Should the constitution define 'just war'?

bush_cheney2004 · October 28, 2009

....To say there is no such thing as a just war is based on a pacifist ideology that says that we must never, ever use force against another. While I respect the beliefs of such people, I must disagree none-the-less.

You had your chance in Rwanda...but nobody took the bait.

Is it OK for me to use thermonuclear weapons in my "just war" ?

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

Some are saying here that no war is just. So are we suggesting that to defend ourselves against a direct attack on our soil by an enemy nation is unjust?

I'm not saying there aren't just wars. I'm saying it's a highly subjective term. Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 was seen by the Germans as a just war to regain what they viewed as German territory, either stolen from them by unfair treaty negotiations in 1919 or because of ethnic German populations. To the French and the Germans (and the Poles, of course) it was viewed as an illegal and belligerent act. As much as I think the German aggression was outrageous, and should have been stopped several years before, but it is true that history is often written by the victor.

I must disagree here and say that there is such a thing as a just war. If you see a man dragging a girl into the bushes to rape her, do you just stand there and walk away? Of course not. Certainly your intervention to protect the girl would be the just , right, and praiseworthy thing to do.
The same applies with war I believe. Let's say a stronger nation goes out to pillage a small one of its resources and is going out raping and slaughtering the population. So we just stand there and watch? Certainly there must be such a thing as a just war.

And if wars, and in particular, the root cause of wars was that simple, you might have a point. But sit here for a moment and ponder the causes of WWI. There are so many causes, so many byzantine maneuvers during the half-century prior to 1914, so many factors that fed into it that to this day you get five historians in a room, and ask them the main causes of the Great War, and you're likely to get five different answers.

Clearly a world police force would be even more just than national armies fighting beyond their borders.

Would it? At the end of the day someone will still have to be in charge, and there's always the possibility of less than holy uses of an army.

But I'd say that a just alliance intended to defend our friends from unprovoked attacks leading us into war to defend them from such attacks would e just and praiseworthy, no?

Surely NATO must have qualified as just such an alliance.

To say there is no such thing as a just war is based on a pacifist ideology that says that we must never, ever use force against another. While I respect the beliefs of such people, I must disagree none-the-less.

My reasoning is that the very notion of "just" is a moving target, based on any given person's prejudices, point of view, and even the time period in which they live.

That being said, I do think that, sometimes, wars are necessary, just or not. There's no way for any political leader to know whether the pen of history is going to judge him well or ill. Look at Alexander the Great, probably the first real Western warmonger, a man who conquered simply because he believed it was his divine right and his destiny to rule the world. Despite all of this, from his day down to ours, he is seen in a very positive light, the first Westerner to step into the greater arena; to go to India, to create a chain of cultural influences that reverberate to this day. None of what he did was just or right by our eyes, and certainly not by the eyes of the Persians and other peoples he beat down, and yet we talk of him with reverence and stand in awe of his considerable talents.

I'm not saying we should never go to war, or that we should fight every war we think we can win. And I don't necessarily think that involving our military in foreign adventures should just be something we do at the drop of a hat, but at the same time to pretend that somehow we can put our foot down and say "the next war will be a just one" is kind of silly, myopic and extraordinarily naive.

Edited October 28, 2009 by ToadBrother

gadget · October 28, 2009

No.
If there's a fight that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition.

-k

as long as your the soldier..... and not me or my family I dont care. I think we all can believe killing in manner. If its your ex wife, the WCB or a politician. But my standing is defence as a trained sniper I defend my country but will never attack, but also believe if some other Canadian brings conflict to my home I could justify to put a bullet in his/her head also

Cappeesh!

Keepitsimple · October 28, 2009

Can't think of anywhere else tp post this but thought it worth mentioning:

In France, at a fairly large conference, Steven Harper was asked by a French cabinet minister if Canadian involvement in Afghanistan was just an example of Empire building.
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, Canada has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

waldo · October 28, 2009

Can't think of anywhere else tp post this but thought it worth mentioning:

In France, at a fairly large conference, Steven Harper was asked by a French cabinet minister if Canadian involvement in Afghanistan was just an example of Empire building.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, Canada has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

Hey Simple... that was so touching, I actually began to tear up... until I recalled something like it elsewhere. Although a quick google sure drops a ton of blogs/boards that want to push Harper's largess on this falsely attributed quote... an expanded search actually shows an earlier 2003 reference attributed to Colin Powell. I won't bother to confirm whether or not Powell actually said it... it's simply heartening enough to realize the extent that some will go to (attempt) to paint their favourite Harperson! Hey, now... perhaps we should check SNOPES!!!

When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.

He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

M.Dancer · October 28, 2009

I thought the quote might be out of place given that France has more troops in Afganistan than we do.

Army Guy · October 28, 2009

Well i guess when you fight the way the french do , you'd need more numbers...

bush_cheney2004 · October 28, 2009

...an expanded search actually shows an earlier 2003 reference attributed to Colin Powell. I won't bother to confirm whether or not Powell actually said it...

The concept came from Dean Rusk many years earlier:

“When in 1966 Charles de Gaulle ordered France out of NATO and American troops off French soil, Secretary of State Dean Rusk asked him if that included the American soldiers lying dead in the cemeteries at Normandy and throughout France”

Keepitsimple · October 28, 2009

I thought the quote might be out of place given that France has more troops in Afganistan than we do.

I should have known better than to cut and paste from an email without due diligence.....dumb.

M.Dancer · October 28, 2009

I should have known better than to cut and paste from an email without due diligence.....dumb.

Give me 5 minutes with my wife and I will say something dumber

myata · October 28, 2009

You mean "in the space between my ears". Only very foolish people think that wars happen simply because aggressive leaders want to kick some ass.

Consider Iraq war for example. It hasn't been justified by anything other than Bush's need to show the world.

It will take forever, is more like it.

Whatever it takes, to actually get to that "peaceful" and "civilized" state we like to claim.

So let's take the Second Gulf War, which seems to be the war you're fixated on. The US did have an alliance, the so-called "Coalition of the Willing". Was that enough to justify invasion? If not, why not?

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?

myata · October 28, 2009

Some are saying here that no war is just. So are we suggesting that to defend ourselves against a direct attack on our soil by an enemy nation is unjust?
...

The same applies with war I believe. Let's say a stronger nation goes out to pillage a small one of its resources and is going out raping and slaughtering the population. So we just stand there and watch? Certainly there must be such a thing as a just war.

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.

To say there is no such thing as a just war is based on a pacifist ideology that says that we must never, ever use force against another. While I respect the beliefs of such people, I must disagree none-the-less.

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.

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

Consider Iraq war for example. It hasn't been justified by anything other than Bush's need to show the world.

That may very well be. It's always easy to identify extreme examples. It's that vast area of grey that lies between black and white that is the problem.

Whatever it takes, to actually get to that "peaceful" and "civilized" state we like to claim.

I don't particularly like ideas that begin with the underlying notion "the ends justify the means".

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 merely posed the question. I did not intend to justify the Iraq war. From most perspectives it was a bad war; it violated the essential notion that only the UN has the right to enforce UN directives (and that includes, ultimately, using military force on a non-complying nation), it violated the notion of the internal integrity of the nation state, which is a key aspect of international law. From a purely strategic and tactical perspective, it was utterly botched, with insufficient troops on the ground to assure security once Hussein was removed from power, poor understanding of the ethnic tensions, little regard for the effect it would have on key allies in the region (Turkey and Saudi Arabia), and was just generally a badly executed invasion by a bunch of guys who thought they knew better than the generals how to fight a war.

My point is that coalitions are insufficient to guarantee a "just" war (whatever that is, and since no one can define it, the whole conversation is kind of pointless, like blind people arguing about what red looks like). Having lots and lots of nations going "Yup, we're onside" isn't going to guarantee any of this, any more than having the majority of people in any given state is going to (I point you once again to the Peloponnese War, a democratically sanctioned military disaster).

The real problem is that you want a nice simple answer to probably the single most complex question that civilization has posed since it was invented. Simply railroading into blind pacifism can lead to the events like the 1930s, where no one was willing to shed even an ounce of blood to keep the former aggressor at bay, and worse, cut their armies and navies down to levels where enforcement of treaties against the former aggressor was all but impossible. Going the other way, on the other hand, can lead to destructive arms races that almost guarantee conflict.

Governments must remain adaptable, as must populaces. The 1930s was a period when the Allies ceased being adaptable, force fit their policies to general pacifist non-interventionist sentiments, and helped brew the cocktail that lead to the most destructive conflict in human history.

Or, in other words, your constitutional idea is absurd and worse than wrong because it restricts adaptability.

M.Dancer · October 28, 2009

I would like to point out the Axis fallacy. The germans launched their invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc etc....without any assistance from their axis partner. In fact, Hitler was opposed to Italy getting involved at all.

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

I would like to point out the Axis fallacy. The germans launched their invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc etc....without any assistance from their axis partner. In fact, Hitler was opposed to Italy getting involved at all.

The original intention of Axis was considerably different than that of the Allied Powers. The Axis wasn't really a military alliance, per se (though once Italy began to collapse, the Germans tried to take over the show), it was a sort of mutual admiration society and non-compete clause all roled into one where the Japanese, Germans, Italians and (to a lesser extent) the Hungarians would all sort of agree to carve up the Russian, British and French Empires. The Italians would get their Mediterranean neo-Roman empire, the Germans would seize everything from the Atlantic to the Urals as either direct possessions or client states, and the Japanese would get China plus the Eastern bits of the French and British Empires.

The Allied alliance was a full military alliance, with unified strategic planning, at least partially merged command structures in the major combined theaters of action, and post-war planning. While there certainly was some co-operation between the Axis Powers, it was never as complete or, frankly, as useful as what the Allied Powers managed to accomplish. In part it was because the two most powerful Axis partners; Germany and Japan, were too geographically distant to render much meaningful military co-operation, particularly after the Americans entered the war and the Japs had their hands full in the War of the Pacific. Italy, of course, proved an extremely unreliable partner, and in the end, Germany not only had to take over all North African operations, but also the Balkans Campaign, trying to keep the Allies at bay in the Mediterranean, and ultimately trying to prop up Mussolini's failing regime.

myata · October 28, 2009

My point is that coalitions are insufficient to guarantee a "just" war (whatever that is, and since no one can define it, the whole conversation is kind of pointless, like blind people arguing about what red looks like). Having lots and lots of nations going "Yup, we're onside" isn't going to guarantee any of this, any more than having the majority of people in any given state is going to (I point you once again to the Peloponnese War, a democratically sanctioned military disaster).

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.

The real problem is that you want a nice simple answer to probably the single most complex question that civilization has posed since it was invented.

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.

Simply railroading into blind pacifism can lead to the events like the 1930s, where no one was willing to shed even an ounce of blood to keep the former aggressor at bay, and worse, cut their armies and navies down to levels where enforcement of treaties against the former aggressor was all but impossible. Going the other way, on the other hand, can lead to destructive arms races that almost guarantee conflict.

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).

Or, in other words, your constitutional idea is absurd and worse than wrong because it restricts adaptability.

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?

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

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.

Except that most wars don't begin as unprovoked violence. Even the notion of provocation is difficult to assess. I'll ask you who provoked WWI?

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).

We have such a system right now. The UN and the system of international law give very clear definitions of what a war is, what is legal, what is illegal. The problem with international law, as with any law, is not just a matter of enforcement, but a matter of interpretation.

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?

Constitutions don't generally make anything a crime. They give governments the power to declare certain acts crimes, but usually with defined liberties to act as a curb on using such power to abuse the freedoms of the populace. The adaptability is that, short of violation of liberties and limits on jurisdiction, governments can do a great deal. But the power to do right is also unfortunately the power, sometimes, to do wrong, and that applies to every level from those that hold the keys to the kingdom to the lowly subjects of the kingdom.

You want to limit the capacity to make war, and that's fine, except the standard your invoking cannot be defined, and is propped up with even more essentially undefined notions like "criminality". Your logic is circular, because you want a simple answer to a highly complex question. Simple answers in such cases are almost inevitably the wrong answers.

myata · October 28, 2009

Except that most wars don't begin as unprovoked violence. Even the notion of provocation is difficult to assess. I'll ask you who provoked WWI?

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.

We have such a system right now. The UN and the system of international law give very clear definitions of what a war is, what is legal, what is illegal. The problem with international law, as with any law, is not just a matter of enforcement, but a matter of interpretation.

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.

Constitutions don't generally make anything a crime. They give governments the power to declare certain acts crimes, but usually with defined liberties to act as a curb on using such power to abuse the freedoms of the populace. The adaptability is that, short of violation of liberties and limits on jurisdiction, governments can do a great deal. But the power to do right is also unfortunately the power, sometimes, to do wrong, and that applies to every level from those that hold the keys to the kingdom to the lowly subjects of the kingdom.

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.

You want to limit the capacity to make war, and that's fine, except the standard your invoking cannot be defined, and is propped up with even more essentially undefined notions like "criminality".

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.

Your logic is circular, because you want a simple answer to a highly complex question. Simple answers in such cases are almost inevitably the wrong answers.

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).

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

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.

Alright then, answer my question. Who started WWI?

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.

For what I'd call the Great Powers, the system has worked extremely well. There hasn't been a substantial war of the kind like the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars since the founding of the UN. We've come close, but all in all, the system has functioned far better than it could have.

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.

The point is what is a war of aggression? There are always obvious and extreme answers like the Iraqi invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait. But I'll go back to the Franco-Prussian War. Yes, the Prussians invaded France, but they were provoked by an inept Emperor and his equally inept ambassador. So were the Prussians at fault, or the French?

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.

Such wars are already illegal. The issue frequently becomes one of interpretation. To the Bush-era United States, Iraq had long been out of compliance on the UN agreements that had lead to the end of hostilities in the First Gulf War. The US view was in fact correct, Iraq had long ceased complying. Where the US went off the rails was in the argument that it alone, or it and any particularly coalition, could enforce UN resolutions without the explicit permission of the Security Council and General Assembly.

That's the legal aspect. Now the realistic aspect of it. I want you to explain precisely how you could ever hope to make countries like the United States, China or Russia, or heck, even second tier powers like Great Britain or France, do anything they didn't want to do? Even if your ideas were practical (which they aren't), the fundamental test is enforcement. If you can't enforce something, it is pointless. If the only countries that it can be enforced on are third rate powers, then it's worse than pointless, it's just plain hypocritical and unfair.

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?

Because robbery and murder aren't war. You fail on that most notorious of logical traps, carrying your metaphor to the extreme.

How much more "complex" could it get?);

Who started WWI?

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).

You're right, your logic isn't circular, it's completely non-present. Acts of aggression are the last step on the road to war, not the first.

Edited October 28, 2009 by ToadBrother

myata · October 28, 2009

Alright then, answer my question. Who started WWI?

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).

For what I'd call the Great Powers, the system has worked extremely well. There hasn't been a substantial war of the kind like the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars since the founding of the UN. We've come close, but all in all, the system has functioned far better than it could have.

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.

The point is what is a war of aggression? There are always obvious and extreme answers like the Iraqi invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait. But I'll go back to the Franco-Prussian War. Yes, the Prussians invaded France, but they were provoked by an inept Emperor and his equally inept ambassador. So were the Prussians at fault, or the French?

It has been defined though, in case you missed. Initiation or significant escalation (in existing conflicts) of armed hostilities, invasion of souvereign territories.

Such wars are already illegal. The issue frequently becomes one of interpretation. To the Bush-era United States, Iraq had long been out of compliance on the UN agreements that had lead to the end of hostilities in the First Gulf War. The US view was in fact correct, Iraq had long ceased complying. Where the US went off the rails was in the argument that it alone, or it and any particularly coalition, could enforce UN resolutions without the explicit permission of the Security Council and General Assembly.

That's right, there main problem is that (under handtwisting of Great Powers) some wars, even aggressive ones, can be declared legal.

That's the legal aspect. Now the realistic aspect of it. I want you to explain precisely how you could ever hope to make countries like the United States, China or Russia, or heck, even second tier powers like Great Britain or France, do anything they didn't want to do? Even if your ideas were practical (which they aren't),

Yes you know it, but you can't prove it, right?

the fundamental test is enforcement. If you can't enforce something, it is pointless. If the only countries that it can be enforced on are third rate powers, then it's worse than pointless, it's just plain hypocritical and unfair.

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.

Because robbery and murder aren't war. You fail on that most notorious of logical traps, carrying your metaphor to the extreme.

You have to demonstrate a significant difference between the two, to claim that argument.

You're right, your logic isn't circular, it's completely non-present. Acts of aggression are the last step on the road to war, not the first.

But it'll be a great progress even to prevent that one last step from happening.

ToadBrother · October 28, 2009

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).

The reason I keep harping on this is because WWI, probably better than any other war, demonstrates how the circumstances for a wide-scale and highly destructive war can be laid one step at a time, many of the steps in and of themselves not necessarily unreasonable. There is this concept in history of some events simply being the product of momentum; of forces that really are quite beyond any individual or group to oppose, or often even recognize until the dust is already settled.

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.

Quite possibly. Nuclear weapons have probably been THE peacemakers. They make another truly global war too terrifying for anyone to consider.

It has been defined though, in case you missed. Initiation or significant escalation (in existing conflicts) of armed hostilities, invasion of souvereign territories.

So the Prussians were just in their invasion?

That's right, there main problem is that (under handtwisting of Great Powers) some wars, even aggressive ones, can be declared legal.

But it has been far more successful than previous attempts. It isn't perfect, but you ain't gonna get perfect.

Yes you know it, but you can't prove it, right?

Prove what? That your ideas are impractical. Of course they're impractical. First of all, we can't get a constitutional amendment to alter the Senate or heck, do anything, so imagining a constitutional amendment to ban "unjust" war (which you have to actually define to anyone's satisfaction), is a flight of fancy beyond all reckoning. Further more, to imagine that any of the true Powers; of the first and second tiers, would submit themselves to some untried and practically undefined regime in the off chance that somehow world peace was the end result is an even bigger flight of fancy.

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.

Great, now define an "unjust" war.

You have to demonstrate a significant difference between the two, to claim that argument.

Robbery and murder are generally defined as unjustified seizure of property or taking of life. War has different definitions depending on the context, but for our context, it is an armed conflict between sovereign nation states.

But it'll be a great progress even to prevent that one last step from happening.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that by the time the bullets are ready to fly, it's already too late. War is generally described as the incapability of two or more groups to come to a political solution. The real key to peace is in the political arena, the very arena, ironically, you want to essentially castrate.

bush_cheney2004 · October 29, 2009

.....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....

So, in summary, there is much work to be done domestically and internationally....starting with Canada:

1) Not attacking other sovereigns again in the future

2) Disengaging in present attacks and occupations

3) Convincing other sovereigns to comply with the new found "just war" enlightenment

4) Codifying constraints into domestic law

Methinks that the one of the reasons that Iraq War #2 resonates so much is that while her peacekilling machine did not / could not engage because of obligations elsewhere, the realization that Canadian "values" were irrelevant in the decision vis-a-vis "just war" was most unsettling.

ToadBrother · October 29, 2009

So, in summary, there is much work to be done domestically and internationally....starting with Canada:
1) Not attacking other sovereigns again in the future

2) Disengaging in present attacks and occupations

3) Convincing other sovereigns to comply with the new found "just war" enlightenment

4) Codifying constraints into domestic law

Methinks that the one of the reasons that Iraq War #2 resonates so much is that while her peacekilling machine did not / could not engage because of obligations elsewhere, the realization that Canadian "values" were irrelevant in the decision vis-a-vis "just war" was most unsettling.

The problem is attempting to typify all wars by one war you decide was unjust. I'm not going to defend the second Gulf War. It was idiotic, ill-planned, confused and just generally handled by a pack of rank amateurs with such contemptibly that even if you think turfing every dictator out there, or even just toppling governments to get a hold of their valuable resources, the whole thing is a clear example of why once politicians have decided to go to war, they should keep their damned hands out of it. Politicians and civil servants make the worst strategists, because they have far too many objectives, and often many of those are contradictory. That's why we have armies with trained skilled generals who focus on the only objective an army should ever focus on, and that's winning, and winning sufficient to break an enemy.

At any rate, any and all of this would be futile. Laws can be overturned by legislators. Constitutions can be amended or thrown out. If we want real peace, and not just fantasy land peace, we have to be able to enforce it, and have a military, or at least strategic alliances strong enough to ward off potential attackers.

bush_cheney2004 · October 29, 2009

The problem is attempting to typify all wars by one war you decide was unjust. I'm not going to defend the second Gulf War. It was idiotic, ill-planned, confused and just generally handled by a pack of rank amateurs with such contemptibly that even if you think turfing every dictator out there, or even just toppling governments to get a hold of their valuable resources, the whole thing is a clear example of why once politicians have decided to go to war, they should keep their damned hands out of it.

Execution of the war (and peace) is a secondary matter to the issue of starting the conflict at all. In this, the politicians will reign supreme and incompetent by design. If America wants a war...then there shall be war.

Politicians and civil servants make the worst strategists, because they have far too many objectives, and often many of those are contradictory. That's why we have armies with trained skilled generals who focus on the only objective an army should ever focus on, and that's winning, and winning sufficient to break an enemy.

Yet we cannot find many military juntas as successful in the business of making and financing war.

At any rate, any and all of this would be futile. Laws can be overturned by legislators. Constitutions can be amended or thrown out. If we want real peace, and not just fantasy land peace, we have to be able to enforce it, and have a military, or at least strategic alliances strong enough to ward off potential attackers.

Any enforcement actions would ultimately result in that which one is trying to prevent. "Just war" is a lonely idea with no real prospect for winning anything.

Edited October 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

M.Dancer · October 29, 2009

A just war is a war the the generals say is winnable. Just them, not the publci, not the politicians, just the generals, If they say we can win it if we just try then it's a just war.

Now lets discuss a just surrender and a just peace...