First off, the theory of just wars are very confusing and complicated. There are numerous steps and consideration to be taken in for a pre-just war.
Reading all the values and disciplines the just war theory goes by, it doesn't seem as if the United States are involving itself in a just warly manner (Iraq). However, there is a gray area with just wars- the processing of whether an action is to be deemed preemptive or preventative. The list goes on to determine how to fight a justly war, but it seems very impractical. When has a war been just? Most nations get carried away by pride, or lose diasterously and become vindictive and envious in vengeance.
Bell also spoke of confessions as a precursor to war. With confessions, it will tell if we are ready for war, or if the manner of the war is justly or not. It is a predicting variable in where the nation stands in terms of how the war will end- if justice will be brought, or the losing nation should be destroyed.
It was avery intersting read, and maybe someday just wars will happen, that nations will embrace the ideaology of loving their neighbors to where they will want to help, and that wars are not based solely on strategy, but on emtional logic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that this reading was very complicated. It was hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea of a "just war." Before reading either of the articles, I thought that pacifism was the trickier one. However, after reading both, I feel like Just war is a harder belief to live by. How can we decide what is just? Can a war that is just to one person and not another really be considered a just war? There are so many questions that come with this theory that do not have concrete answers.
ReplyDelete