There is a such thing as a Just War

I will now define some terms down here below, and then I will develop more into my opening argument. Just War Theory or “Just War”- Just War theory is thought to have originated from Greco-Roman and Christian Values. Such distinguished members of this theory would include Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine. There are three main items that make up the Just war Theory in order to fully understand it. So to begin, I will list the three main ideas that make up this theory as a whole down here below. These three main principles are necessary in order for a war to be just. If any of these three are violated then a war becomes “just” by these main principles. 1) Jus ad bellum: Concerns the head of state or political leaders. Political figures/leaders are the ones responsible for the installation of wars and programing them forward, they are therefore, held accountable if they fail their authoritative accountability, then by this principle of jus ad bellum, they have committed a war crime(s). 2) Just in bello: Has to do with the justice in a war and the right conduct to follow in battle. Responsibility falls primarily on commanders, officers and soldiers who carry out the policy of war. 3) Jus post bellum: Refers to the justice during the last or final stage of war: The end of war. Its purpose is to seek the end of wars and to negotiate peace after war. Responsibility lies on the officials such as political leaders; the UN, JSOC(Joint Special Operation Commander),etc. War- A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Example of a Just War: The 1991 Persian Gulf War In 1991,Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in order to obtain oil profits for his failed loss back in the 1980s during the Iraq-Iran War. He violated Jus ad bellum in a list of ways. 1. On August 2, 1990, the Iraqi army crossed two lines. The first line was the border separating the two sovereign countries of Iraq and Kuwait. Internationally recognized as a legitimate state since 1961, Kuwait was overrun by the large Iraqi military. The second line was the biggest qualifier for a just war against Iraq: Aggression. In performing this act of aggression, Iraq unleashed the floodgates of war which. Because of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the international coalition was morally forced to wage war. 2. Of all the arguments for the war against Iraq, stopping aggression was the strongest platform. Even though oil was a central issue, the coalition required Iraq to give back the property, land, and people seized in the invasion. To ignore the Iraqi invasion would be to reward "naked aggression". 3. Iraq was also guilty of jus in bello(justice in war) because of his slaughter or atrocities on the civilians in Kurdistan during the 1980s. He unethically used nerve gas and chemical weapons like SCUD missiles on the Kurds as a result of the Iran-Iraq war. Resulting in over 5000 deaths in 1988. The side effects of nerve gas or nerve agents were vomiting, gastrointestinal disorders, and ultimately death. Other side effects include mental retardation, multiple limbs or fingers, and blindness. First Conclusion: As we can see, a just war is necessary when a nation attacks another nation unjustly like in the example of the Persian Gulf. Saddam Hussein’s cause of the Persian gulf war was greed. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...# [3] http://www.grose.us... [4] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...