As an Iraq war veteran who was also looking for WMD’s in 2003 of which there were NONE no, Iraq was not justified. Not to mention the VP’s company getting the reconstruction project. That’s a lot of money The original weapons inspectors seals from the 90’s were still on the buildings we checked. So no, not justified at all.
Part of the issue with this conversation is that it isn't about actually justifying war, it is about how to get around such rules in order to get enough public support for a war. This usually involves calling up/creating/making up certain grievances, fears, or benefits to the general public in order to convince them that we NEED to go to war. If the politicians do their job well enough, the public will even swallow the loss of their children, their parents, even their financial well-being, all in the name of said war. The problem? Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth, and usually hold the lives of the "little people" with little importance. Politicians are far less concerned with what is "right" or "moral" and far more concerned with power. This means that it doesn't matter if something is actually right or moral, just that enough of the public can be convinced that it is. Military and civilian intelligence agencies KNEW that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before we ever entered the country. Anybody with an awareness of international news also knew that will Hussein was a vile individual, he was far from the only one. In fact, the U.S. had/has many close alliances with leaders who are FAR worse than Hussein ever was, yet we aren't rearing to kick down their doors any time soon. We also utilized a large number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors who were not constrained by the "rules of war" that our military personnel are technically bound by. Those contractors did some extremely vile things to people who committed no worse crime than having a spawn point in the general vicinity, and yet we protected them in court. If the nations of the world were to be judged, America is far from the good guy many here want to believe it is. Doesn't mean we don't do good things or have good people... but that is true of pretty much every nation or regime. Shoot, Hitler actually implement a lot of very good infrastructure and organizational practices throughout Germany that were later adopted around the world. That doesn't excuse him of his other extra-curricular activities though.
I was an active anti-war advocate and in hindsight, knowing what we know after going in, I think it's very easy to say that the war was not justified. That said, I have to say my stance has softened over the years. We say 'Never Again' about World War 2. Saddam is someone who had gassed ethnic minorities in his country, he is someone who led a political purge similar to the night of knives in Nazi Germany; broadcasted live on television no-less. Not only was our government convinced he was developing the means to do it all again, Saddam himself thought he was developing the means to do it all again. It was of course all a lie. Saddam's government was lying to Saddam and US Intelligence picked up on those lies and believed them too. Bush believed the lie, and Saddam himself believed the lie. If either one didn't believe the lie, if UN Inspectors were allowed into the country, I do not believe the war would have happened. Most importantly it pains me to see our veterans suffer because of the mistakes of our leaders. Iraq is still pretty fucked up, but it's a better place now than it was 30 years ago. I don't think our veterans should feel guilty or regret for serving their country in Iraq. Never again. The Iraq War should never happen again and nor should World War II; however this seems like an impossible dream.
Not even close to justified. What a stain on the United States! It explains a lot about the current state of affairs in the US and around the world. Our government's credibility at home and abroad has never recovered
I think that criterion 3 of nationhood should also be problematized by asking how do we determine a nation wants to declare war and not just its leaders, specially when there are mass protests against it.
The war was so succesful, not only did Iraq end up losing its weapons of mass destruction, they ended up having never had them in the first case! Great succes!
Wrong. What do you think "Shock and Awe" was all about. Hint: It was to destroy all known capabilities that could have been used by Saddam's regime against coalition ground troops. This includes all of his weapons of mass destruction. The news media didn't find any, because they had mostly been destroyed.
I completely understand why this topic is so exhausting. Just watching it and understanding how much this affects so many lives is exhausting, and heartbreaking.
Great. Applying this to the recent actions of the IDF in Palestime clearly seem to suggest the war is unjustified. When we see IDF soldiers rejoicing from the murder of innocent civilians, the stance that civilian death is simply a 'side effect' rather than being a target is questionable. When we see the images of mass destruction in Gaza, clearly the damages are disproportionate relative to the ends.
Rules of war aren’t rules. They’re just suggestions. Ones that can be easily ignored with little to no consequences . Especially if you’re a powerful country with nukes.
@@JoeyP946 Not so much in the US anymore, as can be seen by Trump pardoning three war criminals, a couple who appeared with him publicly for political purposes.
@@awesomehpt8938If it didn't matter, then why did the president feel the need to lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction? That's exactly the point - they had to lie to make a cause for just war in order for people to back them.
I think that criterion 4 of likelihood of success should also be problematized by asking at what cost, both material and in terms of human lifes: a pyrrhic victory should count as a success.
I used to be someone who thought that there is such thing as a "just war" or a "conditional violence" for good but now I'm more inclined towards pacifist peaceful non-armed resistance, huge difference between dying for what you believe and killing for what you believe, at least with peaceful resistance there can be no blood on someone's hands.
With the digital age it's very possible a "bloody war" may not end with physical damage but economic damage. I view all war being pointless cause the "good guys and bad guys" is always in the hands of who has the money/power.
How does pacifism work when you're victim to an aggressive invasion, like in the case of Ukraine? Holding hands and singing won't stop the war or stop your family from suffering
To use a quote that I love: "All Wars are Holy Wars" Almost every belligerent in the history of war believes their cause is just and they stand on the side of the 'righteous'.
That's a great quote but I feel like in reality most people don't think they're being righteous when fighting wars. I don't think Dick Cheney cared at all about democracy in Iraq. Most people give righteous excuses for fighting wars, but usually they have obvious hidden agendas and they really just want power or money.
9:43 well.. maybe the world is a better place without saddam. He was definitely a cartoon dictator (literally. He was in South Park), although MANY Iraqis would disagree with that assessment. That said, it’s not up to other countries to decide how legitimate a head of state is, or how good at their job they are. How would you feel if the rest of NATO invaded us in response to trump winning the election? Some of us might be chill with that, but I think I speak for most Americans when I say that I’d be upset to be under the rule of a foreign power, and feel that whatever government set up by NATO would probably leave me worse off than before.
I am a Kurd and also Iraq by identification but Saddam did many horrible things, putting villages underground alive, and taking people without a cause and killing them because if suspicion, the more I want to talk about what Saddam did to Kurds at that time, the more I see I can't
Ah yes, bringing democracy to Iraq. So how's that going? Wars are complicated and can have so many undesirable consequences, it SHOULD be a difficult choice to make and one that requires a lot of deliberation and caution.
history is always written by all sides. You just have to look for it. “History is written by the victor” is just a thought-terminating cliché used to shut down criticism and keep people from actually looking.
@@vokkera6995 If the victors wrote history the "lost cause mythology" wouldn't be so entrenched in the US today, just for one obvious example. It's pretty common to see the losers narrative is actually the one that takes grip among society.
This thought came from the days that the victor destroyed all the history of the people that lost. It was common to burn libraries and destroy monuments after the city/state was over run
A couple small points. In defining a nation, it's usually not the populace that decides. In the case of monarchies, it IS 1 person that decides. In the U.S. only the Congress has the power, but compared to the populace, a still very small group indeed. Also need to remember that the U.S. never officially declared war on Iraq, and the administration side-slipped the stickier bits of philosophical arguments by declaring it a 'Police Action'. 😎👍
America hasn't properly declared a war for like 80 years. We all laughed at Russia when they launched "A special military operation" and we all said how insanely silly it is to pretend it's not a war, but they're just copying the US.
I disagree that it is hard to determine whether the war is just -- other than proportionality, I think you made a clear argument that the Iraq War was emphatically not justified. It either ther failed or potentially failed every criterion. It's not that it's hard to figure out if a war is justified, it's that it is hard to justify a war. And I think that war should begin from a position of injustice and it should take overwhelming evidence in contradiction to overturn that assumption.
Definitely justified if the war happened in 1983 or 1991-1992. Whether or not the Ba'ath party was capable of another genocide against the Kurdish and Shia by 2003 is more ambiguous. Obviously the 2003 invasion was not motivated by human rights considerations. I will never be sorry Saddam Hussein was deposed, but that doesn't necessarily justify the actions of the Bush administration.
All wars before World War II are questionable, all wars after it are not justified no matter how people try to spin it and whether someone was provoked or not.
I remember reading in "City of God" by Augustine abridged and he used war if the alternative is worst. This was after the first sacking of Rome during the empire times. I presumed Christians didn't fight the invaders.
War is the most extreme form of fighting. Like fighting, there are times when it can be avoided, and at other times it can’t. For example, let’s say these two girls have a fight over a boy who can’t decide which girl he likes more. Are there ways the fight could have been avoided, or was it unavoidable?
This video dives into such an important and thought-provoking topic: the rules of war and the Just War Theory. What do you think about the idea of having ethical guidelines during conflicts? Is it even possible to maintain morality in war? Share your thoughts below
I agree with my fellow Iraq war veteran it was a rich man’s war just like Ukraine. Power, resources and to cover up the fact our CIA put Saddam in power in first place. Then when he went off script they had to take him out. There are rules to war but the US picks and chooses when to follow them because other countries/organizations do not follow them and never have.
I mean, the Ukraine issue is more Russia putting their nose where it doesn’t belong while Ukraine rightfully defends itself. Tho wouldn’t be surprised if the real reasons for the aggression are resource related rather than whatever bluster the autocrats deciding to attack give.
How is Iraq anything like Ukraine? Ukraine is a sovereign, Democratic country that was illegally attacked by it's larger neighbor who is massacring Ukrainian civilians
Dick says the lie that is used to justify, then says they had justification. He must be Republican. One wonders if anyone thinks a track record has any value.
It gets really easy when you're attacked. If you keep the retaliation proportionate and didn't grief your neighbor before hand, you'll probably keep to the just war. Iraq was not just because the reasons were built on lies. Ukraine's war is just, but Russia is not because Ukraine was minding its business when it was attacked. Israel's war is not just because they grieved their neighbors by imprisoning them in Gaza and stealing their land in the West Bank nor have they kept their war proportionate to the wrong done to them in Oct of 2023.
just watching netflix's Churchill series, perfect timing, it's funny how he is generally seen as a hero now for being pro war, with Hitler being reduced to a comic villain
I feel like "was it justified?" is the wrong question. "Was defeating saddam worth it?" Is the better questions considering we have enough time between the start of the war and now to have felt the repercussions
I’m sad this episode was not titled “war, what is it good for?”
Absolutely Nuthin'! Say it again!
@@thomasgoodwin2648 war, huh, what is it good for?
@@BeastimusSay it again, y'all
ha ha...There was a book and a course on Coursera
The original title for “War and Peace”?
As an Iraq war veteran who was also looking for WMD’s in 2003 of which there were NONE no, Iraq was not justified.
Not to mention the VP’s company getting the reconstruction project. That’s a lot of money
The original weapons inspectors seals from the 90’s were still on the buildings we checked.
So no, not justified at all.
Part of the issue with this conversation is that it isn't about actually justifying war, it is about how to get around such rules in order to get enough public support for a war.
This usually involves calling up/creating/making up certain grievances, fears, or benefits to the general public in order to convince them that we NEED to go to war. If the politicians do their job well enough, the public will even swallow the loss of their children, their parents, even their financial well-being, all in the name of said war.
The problem? Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth, and usually hold the lives of the "little people" with little importance. Politicians are far less concerned with what is "right" or "moral" and far more concerned with power. This means that it doesn't matter if something is actually right or moral, just that enough of the public can be convinced that it is.
Military and civilian intelligence agencies KNEW that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before we ever entered the country. Anybody with an awareness of international news also knew that will Hussein was a vile individual, he was far from the only one. In fact, the U.S. had/has many close alliances with leaders who are FAR worse than Hussein ever was, yet we aren't rearing to kick down their doors any time soon. We also utilized a large number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors who were not constrained by the "rules of war" that our military personnel are technically bound by. Those contractors did some extremely vile things to people who committed no worse crime than having a spawn point in the general vicinity, and yet we protected them in court.
If the nations of the world were to be judged, America is far from the good guy many here want to believe it is. Doesn't mean we don't do good things or have good people... but that is true of pretty much every nation or regime. Shoot, Hitler actually implement a lot of very good infrastructure and organizational practices throughout Germany that were later adopted around the world. That doesn't excuse him of his other extra-curricular activities though.
As an Iraq War vet: newp. Not justified.
I was an active anti-war advocate and in hindsight, knowing what we know after going in, I think it's very easy to say that the war was not justified. That said, I have to say my stance has softened over the years. We say 'Never Again' about World War 2. Saddam is someone who had gassed ethnic minorities in his country, he is someone who led a political purge similar to the night of knives in Nazi Germany; broadcasted live on television no-less. Not only was our government convinced he was developing the means to do it all again, Saddam himself thought he was developing the means to do it all again. It was of course all a lie.
Saddam's government was lying to Saddam and US Intelligence picked up on those lies and believed them too. Bush believed the lie, and Saddam himself believed the lie. If either one didn't believe the lie, if UN Inspectors were allowed into the country, I do not believe the war would have happened.
Most importantly it pains me to see our veterans suffer because of the mistakes of our leaders. Iraq is still pretty fucked up, but it's a better place now than it was 30 years ago. I don't think our veterans should feel guilty or regret for serving their country in Iraq.
Never again. The Iraq War should never happen again and nor should World War II; however this seems like an impossible dream.
Not even close to justified. What a stain on the United States! It explains a lot about the current state of affairs in the US and around the world. Our government's credibility at home and abroad has never recovered
Also an Iraq War vet: Yes, Justified. Maybe my view is different from yours because I worked in intel.
Sadly your comment will not be on top and many will give the "But..." answer. I applaud you for your honesty.
Of course is was just. Bush shouldn't have lied tho... Sadam had been committing war crimes for years. He needed to be stopped, WOMD or not
Your honor, I went to war just cause
My client is not guilty according to the "for funsies" clause
it was for Oil
Just Cause 3?
I think that criterion 3 of nationhood should also be problematized by asking how do we determine a nation wants to declare war and not just its leaders, specially when there are mass protests against it.
4:50 - Never did I anticipate that I would be in the background of a CrashCourse video! I was standing right by that big white tent!
The war was so succesful, not only did Iraq end up losing its weapons of mass destruction, they ended up having never had them in the first case! Great succes!
Wrong. What do you think "Shock and Awe" was all about. Hint: It was to destroy all known capabilities that could have been used by Saddam's regime against coalition ground troops. This includes all of his weapons of mass destruction. The news media didn't find any, because they had mostly been destroyed.
I completely understand why this topic is so exhausting. Just watching it and understanding how much this affects so many lives is exhausting, and heartbreaking.
Ironically, when asked for an explanation "just 'cause" is one of the least convincing replies you can give.
Rules of war ? They were pumping the oil out in record time. Where does that fit in the list?
Since there's obviously no accountability for leaders, unjust wars are inevitable.
Great. Applying this to the recent actions of the IDF in Palestime clearly seem to suggest the war is unjustified. When we see IDF soldiers rejoicing from the murder of innocent civilians, the stance that civilian death is simply a 'side effect' rather than being a target is questionable. When we see the images of mass destruction in Gaza, clearly the damages are disproportionate relative to the ends.
+++
Cant wait for the Game Theory episodes!
Rules of war aren’t rules. They’re just suggestions. Ones that can be easily ignored with little to no consequences . Especially if you’re a powerful country with nukes.
for a western country, public opinion really matters. Also for soldiers themselves the rules are very, very strict, at least now they are.
@@JoeyP946none of that mattered in Iraq and Afghanistan
@@JoeyP946 public opinion can be managed and soldiers.... Well some countries have opted out of the icc for a reason.
@@JoeyP946 Not so much in the US anymore, as can be seen by Trump pardoning three war criminals, a couple who appeared with him publicly for political purposes.
@@awesomehpt8938If it didn't matter, then why did the president feel the need to lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction? That's exactly the point - they had to lie to make a cause for just war in order for people to back them.
War is a odd thing to try to civilize &/or sanitize
there are no winners just survivors
Organizing, civilizing and sanitizing war is an ancient tradition. That's fundamentally what organized armies do, after all.
As a Kurdish man I am deeply relieved that Saddam Hussein is not ruling Iraq right now
Informative as always.
Info packed video.
Amazing ❤. I love what you do here 🎉
There's no proctor for this exam. Just your conscience.
Proportionality seems especially relevant in these times. 40k+ lives in response to ~2k is not proportional imo.
Thank you!
No. War is NEVER justified with 2 notable exceptions. 1. Self defense from an attacking state. 2. The defense against genocide
Though by this definition invasion of Iraq would have been justified in 1991 and 1983.
I think that criterion 4 of likelihood of success should also be problematized by asking at what cost, both material and in terms of human lifes: a pyrrhic victory should count as a success.
Clicked so fast. Important topic thank you for this information.
Not war, invasion. It would never be justified to do such atrocious things to anyone.
I used to be someone who thought that there is such thing as a "just war" or a "conditional violence" for good but now I'm more inclined towards pacifist peaceful non-armed resistance, huge difference between dying for what you believe and killing for what you believe, at least with peaceful resistance there can be no blood on someone's hands.
With the digital age it's very possible a "bloody war" may not end with physical damage but economic damage. I view all war being pointless cause the "good guys and bad guys" is always in the hands of who has the money/power.
How does pacifism work when you're victim to an aggressive invasion, like in the case of Ukraine? Holding hands and singing won't stop the war or stop your family from suffering
dissagree : pacificsts would allow totalitarian states to thrive.
How do you propose that would work for Palestinians? Or ukrainians? Or the Jews during WWII?
Violent oppression requires violent resistance.
@@WanderingMiqo Self-defense is obviously different from "Just War" used to justify an invasion after the fact.
Crashcourse go hard
So when are we getting a crash course in International Relations?
Life is simple, i see ellie from overthink and i click video
This series is amazing
Who lives. Who does. Who tells your storyyyy … usually the winner
Crash course is going wild this week, doing “Is atheism a religion?” and “is war justified?” within two days of each other.
To use a quote that I love: "All Wars are Holy Wars"
Almost every belligerent in the history of war believes their cause is just and they stand on the side of the 'righteous'.
That's a great quote but I feel like in reality most people don't think they're being righteous when fighting wars. I don't think Dick Cheney cared at all about democracy in Iraq. Most people give righteous excuses for fighting wars, but usually they have obvious hidden agendas and they really just want power or money.
Bush had just cause to go to Iraq: he went “just ‘cause”
Love Crash Course🥹
We should be asking the Iraqis. What we did to them is unforgivable full stop
Thank you.
9:43 well.. maybe the world is a better place without saddam. He was definitely a cartoon dictator (literally. He was in South Park), although MANY Iraqis would disagree with that assessment.
That said, it’s not up to other countries to decide how legitimate a head of state is, or how good at their job they are.
How would you feel if the rest of NATO invaded us in response to trump winning the election? Some of us might be chill with that, but I think I speak for most Americans when I say that I’d be upset to be under the rule of a foreign power, and feel that whatever government set up by NATO would probably leave me worse off than before.
Yeah, and also be aware "the rule of a foreign power" is also a massive euphemism here. Shock and awe...
I am a Kurd and also Iraq by identification but Saddam did many horrible things, putting villages underground alive, and taking people without a cause and killing them because if suspicion, the more I want to talk about what Saddam did to Kurds at that time, the more I see I can't
Dude, he was gassing and killing his own people in the thousands. He needed to be stopped... why was it OK to stop Hitler and not sadam?
I was in 7th grade when the Iraq War was declared. How disgraceful & wasteful in retrospect. Why I hated the 2000s.
Ah yes, bringing democracy to Iraq. So how's that going? Wars are complicated and can have so many undesirable consequences, it SHOULD be a difficult choice to make and one that requires a lot of deliberation and caution.
Well there are no rules if you have US of A on your side.
If you win, you get to write history.
That's so true. History is written by the winners after all.
history is always written by all sides. You just have to look for it. “History is written by the victor” is just a thought-terminating cliché used to shut down criticism and keep people from actually looking.
@@vokkera6995 If the victors wrote history the "lost cause mythology" wouldn't be so entrenched in the US today, just for one obvious example.
It's pretty common to see the losers narrative is actually the one that takes grip among society.
This thought came from the days that the victor destroyed all the history of the people that lost. It was common to burn libraries and destroy monuments after the city/state was over run
The Lost Cause mythology proves how overrated this quote is. It has such a simplified grasp of history yet I’ve seen it used a million time before.
A couple small points.
In defining a nation, it's usually not the populace that decides. In the case of monarchies, it IS 1 person that decides. In the U.S. only the Congress has the power, but compared to the populace, a still very small group indeed.
Also need to remember that the U.S. never officially declared war on Iraq, and the administration side-slipped the stickier bits of philosophical arguments by declaring it a 'Police Action'.
😎👍
America hasn't properly declared a war for like 80 years.
We all laughed at Russia when they launched "A special military operation" and we all said how insanely silly it is to pretend it's not a war, but they're just copying the US.
Bush..........................It's a just War to get me reelected.
The rules of war change depending on who is fighting
Preventive measures certainly weren’t executed in a right and just way
i dont recall a single US war that was justified during my lifetime :'D
I disagree that it is hard to determine whether the war is just -- other than proportionality, I think you made a clear argument that the Iraq War was emphatically not justified. It either ther failed or potentially failed every criterion. It's not that it's hard to figure out if a war is justified, it's that it is hard to justify a war. And I think that war should begin from a position of injustice and it should take overwhelming evidence in contradiction to overturn that assumption.
so what you're saying is The Russian war currently going on isnt even slightly Just
It was not
I feel like I have heard this material in overthink but after searching it, I couldn't find it. Maybe just my hallucination
Rules of war? The stronger party determines the rules.
No ❤
Not for the reasons we were given, and the fallout of it all was not worth all the lives and money spent
True, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have try to stop Sadam.
The rule is that war crimes are only a crime if you lose.
SPOILER ALERT: No.
I think this was the episode where CC: Politics crossed from being a good series to a truly great series. Awesome stuff, y'all.
No
Definitely justified if the war happened in 1983 or 1991-1992. Whether or not the Ba'ath party was capable of another genocide against the Kurdish and Shia by 2003 is more ambiguous. Obviously the 2003 invasion was not motivated by human rights considerations.
I will never be sorry Saddam Hussein was deposed, but that doesn't necessarily justify the actions of the Bush administration.
All wars before World War II are questionable, all wars after it are not justified no matter how people try to spin it and whether someone was provoked or not.
I remember reading in "City of God" by Augustine abridged and he used war if the alternative is worst. This was after the first sacking of Rome during the empire times. I presumed Christians didn't fight the invaders.
War is the most extreme form of fighting. Like fighting, there are times when it can be avoided, and at other times it can’t. For example, let’s say these two girls have a fight over a boy who can’t decide which girl he likes more. Are there ways the fight could have been avoided, or was it unavoidable?
This video dives into such an important and thought-provoking topic: the rules of war and the Just War Theory. What do you think about the idea of having ethical guidelines during conflicts? Is it even possible to maintain morality in war? Share your thoughts below
The last time i was this early Saddam Hussein was receiving the Keys to The City of Detroit.
I agree with my fellow Iraq war veteran it was a rich man’s war just like Ukraine. Power, resources and to cover up the fact our CIA put Saddam in power in first place. Then when he went off script they had to take him out. There are rules to war but the US picks and chooses when to follow them because other countries/organizations do not follow them and never have.
That's not actually correct. The CIA did not put Hussein in power, though he was supported during the Iran-Iraq War.
I mean, the Ukraine issue is more Russia putting their nose where it doesn’t belong while Ukraine rightfully defends itself. Tho wouldn’t be surprised if the real reasons for the aggression are resource related rather than whatever bluster the autocrats deciding to attack give.
How is Iraq anything like Ukraine? Ukraine is a sovereign, Democratic country that was illegally attacked by it's larger neighbor who is massacring Ukrainian civilians
@@Caterfree10it was not our war not our problem
Just war theory - Thomas Aquinas
•Jus ad bellum (6)
•Jus in bello (3)
Jus post bellum
Eyyy im first! Great video like always
Congratulations 😊
War only ends in more war
I think Germany, Italy and Japan would say otherwise.
Dick says the lie that is used to justify, then says they had justification. He must be Republican. One wonders if anyone thinks a track record has any value.
The war in Iraq? No (but I am glad Saddam is gone) but the Afghanistan War? Yes. The only question is if we stayed too long or should still be there.
What WMDs? We were there for the oil.
Can't argue the oil narrative, but Saddam did have WMDs.
ST. Thomas Aquinas was awesome
No it wasn’t
It's not a theory, maybe a hypothesis, but what is it really for and for whom if everyone isn't adhering to it.
Theory in this case isn't exactly like a scientific theory, it's more like an area of study + established ideas.
It gets really easy when you're attacked. If you keep the retaliation proportionate and didn't grief your neighbor before hand, you'll probably keep to the just war. Iraq was not just because the reasons were built on lies. Ukraine's war is just, but Russia is not because Ukraine was minding its business when it was attacked. Israel's war is not just because they grieved their neighbors by imprisoning them in Gaza and stealing their land in the West Bank nor have they kept their war proportionate to the wrong done to them in Oct of 2023.
+
"In love and war, there are no rules"
This is your philosophy. In Islam, there are clear rules on how to fight against enemies and how to deal with prisoners and more.
We have not technically been at war since the end of WW2. War has not officially been declared since WW2
99.99999 of cases the rules of war are "the winner says who was the "evil" one"
War is never just. War is just one group's greed overpowered.
That mug is massive.
just watching netflix's Churchill series, perfect timing, it's funny how he is generally seen as a hero now for being pro war, with Hitler being reduced to a comic villain
Òilwars of USA 🇺🇸 😅
War is never justified
War is a crime, that's why it's a War. Duh.
You missed much.
@@TheDanEdwards like what?
Yes, the U.S. justified it!
Random pacifistic comment for engagement purposes.
I feel like "was it justified?" is the wrong question. "Was defeating saddam worth it?" Is the better questions considering we have enough time between the start of the war and now to have felt the repercussions
The answer is no
The answer is NO
No