Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[Machjo]

Easy! if Nato goes, we go........simple!

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Then why did Canada create the club as a charter member? Eyes closed??

[Machjo]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....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.

Since Iraq seems to be your main obssession, I propose a specific "Iraq Clause" for your constitution.

Call it "Saddam's Law".

[Machjo]

Then why did Canada create the club as a charter member? Eyes closed??

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.

[Machjo]

Since Iraq seems to be your main obssession, I propose a specific "Iraq Clause" for your constitution.

Call it "Saddam's Law".

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Because "international law" and the "international community" doesn't get the job done....just ask the 800,000 dead Hutu and Tutsi (Rwanda)

The US and UK were strangling Iraq for over 12 years (with Canada's help).

Nation states do not have friends...they have interests.

Edited October 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

Because "international law" and the "international community" doesn't get the job done....just ask the 800,000 dead Hutu and Tutsi (Rwanda)

The US and UK were strangling Iraq for over 12 years (with Canada's help).

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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 think we have a trend here....you want to reform anything and everything that could be remotely connected to any armed conflict.

What's next....no more martial arts sports?

We've been over the roots of "just war" ad nauseam in previous threads.

Edited October 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

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

Alright, I'll bite. Define an "unjust" war.

[ToadBrother]

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.

So let me get this straight. You want more democratic means of going to war, except you don't. It strikes me that you don't necessarily want a definition of war, you want a way that the flights of fancy that seem to occupy the neural space where nuanced thought and at least a cursory understanding of what's at stake should 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.

What does Iraq have to do with this. We weren't there. We weren't forced there. Many NATO countries weren't (including major partners like France and Germany). I don't even think it was an unjust war. Surely toppling a murderous tyrant like Hussein can't be considered unjust. What it was, unfortunately, was an poorly planned war with little thought to what would happen when the Butcher of Baghdad was dethroned. You see, even just wars can go horribly wrong, and all wars involve a whole lot of B.S. You think the Allies didn't have propaganda departments ignoring, stretching and even inventing stories when needed.

There are actual definitions of "war", which have been set by international convention, and are thus embodied in international law. I can't imagine any greater an abuse of a fundamental document of law than trying to turn it into a dictionary.

We have elected representatives. We tell them whether we want to go to war or not (on the odd occasion when we have much of a choice, for the first 80 years of our existence we were basically at the call of King and Empire). You don't want a more equanimous means of deciding whether we go to war, you just want one that agrees with you.

[eyeball]

I can't imagine why. Do you think that such an assembly would be less politicized, less manipulable than a legislature?

I think it would be more impartial and less beholden to the whims of a politically stoked and media hyped electorate. In concert with experts I think a citizens assembly would arrive at better options faster than the monkey house or the secret chamber of the PMO we use now for making decisions.

All your doing is convoluting the process even further.

I see it as simplifying it actually.

What makes war a decision requiring a special convened assembly separate from the legislature, as opposed to, say, infrastructure spending or traffic laws?

Not much, I think we should be utilizing assemblies and referenda on a regular basis. If referenda were to remain a limited tool of governance however, whether to go to war or not would be high on the list of things I'd reserve it for. I certainly don't see any reason to believe our representatives are any more aware of the geo-political issues at stake than the people who vote for them in fact I their decisions indicate they may be even less aware.

You're never going to get a decision on going to war that will please all the people. You might as well just ban getting involved in wars.

That would be my first choice.

[eyeball]

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.

How would you even begin to word a constitutional definition that would capture everything you just said? How about a statement regarding arms shipments to conflict zones and military aid to dictators? How would this constitutional definition provide for mandated sanctions against our allies that indulge dictators and warlords?

[eyeball]

I could agree with you I just don't have any faith in any process that will require politcal parties to give up any bit of control once they're in office...the parties may agree with it when they're out of power but they always change their tune once they're in power...

To be honest I think we need to reconstitute our entire government and mostly how we run it, with emphasis on the we.

[eyeball]

Imagine one of our NATO partners being attacked. First we've got to convene some sort of citizens assembly.

This may not be necesarry if our alliances and mutual aid treaties had been predetermined by public review and referendum. Again I think we're looking for a way to ensure the wars and fights we pick are truely just according to the wishes of the population that is putting their moral support, manpower, money and international credibility on the line. If we're going to put these on the line for the sake of our allies we better make sure their worth the effort long before we get engaged in their issues.

[eyeball]

We've been over the roots of "just war" ad nauseam in previous threads.

Yeah usually when trying to avoid the roots of the unjust wars.

[myata]

This approach would undermine collective security treaties like NATO, when other nations are directly attacked.

It would undermine it, because treaties like NATO are mostly used as a cover to invade other countries? Let's recall the real life situations when a NATO country has been under a real and direct attack on its own soil (9/11 obviously being a long hard stretch).

[ToadBrother]

It would undermine it, because treaties like NATO are mostly used as a cover to invade other countries?

Really? Just how many countries has NATO invaded? Yes, Afghanistan, but then again, that's an iffy one, because while the Taliban were the defacto government of the country, they were only actually recognized by two or three countries (China and Pakistan, and one other I can never remember).

Let's recall the real life situations when a NATO country has been under a real and direct attack on its own soil (9/11 obviously being a long hard stretch).

You clearly are too young to remember the Cold War.

[ToadBrother]

This may not be necesarry if our alliances and mutual aid treaties had been predetermined by public review and referendum.

I doubt many Canadians had much of a problem with NATO when the Soviets were pointing missiles over our heads.

Again I think we're looking for a way to ensure the wars and fights we pick are truely just

Could we please have a definition of a "just" war?

according to the wishes of the population that is putting their moral support, manpower, money and international credibility on the line.

We have these things called elections.

If we're going to put these on the line for the sake of our allies we better make sure their worth the effort long before we get engaged in their issues.

They're worth it because they have stood by us, just as we have stood by them. They are not perfect, and neither are we. But at the end of the day, I'd rather remain in close alliance with the United States than try to cozy up to the Russians or the Chinese.

We are not a populated enough country to hope to stand on our own, our security is largely guaranteed by our close association with much stronger NATO powers. You live in an illusory world, one that does not exist in fact. You seem to think that the situation of the last two decades is a permanent one, and that is narrow minded and short sighted. The last time people had this idea that we could just abandon the notion of a meaningful military mechanism was the interwar period between 1919 and 1939, and it was shown to be so woefully myopic.

How is what you want any different than what happened during that period? Churchill wanted the Allies to push Germany out of the Rhineland after it rearmed it, and was declared a warmonger, but imagine if, despite all notions of international law and peaceful relations between nations, that the US, Great Britain and France had marched 250,000 men into the Rhineland and squashed Hitler. But they didn't, because their populaces, so exhausted from WWI and so unwilling to permit their governments the necessary resolve to take on Hitler, that they basically wrote the final chapter leading up to the most destructive conflict in the history of our species.

As Isaac Asimov once said, never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right.

Edited October 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

To be honest I think we need to reconstitute our entire government and mostly how we run it, with emphasis on the we.

That may be, but running a country by referenda is no panacea either.

[myata]

Lots of things affect other peoples lives and extend beyond our borders. If Parliament gives Bombadier subsidies (through the front or back doors), it affects the livelihoods of people abroad, maybe even the state of industries abroad. Your making war, or more properly, military actions, a special case when in fact war takes many forms.

Yes a war is just the ultimate (and in my view, totally unjustified and even criminal, in a civilized world) way to affect other people's lives, and therefore it should be dealt with first.

History simply doesn't agree with this.

Wow. As heard from history's spokesperson, first hand.

And this is absurd as well. Since Parliament could always manipulate matters to bring about a war, it's kind of pointless.

Parliament can also "manipulate" the laws that say murder is wrong. They must also be "pointless", correct, our supreme legal authority?

What about mutual defense alliances? I guess we're leaving NATO now, since the essential concept of NATO is that an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all members.

Some NATO members already have reservations about the situations their troops could fight in. No need to invent bicycles.

If our allies see that we have now created a situation whereby going to their defense is likely not going to happen. So when Russia decides to seize wide areas of the Arctic, and our pitiful military is swept aside, we'll have no one there to back us.

A provision can be made for collective defense (in the sense already described), subject to approval by the Parliament.

Your idea is absurd, and in the case of real need for military action, would be so cumbersome as to render external action pointless.

"Real need", like e.g. Iraq, I understand it? Where even existing pathetic process has proven so "cumbersome" that it had to be circumvented by massive amount of brainwashing and warmongering propaganda?

You are truly a child of the Peacekeeping Era, ignorant of history, the function of the military and of international obligation.

I know, the lack of meaningful argumentation can always be made up for by applying appropriate adjectives. Instantly makes you a great Expert and Savant in various diverse "Functions".

[ToadBrother]

A provision can be made for collective defense (in the sense already described), subject to approval by the Parliament.

So Parliament is supreme after all? Or isn't it? Your ideas are so confused in contradictory.

"Real need", like e.g. Iraq, I understand it? Where even existing pathetic process has proven so "cumbersome" that it had to be circumvented by massive amount of brainwashing and warmongering propaganda?

We weren't in Iraq.

[myata]

So Parliament is supreme after all? Or isn't it? Your ideas are so confused in contradictory.

Me, really? How "confused and contradictory" is the notion that a law on war would be "pointless", but one for murder - not so?

We weren't in Iraq.

Thanks to sheer luck of our PM at the time getting up on the right side of the bed that day. Next time around it could be all so different, just ask our neighbours next door who weren't so lucky and lost thousands of their relatives, friends for that reason.

BTW a question you forgot to answer, so one more time: how many times exactly did NATO "defend" an ally against a direct attack on their own soil?

I can count two cases when they were "defending" abroad right off the top of my head, 1) Kosovo, 2) Afghanistan. That's your reality vs propaganda bs, no matter what you could still remember.

Edited October 23, 2009 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

...We weren't in Iraq.

Try as you might...they don't seem to want the facts. Canada did not invade or attack Iraq in 2003, wasn't obligated to do so, and decided to carry on in Afghanistan instead. What is "unjust" about that?

Iraq (2003) was not a NATO joint.

[ToadBrother]

Me, really? How "confused and contradictory" is the notion that a law on war would be "pointless", but one for murder - not so?

That wasn't what I was referring to. You don't want Parliament involved, except when your silly idea hits a roadblock, then suddenly Parliament needs to get involved.

Thanks to sheer luck of our PM at the time getting up on the right side of the bed that day. Next time around it could be all so different, just ask our neighbours next door who weren't so lucky and lost thousands of their relatives, friends for that reason.

Whatever the reason, we weren't in Iraq. Can you try to make an argument that actually deals with a real situation?

BTW a question you forgot to answer, so one more time: how many times exactly did NATO "defend" an ally against a direct attack on their own soil?

NATO's existence was the defense.

I can count two cases when they were "defending" abroad right off the top of my head, 1) Kosovo, 2) Afghanistan. That's your reality vs propaganda bs, no matter what you could still remember.

There's also forty years where the Soviets didn't make aggressive moves against Western Europe precisely because they knew they'd get nukes dropped on their heads. That was the point of NATO.