Is Iraq a Just War

[gilliam]

More WMD stuff here: This Was Not Looting (Hitchens/Slate)

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Tom what is it that you think we should do now? Whats your plan for the furture for the middle east?

 

[Kikero]

The war with Iraq IMO is “Just” and also a “good idea.” Furthermore it has been executed superbly. To say that it hasn’t reveals the utmost ignorance of the speaker. Thank God we do not rely upon the church to make the decision wether we go to war or not! Just because every half baked “peaceful solution” wasn’t “exhausted” means we should sit on our hands and continue to let the tyrrant kill his own people, harbor and support terrorist, fire upon our pilots, avoid and actively work against the ceasefire aggreement, etc… etc…

How was this war was poorly executed? What part of the occupation do you believe to be inadequately performed? Wait, don’t tell me…because we’ve lost some soldiers? Your probably going to start spewing about Humvees not having armor or some such crud. Save your breath, that and other such arguments have little to no merrit.

All things considered we’ve lost very few men and women for thier accomplishment and continuing mission. Never before has a military been so benevolent towards those subjugated and taken such care to minimize the damage done to a populace and nations infrastructure. We are installing a “puppet gvmt” you say? The elections recently held and the political debate throughout Iraq give the lie to the statement and indicate the free hand the Iraqis have concerning thier own future.

I am glad we didn’t delay the war any longer than we did and wish we had done this several years ago. Russia and China have been active there for far too long and if we had waited the possible consequences could of been disasterous for us. I won’t tell you that the reasons given for the war in Iraq are the only reasons. And some may have even been pretense but I tend to believe all justifications given for action were acceptable. Russia and China are still our enemies and a key componant has been removed from thier control. Not only that thier influence in the region is greatly diminished. Radical Islam has long been a tool of Russians and Chinese vs the U.S. They recieve thier greatest support and encouragement from these nations. The safety of the U.S. while not assured is enhanced by this move and now we can apply much greater pressure to the surrounding region and act more decisively if need be.

Live in your bubble if you wish to, but I’m thanking God for the Bush administration. Expect our foreign policy and our armies to be much more aggressive in the near future. The U.S. is finally waking up to the real danger our enemies pose and are beginning to posture accordingly. I only hope it is soon enough.

 

[gnjsdad]

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. \QUOTE]

Whether or not we knew there were weapons is not relevant to this discussion. The question is were the conditions necessary to fulfill the requirements of a just war in existence at the time? Was the danger that could justify a pre-emptive, self-defensive strike by the U.S. against Iraq imminent? Did we have concrete reason to believe that Saddam was about to launch an attack that would kill thousands of Americans? No, no, and no. It is critical to remember that solely because a nation has WMD is no reason, in and of itself, to attack another country. There is no evidence that Iraq was contemplating such an attack.

2. The Holy Father rightly wanted us to get the approval of the UN before we went in.\QUOTE]

I think you misunderstand the Pope’s position. His opposition to the war was not based on lack of UN approval. Apart from his general aversion to war, he opposed this one because he recognized an act of unjust aggression when he saw one. He also saw the terrible potential for human misery this war was likely to cause, as well as the increase in animosity between Muslims and Christians.

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. \QUOTE]

No one disputes the brutality of Saddam Hussein, but the world, alas, is full of people who kill their own. And if violating UN resolutions were a true cause of war, the UN would be running Tel Aviv right now.

You’re right. Israel is not killing its own people; only Palestinians.

 

[Veritas]

gnjsdad:

I think you misunderstand the Pope’s position. His opposition to the war was not based on lack of UN approval. Apart from his general aversion to war, he opposed this one because he recognized an act of unjust aggression when he saw one. He also saw the terrible potential for human misery this war was likely to cause, as well as the increase in animosity between Muslims and Christians.

I think you misunderstand the Pope’s role. The pope worked tirelessly for peace. But that is not the same as being a pacifist. Nor is it to say that war is always wrong. Nor is it to say that the West was wrong.

Also, did the pope ever say war was not a viable option? No! Quite the opposite in fact.

It seems plain that you are looking for justification for your position and ignoring counter evidence. The result is a logical fallacy.

 

[gnjsdad]

Veritas:

Also, did the pope ever say war was not a viable option? No! Quite the opposite in fact.

If you could provide me with a link to where the Pope said the attack on Iraq was now justified, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks

 

[mjdonnelly]

gnjsdad:

If you could provide me with a link to where the Pope said the attack on Iraq was now justified, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks

Please provide the link where the Pope absolutely condemns it and it wasn’t to be used at any expense.

 

[gnjsdad]

mjdonnelly:

Please provide the link where the Pope absolutely condemns it and it wasn’t to be used at any expense.

This sounds like a straw man and I won’t try to refute an argument I never made. The Pope is not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist. I never said he was a pacifist.

I performed a Yahoo search using the words ‘Pope’ ‘Iraq’ ‘war’. These are just a sampling of the links I found

meaus.com/iraq-war-pope.htm

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.htm

lastangryman.org/pope_warns_against_iraq_war.html

stmarys-os,org/piraq.html

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004jun4.html

These all dealt with the Pope’s outspoken opposition to the war. I found no articles indicating the Pope had subsequently changed his mind

 

[stumbler]

gnjsdad:

I performed a Yahoo search using the words ‘Pope’ ‘Iraq’ ‘war’. These are just a sampling of the links I found

These all dealt with the Pope’s outspoken opposition to the war. I found no articles indicating the Pope had subsequently changed his mind

Secular news reports by unknowledgeable reporters do not constitute an authentic source of Church teaching.

As near as I can tell, the JPII never condemned the war. The challenge to you is to produce any document wherein the pope supports your position. The papal quote you provided above preserves war as an option on the table.

 

[gnjsdad]

gnjsdad:

This sounds like a straw man and I won’t try to refute an argument I never made. The Pope is not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist. I never said he was a pacifist.

I performed a Yahoo search using the words ‘Pope’ ‘Iraq’ ‘war’. These are just a sampling of the links I found

meaus.com/iraq-war-pope.htm

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm

lastangryman.org/Pope_warns_against_Iraq_war.html

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004Jun4.html

Sorry about this, but some of the links in my previous post were typed incorrectly

These all dealt with the Pope’s outspoken opposition to the war. I found no articles indicating the Pope had subsequently changed his mind

 

[Veritas]

gnjsdad:

If you could provide me with a link to where the Pope said the attack on Iraq was now justified, I’d appreciate it.

This is a straw man. Under the theory of Just War, this responsibility lies with the secular leaders. Asking for something that shouldn’t exist suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of both Catholic doctrine and the Vatican’s role.

The pope never condemned this war. You claimed: “he opposed this one because he recognized an act of unjust aggression when he saw one.”

All the pope’s speeches and writings are found at:
vatican.va
Use google.

Where is the speech or document wherein the pope said that he “opposed this war” because it was an act of “unjust aggression.”

If the pope believed this war was counter to the Catholic faith, and as a leader of 1 billion Catholics, he must have said several times in several ways that this war is unjust or condemned or something. Otherwise he is a failed moral leader, right?

 

[gnjsdad]

Veritas:

The pope never condemned this war. You claimed: “he opposed this one because he recognized an act of unjust aggression when he saw one.”

Did you read any of the links I provided? Did you pay any attention to the speeches of the Pope and the statements of the Holy See prior to the invasion? How one can claim that the Pope was not opposed to this war is beyond me. It means one has either not been paying attention or has willfully blinded oneself to reality.

Veritas:

All the pope’s speeches and writings are found at:
vatican.va
Use google.

Where is the speech or document wherein the pope said that he “opposed this war” because it was an act of “unjust aggression.”

Thank you for the link, but if you’re going to argue that the Pope no longer condemns the war, or that he never condemned this war, you at least could have provided some specific instance where he indicates he’s changed his mind. I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I’m wrong on this, since truth is more importat to me than ideology. I gave you 4 specific links to stories supporting my position. You just sent me to the Vatican website.

 

[Veritas]

gnjsdad:

Did you pay any attention to the speeches of the Pope and the statements of the Holy See prior to the invasion? How one can claim that the Pope was not opposed to this war is beyond me. It means one has either not been paying attention or has willfully blinded oneself to reality.

Having read every speech of his I could find on the subject, including those that the secular press claim condemned the war, all I can conclude is that the secular press got it wrong.

gnjsdad:

if you’re going to argue that the Pope no longer condemns the war, or that he never condemned this war, you at least could have provided some specific instance where he indicates he’s changed his mind.

He didn’t need to change his mind, as he never condemned the war.

gnjsdad:

I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I’m wrong on this, since truth is more importat to me than ideology. I gave you 4 specific links to stories supporting my position. You just sent me to the Vatican website.

Your sole source of Catholic teaching is secular news accounts? LOL. No wonder the average Catholic is so poorly catechized.

The one simple thing you have to provide is the official papal pronouncement wherein the pope condemned the Iraq war. Secular news accounts that claim he did so do not count.

For some insight into how the secular press got it wrong, this Italian article does a good job of analyzing the situation:
What the Pope Really Said

 

[stumbler]

gnjsdad:

Did you read any of the links I provided?

Did you?

meaus.com/iraq-war-pope.htm
Confirms what folks have been telling you – namely, the pope included war as an option.

And when he said: “We know that it is impossible to say peace at any price” he acknowledges implicitly that diplomacy cannot go on forever and that some “diplomatic solutions” are simply prohibitive.

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.htm
Your original link is dead

lastangryman.org/pope_warns_against_Iraq_war.html
Your original link is dead

lastangryman.org/Pope_warns_against_Iraq_war.html
Your revised link has two articles that claim the pope was “against Iraq war.”

The first (unsourced) article only claims the pope was opposed, with no substantiation.

The second article correctly notes that the pope explicitly left war as an option. It also notes that the pope said “the joint efforts of all” are required to avoid war. (Unfortunately, without the cooperation of Russia, Germany, France, and most notably Iraq, any effort for true peace was doomed.)

stmarys-os,org/piraq.html
Your original link is dead

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004jun4.html
Your original link is dead

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004Jun4.html
Your revised link contains not a peep about the pope’s condemnation of the war. In fact, if the paper is to be believed, the pope’s call to move quickly to end the grave unrest in Iraq can well be taken as a call to ramp up military action (acknowledging that additional force now can save lives in the long run. Boy, I never thought of the pope as a hawk. )

---

Frankly, there’s nothing in these links that support your position other than innuendo and unsubstantiated assumptions.

I’m thinking that you didn’t examine your sources too closely. (pssst: CBS is looking for a news anchor.)

 

[gnosys]

Kikero –

“Never before has a military been so benevolent towards those subjugated and taken such care to minimize the damage done to a populace and nations infrastructure.”

What makes you say so? Because we in America don’t get to see the Iraqi children whose arms and legs have been blown off by cluster bombs or who have been burned by napalm doesn’t mean they don’t exist. According to a study done by a respected international medical group (I forget which one but I can look it up), 100,000 Iraqis – mostly non-combattants, a third of them children – have died since the invasion began, mostly killed by US bombs. Who knows how many have been wounded or maimed? We’ve reduced large parts of the country to rubble – there was apparently very little left of Falujjah when we got done with our counter-offensive last November – and we’ve done little to restore the nation’s infrastructure.

Our troops’ treatment of Iraqi civilians has many times been compared unfavorably to that by our British allies (I don’t blame our troops – they just never received training for an occupation). Surely you’ve read about some of the brutality which has been alleged.

A new scandal which seems to be just breaking is that – as in 1991 – we’ve been using depleted uranium shells, whose effect on the health of our soldiers and the Iraqi population last time around was reportedly catastrophic (a staggering percentage of the babies born to Gulf War I veterans had birth defects or were stillborn , and I believe the Iraqi population as a whole suffered similarly – but, to be fair, I can’t vouch for the reliability of this information).

The rest of the world sees much more of the horror of this war than we do, but much of it is seen by no one but the people directly involved, so effective has the military been in manipulating coverage.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a mass murderer, but in the process of removing him we’ve brought even more suffering down on the Iraqi people. We’ve also turned Iraq into the world’s prime breeding ground for terrorists, and with the images and horror stories from Abu Graib and elsewhere we’ve given al-Qaeda a marvelous recruiting tool throughout the Islamic world.

In terms of intentions, don’t forget that Paul Wolfowitz and his neocon buddies were eager to invade Iraq even before Bush took office, because of the nation’s oil reserves and strategic importance. 9/11 just provided a handy excuse.

This war was neither just nor wise nor well-managed. The suffering it has caused and continues to cause will go on for years, maybe generations. And we still don’t know whether we have laid the foundations of a democracy or of a radical Islamist theocracy… or of something else.

 

[gnosys]

A few quotes on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of invading Iraq:

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary:

If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
slate.msn.com/?id=2072479

President GHW Bush, 1998;

“Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
rense.com/general43/quote.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party�s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

“Our pre-eminent security priority–underscored repeatedly by the president–is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”
opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id…
Jan…

Col. David Hackworth (ret), America’s most highly decorated soldier:

“Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders - those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster - will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse.”
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I…

James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran:

“Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall.”
sftt.org/article09302002a.html

 

[gilliam]

gnosys:

A new scandal which seems to be just breaking is that – as in 1991 – we’ve been using depleted uranium shells, whose effect on the health of our soldiers and the Iraqi population last time around was reportedly catastrophic (a staggering percentage of the babies born to Gulf War I veterans had birth defects or were stillborn , and I believe the Iraqi population as a whole suffered similarly – but, to be fair, I can’t vouch for the reliability of this information).

Very old news and which has been proven false in 1999 studies.

See:
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

 

[gnjsdad]

Veritas:

Secular news accounts that claim he did so do not count.

For some insight into how the secular press got it wrong, this Italian article does a good job of analyzing the situation:
What the Pope Really Said

What about secular stories that that claim he did not condemn the war? I suppose they do count. Your link is to an opinion piece by an Italian journalist named Sandro Magister. Mr. Magister writes for a weekly magazine called L’Espresso. This is about as secular a source as you can find. It is Mr Magister who makes this distinction between being opposed to the war and ‘condemning’ it. Why don’t you enlighten us all as to the basis for this distinction? Or is it something only intelligent people like you can know, as opposed to people like me who only get their information on Catholic teaching from secular news stories?

I find it impossible to continue this further. Someone who tells me that secular opinions don’t count, yet uses secular sources themselves to support their opinions, in my view, is acting in bad faith.

 

[stumbler]

gnjsdad:

Someone who tells me that secular opinions don’t count, yet uses secular sources themselves to support their opinions, in my view, is acting in bad faith.

Your statement is disingenuous. Knocking down strawmen is not particularly useful. Nobody said “secular opinions don’t count” as a stand-alone truth or that secular sources can’t be used to support one’s opinions. Rather, it has been put forth that secular news reports “do not constitute an authentic source of Church teaching” and can’t be trusted to relay “official papal pronouncements.” Can you acknowledge this obvious truth? Can you admit that Church teaching is not a matter of one’s opinions as formed by secular news reports?

Again, all you have been asked to do is provide a papal source document for what you claim is papal teaching. So far you haven’t produced it. One can only conclude that your opinion is without valid foundation.