Earn $25,000 For Your Family!

[Good Friday]

OK, we're making progress. You have admitted that the Kurds are a nation and that they would be justified in attacking Hussein. However, these people are very poor and impoverished by the policies of the Ba'ath Party. They couldn't help themselves. Don't you think that we, therefore, as the most wealthy, most powerful country on earth have a moral obligation to come to their defense? I don't know if you have a sister or a girlfriend, but let's say you do. Now, if someone was raping your sister or girlfriend on a repeated basis and you knew he would do it again, would you not be justified in taking action against him, even if it meant using force? You can't seriously say you would let your sister or girlfriend, or any woman for that matter, be violated because, "well, he didn't do it to ME, specifically."

1. This argument is not part of the Catholic just war criteria. The just war criteria makes very clear that he must have attacked the aggressor nation -- the United States -- or the community of nations.

2. The Kurds are not our sister or our girlfriend, and they did not ask for our help.

3. I did not admit that the Kurds are a nation. I said that if they are a nation, they would be justified in attacking Hussein. I'm not convinced that the Kurds are considered a nation.

Let's go back to my Hitler example. He didn't attck US. Sure, he had attacked Europe, but they could have taken care of themself. At what point would we have been justified in your opinion of attacking Iraq? Did he have to attack two ethnic groups? Maybe two ethnic groups and a specific country? Three countries? Sometimes, you need to difuse a problem before it becomes to large to handle. Imagine what would have happened had we intervened after Hitler had invaded his first country (the Rhineland I think.) Millions of people would have been saved.

Your Hitler example breaks down, in that Saddam Hussein was not attacking anyone outside his own country. The Kurds, a distinct people they may be, are a people within Iraq's borders who were under Saddam Hussein's government. The only time Hussein did attack another country, he attacked Kuwait. We did inDouche help Kuwait in the Gulf War, and Saddam Hussein was successfully driven back. He has not tried to invade another country since then, and that was twelve years ago. Thus he had not attacked the community of nations since the Gulf War, and he has never attacked our nation at all.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is not a part of Catholic theology, you of all people should know that. You've presented it here, and it may make sense, but it is not Catholic doctrine. Should we kill someone because we think he might murder us or our sister? What if he doesn't? What if he never intended to?

About the voting issues...

Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate.

This is my point. There is no good candidate with an unworthy opponent. Both are unworthy, both are anti-life. As I have said more than once, Democrats may be pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality, and that's disgusting. But Republicans are pro-death penalty and this particular Republican has engaged us in one unjust war with the possibility of more to come. How can he possibly be called pro-life and a good candidate?

According to the above, voting is a civic duty which binds under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. In this instance, it would seem not to apply.

May I ask which political party these authors are affiliated with?

[JP2Iloveyou]

1.  This argument is not part of the Catholic just war criteria.  The just war criteria makes very clear that he must have attacked the aggressor nation -- the United States -- or the community of nations.

2.  The Kurds are not our sister or our girlfriend, and they did not ask for our help.

3.  I did not admit that the Kurds are a nation.  I said that if they are a nation, they would be justified in attacking Hussein.  I'm not convinced that the Kurds are considered a nation.

Your Hitler example breaks down, in that Saddam Hussein was not attacking anyone outside his own country.  The Kurds, a distinct people they may be, are a people within Iraq's borders who were under Saddam Hussein's government.  The only time Hussein did attack another country, he attacked Kuwait.  We did inDouche help Kuwait in the Gulf War, and Saddam Hussein was successfully driven back.  He has not tried to invade another country since then, and that was twelve years ago.  Thus he had not attacked the community of nations since the Gulf War, and he has never attacked our nation at all. 

The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is not a part of Catholic theology, you of all people should know that.  You've presented it here, and it may make sense, but it is not Catholic doctrine.  Should we kill someone because we think he might murder us or our sister?  What if he doesn't?  What if he never intended to?

About the voting issues...

This is my point.  There is no good candidate with an unworthy opponent.  Both are unworthy, both are anti-life.  As I have said more than once, Democrats may be pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality, and that's disgusting.  But Republicans are pro-death penalty and this particular Republican has engaged us in one unjust war with the possibility of more to come.  How can he possibly be called pro-life and a good candidate?

According to the above, voting is a civic duty which binds under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent.  In this instance, it would seem not to apply. 

May I ask which political party these authors are affiliated with?

Look, we still don't know how they are defining the term "nation." I don't think it would be moral to just sit back and watch a group of people be systematically killed. As much as I despise Bill Clinton, I think he did a good thing in removing Slobodan Milosivic from power for the same reason. He was engaged in genocide.

The Hitler example doesn't break down. Whether or not he was attacking other countries is irrelevant. He was murdering millions of people! That warrants a response, and a military one if necessary. If the United States won't stand up to dictators, then who will? We are the most powerful country in the world and if we let people like Hussein and Milosovic go without lifting a finger, then the whole world is in big trouble. I don't want to end up like France in WWII who only became concerned about the Germans as they were driving their tanks through downtown Paris.

The Kurds meet the standard definition of "nation" put forth by Webster's and by everyone I've ever met in the political science field. I should tell you that I do know some experts in this area as well who concur that the Kurds are a nation. I am in complete agreement with you that a doctrine of pre-emptive strike is not part of Catholic theology, but I reiterate my point that I don't believe this was pre-emptive. We were coming to the defense of a defenseless people who had been murdered, raped, tortured, and pillaged their whole lives. An old quote goes something like this, "The only way evil thrives is if good people do nothing."

Voting again. I'm not going to requote the article. However, current thought within the church has indicated, to me at least, if I'm reading the Bishops correctly, abortion is the trump issue. This takes moral precedence over all other foreign and domestic policies.

I ask you, what if all good people, not even just Christians, but everyone, thought like you? What if all morally upright people decided that they will not vote again until the perfect candidate comes along? What would be the fruits of that? I'm only speculating, but here are my suggestions: we would have less regulation on abortions, more contraception in schools, more use of the death penatly, unlimited euthanasia, legalized same-sex marriages, unlimited research on embryonic stem-cells and fetal tissue, and less regulation on pornography. Even if we can reduce or even contain one of these things is it not worth voting for a candidate who can win?

[Good Friday]

Look, we still don't know how they are defining the term "nation." I don't think it would be moral to just sit back and watch a group of people be systematically killed. As much as I despise Bill Clinton, I think he did a good thing in removing Slobodan Milosivic from power for the same reason. He was engaged in genocide.

The Hitler example doesn't break down. Whether or not he was attacking other countries is irrelevant. He was murdering millions of people! That warrants a response, and a military one if necessary. If the United States won't stand up to dictators, then who will? We are the most powerful country in the world and if we let people like Hussein and Milosovic go without lifting a finger, then the whole world is in big trouble. I don't want to end up like France in WWII who only became concerned about the Germans as they were driving their tanks through downtown Paris.

The Kurds meet the standard definition of "nation" put forth by Webster's and by everyone I've ever met in the political science field. I should tell you that I do know some experts in this area as well who concur that the Kurds are a nation. I am in complete agreement with you that a doctrine of pre-emptive strike is not part of Catholic theology, but I reiterate my point that I don't believe this was pre-emptive. We were coming to the defense of a defenseless people who had been murdered, raped, tortured, and pillaged their whole lives. An old quote goes something like this, "The only way evil thrives is if good people do nothing."

This is simply not a part of Catholic just war theology, and I'm not even going to reply to it, except to say that I hope when and if you're a priest you'll have a better understanding of the just war teachings and endorse them, as opposed to this Protestant version you've presented.

Voting again. I'm not going to requote the article. However, current thought within the church has indicated, to me at least, if I'm reading the Bishops correctly, abortion is the trump issue. This takes moral precedence over all other foreign and domestic policies.

I'm just not certain if I agree. I don't see why the murder of unborn people is more important than the murder of born people, or vice versa. However, I admit that what you've posted seems to indicate that.

I ask you, what if all good people, not even just Christians, but everyone, thought like you? What if all morally upright people decided that they will not vote again until the perfect candidate comes along? What would be the fruits of that? I'm only speculating, but here are my suggestions: we would have less regulation on abortions, more contraception in schools, more use of the death penatly, unlimited euthanasia, legalized same-sex marriages, unlimited research on embryonic stem-cells and fetal tissue, and less regulation on pornography. Even if we can reduce or even contain one of these things is it not worth voting for a candidate who can win?

I don't know. I'm not going to participate in this government, it's too complicated.

[skuba steve]

the thoughts of skuba steve...

going by current world trends, over the next decade or so, the position of dominant power in this world will be lost by the USA and gained by China.

One reason for war was to demonstrate the dominant power of the USA in light of the future. They feel threatened. They want to show the world their power and they want to appeal to national pride in their citizens.

Muslim extremists believe, with probably more conviction than any of you have about the catholic church that Islam is the fullness of truth. You can't debate that, because that's what they believe. I'm not saying that it's right, but in their minds, it is the only truth. They have been brought up since birth to believe that to die in the name of Islam is a very very noble thing. I feel sorry for them coz as far as they know, they are doing good.

They think they are doing the right thing. They are trying to protect their way of life, their culture and their faith from the western world and the oppression it has brought upon them. We started it.

Just thoughts.

[Norseman82]

PD... we should have waited for him to attack, then counter and take him out. Think of it this way, should someone be put in prison for what they might do.

Even if the attack costs thousands of lives?????? Wait for the attack to kill thousands (or millions if he did have the yet-unfound WMD) rather than prevent the attack in the first place?

Remember, the just war doctrine was written in a time when war was straight-forward on a battlefield and you could see your enemy face-to-face and the front-lines were clear. With the advent of new technologies and terror tactics, the just war doctrine needs to somehow be updated to cover these situations.

[Norseman82]

On a humorous note:

http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2003/09/13/

[JP2Iloveyou]

This is simply not a part of Catholic just war theology, and I'm not even going to reply to it, except to say that I hope when and if you're a priest you'll have a better understanding of the just war teachings and endorse them, as opposed to this Protestant version you've presented.

I'm just not certain if I agree. I don't see why the murder of unborn people is more important than the murder of born people, or vice versa. However, I admit that what you've posted seems to indicate that.

I don't know. I'm not going to participate in this government, it's too complicated.

I just can't believe or agree with this. You're saying we should determine what is a just war and what isn't by some orbitrary line on some map! So, by your reasoning, if there were an independent state of Kurdistan which Saddam Hussein had attacked instead of the Kurds living in Iraq, we would have been justified in going to war. You must agree with this or say we weren't justified in attacking the Nazis in WWII. Anything else is self-contradicting. You've been saying it was just to attack Hitler and the Nazis after they attacked certain countries in Europe. Yet, you say it was unjust to attack Iraq and Hussein after they attacked the Kurds. So, presumably you would support the attacking of Iraq had the Kurds been an independent state. Or, you would not support the attacking of the Nazis had they not attacked other countries but just systematicly eliminated the Jews. You're basing the just war teaching off of some line on a map.

One more thing. What makes you think you know more than the Pope? By your own admission, you have said he has stopped short of calling the war just. Yet, you consistently call the war unjust. I just want to know where you derive your authority from. Whenever the Pope speaks about moral rights and wrongs, he is very precise and deliberate. He has said it is wrong for the EU to not include a reference to Europe's Christian heritage in their constitution. He has said abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically wrong. He did not say the war was unjust. Where do you get your authority from? For that matter, what makes you think you understand just war doctrine better than His Holiness?

[Good Friday]

I just can't believe or agree with this. You're saying we should determine what is a just war and what isn't by some orbitrary line on some map! So, by your reasoning, if there were an independent state of Kurdistan which Saddam Hussein had attacked instead of the Kurds living in Iraq, we would have been justified in going to war.

I did not say that. The just war principles say that Saddam Hussein must have attacked us or the community of nations. It says nothing about defending an individual nation from him. Attacking one nation is not the same thing as attacking the community of nations.

You must agree with this or say we weren't justified in attacking the Nazis in WWII. Anything else is self-contradicting.

No it isn't. Hitler attacked multiple nations. If the Kurds are a nation, they are only one nation, and they were the only nation that Saddam Hussein has attacked since the Gulf War. Thus, Hitler attacked the community of nations, but Saddam Hussein did not attack us or the community of nations.

Or, you would not support the attacking of the Nazis had they not attacked other countries but just systematicly eliminated the Jews. You're basing the just war teaching off of some line on a map.

You're right here, I would not support the attacking of Nazi Germany if they had not attacked other countries. I follow the just war teachings because I'm a Catholic. Can you explain to me why you don't follow the just war teachings? They plainly state that in order for a war to be just, the target must have attacked either the aggressor nation or the community of nations. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about people living within the country's own borders. Nor does it say anything about an attack on an individual nation other than the aggressor nation.

One more thing. What makes you think you know more than the Pope? By your own admission, you have said he has stopped short of calling the war just. Yet, you consistently call the war unjust. I just want to know where you derive your authority from. Whenever the Pope speaks about moral rights and wrongs, he is very precise and deliberate. He has said it is wrong for the EU to not include a reference to Europe's Christian heritage in their constitution. He has said abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically wrong. He did not say the war was unjust. Where do you get your authority from? For that matter, what makes you think you understand just war doctrine better than His Holiness?

The Pope has spoken out against this war, but he has not called it unjust. I base my "authority" on the authority of the Catholic Church, which created the just war criteria so that someone other than the Pope could easily know whether or not a war is just. You have failed, absolutely failed to prove that the war met criterion #1, so in true Republican spirit you are attacking my Catholicity in a final attempt to discredit me completely and make your President-set-up-as-idol seem like the all-glorious and all-holy that you believe him to be.

[Good Friday]

Oh, and I'm done with this thread, as well as the two others. I've obviously won the argument, since y'all have begun to attack my Catholicity in order to discredit me, as you've done in the past when I've won arguments. I have no desire to watch y'all be sore losers and poor Catholics, so I'm done. If you truly have an issue with my Catholicity, I suggest you write a letter to my Bishop and demand my excommunication:

His Excellency R. Daniel Conlon

Diocese of Steubenville

422 Washington Street

P.O. Box 969

Steubenville, OH 43952

When I receive my decree of excommunication, I'll let you know.

[Dave]

I've obviously won the argument, since y'all have begun to attack my Catholicity in order to discredit me, as you've done in the past when I've won arguments. I have no desire to watch y'all be sore losers and poor Catholics, so I'm done.

Nate, that is just plain arrogant. No one here has attacked your Catholicity, and yet you've done it left and right to those who disagree with you. You consistently refuse to consider what we have to say despite accusing us of the same thing. Please change your attitude and start to consider that perhaps you may be wrong and others may be right.