China Invades The Philippines

[dairygirl4u2c]

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Here are the criteria for a just war:

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

if the probability of success is so small... should the phillipeenes fight against china? should the southern states have not fought given how outnumbered htey were? should the revolutionary war have started given we started with no backing from othe rcountrires who ultimatley caused us to win?

this is an example of how we can't get caught up in prepacked standards of what's right and wrong, and be willing to go beyong it someitmes.
it's just common sensical that 'self defense as a nation' is an acceptable standard, too. are we to say 'just war' isn't hte standard in these cases, but rather a collection 'defense of self' 'defense of others' is the standard? or if we did that... shpouild we wait until they are imminently about to bomb or attack somewhere, such taht we can't go attack first, preemptively during hte war? we have to engage on a battle by battle basis, given no 'war' exists?
these ideas are ridiculous. i hope people realize that and can go beyond pointing out that these are ridiculous but expand it to other areas when necdessary.

[vee]

Since the Phillipeenes is not a country it is not possible to invade a place that doenst exist.

[b]
[/b]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1294688816' post='2198670']
Since the Phillipeenes is not a country it is not possible to invade a place that doenst exist.

[b]
[/b]

[/quote]

Do you think she may be trying to spell Philippines? According to my wife the only thing anyone would want from the Philippines is a small amount of oil. I don't think the USA would be happy about that or losing their strategic point to Asia.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so all the countries of the world decide to form up and attack us. there's no chance we'd last. is it wrong to engage in war since there's no chance of winning? are we to lay down and down, or become prisoners, whatever hteir whim?
these criteria almost surely aren't about being the first aggressors... as that'd be preemptive attacks most surely, which were controversial before. it wouldn't be of course to take over a country by force just cause one can.
so are people seriously willing to say we to lay down and down, or become prisoners, whatever hteir whim?

[tnavarro61]

[quote]if the probability of success is so small... should the phillipeenes fight against china? [/quote]

I do not know what you are talking about. I haven't heard of any news that the entire Philippines would be invaded by China. Well, probably you are referring to a [url="http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Spratly_Islands"]group of islands[/url] that is in dispute among many nations, including the Philippines and China. China would like to gain the "sovereignty" over the whole group of islands but that doesn't mean China would invade the Philippines.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i accidentally forgot to state that this was a hypothetical.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1294699415' post='2198720']
[u]Philippines[/u]
[/quote]

One l, two P's.

[tnavarro61]

and people living in the Philippines are not Philippinos. We are called[b] Filipinos[/b].

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1294702332' post='2198728']
so all the countries of the world decide to form up and attack us. there's no chance we'd last. is it wrong to engage in war since there's no chance of winning? are we to lay down and down, or become prisoners, whatever hteir whim?
these criteria almost surely aren't about being the first aggressors... as that'd be preemptive attacks most surely, which were controversial before. it wouldn't be of course to take over a country by force just cause one can.
so are people seriously willing to say we to lay down and down, or become prisoners, whatever hteir whim?
[/quote]

If an overwhelming bunch of Italians wanted to feed me to a bunch of starved lions unless I denounced my faith, should I do it? Hypothetically!