Iraq a Just War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
gilliam:
Those 4 conditions are conditions defining the ‘just cause’ criteria for a Just War. .
Click to expand...
Those four conditions are the Church’s just war doctrine copied directly from the Catholic catechism.

What you previously represented as church doctrine is not church doctrine. Do you have anything to say about that?
 
40.png
gilliam:
I really suggest you spend some time reviewing this video on the new rule sets in this world and the threats the US faces now and how to wage peace.

[To view the 12/26 C-SPAN brief + call-in segments, click here for online streamed video from C-SPAN](http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Thomas Barnett&link=rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter122004_barnett.rm?mode=compact)

Or if you would rather read a transcript, go here:
thomaspmbarnett.com/media/transcripts.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks, and I recommend that you study the Catholic catechism and cease misrepresenting church doctrine.
 
St. James:
Thanks, and I recommend that you study the Catholic catechism and cease misrepresenting church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Don’t be rude. There really are three necessary conditions for a just war in Catholic theology, and they are innumerated in the Catholic Catechism if you know where to look. Here are the references:

*authorized authority: *
catechism states: The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (2309)

just cause:

catechism states:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; (also in 2309)

rightful intention: *- there must be serious prospects of success; (also in 2309)

*- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. *
-all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective ;(also in 2309)
*
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 (2308)

What I outlined is the classic outline for the just war doctrine. Here is what St. Thomas actually said, if you are interested:

*I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” *

*Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” *

*Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. *The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine’s works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.” For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.” *
**St. Thomas Aquinas **
**The Summa Theologica **
**Part II, Question 40 **
 
40.png
gilliam:
What I outlined is the classic outline for the just war doctrine. Here is what St. Thomas actually said, if you are interested:
Click to expand...
St. Thomas’ theory on war is not church doctrine. The Church doctrine on just war is precisely as I copied it from the Catholic catechism.
 
St. James:
St. Thomas’ theory on war is not church doctrine. The Church doctrine on just war is precisely as I copied it from the Catholic catechism.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Catechism is not Church doctrine, technically, either. It is a Catechism trying to explain Church doctrine. It references other documents that reference St. Thomas. So the source is St. Thomas, St. Aquinas and Gaudium Et Spes. The modern teachings simply added that we shouldn’t bomb cities indiscriminately and some of the other changes in ‘methods’. Anyway, that is not really an issue because St. Thomas’ points are all still there in today’s Catechism, as I showed. Here, let me do it again, without deleting anything. my comments are in {bold}

{authorized authority:}

2308 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

{just cause:}

2309 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;
{rightful intention:}
  • 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 modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. {as defined by St. Thomas and expanded to distruction of cities in Gaudium Et Spes }

{authorized authority:}

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

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

See it is all there, You just need to understand the history of the theology to see it. Not sure if effects the discussion of Iraq any, but I thought you should know.
 
40.png
gilliam:
.

*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.
Click to expand...
I think this second point is the most problematic. Bush let the neocons in his administration bamboozal him into believing that there was a threat. Obviously there was no threat to the US. Those who argued against the war, before the war, said this! That is what the Holy Father was saying!
 
40.png
BenRosa:
Greetings:

The “war” in Iraq, is not really a war, but rather, another battle, yet a large one, in the war on terror.
Click to expand...
You are being hoodwinked just like Bush. Obviously Iraq was not part of the war on terror until after the war began. Now it has become the center for terrorism. This hellish situation WAS created by this ill-conceived war.
 
40.png
SHEMP:
Obviously Iraq was not part of the war on terror until after the war began.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. His regime had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. It, instead, was a model of democratic virtue, and not the one-man-show despotism that they would like us to believe it was.

:whacky:

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Jay…she is making a reference to us being “cafeteria Catholics”…but I have found in the past that those that call others cafeteria Catholics are the ones who know least about the Church and her teachings and are guilty of the very thing they are accusing people of being.
40.png
Jay74:
Huh???

Maybe I’m dense, but could you explain what that ws supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
Jay…she is making a reference to us being “cafeteria Catholics”…but I have found in the past that those that call others cafeteria Catholics are the ones who know least about the Church and her teachings and are guilty of the very thing they are accusing people of being.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting me know, dumspiro. I’m still wondering how saying “abortion and war are different” makes one a cafeteria catholic. Hmmm, lets see if she can respond to questions coherently without resorting to insults.

Katherine2:

First, I’ll restrain my comments, even though it appears I’m dealing with someone who likes to throw insults and epitets instead of making intellectual arguments. I hope I’m wrong about that assumption.

Second, I’m not a catholic, although I respect the church. You probably are one of those who voted pro-abortion by using some other excuse, and you call me a cafeteria catholic? Maybe you didn’t, I hope you didn’t, but that statement is no more of an assumption about you than you made about me.

Third, what part of saying “abortion and war are different issues” makes one a cafeteria catholic? Abortion is non-negotiable, war is not. Abortion is always wrong, war is often wrong yet often just. Most importantly, abortion has a non-violent solution – for 82% of those who claim to be christian to vote pro-aborts out of office. Governmental evil and terrorism often do not have non-violent solutions.

I enjoy this forum, but I honestly expected more charity and fewer insults on it. But hey, you’re the real catholic I guess.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Exactly. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. His regime had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. It, instead, was a model of democratic virtue, and not the one-man-show despotism that they would like us to believe it was.

:whacky:

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Those payouts he made and promised to families OF suicide bombers were acts of compassion (I even had someone tell me that lol). not
 
40.png
Jay74:
Those payouts he made and promised to families OF suicide bombers were acts of compassion (I even had someone tell me that lol). not
Click to expand...
…payments made to the Palestinian suicide bombers who bombed the Israeli state. Yet, this war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli state (I have a lot of people tell me that lol). not
 
St. James:
…payments made to the Palestinian suicide bombers who bombed the Israeli state. Yet, this war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli state (I have a lot of people tell me that lol). not
Click to expand...
Hmmm. My brain is still on vacation, so I can’t tell if you or mocking me or just agreeing with me in a fun way. In any case, Saddam promised the same payouts to those who commited suicide terror against the USA. It was on live TV, on 9/11/2002.

Blessings.
 
Saddam ordered his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo released to the press (or the press found) was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al-Qaida.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States. Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world’s most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed blame for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

A senior government official who is not a political appointee provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com had the papers translated into English by two individuals separately and independent of each other.

There are no handwriting samples to which the documents can be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However, three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.

Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that “based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate …”

The former UNSCOM inspector zeroed in on the signatures on the documents and "the names of some of the people who sign off on these things.

“This is fairly typical of that time era. [The Iraqis] were meticulous record keepers,” added the former U.N. official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on the condition of anonymity. The senior government official, who furnished the documents to CNSNews.com, said the papers answer “whether or not Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism against the United States. It also answers whether or not Iraq had an ongoing biological warfare project continuing through the period when the UNSCOM inspections ended.”

There is a lot more information here:
newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/4/141421.shtml
and here:
cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200410%5C%5CSPE20041004a.html
 
Saddam Hussein’s Support for International TerrorismIraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.
  • In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
  • Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
  • Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
  • Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
**
  • In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a “martyr” and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”
  • Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
 
40.png
gilliam:
Saddam Hussein’s Support for International TerrorismIraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism.
Click to expand...
We are now down to six: they are North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Iran and Libya.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Exactly. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist. His regime had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. It, instead, was a model of democratic virtue, and not the one-man-show despotism that they would like us to believe it was.

:whacky:

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
If Bush started the war to remove a despot then he should say that. He claimed that the war was about terrorism. It clearly was not. He started the war to end a regime and to build democracy in Iraq.

Is that the criteria for us to start wars? I don’t think that that criteria satisfies the Catholic Catechism’s assesment of Just War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top