Iraq War

[ironmonk]

The war is moral and just.

[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 with the necessary competence and power, 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.

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

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

I believe that President Bush is going to have information that is not available to the public or many other people. I believe that President Bush HAS the responsibility for the common good.


ALL criteria were met.


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



[url="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html"]http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html[/url]
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.


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




Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

(you will have to copy and paste the link)
[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html[/url]



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/...l?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]




Common sense... the war was/is just.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 12, 2005 by ironmonk

[philothea]

Pope John Paul II, (former) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB have all spoken clearly against the Iraq War. Why is your judgment superior to theirs? Why do you not submit to their teaching?

I know the standard response, "it's not infallible". Well [i]of course[/i] the invasion of Iraq by the USA isn't a matter for infallible teaching. That's absurd. Some contemplative nun in Burma who speaks no English and couldn't find Iraq on a globe doesn't need to think about it. People 1,000 years in the future shouldn't be obliged to care.

The statements on the war by JPII, Ratzinger, and the American bishops are intended for [i]American Catholics[/i], the only people who can make a difference, and who are called to obey. The teaching is especially for the Americans who would, without their guidance, support the war: you.

What if, through some absurdity, the Iraq war was infalliby declared unjust by Pope Benedict XVI? Would you submit to the Church's teaching? Who has your loyalty, the Church, or the State? The Bishop of Rome or the Republican Party? If you say that of course, you would submit to any Church teaching, then why do you not assent when they Church teaches in the form suitable for the issue?

I am also tired of hearing that the Pope knows nothing of warfare or world politics. Maybe, maybe not. He probably knows more about war than he knows about sex or raising babies, and we listen to him on those topics. His qualification to guide the faithful is not based on personal research, but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[BeenaBobba]

Dear Max,

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

The United States did put the United Nations, "an international authority with the necessary competence and power," in a position of authority. We acted against the authority of the United Nations in going to war, and in doing so, I think we made a mistake. I think it'd have been more prudent to wait it out, though I understand that Bush was in a difficult position. Had he failed to act, and had the United States been hit with another catastrophic attack, he would have been partially responsible. Who's to say I wouldn't have acted the same way had I been in his position? Still, my belief is that it's always best to avoid war unless it's absolutely necessary. When Bush went to war without having heeded the United Nation's advice, it seemed he was jumping the gun. It would seem that someone who wanted to avoid war unless it was absolutely necessary would have listened to the United Nation's advice before acting.

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

This is where most people have problems with the war. To many people (myself included), the war seems poorly planned. Bush originally said we went to Iraq because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, but nothing of the sort was found. It was later said that we went to Iraq to liberate the people of Iraq, to remove Saddam from power, and to bring democracy to Iraq. My problem with this is America's insistence that we can accomplish such a feat. Like I've said, we've seen the rotten fruits of democracy in America. (I'm not saying democratic forms of government are evil; I'm just saying that America's current idea of democracy and freedom is nothing to brag about, especially when millions of babies are killed each year.) And like Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5, one must remove the plank in one's own eye before one bothers one's brother over the speck in his. Besides, would a carbon copy of America really be a good thing? I don't have a source with me right now (I'll try to find one if anyone's interested), but I remember reading that the abortion rate in Iraq has gone up within the past few years. Instilling American values in Iraq could possibly entail giving them more problems than they've started with.

Another thing is that it's nearly impossible to force democracy on a country. To transplant a form of government onto a soil in which it's never grown would take a lot of time and work. Is the American goverment going to put in the time and the effort to [i]really[/i] help Iraq? It's been two years or so since we've entered Iraq, and while the people of Iraq are no longer under Saddam, their government is still quite unstable. Perhaps it's too early to predict the long term results, but I'm not totally convinced that we've made a huge difference. The fact that I'm not convinced makes me question the prudence of having risked thousands of lives for something that may or may not be accomplished. To me, war is only justifiable when everything is crystal clear -- and things don't seem 100% crystal clear with this war.

[quote]I believe that President Bush is going to have information that is not available to the public or many other people. I believe that President Bush HAS the responsibility for the common good.[/quote]

Agreed. But the thing is, Bush has admitted that the CIA has given him faulty information (to the best of my knowledge); he's also admitted that the CIA needs a makeover.

As far as those news articles are concerned, why wasn't anything like this on major news channels and in major newspapers? Granted, the media has a liberal bias, but the United Nations, like Congress, operates out in the open. At the very least, something this monumental would have been sure to make it to Fox.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 12 2005, 04:05 PM'] Pope John Paul II, (former) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB have all spoken clearly against the Iraq War.  Why is your judgment superior to theirs?  Why do you not submit to their teaching? [/quote]
Yes, Pope John Paull II opposed the war, and if there's anyone to follow, it's him. He was both learned and holy. But in ironmonk's defense, Catholics are allowed to use their discretion when it comes to judging the moral legitimacy of particular wars (provided that they do not eschew Catholic teaching regarding war, of course).

[MichaelFilo]

Here is the problem with your constant call to obeying the pope on certain matters: It has been a historically dangerous thing to do.

For instance, Pope Liberius (sp?) was an Arian sympathizer, but it took the courages defiance of St. Athonasius to see the Church through that time period. The point, the pope can be wrong.

As a matter of fact, JPII's opposition to war completely (pacifism) is a non-Catholic notion mixed with humanitarianism. If that should be his opinion about war, can we rely on him for a just war opinion that is fair to the case?

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

I just want to point something out here the UN has no Authority, the US cannot give the UN authority because lie the UN the US has no Authority, the US has Power nothing more, Authority comes from God and the US has from the begining rejected God and rejected the Authority he grants. AS such no one is oblieged to obey the UN on any matters at all.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 13 2005, 04:25 AM'] Here is the problem with your constant call to obeying the pope on certain matters: It has been a historically dangerous thing to do.

For instance, Pope Liberius (sp?) was an Arian sympathizer, but it took the courages defiance of St. Athonasius to see the Church through that time period. The point, the pope can be wrong.

As a matter of fact, JPII's opposition to war completely (pacifism) is a non-Catholic notion mixed with humanitarianism. If that should be his opinion about war, can we rely on him for a just war opinion that is fair to the case?

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
The pope is never wrong when offically teaching on faith and morals.

[Don John of Austria]

No Cmom the pope is never wrong when speaking from the chair on matters of Faith and Morals.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 13 2005, 08:51 AM'] No Cmom the pope is never wrong when speaking from the chair on matters of Faith and Morals. [/quote]
The thing that always galls me is when folks say "Well he's not infallible on this" as to infer that his opinion is meaningless. As if it were to be disregarded.

JPII knew more about war than most folks around here. He lived through the devastation of war. There are very few armchair generals around this place who have any experience coming within a country mile of JPII's.

"Oh but he's not infallible on this"


Sheesh

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 13 2005, 09:04 AM'] The thing that always galls me is when folks say "Well he's not infallible on this" as to infer that his opinion is meaningless. As if it were to be disregarded.

JPII knew more about war than most folks around here. He lived through the devastation of war. There are very few armchair generals around this place who have any experience coming within a country mile of JPII's.

"Oh but he's not infallible on this"


Sheesh [/quote]
I just am making sure that we are factually correct, I certianly think the Popes opinion is important not just on War but on anything he speaks about, but that does not make everything he says correct, not even on matters of faith and morals, not unless he is speaking in his role as Pope.

[Jaime]

Don I apologize. When I reread my response it looks as if its directed specifically to you. It wasn't. There are, however, others on this thread that fall into the category.

I didn't mean for it to look like I was singling you out.

[Don John of Austria]

Accepted.


I understand, simular things have happened with post I have made.

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 13 2005, 02:25 AM'] Here is the problem with your constant call to obeying the pope on certain matters: It has been a historically dangerous thing to do.

For instance, Pope Liberius (sp?) was an Arian sympathizer, but it took the courages defiance of St. Athonasius to see the Church through that time period. The point, the pope can be wrong.

As a matter of fact, JPII's opposition to war completely (pacifism) is a non-Catholic notion mixed with humanitarianism. If that should be his opinion about war, can we rely on him for a just war opinion that is fair to the case? [/quote]
It has not been a "historically dangerous thing" to obey the pope. Are you saying that more than 50% of all popes throughout history have been seriously wrong? Do you realize what that sounds like?

I better never listen to an ordinary priest, if I dare not listen to the pope! I better go figure out these complex moral issues by myself...

I do understand a pope can be wrong. The USCCB also denounced the war. I suppose the collective bishops of the country could be wrong too. Yes, the whole flipping magisterium can be wrong, so long as they're not getting the big infallible-faith-and-morals stamp out, right? Fine.

Even so, it seems to me that Church leaders of today haven't been too bad at teaching moral issues in the modern world. Unless it's obvious that he IS wrong, it might not be a bad idea to go along with the pope. Does that make sense? How can this be such a weird thought? I'm not saying anyone is wrong if they cannot honestly bring their conscience to do this.

Primarily what I wonder is why people think the president and the Republicans are better guides than the pope and the bishops.

Keep in mind that, in this instance, the pope wasn't wrong. The war has been disastrous.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 10 2005, 08:57 AM']
You mean like Ghandi or Martin Luther King? [/quote]
"If you need to choose between violence and cowardice, choose violence."
Ghandi

[Jaime]

[quote name='Didacus' date='May 13 2005, 10:06 AM'] "If you need to choose between violence and cowardice, choose violence."
Ghandi [/quote]
What's your point?

Did Ghandi promote non violent resistance? Yes or no?

[Didacus]

OK, read most of the thread, and I feel many of you have gone aside of the subject...

I could cite several facts, and make this a lenghty thread... but I will advance this comparison instead to show clearly how the Iraq war is at the core of its intent - unlawful and perversed and evil.



remember the 90s? Not talking about WWII here,... just the 90s... not that far back...

RWANDA: 3 million people slaughtered in an unshameful attempt at genocide. CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE JUST WAR!

military interventions: none
NO OIL, NO WAR




Now lets look at Iraq,

Questionable premises, dispersed opinions amongst nations, misinformations, weak link to war... VERY DOUGTFUL JUST WAR.

military intervential: you betcha!
THERE'S OIL, THERE'S A WAR!


I realize some have claimed that stealing the Iraqi oil was not the purpose of the war. Perhaps, I can believe this. Becasue the intent was not to steal, but to 1. ommit, and 2. to control.

Notice the price of oil lately? Steadily rising in the last few years hasn't it? Remove the 2.5 million barrels per day of oil from Iraq will do that the world economy. Profits from major oil exporters accross the world have been breaking record after record after record for the last 3-4 years. It is impossible to quantify the profits but realize, please, that the order of magnitude of the world oil market is sized at over 2 trillions $ per year! And do these people care about the cost of the war in Iraq... NO WAY! Never... because the citizens of the US are the ones picking up that tab. Unfortunately, the US citizen will be paying the price of this war for generations.




[color=red]WAR IS A RACKET[/color]

To believe otherwise is pure naivity. I implore everyone on this thread to follow and read the folowing link:

[url="http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm"]http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm[/url]

To those who have never read this piece of work and read it for the first time, you will be dismayed beyond belief - I GUARANTEE IT.
The piece actually won a pulitzer prize, and it will either ENTIRELY change your outlook on war, or definately strenghten it.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 13 2005, 10:15 AM'] What's your point? 

Did Ghandi promote non violent resistance?  Yes or no? [/quote]
Very simple,

Throughout his peaceful talks and intents, Ghandi remained realistic adn kenw the value, and sometimes the necessity, of violence.

He promoted using peaceful ways first, but be ready to use violence if required.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Didacus

[Timothy]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 12 2005, 02:05 PM']
What if, through some absurdity, the Iraq war was infalliby declared unjust by Pope Benedict XVI? Would you submit to the Church's teaching? Who has your loyalty, the Church, or the State? The Bishop of Rome or the Republican Party? If you say that of course, you would submit to any Church teaching, then why do you not assent when they Church teaches in the form suitable for the issue?

[/quote]
Philo, I think you make a great point here. This was pretty much what I was speaking about when I asked, [quote]Does it seem as if some people are putting State in front of Church?[/quote] and was answered no. When dealing with a grave matter as were are dealing with here, it makes choosing sides tough. Especially when it involves our patriotic ties to the State. It is my beliefs that if we as Catholic's believe The Holy Spirit works through Christ's Church, then when faced with tough decisions should look to the elders of the Church for their advice. In looking to the elders Bishop Cardinals, Pope does not the Holy Spirit work through them? I would like to believe so. It is great that we all continue to strive to find Christ’s will through our continued research of the matter, and yet must continually keep our mind open to accepting that Christ will may not have been our first stance. Thus, not to let pride get in the way of searching for the Truth. We are called to protect the helpless through violent means if absolutely necessary (which I recently discovered as my thoughts on the matter before participating in this thread were different..thank you to all whom have helped clarify). In protecting these people we continue to kill them with our own bombs. I truly believe there was a better solution that could have resolved this matter.

God Bless.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 13 2005, 04:25 AM'] The point, the pope can be wrong. [/quote]
I agree with you on that.

[quote]As a matter of fact, JPII's opposition to war completely (pacifism) is a non-Catholic notion mixed with humanitarianism. If that should be his opinion about war, can we rely on him for a just war opinion that is fair to the case?[/quote]

Are you saying that Pope John Paul II held heretical views regarding war? I'm not accussing you of saying that, Mikey; I'm just wondering if that's what you're saying. I certainly hope it's not.

Pope John Paul II, like any other good Catholic, based his judgment on Catholic teaching regarding war. Catholics are allowed to use their discretion in judging the moral legitimacy of particular wars. Pope John Paul II happened to be against our war. The thing is, his opinion meant a lot to many people. Like I said above, he was both learned and holy. He lived through WWII; he studied Catholic theology extensively. While it's possible for him to have been wrong on certain things, I'd tend to trust his opinion before I'd trust the opinions of others.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 13 2005, 10:30 AM'] I just want to point something out here the UN has no Authority, the US cannot give the UN authority because lie the UN the US has no Authority, the US has Power nothing more, Authority comes from God and the US has from the begining rejected God and rejected the Authority he grants. AS such no one is oblieged to obey the UN on any matters at all. [/quote]
Well, if the United States has no authority, then the United States should not have started the war. Do you think the war is immoral, then, because it is waged by an illegitimate nation? And why do you think the U.N. lacks authority? I'm not sure that I understand your stance.