Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

That's not how the NATO Charter works. Members do not have to "request our help"...such a quaint notion. It's more like having to live up to your obligations. What a concept, huh?

Edited October 25, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

That's not how the NATO Charter works. Members do not have to "request our help"...such a quaint notion. It's more like having to live up to your obligations. What a concept, huh?

I used that term to include not only allies but all friends. As for allies, the alliance is essentially a request in advance of any unforeseen event.

[bush_cheney2004]

I used that term to include not only allies but all friends. As for allies, the alliance is essentially a request in advance of any unforeseen event.

It is not a request....it is a treaty obligation. Just because it involves war, doesn't mean Canada wants or gets a pass. Your vantage point is clearly one of this obligation being optional, when that is not the case. You can't invoke a moral, "just war" clause after the fact.

[eyeball]

It is not a request....it is a treaty obligation. Just because it involves war, doesn't mean Canada wants or gets a pass. Your vantage point is clearly one of this obligation being optional, when that is not the case. You can't invoke a moral, "just war" clause after the fact.

Absolutely you can't. As for our obligation, that should never be taken for granted and always regarded as conditional.

[myata]

It's more like having to live up to your obligations. What a concept, huh?

Obligations, which, and to who? The noble cause of rebuilding all and everything, if it doesn't look right to democratic eye, causes nuisances and such? Or maybe, to holy President of the holy Democratic Empire? I already asked somebody here, so perhaps you would be able to remind us about the last time the member of an allegiance has been attacked, and defended on their own soil ("terrorism" stretches wouldn't count, obviously, because as the affair in Iraq clearly shows us, virtually anything can be stretched to become "terrorism" or threat thereof, with sufficient desire and imagination).

No need to think about such quaint questions eh? Just turn on the brainwashing mashine when and as needed, and voila, "just cause" comes right out of thin air.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Political causes are always "justified". That is the root cause of the problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obligations, which, and to who? The noble cause of rebuilding all and everything, if it doesn't look right to democratic eye, causes nuisances and such? Or maybe, to holy President of the holy Democratic Empire? I already asked somebody here, so perhaps you would be able to remind us about the last time the member of an allegiance has been attacked.....

What does it matter, as Canada not only volunteered for the NATO obligation, but did so after enjoining a war in Europe not only once, but twice when no such treaty existed. Canada has certainly not walked your talk....God Save the Queen and all that jazz.

No need to think about such quaint questions eh? Just turn on the brainwashing mashine when and as needed, and voila, "just cause" comes right out of thin air.

This member has never dipped into such meaningless excuses....take it up with those who have.

[bush_cheney2004]

Political causes are always "justified". That is the root cause of the problem.

No...the root cause of the problem is that some Canadians want self determination in such matters, but they also want to whine when their choices blow up in their faces.

[Machjo]

It is not a request....it is a treaty obligation. Just because it involves war, doesn't mean Canada wants or gets a pass. Your vantage point is clearly one of this obligation being optional, when that is not the case. You can't invoke a moral, "just war" clause after the fact.

Fine. Certainly we can have treaty obligations, on the condition that the war is in conformity with justice. If an ally is unprovokedly attacked, then we defend it. But if an ally acts belligerently, then it essentially violates its side of the treaty. If Canada is unprovokedly attacked, certainly our allies out to help us. But if Canada is attacked in defense because we started an unjust war, then no, our allies have no obligation towards us.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... But if Canada is attacked in defense because we started an unjust war, then no, our allies have no obligation towards us.

So it would be OK if Serbia bombed Toronto without a NATO or NORAD response? This could be very interesting!

Edited October 25, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

No...the root cause of the problem is that some Canadians want self determination in such matters, but they also want to whine when their choices blow up in their faces.

This doesn't scan. First we'd need to have a choice before we could whine about it when it blew up in our face don't you think?

In the meantime it seems the loudest whining is coming from people who are determined to keep voters as far away as possible from having a say in such matters.

[bush_cheney2004]

This doesn't scan. First we'd need to have a choice before we could whine about it when it blew up in our face don't you think?

No...that should have been the first order of business instead of worrying about what the Americans are doing or not doing.

In the meantime it seems the loudest whining is coming from people who are determined to keep voters as far away as possible from having a say in such matters.

No, they whine even when getting a "say" in such matters. "Unjust war" is just more after-the-fact whining.

[Machjo]

So it would be OK if Serbia bombed Toronto without a NATO or NORAD response? This could be very interesting!

Well, if it was unprovoked, certainly NATO ought to defend Canada. But what if Canada had gone in first to try to take Serbia and Serbia was simply fighting back?Then would you say NATO should still side with Canada?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, if it was unprovoked, certainly NATO ought to defend Canada. But what if Canada had gone in first to try to take Serbia and Serbia was simply fighting back?Then would you say NATO should still side with Canada?

Truth is stranger than fiction....Canada (and NATO) attacked Serbia in 1999. So it would be "provoked".

[Oleg Bach]

A just war is like a street fight - If you are attacked you defend ...or if you are smart and know for certain that ou will be attack you attack first without warning. Going to Afghanistan or Iraq is absurd. That would be like a defensive peace keeping street fighter walking twenty blocks and spoil for a fight...All violence should be avoided at all cost - that is the rule. That is true wisdom. If you could have skirted around the "street fight" and not got involved then that is just - or if you take out the bully when being attacked that is just - ANY WAR YOU HAVE TO GO OUT LOOKING FOR IS NOT JUST.

[Machjo]

Truth is stranger than fiction....Canada (and NATO) attacked Serbia in 1999. So it would be "provoked".

There ya go. So what were the details of the attack. From my understanding, we were there to protect the ethnic minority from genocide and it was a UN-led mission. So, if we go into a country to defend the oppressed, is it a just war? Could we then argue that since we are one human family, that any attack on any member of the human race is an attack on al? If so, then we'd have to say Canada was provoked. Was it legal according to international law? Well, it was a UN-led operation.

I'm not saying I'm right in the above paragraph. I am saying though that these are legitimate questions worth asking. If, in the end, we determine that such a war is unjust, then we should no longer participate in such wars. If we determine that it is just, then we ought to. But without a clear legal definition of 'just war', it becomes too open to the whims and fancies of the mobocracy.

[g_bambino]

But without a clear legal definition of 'just war', it becomes too open to the whims and fancies of the mobocracy.

Yet, if we defined now what a "just war" is, wouldn't that merely be the present "mobocracy" imposing its particular vision of "just war" onto future "mobocracies"?

[Machjo]

A just war is like a street fight - If you are attacked you defend ...or if you are smart and know for certain that ou will be attack you attack first without warning. Going to Afghanistan or Iraq is absurd. That would be like a defensive peace keeping street fighter walking twenty blocks and spoil for a fight...All violence should be avoided at all cost - that is the rule. That is true wisdom. If you could have skirted around the "street fight" and not got involved then that is just - or if you take out the bully when being attacked that is just - ANY WAR YOU HAVE TO GO OUT LOOKING FOR IS NOT JUST.

I like the analogies here. Now as for taking out the bully, I don't see why he must necessarily be bullying me personally. If I'm walking down the street and I see an adult bully picking on a young wheelchair bound child, even though he is not bullying me, I certainly have the right, nay the duty, to go out and defend that child. Of course justice would dictate that I do so using minimal force, so first I might politely but firmly request that the buy cease and desist. If he refuses, I physically stand between him and the child. And and then and only then do I fight him if he tries to push me out of the way. Whether I have signed any formal alliance or treaty with either the bully or the child here would be irrelevant. In this case, I'd merely be standing for justice, and of course fighting would be reserved as a necessary last resort if the conflict cannot be resolved peacefully. In such a scenario, the fight on my part would be altruistic with no regard for any kind of material benefit in return, unlike the shameless call to arms for material interests but in the guise of 'national interests', which is really just engaging in the very bullying we claim to despise.

[Machjo]

Yet, if we defined now what a "just war" is, wouldn't that merely be the present "mobocracy" imposing its particular vision of "just war" onto future "mobocracies"?

Good question. Then I suppose if your argument is that the definition of 'just war' may change, then one possibility would be to not define just war in the constitution but rather require in the constitution that to declare any particular war, the government of the day would first have to define 'just war', then prove that the war it intends to fight conforms to that definition, and only then coudl it fight the war, immediate direct attacks on our country aside.

This would force the government of the day to define ;just war' Certainly people and the media would compare that definition to that of previous administrations that had gone to war. Many journalists and academic would likely share their ideas publicly on the definition too. And the pubic would certainly scrutinize it. Then the government must prove in court that the war it's about to engage in is in conformity with that definition. This would thus allow the definition to change over time, but still expose the government's true intentions to the public. First, the pubic would question the definition itself, which would have to be made quite explicit. Then, the public would scrutinize whether the current war fits in with that definition. The government could try to wiggle out of it by coming up with a very vague definition, which would thus expose the government's intent on being secretive or manipulative. Alternatively, it could try to twist the evidence to fit a strict definition, but then the courts might not allow it. This would not make war impossible, but would force the government to become very transparent as to its true motives. If the motives truly are noble, then there'll be no problem. Otherwise, there would be scandal after scandal as the government tries to twist either the definition or the evidence, making it all evident for all to see.

[bush_cheney2004]

If he refuses, I physically stand between him and the child. And and then and only then do I fight him if he tries to push me out of the way. Whether I have signed any formal alliance or treaty with either the bully or the child here would be irrelevant. In this case, I'd merely be standing for justice, and of course fighting would be reserved as a necessary last resort if the conflict cannot be resolved peacefully.

Perhaps you could also wear superhero tights and a cape in your quest for truth, justice, and the Canadian way. You didn't take time to find out that the wheelchair bound "victim" had just committed an assault with a knife.

In such a scenario, the fight on my part would be altruistic with no regard for any kind of material benefit in return, unlike the shameless call to arms for material interests but in the guise of 'national interests', which is really just engaging in the very bullying we claim to despise.

Indeed, but that may not effectively shield you from a tort action for vigilante justice.

[Machjo]

Perhaps you could also wear superhero tights and a cape in your quest for truth, justice, and the Canadian way. You didn't take time to find out that the wheelchair bound "victim" had just committed an assault with a knife.

Indeed I'm guilty of that. I'd hope that would be revealed as I request that the apparent bullying.

[Machjo]

Indeed, but that may not effectively shield you from a tort action for vigilante justice.

In Canadian law, I have a right to self defense. If I stand between him and a victim of his bullying, that is very different from fighting him. If he then decides to attack me, then he'd have thrown the first punch, no?

[bush_cheney2004]

There ya go. So what were the details of the attack. From my understanding, we were there to protect the ethnic minority from genocide and it was a UN-led mission. So, if we go into a country to defend the oppressed, is it a just war? Could we then argue that since we are one human family, that any attack on any member of the human race is an attack on al? If so, then we'd have to say Canada was provoked. Was it legal according to international law? Well, it was a UN-led operation.

No on all counts...it was not a UN sanctioned action. Canada was never attacked or threatened in any way.

I'm not saying I'm right in the above paragraph. I am saying though that these are legitimate questions worth asking. If, in the end, we determine that such a war is unjust, then we should no longer participate in such wars. If we determine that it is just, then we ought to. But without a clear legal definition of 'just war', it becomes too open to the whims and fancies of the mobocracy.

OK....what if that included access to crude oil, water, or bananas?

[bush_cheney2004]

In Canadian law, I have a right to self defense. If I stand between him and a victim of his bullying, that is very different from fighting him. If he then decides to attack me, then he'd have thrown the first punch, no?

What if he goes around you....will you assault him to prevent an attack on our "victim"....who may well be the perp?

[Machjo]

No on all counts...it was not a UN sanctioned action. Canada was never attacked or threatened in any way.

OK....what if that included access to crude oil, water, or bananas?

So theft of another people's resources is just?