JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
In an OECD survey of 36 nations on people's perceptions of their living conditions, Japan ranked 21st in terms of quality of life; Australia, Norway and the U.S. were the top 3. What do you think of that?
( 12 )
-
The Fukuoka mayor is banning public servants from drinking alcohol for a month; the Osaka mayor has declared war on tattoos on civil servants. What do you think of all this?
( 21 )
-
Why do you think Facebook's stock failed to live up to the hype in its trading debut?
( 13 )
-
Which sport, when played well, do you think is the most exciting to watch?
( 62 )
-
What's the difference between an average burger and a great one?
( 12 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
47 Comments
Login to comment
0
soal158
There is only one reason i can see that may justify war and that is unwarranted aggression. Now there is many things that lead to war but not in fact justify it.
0
hereandthere
just sounds like part of evolution to me... so justification is meaningless.
If you discount evolution then you might be able to work "justification" in somewhere, based on your humanism... or other "ism".
0
smartacus
An invasion of one's country would justify war, but not an attack, like 9/11, for example.
0
mareo2
Self-Defense only. The problem is the concept of Pre-emptive Strike.
0
cleo
Self-defence. There is NO justification for starting a war, ever.
0
thepro
What about starting a war against a country with an active regime of genocide? I think that can be justified.
0
PaizuriSan
When words don't work.
0
cleo
When words don't work for what? Getting your own way?
0
buttamimi
No. Was the war in Iraq justified? No. Was the war in Veitnam justified? No. Was the War on Drugs justified? No. Was the war on Terror justified. No. Was the war against Hitler justified? Yes. Was the war against British occupation of Ireland justified? Yes. But, at the end of the day, Jaw Jaw, not War War is justified.
0
Betting
This is such a broad question, so difficult to answer in a meaningful way. I think everyone in the world says and agrees that war can never be justified, but wars are still fought probably every day of the year in somewhere. Anyone who thinks they have a good chance of gaining something from war will not be deterred. Those people in their own minds will always find justification that allowed them to go to war.
0
thorgrimfile
Watching a special on Rawanda at the moment. Seems like some forceful action could have saved a lot of people. But no, no, War can NEVER BE JUSTIFIED!
Yes, indeed!, the international community deserves a hearty clap on the back for Rawanda, for peacefully standing by and allowing a million people to be murdered :P Bah!
PS - for the really dense, yes, I'm being sarcastic.
0
BlackFlag
of course, when you want to create a political diversion or steal natural resources from some skinny brown people it's always a good idea!
0
rondh69
“No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.” - Carl von Clausewitz, "On War"
0
Nippon5
Population control.. If you look at other animals of the earth.. Its to weed out the weak and let the strong survive.. Scientificlly Speaking that is.
Because of the Human Nature of Greed war is always going to be part of society.
I know no good reason to start a war, but I can think of a few reasons that humans think justify war..
0
pointofview
When there is absolute mayhem by corrupt or rebelious governments/people causing a large number of deaths or mistreatment on others (like in many African countries)then war should be justified by an international body. No more of this talking for 10 years nonsense and getting no results. Germany never invaded Britain, Canada, Australia etc. but they decalerd war on Germany in Europe shortly after the Nazis flexed their muscles... Was that OK? The winners aren`t complaining about that are they? Yes war is horrible but at some point intervention is a must.
0
williamsmith
George Bush, Hitler, Israel, Britain, Japan, Osama Bin Laden, etc.. all used "self-defense" as an excuse for war. There is no justification for war. Some even call their armies "self-defense forces". There is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a jet dropping bombs. "Government", "militants", "military", "terrorists" are all really the same. One says freedom fight the other says terrorist. The worst form of hypocrisy is "collateral damage". No mother will think of her child as collateral. War is murder, and there is no justification. War has a reason though, humanity is barbaric.
0
Dubya
War in Iraq justified? Well no, but this is a trick question. Hussein was not justified in invading his neighbors (3 of them). The U.S. was not only justified, but had a moral responsibility to put an end to that regime and its war(s). Waiting 10+ years and giving Hussein chance after chance was more than enough. The UN had a list of 17 grievances justifying the U.S. going on the offensive. Any one of which was enough. We are better off today because of Bush's resumption of offensive action. The question should be: is pacifism ever justified? John Lennon sang "Give peace a Chance," not "Give Peace a Chance, and another and another and another, even after the gassing ofthousands of civliians and the horror of the murder of thousands upon thousands of people." You pacifists cause more wars than militarys do; you are just to arrogant to realize it.
0
Razor
It's incredible that people such as Dubya actually believe in what he/she wrote above. It would be fascinating to do a brain scan or a psychological profile to see where such views came from. I also find that when warmongers get their way, others end up dying for it.
0
borscht
I guess, according to the aptly named Dubya, that the US has shirked it's moral responsibility time and time again in places like Darfur, Rwanda, and Cambodia and a dozen other places over the years. This horrendous shirking cannot be blamed on pacifists because the real Dubya can lie and invade anywhere he pleases. Also, if wars are allowed because of 'moral responsibility,' then an Islamic invasion of the US is justified. On moral grounds, of course. In other words, slippery slopes ahead.
And another John Lennon said,
0
pointofview
Verbiage just doesn
t cut the mustard these days. Nonone wants a war but it seems to be okay to slaughter millions annually because genocide and rebellions are doing just that. Where is the international community now? The whole Iraq thing is completely twisted and it has inundated the media and peoples brains. The justification has worn thin but there are countless other situations in the world that need to be cleaned up fast and International intervention is needed to do it. I dont like war, it`s brutal but I think it is in some special circumstances required...0
Patrick Smash
Dubya, I guess you're trolling with that one. The UN had 17 grievances against Iraq did it? The same UN has passed 429 resolutions against Israel since 1967 (google it), any of which would be enough as you like to put it, but the US suddenly has a very different moral compass as we all know.
Occasionally wars have to be fought. Nazi Germany had to be defeated.
0
Sarge
"Occasionally wars have to be fought. Nazi Germany had to be defeated."
As did the Imperial Japanese Army. As did the North Koreans ( thanks to the communist Chinese, the North Korean regime still exists ). As did the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong ( thanks to the liberal U.S. media, Vietnam is still communist ). As did the Taliban ( they're not in charge of much of anything these days ). As did Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.
Who's next?
0
Patrick Smash
Sarge,
All I meant by that was Nazi Germany is a clear unequivocal example of a war that had to be fought. There are circumstances that justify war, and that was the question posed. Getting broad agreement on them is another thing altogether, and I'm not going there, not tonight anyway.
0
BlackFlag
I'm sure your leader will tell you, be patient, play some cards
0
mareo2
Correct me if I am wrong, but the USA dont entered in the second World War, because they thinked that Hitler was so terrible that must to be stoped at any cost. That is a fantasy of people with poor memory. The USA entered in war after the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl harbor, it was self-defense and desire of revenge, that hardly can be called idealist reasons, like worrie for the Asians or the Europeans. In fact is undeniable that the USA selled things to both sides until that moment.
0
mareo2
Like computers that the Nazis used for keep the record of how many jews they killed?
0
adaydream
mareo2 - a little correction.
The US was trying like hell to get into the war. But Roosevelt's hands were tied when Britian requested help.
Roosevelt used couriers to send messages on the war back and forth through Bermuda. Roosevelt wanted in.
Then when Japan attacked, the door was open.
So we only entered it after Japan attacked, but we wanted in so bad we tasted it.
I'm thinking real hard and I can't think of a single reason to start a war.
Do any of you remember the song "One Tin Soldier" by Coven during the 70s. That kinda puts the perspective that I see on war.
Nothing is worth war. Causes and remedies should apply.
I'm not saying that if some country attacks you you shouldn'tcounter it. But, you shouldn't pre-eminantly attack.< :-)
0
ca1ic0cat
Is there any justification for war? I rather like Heinlein's quote "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Even the war against Nazi Germany might have been avoided if the conclusion of WWI had been a different treaty, etc. etc. Churchill wrote a book called "The Crucial Years" that pretty well details the bungling that lead to WWII. He is also the author of "better to jaw-jaw than to war-war."
Unfortunately it is a little naive to think that there aren't butchers out there who will start a war to settle some grievence. But it is best to be altruistic about things until the bullets fly - and then hit back hard.
0
sangetsu
George Bush... History may or may not justify George Bush's actions, but apparently he did read his history. I guess none of use remember Neville Chamberlain and the League of Nations, both of whom could have acted against Hitler for his many transgressions leading up to WW2. But they, like the UN now, wanted to avoid war at pretty much all cost. And look what happened. Had Chamberlain and the League of Nations acted against Hitler in 1935, no doubt there would have been protests that Chamberlain was a "warmonger", and that his actions were not justified as poor old Hitler hadn't done anything other than persecute citizens of his own country. Does any of this sound familiar? Saddam Hussein was not another Hitler, or was he? Thankfully we'll never know.
War exists, it always has, and always will. All life on earth lives in a state of conflict. From mankind's wars, to animals fighting for territory, to your body's immune system, which is at this very moment fighting off hordes of invaders. To oppose war simply for the sake of it is to deny the reality in which we exist. That's not to say that we should fight wars with little or no provocation, but to act with full force in the threat of peril should always be an option. The measure of that peril rest with the powers that be whom we elect. You can argue as much as you like about whether or not Bush was justified in invading Iraq, but it's irrelevant, he was given the authority, and he used it.
0
TooFarGone
So much here about Iraq, bin Laden, Hussein and Bush.
What is the justification for one of the world's major religion's designation of anyone outside their cult as belonging in 'the House of War'?
0
cleo
You liken war to a disease, then say it's a denial of reality to oppose it? Sorry, disease may have been with us for ever but no one with half a brain cell is going to just lie down and die from a disease 'just for the sake of it' if they can do something about it. Same with war, I hope.
That's self-defence. What Bush did was not self-defence but pre-emption. There was no 'threat of peril'. And since the question is, 'Are there any circumstances that justify war?' it seems a bit pointless to say there's no point arguing about whether or not Bush was justified. Why not just ask that the whole thread be shut down?
0
mareo2
@adaydream
Correct me if I am wrong. But it was the president and a minority of the american people who wanted to enter in the war. The majority of the americans wanted neutrality and actually they made good money selling to both sides. What you imply, is that because the americans dont wanted to lift a finger for save asians or europeans, the president decided that ''the end justify the means'' and manipulated the events until Japan attacked and killied many americans and used that for stir the desire of revenge in the americans. Is these what you mean?
0
telecasterplayer
Yes.
0
sangetsu
Likening war with disease is not farfetched, is it? And we perform preemptive actions to prevent disease, do we not? It's been said countless times that the best defense is a good offense, and that cannot be denied.
A "preemptive" attack by the League of Nations in 1935 against Germany would have cost many lives, but in the long run would have saved many more. Regardless of the outcome, such a move would have been condemned by many because it was not done in self defense.
Those who oppose war at any cost are the ones who will most often invite it. In nature, one cannot "negotiate" from a position of weakness, and one must never underestimate the animal greed which man possesses.
0
ptolemy
Stealing my beer would be the best reason.
0
Triumvere
I've got a few; lets start with:
"Never Again"
0
timorborder
Played 'Cowboys and Indians' for real for about 15 years. Also played 'Allies versus Missuorians' for about the same period of time. Anyway, having fired more than a few shots in anger, I would like to think that the circumstances were justified because if they were not, the next question is what did so many of my friends die for?
0
pathat
Pearl Harbor
0
BlackFlag
yeah that movie made me want to kill too
0
Farmboy
There are lots of circumstances that justify it, but almost all those circumstances could be avoided if you have good intelligence, a good economy, and good diplomats. If you reach a stage where war is the only choice, it's 9 times out of 10 because someone is doing a poor job at nipping a problem in the bud.
Pretty soon, though, nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons will become so well-distributed throughout the world that we're going to have to get better at being peaceful or die as a civilization.
0
taiko666
buttamimi:
For crying out loud.
So you're saying terrorism is preferable to polictal dialogue?
I'm sure my next door neighbour who was blown up in the London Victoria Sta bomb in 1991, and the hundreds of other innocent civilians slaughtered or maimed in terrorist attacks would be happy to know that it was all justified.
0
Nessie
Calling the "war" against British occupation justified is not the same as saying it's preferable to political dialogue, and you also seem to be assuming that no attempts at diologue were made, which is patently false.
0
Nessie
I'm saying it's not only better, it's imperative. But it's not always sufficient, and when it fails, there are circumstances where one may need to resort to "diplomacy by other means," as Clauwitz's old chestnut goes.
I'm not making any judgment about Irish insurrections except to point out that dialogue was certainly attempted.
Back to top