Comments on: Unjust War

By: Nikolai Volk

Nikolai Volk — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:18:03 +0000

Except in Libya there is and has been killing by Gaddafi. But yes, President Obama, elected in a lot of ways on the “Bush bad” platform, has made a lot of surprisingly Bush-like policies.

Extraordinary rendition? Still here.

Guantanamo Bay? Still running.

Unilateral war declaration by a president? (Even though, of course, at least Bush got approval from Congress) Just happened in Libya.

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:57:26 +0000

Nikolai,
He is, after all, in *the* position of authority to make that determination. But I agree that it is a contradiction. (Perhaps my sarcasm was not plainly evident.)
It was amazing in last night’s speech how much he sounded like President Bush, except for the fact that he is being even more preemptive. Saddam Hussein had already committed a blood bath, with the gassing of the Kurds being most notable. For Libya he dealt only with potential.

By: Nikolai Volk

Nikolai Volk — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:00:57 +0000

"Did you folks miss this? The President said that this is *not* a military action/war because there are no ground troops deployed. From that perspective there is no “war theory” which applied." Except for the fact that just because Obama said it wasn't a war doesn't mean it actually isn't a war. That's a faulty syllogism. Given the intense civil war going on right now and the massive power vacuum that will no doubt occur when Gaddafi is ousted, this is very much a war, whether the US wants to recognize it or not.

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:00:34 +0000

What a fool Winston Churchill must have been. Just think how he could have reassured London during the Battle of Britain: “There’s nothing to fear: there’s no war going on here on this side of the Channel!”

By: Collin Brendemuehl

Collin Brendemuehl — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:38:19 +0000

Did you folks miss this? The President said that this is *not* a military action/war because there are no ground troops deployed. From that perspective there is no “war theory” which applied.

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:15:53 +0000

“Have to be”? Have to be for what purpose?

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:49:36 +0000

Wars do not have to be just, they merely have to be successful.

By: Nikolai Volk

Nikolai Volk — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:37:55 +0000

A good, desperately needed perspective on Qaddafi:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/the_qaddafi_I_know?page=0,0

And solid empirical data confirming our lack of total knowledge:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/24/social_science_and_the_libyan_adventure

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 04:28:56 +0000

Check out this special from Mothlight Creative….a celebration of Jesus this easter

http://www.vimeo.com/21490726

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:41:06 +0000

It’s a good thing to hear an adherent of the Just War Tradition actually using it as a restraint rather than a blank check with pacifism as its foil.

But I wonder: do you believe military personnel are to be held accountable for participating in unjust warfare? If they’re not accountable for the battles they fight, who is?