Is the war in Iraq an unjust war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmelosi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmelosi said:
What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I really have to ask this question. What is the 'War in Iraq"? Is this like the “War on Drugs”, the “War on Poverty”, or the “War against Injustice”?

There are wars that meet the conventional description of war; “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.” And then there are things we call war that are really not war. We are not at war with Iraq, and have not been for quite some time! What exists in Iraq NOW is a freely elected government of the people that is attempting to combat lethal violence from those that wish to terrorize and dominate. The U.S. is there to help them in this difficult but noble task. The only currently pertinent question is, “should we be there, now?”

This cannot (now) be an unjust war, because it is not a war, but a police action against groups that are set on killing innocent people indiscriminately. Even that is not war! That is terrorism. And the answer to the question “Can we morally help protect innocent persons from terrorism?” is a resounding “YES, WE CAN!”

Should we? I don’t know.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger
 
Ender said:
Inasmuch as Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement contradicts Bp Botean’s it is clear that they both can’t be correct.
Click to expand...
Actually, that would be utterly false. Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment was only that disagreement about Iraq, in of itself, did not rise to the level of CIC 915.

The comment was addressing some confusion over indications from Rome over Cardinal Burke’s interpretation of the Catechism. Initially, many theologians and many Bishops were surprised with Burke’s application of CIC 915, but Rome seemed to indicate that the interpretation was valid. This led some bishops into believing that political votes to support the Iraq war or the death penalty would meet the same standard, because of the intensity and frequency of the Pope’s teachings on those matters (see Lumen Gentium, #25).

Ratzinger explained that there is a theological distinction. In the case of just war and the death penalty, licid applications are at least theologically possible. So the rather extreme case of CIC 915 is not met by belief alone:
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” - CIC 915
Click to expand...
If we won’t to be honest, we will look at all of then Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments. He publicly stated that it was his strong opinion that the criteria for CCC 2309 was not met. Further, he stated that he believed, as a theologian, that just war could well be impossible today because of modern weapons.

Further, we can look at what he has said and written as Pope Benedict XVI. A strong case could be made that, although CIC 915 does not apply, Catholics who know that criteria for war like CCC 2312, 2313, etc. have been violated, but support the war anyway, should not, in the Pope’s judgement, present themselves for communion (for example, see SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS).

And, it is also worth noting that rather or not a Bishop overstepped his authority would be a judgement for the Vicar of Christ to make, not lay members of the Church.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
This cannot (now) be an unjust war, because it is not a war, but a police action against groups that are set on killing innocent people indiscriminately. Even that is not war! That is terrorism. And the answer to the question “Can we morally help protect innocent persons from terrorism?” is a resounding “YES, WE CAN!”
Click to expand...
It is not that simple. A significant portion of the Iraqi population was not involved in the political process, so they may not have proper civil authority. Which makes the majority opinion, which would prefer that the US withdraw, significant.

Further, we are assisting Sunni militia who, in turn, are persecuting Christians and Shia citizens. This involves war lords, not proper civil authority, and it is against the express wishes of the Iraqi government, which has criticized the policy as being long term destabilizing. Rome has criticized it, along with our refusal to create safe havens in the north for the refugees it creates, as simply being immoral attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person.

So a more accurate description is that we occupying power which routinely ignores even the ineffectual sock puppets we helped install - not the welcome assistance of a proper democratic state.
 
SoCalRC said:
A significant portion of the Iraqi population was not involved in the political process, so they may not have proper civil authority.
Click to expand...
Are you referencing voluntary uninvolvement? If someone chooses not to be involved in a free election, it does not invalidate the process. They just surrender any realistic expectations for things to be different.
Further, we are assisting Sunni militia who, in turn, are persecuting Christians and Shia citizens.
Click to expand...
This is only morally pertinent if we are directly assisting in these specific injustices. Otherwise, it is permissible to assist others in their just activities.
This involves war lords, not proper civil authority, and it is against the express wishes of the Iraqi government, which has criticized the policy as being long term destabilizing. Rome has criticized it, along with our refusal to create safe havens in the north for the refugees it creates, as simply being immoral attacks on the inalienable rights of the human person.
Click to expand...
First we are castigated for working against much violence there, then we are castigated for not doing more. Confusing. If the debate is “Should we involve ourselves MORE in Iraq, such as creating safe havens in the north for refugees”, then the author could have asked that.
So a more accurate description is that we occupying power which routinely ignores even the ineffectual sock puppets we helped install - not the welcome assistance of a proper democratic state.
Click to expand...
Was it not a free election? Has the U.N. condemned the election process as being a fraud, only to install sock puppet leaders. What you are proposing seems to at least border on craziness.

The facts are that a valid free election was held. And those validly elected representatives of the people have chosen to continue to ask for and accept the U.S. government’s help. If the Iraqi citizens do not want that, they have free recourse to exercise their freedom and elect those that would do something different.

Sincerely,

Dan
 
Iraqi state services have been sold off to private american companies without the consent of the Iraqi people. If the people wanted to privatize these services they would do so through the democratic system. I
 
cynic said:
Iraqi state services have been sold off to private american companies without the consent of the Iraqi people. If the people wanted to privatize these services they would do so through the democratic system. I
Click to expand...
What proof have you of this?

Mik
 
SoCalRC said:
…We also have the US assisting Sunni militants who, in turn, are persecuting Iraqi Christians (a matter the Pope has brought to the attention of President Bush). We are not talking about the opinion of George Weigel (though he is one of the very few theologicans to even propose that Iraq meets Just War criteria), we are talking about the opinions of two Popes. As a Catholic, those carry the real weight for me.
Click to expand...
I’ve already explained in my other posts on this thread why I think views like yours are wrong. Unless you can come up with something new let’s agree to disagree.
 
cynic said:
Iraqi state services have been sold off to private american companies without the consent of the Iraqi people. If the people wanted to privatize these services they would do so through the democratic system. I
Click to expand...
What is an Iraqi state service? Why would anyone want to buy that? The obligation to deliver a service seems like something to avoid, rather than to seek to purchase.

More detail must be provided for this to be pertinent to the discussion and to make any sense.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger
 
IMO, we wanted blood after 9/11 (as an American people) and frankly, many still do- I can attest to that as in my previous thread I talked about how the police were called when my (Catholic) husband who is from overseas and looks middle eastern went to church to pray for his father who we just burried.

Anyway, we are in Iraq, and I don’t think we can abandon them now. Whether it was unjust or not is not an issue. It’s getting the people there who want peace in power and rebuilding the country we helped to tear down. We can’t walk out in the middle and leave them in ruins. And it seems that the troup surge has been helping.
 
SoCalRC said:
Right now, we have achieved a modest amount of tactical success by switching sides. That is, we are now assisting Sunni militants and war lords and letting them ethnically cleanse areas.
Click to expand...
This is simply false. It was the Sunnis who changed sides; instead of aiding Al Qaida and fighting us they are now aiding us and fighting AQ. Nor do we “let” them ethnically cleanse areas. You claim to have been in Viet Nam; you should have a better grasp of the difficulties of fighting a war like this one.
Since Saddam is gone, there are no WMDs, and a pro-US democracy is just not going to happen - what, exactly, would victory entail?
Click to expand...
A stable government not controlled by Iran.

Ender
 
txsoldier94 said:
Short and concise.

Don’t agree…but more power to ya…

Tell ya what…you’ns can pray for me and mine, and I’ll reciprocate, k?
Click to expand...
i am just agreeing with what JPII said as well as the leader of every major Christian denomination except southern baptist. no reason to go into too much detail when most of Christianity (at least the leaders) said it was unjust.

i will definitely pray for your safety as well as our enemy’s.
 
bengal_fan said:
i am just agreeing with what JPII said as well as the leader of every major Christian denomination except southern baptist. no reason to go into too much detail when most of Christianity (at least the leaders) said it was unjust.

i will definitely pray for your safety as well as our enemy’s.
Click to expand...
I’d love for my next deployment to be as bloodless as the first…We lost no one…and the enemy only two…both to their own carelessness/stupidity…and I am not sure what else to call it when you are squatting behind the rocket that you are launching at the infidels…:doh2:

We were on a humanitarian mission…building schools, roads, clinics, etc…

The Army is doing more than just fighting…
 
txsoldier94 said:
I’d love for my next deployment to be as bloodless as the first…We lost no one…and the enemy only two…both to their own carelessness/stupidity…and I am not sure what else to call it when you are squatting behind the rocket that you are launching at the infidels…:doh2:

We were on a humanitarian mission…building schools, roads, clinics, etc…

The Army is doing more than just fighting…
Click to expand...
How would people in the USA feel if China took it upons itself to invade the USA for the humanitarian purpose of teaching good manners in public schools. Since there has been so much shooting of innocent children at USA schools, and the USA government is unable to provide protection for these innocent students, it seems only proper and just that a foreign country should embark on a humanitarian mission and invade and occupy the USA in order to protect the students in the USA. And at the same time, perhaps an occupying power, such as China, would be able to teach good manners to American students.
 
bobzills said:
How would people in the USA feel if China took it upons itself to invade the USA for the humanitarian purpose of teaching good manners in public schools. Since there has been so much shooting of innocent children at USA schools, and the USA government is unable to provide protection for these innocent students, it seems only proper and just that a foreign country should embark on a humanitarian mission and invade and occupy the USA in order to protect the students in the USA. And at the same time, perhaps an occupying power, such as China, would be able to teach good manners to American students.
Click to expand...
Ah…OOC are both the Iraq and Afghani campaigns unjust?

Mil
 
txsoldier94 said:
Ah…OOC are both the Iraq and Afghani campaigns unjust?

Mil
Click to expand...
No. Afghanistan was a just response though badly managed by the civilian policy makers i.e. The President and VP. The President did not uphold his obligation or his promise to the American people.

Iraq was planned long before even 9/11. The reasons stated in his SOTU speech in 2003 were not a just cause to go to war. Despite that the reasons stated in 2003 for the Iraq war have been achieved, but he keeps extending the mission without just cause again.

Do you believe Iraqi oil is our national interest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top