well...it depends really... i think i can associate this with pudding...
for example
if two countries are fighting for pudding then thats just stupid...
but if two countries are fighting for non- fat pudding then thats something worth dying for!!
i hope you got what i was trying to say here... 😐

oh please do click this!
The sweeter the apple, the higher the branch. The quieter the fart, the nastier the smell.
GUESS WHO??

War is justified. Just not for both sides.

This signature was recovered from Hades to serve in my rotting armies.

Everything can be justified. Killing, stealing, starting a fight, running away from a fight, even rape can be justified (Russians in the end of WW2 raped like 2 mil woman in east Germany, and Russians themselves think that it is just what they did there, so to say a righteous revenge), so why should war be any different.
Romans justified wars calling them border strengthening, crusades were justified as the fight against infidels, Nazis justified their world conquest with their superior race, Russians by ancient Slavic lands that are considered to be Russian birthright e.t.
The question more likely is - can a war be just? And the answer again is, yes. It can.Under certain circumstances in certain situations a war can be justified and be just. Sure, maybe in the future the war won't be considered just, but that's only because our values have changed. When Europeans colonized the the world they thought to be doing a service to the poor uneducated barbarians. Sure you may thing otherwise but at that time under those conditions it was considered fair.
And in the end you can always turn to the good old Tacitus who said that "A bad peace is even worse than war".

"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

Well first off war is never a good thing, but in some cases it is justified. I would only say that war is justfied if it is fought to save more lives than would be lost or for something like freedom. Also, I do not think that only one side is justified in war. Both sides could be justified in many cases because both sides are fighting for their own beliefs and because justification is based on personal opinions which differ very much from person to person.

Some wars that I think can't be justified are WW1 (that was basically the fault of austria-hungary's imperialistic tendencies and international alliances), Korea (their problem not ours), Vietnam (again their problem not ours) and a few others that slip my mind right now.

okay reading through this and looking at the poll, it seems to be leaning more to the side that wars are justified with a small amount of people saying no. however, if certain wars are justified, then can people answer the question: how do you define justification? why is it justified?

if people were all equal, wouldn't that mean that taking a life, any human life, is equal to murder? there are 8 steps to genocide and war and they are very similar, maybe they exactly the same really, but the first step is classifcation or rather, prejudice. no matter how evil or meaningless we think a person is from another country, they are thinking exactly the same thing, so we CAN'T look at justification based on perspective, that means you're being subjective and prejudice, you're not being objective, which is the main goal in any field of study, so please define how war is justified and define justification itself or defend your arguments in a way that is objective?

human life is precious, no matter how evil we may think they are, human life is still a human life. if we allowed our classifciations to justify our wars, then that means we're discriminating. in war, the spoils go to the victor and we only fought in a war because of classifcation in the first place. so that means that the majority of people believe in the idea: might makes right, directly or indirectly. so if might makes right, when a killer kills someone, because he could, does that mean that it was right to?

i mean, i know that wars are inevitable, part of human nature, but as moral agents(the only creature that can think and be aware of their actions), just because it is inevitable, does that mean it's justified?

People who start wars are morons.
People who support wars are morons.
People who profit from wars are scum.
War never really gets anywhere. It's just a pasttime until diplomats finally agree on something.

I hate wars and peopel who support it.
I am a big fan of assassination though.
No senseless fighting between armies with thousands of civillian casualties.
Just find the people who threatens your ideals or freedom and murder them.
Simple, clean and much more cost effective.

Do but despise reason and science,
The highest of all human gifts -
Then you have surrendered to the Devil
And must surely perish. - J.W. von Goethe

No. Besides, in wars there are always casualties, which consists of people who don't even want to fight. Of course some over-patriotic sadists actually love going to war.

I'll hug your problems away.

If there must be a war, then yes, it should be justifiable or it shouldn't be undertaken.

Unfortunately, the closer you are to the situation, the more likely you are to find a way to consider it justifiable. But just because you "justify" it doesn't mean that someone else will agree with the justification. Again, proximity to the situation makes a difference in the acceptance of the justification.

However, in my mind, the question isn't "is war justified under some circumstances", but rather: "Should wars occur?"

Unfortunately, as long as there are wills to clash, there will always be a clashing of wills. "War" merely becomes a definition of scale at that point.

Even if killing was somehow entirely outlawed or humans had no ability/capacity to kill, "wars" would still occur - they just wouldn't involve killing. Some other methodology would be found to impose differences of opinion/will upon others. That's due to human nature as we know it. Human nature would have to change for "war" to no longer have meaning.

If you've ever thought or said "Nice Guys finish last" and really meant it, then you should probably read this LJ post by DivaLion. It's incredibly insightful whether you're male or female.

From a bumper sticker I like:
"If you're gonna ride my ass, at least pull my hair."

talking about NAZI and to stop genocide there, the Germany was already wrong in the first place trying to gulp other countries. They started the war.

And some argue if the war rooted from the humiliation that Germany faced before by losing the war to other countries and forced to pay the war repatriation (war expenses) as the loser in the previous war. Cannot recall exactly but it's all written in history (such a bad memory just took history 2 semesters ago). Hitler successfully carried out the hate message and the superiority of the so-called pure German's race (blond, blue eyes, etc) because German were eager to feel superior after they lost the last war. So war was really the seed of destruction and it'll just go on a circle if we don't stop it...

War resulted from our pride. Our way of thinking that we're the best and always right. As long as we have this kind of notion, we're going to have another war

Help! I'm looking for... manga with dangerous guys [url]http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=39874&page=1#post594033[/url]