This argument divests the Pope of all authority doesn’t it? The Pope is not legally responsible for laws on abortion, or marriage, or euthanasia. The Congress can change all those laws tomorrow. So the Pope’s teaching on those things don’ t matter either?
Isn’t it ignorant to expect that sooner or later Iran or Siria or N. Korea wont gain nuclear capability. Maybe if this time Iran fails, next time they’ll do it more secretly, better hidden, deeper underground, etc…, but the next time their attitude will be also more defiant?
On the contrary. As one poster noted the only civil authority in the US that is competent enough is Congress and only directly. Their authority is undermined when they are forced to give the President a blank check if and when he or she feels like going to war. Do you really think Hilary knows better than the Pope?
I suppose there are no guarantees either way. I don’t disagree with you.
If Iran tested a nuclear weapon successfully and continue to use rhetoric about destroying Israel and establishing a global caliphate, would you still hold the same view?
I noticed that Pakistan has the A-Bomb. why isn’t it thought that Pakistan is a danger to the West. Isn’t this the country which has terrorists? didn’t Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA all help the Taliban in Afghanistan when they wanted the USSR out?If Iran tested a nuclear weapon successfully and continue to use rhetoric about destroying Israel and establishing a global caliphate, would you still hold the same view?
I am not disagreeing with you by the way.
Well, I’m sure your views go deeper than this; otherwise, I would say they are overly simplistic, particularly when it comes to Iran. Yes, in theory, I am utterly against war and oppose torture, but I do believe in Just War as the Church teaches. I believe WWII was justified, though parts were fought the wrong way.
I think this is very much a concern in Washington. Since 2001 much fretting has been done regarding how hard to push President Musharraf since we were afraid of undermining his support/control. Yes, the prospect of radical Islamists there gaining nuclear material is more than a bit worrisome.
I have a problem with the just war theory, because it looks to me like every war today is really unjust. For example, you mention WWII. Was it just to kill innocent women and children civilians by dropping the A-Bomb on Japan. And after all, who is the USA to be going around giving sermons against munclear weapons and playing Mr. Country of high moral character, when they are the only ones who have dropped this immoral A=Bomb on civilians in the first place.
No, it wouldnt be.
If a madman had his trigger on a rocket launcher aimed at a crowd of civilians, would a sharp shooter be justified at putting a bullet in his head?
The Church would agree that much of WWII was fought unjustly, especially the A-bomb. I can’t see how you thought I was arguing with that. In fact, I clearly stated that I believed parts of it were unjustly fought.
Well I guess those sharp shooters are going to be busy then, because there are (and has been) a lot of “madmen” with rocket launchers around.
You’re not kidding. I guess it’s better than having countless dead innocents.
I will answer that question this way. Since the US has used nukes on innocent civilians in Japan, do you then believe that some other country (India, Russia, Pakistan or ?) would be justified at striking the nuclear facilities in the USA?
Well I guess the “sharp shooters” had better start with the United States, since that would most definatly count as a “madman with a rocket launcher”.
Apples and oranges. We used the atomic bombs to bring WWII to a quicker end. Not saying it was a good choice, but better than a full fledged invasion of Japan that would’ve killed more people than the two atomic bombs combined.
The projected deaths of an invasion has grown with time. In part because of Truman’s concience. There is quite a weath of correspondance, etc. at the Truman library that is well worth reading.