Hi Tom. Some very good points worth remembering. Thanks and have a great weekend.

Jos


>Peter;
>
>Only the victor uses the tern “just war”. Now “just war” can have several meanings. It could be that one group wishes to dominate another and finds a “just cause”. That could be a political, economic, religious, border dispute, or whatever you wish to add to the list.
>
>The outcome and reason for a war is rationalized. Things such as “God is on our side” come to mind from previous wars that have been fought. Opposing sides have used this term and yes “God is on the side of the winner”, the winner thinks.
>
>The aggressor who wins a war can say, ”That was a just war”!
>
>If one group attacks another and is defeated, the winner can state, ”That was a just war”!
>
>An aggressive society (Sparta, ancient Persia, and The Roman Empire come to mind) could state, that was “just war”. It was a preoccupation and a way of life with a number of societies.
>
>The Nazis felt justified in assimilating and attacking other countries beginning in the late 1930’s. There is a long history as to why this is a fact. It begins with the Franco Prussia War, which led to World War I, which led to World War II.
>
>Germany was oppressed after World War I by the treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain. Unemployment was high as was inflation. A wheelbarrow full of currency could not buy one loaf of bread in Germany during the late 1920’s. France went into Germany and removed much of the heavy machinery as just one example. Germany had to pay the Allies large sums of money further weakening its economy. There were thoughts that “A weak Germany is a good Germany” and that Germany should be severely punished for its actions in World War I.
>
>Had the Nazis succeeded in conquering the nations it took over it could look back and say, “That was a just war”. Look at this example carefully and you may see my point. It would take many volumes of history to describe these thoughts in the detail they deserve.
>
>IMO war is a way of life for many societies. Now we have “preemptive Wars”, designed to save the aggressor! It is a “just war” to have attacked Iraq. Some people in the world feel it is a “just war” to attack the United States. Who is right? It is too early to state who the winner is of such a conflict.
>
>War touches the individuals and families of many, and to this I am no exception. Man is not truly civilized. We look for better ways to kill the masses and destroy the world. At the same time we talk about "just war".
>
>Anything in the name of victory equates to a “just war”. Those that justify aggression for whatever reason are emotionally charged and not showing any positive human qualities.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>>>It's clear that I did not express my thoughts well at all!
>>[snip]
>>
>>Hi Jim, after having read your reply, I can say that you have made everything clear to me now. :)
>>
>>I agree for the most part with what you're saying. The difference you make between 'just war' and 'good war' is correct also, but I think that when Metin wrote 'And my last words. War never become a good thing.' that he really used 'good' as a synonym for 'just'. I think he was expressing the feeling that war is never justified.