Is the war against terrorism in Iraq necessary and are we fighting for a true cause? For many years several people have argued about the moral reality of war and if it is right or wrong. One possible basis for this position is that war occurs between nations and morality is normally considered something which regulates the conduct between individuals. Just war theory insists declaration of war to be justified: it's all or no justification. It attempts to provide a common sensical combination of both deontology and consequentialism as applied to the issue of war. A Pacifist rejects war and are in favor of peace, believing that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. However the lack of laws regulating international relations is not the same as lack of morals that regulate international relations. Those believing in pacifism are free to criticize the war as a mistake, but not as immoral because it would require a more definitive stand. Just war theory is the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. Many of the rules that were developed as the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict. This tradition has been influential as it dominates both moral and legal discourse surrounding the war, which leaves open discussion for debate. Just war theory is divided into three parts, which is also referred to as Latin. These parts are jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war. Jus in Bello, concerns the justice of conduct within war after it has begun and jus post bellum, which concerns the justice the termination of war. Just war theory offers rules to guide decision-makers on the appropriateness of their conduct during the resort to war, conduct during war and the termination phase of the conflict. We must ensure that wars are only started for a very narrow set of true defensible reasons. These wars
             ...