Examples Of Justify The Declaration Of War

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

attitude....Complete destruction of Poland is the military aim. To be fast is the main thing.

Imagine a country where the government could do anything they wanted because it was simply their “right.” The revolution was caused by a series of events which were started by the king passing taxes on the colonists and enforcing laws which were violating the civilians natural rights. There has been an argument since the war started about whether the colonists were justified in declaring independence and breaking away from their home country. The American colonists were justified in waging war for independence against Britain because the british government ignored countless formal petitions sent, the government didn’t have the right to impose taxes on the settlers, and Britain waged war against the colonists.

The second necessity is that a just cause is required in order to wage war.

Counter Argument: Some people may argue that It was justified to go to war because of the many cruel

The damage of wars is way too much that it should never happen under any circumstance. No one should ever initiate a war and claim it justified. Let’s see why war should not be justified.

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

The American’s were not justified in waging war against the British.The British were actually paying a lot more in taxes than the american colonists. Whately and other British officials thought that since they fought for our advantages that we should in turn agree to pay higher taxes to compensate for the war that was fought for our benefit.

This scenario was demonstrated during World War II; the Japanese were committing horrendous acts that violated the rights of human beings in foreign countries. These actions could only be stopped if the country lost its military powers, both domestically and in foreign nations. To that end, Japan could only lose its power if it lost the war. The Japanese Imperial Army had taken on horrible crimes and made them the cultural criterion. The army rampaged through China, endorsed human sex trafficking, incorporated slavery, and supported Nazi Germany. A while before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was outraged upon hearing the savagery of Germany and the Japanese Imperial Army. He quickly called for the preparations to build a massive American air force,” only if the residents of East Asia needed America to step in (Wolk). Franklin D. Roosevelt gradually became more and more appalled at the atrocious actions being performed by the Japanese Imperial Army in East Asia, and publicly made it clear that the Axis Powers would be viciously attacked and bombed (Wolk). Over the course of many years, “Japan ‘caused much harm to various countries, largely in Asia, through a reckless war.’” (Kirk). President Roosevelt's response exemplifies the point of stopping a country from harming its citizens through whatever

Yes, President Roosevelt’s declaration of war was justified according to Just War Theory because the U.S. was at peace with the the Empire of Japan, planning to maintain peace in the Pacific. The Empire of Japan’s government, clandestinely, had been planning to deceive America by making false allegations of agreeing with the U.S. in the pursuit of keeping peace in the Pacific. The United States reasoning of going to war was justified because Japan showed a great level of hostility to our nation. It was are last resort to go to war because Japan's terrorised the U.S. after we had made peace with them. The United States territory and interests were in danger, so at the time, self defence was the only option.For President Roosevelt declaration

Congress and the president use their powers to check and balance each other. One power of Congress is the ability to declare war. However, Congress generally gives the president control during war time. Because of this, the president is able to acquire more power over the war while Congress can do little if they have already given their approval. After the Vietnam War, in which Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued to wage despite a divided Congress[i]; they decided that the Constitution did not warrant the president to have the power to declare war, so they passed the War

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

The policies that the United States has implement towards the War on Terror both conform and diverge from Machiavellian ideals in regards to foreign policy. Machiavelli states that to obtain and maintain power in a newly acquired state a ruler must “give offense…by imposing troops upon them”. The U.S. immediately acted towards this goal after the terrorist attacks in September 2001. The immediate action of the U.S. also correlate with the advice Machiavelli gives about the swiftness that must be taken to avoid war; “one should never allow a problem to develop in order to avoid war, for you end up not avoiding war, but deferring it to a time that will be less favorable”. By taking immediate action, the U.S. was able to take control of the situation at a time that allowed for the most support from the citizens of the U.S. along with other world powers. This was demonstrated by the surge of support that President Bush obtained immediately after the declaration of war.

There are unwritten rules of war, and the United States may have broken one by attacking innocent civilians, but they were protecting their own. The United States has always been pro-active when it comes to the safety of its citizens and this was just

The Reason for Going to War Since the beginning of the war on Iraq, over 8243 civilians, 11000 Iraqi soldiers and 642 Coalition soldiers have died. There has not been one day since a US soldier was killed and since the beginning of the occupation, 39750 bombs have been dropped and $117 billion dollars have been spent. And no weapons of mass destruction have been found.