Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[Army Guy]

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?

Perhaps the question should be re worded, As NATO does not have allieds, it has members, only member countries are covered under the defence pact.....All others countires / missions have been requested thru the UN or by countries involved...

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

Other than the 2 you have listed there is

Bosina 95-2004

Macediona 01- 03

Pakistan earth quake 2005

Gulf of Aden 2008

Horn of Africa 2009

Med sea

Iraq Training mission

Nato

Edited October 23, 2009 by Army Guy

[myata]

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.

Now we see who is really confused, could it be said one more time and in plain English?

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

It does though. We escaped getting messed up in Iraq by a razor's blade, and the law would make sure it wouldn't happen again. As it could anytime now.

NATO's existence was the defense.

Thought so. Yet it does something quite different. Do as I say....

[ToadBrother]

It does though. We escaped getting messed up in Iraq by a razor's blade, and the law would make sure it wouldn't happen again. As it could anytime now.

No it doesn't. We never went to Iraq. It's unlikely, considering the deep unpopularity of that invasion, that Canada ever would have, but it's pointless to play this game of shooting at phantoms. You can't possibly think it's intellectually honest to use a war we weren't involved in to justify changing the nature of how we go to war.

[myata]

No it doesn't. We never went to Iraq. It's unlikely, considering the deep unpopularity of that invasion, that Canada ever would have, but it's pointless to play this game of shooting at phantoms. You can't possibly think it's intellectually honest to use a war we weren't involved in to justify changing the nature of how we go to war.

It is very honest. I was watching the developments, and even writing to MPs at the time and it was very clear how Chretien's government hated to disappoint the Big Brother, and was looking here and there for all sorts of good reason to stick in. Of course, one day Chretien got up and found out from his morning paper that all things have been decided without his, even token as it is, agreement, and that finally pi.. him off enough to take the principled stand. Who knows how the things could have developed with a more understanding president.

Anyways we got ourselves messed up in Afghanistan instead, and it's still a far and hard stretch (as stretches go, even for invasive meddling wars) from "defense under attack". It happened and it'll happen again and again, till complicity in a war is defined as inacceptable and criminal as clearly as a regular murder. Just watch it play again and again, with different decorations and justifications, but the same thing all in all, and always.

[Machjo]

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.

I never said I wanted a more democratic means of going to war. Let's not confuse democracy with justice, seeing that mob rule itsel can be quite democratic.

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.

I know. I'm taking Iraq as an example of what can happen when the mobocratic rule of the people gets its way. And it's a fine example at that. Maybe we should have attacked Hussain, but on legitimate grounds, not like the US on bogus WMDs. What's to say Canada couldn't end up in some such war in future. After all, Harper wanted in at the time. Had he been in power, we very weill could have ended up chasing imaginary WMDs. If we're going to attack a tyrant with the approval of the international community and on the grounds that he's a tyrant, that's one thing. To attack him on bogus stories is quite another. Just because Canada did not end up in that war it doesn't mean it could not have.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is very honest. I was watching the developments, and even writing to MPs at the time and it was very clear how Chretien's government hated to disappoint the Big Brother....

No...Chretien made an art out of fence sitting, knowing full well that Canada had zilch to contribute to offensive ops against Iraq beyond business as usual. Canada was irrelevant in the decision either way.

Anyways we got ourselves messed up in Afghanistan instead, and it's still a far and hard stretch (as stretches go, even for invasive meddling wars) from "defense under attack". It happened and it'll happen again and again, till complicity in a war is defined as inacceptable and criminal as clearly as a regular murder. Just watch it play again and again, with different decorations and justifications, but the same thing all in all, and always.

This is progress..."we got ourselves".....bravo! If you do it....own it.

[Machjo]

Somebody asked above how to define just war. I'm not sure, but there are some basic ideas presented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

This could be used as a start off point on discussions to create a clear constitutional definition of 'just war'. I do not oppose war per se and I'm certainly not a pacifist. However, I do believe that too many wars are fought over not justice, but material interests disguised under the nationalist codeword 'national interests'. A constitutional definition of a 'just war' would help put an end to such warmongering. This would not put an end to war, but it would mean that the we would fight only in those wars which can clearly be defined as just in accordance to the strictest definition of justice.

It would also put an end to mobocracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I do not oppose war per se and I'm certainly not a pacifist. However, I do believe that too many wars are fought over not justice, but material interests disguised under the nationalist codeword 'national interests'....

What's wrong with that as a reason.....Justice sips meekly from a fountain called Power.

[Oleg Bach]

What's wrong with that as a reason.....Justice sips meekly from a fountain called Power.

Kind of trickles out like puss from an evil wound. BC - getting late at this end - one more laugh please.

[bush_cheney2004]

Kind of trickles out like puss from an evil wound. BC - getting late at this end - one more laugh please.

Dude...didn't Europe go to war over Archduke Ferdinand? And he didn't even have a hit record.

[Oleg Bach]

Dude...didn't Europe go to war over Archduke Ferdinand? And he didn't even have a hit record.

Yeh but he cause a lot of metal thrash bands to be named Anarchist...What was interesting about the anarchist movement back then was that it was not coloured with being a movement of mayhem and mindless chaotic violence....and frankly - no one ever proved that the Duke was actually killed by a member of the Anarchist movement _ I think they set the Anarchist up to be the fall guys.

[wyly]

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. 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.

the thing is Russia recognizes our sovereignty over the NWP, the USA does not...so much our NATO friends..

[bush_cheney2004]

the thing is Russia recognizes our sovereignty over the NWP, the USA does not...so much our NATO friends..

Patently false....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle5671438.ece

[Machjo]

What's wrong with that as a reason.....Justice sips meekly from a fountain called Power.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Canada already has done so.....this is not news.

[Machjo]

Canada already has done so.....this is not news.

So we should continue?

[bush_cheney2004]

So we should continue?

...already in progress. See Afghanistan (not Iraq).

[Machjo]

...already in progress. See Afghanistan (not Iraq).

So would you consider Afghanistan a just war? And by what standards?

I know it's a legal war in terms of international law, though granted legal alone does not necessarily mean just, but it's a first step.

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

[Machjo]

...already in progress. See Afghanistan (not Iraq).

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

[bush_cheney2004]

So would you consider Afghanistan a just war? And by what standards?

Irrelevant....."just war" is an oxymoron.

I know it's a legal war in terms of international law, though granted legal alone does not necessarily mean just, but it's a first step.

see above.

Then there's the issue of switch and bait. We'd gone in to get Bin Laden and the Taliban stood in the way, so we fought off the Taliban but are now involved in nation building. Is it a good thing or a bad thing?....

As is my custom, I do not think in terms of "good" or "bad"....moral quandary is a personal matter.

Canada was free to capture Bin 'Hidin at any time.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

So was D-Day. As others have correctly stated, the invasion of Iraq was not Canada's concern by choice....the US, UK, Australia, and Poland (among others) decided that it was in their national interest to finish the job that Canada helped to start in 1991.

The pretext for Saddam's demise worked....that's all the history books will care about.

[wulf42]

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

We are part of Nato nitwit....which means if one Nato country is attacked we all are!

nobody said anything about Nato starting a war.....

[Machjo]

Irrelevant....."just war" is an oxymoron.

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

[Machjo]

We are part of Nato nitwit....which means if one Nato country is attacked we all are!

nobody said anything about Nato starting a war.....

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Why? There are any number of "injustices" in the world that Canada helps to perpetrate....why the emphasis on "war"? How can you characterrize defending against "tyranny" as just for your own circumstance but not others also facing "tyranny"?

War is real...part of the human condition....and it cannot be parsed in such a way to satisfy your personal morality, especially after the bullets start flying.