Iraq War

[Timothy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 04:15 PM'] It was not interpreted as such at the time but as a wonder done "among the people at the hands of the apostles." And I have never said I thought that the war in Iraq was just, as a matter of fact I have said the opposite of that, but not for the Reasons you propose, your reasons are not valid reasons. Violence and war are certianly justifiable whether or not this is a Just War is irrelevant to the justice of war in general. [/quote]
This is a quote from you on the first page:

[quote]Still I think the war met the critera for a Just War, but of Course I believe a revolution here would equally meet such criteria.
[/quote]

I have to go for now, be back tomorrow.

Hey Don, let's pray about this thread to see if we are making progress here. I wish you well and will see you tomorrow.

God Bless

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 10 2005, 04:34 PM'] This is a quote from you on the first page:



I have to go for now, be back tomorrow.

Hey Don, let's pray about this thread to see if we are making progress here. I wish you well and will see you tomorrow.

God Bless [/quote]
I think it meets the traditional critera for a just war, however it did not meet the criteria imposed by the Church in 1648 ( this is the problem with disscussing the same thing in differant threads) therefore I don't believe that it was Justly executed. I am not disembling just clarifying.




here is the parable I was talking about.

mattew 22 : Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,
2
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son.
3
3 He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come.
4
A second time he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those invited: "Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast."'
5
Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business.
6
The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.
7
4 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
8
Then he said to his servants, 'The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come.
9
Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.'
10
The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, 5 and the hall was filled with guests.
11
6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12
He said to him, 'My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?' But he was reduced to silence.
13
7 Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
14
Many are invited, but few are chosen."

[jasJis]

Timothy,
Are there not a number of instances in the New Testament when Christ tells "soldiers" to be obedient to their superiors? Read Scripture again when the Disciples went to Gesthamane with Jesus and they were armed. Jesus did not prevent them from arming themselves, but he chose not to use force in that instant, just as he chose not to use his Angels for defense. The point isn't about non-violence, but about Jesus willfully not using the physical and spritual warriers that were at his disposal.

Tim, do you disagree with the entire concept of the 'Just War Theory'?

Tim, do you disagree with the late Pope John Paul II who said that now that the US is in Iraq, we have the moral obligation to remain there until the new Government is stable and ableto protect the Iraqi people?

[Timothy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 04:49 PM'] I think it meets the traditional critera for a just war, however it did not meet the criteria imposed by the Church in 1648 ( this is the problem with disscussing the same thing in differant threads) therefore I don't believe that it was Justly executed. I am not disembling just clarifying.




here is the parable I was talking about.

mattew 22 : [/quote]
Thanks for the Scripture

[Timothy]

[quote name='jasJis' date='May 11 2005, 06:44 AM'] Timothy,
Are there not a number of instances in the New Testament when Christ tells "soldiers" to be obedient to their superiors? Read Scripture again when the Disciples went to Gesthamane with Jesus and they were armed. Jesus did not prevent them from arming themselves, but he chose not to use force in that instant, just as he chose not to use his Angels for defense. The point isn't about non-violence, but about Jesus willfully not using the physical and spritual warriers that were at his disposal.

Tim, do you disagree with the entire concept of the 'Just War Theory'?

Tim, do you disagree with the late Pope John Paul II who said that now that the US is in Iraq, we have the moral obligation to remain there until the new Government is stable and ableto protect the Iraqi people? [/quote]
The answer to both of your questions are no. I find it hard to come to terms with killing rightoues or not rightoues. I beleive we are called to be peaceful people. But if God wants to give His children a spanking, then so it should be done. However, I do believe that many a times war is premature as all peaceful altneratives are not exhausted. Also, I admire what JPII has said.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 11 2005, 02:52 PM'] The answer to both of your questions are no. I find it hard to come to terms with killing rightoues or not rightoues. I beleive we are called to be peaceful people. But if God wants to give His children a spanking, then so it should be done. However, I do believe that many a times war is premature as all peaceful altneratives are not exhausted. Also, I admire what JPII has said. [/quote]
Would it be more accurate to state that you personally feel called to non-violence but can acknowledge and accept the possible moral righteousness of those who do fight?

[Timothy]

Well, sometimes Jas it maybe justified. But those sometimes are very seldom and few between. I don't feel that the war we fight in Iraq is just. I am curious and would like to know why those who believe the war we fight is moral. (which was kind of the reason I took the poll and started this thread).

Edited May 11, 2005 by Timothy

[BeenaBobba]

Truth be told, I'm not the biggest fan of this war; however, I think the topic's pretty nuanced. The CIA slipped up by saying that America was in imminent danger due to the existence of WMDs in Iraq. We then asked the United Nations for help. Instead of taking the United Nation's advice like we should have (after all, we did give them authority of sorts), we went to war. In the end, no WMDs were found, and the objective of the war was changed. To me, that doesn't sound like a war that was thoroughly planned. And without a doubt, I believe that all justified wars need to be planned. We cannot be flippant when it comes to human life.

On the other hand, Saddam was a horrible leader. He was terribly unjust. I think it's a good thing that he was removed from power. The thing is, I don't think we needed to wage a full-blown war to remove him from power. Perhaps more covert military operations would have been better justified. Had Bush planned this out -- and had Bush said that our military would be engaged in removing Saddam from power from the start -- I might have supported war had all other means been exhausted. Still, Bush has planned to make Iraq a democracy, but look at the rotten fruits of democracy on American soil! I don't know how many people Saddam has killed (or has had killed), but I do know that millions of children are killed each year on American soul. I hate to write this, but I think it's a bit arrogant of Americans to assume that we can solve Iraq's problems. Sure, we have removed Saddam from power, but are we replacing him with something just as bad?

Just my $.02.

[Guest chi rho]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 5 2005, 01:14 PM'] Please clarify your stance if you wish [/quote]
as a catholic who takes their faith very serisouly i support the war in iraq because i truely believe that in the long run that this war will bring peace and much more good things into the world. for example as a korean catholic 1. if the U.S. never got involved in the korean war and helped my ppol me and millions of other koreans would not be here, Pope John Paul II would probally have not made 103 korean catholic martyrs into saints. The korean penisula would have been a whole communist land. i would not be here practicing my faith. which i might also add the U.S. citizens thought that we shouldn't be over there to help the koreans as well in vietnam which was in the same situation as korea. 2. if the american revolutionary war never happened the U.S. too wouldn't even been here at all as well as the ppol. 3. if the U.S. never got involed in WWII then who knows the whole world could have taken over by Germany. Who knows? but this is why i support the war in iraq. now there are a couple of things about the war i do dissagree with.
but the best thing we can do is it pray for the war.

[Guest chi rho]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 5 2005, 01:14 PM'] Please clarify your stance if you wish [/quote]
i 4got to say sumthings. i do also beileve that we(the U.S.) are defending ourselves. It is a church teaching that when killing someone it is not a sin when in the act of self-defense. so i do beileve that we are defending ourselves from terroist. i also believe that the war is securing human rights and restoring peace in Iraq because Iraq is better without Sudam in power that is a fact. last i also beileve that it was the U.S. last restort.
The UN did make a resolution that Sadam must disarm his nuclear weapons and if not the UN would make neccissary force.

That just my whole opinion on this issue. ok iam done lol

[ironmonk]

The war is moral and just.

[b]CCC 2308 [/b]
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


[b]CCC 2309 [/b]
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that President Bush is going to have information that is not available to the public or many other people. I believe that President Bush HAS the responsibility for the common good.


ALL criteria were met.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[url="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html"]http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html[/url]
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

(you will have to copy and paste the link)
[url="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html"]http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html[/url]



Saddam Hussein bribed high-ranking officials in France and Russia and perhaps even China through the UN oil-for-food program.

[url="http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/243438p-208560c.html"]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/243438p-208560c.html[/url]



With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted WMD scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3200 from 40.

[url="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/...l?oneclick=true"]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/...l?oneclick=true[/url]


The beneficiaries allegedly included Benon Sevan, the U.N. diplomat who ran the oil-for-food program; officials from at least three U.N. Security Council member nations (Russia, France and China) and several U.S. companies. Duelfer identified several of the foreign countries and officials, but, citing privacy laws, he did not name the suspected U.S. firms, an inconsistency both odd and unfair.


[url="http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct04/267041.asp"]http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct04/267041.asp[/url]




Common sense... the war was/is just.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 12, 2005 by ironmonk

[philothea]

Pope John Paul II, (former) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB have all spoken clearly against the Iraq War. Why is your judgment superior to theirs? Why do you not submit to their teaching?

I know the standard response, "it's not infallible". Well [i]of course[/i] the invasion of Iraq by the USA isn't a matter for infallible teaching. That's absurd. Some contemplative nun in Burma who speaks no English and couldn't find Iraq on a globe doesn't need to think about it. People 1,000 years in the future shouldn't be obliged to care.

The statements on the war by JPII, Ratzinger, and the American bishops are intended for [i]American Catholics[/i], the only people who can make a difference, and who are called to obey. The teaching is especially for the Americans who would, without their guidance, support the war: you.

What if, through some absurdity, the Iraq war was infalliby declared unjust by Pope Benedict XVI? Would you submit to the Church's teaching? Who has your loyalty, the Church, or the State? The Bishop of Rome or the Republican Party? If you say that of course, you would submit to any Church teaching, then why do you not assent when they Church teaches in the form suitable for the issue?

I am also tired of hearing that the Pope knows nothing of warfare or world politics. Maybe, maybe not. He probably knows more about war than he knows about sex or raising babies, and we listen to him on those topics. His qualification to guide the faithful is not based on personal research, but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[BeenaBobba]

Dear Max,

[quote]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[/quote]

The United States did put the United Nations, "an international authority with the necessary competence and power," in a position of authority. We acted against the authority of the United Nations in going to war, and in doing so, I think we made a mistake. I think it'd have been more prudent to wait it out, though I understand that Bush was in a difficult position. Had he failed to act, and had the United States been hit with another catastrophic attack, he would have been partially responsible. Who's to say I wouldn't have acted the same way had I been in his position? Still, my belief is that it's always best to avoid war unless it's absolutely necessary. When Bush went to war without having heeded the United Nation's advice, it seemed he was jumping the gun. It would seem that someone who wanted to avoid war unless it was absolutely necessary would have listened to the United Nation's advice before acting.

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

This is where most people have problems with the war. To many people (myself included), the war seems poorly planned. Bush originally said we went to Iraq because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, but nothing of the sort was found. It was later said that we went to Iraq to liberate the people of Iraq, to remove Saddam from power, and to bring democracy to Iraq. My problem with this is America's insistence that we can accomplish such a feat. Like I've said, we've seen the rotten fruits of democracy in America. (I'm not saying democratic forms of government are evil; I'm just saying that America's current idea of democracy and freedom is nothing to brag about, especially when millions of babies are killed each year.) And like Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5, one must remove the plank in one's own eye before one bothers one's brother over the speck in his. Besides, would a carbon copy of America really be a good thing? I don't have a source with me right now (I'll try to find one if anyone's interested), but I remember reading that the abortion rate in Iraq has gone up within the past few years. Instilling American values in Iraq could possibly entail giving them more problems than they've started with.

Another thing is that it's nearly impossible to force democracy on a country. To transplant a form of government onto a soil in which it's never grown would take a lot of time and work. Is the American goverment going to put in the time and the effort to [i]really[/i] help Iraq? It's been two years or so since we've entered Iraq, and while the people of Iraq are no longer under Saddam, their government is still quite unstable. Perhaps it's too early to predict the long term results, but I'm not totally convinced that we've made a huge difference. The fact that I'm not convinced makes me question the prudence of having risked thousands of lives for something that may or may not be accomplished. To me, war is only justifiable when everything is crystal clear -- and things don't seem 100% crystal clear with this war.

[quote]I believe that President Bush is going to have information that is not available to the public or many other people. I believe that President Bush HAS the responsibility for the common good.[/quote]

Agreed. But the thing is, Bush has admitted that the CIA has given him faulty information (to the best of my knowledge); he's also admitted that the CIA needs a makeover.

As far as those news articles are concerned, why wasn't anything like this on major news channels and in major newspapers? Granted, the media has a liberal bias, but the United Nations, like Congress, operates out in the open. At the very least, something this monumental would have been sure to make it to Fox.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='philothea' date='May 12 2005, 04:05 PM'] Pope John Paul II, (former) Cardinal Ratzinger, and the USCCB have all spoken clearly against the Iraq War.  Why is your judgment superior to theirs?  Why do you not submit to their teaching? [/quote]
Yes, Pope John Paull II opposed the war, and if there's anyone to follow, it's him. He was both learned and holy. But in ironmonk's defense, Catholics are allowed to use their discretion when it comes to judging the moral legitimacy of particular wars (provided that they do not eschew Catholic teaching regarding war, of course).

[MichaelFilo]

Here is the problem with your constant call to obeying the pope on certain matters: It has been a historically dangerous thing to do.

For instance, Pope Liberius (sp?) was an Arian sympathizer, but it took the courages defiance of St. Athonasius to see the Church through that time period. The point, the pope can be wrong.

As a matter of fact, JPII's opposition to war completely (pacifism) is a non-Catholic notion mixed with humanitarianism. If that should be his opinion about war, can we rely on him for a just war opinion that is fair to the case?

God bless,
Mikey