Reply #53: Killing is only justified in defense of life [View All]

[Qibing Zero]

That's my personal moral view on it. Property and territory and such are just ideas. They just aren't worth killing over. I don't agree with our imaginary borders, but sadly I'm forced to live with them. Europe has the right idea going though...

Invasion from another country really depends on the goals of said country, and the current stance of the one you live in. If a Hitler is posing a threat to the entire world by going after world domination, yes, you must fight. However, if tomorrow bush declares himself dictator and declares war on the world, and the EU countries and others from the UN come to liberate us, what are YOU going to be doing?

Repression and defense of liberty are extremely hard to argue for, because they are relative to not only each person, but toward the perspective of the mind. It all depends on what level of freedom you're used to. My personal stance is to only resort to violence when you have exhausted other means and you have good reason to fear for your life. An example would be if the government kept taking away freedom after freedom, and protesters were starting to get killed or were disappearing.

Then again, in today's world, if the governments turned against the people, I doubt we would be able to fight. That's why the government must continue to be the people. We've been moving away from that, and we're getting into dangerous territory.


As for war, I would personally like to see the 'war' as we know it become obsolete as people realize there is NO need to continue viewing the world as one country vs. the next. The driving force behind every war is always either misunderstanding, or manipulated fear/hatred/loathing of 'the enemy'. Either way, it's usually the belief by both sides that the other side is out to get you. In a perfect world, we would always help out those being repressed and killed by their governments, but we of course don't live in that kind of world. People still want to create power struggles, and control as many resources as they can.

I think a body like the UN is necessary until we reach a stage like one I've mentioned. The reformed UN that leaders like Chavez want (without such bias, and without the 'veto' votes) would be the ideal system for not only managing world peace, but for discussing just exactly when 'war' is justified. Unfortunately, the power-hungry assholes that run our country believe that the US is always right, and can do whatever it wants in the world. That's why, today, we're more of a threat to the people of the world than anyone.

So, you never WANT war, but at times it can be necessary. I think when situations are brought up we need to analyze every detail then decide whether or not it's justified, and that there's no way to make a blanket statement for when war is okay and when it isn't. As much as I want to say 'War is never necessary!', I know that the world will probably let me down and it will come down to it again in the future.