Presedential Election

[LovedSinner]

I do not understand. If you support a war to stop them from getting the bomb, why is this against Catholic Just War doctrine?

[4588686]

[quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325880519' post='2364049']
I do not understand. If you support a war to stop them from getting the bomb, why is this against Catholic Just War doctrine?
[/quote]

I'm not a Catholic. We should avoid a ground war at all costs but should do everything short of that to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb (assuming they are actually trying to get one. Not an incontestable claim) but the grounds for attacking Iran probably do not meet a strict reading of the Just War Doctrine. Iran probably wouldn't ever use the bomb except as a deterrent which would make it very difficult to justify an attack within the confines of the Just War Doctrine. .

[LovedSinner]

Ok, well we are not that far apart then.

We differ on our view of what Iran would do if they got the bomb. Since their President is a Holocaust denier and has said other things against Israel and the West, I think he would use it offensively. But it looks like we agree on most other things then.

[4588686]

[quote name='LovedSinner' timestamp='1325881554' post='2364071']
Ok, well we are not that far apart then.

We differ on our view of what Iran would do if they got the bomb. Since their President is a Holocaust denier and has said other things against Israel and the West, I think he would use it offensively. But it looks like we agree on most other things then.
[/quote]

Their President isn't the major power broker of Iranian politics. He doesn't have the same powers as our President. His attempts to bolster his own power by making statements that are designed to get a reaction and make him a populist figure are still within a rational context. Iran wants to curb Israeli power because they want to be the dominate regional power but not because they have a death wish. And a death wish is what Iran would need if it were to use a nuclear weapon offensively against Israel or America.

[Aloysius]

I am not making things up. Just War doctrine is indeed applicable only to defensive wars. the CCC says:

[quote]
[b]2309[/b] The strict conditions for [i]legitimate [b]defense [/b]by military force[/i] require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote] (my emphasis added in bold)

It absolutely must be a defensive war. Whether one can argue that there are circumstances where pre-emptive strikes are defensive somehow, I leave an open question. I believe that pre-emptive strikes as defined under the Bush doctrine can never be considered defensive and are by their very nature offensive. perhaps one could foresee a circumstance in which something somewhat pre-emptive could be a proper defense, but the Bush doctrine simply doesn't fit the bill IMO.

when it comes to Iran, we are provoking them to war as we speak. here's a great article about how that's happening:

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/ron-paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/"]http://www.theatlant...unately/250955/[/url]

to relate it back to the just war doctrine: we have NOT exhausted every peaceful means possible. in fact, we have REFUSED to engage in peaceful negotiations with them EVEN WHEN they wanted them. Catholic morality absolutely would require us to engage in those peaceful negotiations before justifying such an attack. even if we think those negotiations might be futile (though I think they could actually produce peace if we were really serious about them), the sanctity of human life demands that we at least make an attempt at peace.

[quote]Even so, Iran's foreign minister made another appeal to re-open talks only days ago, suggesting that they be held in Turkey. But, as the New York Times [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/europe-moves-toward-ban-on-iran-oil.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world"]reported[/url], western nations interpreted this overture "as an effort by Iran to buy time to continue its program." Got that? If Iranians refuse to negotiate it means they don't want a deal, and if they ask to negotiate it means they don't want a deal.[/quote]

Edited January 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1325738757' post='2363173']
There is a Catholic candidate- Rick Santorum.
[/quote]

bleah. that dude is a fool.

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1325818680' post='2363798']
Actually, there are two. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
[/quote]

If you vote for Newt Gingrich because you think he represents your morals, then i feel really sorry for your morals.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325883007' post='2364090']
I am not making things up. Just War doctrine is indeed applicable only to defensive wars. the CCC says:

(my emphasis added in bold)

It absolutely must be a defensive war. Whether one can argue that there are circumstances where pre-emptive strikes are defensive somehow, I leave an open question. I believe that pre-emptive strikes as defined under the Bush doctrine can never be considered defensive and are by their very nature offensive. perhaps one could foresee a circumstance in which something somewhat pre-emptive could be a proper defense, but the Bush doctrine simply doesn't fit the bill IMO.

when it comes to Iran, we are provoking them to war as we speak. here's a great article about how that's happening:

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/ron-paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/"]http://www.theatlant...unately/250955/[/url]

to relate it back to the just war doctrine: we have NOT exhausted every peaceful means possible. in fact, we have REFUSED to engage in peaceful negotiations with them EVEN WHEN they wanted them. Catholic morality absolutely would require us to engage in those peaceful negotiations before justifying such an attack. even if we think those negotiations might be futile (though I think they could actually produce peace if we were really serious about them), the sanctity of human life demands that we at least make an attempt at peace.
[/quote][quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325883007' post='2364090']
I am not making things up. Just War doctrine is indeed applicable only to defensive wars. the CCC says:

(my emphasis added in bold)

It absolutely must be a defensive war. Whether one can argue that there are circumstances where pre-emptive strikes are defensive somehow, I leave an open question. I believe that pre-emptive strikes as defined under the Bush doctrine can never be considered defensive and are by their very nature offensive. perhaps one could foresee a circumstance in which something somewhat pre-emptive could be a proper defense, but the Bush doctrine simply doesn't fit the bill IMO.

when it comes to Iran, we are provoking them to war as we speak. here's a great article about how that's happening:

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/ron-paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/"]http://www.theatlant...unately/250955/[/url]

to relate it back to the just war doctrine: we have NOT exhausted every peaceful means possible. in fact, we have REFUSED to engage in peaceful negotiations with them EVEN WHEN they wanted them. Catholic morality absolutely would require us to engage in those peaceful negotiations before justifying such an attack. even if we think those negotiations might be futile (though I think they could actually produce peace if we were really serious about them), the sanctity of human life demands that we at least make an attempt at peace.
[/quote]

There is an unfortunate tendency here to be justifiably critical and rigorous of American policy towards Iran while holding Iranian policy and statements at face value. It's the Chomskian fallacy. Iran's overture to have negotiations are almost certainly merely an effort to buy time. That's a basic diplomatic tactic. Iran may not intend to fully develop a nuclear weapon. But if they wanted to dispel all doubt about their professed desire to merely develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes they could. I really doubt that these proposed talks are in good faith.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Hasan

[Aloysius]

whether or not they are in good faith, one must engage them in talks to bring peace if at all possible. the fact is that Iran feels vulnerable and that largely motivates their desire for nuclear weapons, and they have every reason to feel vulnerable.

so many fail to see this when they see incendiary statements and actions coming out of Iran is that WE have been threatening them for a long time.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-ron-paul-is-right-and-president-obama-is-wrong-about-iran.html
[quote]Imagine that three scientists working on the US nuclear arsenal were assassinated in the streets of Chicago or Washington or Los Angeles by agents of Iran. Now imagine that an explosion took place at one of our nuclear facilities - also engineered by Iran. Also imagine that Iran was capable of blockading US ports to cripple the US economy. Imagine the dollar collapsing because of this and a new depression initiated. What do you think Mitt Romney would be saying? I suspect he would be saying that Iran has already declared war on the US.[/quote]

we've been engaged in acts against Iran that would've been considered acts of war if they had been coming in the reverse direction, and the mere fact that they want nuclear weapons because they see all around them that without nuclear weapons they have no standing against potential invasion (Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, got invaded. Pakistan harbored Bin Laden, at the highest levels of their government by all indications, but we would never dare invade them) is a simple obvious reaction.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325883801' post='2364106']
whether or not they are in good faith, one must engage them in talks to bring peace if at all possible. the fact is that Iran feels vulnerable and that largely motivates their desire for nuclear weapons, and they have every reason to feel vulnerable.

so many fail to see this when they see incendiary statements and actions coming out of Iran is that WE have been threatening them for a long time.

[url="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-ron-paul-is-right-and-president-obama-is-wrong-about-iran.html"]http://andrewsulliva...about-iran.html[/url]


we've been engaged in acts against Iran that would've been considered acts of war if they had been coming in the reverse direction, and the mere fact that they want nuclear weapons because they see all around them that without nuclear weapons they have no standing against potential invasion (Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, got invaded. Pakistan harbored Bin Laden, at the highest levels of their government by all indications, but we would never dare invade them) is a simple obvious reaction.
[/quote]

Ron Paul's claims about Iran are too generous. Yes, Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent from invasion and serious military action. And part of that desire is stimulated by the very real angst by being surrounded by hostile nations. But this desire for deterrence is not merely defensive. The desire for deterrence also comes from Iran seeking to take military options off the table for the nations against whom there are engaged in offensive military actions. Iran is engaged in a host of subversive military activities against, for example, Israel. This subversion has nothing to do with being surrounded by hostile forces and everything to do with Iran seeking to be the dominate regional power and gaining the accompanying ability to exert its will on surrounding countries. Iran is not funding Hamas because they pine for the Palestinians to be free or because want the territories as a buffer state to protect them from an Israeli ground invasion. They are funding Hamas so Israel will continue its strategically (and morally) disastrous occupation so they can replace Israel as the hegemonic regional power.

[Aloysius]

note that the articles I posted are commentaries by other people in which they defend Ron Paul's positions, not Ron Paul's arguments themselves. not that they differ in any significant way, but just to be clear about that.

I think Iran certainly would like to position itself as a superpower of the Middle East, so that is indeed a motivation. But I think you said above something to the effect of Iran has the same kind of aversion to mutual self-destruction that the Soviets did during the cold war, which is one important point to note. And the other point to note is that we should not underestimate the huge amount of motivation that comes from simple self-preservation defensive strategy. As I said: the gov't' of Afghanistan harbored Osama Bin Laden, and we toppled the government of Afghanistan. The gov't' of Pakistan at the highest levels by nearly all indications was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, Pakistan is still largely safe for Al Quaida folks. but we don't topple Pakistan. Pakistan has a nuke. The gov't' of Iran does not want to be invaded and toppled; if I were in their shoes, I'd probably be looking at the nuclear option as well.

anyway, in terms of their position in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, while it is indeed motivated by power grabbing in the Middle East, I don't discount a sincere solidarity of sorts for the Palestinians and a sincere opposition and resentment to the Israeli state for being a colony of the West. a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict needs to be found, and it has to include a nation for the Palestinians there, until then you will continue to have this war fought in proxy by Iran's funding.

are we really going to be able to keep the nuclear secret out of the hands of these people forever? when will we at least sit down at a negotiation table with them? why do we insist upon continuing to provoke them like aggressors and then freaking out when they respond with hostility to our provocations? that's the important questions I think need to be asked.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325866338' post='2363961']
no, they are not. though many attempt to make an argument that they might be justified sometimes, the just war tradition of the Church absolutely excludes the idea of a pre-emptive strike/invasion. the only type of war that is just is a defensive war.
[/quote]

I have a problem with being told that I have to wait until millions of people are nuked before I can take action.

Maybe if Britain and France acted in the 1930s before Nazi Germany had its war machine complete WW2 could have been avoided and millions of innocent people saved. In fact, I read that German generals were ready to stage a coup against Hitler if Britain and France acted against Germany when it illegally occupied the SAAR region in 1936.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1325953797' post='2364459']
I have a problem with being told that I have to wait until millions of people are nuked before I can take action.

Maybe if Britain and France acted in the 1930s before Nazi Germany had its war machine complete WW2 could have been avoided and millions of innocent people saved. In fact, I read that German generals were ready to stage a coup against Hitler if Britain and France acted against Germany when it illegally occupied the SAAR region in 1936.
[/quote]

your advocating that the ends justify the means. that if we attack someone else first and take them out more people will be saved. the ends can never justify the means.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1325955193' post='2364468']
your advocating that the ends justify the means. that if we attack someone else first and take them out more people will be saved. the ends can never justify the means.
[/quote]

If an unstable person were walking down the street with a knife or loaded gun, would you not consider it legitimate defense to disarm him?

The traditional concept of "just war" was developed in a time when the weapons were swords, arrows, and boulders being flung by catapults. WMD and global delivery systems were not a factor then; they are now. The traditional "just war" doctrine needs to be updated to include this fact.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Norseman82

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1325852314' post='2363907']
Just vote for Ron Paul.

I don't know of any Catholic sites like that, but these let you take a quiz to find out which candidates most line up with your beliefs.
[url="http://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/"]http://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/[/url] and [url="http://www.selectsmart.com/president/"]http://www.selectsmart.com/president/[/url]

Votesmart seems to be kind of comprehensive on different levels, and is non-partisan.
[/quote]
I'm for Paul too.

[CatherineM]

The question for me is if taking out a nuclear facility with for example a smart bomb, is in fact a defensive act.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1325958016' post='2364489']
I'm for Paul too.
[/quote]

Me 3.

[dominicansoul]

me 4!!! lets keep this up!!!

[vee]

*sigh* only eleven more months to go. You people need far shorter campaign times

[vee]

presidents spend too much time running for the next election than presiding

[vee]

and do people really need so much time to make up their minds???? my last election I made up my mind in like a day.