Just War Criteria

[crusader1234]

Here you go, the main teachings on war from the CCC.

[quote][b][u]2308 [/u][/b]
[b]All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.[/b]

[i]However,"as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." Cf. GS 81 § 4.[/i]

[b][u]2309[/u] [/b]
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. [b]At one and the same time:[/b]


-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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

[i]These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.[/i]

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/quote]

And before you go on about how Bush had the prudential judgement and responsiblity, the Pope comes first as far as who we have to asnwer to on this Earth, and he said it wasn't right.

[Aloysius]

[i]-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[/i]
it lasted 12 years. it was grave in that it involved unacounted for weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. It was certain from the facts available to bush at the time, and now with the discovery of sarin gas and reports that Saddam shipped WMDs out before during and after the war demonstate the reality of that certainty.
[i]-all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/i]
The UN was the best hope for putting an end to the FIRST GULF WAR with weapons sanctions and all that, it was ineffective for 12 years
[i]-there must be serious prospects of success;[/i]
best military in the world
[i]-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/i]
The evils and disorders under Saddam were far more heinous than the evils that were done to civilians (though all precautions were taken to avoid those evils) by the war. There is no longer a torturous evil dictator in power who was a menace to the stability of the world and had in his posession sarin gas and other evils.

PAX

[crusader1234]

I didn't really mean for this to become a debate, but anyays....

For the first one, they didnt have any certain evidence. Now some evidence is surfacing, but this is after the fact.

The second one is questionable in my opinion, because the UN was conducting their searches and Iraq wouldnt have been able to attack because we were watching them like a Hawk... the effectiveness is questionable and I dont know about this one.

Anyways, the first part of the criteria wasnt met and thats good enough to make it injust.

Peace,

Rich

[Aloysius]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:01 AM'] For the first one, they didnt have any certain evidence. Now some evidence is surfacing, but this is after the fact. [/quote]
there were WMDs that were
UN ACCOUNTED FOR

they were in Saddams possession, then all of a sudden, they just :poof:! disappeared...

and Saddam couldn't provide any information about them whatsoever.

pAx

[Aloysius]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:01 AM'] The second one is questionable in my opinion, because the UN was conducting their searches and Iraq wouldnt have been able to attack because we were watching them like a Hawk... the effectiveness is questionable and I dont know about this one. [/quote]
then HOW, pre tell, did Saddam manage to ship the WMDs out of the country. they don't have to stay in Iraq's hands to be a threat, if he's lettin em out of Iraq he's becoming a threat by potentially arming TERRORISTS. He was giving money to the families of palistinean suicide bomber "martyrs", and he was shipping out WMDs, he wasn't concerned to make sure they didn't get into the hands of terrorists!

now, we didn't necessarily know he was shipping out the WMDs at that point, but we may have had some hints to that effect, none of us still know the full details of what the CIA suspected there. I'm sure we had some idea that the WMDs were trading hands, so we decided to stop them at the source. perhaps we waited too long, because a lot of em got out of the country.

pAx

[crusader1234]

Just because they were unaccounted for does not provide [b]certainty[/b] that they would be used against the USA or any other country. During the search, they would not have been able to deploy the WMD's as they were being watched like hawks as I mentioned, and had their actually been WMD's they would have been found eventually.

Peace,

Rich

[crusader1234]

[quote]then HOW, pre tell, did Saddam manage to ship the WMDs out of the country. they don't have to stay in Iraq's hands to be a threat, if he's lettin em out of Iraq he's becoming a threat by potentially arming TERRORISTS. He was giving money to the families of palistinean suicide bomber "martyrs", and he was shipping out WMDs, he wasn't concerned to make sure they didn't get into the hands of terrorists!

now, we didn't necessarily know he was shipping out the WMDs at that point, but we may have had some hints to that effect, none of us still know the full details of what the CIA suspected there. I'm sure we had some idea that the WMDs were trading hands, so we decided to stop them at the source. perhaps we waited too long, because a lot of em got out of the country.

pAx [/quote]

Alright, if he gave them all away, why did we bother attacking him?

[Aloysius]

[i]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain[/i]

the aggressor was under international sanctions that demanded he inform the body of nations as to the wearabouts of the weapons that were unaccounted for. It was certain that they did not just disappear. it was certain that until we knew where they were, they were a threat. they were clearly a grave threat, they're WMDs. Their wearabouts had been unknown for 12 years, they're a lasting threat.


also: i went off on a tangent there. the only thing that i intended to show by citing the fact that saddam was shipping them out before the war was that the UN did not have their eyes everywhere, saddam was still rogue even with the inspectors there because he clearly had control still and could blind the inspectors' eyes.

again reiterate i don't know if we suspected they were leaving the country at that point or not. but we did think they were, attacking the SOURCE country would be the best way to stop that flow of weapons. if we didn't think they were, it has not bearing.
pAx

Edited June 16, 2004 by Aloysius

[crusader1234]

Saddam not saying where the WMD's were, although wrong, wasn't certain inflicted damage... he didnt launch them by not telling us where they were.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]For the first one, they didnt have any certain evidence. Now some evidence is surfacing, but this is after the fact.
[/quote]

Just war theory goes to the knowledge AT THE TIME. The Bush Administration, with Tony Blair, had significant evidence to support that Saddam Hussein indeed had weapons of Mass Destruction AND was funding terrorism. There were reports that Nigeria in fact had not been involved in trading weapons-grade plutonium with Iraq. Bush came under serious fire for this from the US media, but the fact is that while the US could not confirm it, Britian still says that they have the evidence and that it is credible. All other things stand. Iraq had and still has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq broke major conditions of the treaty ending the First Gulf War. Iraq broke numerous conditions of the UN Charter and of the conditions for peace under the UN-Iraq treaties. Iraq also had dual-use weapons, and, regardless of what they may have been used for under Hussein, they were still banned.

[Apotheoun]

[quote]CCC 2309 - The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

And before you go on about how Bush had the prudential judgement and responsiblity, the Pope comes first as far as who we have to asnwer to on this Earth, and he said it wasn't right.[/quote]

Actually, it is not the Pope's place to make this judgment, because it is to be made solely by those charged with the defense of the common good within the particular society in question. The duty of the Pope, and of the hierarchy in general, is to enunciate the principles underlying the proper use of force; but neither the Pope nor any other ecclesistical official has the power to make war. Thus, the prudential judgment to commit troops and make war, lies solely with the legitimate public officials who govern the nation with constitutional authority.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun

[crusader1234]

Was the damage certain though? Were we sure they were going to use them?

When two countries fight, we have to remember, they don't just spontaneously launch bombs. They have reasons, and make threats, like in the Cold war which was for similar reasons. Otherwise, it's terrorism.

[crusader1234]

Apotheoun, I disagree with you, because I do think the Pope is in charge...

However, you caused a little bit of a problem here. If this is true, I can't support the war because Chretien did not and Paul Martin or even Jack Layton will not. So that argument doesn't work on me, being a Canadian... it sort of reverses it

[Aloysius]

[i]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
[/i]
(i don't mean to just keep repeating it, but having it at the top of my post keeps me on topic)

i believe the fact that saddam hussein funded terrorists (palistinean suicide bombers) and had failed to follow international law in revealing the fate of those unaccounted for weapons constituted a damage to the stability of the community of nations. there were WMDs on the loose, Saddam was successfully opposing the authority of the United Nations, and he was funding terrorists. can that not be considered damage to the community of nations? i consider it such.

and by the way: that's when two NORMAL countries fight. Through in a rogue nation with a dictator who defies international law, and it's a different ballgame.

pAx

[littleflower+JMJ]

this is going to the debate table cuz it doesn't really belong here in open mic.

keep it nice guys. dont make the queen mad and demand u to send cake and cookies to me :angry:

God bless.

+JMJ+

[Aloysius]

i was posting and it was like "this topic has been moved or deleted" so i came to the debate table with my post in my computer's clipboard.

[i]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/i]

This means that the decision to go to war is left up to the governing authority who would be sending troops into battle.

It does not mention anything about whether or not it is just: but says that leaders in these positions must take this into consideration and act for the common good to which they have a responsibility. this means that the decision for whether or not to go to war was Bush's decision, and that he had the right to make that decision because he is the legitimate cheif of the United States of America. If Canada were considering going to war, your leader would be have the responsibility of making prudential judgement based on these criteria as to whether he should exercise his nations power.

it simply states that when a country is debating this, it's the leaders ultimate decision and he should weigh it carefully based on these criteria.

pAx

[crusader1234]

[quote]Saddam was successfully opposing the authority of the United Nations[/quote]...hmmm, wait a second, the whole WAR was against the authority of the UN

[Apotheoun]

[quote]Apotheoun, I disagree with you, because I do think the Pope is in charge... [/quote]

The Pope is not a political leader, he is a moral teacher, and thus he is to clearly state the underlying moral principles involved in the just war doctrine; but the prudential judgment about going to war or not, is left to the proper public officials who govern the nation concerned, and who are charged with the duty of protecting the common good.

[crusader1234]

Well, In any event, Canada did not support the war so I dont have to.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:32 AM'] ...hmmm, wait a second, the whole WAR was against the authority of the UN [/quote]
no, it twasn't! twasn't at all! it was the enforcing of UN regulations.

the UN secuirity council didn't decide to take action (though in the resolution it accepted it clearly stated to saddam "or else" it just decided not to back it up)

the war was not against the United Nations Resolutions. It defended them.

pΛx Ω