I think the blog makes an interesting point, though the author seems to frame justice differently than I might; as "the thing that benefits <my group>", whereas I think Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) would frame justice as fairness that does not infringe upon one's basic rights (given a social contract etc. etc.). Given that perspective, it's difficult to argue either side of something that is based on a different conception of justice.

But...escalation to war over this definition of justice seems like a failing of rational thought and possibly intentional blindness to another's perspective -- so theories of justice and social contracts which assume rational and reasonable humans don't really come into play, do they?