I think something people over looked a lot during President Obama's Nobel Peace speech was he used the term moral war.  Now for a lot people, the idea of a justified war seems to be something that doesn't bring up an argument.  However, if we put two and two together, a campaign that involves casualties on both sides doesn't seem to have much that can justify it.  Indeed "moral war" seems to be an oxymoron. 

Thus to get a better idea, I want to hear what other people think of this term.  Is there such thing as a moral war?  If it exists, when is war justified morally?  Or to put better, is there ever a good enough reason to justify a war?  And also throw out there, has there EVER been a war that you could call a "morally justified war"?

My personal opinions on the matter aren't too contested. It's hard to imagine there can ever be a good enough reason to ever morally justify the killings of another. It does seem like nowadays if wars aren't for vengeance they are for some economic or political gain. Uses the actual Earth as a large "Risk" board but indeed the pawns are real people.

But given that is what is actually happen, is their an idealistic war? Only one I could ever think of is a war that is for true justice... justice of the highest level. So high that I probably can't define it and will therefore maintain Socratic Wisdom. Indeed, for me it is hard to support the "who attacked first" wars. Or anything along the line where violence leads to more violence without a pure cause.

Yet when it comes to this situation I'm always reminded of this quote:

"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding."- Albert Einstein

Really a good quote. As much as we humans might think peace can be obtained through strife and struggle, don't we only perpetuate the problem. Perpetuate the idea that violence is okay in certain times. Gives the "enemy" a reason to fight back. Peace can never be obtained through violence because it is indeed an oxymoron.

So a moral war? I don't think it can exist unless the intentions are purely good in the eyes of justice. Considering that will probably never happen, it seems that a moral war doesn't exist to me. I disagree wholeheartedly with that of President Obama and probably numerous other American politicians. But I also agree greatly with that of Einstein and his conception of peace and war.

Well I probably would have done with what was done in history but mainly because the events before it gave people no choice.  Wars lead to more wars and that was the lesson in WW1 we didn't learn from history.  Can't free the world of tyranny and violence by imposing it on teh world.  But I would have gone to war just like everyone else but I wouldn't have had any moral justification for it whatsoever.  Indeed I would be participating in a war that claims more than 50 million lives.  There is no moral justification for that. 

But maybe I'm copping out.  Maybe there is always another choice than war itself.  So really I don't know what I would have done.  Not necessarily a great situation to be brought up into.  Yet it is these realities of the world that aren't only perpetuated by war but caused by it.  How do you morally justify perpetuation of genocide is beyond me.  I'd always like to think there is another way.  I may not be a religious person, but I believe Jesus would say the same thing.  But I suppose we are only human.

I studied this in international politics. Its called a Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War ).

Interesting elements such as targeting of combatants or non-combatants, proportionality and probability of success are all highly dubious measures made. How are going to know any of this with complete certainty? Personally i think there is always another option but, given the horrible cost of sanctions, its not neccesarily better choice anyway.

Application of Just War principles and Vietnam - http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/just-unjust-war.html

I think a lot of people... didn't listen to his speech... can you give more of a context of what he said?

Its called Google - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/

Basically he is reasoning new extensions to traditional rules of war, the type of thing that makes invasion of Iran, North Korea or even Iraq legal. Given what Blair has said today, that he would have invaded Iraq even if there were no WMD's, i think a rule change is required asap.

After reading Just and Unjust Wars by Walzer , and that what he says about morality of war (in short)

Some believe that only a war of defence can be see as a moral war, and any aggression is a crime against other nation states, because it breaches integrity of the states. (he claims that one side in war is always morally right)

According to communitarians only serious ethnic destruction of the nation (grave evil) itself can justify morally intervention of other states which was the case with Second World War, but then US and UK supported as bad regime in order to defeat Germany.Force must be used as a last resort, after exhausitng every other possible mean, there also must be comparative justice in which gains morally will outweight the damage done to the other nation.

According to Just war theorists Breach of Human rights etc. etc. still is not good enough of a excuse to start war, so they are pretty against Liberal Interventions.

Personally i'm a Realist , i dont reallyt believe in Just or Unjust Wars because those distinctions do not seem to stop wars from happening. Wars are so natural in international order, they are simply an extention of Politics.

Obama's Peace Prize is a massive joke, something that really stopped me from Believing in Nobel Pace Prize, i mean dude that literally did nothing to increase world peace got it, just because he is so popular. I mean the next year they can give it to Putin, Berlusconi or Hu Jintao and i wont be suprised

Pretty debatable considering the allies had the Soviet Union on its side. Not to mention the use of Nuclear weapons by the USA. Both sides were pretty morally bankrupt. But obviously the war was justifiable beause of Nazi Expansionism within continental Europe.

Is war moral? Probably not when it comes down to it. Justifiable yes, but the reality is war condemns so many people to suffering and death that it would be a hard ask to consider any act of war, or war itself morally sound. Unless you live in a theocracy or something I suppose.

Which raises the question, is morality universal? I don't believe it is personally. And if it isn't that makes this even muddier because the different sides have different morals to judge the conflict by.

But I suppose history is written by the victor anyway. So it doesn't really matter a great deal.

When starting a topic about something it's common courtesy to link to some source about the actual thing so dozens of people who want to talk about it don't all have to waste time looking for it.

Additionally WW2 wasn't as moral as people think.  When the war was winding down the west had many chances to save jews.  By bombing certain railroad tracks, by speeding up certain parts of the line... etc.

These plans held low risks and high rewards in human life saved.  They were all summarily rejected.

As for a "moral" war.  It really depends on your definition of morals doesn't it.

Robin Hood robbed from the corrupt rich and gave from the poor.  If you think what robbin hood did was right, i'd suggest that there are infact moral wars.

There has to be some level of equation that makes a war moral.  For example Casualty expectation-increased quality of living <= expected deathtoll under regime + Lesser life conditions.

The US use of Atomic weapons was much more humane then the other two options which would of had giant death tolls.  The Japanese almost didn't surrender after both atom bombs due to a plot.

The other options would of been a full land invasion that likely would of had the russians join in and turn Japan into Germany making the "Japanese Miracle" highly unlikely....

or massive blockade and bombing campaign... which considering the compartmentalization of japan at the time would of meant the majority of the country would of been hit by famine and starvation.

The Allies had a lot of questionable moral moves... the Nuclear weapons weren't one... it actually did take 2 for Japan to surrender.

A good one to place on the western allies is that after a while they knew about the holocaust, could of diverted planes to bomb railroads tracks or sent troops at a faster pace with little extra danger... since at that point they were basically mopping up... but they didn't, and delibritly trudged their feet and rejected all plans to help the Jews.

It's not like the UK or US were less antisemetic then the germans.

It took something like the Holocaust to "shock" people... that and Germany had a lot of national anger after WWI.