the future though if there is to be a future. Don't you want to go to the moon again and rekindle the space dream?

I think there are many of our institutions that are going to need to be changed from the very core too. Again, if there is going to be a future, it will have to be done.

[cynatnite]

42. I think the brainwashing comes from a lot of places

It's been a while since I've been in and readiness and professionalism was expected. It's deteriorated since then and I lay the blame at bush & cohorts feet.

You are right...scientists have invented much, but I don't think the Wright Brothers were thinking about a war machine at the time. Were the scientists who split the atom thinking of the horrific results?

It seems like in many cases, discoveries and inventions designed for improvement of the human race were taken advantage of by the military in order to wage war and kill.

I'm the same way about the military and science. Star Trek is what gives me hope that our military will evolve into something more beneficial to humanity rather than the war machine it is.

I agree with your assessment about many of our institutions. I've often wondered about politics today. If all of them had to scrape by like the rest of us, wouldn't we all be much better off? I get sick of millionaires in the WH and senate making these kinds of decisions for us when I doubt they can even comprehend the impact on society.

[Cleita]

44. If you can find a copy of James Michner's "Space" in the

library and don't mind a lot of boring history, read it. It's about the rocket scientists that Hitler employed with the specific intent of inventing rockets like the ICBM's we have today. It tells the tale of how after the war the scientists were divided up between the Russians and the Americans. Those who came to America were planked down in Los Alamos, New Mexico and given what they needed to continue their work.

Well, guess what evolved out of this, the space program, the space race with the Russians and yes, the first man on the Moon. I mean I am watching satellite TV right now. This was made possible by those German rocket scientists of long ago.

[quisp]

32. Eisenhower said...

"War is almost NEVER necessary." (empasis added)

This from a Republican who knew something about war.

You MUST know who, what, where, how, AND for who and what you are fighting.

Once you have all that nailed down...commence the bombing Col. Kilgore ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning...)

The thing I am most pissed off about this Iraq war is the waste of the Marines. Marine ARE NOT COPS. It is a crime to tell a company of marines, "drive around until someone takes a shot at you, but don't shoot back until you see a weapon." It's just a waste of the most excellent fighting forces the world has ever seen.

[Cleita]

37. That's because they shouldn't be driving around a

civilian city to begin with. Well, the whole Iraq invasion was crap anyway, but water under the bridge. They should be billeted outside and away from civilian populations. Shit even the ancient Greeks has the concept of the siege, when they camped outside of Troy. They lured the Trojan warriors out to fight their warriors. City life went on without interruption or civilian deaths until the very end.

[Tsiyu]

36. The problem is, we live in a time

when we refuse to call things by their proper names.

We call "occupation" democracy and "Stolen elections" mandates and we call truth a lie and lies the truth.

So what is "War?"

* says the War in Iraq is over. Finis. Done.

So why are 100+ more Iraqis dead this week? And only the heavens know how many of our troops are no longer with us. Not engaged in war or anything like that, of course.

Our leaders tell us they are making us safer, but we can see with our own eyes they are doing no such thing. Four years later, and they tell us the same guy who did 9/11 did 7/7.

If this is how the "Policemen of the World" do their jobs, perhaps they need to resign. Yet they insist they are steadfast, resolute and have the American people in mind.

While we see that OBL is free as a bee and no closer to capture, and there isn't enough funding for our law enforcement and that Halliburton just got another juicy sum while our soldiers lack proper equipment and terrorists are spreading their grasp far and wide.

What the hell is war? Pretty fucked-up stuff if you ask me. And not only that; it's a pretty fucked up way of solving problems in the Year 2005.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Gandhi said it best.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[IChing]

40. Once you see, smell and taste death of your frends, enemies and civilians

You will start thinking that war is never the answer to anything.

The near sighted answers to complex solutions and problems,that is war's vision.

The injustices, inequities and differences that cause war takes a more far sighted view.

[Guaranteed]

41. You're advocating not responding militarily to someone who attacks you

directly, right?

Just clarifying.

[IChing]

43. Germany's treatment after WW I created Hitler

And a thousand other historical blunders done in the name of spite, ignorance, greed and stupidity created the circumstances for war, genocide and aggressive behavior.




I'm advocating using resources to stop the crap before it creates the monsters of war.
It is a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run, but takes more foresight, compassion and wisdom.

Attacked of course I will defend myself, my family my home
but I am not so naive on war entails at my age on my environment.

[Guaranteed]

45. What resources are you referring to?

Military? Surgical special ops strikes? That's striking first. That starts wars, and it's dead wrong. You don't hit first.

Economics? I get the feeling that Al Qaeda attacked us to begin with over economics. We were pushing the Middle East around for oil, they got angry, and hit us on 9/11. That, too, started stuff. As did preventing Japan from getting that very same crude before WWII.

What are you suggesting?

[Freedomfried]

48. I'd support flattining Saudi Arabia

and TAKING all their oil

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Want to give your reasoning on that? n/t

[Freedomfried]

52. I worked over there.....

if there is such a thing as an "evil empire", it's Saudi Arabia.

Repressive, violent, the place is a nightmare.

Guess I should not blurt an answer as blunt as my original posting, but that’s my gut reaction to that shithole.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Well, it may be evil, but it definitely isn't an empire.

There's a hell of a lot of shitholes in the world. There's even places in this country that I'd like to flatten.

Maybe the best strategy with respect to Saudi Arabia is for us to become for energy independent so that we can stop using our money to prop up their corrupt leadership. They won't change until they have to for economic reasons.

[KG]

50. when poor men stop fighting rich mens wars.

when they stop believing the crap about duty and honor and patriotism and all the other swill that leads poor boys to put their asses on the line for the enrichment of the already wealthy and powerful.

then maybe there can be a little peace in the world.

[bklyncowgirl]

51. Just War Theory

Since there is evil in the world that sometimes must be ended by force, accept the just war theory.

* Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
* Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
* Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
* Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose; Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not.
* Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
* Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.<2>
* Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Clearly Bush's war on Iraq does not meet these criteria.

Here's a nice article from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

[TreasonousBastard]

53. There are two very different questions here...

and the easy answer to one is that war is never justified. Or even necessary.

War occurs most often when one nation decides to simply take what is not theirs. Less frequently, it the complete breakdown of civilized comminication and diplomacy, although this breakdown often compounds the first reason.

Either way, war is never justified

The more important question is that while it's easy to say war is never justified, it does happen. Just as you could get mugged walking down the street, another nation could get it into its collective head to attack yours. And they often do.

For this, we need to examine the principles of Just War. There are a lot of secular writings on Just War, including the Geneva Conventions, but it's primarily a religious concept, and even more primarily, a Christian one. Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC, Episcopalians... major churches all have well thought out teachings on it.

Don't think for a minute that they all practice what they preach-- Baptists, for instance, were once leaders in pacifism, but that's sure changed over the years.

In essence, Just War is national self-defense. When there are no other alternatives and you are under attack, you have the right to defend yourself.

[anarch]

56. when territorial integrity or political sovereignty are violated,

and in my personal ethics, in order to prevent overwhelming humanitarian disaster (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur, etc.), although I guess that is better charactarized as "intervention" than as "war".

Also, I'll endorse the list in post #51...particularly the "Last Resort" part. This stuff is pretty well laid out in what passes for international law, by the way, so it's not just some kind of left wing rhetoric.

Now, if only our so-called "leaders" would agree to live as part of an international community, and not like a bunch of pirates....

[achtung_circus]

59. One of my demography professors

insisted (and I see his point) that ALL war is based on Population pressure.

If you look deep enough, at the ultimate, rather than the proximate causes population pressure (on space or resources) looms large.

Although the US may not need the space in Iraq, the oil is tempting. As a Canadian I look at our space and resources and worry.

For an individual nation, I tend to agree with the concept of Just War. WWII comes to mind, WWI does not.

[burrowowl]

60. Google definition of a Just War

You have to be attacked by a Sovereign Nation, not a terroist group, on your soil.
OR, to come to the Just Defense of a reasonably Just Nation or People threatened with genocide. E.g. in 1954 we unjustly did in Guatemala's flowering democracy, etc. the U$ has done in alot of blosooming democracies.
Now, if in Cental America we would have done in the paramilitaries killing the over 200,000 Guatemalean Indians, that might have been a Just War. Unfortunately the U$ was behind their massacre!