myata

It's very simple. If you understand science, you'd discuss it with people who also understand it. And if you don't, any discussion becomes pointless. Just like with any language btw (Chinese e.g.). Anybody can attempt to produce more or less right sounding goobledygook, but would it have any meaning? Would there be any point in "discussing" in it (other than in a comical sense)?

This is what's normally called "by crook" (falsified elections) or "by hook" (handtwisting opponent out of contest). A strategy reserved exclusively for "democratic reconstruction", and condemned as a severe violation of principles so dear to our democratic heart in all other cases.

No, here we disagree. One can be peaceful, and non violent, and still defend themselves against aggressive violence. And the test is simple. A stable society of non-violent entities, individuals, countries, etc, is possible with a minimum requirement that nobody exhibits aggression toward another. Very simple. I do not attack, you don't, he/she doesn't - there's no aggression, wars, ever. And, it has at least some minimal stability against an aberration, if one of the entities becomes aggressive, but everybody else comes to defend the victim of aggression. A pacifist society (no violence, even in defense, in principle) will not be stable against such aberration and would fall on every incident of aggression. It requires everybody to come as absolutely non violent all at the same time, and therefore is less feasible. The approach to legislate war out of existence is therefore a practical way to eliminate wars (I don't really care much about phylosophy). It can proceed one people / country at a time, for as long as is needed to gather a critical body of peoples that have subscribed to not be involved in any aggressions for any reason. Once that condition is reached, the non aggressive states will conclude a pact of mutual defense, and the future without wars would become a reality.

Yep, always. Either a body of trained and experienced professionals are all wrong collectively, and not even that, every single one of them adamantly refuses to admit their mistakes. Or a clueless Jo, on the Internet forum. Take your pick. P.S. Unless of course, you'd want to invest time and effort to acquire necesary knowledge, and see for yourself. That you can do. What you can't do, is to make somebody absolutely reliably and predictably see the God. There's your difference. Enjoy.

Some nations do. And? One cannot lead, invent anything new, etc just by trailing in the back of the pack and doing the same thing than the guy ahead is doing. In question was though aggressive violence, specifically. Yes I do. I want the cake of actually knowing that I'm peaceful and non violent as I like to say on every corner, and the ability to defend myself and mine, against an open aggression. And I can have that, with will and determination to follow my own preaching. The moment I start to cross the line though, my cake is gone, and perpetual offense and defense will be my fate forever, no matter "just"ifications. Good point about proportionality, the defensive response must be proportionate to not itself escalate into crimes against humanity, although "defensive" coalition would never initiate aggressive wars itself, and therefore would be unlikely to face a legal defense response.

No human system is infallible in principle, but to make the judgement whether a particular one is "broken" or not, we'll have to put our trust either in the body of trained and qualified professionals, or untrained and unqualified posters on the Internet forums. No, it is absolutely distinguishable, and I already explained the difference between confidence in a professional optionion, and blind faith of a religious zealot, right here and only a few posts back. That one don't seem to be able to either understand that simple difference, or keep it in their mind for not so extended period of time, sheds even more doubts on whatever claims toward science they could make.

What you fail to understand so far is that the requirement should be applied, foremost, not to the other, but to me. Each country undertakes to define and apply its "no war" law to itself, and on its own territory. If and when most peoples/countries admit and support this framework, the future without wars becomes possible. With the current framework of "only my war is just and right" it will never happen. Guaranteed. By simple binary logic. For an example (however antropomorphic) imagine a group of e.g. ten people. If all or most realize and agree that aggressive violence is wrong, possibility of a violent conflict in the group would be very small (e.g in the group of my coworkers, it never happened in over ten years, significant time in a lifetime of an adult), even if one individual starts behaving erratically. If however, each or most of the individuals consider violence acceptable, to certain ends, and under some circumstances, which each individual defines for themselves, violent conflicts almost guaranteed to happen over and over, with no hope of permanent resolution other than imposition of order from outside. Another example: let's say in a hypothetic place in Canada, robbery isn't prosecuted as a crime anymore, but it's declared instead that it can only be executed for the just and moral cause (as defined by the robber). Any comments on how long your wallet would last upon a visit to that place? If I'm in the fantasy land, then maybe, you would be in the "cannot read, nor understand plain English, or both" land? It was stated clearly that the two approaches don't have to be mutually exclusive. Building an understanding and consensus that aggressive wars are not the way to resolve differences and conflicts would in itself reduce possibility of conflicts spilling into open warfare. For the extreme cases as the one you mentioned, where a powerful and determined aggressor is emerging, there has to be an working system of collective defence. As well as attempts to work out peaceful resolution to differences and conflicts. The challenge is to ensure that it's indeed the defence the system is used for, and not to perpetrate aggressive wars ourselves, if under a different name.

Who said, backward? Making agressive wars illegal would not prevent anybody from working out solutions to existing and emerging conflicts. Only reduce the possibility of them spilling out into open, massive bloodshed. It would be like asking courts to stop prosecuting criminals and focus entirely on proactive resolution of causes of crime. Judging by the most recent acts, both internationally and in Canada, it's becoming increasingly clear that only peacelike terminology and politically influenced and powerless UN system of international security aren't going to prevent new cases of unnecessary, obviously aggressive wars like one in Iraq. The only way to achieve that would be to create a critical mass of international players who recognise the counter productive and destructive nature of aggressive wars and voluntarily refuse to participate in such. It has to be done one place, one country at a time, and then it becomes the dominant concept, we'll have a much safer world than the one now. If anything, for the simple reason that there wouldn't be any confusion about the fact that aggressive violence is always wrong, and never is the right way to solve problems and conflicts.

No, you most likely misread, or misunderstood. The difference is not in the name, but the act, and the result. Because it's the result that finally determines the true nature of the act, not the intent or proclaimed cause, or subjective reason. If the result is ensured safety of states against armed agression, the "socium" of states would be able, eventually, to exist in the environment where incidents of such agressions are reduced to the minimum. If the result is justification of anything "I" do, including armed aggression, there'd be no logical reason to expect that everybody else would do anything different, and aggressive wars will continue to exist. Same with security against arbitrary mass prosecutions. Many states, of completely different ideological, political, etc makeups can coexist in the global environment where such acts are forbidden and prosecuted. Intervention to prevent such abuse is limited in time and scope to the specific case, and not used as a pretext to "reengineer" another in one's own image, extract arbitrary concessions, install proxy or friendly government, etc. Yet all big changes start small, somewhere. Again, forgetting to explain, in what way they are not? True. But armed aggressions is the ultimate, most severe and destructive form an aggression could take. It's only logical to start where the problem is the worst, and work up from there.

I'm only saying that demonstrated amount and quality of scientific work (that is guaranteed by continuous peer examination, interdependencis and cross references among hundreds and thousands of qualified professionals) gives me, personally, much higher confidence in their work, than some pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo splashed around general Internet forums. The moment you have your findings reviewed and examined by qualified peers and published in the professinal media, they'll be worth serious consideration. Till then it can be very safely written off as a pseudo intellectual junk, probably not worth the time it takes to type it, and the bytes to carry it.

In full agreement with the OP, every citizen should have an undeniable constitutional right to be an a.. hole and/or an i..ot. Without them, life would be too plain, simple and uneventful.

Awhile back, "history" had been saying that a crude club and a cave were to be the necessary parts of the "mix", and for a much longer (some dozens of millenia) than all the written history of the humankind. Guess it comes to deciding which end of the puzzle to start from, history tells me what was done, or I to it, what will be. No, rather, it is a matter of defining terminology, although it may not be obvious, or easy, or self explanatory. For example, legitimate defense can be used to repel an aggression, and disable the agressor's military potential, without a full scale invasion of their territory, or resetting their government. It can be called "defensive war" or "legitimate defense", but with any name it'll be still very different than the second Iraq war. In the same way, humanitarian protection action can set limits on the perpetrator's use of force in some zones, but again it does not have to involve invasion, deposition of government, and institution of foreign control. There's a line between a concrete action with a clear, specific result (repel ongoing attack, stop crime against humanity in progress) and general vague agendas a la "salvation of savages" or "democratic liberation" or "fight against terrorism" which are nothing less than a carte-blanche for unrestricted, unquestioned interference and/or even open aggression. It has to start somewhere. And every small bit counts. Existing laws would have to be changed, to allow such prosecution. If we really want wars happen less often. If there was no prosecution for e.g. robbery, our lives even here would have been much less secure, that's no mystery. So what, it does not necessarily make it wrong, does it? Groups of individuals, as well as groups of countries, may team, or gang, together to pursue their purposes. It's the act itself that needs to be judged, not the fact that it's been executed in a coalition, or alliance or under a treaty. I mean that any act of armed aggression should be defined as illegal and criminal.

Obviously.. as part of the natural cycle, bad to better to bad again. The question is, whether both can be developed without wars. No, there's no compromise, not on the issue of agressive wars. But there has to be a way to ensure and enforce security of innocent civilian population suffering in these cases, without getting involved in full scale invasions of sovereign states. No, there's no need to "teach" grown up, intelligent human beings. Only do what we deem is right, and hope that others would eventually understand, and follow. No, the presidents can speak all they like, but the moment they push that button initiating a war of aggression they become liable for a criminal prosecution. Perhaps, on a similar level with premeditated murder. Again, there's always something that can be done, in pretty much any circumstances. Like e.g. not getting messed up ourselves, if somebody else did / asked you to. Like speaking openly that something somebody does, even a buddy is wrong (in such grave cases as starting a war). No, I don't think they would have to, may be even never have to. The limits of legitimate policing can be set so that it'll wouldn't require a resort to a full scale war.

Starting with each country where people, majority of them have come to understand that wars are not the way to build peaceful and prosperous future. Correct. The only situations where a use of force can be allowed between sovereign states would be 1) to repel a current and ongoing aggression; or 2) and subject to already mentioned conditions, legitimate policing, e.g. stopping crimes against humanity. Certainly, as the first step to #1 Much rather, "no war is just" principle of international relations. Plus, at least and for starters, in the group of like minded souvereigns, declare aggressive wars illegal and criminal, and prosecute their initiators and accomplices relentlessly and unconditionally. An absolutely necessary step to prevent politicians from manipulating evidence and propaganda to unleash more unnecessary, destructive, solving nothing wars. The problem with Iraq war was 1) lack of working mechanism for enforcement of international legal agreements as the cost of enforcement of sanctions against Iraq's regime was carried disproportionally by a few countries, mainly the US; 2) a circumstance (9/11) and 3) a group of politicians bent on launching the war, regardless of anything. #1 has to be worked on, patiently and persistently. Eventually it should be linked to the effort to create a credible and working system of international security. #2 has and will happen, again and againg, as will #3. The only way to prevent repetion of this scenario another place, another time, would be to prohibit wars of aggression legally, clearly and enforceably. Or short of that, make general populace accept their responsibility for wars waged on their behalf, by bringing the question to referenda.

Whoever had any doubts in that, could still recall the outrageous brainwashing efforts put in place to make case for otherwise absolutely unjustifiable war in Iraq. The problem is really with our Western democrac governance system, where temporary politicians and cliques, often pursuing their own agendas, make decisions that affect lives of thousands of people, while the rest of population can feel smug and isolated from taking full responsibility for these acts executed on their behalf. Until and unless we explicitly prohibit it, or else make it absolutely clear that every citizen should take full responsibility for the acts of their government abroad, there's little doubt that we're going see more of these cases, where extreme acts will be based on idelogy, propaganda, politics of the day, etc, whatever but the actual reality.

I'm not an expert in this history, and I'd like this discussion to be about preventing more wars in the future. The past cannot be changed, but lessons can be learned (hopefully). Could it be that the "powers" were assisted by their stockpiles of nukes, as well as those of the opposition, to much higher degree than by newly developed peaceful nature? Even then. It has been defined though, in case you missed. Initiation or significant escalation (in existing conflicts) of armed hostilities, invasion of souvereign territories. That's right, there main problem is that (under handtwisting of Great Powers) some wars, even aggressive ones, can be declared legal. Yes you know it, but you can't prove it, right? We can start by calling things their proper name. And yes, showing example - but not engaging in such acts ourselves, and prosecuting those who do. It'll take time, but it'll catch up even with the Greats, eventually. You have to demonstrate a significant difference between the two, to claim that argument. But it'll be a great progress even to prevent that one last step from happening.

Agreed, "provocation" is a loaded word, let's better talk specifically about a war of aggression. Any one that initiates or significantly escalates the level of armed hostilities, invades other countries and so on. No, the system isn't working because of many reasons. Not the least of which is the confusion about whether just wars exist and how (and by whom) they can be defined as such. Because we want to maintain that they do indeed exist, everybody would want, and make their own particular war, certainly and unquestionnably, just one. There's no such confusion in our criminal code, any agressive violence is wrong and criminal. Period. In the same way as the consitution does not allow government to throw you in jail arbitrarily, it could and should, prevent it from initiating a war of aggression. The criminal sanction for complicity in such wars belongs to the Criminal Code, point taken. Not so. The essence of the problem is clear, preventing wars of aggression. And it starts with each country that values their ostensibly peaceful principles, declaring such wars illegal and criminal (and prosecuting such criminals, accordingly). The details can be worked out in the legal smallprint. My logic may be many things, which wouldn't make this statement any more logically meaningful. There may (as with robbing; or murder) or may not, be a simple answer to a complex question (I have this club; I can take what I want; why shouldn't I take it? How much more "complex" could it get?); which does not imply or mean that argument used to support such answer has anything to do with "circular" logic. There's simply no logical connection between the two. And while the logic of my argument can be simple, it has nothing to do with the "circular argument" either, because it uses different premise (any war begins with an act of agression) from what it is trying to prove (if wars were to be prevented, aggressive wars, i.e acts of aggression should be declared illegal and criminal).

Most certainly, they are not. If they were, there would be a direct parallel to declaring a gang crime "justified" for the sole reason that it was executed by a "coalition" of criminals. We have a simple answer to another very complex question people has struggled with for a long time in this civilization, whether the size of biceps, weight of my club, or a gang of my buddies gives me "moral" or otherwise right to take your stuff, manage you, control you and so on. This answer is now a very clear and unconditional "No", unprovoked vilence is inacceptable and punishable, period. I'm sure we'll come to the same understanding about agressive wars sooner or later. No, blind pacifism is not an answer, as is not "do it all myself". The answer is in the international system of security that is based on recognition of principles (violence, agressive war is wrong and criminal, no matter who's the master), as opposed to what we have now (violence can be good, acceptable, not noticeable, or wrong, depending on who's involved). Smart. Would the same consideration also apply to any other law, or constitution, because they all restrict certain acts, and therefore, "restrict adaptability". Or maybe, even criminal behavior isn't that bad, especially when it goes along with "adaptability" (e.g. a disaster strikes, and enforcement of law and order is interrupted). A novel idea! Except... who would it be, who'll decide for us, clear and final, when a murder is wrong, and should be punished, and when - good for "adaptability" and therefore, tolerated, or even encouraged?

Both cases obviously, constitute legitimate defence. In this case, war has been started by the agressor, and they would be complicit, and held responsible, for it. Idelogy has nothing to do with simple logic. If ideology (abstract notions like "justice") can be used to justify agression and wars, it can be done by anybody, and for any purpose. "Just" war, for all practical ends, means "a war". It can be "just", or not so, depending on which side of the bayonet the viewer is positioned.

Consider Iraq war for example. It hasn't been justified by anything other than Bush's need to show the world. Whatever it takes, to actually get to that "peaceful" and "civilized" state we like to claim. That wasn't very well thought through. By the same logic, would III Reich's "Axis" alliance be "enough" to justify its invasions, & why not?

I think it was smart of the creators of the film to not explain the exact nature of the alien's distress. It raised the level of the narrative from regular "us vs them" or antropomorphic stereotypes to the key focus of the story, that is, taking advantage of a (weeker) other, under all/any kind of plausible, to variable degrees, pretexts. And the criminals are there for a good reason, to contrast their plain and blatant villainly with our own western approach, sterile, highly moral and sophisticated, but somehow, often coming down to the same ugly result.

Correction (big time): if we actually want to see less wars, anytime soon. There would be any number of people, in high places included (or, perhaps, especially?) who could very well see this particular war benefitial for any number of reasons, ideological, political, economical, as a way to address internal issues, and so on. In that history, people in high places rarely if ever at all saw war as an undesirable event, more like the opposite. We all need to read about it if we didn't want to slide back to that time of steel and glory (and gore). In the new history though, where a war is declared a high crime, clearly and inambiguously, there would be no such confusions or paradoxes. Invasion would be repelled by collective defense forces, and those complicit in war, emperors, ambassadors and generals sent to ponder the meaning of their act in jail, alongside common criminals. Of course it is undefined. It'll take much time and consideration to come up with a formula that is acceptable to most, credible and practical, all at the same time. Till then, it'll remain undefined, except, no, unilateral, self appointed interventions could not be credibly considered as such anymore than e.g. you breaking into a neighbour's house to save them from any perceived danger.

There's no just war. Any war must be declared illegal and criminal. Obviously, to the exclusion of 1) legitimate defence; and 2) and at some future time, when a credible solution is found/established, legitimate policing.

"Expectation", of course. Whose and of whom though? I think it'd be lot better and smarter too, for us to stop relying on some "expectations", and define clearly and precisely when and in which situations we're bound to help. E.g. Kuwait's been attacked massively and without provocation, that certainly vouches for solidarity and collective defense. We'd better think twice about getting messed up in former colonial affairs and conflicts (UK-Argentina) or internal security issues blown out of all proportions (9/11). US was nowhere the first country to experience terrorism, including foreign terrorism (UK - Irish nationalists; France - Algeria etc), but certainly pioneered presenting it as an existential attack demanding full NATO involvement. But of course lives are secondary to the institution, whoever had any doubts about that? Nope, none of the lessons were learned. As in Vietnam yesterday, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan - today, and whatever next hot spot - tomorrow. Nobody is interested in setting any constraints on our urge to invade, regulate, rebuild, reset and so on. Making the same old ugly war, by whatever new name of the moment.

By making illegal and criminal any unjust ones? In the same way we define legitimate defense and differentiate it from criminal assault in our criminal code?