Just war /3

The political question of the just war

(If you missed the previous posts, you can find here part 1 and part 2)

All of us, or at least most of us, tend to argue that the world is based on a strong inequality, the preservation of the privileges of a few “elected” to the detriment of many others. Perhaps we should not discuss the case of “just war”or “unjust war”, but “convenient” or “not convenient” war.

peace and war, bound together

This depends on the cost-benefit calculation that is done, on what is included in the account and how the political and decision-makers use this simple indicator (should, should not), with a complex system of values, to decide whether to wage war. Then we can talk again about political justice.

To improve the overall condition of the world and humanity, to eliminate a tyrant, to stop a massacre, to remedy an injustice, to save the persecuted, these are concepts that we usually hear in the speeches of politicians when they talk about just war. Humanitarian and democratic, these are other two adjectives used very often.

Having passed and somehow accepted these adjectives led to a step in one direction: preventive war. If there are those who, today, are foreign policy based on this word, it is also thanks to those who have passed the acceptance of other adjectives apparently harmless and reassuring.

Petroleum, power, dominion, career, money, these are the motives of who makes politic and who controls the corporations.

History tells who the winner is...

In the next session I’m going to bring a good example of “Convenient War”. Or if you want “Just War”. :)



Listen to our music!


Support independent music!

Random Pics