Are We In A Just War?

[White Knight]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:03 PM'] So? Again, a nasty thing to do but not a reason to invade a country. [/quote]
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.

[MulletBoy]

I have a friend who moved to New Zealand from Iraq a few years ago. It's quite interesting talking to her about it. The arguement that Saddam was terrible to his people dosen't really hold with her. She agrees that he has done some terrible things, so has Bush. But she is always very quick to point out that he brought the country forward a long way and that most people benefited from much better living conditions during his rule. Nobody liked him that much and most are pleased that he's gone, but most also agree that he wasn't all bad. She totally disagrees with most of the character portrayals that the media put onto him.

She has some interesting stories about how just before the first attack a whole lot of US and Iraqi trucks stripped Saddams palace and drove off. And other stories along the same line. She was told these stories by her relatives who worked in the palace, not Michael Moore! At the very least we have to remember that things are not as clear cut as they seem. Thus very few people would be able to properly judge whether it is a just war or not.

On the flip side though she is slow to condemn the US attacking Iraq. But she along with the whole Iraqi community is very hurt about HOW they did it. The land is very sacred to them and defiling it is an incredible insult to them. The land is sort of part of their family, as families have lived on the same piece of land for thousands of years. She says that it's not something that may other people can understand, I agree, I don't really get it!

While the US would say that just getting Saddam and then getting out would not be an option because of the possibility of anarchy, the people in Iraq are deeply insulted by the US' continued presence there. And while things would not go as us in the western world would like if they are left to their own devices, things might be better for THEM if they are just left. This is obviously another debatable topic!

You must also take into account that the media is not telling the whole story and governments are not giving it. I'm not talking conspiracy covers, it's just a fact of war and politics. My afore-mentioned friend has family that only very receantly, in the past couple of months, got running water again. The stories of horrendous destruction are very different to the governments portrayal of pinpoint attacks on strategic targets. I'm not saying that you can't trust anything you see or read, but just be careful and realise that there is always another side to things like this, the truth could be anywhere in there.

People outside the US are quite cynical about the whole thing. Most countries only supported the war for reasons that had nothing to do with it. Being a New Zealander I like to pick on Australia! Australia did send troops, but did they do it to support a just cause? The odds are stacked against them. The Australian people made it VERY clear that they didn't want troops going, and it was loudly rumuored that John Howard (Australia Prime Minister) was only supporting the war to such up to Bush, then about a month after large scale battles ceased John Howard was pushing the US for trade agreements that would mean billions for the Australian economy. It would be fairly safe to say that England is in it for the same reason. New Zealand didn't send troops (although we do have some SIS there now) and didn't get any trade agreements.
There have been other incentives are well, for example the rebuilding contracts only going to countries that sent troops. If this is the reason for sending troops does that make it right? I'm not too sure. Even if it is a just war the troops are being sent for the wrong reasons. Perhaps someone know more about this? There is no longer right intention (ie, money instead of removing an evil) even if it does achieve the right thing. It also put the just cause into question. Thus if the US government is indeed in a true just war is it legitimate to entice other powers in with the wrong intentions?

This war does seem to be the definition of irony to a lot of people. The US, the country with the world's biggest WMD stockpile, attacks Iraq and finds a couple of bazookas strapped onto some old camels. It's sort of amusing, but many many lives have been lost over it. Being outside the US I could say that I am getting a less biased idea of the war, but I think in reality I'm not. It could be too biased again the US! What is almost impossible is for us to get enough unbiased facts with which to judge the just war claim.

Blessings to you all

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:56 AM'] Ill never trust Bush or anyone in the current Administration. [/quote]
this is my mantra. If it was a just war the Pope would have been 110% behind it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MulletBoy' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:15 PM'] I have a friend who moved to New Zealand from Iraq a few years ago. It's quite interesting talking to her about it. The arguement that Saddam was terrible to his people dosen't really hold with her. She agrees that he has done some terrible things, so has Bush. But she is always very quick to point out that he brought the country forward a long way and that most people benefited from much better living conditions during his rule. Nobody liked him that much and most are pleased that he's gone, but most also agree that he wasn't all bad. She totally disagrees with most of the character portrayals that the media put onto him.  . . . . [/quote]
Although your friends personal story is interesting, it is also quite irrelevant. In fact, the moral relativism present in this post is enough to make me physically ill. To equate a man who murdered his way into power, and who used threats of violence, torture and execution in order to keep control of the Baathist Party and the Iraqi government, and who had thousands of innocent men, women, and children gassed with chemical weapons in the 1980s, and who started a war with Iran, and then later invaded Kuwait, and who after the first Gulf War persecuted, tortured, maimed and killed thousands of Shia in the southern part of Iraq and thousands of Kurds in the north, with the actions of George W. Bush since he has become President of the United States, is reprehensible and unconscionable.

I am shocked and dismayed that anyone could be so lacking in their grasp of the basic norms of morality that they would make this kind of comparison.

I will pray for you and your friend,
God bless,
Todd

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:54 PM'] this is my mantra. If it was a just war the Pope would have been 110% behind it. [/quote]
It is not the Pope's place to make a judgment about whether or not to go to war, because as the Church has always taught, and continues to teach, "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [i.e., the conditions for a [i]Just War[/i]] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 2309] The Pope is not an elected official, and his office is not political in nature, but religious; thus he is not charged with making the specific governing decision on whether or not a nation should go to war.

Edited August 4, 2004 by Apotheoun

[qfnol31]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 3 2004, 08:54 PM'] this is my mantra. If it was a just war the Pope would have been 110% behind it. [/quote]
I agree with Todd.

Also, remember this: the Pope is a Philosopher before a Theologian. I would say that the Just War theory is more Theology than Philosophy.

[crusader1234]

Hey Aloysius, Apotheoun, and all of you other guys who think the war is unjust.

As Catholics, we are supposed to (ex cathedra eh?) listen to the Pope on matters of faith even when they aren't ex cathedra.

The Pope said the war wasn't just - thereforew we have to listen to that.

If you want to argue that this isn't a matter of faith, then you are seriously wrong... supporting an unjust war is a sin, therefore the Pope's comments made supporting the war a sin.

If you think you know more than the Pope about whats Kosher and what isn't, be my guest and call the war just.

[qfnol31]

That's not necessarily true. We are to listen to the Pope, but not necessarily on everything. Now, I'm not saying that the Pope is bad in any way, I love our Holy Father!

But, as I just stated, he is a philosopher. That means that not necessarily everything he says is the Theology of the Church (that's where Ratzinger comes in ). I really trust our Pope, but he can be misled by people around him as well, which I hope he's not.

However, Todd's given a really good reason for why this is a just war.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 4 2004, 02:41 AM'] 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. [/quote]
Hmmm. Well I like that. Cause I want something to defend myself with, but not a gun. I find them to be a cowards weapon.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 4 2004, 06:50 AM']
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. [/quote]
I agree with you. Osama is following what Islam has been since the beginning, however even though it MIGHT sound like im taking his side, he is fighting for something with more truth than what Bush is playing, however! he could have gone a better way, and kept to just attacking who is attacking him, instead of being a puppet for his lieft and right men.Hes fighting corruption and [new]imperialism, from the US< Britain and unfortunately, from Australia due to HOWARD :angry: .

The weird thing is.

Bush is a terrorist, who wont talk with a terrorist.

Kinda Ironic.

[qfnol31]

Morph, do you have something against the States, or just Bush?

Also, remember: Bush did [i]not[/i] attack the innocent people. How is he a terrorist? Osama did, and also Saddam did. What makes Bush a terrorist in light of these two? Just because he took out a terrorist power does not make him a terrorist.

Edited August 4, 2004 by qfnol31

[MorphRC]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 4 2004, 06:55 AM'] 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]
LOL bull.

In 2001, Bush and Powell said he was NO danger, now all of a sudden he is, and he has ties with al qaeda.. Its all lies, geez even the CIA and FBI couldnt give Bush any evidence, so he falsified it.

This admin. has lies, cheated, done fraud, conned the american people, and you people support it. Wake up!

[Aloysius]

crusader, Cardinal Ratzinger is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and he said Catholics can have a variety of opinion when it comes to whether or not a specific war is just or the application of the death penalty. Catholics are not to have a contrary view to the doctrine of a just war, it would be wrong of a Catholic to say no war could ever be just or that war is always just. Catholics cannot dissent from Just War Doctrine. They can believe it needs to be expanded, but not believe something contrary to it. but when it comes down to whether the Iraq war is just, or whether the war in Afganistan is just, or whether WWII was just, that's not decided by the Magisterium. She never claims to be the authority to judge such matters, as Cardinal Ratzinger affirms.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 4 2004, 07:59 AM'] 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 [/quote]
The Pope condemned it!

How the heck is it just?????

its for oil, land, and bases in the middle east.

The US told the UN to get lost, so not all diplomatic ties were exhausted. The reason for war was OIL, LAND and a foothold in the middle east. It had nothing to do with freeing the iraq people, or getting rid of saddam.

Also. Since the Pope Condemned this, and your supporting it, shouldnt u be warned for negativity against the current magisterium, geez I got 3!

[Aloysius]

Cardinal Ratzinger is part of the current magisterium and declares that Catholics can have a variety of opinion about specific wars or the application of the death penalty. Apotheon's posts remain faithful to the magisterium.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Aug 4 2004, 11:39 AM'] 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. [/quote]
And Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopa, North Korea, China, arent?

Plz. Your taking bushs words as if hes speaking the truth.

[qfnol31]

Remember, Ratzinger would probably be more apt to say something anyway, just because of his role in the Church and what his specialty is.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 4 2004, 03:29 PM'] Morph, do you have something against the States, or just Bush?

Also, remember: Bush did [i]not[/i] attack the innocent people. How is he a terrorist? Osama did, and also Saddam did. What makes Bush a terrorist in light of these two? Just because he took out a terrorist power does not make him a terrorist. [/quote]
No I love the states. But I hate the administration.

I want to retire in Colorado! But just because of that, im not going follow some air head.

No he attacked Saddam..who 2 yrs earlier couldnt hurt a fly.. *cough* contradiction *cough*

Bush is a terrorist, coz he attacked a country for its resources, under the cover of a truthful act, which he never believed. He attacked a soviergn nation for no reason except 'hearsay' and falsified documents. No different than the english imperialists.

[Aloysius]

wow, great mind-reading, you've figured out that he never believed that... too bad the 9/11 commission would disagree with you.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 4 2004, 03:31 PM'] crusader, Cardinal Ratzinger is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and he said Catholics can have a variety of opinion when it comes to whether or not a specific war is just or the application of the death penalty. Catholics are not to have a contrary view to the doctrine of a just war, it would be wrong of a Catholic to say no war could ever be just or that war is always just. Catholics cannot dissent from Just War Doctrine. They can believe it needs to be expanded, but not believe something contrary to it. but when it comes down to whether the Iraq war is just, or whether the war in Afganistan is just, or whether WWII was just, that's not decided by the Magisterium. She never claims to be the authority to judge such matters, as Cardinal Ratzinger affirms. [/quote]
Ratzinger is over the pope now?..