Machjo

If a country is attacked, ally or otherwise, and it requests our help, it would seem to be the right thing to do to help it. That's a far cry from a NATO country starting a war (unless for a just cause) and us just jumping n blindly to support it just because it's a NATO country. In some cases, if a NATO country is the one at fault against a non-NATO country, it might even make sense morally and ethically to defend the non-member against the member.

So do you support any war? If so, then would that not mean that you are a supporter of injustice? Personally, I do agree that there is such a thing as a just war (i.e. a war fought to defend the people against tyranny), but also believe we ought to ensure any war we enter is a just war. If you believe 'just war' is an oxymoron, then I certainly hope you oppose war altogether.

Now as for Iraq, it was a mess from the get go with all the lies. At lest with Afghanistan, though I'm still undecided, one might be able to convince me that it is in fact a just war for the benefit of the Afghan people and not for our own self interest. As for Iraq, it's already been proven a fiasco. Even if the war is conclusively won, it still doesn't change the fact it was based on lies.

So would you consider Afghanistan a just war? And by what standards? I know it's a legal war in terms of international law, though granted legal alone does not necessarily mean just, but it's a first step. Then there's the issue of switch and bait. We'd gone in to get Bin Laden and the Taliban stood in the way, so we fought off the Taliban but are now involved in nation building. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I guess it's debatable, depending on the form the building takes. Is it cultural imperialism or is the construction going the way the locals and not we want it? I don't know the answers here, and maybe Afghanistan is a just war. But it would be nice to have official legal standards to refer to so as to be sure that it is. This could benefit the military in that it could turn to these standards to quell its critics by showing how it is meeting al of the necessary criteria for this to qualify as a just war, or inversely for the opposition to be able to mandate the military to return home if it does not meet these standards.

So we should continue?

So if I understand you correctly, might makes right. So if Canada is stronger than another country, we can do what we want?

Somebody asked above how to define just war. I'm not sure, but there are some basic ideas presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War This could be used as a start off point on discussions to create a clear constitutional definition of 'just war'. I do not oppose war per se and I'm certainly not a pacifist. However, I do believe that too many wars are fought over not justice, but material interests disguised under the nationalist codeword 'national interests'. A constitutional definition of a 'just war' would help put an end to such warmongering. This would not put an end to war, but it would mean that the we would fight only in those wars which can clearly be defined as just in accordance to the strictest definition of justice. It would also put an end to mobocracy.

I never said I wanted a more democratic means of going to war. Let's not confuse democracy with justice, seeing that mob rule itsel can be quite democratic. I know. I'm taking Iraq as an example of what can happen when the mobocratic rule of the people gets its way. And it's a fine example at that. Maybe we should have attacked Hussain, but on legitimate grounds, not like the US on bogus WMDs. What's to say Canada couldn't end up in some such war in future. After all, Harper wanted in at the time. Had he been in power, we very weill could have ended up chasing imaginary WMDs. If we're going to attack a tyrant with the approval of the international community and on the grounds that he's a tyrant, that's one thing. To attack him on bogus stories is quite another. Just because Canada did not end up in that war it doesn't mean it could not have.

then we may need to reform the UN indeed. By the way, I found this to be an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

I'm just taking that as an example. Why could the US not have found legitimate human rights abuses and in respect for international law push for sanctions, and maybe attack Iraq in conformity with international laws if approved by the international community rather than make up bogus stories? Allies need o trust each other that they won't try to manipulate one another. That is a basic foundation of any friendship.

I'm all for just alliances. If another country needs our help, we should help. But if that country lies to us about imaginary WMDs and relations, and tortures prisoners, etc, that's a whole different ballgame. Respect goes both ways. We need to trust the friends we're sacrificing our lives for that they are honest and just themselves.We need a kind of neutral alliance, and no, that's not an oxymoron. It would mean that we will help any nation that is attacked without provocation and destroy any government that violates international laws. Essentially, it would be a kind of universal contract, whereby we shall defend the powerless and attack tyrants in whatevr form they come.

Personally, I'm not too keen on the referendum idea myself. In a recession, many idiots could see war as a good stimulus package. And in otherwise good times, many would just look at taxes and inflation and say, heck, I'll support anything that involves cutting government spending, so I vote no war no matter how just the war might be. A constitutional definition could include the obligation to defend other nations when they have been unprovokedly attacked and request our help, while keeping us out of fiascos like Iraq with the illusory WMDs and imaginary relations between Bin Laden and Hussain.

I see. So if NATO decides to start an unjust war, we just jump in with our eyes closed? Brilliant!

I agree with this. Bear in mind though that with lawyers, military strategists, historians, phylosophers, religious experts, ec. etc. etc. looking into this, I'm sure we'd come up with an amendment that would cover 99.99% of bases. For those unprecedented events, they'd be so rare and likely involve such an ambiguous position that they would not involve anything of immediate thrat to Canada.

So our constitution is set in stone along with the special privileges granted to the Catholic schools?

It could cover all situations we could think of. In the event that some new unforeseen event without precedent occurs, then we could always amend the constitution at that time. Seeing that any issue involving imminent threats would certainly be covered, we needn't worry about that. Any ambiguity would then likely involve questions about our duty to friendly countries. And again, the constitution can be amended.

I agree with this in part. I agree to this in part. I'm not so gullible. I've been in the military and have seen its dark side. Don't think all soldiers join for noble causes. And even at the higher levels of the military, people are people. My father is retired from the airforce, had been in the military as a career (I was in for a short time only), and so I had a chnace to see thigs through him too. So trust me, business does have an interest in the military too and they do hold demonstrations for new products, etc for the military. This is where the constitution could step in. If we have an amendment to the constitution that clearly defines a just war, requiring us to fight when the definition is met, and to not fight when the conditions are not met, this would take the decisio out of the hands of the mob, the army, and the politicians and put it instead in the hands of clearly defined rules and protocol.

So if that war was unjust then we should not have fought in it. Now that that war is over, we must move on and ensure we not fight in another unjust war. So if we could define what constitutes a just war in the constitution, while ensuring a clear and complete definition that leaves no loopholes, it would help keep mob rule from sending our troops in to wars of convenience or to protect 'national interests'.

And certainly the UNSC would not have voted on that lightly. To require a UNSC vote was thus a smart move It is hard to imagine the UNSC approving of this without hard proof.

OK, then looking at it that way, it was an unjust war unless we could prove that it was in conformity with the international laws of the time, we had an alliance with Poland, or that Poland wanted that help. Certainly the situation would have been flawed then since the League of Nations was still not so highly developed. Today alliances and internaitonal laws in these matters have expanded and it might be possible to define a just war to include cases in which there is a clea moral imperative and not just 'national interests'.

It would require proof. for example, Harper wanted us to go into Iraq even though the US had no evidence of WMDs nor of Hussain's involvement in Al Qaida. Had he been in power then, we'd be in Iraq today. Such a law would have ensured that had Harper been in power then, that before we could fight in Iraq, the US would have had to prove that Hussain was involved with Bin Laden and that WMDs existsed and that he inteded to use them etc etc etc. or alternatively to be honest about his objectives and explain how those objectives are just. Had Harper been in power then, we could very wel have been fighting over non-existent WMDs and imaginary relationships.

No had Britain attacked Germany first, and then when Germany fought back britain requested Canada's help and Canada offered, then I'd say Canada would have been in the wrong in fighting on the British side and ought instead to fight on the German side, at Germany's request, and of course with clear definitions of engagement. Once Britain would no longer be a threat to germany, Canada would need to expect Germany to cease and deist or else switch sides and then defend Britain. But certainly, the details would need to be elaborated to ensure rules the vast majority within and beyond our borders could agree to be just.

I'm not following you here. If an allie is attacked without just cause, then our going in to help that allie on request is not an act of agresion on our part, as our troops are then fighting in the service of an allie who was unustly attacked. I don't follow your argument here.

I've been in the military and I'd seen more than a few skinhead type personalities in there. I woud not want them deciding what is or isn't a just war, since some wars they'd consider just would be sheer acts of imperialism. Now you're talking after the fact of war. Before war starts, we have a right to know why the government wants us to go to war, and we have the right to know the moral legitimacy of the war. As for troop movements and such, I agree with you, but that is once the war is started. Prior to that, we have a right to know why the government wants us to fight, otherwise we end up hearing stories of WMDs that don't exist and governments with imaginary relationships with the enemy.

Germany attacked Britain and its allies, and Britain requested our help in defending them. Now, we could argue that the Treaty of Versaille was unfair, as it was. Even with that though, Gemanyhad the option of fighting it at the Hague and could have won as even the British acknowledged that that Treaty was unfair. For for all intents and purposes, Germany was in the wrong on this. Sure we must accept blame for having imposed the Treaty of Versaille on the Germans, but that alone was still not an excuse for germany to attack its neighbours. So our attack on Germany was by no means preemptive. Germany had struck first to our allies, and we were merely fighting along side our allies.