How is the war in Iraq

[jessinoelw]

It seems that there are quite a few Christians, both Catholic and non, that believe the war in Iraq is a just war. If you believe that it is a just war, what do you base that on?

--Jessica

[ironmonk]

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

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority [u][b]with the necessary competence and power[/b][/u], governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106


[b]CCC 2309 [/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. 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.


These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

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



------------

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Something else to note... the war in Iraq is over. There are terrorists in Iraq and we can't just leave.

The war that happened in Iraq CANNOT be used against Bush in the elections because kerry agreed with it... to say one cannot vote for Bush because of the war, then one cannot vote for kerry either.

Some people (not thinking of anyone in particular - some of these on TV) boggle my mind with the voting for kerry montra... Kerry is the greatest evil this country has ever seen run for president.

Only someone with disordered morals or totally ignorant of kerry could vote for him with a clear conscience.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Do you think there was an imminent danger? Regardless of what you think, other people will have different opinions. Some will say that the danger wasn't so imminent that we couldn't plan better. Some will say there was weopons so we had to go to war as soon as possible. Personally, it didn't seem imminet to me. It didn't seem that way to Kerry either. The only way it might seem that way is to say that Iraq had connections with Al Quida. (if spelled right) I'm pretty sure it was established, perhaps after the fact, that Iraq had no connections. Perhaps after the fact that he had no serious weopons. As Bush said, Kerry saw the same evidence he did (I think just about the weopons) when Kerry voted for the potential to go to war. It seems that the Iraqi connection thing was just a Bush idea. (correct me if I'm wrong) Anyway what I'm getting at is that Kerry just didn't like the way we went to war, that doesn't mean he contradicted himself. Even if he's truly being inconsistent on the inside, you can't insist that he contradicted himself, because he's technically being consistent, that is at least by words. But then you know people can always say things could have been done better.

Also, the Pope is obviously for just wars when it is needed. Yet he was against it. Perhaps he was against it because he did not see it as being imminent. At least for Catholics, you'd think this would make one reconsider the danger. Last I knew 35,000 iraqi civilians died during the inital war on iraq. Not to mention all the soldiers American and otherwise since then. Not to mention the idea that perhaps we're not as safe as we were and perhaps less safe. You have to weigh all these things against whether or not there was an imminent danger. You also have to figure out who started that iraq connection thing in order to better assess the situation.

Other than that (since ironmonk has decided to change the topic of the thread) saying that Kerry is evil is just a political way to get uninformed Catholics to vote for your man. Even by Catholic standards.

Edited October 19, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Something else to note. Just showing Catholic theory does not show that the Iraq war is just. Granted, once the hard facts have been set, perhaps Catholics will disagree legitimately. But you have to apply it to the facts of the situation.

So, first thing, you have to at least try to show more than theory, that is, the facts of the situation.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 19 2004, 02:59 PM'] Something else to note. Just showing Catholic theory does not show that the Iraq war is just. Granted, once the hard facts have been set, perhaps Catholics will disagree legitimately. But you have to apply it to the facts of the situation.

So, first thing, you have to at least try to show more than theory, that is, the facts of the situation. [/quote]
If you knew the facts you wouldn't post what you posted.


Only a fool or someone who didn't know the whole story would have allowed Saddam to stay in power knowing what we know about him and the given circumstances.

- Sanctions upon sanctions and Saddam kept ignoring them

- He constantly stalled UN inspectors, if he had nothing to hide, why stall them? What could he possibly want to hide from the UN inspectors looking for WMD's? Hmmmm, it's not rocket science. A little knowledge of human nature and Saddam's history tells us that he had to be removed.

- The guy was almost as bad if not worse than Hitler with his human rights violations. We must stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

- The UN stated that Saddam had WMD's and that they were shipped out of Iraq, before during and after the war, from satellight evidence.

- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.

- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.

- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war




The Catholic Church doesn't teach theory... it teaches the Christian Faith, Morals, and Discipline. It can never be wrong on faith and morals.



It goes back to "perhaps" dairy... think about it.


[quote]Other than that (since ironmonk has decided to change the topic of the thread) saying that Kerry is evil is just a political way to get uninformed Catholics to vote for your man. Even by Catholic standards. [/quote]


The ONLY Catholic that would vote for kerry is an uniformed Catholic, or a false Catholic.

It is a sin to vote for kerry because of his stances... The Church has the power to bind and loose... they have bound. The Church eastablished by God has put the matter to an end. Only the uniformed or deceitful will say otherwise.

Edited October 19, 2004 by ironmonk

[azaelia]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 19 2004, 01:45 PM'] Do you think there was an imminent danger? Regardless of what you think, other people will have different opinions. Some will say that the danger wasn't so imminent that we couldn't plan better. Some will say there was weopons so we had to go to war as soon as possible. Personally, it didn't seem imminet to me. It didn't seem that way to Kerry either. The only way it might seem that way is to say that Iraq had connections with Al Quida. (if spelled right) I'm pretty sure it was established, perhaps after the fact, that Iraq had no connections. Perhaps after the fact that he had no serious weopons. As Bush said, Kerry saw the same evidence he did (I think just about the weopons) when Kerry voted for the potential to go to war. It seems that the Iraqi connection thing was just a Bush idea. (correct me if I'm wrong) Anyway what I'm getting at is that Kerry just didn't like the way we went to war, that doesn't mean he contradicted himself. Even if he's truly being inconsistent on the inside, you can't insist that he contradicted himself, because he's technically being consistent, that is at least by words. But then you know people can always say things could have been done better. [/quote]


[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties[/url]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Oct 19 2004, 03:24 PM']

[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties[/url] [/quote]
Let's not forget...

Saddam Hussein bribed high-ranking officials in France and Russia and perhaps even China through the UN oil-for-food program.

[url="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/243438p-208560c.html"]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/243438p-208560c.html[/url]



With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted WMD scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3200 from 40.

[url="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/17/1097951554218.html?oneclick=true"]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/...l?oneclick=true[/url]


The beneficiaries allegedly included Benon Sevan, the U.N. diplomat who ran the oil-for-food program; officials from at least three U.N. Security Council member nations (Russia, France and China) and several U.S. companies. Duelfer identified several of the foreign countries and officials, but, citing privacy laws, he did not name the suspected U.S. firms, an inconsistency both odd and unfair.


[url="http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct04/267041.asp"]http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct04/267041.asp[/url]

[jessinoelw]

[u][b]Let's keep this strictly on the topic of the war in Iraq.[/b][/u] I'm not discussing who we ought to vote for or not or who was for or against the war. I'm looking for reasoning as to why people think the war in Iraq is (or was) just according to Catholic teaching.

[Oik]

I agree with what Ironmonk is saying. I also do not believe that the war in Iraq or Afghanistan was just. What we have done to secure (if you can say that) those countries has caused greater death than either country inflicted on its people. Now, what is done is done and to pull out is foolish. Also, I blame mainly the United Nations (a lame duck organization) for not really doing anything. Furthermore, it is shameful for any counrty who did not participate in the war to want to reap the benefits (ahem::FRANCE::ahem).

[jessinoelw]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Oct 19 2004, 12:24 PM']

[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties[/url] [/quote]
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3730540.stm"]Weapons have not been found according to this report.[/url]

This report and numerous other reports have stated that WMD have not been found either before, during, or after the war.

[jessinoelw]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Oct 19 2004, 12:07 PM'] - Sanctions upon sanctions and Saddam kept ignoring them

- He constantly stalled UN inspectors, if he had nothing to hide, why stall them? What could he possibly want to hide from the UN inspectors looking for WMD's? Hmmmm, it's not rocket science. A little knowledge of human nature and Saddam's history tells us that he had to be removed.

- The guy was almost as bad if not worse than Hitler with his human rights violations. We must stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

- The UN stated that Saddam had WMD's and that they were shipped out of Iraq, before during and after the war, from satellight evidence.

- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.

- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.

- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war. [/quote]
References and citations, please.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]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. 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;[/quote]

This would be the only point in the just war theory you could argue on. First, we have to define a nation. A "nation" is not a "state." They are two different things. A nation is a group of ethnic people. A state is a political territory. By attackin the Kurdish people, Saddam attacked a nation. He repeatedly did this, sometimes using chemical weapons. Undeniably the threat was "lasting, grave, and certain."


[quote]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/quote]

The U.N. issued 17 resolutions for Saddam to disarm. He gave the proverbial middle finger to every one of them. As Ironmonk said, if he had nothing to hide, why didn't he let the inspectors in?


[quote]there must be serious prospects of success;[/quote]

If anyone could make a serious claim that the U.S. did not have serious prospects for success in Iraq, I would love to hear it. The fact is that despite what the media says, things are going very well in Iraq. If the media reports that an airplane crashed, does it follow that it is unsafe to fly? Of course not. They are reporting on the outliers. The same thing is going on in Iraq as we speak. Over 90% of the country is secure right now and they love our troops.


[quote]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.[/quote]

We just found another mass grave with hundreds of thousands of people in it that were murdered by Saddam Hussein and his thugs. These numbers do not remotely compare to the loss of life that has been directly or even indirectly the result of the war. Every loss of life is tragic, no one denies that, but that is not what this principle states.

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

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

This is important because it says it is not the role of the Pope or any theologian to determine if a war is just or not. It is the role of the "legitimate temporal authority."

OK, on to the arguments we go.

[quote]Do you think there was an imminent danger? Regardless of what you think, other people will have different opinions. Some will say that the danger wasn't so imminent that we couldn't plan better. Some will say there was weopons so we had to go to war as soon as possible. Personally, it didn't seem imminet to me. It didn't seem that way to Kerry either. The only way it might seem that way is to say that Iraq had connections with Al Quida. (if spelled right) I'm pretty sure it was established, perhaps after the fact, that Iraq had no connections. Perhaps after the fact that he had no serious weopons. As Bush said, Kerry saw the same evidence he did (I think just about the weopons) when Kerry voted for the potential to go to war. It seems that the Iraqi connection thing was just a Bush idea. (correct me if I'm wrong) Anyway what I'm getting at is that Kerry just didn't like the way we went to war, that doesn't mean he contradicted himself. Even if he's truly being inconsistent on the inside, you can't insist that he contradicted himself, because he's technically being consistent, that is at least by words. But then you know people can always say things could have been done better.[/quote]

Irregardless of whether Iraq had WMDs is irrelevant. Nowhere in the JWD does it walk about posessing WMDs. Furthermore, they DID posess them at some point. The question now is, "Where are they?" Also, we have found weapons that were in breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

Secondly, Bush declared war on all terrorism, not just Al Quaida. Saddam Hussein financially back Hammas suicide bombers. That is a known fact.

As for the immenent danger, consider two different scenarios. First, before he really became powerful, was Adolf Hitler an "immenent threat?" The French didn't try to stop him until he drove his tanks through downtown Paris. Were we unjustified in attacking Germany? After all, they didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor. Some may argue here that the Germans had declared war on the U.S. but the fact is they never did anything to us until we attacked them. Are you now saying that the just war theory is contingent on a piece of paper saying if war has been declared or not and that actions bear no consequences? Secondly, suppose someone you knew was getting picked on at school. Would you have the right to stand up for that person even if the person picking on her hadn't done anything to you? It seems to me that you would have a moral obligation to come to the defense of your friend.

[quote]I agree with what Ironmonk is saying. I also do not believe that the war in Iraq or Afghanistan was just. What we have done to secure (if you can say that) those countries has caused greater death than either country inflicted on its people. Now, what is done is done and to pull out is foolish. Also, I blame mainly the United Nations (a lame duck organization) for not really doing anything. Furthermore, it is shameful for any counrty who did not participate in the war to want to reap the benefits (ahem::FRANCE::ahem).[/quote]

I'm confused. It seems that you are stating two points of view here. Ironmonk was arguing for the justness of the war. You are arguing against it yet you agree with him?

I'm sorry, but we have caused greater death? See my previous post on the four or five mass graves with 300,000 people each in them. If my math is right, that comes out to be about 1.5 million people murdered by Saddam Hussein that we know about.

[quote]This report and numerous other reports have stated that WMD have not been found either before, during, or after the war.[/quote]

Again, relevancy. Let's just give you the benefit of the doubt though for the sake of arguing. We KNOW Saddam had WMDs because he used them on his own people. This is a fact. The question should not be, "Did he have them?" but "Where are they now?"

Finally, it seems to me that the onus is on your who are arguing for an unjust war to demonstrate how it jives with Christian principles to let a group of people be mercilessly slaughtered while we sit by idly here in the U.S. and watch it happen from our four TVs?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Saddam Hussein financially back Hammas suicide bombers. That is a known fact.[/quote]
When was the hiring? Can you support this statement?

[quote]Secondly, Bush declared war on all terrorism, not just Al Quaida. [/quote]
It doesn't matter who Bush declared war on. We're not arguing about whether or not he's baiting the public with 911 and going for Iraq, so you shouldn't be saying this. Otherwise, you could.



[quote]"Did he have them?" but "Where are they now?"[/quote]
[quote]Irregardless of whether Iraq had WMDs is irrelevant. Nowhere in the JWD does it walk about posessing WMDs. Furthermore, they DID posess them at some point. The question now is, "Where are they?" Also, we have found weapons that were in breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement. [/quote]

If we're not sure if he had them, that seems to be a lot of uncertainty to base a war on. I think you'd have to recant saying your give the benefit of the doubt to him not having weopons immediately before, after, and during the war.

[quote]The French didn't try to stop him until he drove his tanks through downtown Paris. Were we unjustified in attacking Germany? After all, they didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor. [/quote]
If there was clear to pretty certain danger ahead then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is.

[quote] suppose someone you knew was getting picked on at school. Would you have the right to stand up for that person even if the person picking on her hadn't done anything to you? It seems to me that you would have a moral obligation to come to the defense of your friend.[/quote]

The way I understand it, this does not justify a just war. I don't see the relavence aside from a secondary benefit.


[quote]
The UN stated that Saddam had WMD's and that they were shipped out of Iraq, before during and after the war, from satellight evidence.

[quote]This seems to be the only one that needs citations. Last I knew the general consensus was that no weopons were found at all. The media must be really screwing up this issue if more people don't know about this UN statement/report. This needs cited.[/quote]

- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.

[quote]The inspectors weren't inspecting long before the war. The way I understand it, they were inspecting the few months before the war. And we wanted to go as soon as possible in case he decided to use them before getting caught. Of course I need to cite this, but for me, I'll just assume ironmonk is talking about much before the war.[/quote]

- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.
[quote]This is just rhetoric that would only be true if the other arguments were true.[/quote]

- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war.
[quote]How long before the war? Do we know of the  material was when the inspectors were let in? This might justify a war no matter where if he broke the sanctions even 10 years ago, but I'm not willing to say that this is enough to justify a war. (plus there's no imminency in my mind if it was that long ago)[/quote]
[/quote]

Edited October 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

imminent threat=Sept. 11.
Hate to trot out the worst tragedy I've ever seen, but quite frankly if we delude ourselves into thinking that was a freak occurrence then we'll be hit again.
The enemy is not a terrorist, the enemy is terrorism. We need to fight it where we find it. How do you fight an ideal? That's the question. There is no question that war smells of elderberries, but so does terrorism.
So either we become strict isolationists again (and let the world fall apart, as well as open us up to attacks again) or we just accept our need to fight these people.

You know what? ultimately it boils down to the only One who knows the truth for sure is God. Just to be on the safe side, I'm going to err on the side that lets me live. That means making war on terrorism.

I have yet to see a good argument for peace without combat involved.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 01:01 PM'] When was the hiring? Can you support this statement?


It doesn't matter who Bush declared war on. We're not arguing about whether or not he's baiting the public with 911 and going for Iraq, so you shouldn't be saying this. Otherwise, you could.






If we're not sure if he had them, that seems to be a lot of uncertainty to base a war on. I think you'd have to recant saying your give the benefit of the doubt to him not having weopons immediately before, after, and during the war.


If there was clear to pretty certain danger ahead then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is.



The way I understand it, this does not justify a just war. I don't see the relavence aside from a secondary benefit.




- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.



- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.


- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war.

[/QUOTE] [/quote]
[quote]When was the hiring? Can you support this statement?[/quote]

I cannot provide direct documentation right now, but give me some time. I'll get back to you.

[quote]It doesn't matter who Bush declared war on. We're not arguing about whether or not he's baiting the public with 911 and going for Iraq, so you shouldn't be saying this. Otherwise, you could.[/quote]

I was merely responding to what you said in a previous post which said:

[quote]The only way it might seem that way is to say that Iraq had connections with Al Quida.[/quote]

My argument is that it doesn't matter if Iraq had Al Quaida connections because the President declared war on all terrorism. This includes, Al Quaida, Hammas, the Egyptian-Islamic Jihad, Hezzbolah, and others.

[quote]If we're not sure if he had them, that seems to be a lot of uncertainty to base a war on. I think you'd have to recant saying your give the benefit of the doubt to him not having weopons immediately before, after, and during the war.[/quote]

You missed the point on this one twice. First of all, we ARE sure he had them. How do we know? Because he used them on his own people. We have found a ton of evidence that Iraq had a chemical weapons program over there. The question still remains, where are they now? Furthermore, just for the sake of argument, let's say he never did have them. Why would you hide a fact like that when faced with what he was. All he had to do was take the weapons inspectors around on anyone of the 17 times they were ordered to go there and look and say, "See, I don't have any WMDs." The second way you missed the point was that I was arguing that we shouldn't even be debating whether or not he had WMDs because it isn't an integral part of the JWD. The burden of proof is on you to show why WMDs are relevant. I'm arguing that they are not because whether or not he had them when we attacked does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein ROUTINELY raped, murdered, and tortured people. I'll go into detail later.

[quote]If there was clear to pretty certain danger ahead then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is.[/quote]

So are you arguing that WWII was unjust? There certainly are plenty of analogies. Adolf Hitler attacked a small country when he was relatively weak. Saddam Hussein attacked a small country when he was relatively weak. Both conducted massive genocide. neither directly attacked the United States. What other variable would you introduce to justify war against Germany but not Iraq? If a catastrophe occurs then that's just the way it is? What if that catastrophe is a nuclear bomb blowing up in Times Square? OK, granted, that's speculative, but what ISN'T speculative is that if the U.S. hadn't acted, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and he would still be:
-putting human beings through wood shredders
-kidnapping children and dismembering them in front of their parents
-raping women
-shooting unarmed civilians for fun
-pushing people off of buildings
-shocking men and women in their genital areas
-breaking bones
-giving acid baths
-and the list goes on and on

How do you who are so supportive of human rights justify these abuses because they most certainly would still be going on if we hadn't acted.

[quote]The way I understand it, this does not justify a just war. I don't see the relavence aside from a secondary benefit. [/quote]

I was using an analogy to demonstrate a truth. It's called an argument from an analogy. You're right, it doesn't demonstrate the justness of the war, it does demonstrate that it is the right and just thing to stand up for one's friend which is what we did for the Kurdish people.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]You missed the point on this one twice. First of all, we ARE sure he had them. How do we know? Because he used them on his own people. We have found a ton of evidence that Iraq had a chemical weapons program over there. The question still remains, where are they now? [/quote]

And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.

[quote]The burden of proof is on you to show why WMDs are relevant. I'm arguing that they are not because whether or not he had them when we attacked does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein ROUTINELY raped, murdered, and tortured people. I'll go into detail later.[/quote]

WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Svjatyj_Boze]

If someone sincerely believed, prior to the war, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, then the war would be justified from that person's perspective. In hindsight, however, it seems that this was not a just war.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree with your stand Svjatyj_Boze.

Incidentally with regards to Bush, I'd think he'd have been more keen on looking into the uncertainties a little better. From my understanding of the 911 commission report, two agencies had different views on Iraq. One said that he probably had WMD and one said he probably did not (or it might have just been that there's too much uncertainty). The commission (granted that I've only gathered from spins and talks.. maybe I should buy the report, a best seller by the way probably becaues of the spin) said that Bush consulted only one person/group and not all. It was a simple mistake and that's why they want to fix intelligence communication. I may be wrong on this. But anyway, I suppose you could make the case that we should have gone based on the innocent mistake, but it still seems that we could have planned better and maybe he could have sought to find a better margin of error. It doesn't look like it was that hard to find.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 09:17 PM']
And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.



WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of. [/quote]
First, why did you selectively quote me instead of taking everything I said, which is what I've done for you?

OK, you said.

[quote]And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time, I'm glad you agree with me. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs is completely irrelevant. It makes absolutely no difference.

[quote]WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of.[/quote]

I am arguing that how he treated his people was the reason. Let me quote you, from the Catechism, what the just war teaching of the Church is and you can see for yourself that it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about WMDs.

[quote]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. 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

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

You will want probably want to focus on this sentence. [quote]The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote]

Notice that it doesn't say WMDs are a criteria, only that "modern means" weigh heavily in the decision. Again though, I put it to you, if he didn't have them, why didn't he just let inspectors in and see?