Iraq War

[JP2Iloveyou]

I have been wanting to debate this for sometime, formally. I haven't been on PM a lot lately, and next week probably won't be any better because I have finals. Anyway, I would like to argue this from a CATHOLIC point of view. In other words, please justify your position on the justness or unjustness of the Iraq war based on the teachings of the Church, specifically those found in the Catechism. The relevant paragraphs are 2307-2317. Like I said, this next week is going to be busy for me, but I'll check in when I have time.

Have fun.

[Iacobus]

I promise a post, I have made many arguments about Iraq being [i]un[/i]just from a Catholic point of view (if I were aruging about if Iraq was legal I probly wouldn't have used the word unjust or immoral). I hope to write a post tonite, but first I have to finish my results section of my paper.

[delta557]

People who disagree with the war because it kills Americans are being selfish and ignorant. Either a lot innocent people including women and children are going to be killed in America by terrorists or in Iraq by Saddam's regime, or, a smaller amount of people will volunteer to give their life so that others may live. This war has nothing to do with oil, it has to do with common morals and values and humanity itself.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Here is my take on this. I have a few minutes, so I thought I'd post this.

[quote]CCC 2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:


the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[/quote]

There are a couple of points to note here. First is the use of the term "nation" as opposed to state. A nation is a group of people, a state is a political territory with clearly defined borders. The Kurdish people are a nation. Saddam Hussein's tyrrany against the Kurdish people was clearly "lasting, grave, and certain."


[quote]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/quote]

The United Nations imposed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm and comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement. Every time he refused to do so. It seems clear to me that if a man refuses to even allow inspectors to do their jobs and ensure that there are no WMDs, then the diplomatic means have been "impractical or ineffective."


[quote]there must be serious prospects of success;[/quote]

Going into the war, there most definitely were serious prospects of success. Although many may argue if that in fact has happened, that is not what is required here. I would argue though, that the U.S. has been successful in Iraq. Despite what the media is reporting, most Iraqis want us there. Most are glad Saddam is gone. Even if they weren't the fact of the matter is that Saddam, his sons, and the entire regime is out of power.


[quote]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote]

It also seems clear to me that the war, in removing Saddam Hussein, a man personally responsible for the murders of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of innocent men, women, and children, plus the untold numbers of people he tortured, achieved a greater good than the evil which were forseeable consequences, namely the loss of military and civilian life and the loss of property.

[quote]These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/quote]

Finally, this is to counter the claim that the Holy Father has called the war unjust. I have not seen an actual QUOTE of him saying that. I have seen news articles that try and distort what he said to make it sound like he thinks the war is unjust, much like what they did to the Spanish bishops last week. However, this paragraph, it seems clear to me, says that the decision about the justness or unjustness of a war and the decision to use military force lies with the governmental authority. In this case, that would be President Bush.

If I have gone wrong on any of this, please point it out to me, but let's be civilized about this. Take my argument and tell me which premise is wrong. Please don't go into name calling or put together an entirely different argument. Point out which premise is wrong.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

And I thought this topic had been debated to death. Me and my wishful thinking!

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 23 2005, 03:54 PM'] And I thought this topic had been debated to death. Me and my wishful thinking! [/quote]
nah, there's still disagreement voiced on phatmass and the people haven't agreed to disagree . . . or at least stay quiet if they're in the minority. Until that happens there's still the possibility of it coming back. *shrugs* I'm interested to see the outcome of this one, though.

Peace,
Joe

[StColette]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 23 2005, 03:54 PM'] And I  thought this topic had been debated to death.  Me and my wishful thinking! [/quote]
I don't think this topic will ever die.

*braces for the long debate ahead*

Edited January 23, 2005 by StColette

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 23 2005, 03:54 PM'] And I thought this topic had been debated to death. Me and my wishful thinking! [/quote]
That is what I was thinking... I am not sure yet if I am even going to take it up, if he wants to see proir debates on the Iraqi war being just or unjust, there is any number of really good threads that he could pull up.

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=13575&view=findpost&p=216272"]Here [/url]is a nice one for him to start at, (PhatCatholic called it [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=13575&view=findpost&p=217037"] "an excellent exchange on just wary doctrine and catholic social issues."[/url])

[crusader1234]

It might be worth rehashing now that we know Bush was wrong all along.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 23 2005, 06:56 PM'] It might be worth rehashing now that we know Bush was wrong all along. [/quote]
See, it's comments like that that make it hard to even call the argument a debate. I think it might be worth discussion if personal politics could be kept out of it. Now, I realize that's almost a stupid statement, but what I mean is, if people can argue the justness of the war without bringing their personal feelings into play.

That would be a debate.

Hopefully this will be a real debate.

But, history here on phatmass tells me that it will probably simply degenerate into a political name-calling mess.

Have fun ya'll.

[Iacobus]

N.B. JP2,

Your agrument fails, and here is how,

A. The cause for war must be proven before the war starts. We cannot engage in combat and hope that we turn out to be right (e.g. invade Iraq and than look for weapons hoping we will find them or some traces of them). This isn't the case with Iraq, we did not have proof before the war(1). Moreover, it appears that the CIA and FBI were pressured into providing only "good" intel(2).

B. The justification for war must be static. I cannot start a war based on WMDs, then, seeing that I was wrong, move over to terrorism, then seeing that was wrong move over to regmime change, etc.

C. The Iraq Survey Group found nada(3). Prove your UN Res violations. It seems the reason the UN inspectors, Blix, Kay, et al., were unable to find the weapons is that the weren't there. Maybe they were, but we couldn't find a trace of them.

Lets put this in another light, shall we. Citizen A has a been, for some reason, denied the right to own a firearm. Citizen B *thinks* that Citizen A has a firearm and calls the Police. The Police come to Citizen A's house with a warnet, and A complies with the search. After 5 hours of searching his 5 room house the police find no weapon, yet will not leave because they *think* there is one someplace. Citizen A orders them to leave and is arrested for ownership of a weapon and interferring with police activy. He is taken away. For days the police search his house looking for his weapon, finding none. Does that mean that Citizen A had a weapon, but just got rid of it right before the Police came? Does that make sense to you?

D. Did you hear what the kidnapped Bishop said?

[quote]The archbishop said the guerrillas kept asking him if he's a spy. "I told them you do not know me," he said. "We are Christians, and we believe the Americans are occupiers." (4)[/quote]

:Cough: I think the media may be right on that one.

E. Regmie change alone is not enough of a vaild reason to declear war, or so say the Bishops.

F. [quote]Then there is the Iraqi conflict. The position of the Holy See concerning the military action of 2002-2003 is well known. Everyone can see that it did not lead to a safer world either inside or outside Iraq ~H.E. Msgr Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary for Relations with States (speaking for the Holy See)(5)[/quote]

Opps, did he say "did not lead" before "safer world?"




(1) [url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/03/powell.iraq/index.html"]Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'[/url]
(2)[url="http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040614-646366,00.html"]The CIA Caved Under Pressure[/url]
(3)[url="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=10554"]Iraq Survey Group formally ends WMD hunt[/url]
(4)[url="http://slate.msn.com/id/2112431/"]http://slate.msn.com/id/2112431/[/url]]Today's Papers-1.19.05[/url]
(5)[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2004/documents/rc_seg-st_20040929_lajolo-un_en.html"]INTERVENTION BY H.E. MSGR GIOVANNI LAJOLO SECRETARY FOR RELATIONS WITH STATES AT THE GENERAL DEBATE OF THE 59TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS[/url]

[b]EDIT:[/b] One of my links didn't work and I wanted to make the Kilroy wrong (therefore happy).

Edited January 24, 2005 by Iacobus

[MagiDragon]

hold up.

jacob, you've got to address the issues that were brought up, not the weapons of mass destruction carp that was barely mentioned. only once in JP2Iloveyou's argument did he mention WMD's, and you *didn't* address that issue:
[quote]The United Nations imposed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm and comply with the 1991 cease fire agreement. Every time he refused to do so. It seems clear to me that if a man refuses to even allow inspectors to do their jobs and ensure that there are no WMDs, then the diplomatic means have been "impractical or ineffective." [/quote]

If you're going to refute arguments, refute *these* arguments. Don't refute arguments that weren't brought up, and act like you've shot down *his* arguments. Now play nice.

Peace,
Joe

[Iacobus]

Joe, I did address a number of issues but I only have to disprove ONE of his statements to have "shot down" his arguements, whereas, he has to break down each of mine, because of the nature of Just War doctines.

[Guest Aluigi]

I will not be discussing the Iraq war anymore until it has become history that is at least a couple decades old. I.e., not until the world cools down and we see what the long term effects were and a real historical perspective comes out.

[Fidei Defensor]

All i will say on this topic is that we as a good nation were obligated to help free the iraqi people in some way because of how restricted they were. i do not especially agree with how it was handled, but its not up to me.