yes and no
Yes: when against evil dictators that oppress their people and have attacked you first (Nazi Germany, good example). (Defensive- ie defence of invaded country) When country wish to invade a country simply for resources, land. Defence, putting your people first in defensively in various situations. If a war is to be just it has to be defence of the people and no other.
No: For economical reasons (no matter what, you can trade). For revenge, you are just as bad as them. Any other reasons really.
yes/no
i don't think so
It is an extremely subjective question to ask if violence can ever be justified and everyone has a different answer. The question has been argued about in philosophy for centuries.
yes
It is if the countries reason for war is reasonable
between the two wars which one was more justified
i don't think so
no
Yes
really...
It is an extremely subjective question to ask if violence can ever be justified and everyone has a different answer. The question has been argued about in philosophy for centuries.
There have been a few just wars in the past. War can be justified if it is waged in order to defend yourself and your country and faith from invaders. War cannot be justified when it is offensive, instead of defensive. In other words, it is wrong to wage war if no one has attacked you or your country or your faith (eg. imperialist wars cannot be justified).
No , the "Rule of Law" should take precedence over political expediency .
Not sure what you mean by a fair war but it seem like you are talking about a justified war, which i a war of defense. If your country was invaded you would be justified in using military force to real your attackers
Yes, they are justified if they will help more than they will harm and if they are done with good intentions.
of course it was justified! The Egyptian people were mistreated and exploited by an insanley corrupt government.
yes
No, not unless you know the civilians believed in their cause. They might not even want their side to win!