Is Iraq a Just War

[Richardols]

gilliam:

Cite them.

I will have to look them up and will try to post them to you privately, but I’m surprised that you challenge the assertion that some conservatives have suggested attacks on Iran and North Korea and even military responses in the Sudan.

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

I will have to look them up and will try to post them to you privately, but I’m surprised that you challenge the assertion that some conservatives have suggested attacks on Iran and North Korea and even military responses in the Sudan.

You said neoconservatives.

No matter what you have been lead to believe, neoconservatives are not the same as hawks.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

You said neoconservatives.

No matter what you have been lead to believe, neoconservatives are not the same as hawks.

I appreciate your opinion, but it doesn’t change my opinion that neoconservatives favor an aggressive US foreign policy to include the use of war to forward our policies.

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

I appreciate your opinion, but it doesn’t change my opinion that neoconservatives favor an aggressive US foreign policy to include the use of war to forward our policies.

War is the last resort to a neoconservative. It isn’t negated from the equation, but it isn’t weighted heavily either. More info, read: The Pentagon’s New Map.

There seems to be this misperception on the left that neoconservatives rush to war, as far as I can tell, that is the opposite of what occurs (much to the disappointment of some, including the man who wrote Imperial Hubris)

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

There seems to be this misperception on the left that neoconservatives rush to war, as far as I can tell, that is the opposite of what occurs

I believe that Bush wasted no time shifting his policy from going after Bin Laden to going after Saddam, and quickly. No misperception as I see it.

Conservatives will differ, I’m sure.

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

I believe that Bush wasted no time shifting his policy from going after Bin Laden to going after Saddam, and quickly. No misperception as I see it.

Conservatives will differ, I’m sure.

He must have perceved a threat.

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Which is presicely why the decision is not left up to the bishops.

As you correctly pointed out earlier in this thread, the catechism states that the evaluation of the conditions belongs to those in authority, so the decision can’t be left up to the bishops. Otherwise, we’d have a theocracy. But that’s not the question. The question is can the invasion of Iraq be called a just war? and the answer, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Pope and bishops, is no.

gilliam:

A part of what the bishops didn’t at the time know:

1. that Russia had told us that Saddam was actively planning an attack on American assets.
2. That just about every intelligence agency was telling the US that Saddam had WMD.

The CIA was telling the president it was certain that Saddam had WMD.

1. The UN was being bribed (which is where the US bishops wanted us to go for help).

These items go toward the “lasting, grave, and certain” criterion. While the bishops may or may not have known of these items, the question is, do they support the case for a just war. Apparently not, because at the time of the release of their statement (November 2002) the bishops, and all of us, for that matter, were well aware of the apocalyptic rhetoric being used by the Administration in the run-up to the war. You do remember the looming mushroom cloud?

In their statement, the bishops say

We are deeply concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Consistent with the proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction should be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government’s existence (emphasis in original).

As we all know, the Administration went to great lengths to obtain Papal approval for “regime change” by citing it’s “preemptive attack” as an element of just war, approval which was not forthcoming. In fact, the Bush position fails on its face because it tries to blur the clear distinction between attacker and defender in just war doctrine. We attacked Iraq. We have 150,000 troops there. Therefore, we are the aggressor, not the defender. In the event that 150,000 Iraqi troops attacked the U.S., you’d have a case for a just war. As it stands, the attack on Iraq fails to meet even the most basic standard.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

As we all know, the Administration went to great lengths to obtain Papal approval for “regime change” by citing it’s “preemptive attack” as an element of just war, approval which was not forthcoming. In fact, the Bush position fails on its face because it tries to blur the clear distinction between attacker and defender in just war doctrine. We attacked Iraq. We have 150,000 troops there. Therefore, we are the aggressor, not the defender. In the event that 150,000 Iraqi troops attacked the U.S., you’d have a case for a just war. As it stands, the attack on Iraq fails to meet even the most basic standard.

There are a number of ways of preventing an attack on your soil that you know is coming. One, is to invade the agressor’s country. Had he waited and an attack came killing thousands of Americans, he would have been neglagent.

*"While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press… The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard… The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity… " *

– From the Duelfer Report

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

There are a number of ways of preventing an attack on your soil that you know is coming. One, is to invade the agressor’s country. Had he waited and an attack came killing thousands of Americans, he would have been neglagent.

True, but we must deal with the world as it is, not as it might be. There is no evidence Iraq was about to launch an attack such as you describe. Saddam exhibited no aggressive intentions toward the United States. FYI, Hitler launched his own attack on Poland to deter, he said, Polish aggression. How do you know that Canada isn’t about to attack the U.S.? Or Britain? Or Mexico? Or France? This is silly.

 

[mjdonnelly]

gnjsdad:

True, but we must deal with the world as it is, not as it might be. There is no evidence Iraq was about to launch an attack such as you describe. Saddam exhibited no aggressive intentions toward the United States. FYI, Hitler launched his own attack on Poland to deter, he said, Polish aggression. How do you know that Canada isn’t about to attack the U.S.? Or Britain? Or Mexico? Or France? This is silly.

We deal with the world as it is percieved. Militarily, if there is a sudden, unexpected buildup of forces along your border, there is a good chance an attack might be coming. That was why we informed the Soviet Union and North Korea when were conducting exercises near their borders.

BTW, all countries spy and aquire intelligence on eachother, not just the enemy.

And, releasing a chem/bio agent into the ventillation system of a large building can possibly kill everyone in there in a couple minutes.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Wow, did you guys plan this post so that everyone on the oppisite side (except me) was not paying attention…well then I will step up to the plate.

I think that the Iraq war is justified. Let me explain.

1. We did not know that there were no weapons untill after we went in, and we would still not know had we not gone in.
2. The Holy Father rightly wanted us to get the approval of the UN before we went in. There was know way to know that some of the countries that are sitting on the UN securtiy council were getting large sums of money from Iraq. And also the whole oil for food scandel, there was now way for the Holy Father to know that those countries were not going to deal with the security of the world but with thier own pocket books.
3. Saddam was killing his own people, and violating the UN resolutions which the UN was doing nothing about. This differs from Israel because Israel is not killing thier own people.

What do you have to say about that?

 

[mjdonnelly]

Tyler Smedley:

Wow, did you guys plan this post so that everyone on the oppisite side (except me) was not paying attention…well then I will step up to the plate.

I think that the Iraq war is justified. Let me explain.

1. We did not know that there were no weapons untill after we went in, and we would still not know had we not gone in.
2. The Holy Father rightly wanted us to get the approval of the UN before we went in. There was know way to know that some of the countries that are sitting on the UN securtiy council were getting large sums of money from Iraq. And also the whole oil for food scandel, there was now way for the Holy Father to know that those countries were not going to deal with the security of the world but with thier own pocket books.
3. Saddam was killing his own people, and violating the UN resolutions which the UN was doing nothing about. This differs from Israel because Israel is not killing thier own people.

What do you have to say about that?

I’ll bite, just not in the way you think.

1. You’re right, we should have gone in before he had the chance to move them out of country.
2. It was obvious that the UN security council had become ineffective and would never have approved any military action. The Holy Father, God bless him, doesn’t ever want to see a war, as do probably most people. However, sometimes you can’t keep beating your head against the door.
3. Israel is just being politically incorrect and trying to protect themselves. If someone wanted to come into my house and hurt my family, I would lock the door, gate, etc. They are just doing it on a country wide basis.

------I knock the ball back into your court.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

mjdonnelly:

I’ll bite, just not in the way you think.

You are right I really have no Idea what side you are on here…you seem to agree with me and then disagree…but bite away!

mjdonnelly:

1. You’re right, we should have gone in before he had the chance to move them out of country.

You think that we didn’t go in soon enough? Thats not something I hear very often usually that we went in too soon.

mjdonnelly:

1. It was obvious that the UN security council had become ineffective and would never have approved any military action. The Holy Father, God bless him, doesn’t ever want to see a war, as do probably most people. However, sometimes you can’t keep beating your head against the door.

Right the last thing I want to see is another war, but I can see enough justification to take care of this one. I am not sure what the rest of that means, except I love the Holy Father too.

mjdonnelly:

1. Israel is just being politically incorrect and trying to protect themselves. If someone wanted to come into my house and hurt my family, I would lock the door, gate, etc. They are just doing it on a country wide basis.

Politically incorrect how? Israel does have the right to defend its self.

------I knock the ball back into your court.

dido!

 

[Darrel]

A crazy thought,

If all of these terrorist are blowing themselves up in Iraq they are not doing it in LA. That’s the real advantage to a post 911 war in the Middle East. We are drawing them in by the dozen and giving them exactly what they want and it’s not happening in the United States.

Is this just a byproduct or perhaps a plan? I know that’s speculative but it is happening. That in combination with our special forces killing them constantly all over the world seems to have kept things quiet for the moment.

I agree that the reasons given to the people for the war are nonsense but what war has been truly for a just cause exclusively in American history?

Most people agree that the Government usually has its motives then provides the people with a just cause to believe in. Bottom line is that the two wars post 911 needed to happen to show that we are not going to be blown up any more and just sit back and do nothing.

-D

 

[mjdonnelly]

Sarcasm here:

Politically incorrect because of all those people no able to make a living at their jobs, while their family members blow up Israelies.

HAH, I say keep them out.

Upon further review, it appears we arew on the same side of the net. Sorry about hitting that ball back at you like that.



And yes, I think we should have gone into Iraq earlier. They knew the rules laid out after the first Gulf War, they broke the rules. Why bother with more threats.
I was and still am 100% convinced we did the right thing. Even knowing I can still be called back to active duty to go there.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

gilliam:

gnjsdad:

1. that Russia had told us that Saddam was actively planning an attack on American assets.
2. That just about every intelligence agency was telling the US that Saddam had WMD.

The CIA was telling the president it was certain that Saddam had WMD.

1. The UN was being bribed (which is where the US bishops wanted us to go for help).

1. many countries are…Iran was and is much more of a problem than Iraq in this regard for example. Trade deficits also hurt our assests daily…more so than Iraq ever could have.
2. There were no weapons of mass destruction…none (Iran, N. Korea, and China have some though perhaps we should attack them…maybe they’re bribing the UN too)
3. Are you suggesting that the UN hid the WMD?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Now I am confused, are admitting now there were WMD? So you think the war was justified on those grounds then?

Now?

No I’m just kidding around…if Bush had actually found any WMD then he would have announced it. The war was not justifiable…except that Bush wanted to avenge his daddy.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

gilliam:

You said neoconservatives.

No matter what you have been lead to believe, neoconservatives are not the same as hawks.

True, but they’re also not the same as real conservatives.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

There are a number of ways of preventing an attack on your soil that you know is coming. One, is to invade the agressor’s country. Had he waited and an attack came killing thousands of Americans, he would have been neglagent.

– From the Duelfer Report

Wow…that is just what Iraq said when they invaded Kuwait in 1990.

 

[gilliam]

Tom of Assisi:

Wow…that is just what Iraq said when they invaded Kuwait in 1990.

No it isn’t. What Iraq said when they invaded Kuwait was that it has always been part of Iraq and they were taking it back. (sound familiar? That is what Hitler said at the beginning of WWII)