For the past months we've been bombarded with announcements from the Bush administration about how Iraq is sponsoring terrorism, how they have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them, that they've been attempting to develop nuclear weapons. The administration remains unable to convince the public and the world that there is indeed an imminent threat. In my mind, a greater question is raised: what proof is needed to justify the opening of hostilities? Does this change if one or both parties have demonstrated the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? What if they've used those weapons to suppress internal struggles? And what, really, is a just war? The latter of these may be the easiest to define and the hardest to defend. The discussion resembles an ethical morass, a quagmire in which pedants can argue terminology while greater issues are avoided.
A just war is, by definition, is a war in response to an act of agression which has a definable cause and an a set of acceptable behaviors for the combatants. The just war, or justum bellum is often guided by explicit conventions such as the geneva convention.
