Moral justification for killing in war

After the commitment to war was made, the opposing sides had a responsibility to respect the laws governing warfare. The coalition fought justly and succeeded. Iraq did neither. Their treatment of prisoners of war shows that following the rules was not a concern during war. And while it is morally wrong to force a soldier to fight, as the Iraqis did, there is no moral dilemma in killing that conscripted soldier during battle, as the coalition did. Nor is it immoral to kill fleeing soldiers whether they are going to join the fight again or not. Finally, assassination, while illegal during peacetime, loses meaning during war. Therefore, no moral questions arise when no problem exists. But when there is a problem, such as massive civilian casualties, weapons of mass destruction such as gas and nuclear weapons must be banned. Fortunately for all of the soldiers involved, the Gulf War crisis did not require the decision for retaliation to be made.

Justification of war essay Coolie essay

Although writing an essay is daunting for many people, it can be pretty straight-forward

The Korean War: Barbarism Unleashed | Peace History

By what authority did the coalition use to wage war against Iraq? Many critics in the early stages of the war asked this question which was soon answered. Once Congress backed President Bush, competent authority was fulfilled because the ruling body, representing the American nation, provided the authority to wage war against another sovereign country. But opponents still argued that proper authority does not reside in the country that simply agrees as a whole to fight. If the competent authority that authorized the Gulf War was the American Congress, then the United States could be accused of aggression or intervention. But there was a higher power. As much as the world would like to believe that the Gulf War was the United States against Iraq, that was not the case. While it is true that America was the leader during the crisis, the entire coalition effort was sanctioned by the United Nations. This body of leaders, an international assembly of representatives, provided the competent authority to wage war against Iraq. Any more justification than that, if possible, would be hard to come by. Regardless, there was more.

Locke, John | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

After the initial invasion, diplomatic efforts were made to avoid fighting. For six months, every opportunity was given to Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and avoid a war. Yet some critics claim that another major point in just-war theory was not met. According to the theory, not only must a war be a response to aggression, but also be a last resort. But Walzer points out that the concept of last resort would nullify any war as just. There can never be a true end to attempts to avoid war. In practice, a point is reached when it is decided that all reasonable attempts have been made to avoid conflict. But here lies the problem. Who makes that decision? Once it is made, there will always be those who question if all possibilities had been explored. The Gulf war raised many such arguments. Even General Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his desire for more time to allow the blockade around Iraq to force Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. But with the prospect of a fortified country such as Iraq holding out for possibly years until the blockade finally worked, the coalition decided that the only answer was to remove Iraq from Kuwait by force. Iraq was given every reasonable opportunity to leave but chose to remain in Kuwait. The coalition, therefore, fulfilled the just-war requirement of last resort and hostilities were soon to follow.

Our present situation brings to mind the Mexican-Americanwar that Lincoln, among so many others, opposed.
Also this was bound to happen.Conclusion In conclusion the Americans were justified to got to war with Mexico.

Dictatorships & Double Standards - Commentary …

Just-war theory, broken into its two main categories, tries to dictate the justification for going to war and, once engaged, the conduct of the combatants involved. Although closely related, these two categories are treated as discrete considerations. A questionable cause does not qualify questionable conduct. Applied to the Gulf War, both considerations were ignored by the Iraqi government as well as the Iraqi soldiers.

If America didn't go to war with Mexico then the western land known as the United States of America would still be apart of Mexico.

Repressive Tolerance, by Herbert Marcuse (1965)

For an excellent analysis of economic motives interwoven in the American quest for hegemonic power in Asia as well as ideological-driven rationales, see Noam Chomsky, At War with Asia: Essays on Indochina (New York: Vintage Books, 1970; republished, Chico, CA: AK Press, 2004).

The purpose of this article is to offer you a tool—an explanation for the morality of killing in war that you can adapt for use in your units.

The Description, Philosophies and Justification of Satanism

Along with aggression, the Iraqis were guilty of atrocities in Kuwait. While these acts fall under jus in bello (justice in war), the fact that the atrocities were performed on the civilian population qualifies another justification for just war: humanitarian intervention. According to just-war theory, an ally of a country is justified to intervene in a crisis when conditions exist that are morally and ethically inexcusable. Here again is the problem of judgment on the part of the intervening power. But on the broad scale of the Kuwaiti invasion, the coalition's use of force was a humanitarian intervention because no one could argue that the systematic slaughter of civilian Kuwaitis was anything but evil.