World Police War Empirealism

[Winchester]

I know many disagree with the US making war on Iraq. However, I haven't seen any better ideas on ways of dealing with dictators. I myself like destabilizing countries using groups like the CIA, but that backfires just like every other human endeavour.

Some advocate pulling out now because of terrible costs. As wars go, this one is fairly bloodless. Mind you, I'm no CPA behind a desk--I risk my life regularly. When was the last time I was shot at? Never. Had guns pulled on me at work, been in fights, gone into small riot situations. Been lucky. What would happen if me and mine decided to let dangerous situations go? What would happen to Iraq if we just pulled out? It would get worse. It ain't pretty now, but it never is during times of adjustment from dictatorships. It might not work; it might backfire. Even if we made a bad decision going in, we can't just leave now.

We [i]are[/i] the world police. In school, I could take a punch. I could throw a punch. I engaged in a single fighter's version of preemptive war. I involved myself on behalf of those who couldn't or wouldn't fight back. Why? Because God gave me a gift: the ability and willingness to fight. And He gave it to me to help those who couldn't. I'm not perfect, I'm a sinner, but God still gave me gifts. America is not perfect, she is a sinner; but through God's grace, we are a mighty nation and we have a responsibility to use that might.

[hyperdulia again]

I don't believe the US really is a benificent force in the world, it makes me afraid. I am not a pacifist, and I don't know what the alternative was, but I still cannot support this war. It smells of elderberries.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I'm not perfect, I'm a sinner, but God still gave me gifts. America is not perfect, she is a sinner; but through God's grace, we are a mighty nation and we have a responsibility to use that might.[/quote]

amen.

[Winchester]

Hyper,
Not giving a blanket blessing, just pointing out that though we have flaws as nation, it doesn't cancel the good or our responsibility.

What options were open in dealing with Saddam?

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jan 18 2005, 01:42 AM'] Hyper,
Not giving a blanket blessing, just pointing out that though we have flaws as nation, it doesn't cancel the good or our responsibility.

What options were open in dealing with Saddam? [/quote]
I don't know, but what bothers me about this country is the way it tends to the right things for the wrong reasons. I don't feel that we invaded Iraq to liberate its people from a madman, I think we did because our leader has a vendetta. And I might be wrong, I'm not rational (as you well know).

[Scofizzle]

I agree that the US is the world police. But I also believe that the US has an obligation to be the world police and should bypass the UN to do whatever needs to be done. I am no proponent of war but I do believe that it is sometimes necesarry. i.e. over-throwing brutal dictators. The US is by far the single strongest country int he world and with great power comes great responsibility. It is said that many other countries around the world hate us, they hate us because they strive to be like us. and arent currently even with us. If we don't so soemthing who will?

[FilmGuy127]

the thing is that nobody ever asked us to be the worlds police... and without the UN we dont really have any athority to do so... getting rid of sadam might have been justice.. but it was vigilante justice. as citizens we accept that we are under the juristiction of our police forces and that it is their job to uphold the laws... but the world has no uniform code of laws and nobody accepted us as the police force for them... so us upholding our own standards of justice and applying them to the world is just us abusing the power we have, not using it responsibly. its no wonder they hate us... its not cause they cant be us... its cause we are a huge bully... a bully with a good intentions maybe but that doesnt change anything.

Edited January 18, 2005 by FilmGuy127

[spathariossa]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 18 2005, 03:32 AM'] the thing is that nobody ever asked us to be the worlds police... and without the UN we dont really have any athority to do so... getting rid of sadam might have been justice.. but it was vigilante justice. as citizens we accept that we are under the juristiction of our police forces and that it is their job to uphold the laws... but the world has no uniform code of laws and nobody accepted us as the police force for them... so us upholding our own standards of justice and applying them to the world is just us abusing the power we have, not using it responsibly. its no wonder they hate us... its not cause they cant be us... its cause we are a huge bully... a bully with a good intentions maybe but that doesnt change anything. [/quote]
You can't say the US is a vigilante and then admit that the world has no uniform set of laws and regulations - that's something of an oxymoron. The simple fact of the matter is that in many unstable, impoverished, and desperate countries, unstable and desperate men become sole dictators. And in many of these countries these same men abuse the populace to their own advantage.

Given this, any country has three choices. It can intervene diplomatically which usually results in nothing gained. It can intervene militarily which is bloody and difficult. Or it can do nothing. The US intervened with Saddam diplomatically for 10 years to no avail. In the absence of a world legal authority, and for the good of the Iraqi people, the US was justified in this war.

However, we didn't go in there to save the Iraqi people. That's the one thing that bugs me about this war. For the moment, I'll be happy with the ends justifying the reasons. It is still uncomfortable though.

[RandomProddy]

Hmm, tough call. If you don't do something it's appeasement, if you do, it's imperialism.

Going through the UN was certainly worth a shot, especially for the smaller countries who needed help (like Kuwait in 1990 for example). I think the UN still has a place but "expeditions" like invading Iraq certainly doesn't help the UN.

I think we need some kind of new voting system where one single country can't veto everything. Maybe a system where two or three veto-wielding countries need to vote against something for it to be valid (and adding Japan, Germany, India and Brazil to this list might help. The Anglo-America-Japan voting block might add a bit of weight )

Hey, maybe adding these countries means we can give the UN more power and stop American, the UK and Australia randomly invading more countries. I hear Iran is next, maybe we can stop more deaths..

Edited January 18, 2005 by RandomProddy

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Giving the UN more power - now there's a scary thought.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 18 2005, 06:52 AM'] Hmm, tough call. If you don't do something it's appeasement, if you do, it's imperialism.

Going through the UN was certainly worth a shot, especially for the smaller countries who needed help (like Kuwait in 1990 for example). I think the UN still has a place but "expeditions" like invading Iraq certainly doesn't help the UN.

I think we need some kind of new voting system where one single country can't veto everything. Maybe a system where two or three veto-wielding countries need to vote against something for it to be valid (and adding Japan, Germany, India and Brazil to this list might help. The Anglo-America-Japan voting block might add a bit of weight )

Hey, maybe adding these countries means we can give the UN more power and stop American, the UK and Australia randomly invading more countries. I hear Iran is next, maybe we can stop more deaths.. [/quote]
Americans see the UN as a bunch of corrupt bungling idiots who should be thrown out of New York. The only advantage of them being here is so somebody can keep an eye on them to limit their stupidity.

You'll get no takers to increase anything about the UN.

[ironmonk]

I believe this war was needed.

It is better in Iraq today than it was before the war. The list in the Catechism for a just war has been met. Bush has information on the enemy that the Church does not have access to, Bush was/is more informed on this issue. The Church as with Bush can only go on the information that they have.

We should not leave until Iraq can protect itself from the terrorists. Yes, they are terrorist, they kidnap and kill innocent people to try to get their agenda recognized.

I fully support this war, and if I was 19 and single I would join the fight.

If we had enough real Catholics in this world, the war would not have been needed. To many people are godless. Look at the power of prayer - the Archbishop was released from terrorist which is unheard of.

Since there is not enough prayer to stop the evils in this world - this war is needed. I firmly believe we are seeing the beginning of the end. There will be war. We will be persecuted.

Good rule of thumb - Anything the leftist commie media wants - more than likely is wrong.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[jasJis]

This subject is near and dear to my heart. My sister married into an Iraqi family about 10 years ago. The are Roman Catholic and her in-laws were born in Iraq and still have many family members in Iraq. In fact, by bro-in-law had a cousin escape Iraq and came to the US in August, right before September 11th.

The Iraqi people WANT freedom, but do not trust the US to protect them. From the first Gulf War, they fear that we will do it only half way, and pull out without much sacrifice. They think the US disrespects Iraqis when we say 1,000 deaths compared to over 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths is too much to liberate millions of people. They fear that the US will pull out too soon and leave a power vacum that will yet again, be filled with maniacle dictators or religeous kooks.

The Pope was not against the US doing something in Iraq, he felt we should be a little more patient and have waited some more. But now that we are in there, we have assumed the responsiblity to stay until Iraq is stable.

We didn't just go into there for oil. If that was the case, we'd be in other countries now. The US does feel it has the responsiblity of being a World Policeman, but the politics here also require additional justification to placate the people who insist thatit must serve immediate national intrests as well. They would say it's illegal for the US to send troops to stabalize a nation or part of the world because of their strict definition of 'national intrest'.

When people provide overly simple answers to complex questions that were answered with a complex response, they mislead with only partial truths.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='RandomProddy']Hey, maybe adding these countries means we can give the UN more power and stop American, the UK and Australia randomly invading more countries. I hear Iran is next, maybe we can stop more deaths..[/quote]
To begin, my response has little to do with Iraq, which I completely oppose. I believe that the just war doctrine completely prohibits a war of aggression, which is, ultimately, what this war was. As some have said -- "Just cause, but not just war." Yes, removing Saddam Hussein from power was a "just cause," but more than just cause is needed in order to make a war just.

That said, I'm not replying to this because of Iraq but because of the comment made by RandomProddy.

Catholic social teaching would actually lead one to believe that giving more or too much power to a federal body like the United Nations or even our own national government would be a bad idea. Catholic social teaching works on the premise of "subsidiarity," meaning that if something can be accomplished at the lower level it should not be done at a higher level, unless it [i]must[/i] be done at a higher level to protect the common good. In other words, in our system of government, things should be accomplished at the local and state levels more than at the federal level (which is how our government was set up to work in the first place, but it doesn't work that way anymore). And, in actuality, things should be accomplished more by the private sector, by individuals and by social organizations than by any government intervention at all.

[quote name='Quadragesimo Anno #79' date=' Pope Pius XI']As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations.  Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.  For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never to destroy and absorb them.[/quote]
Pope Pius XI compares the violation of subsidiarity to socialism/communism, calling it "a grave evil" and a "disturbance of right order." Thus, one might say that violations of the principle of subsidiarity are objectively disordered and intrinsically evil -- meaning that violations of subsidiarity are always contrary to the natural and divine order, and that such violations are always evil and can never be justified. The comparison drawn between the violation of subsidiarity to communism by Pope Pius XI should be enough for any Catholic to see that subsidiarity is extremely important and that violations of subsidiarity are very wrong, given the Church's opposition to communism. Giving more power to the United Nations or to other federal bodies when they do not need such power and when their aims can be accomplished by lower organizations is disordered and evil.

[quote name='Centesimus Annus #48' date=' Pope John Paul II']. . . [i]the principle of subsidiarity[/i] must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[/quote]
Pope John Paul II explains the proper role of the government -- it should not usurp functions which can be accomplished at the lower level, but should rather seek to aid communities of a lower order in performing these functions and to coordinate one community's activity with another's.

[quote name='Economic Justice for All #124' date=' United States Conference of Catholic Bishops']The primary norm for determining the scope and limits of governmental intervention is the "principle of subsidiarity" cited above.  This principle states that, in order to protect basic justice, government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacities of individuals or private groups acting independently.  Government should not replace or destroy smaller communities and individual initiative.  Rather it should help them contribute more effectively to social well-being and supplement their activity when the demands of justice exceed their capacities.  This does not mean, however, that the governent that governs least, governs best.  Rather it defines good government intervention as that which truly "helps" other social groups contribute to the common good by directing, urging, restraining, and regulating economic activity as "the occasion requires and necessity demands."[/quote]
Again, the American Bishops outline the proper role of government in aiding the lower levels of society.

If violations of subsidiarity are objectively disordered and intrinsically evil, as Pope Pius XI seems to say, then that means that their fruits will never be positive. Thus, giving more power to federal bodies and allowing higher bodies to usurp the functions of lower bodies will never end in a good result. We can see in our own society that this is true. When the Supreme Court usurped the authority of local and state communities in deciding whether or not a ban on abortion was unconstitutional, Roe v. Wade was the result and countless millions of unborn children have died because of a basic violation of subsidiarity. And there are many other examples.

How does this relate to Iraq? What it means is that we cannot give more power to the United Nations and expect it to stop the Iraq War. The United Nations has continually demonstrated that, when given more power, it only acts to abuse that power more and more. If we want the Iraq War to end, then we must do it ourselves by protesting the war, by contacting elected officials, by urging the President to end this, by prayer, by fasting, by almsgiving, and by refusing to serve in the military in the event of conscription. We must do it [i]ourselves[/i] -- not expect other, higher organizations to do it for us. It is precisely because other, higher organizations have usurped so much power (and we have allowed it) that we find ourselves in this predicament and many others. The only way that society's order will be restored is by a return to subsidiarity, not a greater departure from it.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Um..... maybe its just me, but I thought Random Proddy was joking when he said maybe we should give the UN more power.... not that I disagree with the refutations of such a position, I just didn't think he meant that comment to be taken seriously.