Should the constitution define 'just war'?

[bush_cheney2004]

So theft of another people's resources is just?

Yes...how do you think Canada came to exist? How did "another people" get the resources?

What is the definition of just? I think you have put the cart before the horse.

[Machjo]

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

Then let's suppose the 'victim' is the perp. Seeing that he's no longer being belligerent, why could the 'bully' not just call the police since he's not in immediate danger anymore. Could he not simply make a citizen's arrest?

And if he tries to bypass me with clear violent intentions, I can make a citizen's arrest for attempted assault. Of course I'd have to use minimal force, the amount of force used being directly proportional to the amount of force he uses, no more no less. That would be legal to the best of my knowledge as it is in defense of a fellow citizen against harm.

[Machjo]

Yes...how do you think Canada came to exist? How did "another people" get the resources?

What is the definition of just? I think you have put the cart before the horse.

So the fact that Canada came to exist by unjust means thus makes those means just?

[bush_cheney2004]

Then let's suppose the 'victim' is the perp. Seeing that he's no longer being belligerent, why could the 'bully' not just call the police since he's not in immediate danger anymore. Could he not simply make a citizen's arrest?

And why couldn't you do the same thing (call police)? Would you feel just as righteous if the perp stabbed you in the back as you confronted the "threatening adult"? No, I suspect you (or your estate) would sue.

And if he tries to bypass me with clear violent intentions, I can make a citizen's arrest for attempted assault. Of course I'd have to use minimal force, the amount of force used being directly proportional to the amount of force he uses, no more no less. That would be legal to the best of my knowledge as it is in defense of a fellow citizen against harm.

You have stretched this scenario beyond credulity, with the ability to read minds and exert the correct amount of force. Because you are righteous and just, I am sure you would survive the possible gunshots wounds as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the fact that Canada came to exist by unjust means thus makes those means just?

Are you prepared to retrofit your definition of "just" to all of Canada and its inhabitants?

Good luck with that......

[Machjo]

And why couldn't you do the same thing (call police)? Would you feel just as righteous if the perp stabbed you in the back as you confronted the "threatening adult"? No, I suspect you (or your estate) would sue.

I suppose calling the police would be a better option if the bully was not posing a serious threat to the child but merely a nuisance. If we was posing a threat, then more immediate action would be needed. And certainly it might be wise to ask the bully why he was behaving that way.

You have stretched this scenario beyond credulity, with the ability to read minds and exert the correct amount of force. Because you are righteous and just, I am sure you would survive the possible gunshots wounds as well.

Of course I'm not perfect. I'd use the amount of force I felt was needed under the circumstances. I could be wrong, but at least I'd try to abide within the law and be as just as I could. At least an attempt would be made. I would not go out and just start pummelling the bully to death just for kicks.

[Machjo]

Are you prepared to retrofit your definition of "just" to all of Canada and its inhabitants?

Good luck with that......

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Quite simply, if you are prepared to construct your "just cause" paradigm for all wars going forward, and the requisite causes for such wars, then you must also be prepared to revisit "injustice" in the past, righting all such wrongs that have given rise to the nation state called Canada.

You can't very well move forward with such a concept while ignoring the festering injustices of the past, specifically if "resources" be one of your concerns.

[myata]

What does it matter, as Canada not only volunteered for the NATO obligation,

Hold on, let's talk about "obligation" for a minute. There're are obligations and obligations, as obligations go. E.g. helping an ally when they are attacked, and defending themselves for their lives (again: any recent examples of such?!) vs messing up in whatever foreign adventures a buddy happen to mess themselves in, those would be quite different obligations. Should we really get ourselves automatically "obligated" in both kinds of activities?

but did so after enjoining a war in Europe not only once, but twice when no such treaty existed.

Right, the first one being a glaring example of being messed up on behalf of a buddy in something we had no need to be messed up in. With thousands young lives lost as a result.

One'd hope one could learn from past mistakes. Even if slowly and painfully. Some, smarter ones, do. Others, suffer the consequences.

[madmax]

What would be your thoughts on this? Ought there to be a constitutional amendment that clearly defines a just war and restrains the military within those constraints?

The last "just war" if there can be one, is considered to be WW2 and the destruction of Nazi Germany.

One would be hard pressed to find a "Just War" before then and certainly none since then.

However, few would argue there is such a thing as a Just War, thus how can you put that into a constitution?

[myata]

However, few would argue there is such a thing as a Just War, thus how can you put that into a constitution?

By making illegal and criminal any unjust ones? In the same way we define legitimate defense and differentiate it from criminal assault in our criminal code?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hold on, let's talk about "obligation" for a minute. There're are obligations and obligations, as obligations go. E.g. helping an ally when they are attacked, and defending themselves for their lives (again: any recent examples of such?!) vs messing up in whatever foreign adventures a buddy happen to mess themselves in, those would be quite different obligations. Should we really get ourselves automatically "obligated" in both kinds of activities?

Yes, if the expectation is that other nations would be obligated to reciprocate. Recent examples of attacked allies include the United Kingdom in 1982, Kuwait in 1990 and the United States in 2001.

Right, the first one being a glaring example of being messed up on behalf of a buddy in something we had no need to be messed up in. With thousands young lives lost as a result.

Anthropomorphic comparisons are not useful for nation states (e.g. buddy, friend, chum, etc.). Lives lost are a secondary consideration compared to the basic institution of armed conflict to resolve disputes. Today it is technically possible to reduce casualties on both sides of the equation.

One'd hope one could learn from past mistakes. Even if slowly and painfully. Some, smarter ones, do. Others, suffer the consequences.

You are ignoring the demonstrated behaviours from lessons learned, to wit, the creation and obligations of international alliances by way of treaty.

[bush_cheney2004]

The last "just war" if there can be one, is considered to be WW2 and the destruction of Nazi Germany.

There have been many subsequent wars or conflicts that also measure up to this "gold standard", just not on such a "royal" scale.

One would be hard pressed to find a "Just War" before then and certainly none since then.

The very existence of the USA challenges any such conclusion.

However, few would argue there is such a thing as a Just War, thus how can you put that into a constitution?

The term is an oxymoron.....I prefer to think in terms of "justified reasons"....not "justice".

[waldo]

The term is an oxymoron.....I prefer to think in terms of "justified reasons"....not "justice".

hey now! That's a good start... actually thinking about the need for "justified reasons". Actually having those "justified reasons"... well, that's another entirely preemptive war Bush Doctrine discussion - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

hey now! That's a good start... actually thinking about the need for "justified reasons". Actually having those "justified reasons"... well, that's another entirely preemptive war Bush Doctrine discussion - hey?

Of course, as I believe, at the very minimum, that people have the right to know why the USA is bombing their asses!

[myata]

Yes, if the expectation is that other nations would be obligated to reciprocate. Recent examples of attacked allies include the United Kingdom in 1982, Kuwait in 1990 and the United States in 2001.

"Expectation", of course. Whose and of whom though? I think it'd be lot better and smarter too, for us to stop relying on some "expectations", and define clearly and precisely when and in which situations we're bound to help. E.g. Kuwait's been attacked massively and without provocation, that certainly vouches for solidarity and collective defense. We'd better think twice about getting messed up in former colonial affairs and conflicts (UK-Argentina) or internal security issues blown out of all proportions (9/11). US was nowhere the first country to experience terrorism, including foreign terrorism (UK - Irish nationalists; France - Algeria etc), but certainly pioneered presenting it as an existential attack demanding full NATO involvement.

Lives lost are a secondary consideration compared to the basic institution of armed conflict

But of course lives are secondary to the institution, whoever had any doubts about that?

You are ignoring the demonstrated behaviours from lessons learned, to wit, the creation and obligations of international alliances by way of treaty.

Nope, none of the lessons were learned. As in Vietnam yesterday, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan - today, and whatever next hot spot - tomorrow. Nobody is interested in setting any constraints on our urge to invade, regulate, rebuild, reset and so on. Making the same old ugly war, by whatever new name of the moment.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Expectation", of course. Whose and of whom though? I think it'd be lot better and smarter too, for us to stop relying on some "expectations", and define clearly and precisely when and in which situations we're bound to help. E.g. Kuwait's been attacked massively and without provocation, that certainly vouches for solidarity and collective defense. We'd better think twice about getting messed up in former colonial affairs and conflicts (UK-Argentina) or internal security issues blown out of all proportions (9/11). US was nowhere the first country to experience terrorism, including foreign terrorism (UK - Irish nationalists; France - Algeria etc), but certainly pioneered presenting it as an existential attack demanding full NATO involvement.

My list was not intended to be all inclusive, just enough to demonstrate that your point was mistaken. The US was subjected to several attacks abroad and domestically. If you want to debate the minimum criteria for collective defense, that is a different matter altogether, and does not undermine the basic concept as adopted by Canada.

But of course lives are secondary to the institution, whoever had any doubts about that?

You did.....next it will be women and children held in higher esteem than the dead males.

Nope, none of the lessons were learned. As in Vietnam yesterday, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan - today, and whatever next hot spot - tomorrow. Nobody is interested in setting any constraints on our urge to invade, regulate, rebuild, reset and so on. Making the same old ugly war, by whatever new name of the moment.

Alas, you are wimpering in the face of reality as chosen by elected governments...time and time again. It doesn't count as a lesson learned unless you agree with the course of action, eh?

[Machjo]

Quite simply, if you are prepared to construct your "just cause" paradigm for all wars going forward, and the requisite causes for such wars, then you must also be prepared to revisit "injustice" in the past, righting all such wrongs that have given rise to the nation state called Canada.

You can't very well move forward with such a concept while ignoring the festering injustices of the past, specifically if "resources" be one of your concerns.

You're absolutely right on this. I am a strong supporter of honouring our Treaty obligations and, in those cases in which the treay itself may have been signed under duress or other such conditions, that we even go beyond the treaties and acknowlede the rights of the local indigenous languages and cultures, etc.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Would somebody please define "just" and "unjust" wars?

[myata]

There's no just war. Any war must be declared illegal and criminal.

Obviously, to the exclusion of 1) legitimate defence; and 2) and at some future time, when a credible solution is found/established, legitimate policing.

[ToadBrother]

There's no just war. Any war must be declared illegal and criminal.

That's right. For every objective justification, there's a subjective critique, and visa versa.

Obviously, to the exclusion of 1) legitimate defence;

Interesting. Was the Franco-Prussian War a just war? I mean, the Prussians invaded France, but Napoleon III and his idiot ambassador had managed to raise tensions beyond all level of reason.

You need to read some history.

and 2) and at some future time, when a credible solution is found/established, legitimate policing.

And now we have another undefined phrase; "legitimate policing". Tell me, would, say, invading the Sudan to prevent further atrocities in Darfur be considered legitimate policing?

Edited October 27, 2009 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

There's no just war. Any war must be declared illegal and criminal.

We agree...."just war" is an oxymoron.

Obviously, to the exclusion of 1) legitimate defence; and 2) and at some future time, when a credible solution is found/established, legitimate policing.

No.....you have undermined your own position with such qualifications. The operative word is "war" (and all that entails), quickly overwhelming anything "just".

[myata]

That's right. For every objective justification, there's a subjective critique, and visa versa.

Correction (big time): if we actually want to see less wars, anytime soon. There would be any number of people, in high places included (or, perhaps, especially?) who could very well see this particular war benefitial for any number of reasons, ideological, political, economical, as a way to address internal issues, and so on.

Interesting. Was the Franco-Prussian War a just war? I mean, the Prussians invaded France, but Napoleon III and his idiot ambassador had managed to raise tensions beyond all level of reason.

In that history, people in high places rarely if ever at all saw war as an undesirable event, more like the opposite. We all need to read about it if we didn't want to slide back to that time of steel and glory (and gore).

In the new history though, where a war is declared a high crime, clearly and inambiguously, there would be no such confusions or paradoxes. Invasion would be repelled by collective defense forces, and those complicit in war, emperors, ambassadors and generals sent to ponder the meaning of their act in jail, alongside common criminals.

And now we have another undefined phrase; "legitimate policing". Tell me, would, say, invading the Sudan to prevent further atrocities in Darfur be considered legitimate policing?

Of course it is undefined. It'll take much time and consideration to come up with a formula that is acceptable to most, credible and practical, all at the same time. Till then, it'll remain undefined, except, no, unilateral, self appointed interventions could not be credibly considered as such anymore than e.g. you breaking into a neighbour's house to save them from any perceived danger.

[ToadBrother]

In the new history though, where a war is declared a high crime, clearly and inambiguously, there would be no such confusions or paradoxes. Invasion would be repelled by collective defense forces, and those complicit in war, emperors, ambassadors and generals sent to ponder the meaning of their act in jail, alongside common criminals.

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.

Of course it is undefined. It'll take much time and consideration to come up with a formula that is acceptable to most, credible and practical, all at the same time.

It will take forever, is more like it.

Till then, it'll remain undefined, except, no, unilateral, self appointed interventions could not be credibly considered as such anymore than e.g. you breaking into a neighbour's house to save them from any perceived danger.

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?

[Machjo]

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 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.

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

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.