Logbook

Division of tasks
WWI: Emiel van de Vijver, Xander De Vries
WWII: Bjorn Joosten
US Civil war: Rik Niesing, Sven Bouman
Terrorists: Milla Derhaag, Casper van Campen
When do we start a war and when don’t you: Alex Boumfa, Kim de
Waal
Strategy thinking: Stef Putmans
Sven Bouman:
The south formed a new independent state, the confederate states. Abraham Lincoln was
against slavery, but the confederate states still heavily relied on slavery. Then the
confederate states tried to claim a fort from the United States. This led to the US having to
declare war against the confederate states, in order to reclaim their own territory
The civil war ended and a process of rebuilding a nation free of slavery started. End result is
positive
To justify the War, the Bush administration claimed that Afghanistan only had "selective
sovereignty", and that intervention was necessary because the Taliban threatened the
sovereignty of other states.
support its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration put forth a 'selective
sovereignty' thesis that would legitimise intervention in states that are accused of
supporting terrorists.

argument: hundreds of people die becouse of terrorism, simple solution: go to war with the
terrorists!
Starting a war takes a lot of thinking because we have to think about all the consequenses
such as live loss Soldiers know that there is a chance that they are going to die (and affect
his/her family members and everyone they know). By knowing this, it is the choice of the
soldier to go in the army or not.
Revenge is justified because you have to right to take back what's yours war on terrorism.
Countries’ have to take the things necessary to fight against terrorism in the country or
people who want to be independent and take the means necessary to fight the country. Are
you going to leave your country as it is with terrorist / rebellions in there?
Examples such as: Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (side note: in a part of these
countries other countries had to intervene) The clearest example of a just cause is self-
defence against an aggressor assassination of a prominent person attack on a neighbour or
ally allies (NATO, UN) protecting your companions
End statement: the Ends justify the means
Rik Niesing:
War is justified for self defence: invasions, terrorism, national honour and economic attacks.
example: united states government declared war on terror after 9/11
 
invasions: when someone is invading your country or a neighbour country which will lead to
a threat or a country is being invaded which you have a allignement with like NATO.
terrorism: when terrorism is occuring in your country like the central asian's taliban and the
terrorist groups isis and al qaeda national honour: when a prominent person like a minister
or someone from the royal palace is murdered by a group

Self-defence: invasion: The clearest example of a just cause is self-defence against an

aggressor. For example when an enemy has crossed your borders and invaded your territory.
But an actual invasion is not required. The self-defence cases below are less obviously just
causes for war - whether they are or not depends on how severe a particular case is:
assassination of a prominent person: - a monarch or president attack on national honour: (eg
burning the flag, attacking an embassy) attack on state religion economic attack:(trade
embargo or sanctions) attack on a neighbour or ally preemptive strike: attacking the enemy
to prevent an anticipated attack by them. Preemptive strikes may no longer be acceptable by
UN members, since the Charter says that short of actual attack, "all Members shall settle
their international disputes by peaceful means" (Article 2:3) Assisting an invaded friendly
nation. Human rights violations: Another common example is putting right a violation of
human rights so severe that force is the only sensible response.

War is justified for self defence: invasions, terrorism, national honour and economic attacks.

The United states government declared the war on terror after 9/11 are you saying that that
is not justifiable?

opening statement the debate subject is is war justified we will be taking the affermative
and you will be taking the negative
Alex Boumfa:

(Contra)Argument: Starting a war takes a lot of thinking because we have to think about all
the consequenses such as live loss Contra Argument: Soldiers know that there is a chance
that they are going to die (and affect his/her family members and everyone they know). By
knowing this, it is the choice of the soldier to go in the army or not. Contra Argument:
Revenge is justified because you have to right to take back what’s yours
Milla Derhaag:
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, generally against
civilians, for political purposes It is often used with the connotation of something that is
"morally wrong" When terrorism is perpetrated by nation-states it is not considered
terrorism by the state conducting it, making legality a largely grey-area issue.[12] There is no
consensus as to whether or not terrorism should be regarded as a war crime

Defending your own people is also war, and justified. 

You go into war with a country to defend

1.War creates power balances 

2.Ends justifies the meanings
3.Learn lessons during wars 
4.Over the long run war has made humanity safer and richer. By most estimates, 10 to 20
percent of all the people who lived in Stone Age societies died at the hands of other humans.
the century’s 100–200 million war-related deaths added up to just 1 to 2 percent of our
planet’s population. If you were lucky enough to be born in the industrialized twentieth
century, you were on average 10 times less likely to die violently (or from violence’s
consequences) than if you were born in a Stone Age society. 5By creating larger societies,
stronger governments, and greater security, war has enriched the world. 6The Greeks that
defeated the Persians at Marathon created the concept of freedom, unleashing the most
brilliant era of human creativity in history. The Union victory in the Civil War ended slavery.
And the Allied victory in World War II destroyed incomprehensibly evil totalitarian states.
There are many other examples.
Kim de Waal:
Justifying war
Justification: the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. 
Economic impact:
 • The economies of both combatants are effected by war. Since all the trade and exchanges
are focused on war and war supplies, the country’s commercial sales will severely be
disrupted. For example, GB was the number one largest overseas investor before WW1. And
it was the biggest debtor after WW1. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-consequences-
of-war 
(Mental) health:
 • Not only the soldiers, but also the citizens will be greatly affected by war. Citizens live in
constant fear that something will happen to them and to their loved ones participating in the
war. 
• War destroys families and disrupts the social and economic development of countries.
 • Women are more vulnerable to the psychological consequences of war. It is now known
that maternal depression before and after the birth of the child predicts poorer growth of
infants. Kids have even a higher rate of trauma-related psychological problems.
 • The greater the exposure to trauma- physical and psychological- the more pronounced are
the symptoms.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472271/
 

justifying war. 
Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive
violation of the basic rights of whole populations. A war is only just if its fought for a reason
that is justified, and with a good reason. Sometimes a war is fought to prevent a wrong from
happening. War to defend the innocent are considered just.
 Self-defence
 • Invasion. the most obvious reason is to protect your country against an aggressor. This
also includes recapturing something that the enemy has taken away. 
• Assisting an invaded friendly nation 
• Human right violations When basic human rights are violated so severely that force is the
only sensible response 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/cause_1.shtml 

• Even if you don’t start a war and just defend your country, you’re still participating in the
war.
 • People always die in war, it is inevitable. But, because this happened, for example after
ww1: after ww1 they decided to never do this again. 4. Source: Myers
Casper van Campen:

Argument: hundreds of people die because of terrorism, simple solution: go to war with the
terrorists!
Why should we go to war? Nationalism always plays a big part in a war, nationalism is really
standing up for your country. like myself, I really stand up for my motherland and for the
croissant in general of course. But it does play a big role in wars, in the wars people will be
fighting against each other and there is no better motivation than: “fighting for the
motherland” and it works people are more motivated they have something they would fight
for and granted occasionally die for.
Bjorn Joosten:
There is no doubt that stopping the Hitler regime from slaughtering more people — which
was the effect of destroying Germany in World War II — was a justified move, especially
when you consider the peaceful, free country Germany has become since then.
The theory of a “just war” is a teaching of the Catholic Church that originated with St.
Augustine and was refined by great thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas. At its core, the
teaching says that force, conducted by a proper authority, is acceptable in response to
aggression if:
"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be
lasting, grave, and certain;
“2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or
ineffective;
“3. there must be serious prospects of success;
“4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be
eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this
condition.
" [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309]. Considering that both the Germans and the
Japanese committed open aggression against other countries; that the damage they inflicted
was grave and long-lasting; that peaceful actions to resolve the issues were unavailing (think
of the Munich Agreement); that the Allies had a reasonable chance of success; and that the
violence employed by the Allies was certainly no greater than the damage done by the Axis
Emiel van de Vijver:
War is justified to defend the people, as an example the Afghanistan war. The
United States, The United Kingdom, Australia and France all attacked the
Taliban in Afghanistan at the 7th of October under the name "Enduring
Freedom" this was to take Osama Bin Laden, after what the Taliban did in 9/11
this all was to defend the people in the whole world so things like this could
never happen again.
Made the Logbook
Stef Putmans:
(counter against innocent people dying) the medicine is harsh, but the patient needs it these
people are sacrificed for a good outcome we can't avoid death during war can we?

Counter argument (given that they're covering ptsd): it does not just occur with war
veterans, people who had to go through life threatening events often develop this too. For
example people who are abused both physically and sexually and people who have been
through natural disasters could also develop it

Strategy thinking
- Death
The death of soldiers: These people know there is a chance of dying, so does their family. But
sometimes you just have to make the ultimate sacrifice. If soldiers were wusses, and didn’t want to
die, would they still be in the army? Would they fight for us?
The death of innocent people: The medicine is harsh, but the patient needs it. Sometimes you just need
to let the people die in order to win the war, a harsh sacrifice indeed, but think of it this way. There is
always a positive outcome for war, sometimes it’s for this country, other times it’s for the other
country.
-PTSD
PTSD also can occur in people who didn’t fight in war, it does not discriminate in that department.
PTSD occurs when you are in a threatening situation, anyone who has been assaulted, abused, a motor
accident, or school shootings (mostly America).
The cure: PTSD is a mental disorder, therefore there is no real cure for it. However, the symptoms can
be managed to partially restore the functionality of the person suffering. The way this is done is by
therapy, therefore this can be helpful to decrease the severity.
-The life of a soldier
Do soldiers experiment remorse after shooting people? The answer to that question is no, soldiers do
not feel remorse. During the war the soldiers are too busy fighting for their lives, that they don’t have
a sense of remorse, there is no time for that. However, after the war it is not the same story. While they
do not have remorse, they do have regrets. They had to take the lives, they can’t do anything about
that. They do not like that, but being a soldier requires you to shoot people. The regret is there because
they wish that there was a different way, but there is not. There are some people who get remorse, the
people who didn’t think wisely about their decisions, they joined the army for the wrong reasons.
As a soldier you have to be prepared for 3 things.
1. You can get killed or heavily injured, fighting in the army is fighting for your life.
2. You can become a prisoner of war. People can become prisoners of war, innocent or not.
These people can be taken by aggressive powers, and held prisoner.
3. There is a chance you have to kill someone. Killing someone in war is not doing anything
wrong, it’s not your fault.