Well the United States would have to be excluded. Not such a good example of a nation that upholds freedom, justice and equality.
Yeah, cos South American governments have a much better track record on human rights and democratic institutions.
Hmm. Well, maybe the Western nations have been better in the last few decades, but certainly not in the past.
What exactly are the last few decades, if not the past?
WW1 was a needless and purposeless conflict over petty state interests and diplomacy which simply resulted in gargantuan human suffering and loss of life. It was anything but a 'necessary' war (viz. it is a bad example). But I can certainly agree that wwII was a necessary war, as is Afghanistan.
There is no such thing as a 'necessary' war, at least on an international scale anyway. Wars are a product of both offence and defence but (somewhat obviously) are always started by the aggressor. However, you refer to the necessity of war from a defensive, or even preemptive, point of view i.e. that it was 'necessary' for the US to declare war on Japan due to the latter's aggression or whatever. However, at that point, war had already begun because the first act of aggression had been carried out. Was it necessary for that act of aggression to occur? No, it was not. Therefore, aggression on the world stage is an act that is never necessary; perhaps defence is, but defence is not the initial act of war.
Clearly you haven't studied history.
First act of aggression does not necessarily=the beginning of the war, because war is essentially a mutual action (ie if one does not respond and simply cowers back, you do not have a war but an isolated act of violence/aggression). I can however understand the holistic point of view whence you are coming; hence I would say that responding with force to the example you gave (Japan and Pearl Harbour) - and thus ensuring that an isolated violent act escalates into war - was 'necessary' or at least 'desirable' (not in that having a lot of you men killed is good, but that it would be far better to fight and triumph then to simply submit given the situation). I guess I approach the term 'necessary' from a more relative (ie for one belligerent side) and immediate rather than as a higher philosophic idea. For example, one could argue that ww2 was 'unnecessary' because many of its long term causes rest in problems associated with the end of ww1 (as but one example, the severity and economic stipulations of Versailles). From the perspective of the Allies at the time ww2 broke out and escalated, however, (as opposed to a sort of long term historical period inclusive of many successive generations) i would argue for its necessity.
As above. I can understand your point, but from the perspective of the present generation who did not and cannot exercise control over the past and the events that have led to the current situation, I would hold it is something we ought to be doing (though even in an immediate sense, I would allow that its 'necessity' is a debatable concept - I would say that it is though, as it is currently a spring for serious terrorists with a great potential for wreaking global havoc).
But here you accuse me of generalising from basic examples/induction but then generalise yourself. To an extent I would agree with your Iraq example, but bear in mind that, in many ways, it was not really a justified war to begin with (hint of ulterior motives about oil etc etc). In one sense, war is never in an absolute sense 'good', but rather 'less bad' or the best option when all the channels of possible action are inherently 'bad'. Iraq was in someways poorly handled, but I would not have really seen it as a 'necessary war' (in an immediate or longer term sense, especially as many of the concerns before the invasion were a result of the failure to adequately consolidate against Iraq or Saddam during 1991) anyway. Certainly war is often not the best option or a necessity from either perspective of the potential belligerents and may result in things being worse than they were otherwise, but there are also times - like ww2 - when war, as a last ditch or otherwise, will ultimately yield the least disadvantageous consequences.
Clearly you haven't studied any reliable history.
What? Are you serious?
Sorry my apologies, everything that is wrong in this world is the fault of TNC's and conservatives. I'll be sure not to forget that next time.
Lol. Even as a 'leftist', I have real problems with that point of view.
Prior to the last few decades is not the modern world. If you're going to hold a country's human rights record against them for centuries, then Japan and Germany are to be considered dispicable, continental Europe would still owe Africa an apology for slavery, Scandanavia would owe reperations to all of their neighbours for the Viking raids and Iran would still be saying sorry for the Persian invasion of Europe.
It deserves noting that these right-wing dictatorships you speak of were not headed, nor carried out by citizens of the United States. They only funded and supported them. Lets reveiw the nationality of these dictators:
