Vietnam vs. the Iraq War

Probably a wise decision.

According to a Chicago tribune article the Homicide rate may climb to over 600 by the end of the year...But that still is a lot less than what we have lost in Iraq.  Where were you getting your numbers from?

There, fixed that for him.

I haven't formed a conclusion here, but let me just throw out these points.

The Vietnam war was was essential a civil war. There was a revolution within the nation. The ruling oligarchy was overthrown by the communists led by Ho Chi Mihn.

So there are really two questions about whether it was justified.

First is whether those overthrown had the right to prosecute a war against the revolutionaries. (probably gets complicated here because of the historic status of Vietnam being a colony under the French)

If they did in fact have right authority under the just war theory (the best standard I know of to use) then they probably were justified in prosecuting a war against Ho and trying to regain lost territory.

If that's the case, then was the US justified in coming to the aid of a nation that had the just authority to prosecute that war. One question here would be whether the South was the entity that retained "right authority" and invited another nation to it's aid, or whether the US was simply using the South as a puppet.

Even if the US was "using" the South, the South still may have retained "right authority", so in the macro the war may indeed still have remained justifiable.

As for Iraq. I personally came to the conclusion that the invasion was not justified. However, The US government held "right authority" in the matter. The question comes down to the threat of imminent attack. In this matter, there is room for "prudential judgement". If the judgement, based on itelligence whether that intelligence was flawed or not, was that immanent attack was looming, then the invasion was justifiable.

As far as I can tell, with the Iraq invasion there was enough of a gray area to legitimize a prudential judgement on either side, those sides being that invasion was justified or that invasion was not justified.

Because of that gray area, I don't believe you can judge the invasion as being "immoral" according to just war theory, even if you personally conclude that it was not justified.

Again, I haven't drawn conclusions, just throwing out points to consider in coming to a conclusion.

That is a loaded question. One must agree that both wars were unconscionable in order to answer.

Also... when engaging in discussions around war there are several thoughts to contemplate...

 A "just war" is always justifiable, but a justifiable war is not always a "just war."

The U.S. supposedly subscribes to the Just War Tradition... as has been worked out over the centuries mainly through the writings of Augustine, but others as well.  However, the tradition was never meant to be a mere checklist of things so that one ruler/authority could simply wage war when the whim suited them.

 There are conditions to be me before war, as well as in the actual combat.  Very often, we simply reduce whether or not a war is just by considering the cause...

Before war (jus ad bello) 

Just cause

Comparative justice

Legitimate authority

Right intention

Probability of success

Last resort

Proportionality

During War (jus in bello) 

Discrimination of non-combatants

Proportionality

Necessity 

not necessarily... some wars might be waged to serve others, i.e. to protect someone from attack, or  to bring about justice on behalf of another.

OK could you list the 'just wars' for me?
WWII? Any others?