Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[waldo]

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...

hardly - by then, by the time of engagement, have many/any active duty generals come straight out and said they can't win it? Of course not, since that's tantamount to calling into question the actual politicization/rationale... commitment to "justness" in the first case.

[bush_cheney2004]

hardly - by then, by the time of engagement, have many/any active duty generals come straight out and said they can't win it? Of course not, since that's tantamount to calling into question the actual politicization/rationale... commitment to "justness" in the first case.

Admiral Yamamoto....but he wasn't a general.

[M.Dancer]

A war pursued in opposition to the military leadership is an unjust war.

[myata]

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

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.

1) Not attacking other sovereigns again in the 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.

2) Disengaging in present attacks and occupations

Certainly, as the first step to #1

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

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.

4) Codifying constraints into domestic law

An absolutely necessary step to prevent politicians from manipulating evidence and propaganda to unleash more unnecessary, destructive, solving nothing wars.

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 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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Nonstarter....there are many examples of both emerging from war.

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.

No...you have already compromised the process with your domestic bias. "Crimes against humanity" are not justification for yet more crimes against humanity.

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.

How? Who? With What? Will Canada sacrifice its economy to teach the USA a lesson? I think not.

An absolutely necessary step to prevent politicians from manipulating evidence and propaganda to unleash more unnecessary, destructive, solving nothing wars.

Here we go again....anothe exercise in legislating speech.

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.

No, the problem for you is that there was absolutely nothing to be done about it......utter impotence. If America wants war, then there shall be war.

#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.

Which brings us back to square one....any enforcement mechanism begins to resemble the very thing you propose to prevent.

Edited October 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Nonstarter....there are many examples of both emerging from war.

My favorite personal example of good things from war is the Napoleonic Wars. There's no doubt that Napoleon was a warmongering empire builder, but the guy was neither that simple, and the effects of his wars of conquest weren't all bad.

One of the most interesting things about Napoleon's occupations is that wherever he went, he left behind relatively liberal constitutions, codified and rational legal systems, and in many cases at least a kind of infant democracy. Napoleon was a great lover of referenda, and it was referenda that made him First Consul for Life and then, later, Emperor of the French (this should also inform our interlocutor that plebiscites can deliver results that quite oppose notions of peace and just war, as the French knew very well what they were voting for, and did so with great enthusiasm).

[myata]

Nonstarter....there are many examples of both emerging from war.

Obviously.. as part of the natural cycle, bad to better to bad again. The question is, whether both can be developed without wars.

No...you have already compromised the process with your domestic bias. "Crimes against humanity" are not justification for yet more crimes against humanity.

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.

How? Who? With What? Will Canada sacrifice its economy to teach the USA a lesson? I think not.

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.

Here we go again....anothe exercise in legislating speech.

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.

No, the problem for you is that there was absolutely nothing to be done about it......utter impotence. If America wants war, then there shall be war.

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).

Which brings us back to square one....any enforcement mechanism begins to resemble the very thing you propose to prevent.

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.

Edited October 29, 2009 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

Obviously.. as part of the natural cycle, bad to better to bad again. The question is, whether both can be developed without wars.

No.....history says that wars are a required part of the mix.

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.

You are parsing again for your own purposes. "Just war" becomes a long shopping list just to accomodate al the exceptions.

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.

Great....an island of hope for humanity surrounded by reality.

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.

This contravenes existing law and immunity from such prosecution. Just ask PM Chretien.

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).

More anthropomorphizing......wars are between nation states and other human collectives. Getting messed up seems to be fine for cheap collective security.

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.

You mean like invading Haiti and deposing the democratically elected president?

Edited October 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

No.....history says that wars are a required part of the mix.

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.

You are parsing again for your own purposes. "Just war" becomes a long shopping list just to accomodate al the exceptions.

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.

Great....an island of hope for humanity surrounded by reality.

It has to start somewhere. And every small bit counts.

This contravenes existing law and immunity from such prosecution. Just ask PM Chretien.

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.

More anthropomorphizing......wars are between nation states and other human collectives. Getting messed up seems to be fine for cheap collective security.

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.

You mean like invading Haiti and deposing the democratically elected president?

I mean that any act of armed aggression should be defined as illegal and criminal.

[ToadBrother]

No.....history says that wars are a required part of the mix.

I don't think it says that so much as it is says that war is very often an inevitability built out of countless smaller steps, some openly provocative and some, in fact, intended as a means to stave off wars.

The real solution, as imperfect as it is, is to try to create an international system with the capacity to be a meaningful venue for nation states to air their grievances and find some degree of solution. The UN has thus far been largely ineffective for a number of reasons, in part because the Security Council renders the General Assembly meaningless in substantial issues. Still, we haven't had a general armed conflict in over sixty years, so however difficult and sometimes incomprehensible the international systems we have in place are, it's certainly an improvement.

But, at the end of the day, wars are caused more by economic factors than anything else, no matter how much we like to pretend they're about religion, ideology or whatever pleasant label we throw on them to make them palatable. The real solution to war is to find some way of creating economic equitability for all nations and peoples, not in trying to make believe that we can limit war itself. The real solutions are finding ways to increase economic stability and security for nations, because if we don't, the lessons are clear, the end of the road on that is wars. The real father of war isn't bloody-minded politicians, it's that many resources are scarce (whether those resources are land, people, oil, metals, whatever).

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Both crude and refined "clubs" are still in widespread use.

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.

No it won't.....it will be identical. Formerly named War Departments are now called "Defense"....this is the game you want to play.

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.

So your examples of "specific results" are held in high regard while others are not? You cannot reasonably authorize an attack on any sovereign without unleashing the dogs of war as direct and indirect consequences.

It has to start somewhere. And every small bit counts.

Small bits count as small bits.

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.

The elements of robbery are defined in criminal law and subject to jurisdiction. A direct comparison to international law and sovereign nations is not practical.

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.

Wrong...no. Impractical.....yes. "Gang" of nations is noted with humor.

I mean that any act of armed aggression should be defined as illegal and criminal.

Why just armed aggression? Aggression can take many forms. There are worse things than war.

[ToadBrother]

Why just armed aggression? Aggression can take many forms. There are worse things than war.

That's a very important point. As I've stated before, wars are the end result of a process, not the beginning. There are other forms of aggression.

Imagine a somewhat fictitious (though there are some real-world analogues) scenario. You have two countries; Upper Reagonia and Lower Reagonia. At one time they were united, but revolution and civil war split them in half. There has long been high tensions over many issues, but key among them is that Upper Reagonia has a large lake that feeds a river that flows through both countries, and provides much of Lower Reagonia's fresh water.

Now, what's a more aggressive act? Upper Reagonian troops firing over the border and violating Lower Reagonian airspace on occasion, or Upper Reagonia building a big ass dam across the river? One is clearly militarily aggression, the other, in technical terms, happening purely within the sovereign territory of Upper Reagonia.

Now let us imagine further that Lower Reagonia, seeing the great potential for a forced reunification, or at least to the Upper Reagonia being essentially able to dictate any and all terms. There are two choices; either become little more than vassals of their nemesis, or even outright disappear, or turn around and blow the dam up. Have they done something wrong by this aggressive act?

There are other ways that aggression can occur. One of the most important as far as WWI was concerned was an arms buildup. The empires in question, to defend their territorial and colonial interests, spent about a half a century after the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars building up their armies and navies. This was coupled with substantial improvements in all military technologies; explosives, weapons, chemical and biological warfare, naval capability and size, mechanization and in the last few years, the airplane. Everyone did everything they could to prevent war, and in fact managed to dodge it a few times, but since none of the empires were completely capable of taking down any other one, they entered alliances that, by the first years of the 20th century had largely stabilized into Franco-British and German-Austrian-Ottoman factions. The Russians joined the Brits and French, but with the added fun that they were basically fomenting Slavic uprisings in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman possessions (myata is advised to look up Panslavism to demonstrate how attractive ideas can lead to war).

The situation was a complete powder keg. In such a situation, no matter how good any sides' intentions were, eventually somebody was going to light a match capable of blowing the whole thing up. Since our fellow debater doesn't actually seem to be advocating everyone throwing their guns away, what is there to prevent a similar stand off? Arms races almost always form out of a need to defend territorial integrity, thus not violating one premise of the apparent "just" war, and yet they are also inherently unstable. War becomes an an inevitability not because anyone particularly wants a war, but because everyone has taken steps, some quite unknowingly, towards a point at which it's almost impossible for the circumstances not to lead to war.

Edited October 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[myata]

No it won't.....it will be identical. Formerly named War Departments are now called "Defense"....this is the game you want to play.

No, you most likely misread, or misunderstood. The difference is not in the name, but the act, and the result.

So your examples of "specific results" are held in high regard while others are not? You cannot reasonably authorize an attack on any sovereign without unleashing the dogs of war as direct and indirect consequences.

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.

Small bits count as small bits.

Yet all big changes start small, somewhere.

The elements of robbery are defined in criminal law and subject to jurisdiction. A direct comparison to international law and sovereign nations is not practical.

Wrong...no. Impractical.....yes. "Gang" of nations is noted with humor.

Again, forgetting to explain, in what way they are not?

Why just armed aggression? Aggression can take many forms. There are worse things than war.

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.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Wouldn't it be smarter to actually deal with what causes wars? It strikes me you're going at this ass backwards. Wars are an end result of a process, not a beginning.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you most likely misread, or misunderstood. The difference is not in the name, but the act, and the result.

OK...now you are venturing down the path of end justifying the means.....splendid!

....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.

But in fact you propose doing all of the above.

Yet all big changes start small, somewhere.

Quantum physics is fun!

Again, forgetting to explain, in what way they are not?

No need to explain the obvious.

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.

False.....aggression can take many forms. Got smallpox?

[bush_cheney2004]

Wouldn't it be smarter to actually deal with what causes wars? It strikes me you're going at this ass backwards. Wars are an end result of a process, not a beginning.

Agreed....reminds me of a kitchen fire in my past wherein my new bride was more concerned with silencing the blaring smoke detector while I dealt with flame management.

[myata]

Wouldn't it be smarter to actually deal with what causes wars? It strikes me you're going at this ass backwards. Wars are an end result of a process, not a beginning.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Making aggressive wars illegal would prevent nothing.

...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.

There is no confusion..your premise is confused and wrong. That is why it will never come to be.

[ToadBrother]

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.

I don't even see how it would do that? I mean, Germany was outright banned for a period from having anything approaching an army, and yet in 1935 they happily marched into the Rhineland.

It would be like asking courts to stop prosecuting criminals and focus entirely on proactive resolution of causes of crime.

You keep bringing up this analogy as if it is meaningful. I could declare snotty noses illegal, but that would hardly stop them. You seem to be of this notion that wars can just be turned off by some sort of jurisprudence.

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.

Again, you live in a fantasy land. You don't actually want to deal with the root causes of war, you somehow believe if enough people give group hugs that it will all just fade. It's been tried, it was a miserable failure that lead to the most destructive conflict in history.

[myata]

You keep bringing up this analogy as if it is meaningful. I could declare snotty noses illegal, but that would hardly stop them. You seem to be of this notion that wars can just be turned off by some sort of jurisprudence.

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?

Again, you live in a fantasy land. You don't actually want to deal with the root causes of war, you somehow believe if enough people give group hugs that it will all just fade. It's been tried, it was a miserable failure that lead to the most destructive conflict in history.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Good..you readily admit that nations currently reject your proposal and embrace armed conflict as an option.

....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.

That's because violence is most certainly acceptable in many situations. You can't keep it in a cage only to be let out on your philosophical whim.

....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.

So you want your cake and eat it too. You will also need to add a thick layer of proportionality, less an aggressor incinerate your population in a perfectly "legal" defense.

[xul]

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.

If there is interest that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition.

-I think Bush would say this if he got an ID here. Obama would not say this but he would act on this way if he got an ID here too.

I'm not blaming them, because all sorts of politicians, such as presidents, PMs, chancellors, chairmans, general secretaries, kings, emperors, caliphes, Fuhrers....and essentially the people behind them also submit to this universal value of human but not only human race.

Before all war-haters went sadness, I'd like to point out there is also something hiding behind this method:

If there isn't interest that's important enough to risk our soldiers' lives in, then we need not to be there, regardless of whether it fits some legal definition or political-correctness.

Edited October 30, 2009 by xul

[xul]

I think justice is a relative concept. When George Washington and his great rebels were writing the Declaration of Independence, which was full of allegations of how they were treated unjustly by their king's government as the excuse of their betrayal, they even didn't notice that there was hundreds of slaves who was working in the basement right beneath the room they were writing the the declaration.

Actually there are terms in laws or constitutions defining the conditions that a country can go into a war. Since no one would approve a law or a constitution without believing in its justness, people may conclude that almost all wars are just---- from the war starters's point of view, not from the war victims's.

The problem is the war victims's laws or constitutions can not restrict the war starters

Edited October 30, 2009 by xul

[gadget]

I think justice is a relative concept. When George Washington and his great rebels were writing the Declaration of Independence, which was full of allegations of how they were treated unjustly by their king's government as the excuse of their betrayal, they even didn't notice that there was hundreds of slaves who was working in the basement right beneath the room they were writing the the declaration.

Actually there are terms in laws or constitutions defining the conditions that a country can go into a war. Since no one would approve a law or a constitution without believing in its justness, people may conclude that almost all wars are just---- from the war starters's point of view, not from the war victims's.

The problem is the war victims's laws or constitutions can not restrict the war starters

Kill a man first you Chicken Hawk! Do it ! grab a gun and kill. Otherwise your opinion means nothing. you coward!

Only until you experience that thirst for blood will you ever know. Its easy being a Chicken Hawk.

What you should ask yourself before you enter war. would you put your son on the battlefield?

[M.Dancer]

Kill a man first you Chicken Hawk! Do it ! grab a gun and kill. Otherwise your opinion means nothing. you coward!

Only until you experience that thirst for blood will you ever know. Its easy being a Chicken Hawk.

What you should ask yourself before you enter war. would you put your son on the battlefield?

With that train (wreck) of reasoning, only soldiers should have a say....seeing that nearly 99.9% of the CF support their mission, you really want to limit debate to just them?

Get back to me when you all grow'd up.