Debate: Is War Ever Justified? | Learn Liberty 

You'll find the best , most reliable, way to determine ' the right thing" is to use the Torah, the bible, Gods law . But perhaps what you mean is adequately being able to judge what's right because of lack of thorough information . Countless times I've seen situations ejected one c oi inclusion is seen as clear, but then another perspective is introduced and changes everything. Discerning the truth is never easy because people lie. Lol.

determining what God's law is a mammoth task on its own@@deborahdean8867

is that right...

***** lol... you don't agree?:P

+Brian Clark you're clearly an intellect

At some point, we have to merge the two views...

William F. Buckley was once asked in an interview if he agreed with the policy of non-intervention. He replied, "I categorically reject the idea. We could have intervened in 1930's Germany with a relatively small application of force. The cost of pacifism, isolationism, and appeasement can be measured by 66 million lost lives."

I agree. Everyone always says that war is only the last resort, but people tend to be very quick to declare that everything else failed.

Your point? If you are saying this fact justifies war, you are using fallacious reasoning (appeal to nature fallacy)

War is human nature basically.

It's almost as if the people here came here for a... Debate.

I've been watching Caplan only very recently/heavily and it's very clear he has tunnel vision and is incapable of seeing things outside his purview. Like the Hammer only sees his nails hold two boards together and doesn't see any other damage it can possibly do, Caplan only sees one side of one bit of economics and immigration to the exclusion of all other issues. Today was my biggest mouth drop though. The complete disregard of what would have happened if the allies lost. Saying our guesses were wrong is also completely dishonest. Just because we don't know the exact effects of electing people who believe in Liberty into office, doesn't mean we can't understand that electing communists into office is far worse, regardless of how off our guesses of the outcomes are.

I dont think hes particularly smart at all. And he isnt very knowledgeable about the subject, or history. At all!

You've hit upon the crux of the problem. There were countless potential leaders who would have done exactly what George W. Bush did in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. 56% of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq. Many more supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Without that support, leaders don't have the guts to commit political suicide for their party. Governments go to war at the drop of a hat. In our country it's people's ignorance of history that allows these things to happen.

War is a good thing if you win and not lose and in ww2 it was clear if USSR lost in the east then the allies would have lost therefore Germany prelonging the war til they made nukes

Hi

Its because these interventions result in war, and are often so outrageous they indeed are acts of war. Do I don't think it's a big mistake . Most of the time our interventions are bombings and assassinations. War in every sense but admiting the name.

I agree. I think of ww2, when the uk and France begged Germany to stop, but Germany wouldn’t stop, so the uk and France declared war for the greater good

"All the best results" Have you ever heard of Iran? Iraq, Egypt, come on man. You can't cherry pick how empire works out great without explaining the places where it has caused massive human suffering.

That does not refute the fact that bombing innocent people is immoral. Would you fly a plane and drop bombs on civilians? In the first 2 weeks alone, 40 thousand iraqi civilians were bombed to death by US en British soldiers. Would you kill a North Korean child for the greater could? Would you pull the trigger? Just because the North Korean power that be are immoral doesn't make it right to be immoral yourself be killing innocent people.

Furthermore, you don;t know the out come of a war with North Korea in the past, so you wouldn't know.

Christiaan Cusell luckily, Im not trying to refute that bombing innocent people would be immoral.

Christiaan Cusell Never is bombing innocent people an okay thing to do. I would support an intervention in a torn, oppressed country like North Korea militarily. War is a terrible thing, however it is absolutely necessary to give power to those who are put down, immorality is not acceptable, and so invading a country of immorality like Iraq and North Korea are a neccessary evil.

Sam Greenrod I see no reason to hedge and call it evil, no more than a hammer is evil. Its a moral neutral, albeit one with very negative consequences if used inappropriately.

Caplan is saying this is costly coz we dont know the outcome and points in line to that for everything. What is actually really predictible in the world? His answer is we shouldnt do anything ever coz we dont know anything for sure. And he has been talking about how china and russia disarmed their military. So in that same line of thought, americans rather not have a military if they aren’t ever going to use it. I think you misinterpret that mr.tang brought up the suggestion in the first place lol he is making an example of caplan’s stupid argument. Just sit on your asses and worty about the economics. Caplan is so deep into calculations that he is paralysed Thats basically whats called paralysis by analysis

I don't know about that. Look at Ukraine. Ukraine was insisting it wanted to give up neutral status and join NATO. Them joining NATO meant nato military bases all up and down that long border. Russia knew that was indefensible and if they allowed it, very dangerous for them. So they invaded. And of course in addition the US sponsored the Ukraine color revolution in 2014. Even though Ukraine was bombing its own Russian citizens , Russia did not invade on moral grounds. And that wasnt mentioned until after the war started. So Russia did act preemptively defensively. Only if the citizens can control the 'interventions' of their own country can peace stand a chance. If you pick a fight, or stick your nose in other peoples business, there will be conflict and bad feelings. I think national governments have too much money at their disposal to play with, and not enough actual work to do. So they go around being busybodies in everyone's lives. What could go wrong.

That's why religion is the only answer because all the major religions are about self mastery, self control of the inner man.

Joshua Miller no, the first speaker covers all of his bases clearly, so which part exactly was "absurd?" He didn't claim intervention as an absolute ideology but as the VERY last option on the table. The arguments against war were all economic and rational contentions. He isn't thinking about the fact that we do not live in a world of only peaceful, trustworthy people, but also irrational and malignant dictators, gangs, drug lords, etc. The case against "ideology bringing peace" is sound while the pacifist argument only refers to a perfect world, where everyone would live peaceably but as the man on the left and right both agreed, the future cannot be predicted.

Humanitarian concerns is not the same as eminent, inescapable danger due to a malignant dictator or tyrant, which is the circumstance in which the man on the left advocates for war as a FINAL option. I guess you missed the example of genocide and killing women. You are blind if that is the basis of your standpoint. The world is not a perfect place with perfect people, but the exact opposite of that.

@@warrenscott879 no wrong. Invading a country and killing innocent on the basis of humanitarian concerns is not effective. Look back at your country 100 years ago, I'm sure there are many things your country use to do that you now view as immoral. How would you feel if some outsider attacked and invaded your country on the basis of Humanitarian concerns, killing your ancestors? Also goverments never intervene on countries on the basis of Humanitarian Concerns. That is simply an excuse of justification for the truth, goverments attack others countries for their own safety or power.

Slippery slope

@@warrenscott879 a horrible dictator is only your opinion. Dictators have supporters. The problem here is the American self righteous ego that makes them think any casual idea they have should be forced on mankind. Mind your own business and we would avoid 99% of all wars. We have no right to 'intervene ' . It's like the liberal feminists going to Africa and trying to force abortion on them. Birth control too. They interviewed a woman, head of African women's group of some sort. The african woman said they didnt want abortion and abortion was not the answer to poverty. She even gave an example, she said a woman could get an abortion but still have no job in 2 years. Yet, she likely could have hurt her social standing so she is worse off than before. She begged gh or educational programs and job opportunities. The liberal feminist argued to the bitter end insisting abortion was the answer to poverty and women's rights in africa. These people have too much money. They get to fly around the world, meddling in everyone's business, making things worse, pissing people off, and ultimately starting wars. The federal government having access to the amount if money they get from federal income tax is waaay to much snd just allows them to cause trouble.