I don't agree with either interviewee's viewpoints whole-heartedly because I don't think war can be just but I also believe that sometimes it's the only way to get people to resolve an issue
The criteria necessary for wars to be just are hardly ever met because they serve to prevent war yet we still end up in wars
I think war is necessary. We need to protect our own people, and we can aid in wars that countries need us in if they are not capable. You cannot support human rights and not support war
I do not fault soldiers, as I was one as well, because they are often join because they are underprivileged and have no other options or genuinely believe they are doing good; I fault leaders for not resolving conflict peacefully
I think it's naive to believe that pacifism alone can resolve conflict. It is patriotic and humane to fight in wars. Many important and difficult decisions need to be and are made and that requires qualified people. Jesus was a pacifist but he never condemned war
As a conscientious objector, I don't think anyone is qualified to make these decisions. The casualties of war far exceed the benefits especially when these conflicts can be peaceably resolved
Being realistic, war is a last resort when there is conflict. The casualties are upsetting but necessary, which is why some of these decisions are so hard during combat and that is why we have strict criteria to ensure war is just