JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Which do you think is best: iPhone or Android?
( 33 )
-
Google versus Facebook for dominance of the web. Who has the upper hand?
( 19 )
-
Should prefectures outside the Tohoku area accept tsunami rubble for incineration or disposal?
( 41 )
-
Do you think Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) should be nationalized?
( 13 )
-
Do you think credit ratings on countries from companies such as Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch carry too much weight?
( 13 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
33 Comments
Login to comment
0
HonestDictator
The simplest and easiest circumstance for war is if someone decides to take over your country, you have to defend it.
0
RogueFive
What if your daddy has some unfinished business and the country has a lot of oil for the taking?
Mission Accomplished.
0
DeepAir65
defending your own country is fine but that is not the question. Anyone who invades another country is declaring war but can/should that be ever justified?
I say no!
0
mareo2
Self-defense and peace operations sanctioned by the UN. The problem is the advocates for preemptives strikes.
0
dr_jones
What a stupid and naive question this is! War has been the motor of mankind since a long while.
0
USNinJapan2
Yes.
0
vdpphd_qwest_net
There are two sides in war - the attacker and the defender. There is usually no good reason to attack another country, but, if one's country is attacked, what is one supposed to do, surrender?
0
numbskull
The trouble is that both sides claim to be the defender.
Yes, there are good reasons for, uh, to be more clear, military intervention, but those reasons get perverted and stupid people believe those perversions. So this a dangerous question.
0
randomenigma
Sure, both sides can claim to be the defender, but the means of determining if it is truth or a lie are pretty straight-forward:
Are your troops in the other country? If so, you are not [only] defending.
0
Icantbelieveit
Just wait until the world's population get's big enough and there isn't enough food or natural resources to go around, then you'll see some serious confrontations, driven by the desire to survive.
0
ousama
I think that if a country were to declare war on another they'd use all means to make the reason seem justifiable (whether it really is or not). But war has been a necessary means of not only historical development but also economic growth. The "war on terror" was made for a reason.
0
TheQuestion
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
0
Kevinonly
This is prbably in reference to President Obama's commentary on the role and responsibilities of leadership in nations. His commentary on the options of nations to go to war might have come straight from the Hagakure. A chapter from the book described the following: One of the princes from a clan from the warring states periods in Japan, while very young, studied Buddhism. He was such a terrific scholar that the local Buddhist bishop (?) desired to confer preisthood on the budding clan cheiftan. The warlord for the clan observed this process and by initiative made an audience at the temple to discuss this process with the head monk. He stated that "Affairs of state couldn't be summed up in any particular point of view, even Buddhism." He made it clear that the clan's interests were too important to take any one point of view and that the prince being young had reaponibilities to his clan that overshadowed pacifism and esoteric knowledge." He had the Monk call his secretaries and aides to the meeting and repeated his views. Making sure that the Head preist agreed to forgo confering the buddhist ceremony on the young prince. He then asked the preists' secretaries et al if they understood that the head preist agreed not to go forward. They said they understood. President Obama might have talking directly to Japan using the international stage. How subtle.
0
Xeno23
Justification? Everyone always has "justification". If what was meant was: is there ever any consensual moral reason for war, then it can only be to rid the world of something worse. War is often a failure of politics / diplomacy, even though, paraphrasing Clausewitz, war IS politics... with teeth, er, fangs.
Looking at human history, one can only come to two conclusions: either we like it, or it's hardwired into us; otherwise we would've stopped engaging in it a long time ago.
0
inakaRob
@HonestDictator: If someone takes over your country. you have to defend it. Thats seems a little naive and absolute. You don't have too. no not at all. What if the new ruling country is better. If Canada took over the USA I don't think I would put my life on the line to fight to get the USA back. It would just be a big Canada. so what? And you basically are taking the side of the Taliban and all the rebels in Iraq. The Taliban just see them selves as freedom fighters, and your statement basically says they are 100% ok in what they are doing.
0
sabiwabi
In this case they are the good guys, they are defending their country. The coalition members are the bad guys. Hard for westerners to accept this, but its true.
You'd have to ask yourself why would Canada take over the USA. Generally, countries do not take over other countries to improve the living conditions of the inhabitants. They do so only to improve the living conditions of the invading leaders.
0
nandakandamanda
The Taliban claim to represent the southern Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. They have no intrinsic rights over the majority of the country. Last time they were in office they cleansed ethnically, destroyed the country's non-Islamic culture, and allowed training camps for certain 'groups', which resulted in their getting pushed out of control.
The West has no objection to an Islamic state there, and welcomes the Taliban if they come in peace and wish to join the government. Just as in Pakistan, I should think.
As long as the Taliban wage war, against their own people, or against the rest of the Afghan people, or against western forces, then I think fighting back is not only justified, but the only language they understand.
0
sabiwabi
I hope you're not referring to 9/11!
I hope you don't think that Karzai has that right! He doesn't!
0
Norcalmike
Absolutely
0
nandakandamanda
sabiwabi, "I hope you are not referring to 9/11!"
No, I am referring to the cruise missile strikes on Al Q training camps, and then the US pushing the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
0
nandakandamanda
BTW, sabiwabi, good point about Karzai, but I think he has quite a bit more legitimacy in representing the whole nation, (obviously not 100%) and I sense that the poulation would prefer him 1,000 times over the Taliban. I doubt that he has been conducting ethnic cleansing, either.
0
Firripusan
If the vast animal population of the world could come together with some form of intelligence, I'm sure they'd start a war against us. War is very justifiable, even in attacking. It's simply a matter of survival.
0
joyunli
It's not about ethics...it's only about what is suitable for us. It is evident from the fact that we supported Islamist Mujahideen to fight against Afganistan govt that was supported by USSR. We attacked Iraq for oil and treat Pakistan as partner in war against terrorism despite knowing that it is breeding ground for terrorism.
We are reaping fruits of our own acts.
0
smithinjapan
"There are two sides in war - the attacker and the defender."
No, the two sides are usually dumb and dumber, not necessarily in that order.
There is zero justification for war, period. Saying there's justification for defending when others attack is only taking one side of a rhetorical question, and eliminating the fact that what the attacker is doing is not justified. Despite differing belief systems, we are all human beings and therefore no different in terms of making a decision with our human brains to attack others. We are not justified in warring, killing, or even really hurting others. Anyone who thinks that war is justified is inadvertently also taking the side of the attacker (if they are not already). Using the logic of being 'justified' can be spun in any direction: some will defend the 9/11 attacks and say it was just, the Jews say their attacks on Palestinians are just, the US says invading Iraq was just, many probably believed Hitler was just while the Allies believed they were just (both sides in Europe in WWI yelling, "For King and Country!" as they stormed the trenches or defended, as another example of the lunacy of war), ad nauseum.
So long as we think there is justification for war, we are pretty much dooming our species to extinction.
0
m5c32
Yeah, of course. It's whatever is stated in the laws of a country which allow for war. If the laws of a country allow for war, then by definition, it's justifiable. Simple.
0
Antonios_M
"War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men, some slaves and some free."
Heraclitus
War is never justified. There is no "good" or "bad" war. Apparently, it was, is and always will be a part of our human nature.
0
nightvision
There are two circumstances that justify war: invasion/attack of a foreign power, and the preservation of national policies and principles. Whether they are valid or not is up to whoever wins.
War is great for the greedy, good for the victor, bad for the defeated, and evil for the individual.
0
XXXXX
Overpopulation.
0
sfjp330
All nations look to their own self interest. None will willingly take a reduced standard of living without a fight. It is quite likely that the future will produce several major wars over oil, as this vital substance reaches its peak production and eventual decline. All will fight to protect their peoples standard of living.
0
Disillusioned
Sadly, war will be necessary as long as there are countries practicing totalitarianism.
0
Blue_Tiger
Self defense, defense o' the helpless against an overpowering aggressor. These are the only times War should be advocated, and then only as a last resort....
0
blvtzpk
When you're being attacked...but you better choose the right target when that does happen (n.b. USA V Iraq 2003)
0
bushlover
Global Warming is a circumstance that justifies war. We keep hearing that it is humans having an effect on the planet causing more and more greenhouse gasses so a little game of extermination would be right up the alley of the GW belief. Blood for Cooler Temperatures!! No Blood for Oil!!
Back to top