R
Richardols
Guest
As I understood it, a nation may not be pacifist, but an individual can be a pacifist under any circumstances, even for a war in which his own country is invaded.
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
I believe that is correct, since the Church recognizes conscientious objectors. Here’s an interesting article on the subject (I can’t vouch for the authors, nor their heterodoxy…but, it’s an interesting article.)
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2003/0403cz.htm
Peace,
Robert
I
INRI
Guest
The notion of war being entirely evil, in its own right, without qualifications, is an anachronism. It only dates to about the 18th century. The traditional view of war, as seen by Augustine and Aquinas, would consider the reasons that a war is waged as part of its “justness”. Indeed, Augustine actually looked upon warfare as a way for a man to build virtue. Just war tradition does not regard armed force as inherently suspect morally; rather it treats armed force as an instrument that can be used for good or for evil, depending on who is using it, for what ends, and how. In other words, force itself is a tool that is evil only to the extent it is used indiscriminately, by immoral leaders for immoral ends.
Let’s take one historic example, the Crusades. As Jonathan Riley-Smith has written, it was extremely important to the Crusaders that they have a just causus belli, in this case, the atrocities committed on Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Regardless of what later became of the Crusades, a good case can be made that they at least had a just cause for being waged in the beginning.
The magazine First Things has had several illuminating articles on this topic. I link to just one, an exchange between Rowan Williams, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and George Weigel - papal biographer to John Paul II:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0403/articles/williamsweigel.html
I like this quote from the Weigel side of the debate (emphasis mine):
…the just war tradition is not a free-floating casuistry of means tests; that just war thinking must function within a normative understanding of the political task; that, in this very specific sense, “war” is a moral category—it is the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force for public ends by publicly accountable public authorities who have a moral obligation to defend those for whom they have assumed responsibility; and that “war” (bellum) must be rigorously distinguished from brigandage, piracy, terrorism, and other forms of duellum, the use of armed force by private persons for private ends.
Note that the car-bombing decapitators running amok in Iraq fit no part of this definition. Whatever you think of the US case for war, the terrorist adversaries in Iraq are waging an unjust war, by unjust means for unjust ends.
If you feel morally compelled to refuse military service, that is for your own conscience. I won’t argue with you, except to say that Catholic moral tradition doesn’t compel one to reach the same conclusion. Thankfully, we have an all-volunteer army. One could argue that you need to consider that if you don’t help defend your country, someone else has to. To quote one writer : “*Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” *
Let’s take one historic example, the Crusades. As Jonathan Riley-Smith has written, it was extremely important to the Crusaders that they have a just causus belli, in this case, the atrocities committed on Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Regardless of what later became of the Crusades, a good case can be made that they at least had a just cause for being waged in the beginning.
The magazine First Things has had several illuminating articles on this topic. I link to just one, an exchange between Rowan Williams, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and George Weigel - papal biographer to John Paul II:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0403/articles/williamsweigel.html
I like this quote from the Weigel side of the debate (emphasis mine):
…the just war tradition is not a free-floating casuistry of means tests; that just war thinking must function within a normative understanding of the political task; that, in this very specific sense, “war” is a moral category—it is the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force for public ends by publicly accountable public authorities who have a moral obligation to defend those for whom they have assumed responsibility; and that “war” (bellum) must be rigorously distinguished from brigandage, piracy, terrorism, and other forms of duellum, the use of armed force by private persons for private ends.
Note that the car-bombing decapitators running amok in Iraq fit no part of this definition. Whatever you think of the US case for war, the terrorist adversaries in Iraq are waging an unjust war, by unjust means for unjust ends.
If you feel morally compelled to refuse military service, that is for your own conscience. I won’t argue with you, except to say that Catholic moral tradition doesn’t compel one to reach the same conclusion. Thankfully, we have an all-volunteer army. One could argue that you need to consider that if you don’t help defend your country, someone else has to. To quote one writer : “*Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” *
F
Fitz
Guest
Thanks for the link and the words. I get too tired to protest sometimes, but it is nice to know that some see it the same way I do.
F
Fitz
Guest
So, you mean it’s not?
G
gnjsdad
Guest
I will also ask you to please cite where I’m “cheerleading for the US to fail”.
I’ll call them what I choose to call them. Insurgents is just as valid a term as terrorists, because the resistance to the US occupation is composed of both.
This is only a half-truth, and if you want to continue deluding yourself with half truths, by all means feel free. The insurgency survives because the general population shelters and feeds it. Of course, not all civilians support it, but if it is hated half as much as you seem to think, it would have been beaten long ago. Anyone with even rudimentary military knowledge knows that insurgencies cannot survive without the support of the civilian populace.
If you know this for a fact, you’d better tell General Myers and the Joint Chiefs, because they say they can’t tell exactly what it’s components are. Even the commanders in Iraq aren’t totally sure. The best I can tell, there are foreigeners, Baathist remanants, and ordinary Iraqis driven to it by counterproductive US military tactics.
One of my chief complaints about Bush’s conduct of the war is his near total reliance on the military for solutions. This situation calls for diplomacy of the highest caliber, and, with lightweights like Condoleeza Rice guiding our foreign policy, I am not hopeful.
Another thing you’re wrong about is your persistent attempts to characterize all war opponents as “leftists”. But, again, feel free to persist in your mistakes if that’s waht makes you feel good.
R
Richardols
Guest
Agreed. One man can be a total pacifist while his brother joins the Army. Both may very well be outstandingly orthodox Catholics.
Right. No one is dragooned into any war.
And, if those do so voluntarily, so much the better.
I
INRI
Guest
I didn’t characterize all war opponents as leftists. But, as I’m sure you’ll not dispute, the profile of the average person who opposed the war generally leans left. The most prominent figures in the anti-war side are all leftists except Patrick Buchanan, and hardly anyone pays attention to him anymore.
I
INRI
Guest
(cont’d from above)
What I am most incensed about is that the antiwar left is playing the role, to borrow an expression from the Cold War, of “useful idiots”. They’ll pick up any stone to throw at the U.S., even to the point of inadvertantly supporting some of the most despotic, brutal, and murderous scum on the face of the planet just as long as those despotic, brutal,murderous scum oppose the US. (Just to be clear, I’m not accusing those on this forum of this.) How many of these anti-war protesters have you seen sporting Che Guvara or Mao shirts? What about the continuing leftist fascination with Fidel Castro? What about the Free Mumia movement? These all have in common, the willingness to look the other way at murder and other atrocities, because these guys happen to oppose America. Saddam falls in the same camp. He’s killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, yet you continue to argue unwittingly on the behalf of those who want to reconstitute either a Taliban-like Caliphate or a rebirth of a murderous Baathist thug-ocracy.
What I am most incensed about is that the antiwar left is playing the role, to borrow an expression from the Cold War, of “useful idiots”. They’ll pick up any stone to throw at the U.S., even to the point of inadvertantly supporting some of the most despotic, brutal, and murderous scum on the face of the planet just as long as those despotic, brutal,murderous scum oppose the US. (Just to be clear, I’m not accusing those on this forum of this.) How many of these anti-war protesters have you seen sporting Che Guvara or Mao shirts? What about the continuing leftist fascination with Fidel Castro? What about the Free Mumia movement? These all have in common, the willingness to look the other way at murder and other atrocities, because these guys happen to oppose America. Saddam falls in the same camp. He’s killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, yet you continue to argue unwittingly on the behalf of those who want to reconstitute either a Taliban-like Caliphate or a rebirth of a murderous Baathist thug-ocracy.
R
Richardols
Guest
M
mike182d
Guest
The first Gulf War was ended by a conditional ceasefire. Saddam continually failed to uphold his end of the deal, so much so that the U.N. wrote about 18 different resolutions over the course of seven years or so to try and give Saddam “another chance” and avoid military conflict. And yet, Saddam continued to break the conditions of this ceasefire.
I would be really interested in hearing what your idea of more diplomacy would be and how it would have done anything but allow Saddam to slaughter more of his own people, manipulate the Oil for Food program, and increase his might.
The fact of the matter is that we tried diplomacy for years under different administrations and nothing worked. I guess we just should have tried for another seven years…
D
dumspirospero
Guest
I have come to the conclusion that you have no shame…and you certainly have no pride for your country or our military…I can honestly say that I have never read even one post of yours that was in praise of what we are doing in the war on terror…not even 1 post supporting our military. :nope:
gnjsdad:
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Oh, yes.
Let’s look at some of the things we should be proud of.
In the 27 days Iraq has had a new government (the purported culmination of the flowering of peace and democracy we were told would result) 562 Iraqis and 58 American soldiers have been killed.
The number of US combat deaths has been increasing over the past 2 weeks. Yup, that’s something to jump up and down over, alright.
Further, the situation in Iraq is inching ever closer to civil war (something you know I discussed in earlier posts). This, also, is something which, if I had any shame, I guess I would be proud of.
And finally, something for which I blame the civilian geniuses in the Pentagon running this war, the latest U.S. sweep through Baghdad has only resulted in fueling the insurgency further. When we need a Metternich to deal with this situation, we have a Lord North.
When American troops are dying in an Iraq which I see moving further and further into the arms of Iran (a new Baghdad/Tehran axis is emerging), I see no reason to be proud. Just sad.
G
gilliam
Guest
I don’t see this at all. For example:
Iraq’s ministry of interior has abolished an old ban on bars and nightclubs that was enforced by Saddam back in the early 1990s. If what you said were true, this would never happen.
The fiercest battles of WWII happened right before the fall of Germany and Japan respectively. (not that lately we have been fighting the fiercest battles fought in Iraq). In fact, as far as American Casulties are concerned, we are substantionally below last year. See:
globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Something for your consideration:
Could spring follow this summer?
and
Zarqawi taken Out of Iraq?
G
gnjsdad
Guest
There is no more illustrative example of the Bush administration’s incompetence in dealing with the Iraqi insurgency than this story.
The most dismaying thing I’ve read in a while is a Page One story in the May 17 Philadelphia Inquirer, by staff reporters Hannah Allam and Mohammed al Dulaimy, headlined “Iraqis Lament a Call for Help.” If you want to know why we’re not winning in Iraq, and why we’re not likely to win anytime soon (if ever), there is no more brutally illustrative tale.
The rest of the article
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Part of the reason why they are the US ARMY, not the US police. Police work was really never a job of the military, it just happens to fall onto them.
- Status