Dem Leader Declares: 'war Is Lost'...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1250275' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:48 PM']Are you going to reinstate the Alien and Sedition Acts? By your definition, the US was founded in sin, since we defied the God-ordained authority of King George III.[/quote]


Unless God saw fit to give America independence.

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1250275' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:48 PM']There is no sin on my part in my "inability" to get behind our leaders -- I disagree with them on both the premise / justification for this war, and in their execution of it. That is my right as an American citizen. Again, I take issue with lumping church and civil authorities together. Indeed, my views on the war are informed by my religious convictions.[/quote]


The Church has not declared the war to be unjust. The Church teaches that this decision belongs to a nations leaders and in our case of an Republic partly the people as well since we vote. The Leader of our nation says it is was a good and just thing to do. You disagree very well. But to say the war is unjust says much more than one may think. If it is "unjust" truly unjust that would make the President of the Untied States some kind of war criminal and the troops as well and anyone that helped in this "unjust war" guilty of some types of war crimes. The only right thing to do if true is to bring them to trial, see they are convicted, and punished.

An charge of unjust is an serious charge. Unjust is evil. What Hitler and the Nazi's did to the jews was unjust, what Stalin and the communist did to the jews and Christians was unjust, are the actions of Bush and republicans, and democrats to the Iraq people also unjust?

Edited April 21, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1251200' date='Apr 20 2007, 10:13 PM']Unless God saw fit to give America independence.
The Church has not declared the war to be unjust. The Church teaches that this decision belongs to a nations leaders and in our case of an Republic partly the people as well since we vote. The Leader of our nation says it is was a good and just thing to do. You disagree very well. But to say the war is unjust says much more than one may think. If it is "unjust" truly unjust that would make the President of the Untied States some kind of war criminal and the troops as well and anyone that helped in this "unjust war" guilty of some types of war crimes. The only right thing to do if true is to bring them to trial, see they are convicted, and punished.

An charge of unjust is an serious charge. Unjust is evil. What Hitler and the Nazi's did to the jews was unjust, what Stalin and the communist did to the jews and Christians was unjust, are the actions of Bush and republicans, and democrats to the Iraq people also unjust?[/quote]


However

[quote]Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.

According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution]that should make the final decision."

"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.

He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."
[b]
The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.[/b]

"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."[/quote]


The Church has most certainly not declared this war to be just. And the Holy Father in his previous role, certainly gave reasons why it may not be just

[KnightofChrist]

yes the Church has not declared the war to be just or unjust. Again the Church teaches such decisions are left to the leaders of the nations, our says it is Just and give reasons why. And yes the Pope has pointed out what he sees are mistakes, errors, or sins in this war. But particular actions in war do not necessarily make that war unjust. Also the fruits of the outcome of the war must be seen, since that now is impossible and will possibly take years it can not be said to be unjust, or just, for now. But one may argue either way. But if one is to argue it is out right unjust, and not just point out mistakes, errors, or sins in this war then the President, his generals, secretaries and perhaps also the troops themselves are guilty of some type of war crimes. And should be put on trial, judged, if found guilty, punished.

Edited April 21, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1251229' date='Apr 21 2007, 01:07 AM']yes the Church has not declared the war to be just or unjust. Again the Church teaches such decisions are left to the leaders of the nations...[/quote]

Why is that basic point so often overlooked?

[quote]
Legitimate defense can be not only a right [u]but a grave duty for someone responsible for[/u] another's life, the common good of the family or of [u]the state.[/u]
[b]- Catholic Catechism 2265[/b][/quote]

The only civil right the State should be called on is the "me not getting blown up" civil right.
Bravo for the war - we are fighting a modern Nazi ideology more dangerous than our WW2 enemies because it is fueled by a demented pseudo-religious ideology.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1253857' date='Apr 22 2007, 10:35 PM']Why is that basic point so often overlooked?
The only civil right the State should be called on is the "me not getting blown up" civil right.
Bravo for the war - we are fighting a modern Nazi ideology more dangerous than our WW2 enemies because it is fueled by a demented pseudo-religious ideology.[/quote]

Its a shame that you don't even know what that ideology is... and rather instill your own ideology that says every muslim is the threat.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1251200' date='Apr 20 2007, 11:13 PM']Unless God saw fit to give America independence.
The Church has not declared the war to be unjust. The Church teaches that this decision belongs to a nations leaders and in our case of an Republic partly the people as well since we vote. The Leader of our nation says it is was a good and just thing to do. You disagree very well. But to say the war is unjust says much more than one may think. If it is "unjust" truly unjust that would make the President of the Untied States some kind of war criminal and the troops as well and anyone that helped in this "unjust war" guilty of some types of war crimes. The only right thing to do if true is to bring them to trial, see they are convicted, and punished.

An charge of unjust is an serious charge. Unjust is evil. What Hitler and the Nazi's did to the jews was unjust, what Stalin and the communist did to the jews and Christians was unjust, are the actions of Bush and republicans, and democrats to the Iraq people also unjust?[/quote]

So, playing Devil's Advocate, on the one hand, according to Thessalonian, the "divine right" of kings, derived from Romans 13, precluded rebellion by the American colonies [i]but in this one case[/i] it was OK because God was going against His own scriptures because America was different.

In respect of the Church's view of the war in Iraq, let me just point out that in his Easter address the Pope said simply, "nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."

Again, I'm open to guidance in terms of the Church's teachings in this particular case. However, as an American and a Catholic, I have problems with this war, both in its premise / justification, and in its execution.

[Jaime]

[quote]But particular actions in war do not necessarily make that war unjust.[/quote]

That is simply not true. For a war to be considered just, all the criteria must be met, not just some. If something doesn't meet the criteria of just war (such as a first strike policy) then the war does not meet the criteria.

We could go into the unjust treatment of prisoners as well.

[Paladin D]

Regardless if this war is just or not, this is a huge slap in the face to the brave men and women in uniform. No matter how you paint the picture, it crushes the morale of our troops. If you imply that this war is a lost cause, how in h*** do you think that's gonna affect our troops? The fact is Senator Reid has basically told every US military personal that has served in Iraq and those who made the ultimate sacrifice, that their efforts were for absolutely nothing.

It makes me friggin sick. I don't care what political party you're affiliated with, but this is completely uncalled for. I can tell ya this, many servicemen that I've talked to are [mod]Edited for language. --Era Might[/mod] by what this idiot just did.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1254006' date='Apr 23 2007, 08:17 AM']So, playing Devil's Advocate, on the one hand, according to Thessalonian, the "divine right" of kings, derived from Romans 13, precluded rebellion by the American colonies [i]but in this one case[/i] it was OK because God was going against His own scriptures because America was different.[/quote]

13 little colonies went up against the greatest empire of the time, and won. Read the book of Daniel, God sets up kings and puts down kings.

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1254006' date='Apr 23 2007, 08:17 AM']In respect of the Church's view of the war in Iraq, let me just point out that in his Easter address the Pope said simply, "nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."[/quote]

Do you take this to be an absloute? Does "nothing positive" come from Iraq? What would pulling out cause?

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1254006' date='Apr 23 2007, 08:17 AM']Again, I'm open to guidance in terms of the Church's teachings in this particular case. However, as an American and a Catholic, I have problems with this war, both in its premise / justification, and in its execution.[/quote]


And I as American and Catholic argue that the war is just. You argue it is not, what then should the President and his men be charged with? Mass Murder? Or something of like? What should their punishment be?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1254017' date='Apr 23 2007, 08:34 AM']That is simply not true. For a war to be considered just, all the criteria must be met, not just some. If something doesn't meet the criteria of just war (such as a first strike policy) then the war does not meet the criteria.

We could go into the unjust treatment of prisoners as well.[/quote]


This has be debated [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=62687&st=0"]before[/url]. Iraq is not a preemptive war, even so that would not make it unjust. Again occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. There is not one war in history that meets your strict understanding of the just war doctrine.

Example, Men wiser than ourselves [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/tcc1299-1338"]Fathers Carthy & Rumble[/url], M.S.C. say in a repose to a listener who states

"Pope Pius XII, broadcasting on air-raids, condemned aerial warfare "that knows no law or limits" That proves I am right in saying that the war was unjust."

"Occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. In condemning unrestricted aerial warfare, the Pope was but stressing the principle that even a good end does not justify the use of morally unlawful means; and that it is evil to indulge in an aerial warfare which is not limited to military objectives and which results in wanton destruction of civilian lives and property. Nor did his utterance imply that those on both sides might not be sincerely convinced of the justice of the cause in which they were fighting."


Such aerial warfare is against the just war doctrine, and the Fathers would have know this in their response. Clearly your strict understanding of the just war doctrine is not held by these two very wise men. And their response can be also applied to any comment or statement the Pope has made about the war in Iraq.

Edited April 24, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1254776' date='Apr 23 2007, 11:27 PM']The fact is Senator Reid has basically told every US military personal that has served in Iraq and those who made the ultimate sacrifice, that their efforts were for absolutely nothing.[/quote]

With respect, the trust and service of US service personnel have been cynically abused by the administration in pursuit of a war that is both questionable in its motives and its objectives, the fruit of which is evident for all to see. The issue is that this war is a debacle. Senator Reid [i]calling[/i] it a debacle is the least of our problems.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']13 little colonies went up against the greatest empire of the time, and won. Read the book of Daniel, God sets up kings and puts down kings.[/quote]

Hey, Thess brought up divine right. I'm simply asking, why is it "sin and rebellion" for me to question our elected leaders but not "sin and rebellion" for the American colonists to have taken up arms against King George III?

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']Do you take this to be an absloute? Does "nothing positive" come from Iraq? What would pulling out cause?[/quote]

Good question. The reality is, we really have two choices: ramp up our troop presence big time in order to quell the insurgency, provide the stability the political process requires to take root, or pull out. The steady drip, drip, drip of violence and death the is the result of an inadequate troop presence simply begs the question, since we won't be successful at these troop levels, why don't we simply get out now?

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']And I as American and Catholic argue that the war is just. You argue it is not, what then should the President and his men be charged with? Mass Murder? Or something of like? What should their punishment be?[/quote]

The short answer is, yes, I believe that the administration has acted unconstitutionally in pursuit of this war, and has committed crimes with respect to prisoner abuse and torture, and should be held accountable.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1254933' date='Apr 24 2007, 10:29 AM']With respect, the trust and service of US service personnel have been cynically abused by the administration in pursuit of a war that is both questionable in its motives and its objectives, the fruit of which is evident for all to see. The issue is that this war is a debacle. Senator Reid [i]calling[/i] it a debacle is the least of our problems.[/quote]


It is different for a civilian than it is a soldier's, the mindsets are different. I'm not a soldier (yet), but I know many who are, and they are disgusted by this. Not to mention, the Democrats are the ones who want to cut funding to our troops. Because of this, the Army now has to cut back on services which is not wise during a time of war. Whatever happened to the saying "I'm against the war, but support the troops"? It seems they are now also after the troops. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh right-winger, but this issue is real sensitive to me.


[b]Eramight[/b], I apologize about my previous post, I honestly didn't know that was a curse word.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1254974' date='Apr 24 2007, 09:36 AM']It is different for a civilian than it is a soldier's, the mindsets are different. I'm not a soldier (yet), but I know many who are, and they are disgusted by this. Not to mention, the Democrats are the ones who want to cut funding to our troops. Because of this, the Army now has to cut back on services which is not wise during a time of war. Whatever happened to the saying "I'm against the war, but support the troops"? It seems they are now also after the troops. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh right-winger, but this issue is real sensitive to me.
[b]Eramight[/b], I apologize about my previous post, I honestly didn't know that was a curse word. [/quote]

Look, clearly there is a very fine line that needs to be trod between having an open, honest debate about the objectives and conduct of the war, and not wanting to undermine the morale of the troops.

The reality is that this war is going badly even in terms of the limited goal of the surge, i.e. to minimize violence in Baghdad in order to allow the political process and political institutions to take root. Pretending that the war [i]is not[/i] going badly isn't helping our troops, either.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a registered independent voter. Having said that, the Democrats [i]have not[/i] cut off funding for the troops. What they've done is prepare a funding bill that includes a timeline - and in the compromise bill, it's not even a requirement but a target date - to begin withdrawing troops. President Bush finds that unacceptable and states that he'll veto the bill. That's the legislative process. But it shouldn't be mischaracterized as cutting off funding for the troops.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1255054' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:52 PM']Look, clearly there is a very fine line that needs to be trod between having an open, honest debate about the objectives and conduct of the war, and not wanting to undermine the morale of the troops.

The reality is that this war is going badly even in terms of the limited goal of the surge, i.e. to minimize violence in Baghdad in order to allow the political process and political institutions to take root. Pretending that the war [i]is not[/i] going badly isn't helping our troops, either.[/quote]

Yes, but to take advantage of your political position to make such a statement on national television is wrong. Not only does it undermine the efforts of our troops, it also gives our enemy even more motivation to increase their attacks.


[quote]For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a registered independent voter. Having said that, the Democrats [i]have not[/i] cut off funding for the troops. What they've done is prepare a funding bill that includes a timeline - and in the compromise bill, it's not even a requirement but a target date - to begin withdrawing troops. President Bush finds that unacceptable and states that he'll veto the bill. That's the legislative process. But it shouldn't be mischaracterized as cutting off funding for the troops.[/quote]


- [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132611,00.html"]Pace: Funding May Affect Readiness[/url]

- [url="http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,132901,00.html"]Budget Delays Force Army Spending Cuts[/url]

- [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133428,00.html"]Air Force May Cut Pay For Surge[/url]


Some quotes from the last article:

[quote][b]Air Force May Cut Pay For Surge[/b]

[i]The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay.

Due to a congressional delay in approving a wartime supplemental funding bill this year, the Pentagon pulled about $880 million from the Air Force’s personnel accounts to make up for a shortfall it warned lawmakers would come in mid-April.

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

The shortfall could delay permanent change of station moves, temporary duty expenses and other pays that “take care of people,” he said.

On April 15, the Army announced it would have to cut training, depot repair, and maintenance of non war-related gear because funding for the surge in Iraq, combat operations in Afghanistan and other Global War on Terrorism costs was running dry.

The Army also requested that about $1.6 billion be diverted from the Air Force and Navy personnel accounts to help put the wartime funding tab in the black.[/i][/quote]

Edited April 25, 2007 by Paladin D

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1255644' date='Apr 24 2007, 08:38 PM']Yes, but to take advantage of your political position to make such a statement on national television is wrong. Not only does it undermine the efforts of our troops, it also gives our enemy even more motivation to increase their attacks.[/quote]

We'll have to agree to differ. What you characterize as taking "advantage of [one's] political position," I characterize as having a debate. Why isn't it "taking advantage" of his political position for the president to state that he'll veto any bill that includes a timeline? If he vetoes the bill, why isn't [i]he[/i] being characterized as "cutting off funding" for the troops?

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254831' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:17 AM']This has be debated [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=62687&st=0"]before[/url]. Iraq is not a preemptive war, even so that would not make it unjust. Again occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. There is not one war in history that meets your strict understanding of the just war doctrine.

Example, Men wiser than ourselves [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/tcc1299-1338"]Fathers Carthy & Rumble[/url], M.S.C. say in a repose to a listener who states

"Pope Pius XII, broadcasting on air-raids, condemned aerial warfare "that knows no law or limits" That proves I am right in saying that the war was unjust."

"Occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. In condemning unrestricted aerial warfare, the Pope was but stressing the principle that even a good end does not justify the use of morally unlawful means; and that it is evil to indulge in an aerial warfare which is not limited to military objectives and which results in wanton destruction of civilian lives and property. Nor did his utterance imply that those on both sides might not be sincerely convinced of the justice of the cause in which they were fighting."
Such aerial warfare is against the just war doctrine, and the Fathers would have know this in their response. Clearly your strict understanding of the just war doctrine is not held by these two very wise men. And their response can be also applied to any comment or statement the Pope has made about the war in Iraq.[/quote]
Knight I agree with you on two things

One we've certainly hashed this out before.

and B There certainly wiser men than us that are discussing it.


But when the Prefect of the CDF (and now pope) comes out with such a clear statement about the nature of an action, its hard to dismiss regardless of whether or not the Church is going to have an official stance on this war or any other. And he seems to disagree with you in respect that the US did indeed strike first. Wiser men than ourselves will finally decide if this war is just or not. However, no one can argue that the door has been left open because of the actions taken to start the war, the treatment of prisoners, etc.

[Didymus]

Reid: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog,"

I'm not gonna call you a dog, you dog