PKT
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
RE: John Rawls on Just War
How did the NATO bombing cause the genocide? When Hitler
bombed London, I don't believe that this caused the British to set up
concentration camps for the Irish? Why would Milosovic start ethnic
cleansing against the Kosovo's because NATO attacked him with the pretense
of protecting the Kosovos? Because Milosovics tactics have been to clean an
area out and then negotiate for peace with the 'unsettled' territory going
to him.
I will accept that the NATO bombing may have caused him to
accelerate the cleansing of Kosovo. But ending the bombing and starting
negotiations would only allow him to complete his cleansing. Then what
would the refugees return too? Destroyed homes in a state policed by the
same country that drove them across the border. No sane refugee would
return to that and Milosovic will find, once again, that ethnic cleansing is
a very efficient method for acquiring real estate.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Phillips
[mailto:phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 6:59 PM
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
Subject: RE: John Rawls on Just War
What seems to be ignored in this is the fact
that there was no ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, no genocide, not
atrocities, until NATO began
its bombing campaign. The ethnic cleansing
was caused by the NATO
action -- and would cease with an end to the
bombing.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:26:32
-0400
> Reply-to: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: Brian Considine
<bconsidi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: John Rawls on Just War
> X-To: "'pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> This 'solution' reminds me
of the current Star Wars movie,
> where the hostile invaders of a peaceful
planet try to buy time by demanding
> that a committee must first study if an
invasion actually happened.
>
> One should not assume that
an ethnic cleansing will be put
> on hold during an international
investigation. Remember the UN 'safe
> havens' in Bosnia?
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
Claudio Sardoni
> [mailto:sardoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:
Wednesday, June 02, 1999 10:22 AM
> To:
POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
> Subject:
RE: John Rawls on Just War
>
> Did you hear
that a UN mission has been to
> Kosovo and came back horrified?
> Claudio
Sardoni
>
-----Original Message-----
> From:
owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of
Zhiyuan Cui
> Sent:
Tuesday, June 01, 1999 8:38 PM
> To:
POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
> Subject:
John Rawls on Just War
>
> In
light of Susan
> Woodward's(Brookings Institution) book
"Balkan
>
Tragedy"(finding that Western Powers is the
> major cause of ethnic conflict
> in the
former Yugoslavia to begin with in
> 1991 ) and John Rawls' following
>
article(establishing the conditions for just
> war), it seems to me that NATO
> should :
> (1) stop air
bombing immediately;
> (2) No right
to use ground troops either;
> (3) Given
that the Yugoslavia agreed to open
> for international
>
investigation in the very begining, the
> correct solution is to have an U.N
>
investigation on whether the ethnic
> cleansing has indeed occured in Kosovo.
> Even if it
occured, when the international
> investigation is going on, the
> ethnic
cleansing cannot continue. Therefore,
> international investigation is
> a first
step, by all account, to the correct
> solution.
>
-------------------------
> "50 Years
after Hiroshima"
> by John
Rawls
> Dissent,
Summer, 19995
>
> The
fiftieth year since the bombing
> of Hiro-
> shima is a
time to reflect about what one
> should
> think of it.
Is it really a great wrong, as
> many now
> think, and
many also thought then, or is it
> perhaps
> justified
after all? I believe that both the
> fire-bomb-
> ing of
Japanese cities beginning in the
> spring of
> 1945 and the
later atomic bombing of
> Hiroshima
> on August 6
were very great wrongs, and
> rightly seen as such. In order to
> support this
opinion, I set
> out what I
think to be the principles
> govening the
> conduct of
war--jus in bello-of democratic
> peoples.
These peoples 1 have different ends
> of war
> than
nondeniocratic, especially
> totalitarian, states,
> such as
Germany and Japan, which sought the
> domination
and exploitation of subjected
> peoples,
> and in
Germany's case, their enslavement if
> not
>
exterinination.
> Although I
cannot properly justify them
> here,
> I begin by
setting out six principles and
> assump-
> tions in
support of these judgments. I hope
> they
> seem not
unreasonable, and certaiuly they
> are fa-
> miliar, as
they are closely related to much
> tradi-
> tional
tbought on this subJect.
> l. The aim
of a just war waged by a decent
> democratic
society is a just and lasting
> peace be-
> tween
peoples, especially with its present
> enemy
> 2. A decent
democratic society is fighting
> against a
state that is not democratic. This
> follows
> from the
fact that democratic peoples do not
> wage
> war against
each other,2 and since we are
> con-
> cerned with
the rules of war as they apply
> to such
> peoples, we
assume the society fought
> against is
>
nondemocratic and that its expansionist aims
> threatened
the security and free
> institutions of
> democratic
regimes and caused the war.3
> 3. In the
conduct of war, a democratic
> society
> must
carefully distinguish three groups: the
> state's
> leaders and
officials, its soldiers, and its
> civilian
> population.
The reason for these
> distinctions rests
> on the
principle of responsibility: since
> the state
> fought
against is not democratic, the
> civilian mem-
> bers of the
society cannot be those who
> organized
> and brought
on the war. This was done by its
> lead-
> ers and
officials assisted by other elites
> who con-
> trol and
staff the state apparatus. They are
> respon-
> sible, they
willed the war, and for doing
> that, they
> are
criminals. But civilians, often kept in
> ignorance
> and swayed
by state propaganda, are not.4
> And
> this is so
even if some civilians knew
> better and
> were
enthusiastic for the war. In a nation's
> con-
> duct of war
many such marginal cases may
> exist,
> but they are
irrelevant. As for soldiers,
> they, just
> as
civilians, and leaving aside the upper
> ranks of
> an officer
class, are not responsible for
> the war,
> but are
conscripted or in other ways forced
> into it,
> their
patriotism often cruelly and cynically
> ex-
> ploited. The
grounds on which they may be
> at-
> tacked
directly are not that they are
> responsible
> for the war
but that a democratic people
> cannot
> defend
itself in any other way, and defend
> itself it
> must do.
About this there is no choice.
> 4. A decent
democratic society must respect
> the human
rights of the members of the other
> side,
> both
civilians and soldiers, for two
> reasons. One .
> is because
they simply have these rights by
> the
> law of
peoples. The other reason is to teach
> en-
> emy soldiers
and civilians the content of
> those
> rights by
the example of how they hold in
> their
> own case. In
this way their significance is
> best
> brought home
to them. They are assigned a
> cen-
> tain status,
the status of the members of
> some hu-
> man society
who possess rights as
> humanpersons.5
> In the case
of human rights in war the
> aspect of
> status as
applied to civilians is given a
> strict inter-
> pretation.
This means, as I understand it
> here, that
> they can
never be attacked directly except
> in times
> of extreme
crisis, the nature of which I
> discuss
> below .
> 5 .
Continuing with the thought of teaching
> the
> content of
human rights, the next principle
> is that
> just peoples
by their actions and
> proclamations are
> to
foreshadow during war the klnd of peace
> they
> aim for and
the kind of relations they seek
> between
> nations. By
doing so, they show in an open
> and
> public way
the nature of their aims and the
> kind
> of people
they are. These last duties fall
> largely on
> the leaders
and officials of the goverments
> of
> democratic
peoples, since they are in the
> best po-
> sition to
speak for the wbole people and to
> act as
> the
principle applies. Although all the
> preceding
> principles
also specify duties of
> statesmanship, this
> is
especially true of 4 and 5. The way a war
> is
> fought and
the actions ending it endure in
> the his-
> torical
memory of peoples and may set the
> stage
> for future
war. This duty of statesmanship
> must
> always be
held in view
> 6. Finally,
we note the place of practical
> means-
> end
reasoning in judging the appropriateness
> of
> an action or
policy for achieving the aim of
> war or
> for not
causing more harm than good. This
> mode
> of
thought--whether catried on by
> (classical) utili-
> tarian
reasoning, or by cost-benefit
> analysis, or by
> weighing
national interests, or in other
> ways---
> must always
be framed within and strictly
> limited
> by the
preceding principles. The norms of
> the con-
> duct of war
set up certain lines that bound
> just
> action. War
plans and strategies, and the
> conduct
> of battles,
must lie within their limits.
> (The only
> exception, I
repeat, is in times of extreme
> crisis.)
>
> In
connection with the fourth and
> fifth principles
> of the
conduct of war, I have said that they
> are
> binding
especially on the leadere of
> nations. They
> ar'e in the
most effective position to
> represent their
> people's
aims and obligatioiis, and
> sometimes they
> become
statesmen. But who is a statesman?
> There
> is no office
of statesman, as there is of
> president,
> or
chancellor, or prime minister. The
> statesman is
> an ideal,
like the ideal of the truthful or
> virtuous
> individual.
Statesmen are presidents or
> prime min-
> isters who
become statesmen through their
> exem-
> plary
performance and leadership in their
> office
> in difficult
and trying times and manifest
> strengyh,
> wisdom, and
courage. They guide their people
> through
turbulent and dangemus periods for
> which
> they are
esteemed always, as one of their
> great
> Statesmen.
>
> The
ideal of the statesman is
> suggested by the
> saying: the
politician looks to the next
> election,
> the
statesman to the next generation. It is
> the task
> of the
student of philosophy to look to the
> perma-
> nent
conditions and the real interests of a
> just and
> good
democratic society. It is the task of
> the states-
> man,
however, to discem these conditions and
> in-
> terests in
practice, the statesman sees
> deeper and
> further than
most others and grasps what
> needs to
> be done. The
statesman must get it right, or
> nearly
> so, and hold
fast to it. Washington and
> Lincoln
> were
statesmen. Bismarck was not. He did not
> see
> Germany's
real interests far enough into the
> fu-
> ture and his
judgment and motives were often
> dis-
> torted by
his class interests and his
> wanting him-
> self alone
to be chancellor of Germany.
> Statesmen
> need not be
selfless and may have their own
> inten
> ests when
they hold office, yet they must be
> self
> less in
theirjudgments and assessments
> ofsociety's
> interests
and not be swayed, especially in
> war and
> crisis, by
passions of revenge and
> retaliation
> against the
enemy.
>
Above all, they are to hold fast to
> the aim of
> gaining a
just peace, and avoid the things
> that make
> achieving
such a peace more difficult. Here
> the
>
proclamations of a nation should make clear
> (the
> statesman
must see to this) that the enemy
> people
> are to be
granted an autonomous regime of
> their
> own and a
decent and full life once peace is
> se-
> curely
reestablished. Whatever they may be
> told
> by their
leaders, whatever reprisals they
> may rea-
> sonably
fear, they are not to be held as
> slaves or
> serfs after
surrender,6 or denied in due
> course their
> full
liberties, and they may well achieve
> freedoms
> they did not
enjoy before, as the Germans
> and the
> Japanese
eventually did. The statesman
> knows, if
> others do
not, that all descriptions of the
> enemy
> people (not
their rulers) inconsistent with
> this are
> impulsive
and false.
>
Turning now to Hiroshima and the
> fire-bomb-
> ing of
Tokio, we find that neither falls
> under the
> exemption of
extreme crisis. One aspect of
> this is
> that since
(let's suppose) there are no
> absolute
>
rights--rights that must be respected in all
> circum
> stancesthere
are occasions when civilians
> can
> be attacked
directly by aerial bombing. Were
> there
> times during
the war when Britain could
> properly
> have bombed
Hamburg and Berlin? Yes, when
> Britain was
alone and desperately facing
> Germany's
superior might, moreover, this
> period
> would extend
until Russia had clearly beat
> off the
> firot German
assault in the summer and fall
> of
> 1941, and
would be able to fight Germany
> until
> the end.
Here the cutoff point might be
> placed dif-
> ferently,
say the summer of 1942, and
> certainly
> by
Stalingrad.7 I shan't dwell on this, as
> the cru-
> cial matter
is that under no conditions
> could Gen-
> many be
allowed to win the war, and this for
> two
> basic
reasons: first, the natiire and
> history of con-
> stitiitional
democracy and its place in
> European
> culture, and
second, the peculiar evil of
> Nazism
> and the
enormous and uncalculable moral and
> po-
> litical evil
it represented for civilized
> society.
> The peculiar
evil of Nazism needs to be un-
> derstood,
since in some circunistances a
> demo-
> cratic
people might better accept defeat if
> the terms
> of peace
offered by the adversary were
> reason-
> able and
moderate, did not subject them to
> hu-
> miliation
and looked forward to a workable
> and
> decent
political relationship. yet
> characteristic of
> Hitler was
that he accepted no possibility
> at all of
> a political
relationship with his enemies.
> They were
> always to be
cowed by terror and brutality,
> and
> ruled by
force. From the begining the
> campaign
> against
Russia, for example, was a war of
> destruc-
> tion against
Slavic peoples, with the
> original in-
> habitants
remaining, if at all, only as
> serfs. When
> Gocbbels and
othere protested that the war
> could
> not be won
that way, Hitler refused to
> listen.8
> Yet
it is clear that while the
> extreme crisis ex-
> emption held
for Britain in the early stages
> of the
> war, it
never held at any time for the
> United States
> in its war
with Japan. The principles of the
> con-
> duct of war
were always applicable to it.
> Indeed,
> in the case
of Hiroshima many involved in
> higher
> reaches of
the government recognized the
> ques-
> tionable
character of the bombing and that
> limits
> were being
crossed. Yet during the
> discussions
> among allied
leaders in June and July 1945,
> the
> weight of
the practical means-end reasoinng
> carried
> the day.
Under the continuing pressure of
> war,
> such moral
doubts as there were failed to
> gain an
> express and
articulated view. As the war
> pro-
> gressed, the
heavy fire-bombing of civilians
> in the
> capitals of
Berlin and Tokyo and elsewhere
> was
> increasingly
accepted on the allied side.
> Although
> after the
outbreak of war Roosevelt had
> urged both
> sides not to
commit the inhuman barbarism of
> bombing
civilians, by 1 945 allied lcaders
> came to
> assume that
Roosevelt would have used the
> bomb
> on
Hiroshima.9The bombing grew out ofwhat
> liad
> happened
before.
>
>
> The
practical means-end reasons to justify
> us-
> ing the
atomic bomb on Hiroshima were the
> fol-
> lowing:
> The
bomb was dropped to hasten the
> end of
> the war. It
is clear that Truman and most
> other al-
> lied leaders
thought it would do that.
> Another rea-
> son was that
it would save lives where the
> lives
> counted are
the lives of American soldiers.
> The
> lives
ofJapanese, nnlitary or civilian,
> presumably
> counted for
less. Here the calculations of
> least time
> and most
lives saved were mutually
> supporting.
> Moreover,
dropping the bomb would give the
> Emperor and
the Japanese leadera a way to
> save
> face, an
important matter given Japanese
> samurai
> culture.
Indeed, at the end a few top
> Japanese lead-
> ers wanted
to make a last sacrificial stand
> but were
> overruled by
others supported by the
> Emperor, wbo
> ordered
surrender on August 12, having
> received
> word from
Washingion that the Emperor could
> stay
> provided it
was understood that he had to
> comply
> with the
orders of the American military
> com-
> mander. The
last reason I mention is that
> the bomb
> was dropped
to impress the Russians with
> Ameri-
> can power
and make them more agreeable with
> our demands.
This reason is highly disputed
> but
> urged by
some critics and scholars as
> important.
> The
failure of these reasons to
> reflect the lim-
> its on the
conduct of war is evident, so I
> focus on
> a different
matter: the failure of
> statesmanship on
> the part of
allied leaders and why it might
> have
> occurred.
Truman once described the Japanese
> as
> beasts and
to be treated as such, yet how
> foolish it
> sounds now
to call the Germans or the
> Japanese
> barbarians
and beasts! 10 Of the Nazis and
> Tokyo mili-
> tarists,
yes, but they are not the German
> and the
> Japanese
people. Churchill later granted
> that he
> carried the
bombing too far, led by passion
> and
> the
intensity of the conflict. 11 A duty of
> statesman-
> ship is not
to allow such feelings, natural
> and in-
> evitable as
they may be, to alter the course
> a
> democratic
people should best follow in
> striving for
> peace. The
statesman understands that
> relations
> with the
present enemy have special
> importance:
> for as I
have said, war must be openly and
> pub-
> licly
conducted in ways that make a lasting
> and
> amicable
peace possible with a defeated
> enemy,
> and prepares
its people for how they may be
> ex-
> pected to be
treated. Their present fears of
> being
> subjected to
acts of revenge and retaliation
> must
> be put to
rest; present enemies must be seen
> as
> associates
in a shared and just future
> peace.
>
>
These remarks make it clear that, in
> my judg-
> ment, both
Hiroshima and the fire-bombing of
> Japanese
cities were great evils that the
> duties of
>
statesmanship require political leaders to
> avoid in
> the absence
ofthe crisis exemption. I also
> believe
> this could
have been done at little cost in
> further
> casualties.
An invasion was unnecessary at
> that
> date, as the
war was effectively over.
> However,
> whether that
is true or not makes no
> difference.
> Without the
crisis exemption, those bombings
> are
> great evils.
Yet it is clear that an
> articulate expres-
> sion of the
principles of just war
> introduced at that
> time would
not have altered the outcome. It
> was
> simply too
late. A president or prime
> mimster must
> have
carefully considered these questions,
> prefer-
> ably long
before, or at least when they had
> the
> time and
leisure to think things out.
> Reflections
> on just war
cannot be heard in the daily
> round of
> the pressure
of events near the end of the
> hostili-
> ties; too
many are anxious and impatient,
> and sim-
> ply worn
out.
>
Similariy, the justification of
> constitutional de-
> mocracy and
the ba sis of the rights and
> duties it
> must respect
should be part of the public
> poliiical
> culture and
discussed in the many
> associations of
> civic
society as part of one's education. It
> is not
> clearly
heard in day-to-day ordinary
> politics, but
> must be
presupposed as the background, not
> the
> daily
subject of politics, except in special
> circum-
> stances. In
the same way, there was not
> sufficient
> prior grasp
of the fundamental importance of
> the
> principles
of just war for the expression of
> them
> to have
blocked the appeal of practical
> means-end
> reasoning in
terms of a calculus of lives,
> or of the
> least time
to end the war, or of some other
> balanc-
> ing of costs
and benefits. This practical
> reasoning
> justifies
too much, too easily, and provides
> a way
> for a
dominant power to quiet any moral
> worries
> that may
arise. If the principles of war are
> put for-
> ward at that
time, they easily become so
> many
> more
considerations to be balanced in the
> scales.
> Another
failure of statesmanship was not to
> try to enter
negotiations with the Japanese
> before
> any drastic
steps such as the fire-bombing
> of cit-
> ies or the
bombing of Hiroshima were taken.
> A
>
conscientious attempt to do so was morally
> nec-
> essary. As a
democratic people, we owed that
> to
> the Japanese
people--whether to their
> govenment
> is another
matteL There had been discussions
> in
> Japan for
some time about finding a way to
> end
> the war, and
on June 26 the govement had
> been
> instmcted by
the Emperor to do so.12 It must
> surely
> have
realized that with the navy destroyed
> and the
> outer
islands taken, the war was lost. True,
> the
> Japanese
were deluded by the hope that the
> Rus-
> sians might
prove to be their allies, 13
> but negotia-
> tions are
preciscly to disabuse the other
> side of
> delusions of
that kind. A statesman is not
> free to
> consider
that such negotiations may lessen
> the de-
> sired shock
valuc of subsequent attacks.
>
Truman was in many ways a good, at
> times a
> very good
president. But the way he ended
> the war
> showed he
failed as a statesman. For him it
> was an
> opportunity
missed, and a loss to the counny
> and
> its armed
forces as well. It is sometimes
> said that
> questiomng
the bembing of Hiroshima is an
> in-
> sult to the
American troops who fought the
> war.
> This is hard
to understand. We should be
> able to
> look back
and consider our faults after
> fifty years.
> We expect
the Germans and the Japanese to do
>
that--``Vergangenheitsverarbeitung"-- the
> Germans say. Why shouldn't we?
> It cann't be
that we think we waged the war
> without the moral error!
> None of this
alters Germany's and Japan's
> re-
> sponsibility
for the war nor their behavior
> in con-
> ducting it.
Emphatically to be repudiated
> are two
> nihilist
doctrines. One is expressed by
> Sherman's
> remark,
``War is hell:' so anything goes to
> get it
> over with as
soon as one can. The other says
> that
> we are all
guilty so we stand on a level and
> no one
> can blame
anyone else. These are both
> superficial
> and deny all
reasonable distinctions; they
> are in-
> voked
falsely to try to excuse our
> misconduct or
> to plead
that we cannot be condemned.
> The
moral emptiness of these
> nihilisms is
> manifest in
the fact that just and decent
> civilized
>
societies--their institiitions and laws,
> their civil
> life and
background culture and mores--all
> de-
> pend
absolutely on making significant moral
> and
> political
distinctioiis in all situations.
> Certaiuly war
> is a kind of
hell, but why should that mean
> that all
> moral
distinctions cease to hold? And
> granted also
> that
sometimes all or nearly all may be to
> some
> degree
guilty, that does not mean that all
> are
> equally so.
There is never a time when we
> are free
> from all
moral and political principles and
> re-
> straints.
These mhilisnis are pretenses to
> be free
> of those
principles and restraints that
> always ap-
> ply to us
fully.
>
> Notes
> 1. I
sometimes use tbe term ``peoples'' to
> mean much the same
> as nations,
especially when I want to
> contrast peoples with
> states and a
state's apparatus.
> 2. I assume
that democratic peoples do not
> go to war against
> each other .
There is considerable evidence
> of this important
> idea. See
Michael Doyle's two part article,
> ``Kant, Liberal
> Legacies,
and Foreign Affairs", Phiiosophy
> and Pubhc Af-
> fairs, Vol.
12, Summer and Fall 1983. See
> his summary of
> the evidence
in the first part, pp. 206-232.
> 3.
Responsibility for war rarely falls on
> only one side and
> this must be
granted. Yet some dirty hands
> are dirtier than
> others, and
somotimes even with dirty hands
> a democratic
> people would
still have the right and even
> the duty to defend
> it self from
the other side. This is clear
> in World War II.
> 4 Here I
follow Michael Walzer's "Just and
> Unjust Wars" (Ba-
> sic Books,
1977).
> 5. For the
idea of status, I am indebted to
> discussions of
> Frances Kamm
and Thomas Nagel.
> 6. See
Churchill's remarks explaining the
> meaning of ``un-
> conditional
surrender'' in The Hinge of Fate
> (Houghton
> Miffiin, 1
950), pp. 685-688.
> 7.I might
add here that a balancing of
> interests is not in-
> volved.
Rather, we have a matter of judgment
> as to whether
> certain
objective cireumstances are present
> which constitute
> the extreme
crisis exemption. As with any
> other complex
> concept,
that of such an exemption is to
> some degree vague.
> Whether or
not the concept applies rests on
> judgment.
> 8. On
Goebbels's and others' protests, see
> Alan Bullock,
> Hit!er: A
Study in Tyranny (London Oldham's
> Press, 1952),
> Ch. 12, 65,
pp. 633-644.
> 9. For an
account of events, see David M.
> McCullough.
> Truman
(Simon and Schuster, 1992), Ch. 9:IV
> and 1O,
> pp.390-464,
and Barton Benstein, ``TIie
> Aiomic Bombings
>
Reconsidered:' Foreigu Affairs, 74: l ,
> Jan-Feb 1995.
> 10. See
McCullough`s Truman, p. 458, the
> exchange between
> Truman and
Senator Russell of Georgia in
> August 1945.
> 11. See
Martin Gilbe't, Winsron Churchill:
> Never Dcspair,
> Vol. Vlll.
(Houghton Mifllin, 1988),
> refleciing later on
> Dresden, p.
259.
> 12. See
Gerhard Weinberg, A World at Arms
> (Cambridge: The
> University
Press, 1994), pp. 886-889.
- Thread context:
- RE: John Rawls on Just War, (continued)
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]