Just War

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 09:06 AM'] Current conservative estimates say there have been about 23,000 civilian casualties due to the US military intervention.

I asked elsewhere but no one answered.  How many innocent bystanders is it okay to kill? [/quote]
All of them that are truely killed accidentally. A million, 10 million, if the intent is not to harm them and only the amout of force needed to destroy the enemy combatants is used then accidental civilian deaths are irrelevant. Frankly I find the entire idea that the number of casualties in a war has an meaning at all some what offenseive, any intentional attack on civilians is wrong, if 1 dies that attack was just as wrong as if 1000 die, keeping count smacks of secular humanist BS to me. This is notthe same as the proportianality issue in determining a just war, because this has to do with the conduct of war, civilians die in war, the introduction of Total War has put civilians even more at risk. Still if the cause is Just, the target is military; civilians are not targets and reasonable force and no more is used then their is no number of civilians that can be magically determined as Okay or not Okay. The only answer would be -- as few as possible, as many as happen.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[philothea]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 09:29 AM'] All of them that are truely killed accidentally. A million, 10 million, if the intent is not to harm them and only the amout of force needed to destroy the enemy combatants is used then accidental civilian deaths are irrelevant. [/quote]
Thank you for your answer. (As always!)

Is the killing of a civilian truly accidental, when the weapons used are designed such that they cannot be used [i]without[/i] killing civilians?

I would assume accidental means that an honest effort was made to avoid the unwanted result.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 09:47 AM'] Thank you for your answer. (As always!)

Is the killing of a civilian truly accidental, when the weapons used are designed such that they cannot be used [i]without[/i] killing civilians?

I would assume accidental means that an honest effort was made to avoid the unwanted result. [/quote]
in general yes thats what it means but it also has a specific meaning taken from the principle of double effect.

[jasJis]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 07:43 AM'] 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. [/quote]
I was referring to your comment regarding modern weaponry. My parents and in-laws were in Europe during WWII and experienced first hand the 'doodle-bug' bombs hitting London and the large scale destruction of cities and civillian populations.

Modern conventional weapons are less destructive to civillians, though modern weapons such as nukes and chemical agents are more destructive. The challenge now is countries refraining from using nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc.

At what threshold do you, philothea, accept civillian casualties by despotic or aggressive governments before other nations should step in with war?

[philothea]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 11 2005, 12:54 PM'] At what threshold do you, philothea, accept civillian casualties by despotic or aggressive governments before other nations should step in with war? [/quote]
I do not have the calling or the wisdom to decide such things. In my small, individual capacity, I try only to understand and to assent to what the Church tells me.

[PennyLane]

Okay so what about the soldiers that tortured the prisoners??

I appreciate everyone's opinion on year, thank you!!

God bless you all.

Bottom line though: Whether or not we support the war, we should support it for the sake of the people fighting over there. Just look at what happened after Vietnam, we need the soldiers over there to be confident that the US wants them over there, even if it is for wrong reasons.

The reason I have a problem with the Rosary's being on the guns is simple, they're Rosaries. Not all the weapons are being used in self-defense. The Rosary represents our Mary. I *personally* don't think it's right.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='PennyLane' date='May 11 2005, 01:03 PM'] Okay so what about the soldiers that tortured the prisoners??

I appreciate everyone's opinion on year, thank you!!

God bless you all.

Bottom line though: Whether or not we support the war, we should support it for the sake of the people fighting over there. Just look at what happened after Vietnam, we need the soldiers over there to be confident that the US wants them over there, even if it is for wrong reasons.

The reason I have a problem with the Rosary's being on the guns is simple, they're Rosaries. Not all the weapons are being used in self-defense. The Rosary represents our Mary. I *personally* don't think it's right. [/quote]
Torture particularly that which degrads the human being is always wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 11 2005, 01:00 PM'] I do not have the calling or the wisdom to decide such things. In my small, individual capacity, I try only to understand and to assent to what the Church tells me. [/quote]
your humility is truely inspireing I mean that.

[jasJis]

[quote name='PennyLane' date='May 11 2005, 01:03 PM'] Okay so what about the soldiers that tortured the prisoners?? [/quote]
These soldiers were wrong, did not follow military directions, and are now being tried in court. It is an obvious sign of imperfect humanity. But compare it honestly with the Sadaam government. Mass graves, torture and rape as a government sanctioned activity. No trials. Rule by brutal tyranny.

[philothea]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 02:39 PM'] your humility is truely inspireing I mean that. [/quote]


Personally, I have found your zeal, honesty, and knowledge inspiring.

[PennyLane]

see how much good came out of this?? haha

<333 everyone!!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='PennyLane' date='May 10 2005, 12:14 AM'] 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. [/quote]
The war is totally just according to the Catholic Church Catechism.

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=33189&view=findpost&p=589444"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=589444[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 12 2005, 05:11 PM'] The war is totally just according to the Catholic Church Catechism. [/quote]
Failed on point 2 and 5.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='May 13 2005, 03:50 PM'] Failed on point 2 and 5. [/quote]
would you like to explain how?

As I have said before I think this war was illicit based on the conditions imposed on the international community by the Treaty of Westphilia in 1648, this treaty was agreed to and enforced by the Church and forms a large part of international Law for even the secular world. However I do believe it meets all the traditional criteria for a Just war, I would request a detailed explinaitoin of why you think so.

[guardsman]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='May 13 2005, 03:50 PM'] Failed on point 2 and 5. [/quote]
Not.

[philothea]

Guardsman! Yay! I was afraid us meanies had driven you off.

Not that I'm agreeing with you, mind.

[guardsman]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 13 2005, 06:05 PM'] Guardsman! Yay! I was afraid us meanies had driven you off.

Not that I'm agreeing with you, mind. [/quote]
Mean Catholics? No way!

[PennyLane]

I plan on reading my Catechism soon and posting a response...

*bump*

God bless.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 13 2005, 11:25 PM'] would you like to explain how? [/quote]
I'll give it a shot.

2. Must be fought for a just cause (for self-defense or to secure basic human rights.)

The two main reasons used for attacking Iraq were WMD's and Regime change, both of which are not sufficient reasons for attacking a country. On the WMD side, it gives an opening to any country to attack any other that has a certain type of weapon, in itself not a particularly good way of keeping the peace. As a sidenote, both the US and the UK hold WMD's in the form od nuclear warheads on Trident II D5 missiles, a system inherently quicker-to-deploy than Iraq alleged bio-chemical arsenal.

Regime change is not a valid reason for attacking a country either. In essence, you can't attack a country based on the external hatred of it's leader, you have to guage the morality of an attack on the basis of it's preparedness of said country to attack others. On this basis it's hard to show that Iraq was particularly aggressive to external countries after 1991. It's even harder to show that Iraq was a threat to the US or the UK. Don't get me wrong, Iraq is better off without Saddam, but we aren't in the position to dictate the internal governance of sovereign nations.

5. Must be last resort (all peaceful means of settlement exhausted.)

Iraq was neither in a political or economic position to attack NATO nor did it have the sufficient means and arms to attack us or it's neighbours.

Edited May 16, 2005 by RandomProddy

[jasJis]

I disagree with your assessment, Proddy.

Self Defense is the reason and why a regieme change was justifiable. Iraq would not let the world prove it did not have WMD which they agreed to in the Treaty when they lost their unilateral attack against Kuwait. Iraq had also attacked Iran unilaterally, and repeatedly stated a policy that supported unilateral attack against Isreal.

Iraq also had a tremendous conventional army. They significantly re-built after the Kuwait war. Nobody knew for sure if they had WMD, which includes Nerve gas (which, by the way, Iraq did use against the Kurds). Iraq had a policy of challenging the no-fly-zone as well.

There was not evidence that Iraq was willing to comply with the Treaty and UN Sanctions as a peaceful nation. Iraq's populace had suffered for years under the economic sanctions. One of the reasons the scandals of the Oil for Food program is important, is that is how Sadaam managed to get the $$ to build his palaces and his army and did not spend it for food like he was supposed to. The people who were supposed to closely watch him didn't, because they were getting kickbacks as well.

Considering Iraq defied the sanctions for 10 years, how much longer until one gives up? Sadaam wasn't suffering, the populace was.