Serious Question to Kucinich Supporters.

Is war ever justified?

Just not this, or several past times.

Is it possible to have a war that is necessary, without having a requirement to deem such a conflict "justified" as in "just" as in moral?

Justice is universal, morality is relative.

So would I.

Bake

Hasn't been the case in some time, however...

If someone comes at you with force, you must meet him with the same. The time for negotiations is over at that point.

There would still be a Department of Defense. It might just not get half a trillion per year.

unmanageable, and unresolvable massive attack.

We would and should use whatever reasonable force necessary to prevent lose of life.

War is justified,but it is also failure.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/

"...The United States must now embrace strength through peace. Because we spend more than the rest of the world combined we will clearly remain the world’s most powerful nation. But with that power comes a great responsibility. We must use our unrivaled power to lead, not to bully, the rest of the world. War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for.


We are the planet’s first superpower able to destroy any society within an hour either conventionally or atomically. The fact that we can slice through any army on earth in hours has not prevented:

1) Growing antipathy and distrust towards the U.S. across the globe
2) Escalating bloodshed in Iraq
3) Looming wars in Iran and Syria.
4) Increasing terrorist acts against U.S. interests
5) Spiraling U.S. military spending
6) Spreading weapons of mass destruction
7) Growing conflicts and tension across the world
8) Ongoing arms race


By abandoning the arrogant “my way or the highway” attitude we can reengage the world in productive discussion on our common goals of universal peace and prosperity. Maintaining our current course of action will only end with a world in flames and economic ruin."

:applause:

To defend our shores from invasion.
And as the world's superpower, to defend other countries from invasion with the UN - IMO.

Self-defense is justified. If you are attacked, you defend yourself from that particular attack.

Maybe it's semantics, but I don't consider self-defense to be "war."

War as an instrument of policy, of revenge, of greed, of empire-building, of pre-emptive "they might attack someday so let's kill them all" logic, is never ok.

eom

Personally, I would defend someone weaker than I. That means I would interfere with an attack, and back the attacker out of their space.

It doesn't mean I'd destroy the country of the attacker, and attack all the people in the area, just in case they were friends of the attacker. It doesn't mean I'd try to take his house, his job, or his bank account.

As a nation, I don't know if that is appropriate or not. The compassionate me would like to say that we would protect and defend those weaker. IF THEY ASKED FOR THAT PROTECTION.

The cynical me says that "defending those weaker" is a blank check for politicians to label "good guys" (those weaker) and "bad guys" according to political and corporate agendas that have nothing to do with defending the weak.

I think that the meaning of "provide for the common defense" means the defense of this nation. I don't think it means that we appoint ourselves the police force of the planet.

This sounds like the type of baiting one finds in mainline "news."

In short, as others have already cited, self defense is justifiable.

However, in a sociopolitical climate densely propagandized by vested corporate interests, "self defense" becomes the operable term to spin in favor of the War Pigs and their War Machine.

I don't recall who it was, but I remember long ago hearing someone - a recognizable name - being interviewed, and was asked what they thought of the American presidency, or, being in that position. The response was startling: he said that since he would not be willing to obliterate the earth through the use of nuclear weapons, he could never be president. Which is to say, if it were detected, for example, that either by error or malice, a mass of nuclear weapons were launched and on their way to America, he still would not retaliate, which would ensure our extinction ...as where if he didn't retaliate, America would be wiped off the map, but humanity may still have a chance for survival.

and group-sponsored violence as person-on-person violence, the rules of war are like the rules of self-defense.

If someones trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you see someone trying to kill someone else, you have the right to defend the victim.

Then the question comes: What force is necessary to stop the violence? Depends on the situation, but there are many things you must try and fail at before killing becomes necessary. War is like killing a country or faction. If you can accomplish the same thing through reasoning, or just shooting them in the leg, then the killing is not justified.

A crazy guy is barricaded in his home with a gun to a kid's head. What do we do? We send the SWAT team and a negotiator. They would never just blow up the whole house - kid and all - to stop the bad guy. Yet so many wars are fought with similar tactics.

and even then, one needs to consider proportionality (i.e. you don't nuke a country for taking a few rifle shots at your troops) and taking great care to minimize civilian casualties.

"They might attack us" or "They've talked about attacking us" is not a justification. "We want what they have" is DEFINITELY not a justification.

War and war powers are distinct possibilities for which any sovereign state must be prepared, when all other measures fail.

Next question?

not the first option to show how tough you are.

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all stated at the last NH debate that they couldn't guarantee they'd be out of Iraq by 2013, why aren't you asking Obama, Edwards, and Clinton supporters if there is ever a reason for peace?

I think Kucinich makes a mistake by not allowing for the necessity of war in his rhetoric. But, as noted above, he is not denying the need to prepare for the possibility of war -- but it shouldn;t be a tool of policy.

Iraq was definetly an unjustified war.

the debate at the Citadel?

The first thing DK said was thank you to the cadets, then he told that if there were a need to defend this country, he'd be proud to call upon them.

Kucinich frequently says in speeches that he would not hesitate to defend this country.