Are We In A Just War?

[Madonna]

Is the war in Iraq a just war according to Catholic teaching?

The requirements for a just war are:

# [b]Just cause[/b]. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.
#[b] Competent authority[/b]. War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.
# [b]Comparative justice.[/b] In essence: Which side is sufficiently "right" in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war? Do the rights and values involved justify killing? Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply.
#[b] Right intention.[/b] War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.
#[b] Last resort.[/b] For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
#[b] Probability of success.[/b] This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.
#[b] Proportionality.[/b] This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.



Do we have a probablity of success? I believe this is the first time a war has been fought where a scattered group of people (terrorists) are the target instead of a single country.

Thoughts?[url="http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp"]Just War[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

I was under the impression that the Holy Father was against the war in Iraq. If this is the case, then I will cast my lot with my shepard. But until I find out, I have to say undecided, its a very tricky question.

[Aloysius]

Cardinal Ratzinger said Catholics may have a variety of opinion when it comes to the application of the death penalty or war, thus even though the pope was against this specific war that is simply his opinion. the pope can be wrong about current events.

[Ellenita]

[quote]# Last resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.[/quote]

They weren't in this case were they, since all the UN resolutions were not exhausted.

[quote]I believe this is the first time a war has been fought where a scattered group of people (terrorists) are the target instead of a single country.[/quote]

This was never the justification used by the US or my country for the war in Iraq - it was never claimed that it would be about fighting a group of terrorists, though of course, it has now turned into that because of the 'outside forces' which keep being mentioned on our news in UK as being the people causing all the security problems in Iraq.

Where are the WMD?

What a mess we've made and it will be impossible for us to leave until the last of the 'outside forces' have been captured if there is any kind of stability to be restored there, otherwise we'll be accused of doing exactly what we did at the end of the last gulf war....and in the meantime people who are genuinely trying to restore the country to some stability are losing their lives in the most horrific way....

[Aloysius]

all the intelligence told Bush there was a threat. everyone believed there was a threat. the UN was simply being it's overcautious self that NEVER acts EVER no matter what, even though that resolution told saddam if he didn't comply (which he didn't ) there would be consequences (then the UN didn't try to enforce it)

the coalition was enforcing UN resolutions. tons of intelligence convinced everyone from the Russians to the French to the U.S. that Saddam was an imminent threat, the U.S. was just the only ones with the guts to do anything about it. though it appears ppl have accepted the idea that there was no WMDs, I'm still not ENTIRELY convinced of that. I wanna know what happened to that shell they found that tested positive for sarin gas. and also: while we still don't have definitive evidence of WMDs, we have found ILLEGAL WEAPONS-- weapons that under UN resolutions saddam was not allowed to have.

Iraq gave money to families of suicide bombers, and housed members of Al Quaida knowingly.

[Ellenita]

[quote]tons of intelligence convinced everyone from the Russians to the French to the U.S. that Saddam was an imminent threat, [/quote]

Clearly NOT the case since the French voted against the UN resolutions and spoke out against the war, refusing to send any of their troops - as did Germany of course.

(I don't justify their decision!)

[quote]the U.S. was just the only ones with the guts to do anything about it.  [/quote]

I take offense at that assertion - British soldiers have been there right from the start, are still there and many have lost their lives fighting out there - all this I might add with HUGE public opinion against the war in the UK.

[Aloysius]

srry, i was just talking about how we made the decision to get together a coalition. of course that includes the British, I apologize.

The Russians admitted their intelligence said he was a threat too, but the Russians voted against it anyway.

[toledo_jesus]

This might come out sounding wrong, so let me preface it by saying I am not making a blanket accusation against all Muslims, quite the opposite. I base my reasoning on historical Muslim expansion, which was quite frightening. The fanatical Muslim groups would hearken back to those bygone days of open war upon the infidels.
I think the war in the Middle East is just, for no other reason than certain groups have declared a holy war against all of Christendom, against all Jews, and especially against America. These extremists openly seek the deaths of us all. They don't even want to convert us, they just want us dead. They've proved it over and over again, with repeated terrorist attacks on the US, and now this string of despicable executions they are perpetrating on citizens of their own country, other Muslim nations, and a South Korean. It's not just Americans, it's all non-muslim people. If you don't believe this is holy war, it doesn't matter. They do. That's justification enough for me.
Quite simply, if we do not attack them, if we retreat to our countries and merely hope it all goes away, it will exhort the enemy to greater acts of villainy and ungodly terror. They will not rest until their jihad is fulfilled. And when that happens, another will take its place. Should we fail in the Middle East, the next jihad will be one of conquest.

...well that's certainly a mouthful. I'll be quiet now. I hope I didn't offend anybody. If I did, lemme know.

[Ellenita]

Aloysius, thank you! :wub:

And I apologise if I came across as all high and mighty - I'm at least five hours in front of you so I probably should be in bed!!

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 2 2004, 07:22 PM'] They weren't in this case were they, since all the UN resolutions were not exhausted. [/quote]
What do you mean: Saddam didn't break every single UN resolution? Of course he didn't break EVERY one. If you mean they could have written more resolutions, then, of course they COULD have, but it would not have been effective. You can't just sit there and keep writing resolutions without being able to back them with any force. That is what the UN is: a bunch of pacifist socialists trying to end all war/violence, including even the ownership of a gun by a civilian! No country should involve itself with such a pacifist, pro-abortion/contraception organization!

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 3 2004, 01:29 AM'] Iraq gave money to families of suicide bombers, and housed members of Al Quaida knowingly. [/quote]
That in itself isn't a reason to invade a country and overthrow a government.

[Aloysius]

and it wasn't our reason, it's just a reason why Saddam was EVIL.

our reason was that every intelligence agency from here to timbaktu was telling us Saddam was a threat.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Aug 2 2004, 01:44 PM'] Do we have a probablity of success? I believe this is the first time a war has been fought where a scattered group of people (terrorists) are the target instead of a single country.
[/quote]
Actually the war on the Barbary Coast pirates was a war against scattered terrorists.

Nations have often fought wars against what could be could be called, international terrorists, criminals, and privateers.

Edited August 3, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 2 2004, 04:22 PM']They weren't in this case were they, since all the UN resolutions were not exhausted.
[/quote]
Come now, 12 years was more than enough time for Saddam to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Certainly, the U.N. could have continued passing more and more resolutions, and in fact it could have done that for 20 or 30 years, but the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine doesn't require that kind of activity. The concept of [i]Last Resort[/i] concerns the exhaustion of all [i]reasonable[/i] means to avoid conflict, and ultimately it must be remembered that the judgment about whether or not this condition has been met, is a prudential judgment left to the competent and sovereign public authority.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 3, 2004 by Apotheoun

[White Knight]

Yes, I express my firm belief that America is at War for a 100% Just Cause.


and the War in Iraq is one in the same with Terrorism, Saddam, sold weapons of Mass Destruction to Terrorists groups world wide (which most likely explains why we haven't found them in his pocession); We freed, Millions of Iraqi's from a Visious Dictator, who killed millions, We Liberated Iraq from Evil.


Were keeping the World safer by penning down the terrorists (were on Offensive); (There on Defensive); therefore this keeps their postitions scattered and opressed, if we keep at the Offensive, we dont have to worry about losing as many of our men and our allies men as "Much", as we would if "WE'RE" On the Defensive, We'd have to constantly worry, were simply defending ourselves againsts Terrorists of all kinds, Anytime, Anyplace.


GWB said after 9/11, "Your ethier For us or Against Us" no compremize with the terrorists of anykind. therefore Iraq was a Just cause, just because it may not have had a direct involment of 9/11 it still helped Bin Ladin, and countless of other Terrorists networks, that are a Threat to America and its Allies.

Edited August 3, 2004 by White Knight

[Aloysius]

regardless: if we hadn't acted when we did war with this madman was still inevitable. you cannot deny he was seeking to disobey the UN at every turn and he would have liked nothing better than to put a nuke in the hands of Al Quaida.

and as soon as that happened, there'd be a big investigation and everyone would be questioning why Bush didn't act with all the intelligence he had been given about Saddam.

[White Knight]

Well it could have been done very carefully, and in such secrecy the only way we would ever truely find out is if we have another tradegy like 9/11 or maybe worse.

I mean Saddam had a solid 14 years to build, use, sell, and hide WMD, 8 of those years were under the Clinton Adminastration, he did nothing except launch a few missles thats it, First Four Years were under Senior Bush's Adminastration, and thats a total of 12 right now, we haven't even been in Iraq for a solid 2 years yet with the current Bush's Adminastration. But my estimate on Saddam w/w'o WMD could be wrong, matter of fact could be slightly higher than that.


I think its safe to assume that its a Fact that Terrorists Groups World Wide, have some sort of WoMD, rather they be Middle Eastern, European, Asian, African, South American and North American.

Al Quaida probally has them for sure.
Asian Terrorist groups probally have them for sure.
European Terrorists groups probally have them for sure.
Maybe even North American Terrorists groups have them.


Yes its a crazy and possiable senerieo.


thats just how I see it, I could be wrong.

Edited August 3, 2004 by White Knight

[Ellenita]

[quote]What do you mean: Saddam didn't break every single UN resolution? Of course he didn't break EVERY one. If you mean they could have written more resolutions, then, of course they COULD have, but it would not have been effective. You can't just sit there and keep writing resolutions without being able to back them with any force. That is what the UN is: a bunch of pacifist socialists trying to end all war/violence, including even the ownership of a gun by a civilian! No country should involve itself with such a pacifist, pro-abortion/contraception organization! [/quote]


No, I wasn't suggesting that Saddam wasn't breaking all the UN resolutions! What I was referring to was the last mandate which would have given the coalition the legal justification for the war in the eyes of the world - although there might be differences of opinion about the role of the UN, (I'm sure! ) it is still the organisation where [b]nominally [/b]consensus is achieved concerning matters relating to world affairs.

Of course, it may be that the significance of the UN is considered less in the US than in the UK - the UK is a signatory to many of the UN human rights treaties and I know that the US isn't.

This presents problems in the UK with Iraq - Tony Blair may well face a UN court as a war criminal in the future while Bush will not. There is certainly a case going through our courts at the moment by Iraqi families claiming compensation for the loss of family members as a result of the war - if they don't get recompense from UK courts they will take the case to the international arena. They are likely to win because the UN mandate for war wasn't given and therefore the war can be deemed as 'illegal' in the eyes of the international court.

I would have been happier if we had had the mandate for war from the UN first, and even more happier if we had dealt with the problem properly at the end of the first gulf war rather than just walking away with the job half complete which finds us in the mess we're in now.


[quote]he would have liked nothing better than to put a nuke in the hands of Al Quaida.[/quote]


There is no evidence at all that links Saddam with Al Quaida prior to the war - Wahhabi Islamic belief such as Al Quaida holds is as opposed to the Sunni Islamic belief which the ruling party in Iraq held under Saddam, as it is to Western ideals.
Of course there is evidence of Al Quaida operating in Iraq [b]now[/b]- they want to establish a Taliban type of regime there and are killing muslims as well as well as our soldiers in order to de-stabilise the country.

I find myself in a curious position in this thread of defending the case 'against the war', when in reality I didn't disagree with it when it first began! I still have a tiny shred of hope that WMD will be found and my belief that Tony Blair had integrity and would not have taken us to war without that justification will be vindicated!

[Madonna]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 3 2004, 04:27 AM'] Actually the war on the Barbary Coast pirates was a war against scattered terrorists.

Nations have often fought wars against what could be could be called, international terrorists, criminals, and privateers. [/quote]
Thank you for correcting me. But with this being the case, doesn't that make the probability of success very slim? It is nearly impossible to hunt out all of the terrorists cells.

[Aloysius]

there IS evidence that Saddam and Al Quaida were working together under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type deal, despite the fact that they dislike each other. There are documents found in Iraq that proove this. it was prooven that Iraq had no role helping Al Quaida plan 9/11, but it is proven that they had an uneasy alliance.

while i would like to see some WMDs, lack of them would not destroy my faith in the credibility of Tony Blair or George W. Bush, because I believe that when they decided to go to war after much careful diliberation about the morality of it, they really believed based on the intelligence given them that Iraq had WMDs and was prepared to use them somehow whether by nuking one of their neighbors or accidently dropping it in Al Quaida's lap so Al Quaida would use it against America.

we also DO know that the Iraqui scientists were working on the developement of WMDs because of their confession to it.