Just War

[PennyLane]

I have this book called "Catholic Teachings on Life Issues" and as I was going through it, I read the section on war.

I wasn't opposed to the war at first but after reading this I started to 2nd guess myself. The only reason I support it is for the men and women that are already over there, Iknow how hard it must be for them and they are ALWAYS in my prayers...

Anyways, this is what it said.

"Augustine offered four conditions essential to a just war. Later, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas added three more conditions, resulting in the following criteria:
1. Must be declared by a legitimate authority.
2. Must be fought for a just cause (for self-defense or to secure basic human rights.)
3. Must be fought for the right intention (to restore peace)
4. Must be fought in a just manner (innocent civilians mya not be attacked.)
5. Must be last resort (all peaceful means of settlement exhausted.)
6. Must have probability of success (to prevent irrational resort to force)
7. Must follow the principle of proportionality (good to be achieved must outweigh evils such as loss of life, damage, and cost)

Only when these conditions were met could Christians participate in war. "

I want to know what you all think!! Thanks!!

God bless.

[philothea]

My analysis is in this [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=33189"]older topic[/url].

Looks fairly obvious to me...

[MichaelFilo]

It fails to meet several criteria:
Two - Preemptive strikes would require some sort of expected strike. There was none. Going in for WMDs is just, however, since they were not found, this is questionable.

Three- The intention of this war was to find and remove WMDs. The right intention is questionable, as new plans for Iraq have been shaped. The original intent, possibly, but if the reason for going in is changed, we should question it at least a little.

Fourth- Due to the nature of modern weapons and the proximity of urban buildings, this is almost impossible. In fact, it was in this case.

Fifth- If truely unjust, this would be the reason. There were other ways to resolve this conflict. Being the dominate power, we had most of the political control in our favor. We could have done alot more.

Seventh- While at first expected to bring more good then bad, it has wrought alot more bad than good.

God bless,
Mikey

[PennyLane]

So what am I suppose to do, support it or not?

It's getting to the point as well where I'm objecting the war b/c of my pro-life stance... ahh!!

Thanks for the comments!!


God bless

[philothea]

Unless you actually have some decision making power or influence in very high places, your possible lack of support doesn't really matter. Though maybe the Chinese guy who manufactures the yellow-ribbon magnets needs some more money.

I think the war was unjust, but I still pray for everyone involved, and I don't have anything generally against the Americans who participate.

OTOH, I do wish they wouldn't put the rosaries that people send them on their guns of their tanks. :angry:

[PennyLane]

[quote]OTOH, I do wish they wouldn't put the rosaries that people send them on their guns of their tanks. mad.gif[/quote]

How did you find that out, that's horrible!!

[philothea]

I saw several pictures. I'll go look around and see if I can find a link.

[philothea]

Here's one:

[img]http://photos1.blogger.com/img/144/1547/320/rosarymg.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

sweet! if I were a soldier I'd definitely hang my rosary from my gun.

regardless of whether the initial decision to go to war was just, it is currently just for us to stay and keep the stability and fight the terrorists. it would be unjust to pull out, therefore what the soldiers are currently doing is not only just it is right.

even if the initial decision to go to war was unjust, in the current situation the iraqui insurgency is the evil that is murdering civilians. we ought to hunt those terrorists down.

the only part of this that might be unjust is top level, the decision to go to war. Saddam Hussein was a dictatorial evil, and thus when soldiers fought to topple him at the command of their commander and cheif they were fighting a just cause. And especially now it is just for the US soldiers to be fighting to secure the country and make it safe.

God bless those soldiers with their rosaries on their guns fighting the good fight against terrorism regardless of whether they should have been sent to Iraq 2 years ago or not.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 9 2005, 11:31 PM'] Fourth- Due to the nature of modern weapons and the proximity of urban buildings, this is almost impossible. In fact, it was in this case.

[/quote]
Is that an argument against? If so, no war would be just nowadays.

[Aloysius]

number four clearly means purposefully targeting civilians.

[ardillacid]

That's what I thought. Just trying to get Michael to clarify

[philothea]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 10 2005, 11:14 PM'] Is that an argument against? If so, no war would be just nowadays. [/quote]
That is something that the current catechism and JP2 have implied. Modern weaponry has made it very hard to justify war.

[jasJis]

You people watch way too many video games and need to talk to your parents or grandparents about the realities of war.

Normal modern weaponry is MUCH less harmful to civillians because they are targetted better and more specific in destruction. Weapons such as atomic bombs, nerve gas, rockets just directed generally at cities without any attmept to localize military targets are what is morally wrong.

Though certain points are subject to 'subjective' analysis, there are reasonable answers to all the criteria for a Just War.

1. Must be declared by a legitimate authority.
-The US is a legitimate authority based on the fact that it is a legitimate Sovreigh Country with world wide intrests and influence. It fought the 1st Gulf War legitimately, etc. Since it is a SuperPower, the US also has the responsibility to use it's might for peace. The UN is NOT the only legitimate authority and some would argue that it isn't a legitimate authority at all.
2. Must be fought for a just cause (for self-defense or to secure basic human rights.)
-Self Defense? Iraq has started a number of pre-emptive wars with it's neighbors sole to gain territory and impose it's will over the citizens of other nations. (Iran, Kuwait). Iraq has repeatedly voiced opinion that the Arab world should destroy Isreal. Iraq has used nerve gas on it's own people and likely used it in Kuwait. Iraq tried for many years to develop rockets and other WMD that would be targeted against civilians in Iran, and Isreal. Iraq repeatedly REFUSED and HINDERED the UN's weapons inspectors who were only trying to implement the agreements of the Treaty that Iraq signed after the Gulf war. We did not know for sure, but strongly suspected WMD in Iraq and could not find out.
-Secure Basic Rights? Sadaam was a brutal dictator. Sadaam refused to comply with UN Sanctions and the Iraqi people continued to suffer since the Oil for Food program was mismanaged by the Iraqi governemnt and the UN.
3. Must be fought for the right intention (to restore peace)
-This is questionable. There was reason to believe that Sadaam intended to go back to war and some considered the imposition of the Weapons Sanctions a continuation of the Gulf War and Sadaams gas attacks against the Kurds (who helped) was a continuation of his attacks.
4. Must be fought in a just manner (innocent civilians mya not be attacked.)
-We did not intend to attack civillians. We used many 'Smart Bombs' to direct our attacks. We did not indiscriminately attack areas of civil populations. Sadaam using mosques and schools as military bases puts the responsibility on Sadaam.
5. Must be last resort (all peaceful means of settlement exhausted.)
- The Sanctions had been going on for years. Ultimatims were given. Sadaam was warned. There are legitimate arguemtns that continued sanctions would only hurt the civillians, and have no effect to get the Iraqi Government to comply.
6. Must have probability of success (to prevent irrational resort to force)
- This is an easy one. The US succeeded quite quickly in removing Sadaam with minimal loss of life.
7. Must follow the principle of proportionality (good to be achieved must outweigh evils such as loss of life, damage, and cost)
- The war has been proportional. More Iraqi people suffered from Sadaam's obstinate refusal to comply with UN sanctions, suffered from Sadaam's brutal tyranny, and more people were endangered by Sadaam's and Iraq's desire to destroy Isreal, cause instablity in the Arab world, etc. Many of you are kids and don't remember the lessons learned prior to the Gulf War, the Iran/Iraq wars, the attacks against Isreal, the assasination of Anwar Sadat of Egypt, etc.

Look at Iraq now. Who is it fighting the US? Who are these fighters targeting? These are the people and the mentality that the US and our allies took out of power in Iraq. Is their war against the US in Iraq legitimate?

[philothea]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 11 2005, 07:31 AM'] You people watch way too many video games and need to talk to your parents or grandparents about the realities of war.
[/quote]
Actually, I was getting my information from John Paul II. I was under the impression he was kinda qualified to teach Catholic morality.

Silly me.