Are We In A Just War?

[MorphRC]

The Iraq War Is Unjust.

1: Its got nothing to do with WMDS - Bush and Powell said in 2001 Saddam was no threat at all, and had no chances of getting or making nuclear weapons.

2: Its all about oil. The Bush and Saudis are partners, and Iraq is the victim.

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

HA! Yeah. Buzz of UN were going in!.

Its an unjust war, and a terrorist act.

[Aloysius]

oh boy, michael moore has brainwashed yet another victem...

Bush is not partners with the Saudis that is a [b]LIE[/b]

Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.

this was NOT about oil. a much better case could be made that the UN's opposition to the war was about money (can anyone say "Oil For Food"?) than could be made to try to say the US's decision to go to war was about oil.

The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will! The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)

The UN doesn't care. The UN thinks inaction is the best way to acheive peace. History prooves otherwise (umm... HITLER!!!!)

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 4 2004, 01:47 AM'] oh boy, michael moore has brainwashed yet another victem...

Bush is not partners with the Saudis that is a [b]LIE[/b]

Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.

this was NOT about oil. a much better case could be made that the UN's opposition to the war was about money (can anyone say "Oil For Food"?) than could be made to try to say the US's decision to go to war was about oil.

The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will! The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)

The UN doesn't care. The UN thinks inaction is the best way to acheive peace. History prooves otherwise (umm... HITLER!!!!) [/quote]
LOL Yeah Right.

A man with deep pockets you mean. If he was a christian, he wouldnt have attacked any country, since christ never condoned any violence against anyone, and he didnt condone the apostles, remember when they went off to buy swords, he shouted at them 'Enough', meaning they misunderstood.

And I havent been brainwashed by Michael Moore. Ive seen 5 other documentaries on Bush and his family that show and give more evidence than what Moores got. Bush is a terrorist, he aint christian, or moralistic.

[quote]Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.[/quote]

Really who says? Bush..

This is about Oil. Its always about Oil. OMG HES IN THE BUSINESS!!!!!!!!..lol

[b]Bush is a war criminal.[/b]

[b]A Vote For Bush is a Vote for Terrorism[/b]

[Aloysius]

no, i never heard Bush say that... the person who said it was the professor at Christendom Colledge

[MorphRC]

[quote]The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will!  The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)[/quote]

Yeah and look whats happening.Its turning into an imperialistic state! There is 11,000 troops in Afghanistan, where Bin laden is, but nearly 200,.000 in Iraq... Err wasnt bin laden the target in the first place!

Also it was the US and the UN who let genocides happened, they both couldnt settle on the word genocide in 1996, they also let that happen in Seirra leone, and other african places. The amount of money bush is spending on his oil campaign in iraq could help every single person in africa.

[MorphRC]

Ill never trust Bush or anyone in the current Administration.

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote]Its all about oil. The Bush and Saudis are partners, and Iraq is the victim.
[/quote]

Actually, the only groups for whom this seemed to be all about oil where the French and Russians who had made sweatheart oil deals with Saddam and the UN who "managed" the Food For Oil program which has been found to be riddled with corruption. This all happened at the expense of the Iraqi people.


I think that the WMDs were only one reason for the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately they were almost the only reason mentioned leading up to the war. One of the other reasons was to remove a cancer from the Middle East and establish a country that could be the first step in transforming the whole region. Of course you can't tell the Arab countries you rely on for assistance that you want to transform the whole region so you must come up with another reason (WMD's) for the war that will keep those countries on your side. Another explanation I have heard was that Iraq was intended to be "flypaper" to attract terrorist from all over the Islamic world and to deal with them there as opposed to in our own cities. Whether this was the plan or not, that appears to be the current situation over there with a lot of the resistance coming from foreign fighters.

[Aloysius]

Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

Jesus condones the owning of a sword, and therefore the use of a sword. so long as one does not live by the sword, but it is right and just for a man to have a sword to defend himself or others who are in need of defence. that means violence.

[MorphRC]

Nice twist there Aloy

[MorphRC]

Wait. That means I can own a Katana, since I despise guns, and swords are 'safer' to use and defend people. Kool

[Aloysius]

not a twist. Jesus said if you don't have a sword buy one. He clearly was condoning self-defense, or maybe he was condoning looking cool because you have a sword.

it's not literally a sword, it means one can have a weapon for self-defense.

Jesus was not a pacifist, at least according to the constant Teaching of the Catholic Church.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Bush is a man of deep faith [/quote]

There is no true Faith outside the Church... in your opinion, bin Ladin is a man "of deep faith." At least he follows what their satanic religion actually teaches: to kill Christians.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 3 2004, 09:51 AM'] 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. [/quote]
agreed, Saddam had no direct involment in 9/11, but he gave his private support to it, I'm sure. private support meaning his beliefs.

[Apotheoun]

The war in Iraq is a [i]Just War[/i], because it clearly meets all the requirements for a [i]Just War[/i].

First, the war is being prosecuted by a [i]legitimate and sovereign power[/i]. It must be remembered that the United Nations is not a sovereign power; instead, it is a consultative body, and so it has no power beyond that given to it by its member States. The United Nations cannot make war on anyone, because it has no standing army, nor does it have any powers to enforce its own enactments. No country has surrendered its sovereign right to act in its own defense, or in the defense of those in need, to the United Nations. In addition, the moral legitimacy of the United Nations to act is quite limited, because many of its member States do not possess democratic or representative governments of any kind, nor do countries like China, Sudan, Cuba, etc., even respect the fundamental human rights and freedoms of their own citizens.

Second, the war is being fought for a [i]just cause[/i], i.e., for the removal of a tyrant who tortured and killed thousands of his own people. As St. Thomas indicates, punishment for evil committed is a just cause for going to war, for as he puts it, ". . . a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): 'A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.'" [[u]Summa Theologica[/u], Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 40, Article 1] During the 1980s Saddam Hussein had entire towns and villages in the Kurdish region of Iraq gassed with chemical weapons, thus killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children. In addition, after the original Gulf War the Saddam regime persecuted, tortured, and killed thousands of Shia in the south and Kurds in the north. There is no statute of limitations on murder; and so, Saddam's, and his cronies, removal from power is required by the moral law, and should have been done more than 20 years ago. Saddam was a danger to his own people and to all the nations surrounding Iraq. When the United States, or any country for that matter, has the physical ability to remove a tyrant who is torturing and murdering thousands of innocent people within his own country, and yet fails to act in defense of the innocent, such an omission of action is a grave sin against charity.

Third, the war is being fought for a [i]right intention[/i], i.e., for the removal of a tyrant and the establishment of some type of self-government by the Iraqi people. The United States does not have any right to control the oil reserves in Iraq, and those who argue that this is the reason for the war, have the burden of proof in showing that this is the sole intention of the civil authorities in the American government. The United States is spending more than 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq, and this does not count any oil monies that belong to the Iraqi people.

Fourth, as I said in a previous post, the principle of [i]last resort[/i] does not require that the legitimate public authorities debate whether or not to act in defense of the common good in a consultative body, like the United Nations, for 20 or 30 years. What it requires is that all [i]reasonable[/i] means be exhausted prior to action; and in addition, it must be borne in mind that this element of the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine is a prudential judgment of the legitimate and sovereign public authorities. Thus, the actions of the United States meet this criteria of last resort under the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine, because the United States gave Saddam Hussein 12 years to comply with the various United Nations Security Council resolutions, and sadly, he failed to do what he was required to do.

Fifth, the [i]reasonable chance for success[/i] element of the [i]Just War[/i] doctrine has been met already, in that Saddam is now out of power. This, like all of the criteria for a [i]Just War[/i], is a prudential judgment of the legitimate public authorities, i.e., of those charged with defending the common good of society.

Sixth and finally, the principle of [i]proportionality[/i] was met because the amount of force used by the United States was proportionate to the ends desired. American troops did not go in and level the country, nor did the United States government indiscriminately bomb entire populations. The legitimate public authorities limited themselves to those means necessary to remove an evil dictator from power, and the harm caused during the war did not exceed the evils already existing in Iraq.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 3, 2004 by Apotheoun

[jasJis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 3 2004, 11:11 AM'] Jesus was not a pacifist, at least according to the constant Teaching of the Catholic Church. [/quote]
Tru-dat
Jesus is God. God was not a pacifist. Ask the Egyptians, Noah's neighbors, the residents of Jericho, etc.

Edited August 3, 2004 by jasJis

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:25 PM'] agreed, Saddam had no direct involment in 9/11, but he gave his private support to it, I'm sure. private support meaning his beliefs. [/quote]
So? Again, a nasty thing to do but not a reason to invade a country.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 3 2004, 11:25 AM'] our reason was that every intelligence agency from here to timbaktu was telling us Saddam was a threat. [/quote]
George Tenet (CIA Director) resigned recently after an inquest. John Spelling (MI6 Director) was called "untrustworthy". I'm not so sure we can trust our spies...

[Aloysius]

well go back in time to that point and imagine yourself as George Bush or Tony Blaire... do you trust them at that point? i would have, especially with such grave consequences that could result from inaction if they are right.

[Apotheoun]

Regardless of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or whether the intelligence collected by coalition nations was in error prior to the conflict; the war in Iraq is just, because it involves the removal of a tyrannical regime that had committed crimes against humanity for more than 30 years.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[White Knight]

It wasn't "THE" reason to invade Iraq, mainly Our Goals in IRAQ were to

"Remove Horrible Dictator from Power"
"Find & Destroy the WMD"
"Liberate Iraqi People from Dictator's Reign"
"Elminate harbored Terrorists groups in Iraqi."
"Win the War Total Victory over Iraq, and estabish Democracy"

All those were prefect reasons to go to War.

We removed Saddam from power, "Accomplished"
Found "Links" to WMD Devolopment, and exportations.
We freed the Iraqi people from Saddams evil grip "Accomplished"
Fighting & Destroying Terrorists groups in Iraqi "Being Done as we Speak"
the last one were winning anyway. were going to Estabish democracy in Iraq, and we Won the War.

If you say these aren't reasons to go to War, then I dunno what to think lol.

Edited August 4, 2004 by White Knight