Is the war in Iraq an unjust war?

[Verisimilitude]

I forgot to answer this question. Yes.

I thought you wanted to get out of the shallow end?

 

[bobzills]

He also accpets Iraqi oil is a US national interest that needed US protection.

I don’t accept that at all. I don’t see where Americans have the right to invade a country to insure their supply of oil so that they can pollute the global environment with emissions from their SUV’s. I thought that there was a commandment: Thou shalt not steal? And according to the news, there is a new directive from the Vatican which commands Catholics to safeguard the environment.
Considering the amount of money being spent on this war, the allegations of war profiteering become more credible.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t accept that at all. I don’t see where Americans have the right to invade a country to insure their supply of oil so that they can pollute the global environment with emissions from their SUV’s. I thought that there was a commandment: Thou shalt not steal? And according to the news, there is a new directive from the Vatican which commands Catholics to safeguard the environment.

I don’t either but i am becoming more surprised and disheartened that many Americans do think that.

Considering the amount of money being spent on this war, the allegations of war profiteering become more credible.

Yes, despite the veneer of nobility for our actions it is hard not to see an ugly beast behind the scenes. It does not bode well for the image of our military either. We may know the military is under the control of civilian policy but much of the world sees little difference between the two because they know no difference in their own lands. I believe our military is honorable. I am having my doubts about many of our politicians.

 

[bobzills]

Yes, despite the veneer of nobility for our actions it is hard not to see an ugly beast behind the scenes.

The subject of war profiteering is unpleasant, and many people don’t want to believe it or discuss it.

 

[RWMorris]

I didn’t see where the catechism at all mentioned the President or the Congress of the USA. It simply mentioned the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. Now, Catholic bishops have responsibility for the common good by virtue of their office and by virtue of their being successors of the original twelve Apostles. And the Catholic Bishop;Botean has stated: "Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion."

Now we are in the kiddie pool, the water’s only ankle deep. Bob, that is the most blatant example of revisionist thinking I’ve encountered in a while. I’ve never heard that interpretation of CCC 2309 before.

Bishops are responsible for caring for Jesus’ sheep, not the common good of a country.

I would not quote Bishop Botean. While he has every right to his opinion, his statement is in direct violation of the Pope’s statement:

… if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion…

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, *2004

As far as your claim that CCC 2309 is referring to Bishops as having “responsibility for the common good”:

The reason there can be a diversity of opinion on the decision to go to war is that the application of the Church’s just-war criteria is left to the prudential judgment of those responsible for the decision: the leaders of the state rather than the Church.

• Jimmy Akin, War and Capital Punishment, Can We Agree to Disagree?, This Rock,** Volume 16, Number 3, March 2005

 

[RWMorris]

I don’t accept that at all. I don’t see where Americans have the right to invade a country to insure their supply of oil so that they can pollute the global environment with emissions from their SUV’s. …

Now my feet aren’t even wet. We don’t have the right to invade a country to ensure our supply of oil. We never have. We didn’t invade Iraq to ensure a supply of oil. Iraqi oil is sold on the commodities market, just like 98% of all oil produced in the world. Did you know that the oil produced in the US is sold on the commodities market? Can we discuss things that are actually related to the war in Iraq?

 

[RWMorris]

I thought you wanted to get out of the shallow end?

I’m trying, I really am.

 

[Ender]

Ender posited the war is Just in large part to our moral responsibility to come to the aid of those who need and ask for it.

No. I was responding to your comment that: “There is only one reason to support this war that our faith can understand and justify in an odd sort of way. Fear.” I provided another moral justification, which was to come to the aid of others. That reason plays some part in justifying our action; I have not speculated on whether it was a large or small part.

He also accepts Iraqi oil is a US national interest that needed US protection.

No again. Middle East oil is of national importance, not just for our country but for the world. A major, sustained interruption of the supply would have severe, global consequences. Accepting that obvious point is not to say that Iraqi oil needs US protection.

I try to be very specific with my comments; don’t assume I’m implying anything. If I mean something I’ll come out and say it.

Ender

 

[bobzills]

As far as your claim that CCC 2309 is referring to Bishops as having “responsibility for the common good”:

Then you quote Jimmy Akin here, who does not have the same moral authority in the Catholic Church as does a bishop, such as for example, Bishop Botean.

 

[bobzills]

We don’t have the right to invade a country to ensure our supply of oil.

That’s anopther reason why the US invasion of Iraq was unjust and immoral, since the war was all about oil, as we have shown above and as has been obvious from statements made by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.
theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/16/1189881342272.html?s_cid=rss_
And Alan Greenspan has confirmed that he urged Bush to take out Saddam on grounds of petroleum security for the USA:
juancole.com/2007/09/greenspan-war-about-oil-bloody-sunday.html

 

[medic101st]

Well, Goofy, someone’s got to do it. We just can’t let them continue to murder and brutilize their own people, and enslave them, can we? Is that what you want us to do-go back in isolationism? That failed early in the 20th. century and it’ll fail again if we go that way. I know nobody wants to hear this, but we are in a period of “Pax Americana”, whether we like it or not. Just as it was in the time of Pax Romana, there is nobody else either willing or able to step up to the plate. Someone has to preserve western civilization, which is in real danger right now. Roanoker

I think we should first take care of our own. Billions of dollars that should help Americans. And, I don’t really think western civilization is coming to an end, in fact, it’s growing.

One reason Iraqis live under the conditions they do, is because they don’t choose to do anything about it.

 

[RWMorris]

Then you quote Jimmy Akin here, who does not have the same moral authority in the Catholic Church as does a bishop, such as for example, Bishop Botean.

Bob, I was not talking about moral authority, I was talking about defining who has responsibility for the common good. Bishop Botean has responsibility for the spiritual health of his flock. The government has responsibility for the common good. I was quoting Jimmy Akin as an example of someone who supports my position. Do you have an example of someone agreeing with your contention that bishops have responsibility for the common good?

 

[RWMorris]

That’s anopther reason why the US invasion of Iraq was unjust and immoral, since the war was all about oil, as we have shown above and as has been obvious from statements made by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.
theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/16/1189881342272.html?s_cid=rss_
And Alan Greenspan has confirmed that he urged Bush to take out Saddam on grounds of petroleum security for the USA:
juancole.com/2007/09/greenspan-war-about-oil-bloody-sunday.html

Bob, I’ve already addressed this point. Oil security plays a big part in our foreign policy, as it should. Any nation’s economic health plays a major role in its foreign policy. You say it like it’s a bad thing. The US is a country, not a church. It has little choice but to pay attention to its economic health. Having said that, oil was not the immediate goal of the invasion of Iraq, it did play a powerful supporting role.

I hate to sound like an echo but,

…Bob, I understand the connection between oil, our economy, and our national interest. We didn’t intervene in the slaughter in Rwanda because the US has no economic interest there. I’m sure that access to oil played a big part in the US decision to intervene in Iraq. But we are not there stealing the oil. Iraqi oil is traded on the commodities market for all to buy, and China and India are buying it as fast as the Iraqis can pump it. The profits are being made by the Iraqis, and China and India are creating wealth with it. Isn’t this situation the best, economically, for everyone (except the terrorists)?

But, I believe, even with all the connections to “big oil”, George Bush intervened primarily for the reasons he stated. Perhaps he was wrong to do so, perhaps he wasn’t. Maybe we should have given the sanctions longer to work, even though Russia, France, Germany, and others were doing everything they could to circumvent them. Perhaps 13 years of numerous Iraqi treaty violations, numerous failed UN resolutions, a planned assassination of a US President, and active monetary support of terrorists was enough to justify our actions.

Only time, and probably lots of it, will finally settle this argument.

 

[Verisimilitude]

No. I was responding to your comment that: “There is only one reason to support this war that our faith can understand and justify in an odd sort of way. Fear.” I provided another moral justification, which was to come to the aid of others. That reason plays some part in justifying our action; I have not speculated on whether it was a large or small part.

It was the only ‘justification’ you offerd since the other Just War criteria are not applicable to Iraq. The question of irrational fear as a reason to support this war has never been addressed. I am not playing word games.

No again. Middle East oil is of national importance, not just for our country but for the world. A major, sustained interruption of the supply would have severe, global consequences. Accepting that obvious point is not to say that Iraqi oil needs US protection.

I aplogize. I confused your comments to txsoldier94 whom I was debating before we began. Still, the oil was flowing before the war at a much lower cost to the rest of the world. The war was not needed to protect that supply and since then the cost has been multiplied by a factor of 4. I do not see that as a positive move.

I try to be very specific with my comments; don’t assume I’m implying anything. If I mean something I’ll come out and say it.

Ender

I am aware that it is difficult to convey complete positions on complex issues in such short posts. Grace should be extended on both sides of the argument. I do not accept the role of policeman of the world, the world’s moral minder, or protector of the worlds resources.

Today the President said in recognition of the 5 year anniversary of the Iraq war that this war is evidence that the Moslem world is proving a rejection of Osama bin Ladens ideology. Do you believe that?

 

[bobzills]

Bob, I was not talking about moral authority, I was talking about defining who has responsibility for the common good. Bishop Botean has responsibility for the spiritual health of his flock. The government has responsibility for the common good. I was quoting Jimmy Akin as an example of someone who supports my position. Do you have an example of someone agreeing with your contention that bishops have responsibility for the common good?

Governmental leaders have the obligation and duty to examine the Catholic principles on just war before entering into a war. Bishop Botean, as a moral leader, has every right to give his opinion on whether or not the Catholic priniciples of a just war are fulfilled.

 

[bobzills]

Having said that, oil was not the immediate goal of the invasion of Iraq, it did play a powerful supporting role,

Alan Greenspan has confirmed that he urged Bush to take out Saddam on grounds of petroleum security for the USA:
juancole.com/2007/09/greenspan-war-about-oil-bloody-sunday.html

 

[RWMorris]

Governmental leaders have the obligation and duty to examine Catholic principles on just war before entering into a war. Bishop Botean, as a moral leader, has every right to give his opinion on whether or not the Catholic priniciples of a just war are fulfilled.

No! Governmental leaders do not have an obligation nor duty to examine the Catholic principals on just war before entering into a war. They would be wise to do so, and maybe they should be obligated, but in reality no obligation exists.

Bishop Botean, as a Catholic, has every right to give his opinion on whether or not the Catholic principles of a just war are fulfilled. His opinion counts no more that yours or mine, and directly contradicts Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, who is now Pope.

Alan Greenspan has confirmed that he urged Bush to take out Saddam on grounds of petroleum security for the USA…

He may have urged him to do so, that is his job as an economic advisor. I still stand by my post:

Originally Posted by RWMorris forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
… I’m sure that access to oil played a big part in the US decision to intervene in Iraq. But we are not there stealing the oil. Iraqi oil is traded on the commodities market for all to buy, and China and India are buying it as fast as the Iraqis can pump it. The profits are being made by the Iraqis, and China and India are creating wealth with it. Isn’t this situation the best, economically, for everyone (except the terrorists)?

But, I believe, even with all the connections to “big oil”, George Bush intervened primarily for the reasons he stated. Perhaps he was wrong to do so, perhaps he wasn’t. Maybe we should have given the sanctions longer to work, even though Russia, France, Germany, and others were doing everything they could to circumvent them. Perhaps 13 years of numerous Iraqi treaty violations, numerous failed UN resolutions, a planned assassination of a US President, and active monetary support of terrorists was enough to justify our actions.

 

[bobzills]

“Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector, slammed the Iraq war as a “tragedy” and blamed it on leaders ignoring the facts, in a comment piece published Thursday.”
"Blix, who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote that responsibility for the war “must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago”.

At the time of the Iraq war, Blix accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the threat from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” – traces of which have never been found.

In his comment piece, he said the war was a “setback in the world’s efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states” and added that in 2003, “Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody.”"
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080320/wl_mideast_afp/iraqwar5yearsunnuclearblix

 

[Ender]

Today the President said in recognition of the 5 year anniversary of the Iraq war that this war is evidence that the Moslem world is proving a rejection of Osama bin Ladens ideology. Do you believe that?

I would not claim that it **is **true but I do accept that it **might **be true. As significantly, (not including Turkey) I think that the freedom enjoyed by Iraqis is greater than that of any other (Muslim) country in the Middle East and that has to be very attractive to a lot of people. With this single exception, Middle Eastern countries are a collection of monarchies, theocracies, and thugocracies. I think bin Laden’s ideology is less attractive now that Iraq has shown the possibility of a freer alternative. It may be a sick, spindly plant now, but it’s still alive and if it survives it may weaken some of the noxious weeds growing nearby.

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

“Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector, slammed the Iraq war as a “tragedy” and blamed it on leaders ignoring the facts, in a comment piece published Thursday.”
"Blix, who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote that responsibility for the war “must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago”.

At the time of the Iraq war, Blix accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the threat from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” – traces of which have never been found.

In his comment piece, he said the war was a “setback in the world’s efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states” and added that in 2003, “Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody.”"
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080320/wl_mideast_afp/iraqwar5yearsunnuclearblix

Is this the same Hans Blix who said,

Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

Sounds almost like a prophesy. I wonder why he would say something like that if he didn’t believe war was or should be imminent.

I wonder how “tragic” the Iraq War will appear in 20 years if democracy does take root and grow. If the US stands its ground and refuses to surrender, we all know that will happen. Success is what many really fear; those that feel no good can ever come from the use of force.

… it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and ‘soft power’ …

• Hans Blix

I doubt that Hans Blix will live long enough to eat his own words, but if he does I hope I live long enough to watch him. He seems certainly unfamiliar with the history of the spread of liberty; from which true democracy can only grow.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

• Thomas Jefferson, 1787