Iraq a Just War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carl

Guest
Brother John Raymond, in his article on The Just War Theory,
makes the following remarks:

A great impetus to the Just War Theory was St. Thomas Aquinas. He emphasized St. Augustine’s statements about war and added a little to them. He followed a similar reasoning breaking up his argument into three necessary conditions for a just war: authorized authority, just cause and rightful intention. In speaking about who authorizes war St. Thomas emphasizes that the sovereign has the responsibility for the common good of those committed to his care. Only he can declare war. Moreover the sovereign has the lawful right of recourse to “the sword” to defend his people against internal strife by punishing those who do evil, justified by St. Paul in verse 4 of chapter 13 in the letter to the Romans. Therefore it is his duty to defend the common good against external enemies by having recourse to arms. A just cause is required to wage war. St. Thomas considers such a cause to be “that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” Finally St. Thomas discusses the right intention for waging war. Only two possibilities are presented: either the furthering of some good or an avoidance of some evil. The underpinnings of his arguments and most important contribution to St. Augustine’s theory “would appear to consist in his stress on the natural law.”

The question I need help answering is whether the present struggle with Iraq and terrorists worldwide is covered by the just war principle. If this has already been dealt with in another thread, could somebody direct me to it?

Thanks for any remarks you can contribute.
 
There are probably over 100 threads discussing this topic…I will go to my grave believing we are engaged in a just war and you can just scan through my previous posts as to my reasons in believing such…there are a few who don’t believe it is just, but they are in the minority. However…the truth of the matter is, now that we are engaged, just or unjust, it doesn’t matter anymore…we have to do what is necessary to win. We can not pull out prematurely and all the crys from people claiming it is unjust or that we are murdering people is outlandish and fallacious…we must come together and be in unity now…despite your initial feelings on the war, because the fact remains, regardless if you agree with the war or not, we are engaged in it and no amount of griping about it is going to change it…so the best thing we can all do is come together and support our troops and president during this conflict and not give comfort to the enemy and strengthen his resolve by writing articles trashing our own troops, country, and president…Why do we need to fight terrorist in foreign countries when the enemy can be found on our own soil, i.e. bleeding heart libs who hate their country, but love and embrace the terrorists, newspapers, hollywood, etc.
 
40.png
Carl:
Brother John Raymond, in his article on The Just War Theory,
makes the following remarks:

*A great impetus to the Just War Theory was St. Thomas Aquinas. He emphasized St. Augustine’s statements about war and added a little to them. He followed a similar reasoning breaking up his argument into three necessary conditions for a just war: authorized authority, just cause and rightful intention. In speaking about who authorizes war St. Thomas emphasizes that the sovereign has the responsibility for the common good of those committed to his care. Only he can declare war. Moreover **the sovereign has the lawful right of recourse to “the sword” to defend his people against internal strife by punishing those who do evil, justified by St. Paul in verse 4 of chapter 13 in the letter to the Romans. Therefore it is his duty to defend the common good against external enemies by having recourse to arms. ***A just cause is required to wage war. St. Thomas considers such a cause to be “that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” Finally St. Thomas discusses the right intention for waging war. Only two possibilities are presented: either the furthering of some good or an avoidance of some evil. The underpinnings of his arguments and most important contribution to St. Augustine’s theory “would appear to consist in his stress on the natural law.”

The question I need help answering is whether the present struggle with Iraq and terrorists worldwide is covered by the just war principle. If this has already been dealt with in another thread, could somebody direct me to it?

Thanks for any remarks you can contribute.
Click to expand...
Sorry if someone has already written this, but the stuf in bold sounds similar to the literature that sparks mujahedin to action.
 
Sorry…you couldn’t be further from the truth…The SOVEREIGN should and does have the power to defend itself and its people against agression and all other threats…in order for a nation to be a sovereign power, it must be willing to protect its people and go to war if necessary to protect its sovereignty…The mujahedin on the other hand is bands of rebels who go about declaring their jihads against people…they have no sovereign power behind them and for the most part they are a bunch of murdering thugs. The Church fathers were not talking about these type of people when they discussed just war.
40.png
b19mcking:
Sorry if someone has already written this, but the stuf in bold sounds similar to the literature that sparks mujahedin to action.
Click to expand...
 
I agree we’ve made our bed now we must sleep in it. Or whatever cliche best fits. But what we don’t have is a clear reason to be there. First it was the weapons of mass destruction, then it was the ties to Al Quaeda (SP?), now it’s to free the Iraqi people. The president to my knowledge has adopted the idea that Iraq is the war on terror. But he was wrong (WMD) and unprepared (troop strength and equipment) to take the action when we threatened Sadaam with force. There are a lot of disheartened soldiers because of this. They are wondering why the US is involved. It is unclear to many normal Americans as well. And Iraq takes focus off of very important domestic issues like education, health care, unemployment, tax fraud, tax evasion, government waste, and campaign finance reform. Ity is also disheartening to realize that General Eric Shinseki (SP?) was fired because he was realistic with his ideas about troop strangth and equipment necessary to win peace in Iraq. There is no victory without peace!
 
Well that’s the thing, mujahedin “think” or they know their leaders are the leaders of a sovereign Islamic jihad. They have a totally different view of western society. They believe that the western society is the cause of all their troubles, and their nations favor teh idea because it takes teh pressure off of the real leaders, and takes the “rebels” as they are called by some away to fight in their jihad. That gets them out of their countries so they can not cause trouble there.
 
*three necessary conditions for a just war: *

*authorized authority: no question there. * For the US the rightful authority is the president and congress as granted to them by the people in the Constitution of the United States.

just cause: no question there. The cause was the protection of the United States

rightful intention: no question there. The president and congress truely believed they were protecting America from attack from a nutty dictator.

You know this really is a simple issue with a simple answer.
 
40.png
b19mcking:
But what we don’t have is a clear reason to be there. First it was the weapons of mass destruction, then it was the ties to Al Quaeda (SP?), now it’s to free the Iraqi people. The president to my knowledge has adopted the idea that Iraq is the war on terror.

…

It is unclear to many normal Americans as well.
Click to expand...
sigh

The reasons for invading Iraq haven’t changed. There was no first, it was this; second, it was this; et cetera. The reasons have been the same from day one of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To wit:
  1. Ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  2. To identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
  3. To search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country.
  4. To collect intelligence related to terrorist networks.
  5. To collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction.
  6. To end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens.
  7. To secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people.
  8. To help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
– Mark L. Chance.
 
I’m no expert on foreign relations or current events, but I try to make educated guess or “shots in the dark” as some might call them. I remember news casts of the US population, before our action, that favored force in Iraq and I beleive the majority polled were in favor of letting the UN inspectorsdo their job, (HA!). Some or most have the similar opinions and ideas. Even experts on terrorist organizations.
I agree action was necessary for the UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and yes Sadaam is a bad person. But there are bad dictators everywhere, (middle east and eastern Africa in general, as well as central America). And to say that Sadaam posed a more immediate threat at 3000+ - miles away with scud missiles, tyhan say North Korea who has confoirmed to develop nuclear weapons poses teh question; Where are the priorities?
 
mlchance said:
sigh

The reasons for invading Iraq haven’t changed. There was no first, it was this; second, it was this; et cetera. The reasons have been the same from day one of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To wit:
  1. Ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.
  2. To identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
  3. To search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country.
  4. To collect intelligence related to terrorist networks.
  5. To collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction.
  6. To end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens.
  7. To secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people.
  8. To help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
  1. To end Islamic terror by destabilizing the governments who fund and promote it. Saddam funded terrorism by making payouts to families of suicide terrorist. A good example is him and his two sons on TV on the anniversary of 9/11 (September 11, 2002) encouraging suicide attacks on the USA by promising money to the families of would-be terrorists.
 
40.png
b19mcking:
I’m no expert on foreign relations or current events, but I try to make educated guess or “shots in the dark” as some might call them. I remember news casts of the US population, before our action, that favored force in Iraq and I beleive the majority polled were in favor of letting the UN inspectorsdo their job, (HA!). Some or most have the similar opinions and ideas. Even experts on terrorist organizations.
I agree action was necessary for the UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and yes Sadaam is a bad person. But there are bad dictators everywhere, (middle east and eastern Africa in general, as well as central America). And to say that Sadaam posed a more immediate threat at 3000+ - miles away with scud missiles, tyhan say North Korea who has confoirmed to develop nuclear weapons poses teh question; Where are the priorities?
Click to expand...
Popular support is not one of the prerequisites for a just war. It is said that 70% of those polled in the 1930s wanted the US to stay out of WWII.
 
Also these self proclaimed mujahedin don’t need and don’t really have a state that sponsors them. That is why these organizations are so hard to destroy. Their structure is not how we might percieveit to be. They are educated, armed and dangerous. Also, I am not fleeing this is intersting for me, but I have to eat so I must leave now, and I probably won’t be back until at the earliest tommorow. Thanks for the discussion. Yours in Christ.
 
40.png
b19mcking:
Also these self proclaimed mujahedin don’t need and don’t really have a state that sponsors them. That is why these organizations are so hard to destroy. Their structure is not how we might percieveit to be. They are educated, armed and dangerous. Also, I am not fleeing this is intersting for me, but I have to eat so I must leave now, and I probably won’t be back until at the earliest tommorow. Thanks for the discussion. Yours in Christ.
Click to expand...
Actually, Afghanistan supported them, and Saddam supported them.
 
Joseph Sobran

…If only some of our conservative Catholic hawks, who doggedly insist that this “preventive” slaughter meets their Church’s standards of just warfare, could be brought to see war as a form of abortion. Would that change their minds? Or would they say that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, and the need to topple Arab dictators?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifThese Catholics clear their consciences adroitly. If the war can be justified abstractly, they don’t worry unduly about the actual victims. You might think they’d at least feel the necessity of killing innocent people for geopolitical reasons as posing a painful dilemma.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifYet I haven’t heard a single one of the Catholic hawks express moral anguish, or even suggest praying for the victims. After all, they seem to reason, it’s all Saddam Hussein’s fault. In the words of the legendary Crusader, “Kill them all! God will know his own.”

"One death is a tragedy,” Joseph Stalin observed. “A million deaths is a statistic.” There’s perspective for you. If we could get rid of Saddam Hussein by killing one child in Baghdad — a child whose name and face were broadcast like Elizabeth Smart’s — who would want to do the honors? But killing countless nameless, faceless children by remote control is easy.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifThe Pope, who has warned against the modern “Culture of Death,” has condemned this war. But again, Stalin speaks for the Catholic hawk: “The Pope? How many divisions does the Pope have?” One Catholic to whom I put the question sidestepped it by pointing out that the Pope hasn’t spoken ex cathedra (with full papal authority) against the war, and anyway, “We are not a theocracy.” Ergo, President Bush is entitled to kill, and good Catholics are entitled to support him.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifWell, the Pope never speaks ex cathedra on current events. He can’t make his opposition to this war a dogma of the Catholic faith, right up there with the Trinity and the Resurrection. That is no excuse for ignoring a clear application of the moral principle that killing the innocent is wrong.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifOf course Bush won’t intend the deaths of the victims. If he could depose Hussein without “collateral damage,” no doubt he would. But does he let the prospect of that indeterminate “collateral damage” interfere with his plans? Evidently not. Do his supporters even ask for an approximation of the number of innocent victims he foresees and is willing to accept? Evidently not. In the words of Madeleine Albright in answer to a similar question some years ago, “We think the price is worth it.” To whom? Isn’t anyone curious? We ask about how much money the war will cost, but not how many innocent lives.

**http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifA just war, according to Catholic teaching, is, among other things, one which avoids producing evils disproportionate to the cause. Since Iraq hasn’t even threatened to harm the United States, let alone done so, even the “collateral damage” is criminal. It can’t honestly be called unavoidably incidental to the “common defense of the United States.” **

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifThis is a war driven entirely by disingenuous propaganda. The idea didn’t bubble up to the government from Americans who were personally afraid of Iraq and pleaded with their government to protect them. Nor is it so urgent that the United States would fight on equal terms, risking defeat and devastation at home. Even after all the propaganda, Americans aren’t afraid of Iraq; they’re afraid of al-Qaeda. It’s Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, who has been a boon to the duct-tape industry.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/spacer.gifAs usual, the American people have been drawn passively into war. Even after such farces as the war on another “threat,” Panama’s Manuel Noriega, they trust their presidents to decide who their enemies are for them. I’m mortified to see my fellow Catholics supplying excuses for the perpetual war racket.

sobran.com/columns/2003/030320.shtml
 
St. James,

there are only 3 prereqs for a just war, you can’t make up your own. Anyway, we are now occupiers, there are a different set of rules for occupiers, and those rules state we have to protect the innocent in the country we are occupying. No one that I know of, in the Vatican wants us to leave Iraq now.
 
40.png
gilliam:
St. James,

there are only 3 prereqs for a just war, you can’t make up your own. Anyway, we are now occupiers, there are a different set of rules for occupiers, and those rules state we have to protect the innocent in the country we are occupying. No one that I know of, in the Vatican wants us to leave Iraq now.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a review of the question at hand is in order.

**
"Iraq a Just War?"
Click to expand...
**

**"A just war, according to Catholic teaching, is, among other things, one which avoids producing evils disproportionate to the cause. Since Iraq hasn’t even threatened to harm the United States, let alone done so, even the “collateral damage” is criminal. It can’t honestly be called unavoidably incidental to the “common defense of the United States.” **

sobran.com/columns/2003/030320.shtml
 
St. James:
Perhaps a review of the question at hand is in order.

"A just war, according to Catholic teaching, is, among other things, one which avoids producing evils disproportionate to the cause.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you are getting this. Classically, there are
*three necessary conditions for a just war: *

*authorized authority: no question there. *For the US the rightful authority is the president and congress as granted to them by the people in the Constitution of the United States.

just cause: no question there. The cause was the protection of the United States

rightful intention: no question there. The president and congress truely believed they were protecting America from attack from a nutty dictator.
Since Iraq hasn’t even threatened to harm the United States,
Click to expand...
Wrong. Saddam did threaten the US. What moved the president and congress to action was that he had the capability to cause harm.

Also note that the Russians told us a number of times that Saddam was planning to attack US interests overseas and the US mainland.
 
40.png
gilliam:
I am not sure where you are getting this.
Click to expand...
I’m getting this from the same place that our pope who has condemned this war as unjust is “getting this.”

Our pope has used the same just war theory to condemn this war as you use to rationalize it. The difference lies in the interpretation and I side with the pope in that regard. Speaking as a Catholic I believe that makes my position pretty solid.
 
St. James:
I’m getting this from the same place that our pope who has condemned this war as unjust is “getting this.”

Our pope has used the same just war theory to condemn this war as you use to rationalize it. The difference lies in the interpretation and I side with the pope in that regard. Speaking as a Catholic I believe that makes my position pretty solid.
Click to expand...
This answer doesn’t tell me anything. Where are you getting that a just war, according to Catholic teaching, is, among other things, “one which avoids producing evils disproportionate to the cause” is a prerequisit for entering in upon a war?

How can anyone know ahead of time what a war will produce? A country can hope not to produce any evils, but they can’t guarantee it. If this was, indeed a prerequisite (which it isn’t), no war could be initiated. That is not the intent of the just war doctrine. There will always be cases where a war is the only way to stop the innocent from being hurt. That is Catholic theology, not this phrase that you quote from a liberal political writer.

You are inventing Catholic theology that is not there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top