Iraq War

[Timothy]

Please clarify your stance if you wish

[philothea]

Immoral.

CCC #2309:

[quote]The strict conditions for [i]legitimate defence by military force[/i] 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]

No, there was no evidence of any aggresion by Iraq on the US, or anyone else for that matter. Neither imminent, nor in the past.

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

Not even close.

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

Oh yeah, unwanted occupation of Islamic peoples works great all the time. Snort.

[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 condidtion.  [/quote]

I am not going to go look up the latest stats on the civilian casualties and the suffering of the people. Last time I did it was too awful.

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

[Paphnutius]

Good reply. I do think that all political leaders should be versed in at least some version of the just war theory.

[aloha918]

ditto philia

immoral up the wasu who ha.......whatever that is

[Timothy]

I completely agree. I am very interested in hearing the stance on this war not being immoral. Why? How? Please explain.

[guardsman]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 5 2005, 02:51 PM']Immoral.

CCC #2309:



No, there was no evidence of any aggresion by Iraq on the US, or anyone else for that matter.  Neither imminent, nor in the past.



I am not going to go look up the latest stats on the civilian casualties and the suffering of the people.  Last time I did it was too awful.

[/quote]
Uh, in the past? Kuwait comes to mind. How about the Kurds? I'm sorry, but Saddaam and his regime killed lot's of innocent people. The stats on civilian casualties are less now than when Iraq was "at peace." Saddaam killed more innocent people than any American bombs. In 10-15 years, everyone will be praising Bush for freeing Iraq. Just my opinion. I bow to the Church on the just or unjust war question.

[MichaelFilo]

Back those facts up with some numbers.

Being an Iraqi, I'd like to know where such a vestige of information as yourself gets your numbers and facts.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 06:59 PM'] Back those facts up with some numbers.

Being an Iraqi, I'd like to know where such a vestige of information as yourself gets your numbers and facts.
[/quote]
Are you addressing me or guardsman?

[Apotheoun]

The limitation of [i]just cause[/i] to defense against an aggressor is contrary to the tradition of the Church. The [i]just cause[/i] component in the just war doctrine includes, but is not limited to: self-defense, the defense of one nation by another nation, the right and duty to protect innocent persons, the right to regain something wrongfully taken, and the duty to punish those who have done evil (cf. [u]Summa Theologica[/u], Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40, Art. 1).

That being said, the war against Saddam Hussein is perfectly moral and justified, because the man was a tyrant who tortured and killed countless thousands of his own people, and in fact it could be argued that it would have been a sin of omission to have allowed him to stay in power any longer.

[philothea]

[quote name='guardsman' date='May 5 2005, 06:09 PM'] Uh, in the past? Kuwait comes to mind. How about the Kurds? I'm sorry, but Saddaam and his regime killed lot's of innocent people. The stats on civilian casualties are less now than when Iraq was "at peace." Saddaam killed more innocent people than any American bombs. In 10-15 years, everyone will be praising Bush for freeing Iraq. Just my opinion. I bow to the Church on the just or unjust war question. [/quote]
I'm sorry, my sentences were unclear. It's a problem I have when I go back and add things.

There was no evidence that Iraq was going to attack the USA, or that they had ever attacked the USA.

There was no certain evidence that they were about to attack the community of nations.

I apologize for my vagueness.

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 06:59 PM']Back those facts up with some numbers.

Being an Iraqi, I'd like to know where such a vestige of information as yourself gets your numbers and facts.

God bless,
Mikey[/quote]
I'd like to, but there are no good numbers, really. The people keeping count have agendas, mostly anti-American. I would like to hear your opinion on it, though. Do you wish the U.S. had stayed out and let Saddaam continue to kill people? Are you in Iraq? I personally believe the U.S. is trying to do the right thing. But I'm not from there. Masalama.

[philothea]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 5 2005, 07:33 PM'] That being said, the war against Saddam Hussein is perfectly moral and justified, because the man was a tyrant who tortured and killed countless thousands of his own people, and in fact it could be argued that it would have been a sin of omission to have allowed him to stay in power any longer. [/quote]
I'm sorry, I am only an uneducated convert, not a Church Scholar such as yourself, so I can only try to understand what the catechism I have says.

Is there some guideline as to how many innocent people it is acceptable to kill in order to overthrow an immoral leader?

And what about the other guidelines, like trying to attempt other means first, and the prospects of success? Or is this whole section of the catechism wrong?

Edited May 6, 2005 by philothea

[MichaelFilo]

I'll be frank (ahahaha the pun), I don't like this war. At first, when the prospects of the war seemed to show that more could be done for the Iraqi people, I was in some support. Saddam was not a good man by any means. However, while never supporting or speaking against the war, I know have come to a conclusion. The Iraqi people are not better off for it. Now, the reign of tyranny has passed from one figure (and as my family would claim, he was not such a tyrant) to many who walk the streets. At least he had principals and laws, the insurgents from other countries have none. I could go on speaking about how my family (who lives there) has had to flee, the losses incurred, the reign of Saddam and his kindness shown to Christians. I could, but it'd be repetition. I simply say this, prove he is/was a tyrant, and not just a dictator who had laws about his political enemies. If you can prove it, that is good. I doubt you will. The sad part is, he was legally entered into office...

God bless,
Mikey

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 09:03 PM'] I'll be frank (ahahaha the pun), I don't like this war. At first, when the prospects of the war seemed to show that more could be done for the Iraqi people, I was in some support. Saddam was not a good man by any means. However, while never supporting or speaking against the war, I know have come to a conclusion. The Iraqi people are not better off for it. Now, the reign of tyranny has passed from one figure (and as my family would claim, he was not such a tyrant) to many who walk the streets. At least he had principals and laws, the insurgents from other countries have none. I could go on speaking about how my family (who lives there) has had to flee, the losses incurred, the reign of Saddam and his kindness shown to Christians. I could, but it'd be repetition. I simply say this, prove he is/was a tyrant, and not just a dictator who had laws about his political enemies. If you can prove it, that is good. I doubt you will. The sad part is, he was legally entered into office...

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
So you intially supported it. Me, too. And I will continue to support it. I think it has been proven beyond any doubt that he was a murderous tyrant. Many bodies have been dug up from mass graves, we've all seen the pictures of the gassed Kurds. The only reason he left the Christians alone is because Tariq Aziz was his buddy and claimed to be Catholic. More than 1500 Americans have died helping the Iraqis, and more will die, but at least America is trying to help. We could have left the tyrant there, but he was killing innocent people, right? Maybe not Christians, but that has nothing to do with it. I don't have to prove Hussein was a tyrant, it is a well known fact not worth discussing.

[MichaelFilo]

Funny. Your well known facts are news to me. I guess I'll take up your line of logic, and when those Europeans go calling old G. Bush an imperialist and there is no need to question it, I'll pit my "unneccessary to prove" position against theirs. Clearly, it is a known fact.

You should know, the Kurds want political autonomy. No country in which they live would give it to them. I cannot justify killing them, but they were political enemies of the state. Saddam isn't a total idiot, he knows that human resources are important as natural ones. Besides, the premise for this was false. The only justification was "it was for the people" but I need not go further than my own family to see what the people have benefitted from it.

American lives lost in war are those lives of men who chose to volunteer to fight. The lives of the Iraqi men that were lost were those of civilians, and those forced into military service. What is your point?

I think that your undisputable facts are not so undisputable.

God bless,
Mikey

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 09:43 PM'] Funny. Your well known facts are news to me. I guess I'll take up your line of logic, and when those Europeans go calling old G. Bush an imperialist and there is no need to question it, I'll pit my "unneccessary to prove" position against theirs. Clearly, it is a known fact.

You should know, the Kurds want political autonomy. No country in which they live would give it to them. I cannot justify killing them, but they were political enemies of the state. Saddam isn't a total idiot, he knows that human resources are important as natural ones. Besides, the premise for this was false. The only justification was "it was for the people" but I need not go further than my own family to see what the people have benefitted from it.

American lives lost in war are those lives of men who chose to volunteer to fight. The lives of the Iraqi men that were lost were those of civilians, and those forced into military service. What is your point?

I think that your undisputable facts are not so undisputable.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Are you in Iraq?

[MichaelFilo]

No. However, I keep a corrospondance with family members there, and my uncle who ran away from the war setting after the invasion of Iraq. Mostly, I get my news from my aunt, and my grandmother who is here (she arrived in December, so she has seen most of the post-war stuff).

Edit: No reason to post things 2 seconds apart.
I enjoy the freedoms, and I thank every soldier who dropped for this freedom. I don't defend Saddam when it is not due. Did I not say there is no justifying his murders? However, your ideas of the numbers are abstract. You say "thousands", "I say show me", you say, "no need". I don't defend Saddam where it is not due. You may hate him for what you think he is, but it would not be fair if I let that lie go on. He was not a good leader, and he was cruel, but he was elected (lawfully). The idea of democracy and republic make no sense when you come to realize, he came to power the same way that Bush did, through a vote... But that is conflicting ideology. My point is, the people appointed him. The people are NOT better off post-war than pre-war, and the context for the war was false. If you won't believe my testimony, then believe my dad who is over there with the troops, a head translator for the US army. He won't have much reason to lie, now would he?

God bless,
Mikey

Edited May 6, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[guardsman]

[quote name='guardsman' date='May 5 2005, 09:54 PM'] Are you in Iraq? [/quote]
Never mind that question. I see you are in Florida enjoying the freedoms paid for by the Americans who "volunteered to fight", as you put it. That, combined with defending Saddaam Hussein and claiming I don't know anything about him doesn't lend itself to a decent discussion. Masalama

[guardsman]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 10:02 PM'] No. However, I keep a corrospondance with family members there, and my uncle who ran away from the war setting after the invasion of Iraq. Mostly, I get my news from my aunt, and my grandmother who is here (she arrived in December, so she has seen most of the post-war stuff).

Edit: No reason to post things 2 seconds apart.
I enjoy the freedoms, and I thank every soldier who dropped for this freedom. I don't defend Saddam when it is not due. Did I not say there is no justifying his murders? However, your ideas of the numbers are abstract. You say "thousands", "I say show me", you say, "no need". I don't defend Saddam where it is not due. You may hate him for what you think he is, but it would not be fair if I let that lie go on. He was not a good leader, and he was cruel, but he was elected (lawfully). The idea of democracy and republic make no sense when you come to realize, he came to power the same way that Bush did, through a vote... But that is conflicting ideology. My point is, the people appointed him. The people are NOT better off post-war than pre-war, and the context for the war was false. If you won't believe my testimony, then believe my dad who is over there with the troops, a head translator for the US army. He won't have much reason to lie, now would he?

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
It is not post-war yet. Wars are long drawn out affairs. The Gulf War (Desert Storm) was not a war, it was one battle to kick the lawfully elected tyrant out of Kuwait. When the war is over, it is my belief that Iraq will be better off, and the average iraqi citizen will have a better life. Of course, while the war is still raging, life would be worse than the ordered rule of a dictator. But the New Iraqi Army will be online soon and the new government will get control eventually. Things will be better. Why was everyone so happy in Iraq when they got to vote awhile back? I think because it was the first time they didn't have to vote for Saddaam or get killed. You say he was lawfully elected. I have never heard of an election where Saddaam didn't get one hundred percent of the vote. Sounds rigged to me.

[MichaelFilo]

He didn't.... the Ba'ath party was elected in. Then they forced everyone who worked in government jobs to become part of the party. That year my grandmother quit teaching to avoid that.

People were happy to vote, but voting is a toy. It is like sugar on your lemon. Oh it is nice, but the lemon is still sour. The situation remains, there is very little safety. My cousin has missed at least a year of school over this. My uncle died because there was lack of hospital space during the invasion. The war is over, in the sense that the government is deposed. That is traditionally when a war ends.

Aside from that, the currect top two positions in the government do not reflect the two majority groups in the country, Shi'ite and Sunni muslims. That means that there is not proper representation, and so when the US leaves, it will be a frail peace.

Please, explain to me the just grounds for the invasion. If it was for the people, then why are the worse off than before? If it was for the weapons, where did they dissapear. If it was against terrorism, then it is just. Iraq funded palastinian terrorists. Of course, the US funded Israel, which killed Palastinians, but that is fine, I suppose.

God bless,
Mikey