Iraq War

[MC Just]

Anyways im done now, before my warning meter goes sky high.

[Oik]

Iacobus, back in the post you linked on this page, you have a major flaw, major flaw.

[quote]If we allow our goverment, a kingdom of THIS world, decide what is moral and not thereby stripping the Church of her power and rejecting Christ, what precendent have we set?"[/quote]

First of all, government legitimately derives its authority for God.

Second, the government can claim, thru legitimate means, to partake in illegitimate actions. this doesn't make the action just, however, the authority exercised is, even if the way the authority is exercised is unjust (ie any old testament example of kings).

Lastly, governments are manmade, the Church is not. Even if the state proposes to "decide what is moral," it has no power to do so. It only has the power to do what it has been legitimately alloted to do. It can outstep its bounds, however, it can only then do so by force or cooperation.


That said, I think we can actually conclude that the Iraq war is problematic. I don't think we can really say that it is unjust. We certainly can not say it is unjust. It does meet some of the qualifications for a just war. i would agrue that it has actually inflicted more grave effects (only in the sense of number of casualities though) than what Saddam has done. it must be stated however, that any number of casualities is not really comparible to the autrocites, mental, physical, and spiritual that has been inflicted by Hussein.

Furthermore, the war on terror is a blanket term for a campaign. The Iraqi War and the Afgan War fall under the War on terror, they are not separate.

I am not going to protest the war. I believe that attempts we not exausted however, the burden did not rely on the US to exhaust those efforts, the burden was on the UN who are no more than a modern day League of Nations. The lack of effort of the UN as a "peacekeeping" organization has failed and one of the direct major causes of the war in Iraq. Another direct major cause was the lack of compliance of Hussein with the US.

[james]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jan 27 2005, 07:20 AM'] btw  you didnt have to quote Pope John  Paul II's words...

He like's Bush and has already changed his mind about the War...

[/quote]
Why shouldn't I quote the pope in a discussion of Catholic just war doctrine on a Catholic forum?

The pope has changed his mind about Iraq?

If you are aware of any statement by the pope implying that the war in Iraq is just, please present it.

Edited January 27, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote name='Oik' date='Jan 27 2005, 12:22 PM'] I don't think we can really say that it is unjust. We certainly can not say it is unjust. It does meet some of the qualifications for a just war. [/quote]
Not some, but all of the conditions of just war doctrine must be satisfied for a war to be just.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jan 27 2005, 07:20 AM'] no it doesnt......btw you didnt have to quote Pope John Paul II's words...

He like's Bush and has already changed his mind about the War...

War is not pretty, it's horrible..The Iraqi people are greatful though and many of the Soldiers are supporting their commander and chief.. [/quote]
Bush changed his mind, that is news to me.

The Pope did NOT change his mind about the war, reports as recent as this fall state that he has (had) concerns about the starting, justification, manner, etc of the Iraq war and did not think it was correct, however, he basicly said "It is the pottery barn rule, you break it, you bought it."

No matter what we cannot go back in time and convice Bush and his Hawks that the war was immoral, all we can do is fix the mess created. I do not call that changing his mind.

Iraqi people are greatful? That is news as well seeing as the kidnapped Bishop was telling his kidnappers "We don't like the Americans either, we think they are occupiers too.".

[BigRedJ07]

since when is it just to go to war with someone who is not a direct threat to the US? Iraq may have had WMD, but then why didnt we find any? i dont think the US should butt into other country's governments if they do not want to be changed. since when does our country have that power over others? who says we are better than all the rest?

i think this war is UNjust

[MC Just]

[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html[/url]

CCC 2308
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106


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;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- 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.


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.

[crusader1234]

As far as I can tell, the original reason for going to war was questionable under Just War Criteria. Then, they admitted they were wrong - which would make the war unjust. Now, they've changed the goal, and people are defending it on that count. I wasn't aware that people could change the intent and moral justification [i]after the freakin' fact[/i].

For example, if a woman gets her tubes tied for totally selfish and immoral reasons, and then they find out that theres an ectopic pregnancy in a tube, does that make it moral? I know that example would probably never happen, but does that work? I don't think so.

[Guest Aluigi]

Iraq had elections today. Turnout was about as much as we usually turn out, actually a little more! I think regardless of the original intentions, all ought to give props to the US for doin a good thing there. There is nothing anyone can do about whether it was an originally just decision, leave that for God to know. People that supported it honestly beleived it was necessary (unless you think Bush was just doin it for oil or whatever, but you can't know the intentions in his heart) and now there's good stuff hapening. Follow the Pope's example and bury the hatchet over the original intentions and move forward. The Insurgency DOESNT HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT, it barely even has any sympathizers, at most 20% or so sympathizing. We have won the hearts and minds. They want us out, but they're glad they're not under Saddam anymore and really don't want us to leave until the place is secure. They're just a little afraid we'll occupy too long. All in all, it's doin good. Now if we had the chance to go back and stop it from ever happening, this debate might be relevant. But as far as I can see it's an unnecessary cause of division as nothing can be done about it anymore.

If you can honestly have a historical debate (most of you still seem to be debating a current issue which is pointless and stupid, but I don'tthink the thing is historical enough to even be a historical debate yet) then I'd suggest keep going, otherwise I'd suggest to give it up. There is no point here.

The Pope supports the U.S.'s current policy towards Iraq, he opposed the original decision to go but now supports what the U.S. is currently doing. It's water under the bridge.

[Iacobus]

Hey,

I agree with you, Aluigi, however, I contend that your statement

"The Insurgency DOESNT HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT, it barely even has any sympathizers, at most 20% or so sympathizing."

Is incorrect. They do not have the majority of the popular support, no. However, 20% is by far more than enough to derail any future the nation has. Most revoulatons are started by under 10%. The American Rev was less than a third.

So yes, today was good, but that number, small or big, is bad.

Let us just pray that the Sunni get 10% or more of the vote.

[james]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 30 2005, 09:48 PM'] As far as I can tell, the original reason for going to war was questionable under Just War Criteria... I wasn't aware that people could change the intent and moral justification [i]after the freakin' fact[/i].

[/quote]
They can't. That hasn't stopped them from attempting to do so, however.

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 30 2005, 10:20 PM'] Hey,

I agree with you, Aluigi, however, I contend that your statement

"The Insurgency DOESNT HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT, it barely even has any sympathizers, at most 20% or so sympathizing."

Is incorrect. They do not have the majority of the popular support, no. However, 20% is by far more than enough to derail any future the nation has. Most revoulatons are started by under 10%. The American Rev was less than a third.

So yes, today was good, but that number, small or big, is bad.

Let us just pray that the Sunni get 10% or more of the vote. [/quote]
the 20% number is in SYMPATHIZERS, they are the ones that sympathize with the cause. Meaning the rest of the population is against the cause. The insurgents don't have a platform or anything that really appeals to the majority of the population. Those who are actually willing to fight are much less than that 20% number.

Anyway, that is why the US army must stay there, because even small fighters can do alot to halt any good future the country can have. Any dynamic knowledge of the tactics needed here will say that we need the people to oppose the insurgents. Stay there to protect the people and build up the Iraqui government so it can begin protecting itself.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 30 2005, 10:31 PM'] the 20% number is in SYMPATHIZERS, they are the ones that sympathize with the cause. Meaning the rest of the population is against the cause. The insurgents don't have a platform or anything that really appeals to the majority of the population. Those who are actually willing to fight are much less than that 20% number.

Anyway, that is why the US army must stay there, because even small fighters can do alot to halt any good future the country can have. Any dynamic knowledge of the tactics needed here will say that we need the people to oppose the insurgents. Stay there to protect the people and build up the Iraqui government so it can begin protecting itself. [/quote]
I agree that the US army should stay there.

You sound like my nutso ex history teacher. Unless something broke 50% it doesn't count.

Think of it this way, only 16% of the world is Muslium. Not all Musliums are fighters and not all are supports. Let us say 5% are supports and 2 are fighters, can you say they don't have an impact on the world? Same applies to Iraq.

[argent_paladin]

Ah, this is my specialty. My short answer to "Was the war just":

Yes, but it wasn't presented sufficiently well and therefore should not have been fought until it was. This is because one of the classic criteria for just war is "proper authority". The president is the elected executive of the American government, representing the American people. Therefore, even though I believe that the war was justified, Bush didn't present it suffiently well and that has come back to haunt him. It is similar to someone "knowing" that a criminal is guilty of a crime. But, in our system we must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I belive that the war was justifiable but it was left unjustified.

First, the Pope has never personally, specifically condemned as immoral US action in Iraq. Others in the Vatican have and the Pope has spoken out for peace and called war a last resort. Preemptive war doesn't generally fall under just war (but therer are good arguments that in the modern world it should). The biggest reason that this was a just war was that this was a continuation of the first Gulf War.

Most admit that the first Gulf War fit the classic just war criteria. Kuwait was deliberately, aggressively attacked. The US got a UN approved coalition together an freed Kuwait. But that wasn't the end of the war. As part of the peace treaty, Iraq had to agree to no-fly-zones, weapons inspections and a trade embargo. These are acts of war (imagine if another country flew planes over our airspace and had ships that blocked our ports). Some aid organization estimated that 500,000 children a year were dying because of the sanctions. (It is one of the most common fallacies that Iraq was happy and peaceful until the first American boot touched the soil of Iraq.) So, we have been at war, uninterrupted since 1991. As a condition for the peace, Saddam agreed to weapons inspectors (because we know he had WMDs, he used them on the Kurds). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, he began to thwart the inspectors. Resolutions were passed. We sent troops to enforce the peace treaty that Saddam had reneged.

The strength of this argument is its simplicity:
1. The first Gulf War was a just war.
2. The second Gulf war is a continuation of the first Gulf war.

BTW, if the insurgents are at war with democracy, they lost yesterday. 8 million Iraqis voted. Also, one can only criticize the decision to go to war based on the information known at the time. All believed that Saddam had WMDs, so one cannot argue against the war for that reason. On the same topic, few would have predicted so few American and Iraqi casualties, and the speed, when capturing Baghdad, so that also cannot be used as a reason for the war. We can only judge the administration based on what they knew at the time.

[james]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jan 31 2005, 10:11 PM']
Most admit that the first Gulf War fit the classic just war criteria.  [/quote]
And yet others agree that the first Gulf War fit the classic Hegelian dialectic scenario which makes it anything but a just war.

Edited February 1, 2005 by james