Just War

[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.