Iraq War

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 6 2005, 11:49 AM'] I don't know if anyone intentionally puts country in front of church in these arguments. But one thing seems pretty clear to me, the pro just war argument has more western logic to it.

Being (for a lot of us) in the US, there is a lot of stuff that is undercurrent to our opinions and conclusions. A lot of it comes from living in the most powerful nation in the world. However as a nation US Catholics represent 6% of all Catholics.

6%

And we're not the most important 6% ( I doubt that there is a "most important" but you get my drift.

Western thinking has its disadvantages. Especially when we are trying to be in union with 94% of the world.

But we have Tivo so that's something. [/quote]
The Catholic Church is a Church steeped in Western thought, Latin america is " western" Irland is "western" and so on, I don't really understand your post.

[philothea]

What I would like clarified is what is wrong with my analysis of the catechism's teaching in this matter.

[Timothy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 6 2005, 12:11 PM'] No it doesn't. [/quote]
Please explain these Don. I posted them in the other thread "Is Bush more Catholic Than JP2" but it seemed to be ignored.

[quote]
CANTON, Mar 18, 03 (CWNews.com) -- An American Catholic bishop has forbidden his flock from participating or cooperating in military action against Iraq, under pain of mortal sin.

Bishop John Michael Botean, the head of the Romanian Catholic eparchy (diocese) of St. George in Canton, Ohio-- which has jurisdiction over all Byzantine-rite Romanian Catholics living in the US-- invoked the full measure of his authority in a Lenten Letter to his people. The bishop declared with "moral certainty" that the proposed attack on Iraq "does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just-war theory." [/quote]






[quote]
US President George W. Bush has assumed a heavy moral burden by saying his intention to go to war against Iraq, the Vatican has warned.  [/quote]



[quote]
In his Sunday Angelus audience on March 16, Pope John Paul II issued his most urgent call to date for a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Iraq.

In a break from his prepared text, the Pope reminded his listeners that he had personal experience with the horrors of war. He insisted that believers must unite in rejecting war as an option, saying "Never again war!" However, the Pontiff also acknowledged the need for Iraqi compliance with international disarmament demands. In a "pressing appeal" addressed to Baghdad, he reminded the Iraqi government leadership of its "urgent duty fully to cooperate with the international community, to eliminate every motive for armed intervention."

The Pope continued to insist that diplomatic efforts could bear fruit. "There is still time to negotiate," he said. "There is still room for peace."

Cardinal Laghi, in an interview published by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, had summarized the concerns of the Holy See by pointing to four negative consequences of military action: "the suffering people will face, the future for the Middle East, the dialogue with Islam, and the consequences for the United Nations."

The suffering of civilians would be the saddest consequence of war, the cardinal said. But he also predicted that military action would undermine the cause of peace in the volatile Middle East as a whole, and he questioned whether an attack led by the US would decrease the influence and authority of the UN.

However, Cardinal Laghi said that "the most delicate factor" involved in the crisis is the reaction of the Muslim world. Referring to this weekend's meeting among the leaders of the US, Britain, and Spain, the cardinal observed: "If the three countries that met in the Azores go to war, that will appear to the Islamic world as a war by Christian countries against a Muslim country. Tensions will be heightened, and that could lead to an increase in terrorism." [/quote]




These were quoted from CWNEWS

Edited May 6, 2005 by Timothy

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 6 2005, 01:51 PM'] Please explain these Don. I posted them in the other thread "Is Bush more Catholic Than JP2" but it seemed to be ignored.

















These were quoted from CWNEWS [/quote]
There is no explination needed, The late Popes pacfist tendencies where well noted, that he personally opposed the war did not make " The Church " opposed to it. All the Pope had to do to make it so was order Catholics not to fight in this war, to declare it sinful to do so, Yet he did not do so, because in declaring [i]his[/i] opposition it was [i]his[/i] not the Church's or his as the Vicar of Christ. THat Bush excepted a moral burden upon himself when he went to war is obvious, and certianly is no condemnation.
As for the view that Christian countries where going to war agians Muslim countries... If only it where so, unfortunatly none of those three qualify as Christian countries any more, Not even Spain.

As to the UN losing authority, nothing could be better, the UN is EVIL. Oh accept that the UN has no Authority to lose, that is a problem there so I guess his Eminence was wrong on that score. His Eminence can be wrong you now, and he does not speak for "The Church."

[Timothy]

And if you support this war, is it safe to assume that you assume the same moral burden that Bush assumes?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 5 2005, 10:02 PM'] He was not a good leader, and he was cruel, but he was elected (lawfully). [/quote]
[QUOTE]



So was Hitler. Therefore WWII must not have been justified, right?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 6 2005, 03:05 PM'] And if you support this war, is it safe to assume that you assume the same moral burden that Bush assumes? [/quote]
No. Bush is the leader, he desides whether to go o war or not, the moral burden for that decision is only his. I support the desicion of men to use lethal force agianst those who threaten their family, however, the moral burden for that decisionis on them, not on me. Some years ago I stood with a rifle and defended a robbery and assualt victem from the men who where going to kill him in the road, I would have shot them, one literally came only a hairs breth from getting shot( I was already putting preasure on the trigger), he decided to withdraw and I did not shoot him. In every respect the moral responsability was on me, I chose to intervene, I chose to use lethal force to defend the injured man( I didn't know at the time what had happened only that he was helpless and bleeding and that the other man was going to kill him.) though I only ended up using the threat of lethal force morally I used it because I was going to use it, and I chose not let him withdraw, anyone that that man hurt after that was my fault I LET HIM GO, it all is my moral burden because I was the one making the decisions. Simularly Bush alone is responsable for the decisions he makes.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 6 2005, 03:25 PM'] [QUOTE]



So was Hitler. Therefore WWII must not have been justified, right? [/quote]
If you use the standards that this war is being held too WWII was not justified.

[Curt F.]

I find it odd that most people who are for the war were against the murders of Saddam. What do you think the US is over there doing right now? Talking? No. I don't think a war is the answer. It's like pouring gasoline over a fire. I'd enjoy if someone could explain this logic to me.

[MichaelFilo]

The logic goes so far. Hitler also invaded other countries. So did Saddam, yes. However, he got his "just deserts". Hitler was dead before he could be sentenced. Saddam was alive even after the war and was allowed to stay in power. Think about this please.... is that analogy at all good?


Curtis, most soldiers don't kill people for any reason. More people died in the time span of this war that are Iraqi than those who died under the Saddam government in a similiar time span... supposedly in a "just" sense, if this war is just. I think the premise it was justified under failed, and so it is unjust.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited May 6, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[Don John of Austria]

I don't think that saddam is in any way a coraletive to Hitler, Hitler made war on the Church and on the Faithful, Saddam protected the Faithful that is enough show the differance.


But agian if the US had had to live up to the standerds set for this War Britian would be speaking German now. We actually started it with hte Germans 2 years before Hitler declared war on us.

[MichaelFilo]

I like you Don. I like you alot.

God bless,
Mikey

[Don John of Austria]

Thank You.


I like you to.

[musturde]

I'd seriously say the war on Iraq, whether justified or not, was not all that well planned out and the outcome is weak. The being said I can't even out the good or bad from it, only that right now the situation isn't going to be that great. I believe the Vatican released a statement saying since we already had many troops in Iraq that other countries should help and send more. Participating in it right now isn't bad and I think that's what should be argued if it comes down to morality. Bush didn't really decide on the war anyways, it was his cabinet. I don't think he could have masterminded it himself. That's just me though. I don't like Sadam very much. I'm very happy he gave Christians more rights than some rulers in the area but not more than all rulers in the area. Even Syria gives more rights to us (thats sad). I believe Iraq deserves much better than this but I can't say how. I don't like the war mostly because of what's going on now and what will happen soon but I do like Sadam out. And how is the UN evil? I don't quite understand what you mean.

POST 3333... perfection....lol

[CanCath]

You cannot even compare Hitler with Saddam.... WWII was not a result of his treatment toward he Church OR other ethnicities. WWII was strickly a war to contain an expantionnary regime.

I think the US is in Iraq because of Self Interest. It is Definitely NOT doing it because it feel it is MORAL OBLIGATION. I'll never by it. If the US was in Iraq because they felt that something needed to be done, it would also have felt that something needed to be done in Darfur, in Burma, and Zimbabwe. I don't buy it.