For the last century or so most wars waged by the West are fought under the Geneva Conventions, rooted in Just War Theory of Neo Platonist Church Father St. Augustine, who was rather big on original sin, self sacrifice and guilt culture. The theory tightly describes a number of conditions that justify going to war. But in practice this international law functions as a handicap to those sent into it to actually fight it, the soldiers.
UPDATE:
UPDATE:
Tags: Globalism, Philosophy, War & conflict
July 2, 2019
WHY WE CAVED TO IRAN?
Michael Walzer explains Just War Theory (JWT). The doctrine is a Western construct based, not on the brutal reality of war, stateless anarchy and immoral combatants, but on an ideal world. More information in the introduction at the bottom of the page.
UPDATE: Forget about the intricate details of our nuclear agreement with Iran—the number of centrifuges permitted, the degree of uranium enrichment allowed, the amount of advance notification required before inspectors can visit a nuclear facility. There is really only one question that matters: If an Iranian nuclear capacity poses an objective threat to America—if we have reason to fear that such weapons will be used aggressively against us—why are we relying for our safety on an agreement with the aggressor?
England has nuclear weapons. So does France. So does Israel. Yet we don’t have a need to sign treaties in which these nations promise not to take actions that threaten us. Their weapons are not a danger to us because they are essentially free countries and they do not live by conquest. They do not dictatorially subjugate people, neither their own citizens nor those of other countries. They recognize—however inconsistently—the value of liberty. They do not regard America as a fundamental enemy.
A nuclear Iran, by contrast, is a danger to us. It is a theocracy which subjugates its own people and which seeks militarily to extend its power beyond its borders. If its government is willing to initiate force against us, how will it be deterred by its promise not to? A “contract” with Iran makes as much sense as a “contract” between the police and a criminal gang. (...) Why, then, is this disastrous treaty with Iran being pushed? Largely because of the ethics of altruism. Here is an excerpt from my book The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest (written in 2004) (...) (Source)
Tags: Globalism, Philosophy, War & conflict
England has nuclear weapons. So does France. So does Israel. Yet we don’t have a need to sign treaties in which these nations promise not to take actions that threaten us. Their weapons are not a danger to us because they are essentially free countries and they do not live by conquest. They do not dictatorially subjugate people, neither their own citizens nor those of other countries. They recognize—however inconsistently—the value of liberty. They do not regard America as a fundamental enemy.
A nuclear Iran, by contrast, is a danger to us. It is a theocracy which subjugates its own people and which seeks militarily to extend its power beyond its borders. If its government is willing to initiate force against us, how will it be deterred by its promise not to? A “contract” with Iran makes as much sense as a “contract” between the police and a criminal gang. (...) Why, then, is this disastrous treaty with Iran being pushed? Largely because of the ethics of altruism. Here is an excerpt from my book The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest (written in 2004) (...) (Source)
Tags: Globalism, Philosophy, War & conflict
- “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
- “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense
- "Next Generation TV: Obama Arms the Muslim Brotherhood: Hear Why the U.S. Should Not Buy Love in the Middle East