The Ethics of War

This is a most important discussion, and I hope it receives many commenters.

I highly recommend reading 2 books by John Perkins: CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN, and THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE.

Perkins, with his experience of involvement in the corporatocracy, has seen the CIA involved in more than one assassination, and more than one manipulation of whole populations into violent de-stabilization which turned out very profitably for U.S. business privateers like the Bechtel Corp.

In order to truly understand those words "Just War" we must get the words of the 50% of human population which can actually bring such rogue warmongering to a halt: the women. Councils of Grandmothers......Women in leadership positions......Get the feminine power quotient into a 50-50 balance with the male power quotient, and then peace: JUST PEACE!!! - is truly possible and probable and inescapable.

"Just War" sounds like saying "Just Death" or Just Destruction" or "Just Cancer".

Some folks like the sound of "War". It sounds all macho and tough and kick-ass.

Sadly, War makes some folks lots of money, and some of those folks don't give a wit about spreading or causing death and destruction on others in order to get rich(er).

Thanks for the link. I'll give it a listen.

The just war gives a different spin from 'Just War'. The later conveys the concept of nothing war[not to my mind in a meaningful way] In looking at the former the concept of Justice is implied. This begs the questoion ' justice' from whose vantage point? Simply put, Iwould consider The Just War as one waged ,clearly to defend a people against obvious threats to overpower, enslave, spread hegemony, overrule etc. on the part of a distinctly Hostile Group which may be external [outside threat] or internal [ threat from within] . Of course the definition is simple but the reality is difficult. The difficulty is always in the perception. Naturally, the winners are the determiners of the overriding percetion.
If the Allies had won World WarII, the hunted war criminals would be, NOT GERMANS.
The Crusaders Created there own Value Judgements...The Infidels were all on the other side....in this context revisit the Wars between the Native Americans and Settlers; THE LOSERS ARE OTHER THAN FIRST CLASS CITIZENS. I will post two comments on aspects of the topic,done earlier [a] Justice still the son of none and [b] My history.

When I heard Stephen Carter's speech, I realized he was not saying anything new. Theologians have had made his arguments since Augustine. What is different is that he is a law professor, at Yale no less, someone who in our current culture is considered authoritative. I am saddened that the Jerry Farwell's and Pat Roberson's have alluded the culture that Jewish and Christian faith is extreme, rigidly fundamentalist, and filled with hatred advocating violence. And I am saddened that the likes of Christopher Hitchens argues against this form of religion as though it were the only version of Jewish and Christian faith.

Who are our theologians in the early 21st century? The lawyers, economists, and scientists. This is great, for at least people are paying attention to their wisdom.

What frustrates me is that progressive religious thought has been uttering the same wisdom for centuries. The religious institutions allowed their audience to be limited to a narrow audience. So the famed people like Stephen Carter can give a basic ethics lecture on Just War theory and sound like a prophet. How can progressive religious thought make its way back into the conversation? Perhaps we missed the boat two decades ago.

Can anyone help me identify the music used on this episode of the podcast?