I Support the Troops

[thestickman]

Richardols:

You are presuming that the war was for legitimate defense of the United States.

I presume nothing. Removing Saddam from power was for the legitimate defense of the US.

The rush to war…

There was no rush to war. You’ve written a deliberate error of fact. I’ll leave it up to you and God to decide to what degree.

…to remove the WMDs was shown to be false as no WMDs were found.

Another deliberate error of fact. The Congressional Resolution states all the legitimate reasons for removing Saddam from power as we did. Again, it’s between you and God.

You are presuming that the war met the criteria of the “just war.” Many disagree.

The CCC doesn’t. Again, from 2309:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Many can disagree all they wish. In this instance, the Congress and the President have the responsibility for the common good of our nation.

If the war didn’t meet the criteria, it doesn’t matter who approved.

Good thing the war did meet the criteria, isn’t it?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

There are those working very hard to MAKE 2005 like 1968. It is up to us to call upon them to use the rights others earned for them in a responsible fashion.

Vern, yes, I have noticed efforts to make 2005 like 1968. These efforts are simply fear-monguering, bully tactics and only work on the most docile and unread among us. Nam is a benchmark in American history imho. America learned from Nam and will not go that route again. Iraq may have some characteristics in common with Nam, but it is a whole different kettle of fish. For many reasons, most importantly the change in consciousness of the American public since Nam.

People think that, if they can circumvent people like Bush, then the gig is up. The troops will go home. No no no. Talk about WMDs, breached UN resolutions, France and Russia, regional instability and so on all you want. 9/11 is the change in consciousness that matters. If Bush failed to act (in whatever way) the public would have found someone else. If they couldn’t find anyone else, they would have organized their neighbourhood militias. People who compare Nam to 2005 are vastly underestimating the degree of obstruction that the American people pose to the culture of terror.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

For starters, from the Vatican website, from the Pope himself

There’s lot more like that here

vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/peace/prayer-peace_index.html

Mike

Thanks for the link. The **point **is, Mike, that your reference to the Pope then puts the onus on you to discuss what the Pope says. You are the one in this discussion, not the Pope. So point by point please.

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Good thing the war did meet the criteria, isn’t it?

Strangely, I can find very, very few articles on the whole internet from Catholic ministers that agrees that this was a Just War, and the only ones that do hinge completely on the existence of WMDs.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

Thanks for the link. The **point **is, Mike, that your reference to the Pope then puts the onus on you to discuss what the Pope says. You are the one in this discussion, not the Pope. So point by point please.

Right, well this is going to be monumentally pointless, but here goes:

War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.

Agreed, and it was.

As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option

which it wasn’t

and in accordance with very strict conditions

which it wasn’t

without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.

which were manifestly ignored (use of cluster munitions, use of depleted uranium, …)

So, there you go. Now you know my points too. The Pope said it, and I agreed with it, which, oddly enough, is why I mentioned him in the first place

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Vern, yes, I have noticed efforts to make 2005 like 1968. These efforts are simply fear-monguering, bully tactics and only work on the most docile and unread among us. Nam is a benchmark in American history imho. America learned from Nam and will not go that route again.

We will if some in this country have their way. That’s why I say we have an obligation to see that such people do not do to this generation of American soldiers what was done to my generation.

Iraq may have some characteristics in common with Nam, but it is a whole different kettle of fish. For many reasons, most importantly the change in consciousness of the American public since Nam.

Let us keep the consciousness of the American people up, then, and win this war. Let us not do what happened in Viet Nam, and surrender the debate to those who support the enemy.

People think that, if they can circumvent people like Bush, then the gig is up. The troops will go home. No no no. Talk about WMDs, breached UN resolutions, France and Russia, regional instability and so on all you want. 9/11 is the change in consciousness that matters. If Bush failed to act (in whatever way) the public would have found someone else. If they couldn’t find anyone else, they would have organized their neighbourhood militias. People who compare Nam to 2005 are vastly underestimating the degree of obstruction that the American people pose to the culture of terror.

Yet there are those who chortle over the death of every American soldier, and seek to make political capital out of it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Vern Humphrey:

Yet there are those who chortle over the death of every American soldier, and seek to make political capital out of it.

Finding just company isn’t an easy endeavour.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

MikeWM:

Right, well this is going to be monumentally pointless, but here goes:

Agreed, and it was.

which it wasn’t

which it wasn’t

which were manifestly ignored (use of cluster munitions, use of depleted uranium, …)

So, there you go. Now you know my points too. The Pope said it, and I agreed with it, which, oddly enough, is why I mentioned him in the first place

Mike

Very good. Thank you, Mike. Now I’m going to Home Depot. Catchya later. :tiphat:

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Strangely, I can find very, very few articles on the whole internet from Catholic ministers that agrees that this was a Just War, and the only ones that do hinge completely on the existence of WMDs.

Mike

Strangely, enough the CCC 2309 makes it clear who has to make those decisions. “Catholic ministers” aren’t mentioned. I would also add that my parish priest has stated it’s a just war and has met all of the criteria and I’m confident he wouldn’t do so just to make me happy politically

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

Very good. Thank you, Mike. Now I’m going to Home Depot. Catchya later. :tiphat:

I thought you’d already been and came back

In any event, I used to prefer Office World. I’ve still got some bookcases that need building…

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Strangely, enough the CCC 2309 makes it clear who has to make those decisions. “Catholic ministers” aren’t mentioned.

Strange that you don’t think The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good includes the Pope and the Church.

I would also add that my parish priest has stated it’s a just war and has met all of the criteria and I’m confident he wouldn’t do so just to make me happy politically

I don’t doubt it Of course opinion is divided on this, but often priests are a bit close to the community to be truly objective (eg. if you lived in a military community, he would be risking losing all his parishoners if he was too vocally anti-war…)

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

This is an oversimplification of the principle of double effect. Please apply the principle of double effect and discuss.

It’s a three-line summary, of course it’s rather simplified. However, there is nothing in the principle of double effect, however complex, which justifies in inehrently unjust action. If you can show otherwise (from a legitimate, Catholic moral standpoint), please do.

I may have been too vague in indicating what initial action I believe to be inherently unjust. Let me then try to be more specific. The overthrow of a legitimate foreign government with whom we are not at war with is inherently unjust.

Hussein was a dictator and all around bad guy, and his regime oppressive and guilty of atrocities, but it was nonetheless the legitimate government of a sovereign state.

If it helps, contrast this with Afghanistan, which was a much more ambiguous case. The Taliban were not recognized as the governmetn of Afghanistan by the U.S. or by most of the world community. They did not exercise sovreign control the entire country. Furthermore, you could argue that the act in the Afghan war was to take out Al-Queda, with the collapse of the Taliban regime as a consequence.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

The CCC doesn’t. Again, from 2309:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

As an American citizen and voter, I also have a responsibility for the common good. I don’t surrender my moral judgment and responsibilities at voting box. Winning an election is not a blank check.

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

Strange that you don’t think The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good includes the Pope and the Church.

Within the context of 2309 that distinction isn’t made, is it? Neither is the Pope or the Church mentioned at all in 2310. It’s not till 2312 the Church asserts itself into this particular process and that’s regarding the moral laws of armed conflict.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

As an American citizen and voter, I also have a responsibility for the common good.

You certainly do. But you do not get to make the decision whether our nation should or shouldn’t go to war. Neither do I.

I don’t surrender my moral judgment and responsibilities at voting box.

Nope, you don’t. This is one of a few zillion things that’s great about freedom. If you lose the election you get to complain and vote in the next election.

Winning an election is not a blank check.

No one ever suggested it was nor does it have anything to do with the reality the Congress and the President have the legal and moral authority to decide whether our nation goes to war.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Hussein was a dictator and all around bad guy, and his regime oppressive and guilty of atrocities, but it was nonetheless the legitimate government of a sovereign state.

Really? Who legitimized it?

 

[MikeWM]

thestickman:

Within the context of 2309 that distinction isn’t made, is it? Neither is the Pope or the Church mentioned at all in 2310. It’s not till 2312 the Church asserts itself into this particular process and that’s regarding the moral laws of armed conflict.

What’s the use of it being in the Catholic Cathechism then? What is the use of evaluating the morality in an action if not in a Catholic way? Or does it only apply to those leaders of countries who also happen to be Catholics?



Mike

 

[Richardols]

Ani Ibi:

This sort of thing seems to merit fine tuning. I think that attacks against the troops and their families, friends, and neighbours take different forms and therefore merit different remedies.

Sure. Anything from ignoring it to calling the cops would depend on the situation.

I hope that people who are arrested for spitting, then, understand that there are consequences for choosing criminal action. And I hope that enforcement is even handed, swift, and vigorous.

Spitting at another person is assault, so I agree.

Well, maybe not a Montrealer. A Torontonian maybe. And even then Torontonians have said some pretty disgusting things against not only American troops but their own troops. And not only against American troops but all Americans. As for Ottawa, one of our members of parliament called Bush a moron.

Sticks and stones… People can’t be hyper-sensitive.

That MP was more charitable than a lot of Americans would have been.

Much of the opposition (in Canada) to the War has been strident, hateful, and verging on violent. How useful is that?

It’s inappropriate because Canadians aren’t involved in what is a controversial war to us.

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

What’s the use of it being in the Catholic Cathechism then? What is the use of evaluating the morality in an action if not in a Catholic way? Or does it only apply to those leaders of countries who also happen to be Catholics?



Mike

I think you’re making an inadvertent apples and oranges argument, Mike. The CCC plainly states in 2309:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

My parish priest (we aren’t in a miliary base area–matter of fact we are in a very anti-Catholic portion of the deep south) tells me this means the duly elected government of our nation makes these decisions. My adivce is, if you think the Church means something different, petition Rome to make an adjustment.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Really? Who legitimized it?

The U.S. State Department. The corresponding ministries of most the other nations of the world. The United Nations.

That’s why things like receiving diplomats and having an embassy are such big deals, and why a country’s recognizing or failing to recognize a country’s government is news.