Machjo

I disagree with this. In some cases, war is required and if a soldier is ordered to fight he ought to be required to obey, the ONLY excepion being if the justice of the war is in question, and that is where such a constitutional provision could help. If the war does not meet with those provisions, then and only then could he refuse to fight. Otherwise certainly the government ought to have the right to declare war. This should not be. If the government must keep secrets from the people, then how can the people vote reponsibly. And if the government can't trust the people with this information, then what's the point of democracy? What exactly are we defending then? If that's how it must be, then let's adopt the Swiss citizen army so that all citizens are in the know. If the army keeps secrets from the people, then that army does not represent the peopld and forfeits all moral rights to claim to be defending the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_affair This was between the British and Americans. ut is it universally recognized the world over? Certainly something isolated on the North American continent does not autoatically pertain to half a world away.

So what would be an example of a country attacking us and it being i teh right and us in the wrong, asuming of course that we never did anything to harm that country? So would you be happy to be fighting in Afghanistan knowing that the WMDs, Hussain's relation to Bin Laden, etc. were all a propaganda ploy?

As do police officers, fire fighters, and even just good samaritans helping neighbours in distress. It's nice to put one's own life on the line, but one major difference is that unlike firefighters and plain goodsamaritans, police officers and soldiers put not only their own lives on the line but others' too. That is why police officers have certain protocols. In some extreme cases for example, a police officer might break a police chace for the safety of passes by if the chase risks putting too many lives on the line. Why should we not have similar restraints on the military? Is it because police officers deal with the lives of Canadian citizens whereas soldiers are dealing with the lives of 'sub human' foreign 'savages' who can't even speak English? Why have so many laws protecting citizens from the police but not others from our army. Are they lesser peoples owing to lack of citizenship? If a Canadian child gets run over in a police chase, it's a tragedy and the police will be questioned. Bomb a school abroad, and it's colateral damage.

In the event thatour own sil ere attacked, there'd be no time for a referendum. This is where a constitutional definition would be preferable. It could be consulted at a moments notice for the litmus test. Though generally speaking, an attack against Canadian soild would e grounds for a just war unless that attack were retaliatory for something we'd done to them. ut then again, if we only fight a just war, that should never be an issue.

Well, if the enemy attacks us, then it would seem that by definition it's a just war, no? I'm thinking along the following lines: I'd rither fight the noble fight against an evil enemy an lose over fighting a war of aggression against a hapless victim and win for oil, money and resources. That's more the point I was getting at.

It shouldn't be a question of whether we want the war or not. A just war can bea noble cause, and in some cases is a moral imperative whether we want it or not. To define a just war could risk becoming a double-edgedsword for the government. On the one hand, a war that does not conform to the definition of a just war could not be fought. On the other hand, a war that fits the definition may very well have to be fought.

Have you ever been in the military? The first thing they teach is obedience. If told to fight, they fight. They're not taught to ponder the moral and ethical viability of the war?

So we should approve of sacrificing the lives of our men for petty political squabbles with no regard to justice, and then stand up proud and sing the anthem to such a Sodom and Gomorra? Or would we rather have our children stand up prooud to sing to a country worthy of our pride?

If the legal definition conforms with the broad definition of a just war, then if the war is just, it will fit that legal definition. So in the end, what would there be to fear from this unless we intnd to use our troops as political fodder?

Considering that the moral questions involved, I don't think I'd go for a simple supemajority vote. One idea would be to consult with various communities that do concern themselves with moral matters, religious organizations come to mind. One problem there though is that even among them, dependin on the religion, they won't agree. For some, a holy war would constitute just war. for others, though they agree with just war, they reject holy war. And yet others reject all wars as unjust, as they believe in pacifism. So I agree that the definition would be a tough one. One possibility would be to consult with vaious religious communities but still let the government make the final decision, taking the ideas shared in the consultations into account. That might be a start. Perhaps we could come up with some kind of definition that most Canadians could agree to. This could be beneficial for both soldiers and the government too. If a soldier is forced into a war that doesn't meet the criteria, he could refuse to fight. On the other hand, if the criteria are met and can be proven to have been met in a court of law, then there would be no recourse for that soldier. One possibility would be to require all new recruits to read the definition of a just war and sign that they will obey order to fight in any war that meets those standards, before he is recruited, so as to eliminate all amiuity there. This would still require obedience on the part of the solider but not blind obdience and certainly not absolute power by a government ruled by a mob majority.

I could point out that there is a fundamental difference between Swedish and Swiss neutrality. Whereas the Swiss are more isolationist, the Swedes have what we might call involved neutrality. They are memebrs of the UN, give 1% of their GDP to developing countries each year, etc. etc. etc. They are very involved in the international comunity, but just remain neutral in doing so. Personally, I prefer the Swedishover the Swiss way there. While Switzerland can ingnore certain international banking laws that can harm others beyind its borders for instance, Sweden respect these international laws. Between those two, I'd rather we go the Swedish root over Swiss one, whereby Canada still abides by international laws so as to show that we do care about how our policies affect others.

So how do we hold it accountable when the will of the majority trumps justice? Why compared? Why such moral relativism? Certainly different countries might have differen understanings of a 'just war', and this is where a clearer internationally accepted definition might help. But as you mentioned above, we need a way to enforce it.

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

Oops. I must be tired. I meant the latter, not the former. I'd rather die in a noble cause than come out a victorious villain.

Maybe you're right and that wasn't a just war too. But perhaps Caanda could work a defining in no unambiguous terms, a legal definition of 'just war' that we could hold ourselves to. Originally, it was intended to get Bin Laden. But I agree, this bait and switch of objectives is not very transparent with the public either. Again, if we could develop a clear definition of just war, and the government stuck to it, it would then keep us out of such political quagmires. I'm not folowing you here. Who ever said Pearl harbor was a justified attack?

So, is it better to win at all costs or is it preferable to die with integrity? I'd choose the former.

As for jus wars in the past, there aren't many. Perhaps the allied war aginst the Nazis, Japan and Italy would be an example. The US war against the Taliban for the purpose of getting Osama Bin Laden could meet that criteria too, though that mission has een quite sidetracked. The Iraq war fails in that the pretext for war was fabricated. No WMDs, no evidence that Saddam Hussain had anything to do with 9/11, etc. Obviously, one important criterium of a just war is honesty and transparency in the rationale and objectives of the mission.

Then why could we not define the term 'just war' in the constitution, thus restricting the power of politicians to use the military for their own petty ends? Though I'm not sure of the best definition, one possibility I could see would be that the war would have to meet one of three criteria: 1. A war against a clearly defined enemy that has been proven to have violated our territorial sovereignty militarily, 2. A war against a clearly defined enemy that is in violation of international law, at the official request of the international community. Sure my suggestion might be flawed, but it is an attempt at keeping Canada out of imperialist endeavours and nsuring that the moral integrity of our nation remains strong well into the future.

The simple fact that Sweden has an army proves that it's not pacifist. However, that doesn't make it a warmongering nation too. There is such a thing as a just war, and that is the only kind of war we should ever fight, and stay out of any war until we are sure it's a just one.

Shhhhhhh! Quiet. You're not giving NATO a very good image here. I asked the question rhetorically hoping no one would answer and that it would give fools the impression that those two countries had been invaded countles times. You ruined my plan. :angry:

Yeah right So you honestly think that just maintaining friendly relations through such organizations as the UN and such will keep Sweden and Switzerland safe? Just look at how many times they've been invaded in their history, and how many attacks they've had on their soil compared to NATO countries. Do you really want to risk the safety and security of our country and go that route?

And now as for that 'Third Way', we could say that Liberal policy under Chretien was Third Way to a certain extent, willing to mix and match various right and left ideas in a pragmatic manner. Some provincial NDP governments have adopted the Third Way too on occasion, sometimes with success, sometimes not (they can gain more centrist votes, but also risk losing core ideologically socialist supporters in the process).

Perhaps that is what he meant. Considering how eclectic the 'Third Way' is though, essentially involving any possible mixture of left and right, socialist and capitalist ideas, with even proponents of the 'Third Way' themselves not always in agreement as to which combination of right and left ideas to follow, I don't see how a fully integrated party could be formed around such a general idea. More elaboration would be needed as to what policies precisely it would be promoting.

Reagan certainly did help in raising federal debt levels, the first to raise the debt since after WWII, since after WWII to be outdone only by Bush Jr. I believe, unless Bush Sr. also surpassed him but I'm not sure about that last one. So Reagan wasn't one to talk.