Just War Criteria

[BeenaBobba]

In regards to the current war, I like what Mark Shea said. The U.S. was using the U.N. as the temporal power responsible for investigating the possibility of WMDs. The U.S. defied the U.N. -- who was the temporal authority in charge -- and went to war anyway. This is one of the reasons I do not think the present war is justified.

Secondly, I don't think the aims were spelled out clearly. For example, what would our success entail, and was it an attainable goal? I, personally, don't think that all means were tried before we went to war. I don't think that the threat was imminent.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 16 2004, 05:38 AM'] No, that doesn't logically follow.  You may never [i]intentionally[/i] kill an [i]innocent[/i] person, but a [i]combatant[/i] in war is not considered to be [i]innocent[/i], any more than a person who breaks into your house and threatens to kill you or your family is [i]innocent[/i].  If someone enters your house and tries to kill a member of your family, you have a [i]right[/i], and in fact a [i]duty[/i], to stop them, even if you must use [i]lethal means[/i].  In such a case you would not be killing an [i]innocent[/i] person, but a [i]guilty[/i] one; and your act of self-defense would not be in any way criminal.  You would be [i]innocent[/i] of any wrong doing in killing that person. [/quote]
Isn't this the principle of double effect, where taking a human life is never good but self-defense, and defense in general, is good? In this case, killing another during war is never actually good in and of itself, but the defense of a soldier is good. That being said, a soldier killing another human being is not personally guilty of any sin in taking another life, since he was acting in a morally good way in defending himself and his country (even though the taking of a life is never good).

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Rich,

There will always be immoral killing during war (i.e., the killing of innocent people), even in wars that fit Just War criteria. Because of this, war should never, ever be taken lightly.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 16 2004, 02:43 AM'] In the light of history, i'm sure future Catholics will be able to look back with all the declassified facts and everything and be able to say definitively whether or not it was just, just like we can now do with WWI and WWII.  (though the a-bomb tactic is quite questionable, whooooole other topic)
[/quote]
I, personally, do not think that America's involvement in WWI fit Just War criteria. I'm not even sure that Austria had a right to declare war. Certainly, the other nations involved had no right to go to war.

The A-bomb was pretty immoral.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Aloysius]

beena,

the US was acting with the UN because they had a common interest, the US defended the UN's resolutions which clearly stipualted "or else" if Saddam did not reveal the information as to the wearabouts of unnaccounted-for weapons of mass destruction. The UN was never in charge of the United States, the UN is a consulting body not sovereign OVER any nation, it is always left up to the nation's government when a question comes about war. anyway, i am confident in my explanations going through the criteria of just war and how this one fit them each should suffice for my position, and i haven't seen anyone refute that.

WWI, i believe it certainly fit just war criteria.

WWII, definitely fit just war criteria.

A-bomb, not just. although in retrospect i can always consider it may have saved countless time effort and lives in a greuling lengthy continuation of the war, i must admit ends do not justify means.

The UN never had any sovereignty OVER the United States of America. They were being used as a consulting body. The US supported them, they did not relinquish their right to act to them. The UN was simply a consulting body of nations. if it is to be considered anything more it borders on (dare i say it cause budge enjoys it so much..) a one world government comparable to the Tower of Babel. As it stands now it is a consulting body charged with working for the peace and avoidance of another MAJOR war, it does not have governing authority over it's member nations.

pAx

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Al,

Regardless of whether or not the U.N. was acting as a sovereign or governing organization, the U.S. still convoked it as the "competent authority." The U.S. has based justification of this war on Saddam's breaking of U.N. Resolution 1441, yet I think the U.S. acted hypocritically in going to war when we weren't exactly following what the U.N. wanted, either.

Had the threat been imminent, we should have found the WMDs soon after going to war. At least, if WMDs really did exist, the government should have had a concrete idea of where they were and how to disable them or whatnot. And even though there's speculation that WMDs might exist, no one has found them. That just seems a bit fishy to me, you know?

Why do you think that WWI fit Just War criteria?

God bless,

Jen

[jasJis]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 18 2004, 07:22 AM'] Hi Al,

Regardless of whether or not the U.N. was acting as a sovereign or governing organization, the U.S. still convoked it as the "competent authority." The U.S. has based justification of this war on Saddam's breaking of U.N. Resolution 1441, yet I think the U.S. acted hypocritically in going to war when we weren't exactly following what the U.N. wanted, either.

Had the threat been imminent, we should have found the WMDs soon after going to war. At least, if WMDs really did exist, the government should have had a concrete idea of where they were and how to disable them or whatnot. And even though there's speculation that WMDs might exist, no one has found them. That just seems a bit fishy to me, you know?

Why do you think that WWI fit Just War criteria?

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
beenaboppa,
I think it was the UN that was acting hypocritically by passing the resolution against Iraq, sending in inspection teams, having the inspection teams hampered, blocked, fooled, ignored, thwarted, etc., and then doing nothing about it.

The UN inspection teams did not conclusively say that WMD were not being produced. They said it was likely, but that the Iraq government was not being cooperative. Why is everybody (including the media) ignoring the facts of the UN Inspector's own testimony? It wasn't that they said they found WMD, they said they found evidence of [i]probable[\i] WMD programs as well as evidence of [i]possible[\i] abandonment of WMD programs, but could not confirm either. Don't you remember how this went on for months?

The trigger to the War was Iraq's compliance with and freedoms allowed to the UN Inspectors. Iraq refused, UN failed to invoke consequences, the US inflicted the consequences. It wasn't a surprise attack.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Jun 18 2004, 12:19 PM'] I think it was the UN that was acting hypocritically by passing the resolution against Iraq, sending in inspection teams, having the inspection teams hampered, blocked, fooled, ignored, thwarted, etc., and then doing nothing about it. [/quote]
Hi Jas,

Do you have any more information about that? Regardless of what happened with the inspection teams, the U.N. was still against the U.S. going to war with Iraq. This must have been for a reason, and if we were invoking them as an authority, we should have obeyed -- otherwise, what would be our basis against opposing Iraqi negligence of U.N. resolutions?

[quote]The UN inspection teams did not conclusively say that WMD were not being produced.  They said it was likely, but that the Iraq government was not being cooperative.  Why is everybody (including the media) ignoring the facts of the UN Inspector's own testimony? [/quote]

See, this is exactly why I do not think that the threat was imminent. The U.N. didn't conclusively say that WMDs weren't being produced, but on the other hand, it didn't say conclusively that they were. Until we knew [b]conclusively[/b] that 1.) they existed, and that 2.) Iraq wanted to use them against us, I don't think we had a legitimate right to start a war with them.

[quote]  It wasn't that they said they found WMD, they said they found evidence of [i]probable[\i] WMD programs as well as evidence of [i]possible[\i] abandonment of WMD programs, but could not confirm either.  Don't you remember how this went on for months?[/quote]

Yes, I remember. I still think it was too early to attack, especially when there was no [b]conclusive and definitive[/b] evidence pointing to the existence of WMDs. If there was no definitive evidence that WMDs existed, and that those who possessed them were planning to use them on us, I don't see how this war fits Just War criteria.

[quote]The trigger to the War was Iraq's compliance with and freedoms allowed to the UN Inspectors.  Iraq refused, UN failed to invoke consequences, the US inflicted the consequences.  It wasn't a surprise attack.[/quote]

This is where I think the U.S. acted hypocritically. The U.S. asked the U.N. to inspect for WMDs, and we put them in the authority to do so. When Iraq didn't listen, the U.S. defied the U.N. in going to war. The U.S. was being disobedient, so how can it reprimant Iraq for being disobedient?

God bless,

Jennifer

[jasJis]

The best sources are old news articles from before we went to war. Go to a library and read Time and Newsweek and other periodicals. Please don't take mine, or anyone else's opinion at face value.

When judging hypocrasy, keep in mind it's best to use the same standard for all parties.

I have to admit a bias FOR the war that has nothing to do with WMD. My sister married into an Iraqi family right before the first Gulf War. They have/had family that lives in Iraq and my parents traveled the middle East a few years ago. Americans have no idea how lacking in freedom these people's lives are. We have no idea what it's like living under a tyrannical regieme. We think were oppressed by the US governemnt, but we are silly and whiney babies who bathe in luxurious freedoms, protected rights, and absence of many consequences.

Hitler had a huge head start in WWII because people wanted clear and conclusive evidence of his intentions and military might. People doubted the truth of the German death camps without clear and conclusive evidence. The same was true in Viet Nam. Hind sight is a bitter view. We are graced with intelectual powers of reason and logic and can gauge [b]the probability[/b] of people's actions. The probability is no guarentee, but thay is why most reasonable and sane people don't play russian roulette.

[Apotheoun]

Some people seem to be forgetting that the United Nations is merely a consultative body, and that it has no power to limit the actions of any sovereign nation, which decides to act for the sake of the common good and the defense of its own citizens or the citizens of other nations, even if the action in question involves the use of military power. To say that the governments of Sudan, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., governments all lacking any kind of moral legitimacy, have the authority as members states of the United Nations to limit the sovereign power of the United States or any other democratic country that deems it necessary to act in defense of the common good, is to fail to grasp both the dignity of the human person and the rights of man. The United Nations has nothing but a consultative role, it is not a sovereign power, and none of the members states have abdicated their sovereignty to it; and so it cannot dictate to an independent and sovereign country, which determines that it must defend the common good, that it may not do so.