Destroying Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

[christcnection1]

Would destroying Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities with military force be justified?

 

[Yerusalyim]

There are way too many “IFs” in that question. Given Iran’s history, I would lean in that direction…but that’s just my opinion.

 

[AnonymousOne]

If a madman has a gun pointed at my wife’s head, do I have to wait for him to pull the trigger before I shoot him?

I don’t think so. The act of pointing the gun at my wife’s head is already an unjust act of aggression (an act of war, so to speak), and I have the responsibility to my wife to protect her.

One could make the argument that in today’s world, with a leader who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and has pledged to cause world chaos to hasten the return of the mahdi, the very act of attempting to build a nuclear weapon is itself an act of war. I tend to hold this opinion.

When a country with Iran’s history, sitting on a major portion of the world’s oil supply says that they just want to build nuclear power plants, it’s just not believable. There is only one reason for them to want nuclear technology and it’s so they can take over the Middle East.

I think we should take out their nuclear plants before they get the bomb, but we’d better be prepared for the consequences, because they’re gonna be big and bad. But the consequences of not doing it are gonna be worse.

And don’t even begin to talk about how the ends do not justify the means, because that isn’t what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is that the unjust aggression by Iran has already happened, and we have an obligation to protect ourselves, the Iraqis, and the Israelis. The war with Iran has already begun, we just haven’t publicly acknowledged it yet.

Nuclear weapons are qualitatively different from conventional weapons. It is not reasonable to wait for the aggressor to actually drop the bomb before responding. The very threat is an act of war, not just the actual use of the bomb.

 

[BobP123]

Would the Pope approve?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Nope, the Pope didn’t approve of our war in Afghanistan or Iraq either. It’s an area where I reserve my right to say the Pope was wrong on that issue…and I put my money where my mouth is, I’m a Soldier.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Would the Pope approve?

In the Just War doctrine/theory, it is the role of the competent CIVIL authority to determine if the only alternative left is to wage war, and if there is a reasonable chance of success (2 of the necessary conditions for a just war). It is not the role or the competence of the pope to make that judgment. The pope’s role is to continually admonish all parties to strive for peace, even after war has broken out, and to remind/educate us on the moral conditions necessary for a just war.

He does not have the right, the responsibility, or the competence to bind our consciences with regard to the licitness of any particular war.

 

[BobP123]

He does not have the right, the responsibility, or the competence to bind our consciences with regard to the licitness of any particular war.

With all due respect, I believe he does. After all, weren’t many accusing Pius XII in not doing enough to ward off the Holocaust and World War II?

So you’re saying the Pope should do nothing at this point? What if I told you he has already reprimanded Iran on a number of issues? You think he has no plants in Iran, and Iraq also for that matter? Don’t you think he cares for the Christians in those countries, of which I hear that the animosity against them is more severe than ever?

No competence, huh?

 

[Dale_M]

Nope, the Pope didn’t approve of our war in Afghanistan or Iraq either.

I know he stated opposition to the Iraq invasion, but I have never heard of opposition to the Afghanistan war. To me, the two wars seem to be of totally different moral character. Do you happen to have a reference showing the Pope’s opposition to the war in Afghanistan?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Unproved without every option truly used up it is not an moral or just war.

Everything should be done to stop wars (epically needless ones) given the chaos and unknown after you start one.

 

[Matt_Collins]

With all due respect, I believe he does. After all, weren’t many accusing Pius XII in not doing enough to ward off the Holocaust and World War II?

I don’t see how that affects whether or not the pope has the right to bind my conscience regarding my participation in (or support of) a war my country has declared. The Just War doctrine itself says it is the role of the legally delegated civil authorities to make the decision about war. It is my role to decide if they have applied the principles of Just War in making that decision.

So you’re saying the Pope should do nothing at this point?

I’m not saying he should do nothing. In my post I said:

… it is the role of the competent CIVIL authority to determine if the only alternative left is to wage war, and if there is a reasonable chance of success (2 of the necessary conditions for a just war). It is not the role or the competence of the pope to make that judgment. The pope’s role is to continually admonish all parties to strive for peace, even after war has broken out, and to remind/educate us on the moral conditions necessary for a just war.

What if I told you he has already reprimanded Iran on a number of issues? You think he has no plants in Iran, and Iraq also for that matter? Don’t you think he cares for the Christians in those countries, of which I hear that the animosity against them is more severe than ever?

No competence, huh?

The competence I’m speaking of is this: 2. Law The quality or condition of being legally qualified to perform an act. American Heritage Dictionary

The pope is not the one legally responsible for making the decision if the United States (or any other country, for that matter) should go to war. In the United States, it is Congress that makes that decision and evaluates whether or not the conditions for a just war exist.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Unproved without every option truly used up it is not an moral or just war.

Agreed. My opinion, though, is that very soon there will be no more options that have any realistic probability of success.

Everything should be done to stop wars (epically needless ones) given the chaos and unknown after you start one.

Everything?! I would rephrase that to say “all realistic and reasonable options.” “Everything” includes capitulation, conversion to Islam, submission to tyrants, etc., etc., etc.

No, not “everything.”

A Just War, by definition, is the last resort. If “everything” must be done to avoid war, then there is no such thing as a just war. And I just don’t buy that. World War II is my case in point.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Agreed. My opinion, though, is that very soon there will be no more options that have any realistic probability of success.

Everything?! I would rephrase that to say “all realistic and reasonable options.” “Everything” includes capitulation, conversion to Islam, submission to tyrants, etc., etc., etc.

No, not “everything.”

A Just War, by definition, is the last resort. If “everything” must be done to avoid war, then there is no such thing as a just war. And I just don’t buy that. World War II is my case in point.

Only if we listen to the propaganda. It is Iraqv2, the same points are being disseminated.

And WWII, while often used is not a one-size fits all application towards any wars after it. No two wars are ever alike. Iraq was propagandized as such, and now Iran. It would never get to the capitulation stage, maybe the standoff stage, which is still preferable to war.

Iran’s people dislike their leader, they were more progressive until the Iraq war, “axis of evil” rethoric. Our heavy-handiness to shoot first and ask questions later is painting us in a corner. If it gets to a stand-off stage, then that gives time for the internal forces in Iran to slowly move toward moderation again, which they were doing from 1979-2001. Most Persians in Iran are modern, reasonable, and sick of the Whabbi rule. Given time Iran will come around as the radical generation dies off.

I fear this is coming about by parts of our government who were involved in the Ford Administration trying to get some long lost personal honor back from 1979.

 

[mpb74]

The Pope is not competent to make the decision because he does not have all the facts available to make it. While he may have some information I doubt he is aware of the total information that the US, in this case, has.

With all the facts, and being charged with the responsiblities of the US President, he would certainly be competent to make that decision.

 

[thistle]

The Pope is not competent to make the decision because he does not have all the facts available to make it. While he may have some information I doubt he is aware of the total information that the US, in this case, has.

With all the facts, and being charged with the responsiblities of the US President, he would certainly be competent to make that decision.

Well I sincerely hope its better information than the US had on Iraq. It turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was not in bed with Al Qaeda.

 

[bilop]

Most Persians in Iran are modern, reasonable, and sick of the Whabbi rule. Given time Iran will come around as the radical generation dies off.

Iran is run by fundamentalist Shiites. Wahhabis are Sunnis and the enemies of the Iranian regime.

The clash in Iraq largely a proxy war between Al Qaeda (Wahhabi Sunni) and the Shiite radicals supported by Iran.

I agree partly with your analysis about the youth in Iran disliking the government. But his is partly why they are so dangerous.
The Iranian leaders fear their time is running short and are using international brinkmanship to shore up their domestic position.

I think we can not let them get Nukes.

An air campaign against their nuke facilities and military would be nothing like Iraq. We’re not going to invade.

God Bless

 

[mpb74]

Well I sincerely hope its better information than the US had on Iraq. It turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq was not in bed with Al Qaeda.

Thank you for hitting the dnc talking points of the day. Fortunately you have all the facts in that case as I’m sure you do in this one. It is refreshing to see someone speak with such authority. Where do you get your info? CNN?

Dan

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank you for hitting the dnc talking points of the day. Fortunately you have all the facts in that case as I’m sure you do in this one. It is refreshing to see someone speak with such authority. Where do you get your info? CNN?

Dan

Actually, the White House can be cited for all those assertions. The President has accepted and endorsed two reports, created by individuals selected by him, which refute all claims of Iraq having possessed WMDs or viable programs to create them. Similiarly, the President has clearly stated, on at least two different occassions that no evidence exists for an operational connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Finally, the White House, the State Department, and the NIE all agree that AQI did not exist in Iraq prior to our invasion and that the group is sympathetic to, but not under the operational control of Osama Bin Laden.

Is there a reason you are not willing to accept the President’s word on these matters?

 

[mpb74]

I don’t fully accept what he says in this case. Saddam’s actions during the run-up to the war seem to indicate he was hiding something significant. Perhaps he was totally irrational, none of us really know for sure. National intelligence is not an exact science where things can be proven beyond any doubt very often. I think Bush caved publicly because the issue was now moot. Al-Quade was active in Iraq, and received aid and comfort from the Iraqi govt.

The OP was on the Pope’s authority. My first reply simply stated the President has more accurate info than the Pope. I am sure that John Paul II believed the general concensus of U.S intel was fairly accurate. I would wager he had no better, more accurate info. My post addressed the OP post.

I respect the Pope’s authority as leader of the Church. He is not the U.S. President. This issue is under the President’s authority.

Your comments about failures of US intel on Iraq had no bearing on the Pope’s authority on the issue. It seemed to simply be a snide derogatory political comment against people or institutions you don’t like or that you disagree with.

If my opinion on your statement is incorrect, please accept my apology for my comments.

 

[christcnection1]

For those who oppose military strikes now, because they question the supposed evidence, would you support such an attack if they tested a nuclear weapon first?

Indeed this could be very dangerous, both for us, and for our neighbor’s, but that would prove Iran’s intent. Thoughts?

 

[bobzills]

Would destroying Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities with military force be justified?

No, I don;t think so. Other countries have similar capabilities and why should some countries have it, while others don’t? Isn’t the USA causing a lot of sorrow and pain in Iraq right now?
My personal opinion is that it is better to promote peace, rather than war. In any type of war, too many innocent people get hurt, and it is oftentimes a most terrible and horrific hurt, and oftentimes lies are told in order to coverup the terrible pain inflicted on the innocent. But many times, those in charge of causing this horrific pain and suffering to mankind are oftentimes left unpunished. It is the poor, the innocent children, the powerless people who are most often hurt by these terrible wars.
I am for peace and harmony between peoples and countries. I am opposed to lies and war and torture and killing of innocent people.