Just War

[John21652]

Neither myself, nor the person I was addressing is a Catholic, so what the Catholic Church says is irrelevant. The accusation that disbelief in Just War Theory is Moral Relativity is also wrong, believing that war is always wrong is certainly not being relativistic, if anything someone who believes such may well use the relativity argument against you.
If one believes in an objective morality, and that killing is always wrong, then certainly they will not believe in such a thing as Just War. You’re the one who is saying killing is ok, under these circumstances… very relativistic of you.

Further, as I’ve already stated my own belief in Just War (distinguishing between two wars), your post is ill aimed. I’m simply trying to figure out where someone stands on the issue of war.

You forgot to read this bit -

Stepping outside the specific dictates of the Catholic Church,

I will also point out that just because the Catholic Church says something and you are not a Catholic, doesn’t mean what the Catholic Church says is irrelevant.

Next point, a belief in a Just War theory is one thing; beleving in the absolutist doctine of " war is always wrong" is an entirely different thing. Just War theory is underpinned by an Objective morality, as I argued and you failed to respond to. The decision as to go to war or not go to war, all the while in believing in a theory of Just War, is not moral ralativity. Switching the debate from Just War to Killing is another matter again. You are all over the shop on this.

 

[Steven_John]

Brother Edwards discussion in post #16 is near what i see G-ds law.
As every one knows the problem with the assessment criteria is none of us are all knowing.
Yeshua (pbwh) guidance toward mercy can save us from making mistakes that leave us open to receiving error by the assessment of others.

He offers us the safe road for our own souls.

I am thankful that G-d looks at the heart and seeking right G-d will intention that is true to our conscience.

This discussion will help us grow to see we may have never been or be in a position to know we may not be able to justify any war other than defence of our own blessings and gifts. best i know from human war history or from experience.

 

[campeador]

Lots of nonsense and “feelings” and opinions above on this matter.

The main rational principles to test whether a war is justly fought or not can be remembered by the word PLAID.

I learned this acronym in the Marine Corps, interestingly enough.

The order of the letters isn’t quite lined up right…so bear with me.

Intent: What is a country’s intent in deciding to go to war. self-defense, protection of the larger population, to right an injustice (e.g., taking of land not duly owned), to prevent further or greater loss of life.

Authority to act: What’s the legal authority to act…UN resolutions, act of congress, organization of Arab States, etc. What are the bases of authority?

Last Resort: Have other measures to address the matter failed, repeatedly failed, made no effect at all on the aggressor. Is it likely that other half measures won’t make a difference…

Proportionate measures used in fighting. No nukes against mere border incursions, for example.

Discrimination of combatants vs. non combatants: What tactical control measures are in place to minimize civilian casualties.

fwiw, I fought in Iraq twice (including Fallujah, Nov 2004). I saw the great care that we put in to fighting that clearing operation in a just manner. I KNOW what was done. To see some of the nonsense peddled above makes me realize how foolish some people are in this regard…to hold such naive, idealistic positions, unwashed with facts.

Well said. Agree 100%

 

[Nine_Two]

No that is not my position we were discussing a particular conflict.

G-d is justice and allows humans to have justice.

If you come into my house and attack me i am allowed to attack you, its the law.

But with Yeshua (pbwh) as my king i understand that mercy is better for us all.

So yes war can be just.

So war is justified in self-defense? Is that the only time?

Your focus on numbers seems to indicate if innocents die it is unjust, unfortunately one of the things that makes war so horrible is that innocents die, and they always have, and there is absolutely no way around that.

 

[Nine_Two]

You forgot to read this bit -

I will also point out that just because the Catholic Church says something and you are not a Catholic, doesn’t mean what the Catholic Church says is irrelevant.

Next point, a belief in a Just War theory is one thing; beleving in the absolutist doctine of " war is always wrong" is an entirely different thing. Just War theory is underpinned by an Objective morality, as I argued and you failed to respond to. The decision as to go to war or not go to war, all the while in believing in a theory of Just War, is not moral ralativity. Switching the debate from Just War to Killing is another matter again. You are all over the shop on this.

I didn’t answer that because as I’ve repeated several times over I accept Just War theory. What I responded to was the contention that pacifism is relativistic, and simply said they’d have a better argument that you are being relativistic. I disagree that you are, but the argument is there, and it is stronger for them since they’re the ones who have an absolute on their side.

As for what the Catholic Church says, yes, it is irrelevant when it comes to what non-Catholics believe.

 

[Steven_John]

So war is justified in self-defense? Is that the only time?

Your focus on numbers seems to indicate if innocents die it is unjust, unfortunately one of the things that makes war so horrible is that innocents die, and they always have, and there is absolutely no way around that.

Hello again,
you seem determined to have me speak away from what i offered, so i will do my best to appease you but i think you have some of the same holy books i do an while i dont really know from prayer best i see you accept Yeshua (pbwh) as authority.
That bothers me a little that you have asked me when G-d can inspire truth in you, it takes some patience and persistence but He will or has done so.

So war is justified in self-defense?

yes for believers at least

Is that the only time?

No

Your focus on numbers seems to indicate if innocents die it is unjust,

I dont think i did i spoke more on Yeshua (pbwh) and G-d, you focused on the numbers and i have followed trying to explain. So i will try do more about numbers for you.
The point of what i spoke of in numbers was more what price can you put on 1 innocent life and who is in a position to make that call. No one but G-d knows the heart of each person.

unfortunately one of the things that makes war so horrible is that innocents die, .

yes it is an unfortunate truth of wars.

and they always have,

while that seems a fair assumption on what we see you have missed much in the holy books and my posts.
I cant agree this is true, i am not all knowing, have not been witness to all wars i would assume there have been tribal wars that today have no record oral or written.

and there is absolutely no way around that

I guess we would open a new can of worms as to what defines a war. It is very possible nations could war only with combatants and keep non combatants on both sides safe. Thats a way around it but for you may offer that would be battles and not war.

The inspiration i was given to post was clear to me to give recognition to where we are and what we do but focus on truth G-d allowing justice and blessing Yeshua (pbwh) showing us how to love.

How did that miss with you, if it was my fault please forgive me and may G-d have mercy on me.

These are of the things i embrace and am called to share. I know i am not the best communicator or maybe people embrace from what i posted what is important to them.

I dont say that to insult you, just to explain how we are called differently. CAF is IMO least about sharing the good news and more about us proving ourselves righteous.

A righteous man would have no problem calling a war just, I am a lowly sinner so more important to me is sharing that G-d always brings justice and Yeshua (pbwh) teaches me mercy is better between men.

If on accepts Catholic teaching on conscience we understand even some members overthrown regime in Iraq may have been right with G-d despite their unjust fruit.

That is one of the hardest things She calls me to understand.

She shows us in this to be G-d like, slow to anger etc, giving chance after chance to see who He offers us to be.

Yeshua (pbwh) suffered much under injustice, and did not fight a physical war against the unjust.

If humans miss the opportunity to fight a just war and continually look for opportunity to extend healing, in the light of what was written above best i see G-d will not punish us.

If one in right conscience fights a war they perceive just but The All Knowing knows is unjust, they can be subject to the same, will G-d deliver them from the punishment? Yes but if the ones who they were unjust to call for justice it will be served but for their own short comings.

From a western perspective i find it hard to believe any who call wars just have conscience without doubt. May G-d bless them for the intention to glorify Him and have mercy on us all.

 

[Edward_H]

Authority:

UN Resolutions, which include the ones dating to the Gulf War. Looking at it in its full context, there actually was a near continuous state of war going back to the cessation of ground combat from DS/DS. More than 700 anti-aircraft attacks on Coalition enforcement of the no-fly zones, etc.

US Congress (HJ 114) passed by both the House and the Senate in mid-October.

I believe there were longer lists of these resolutions mentioned in another forum.

Intent:

Our primary intent was to remove an unjust regime. ‘Regime removal’ was actually in the formal military orders contained in the Intent section of OpOrd 1003V that kicked the whole thing off. We also had the intent to allow the establishment a legitimate leadership in that country.

A long, long, long series of backsliding and non-compliance with no sign of change - with his sons in the succession line.

 

[benidict]

Lots of nonsense and “feelings” and opinions above on this matter.

The main rational principles to test whether a war is justly fought or not can be remembered by the word PLAID.

I learned this acronym in the Marine Corps, interestingly enough.

The order of the letters isn’t quite lined up right…so bear with me.

Intent: What is a country’s intent in deciding to go to war. self-defense, protection of the larger population, to right an injustice (e.g., taking of land not duly owned), to prevent further or greater loss of life.

Authority to act: What’s the legal authority to act…UN resolutions, act of congress, organization of Arab States, etc. What are the bases of authority?

Last Resort: Have other measures to address the matter failed, repeatedly failed, made no effect at all on the aggressor. Is it likely that other half measures won’t make a difference…

Proportionate measures used in fighting. No nukes against mere border incursions, for example.

Discrimination of combatants vs. non combatants: What tactical control measures are in place to minimize civilian casualties.

fwiw, I fought in Iraq twice (including Fallujah, Nov 2004). I saw the great care that we put in to fighting that clearing operation in a just manner. I KNOW what was done. To see some of the nonsense peddled above makes me realize how foolish some people are in this regard…to hold such naive, idealistic positions, unwashed with facts.

thank you for your service brother. i completely agree with you. we are wrapping up here, and honestly the people dont want us to leave. we also could point out the huge number of civilian contractors and humanitarians, we escort daily who are making life better for the people of iraq. i see it first hand. and no soldier i know has any desire to kill an innocent civilian let alone aim rifles at them. just ordered a bunch of school supplies and activity books for the kids. gonna be handing them out as soon as they arrive. my drill sgt. fought along side the Marines in fallujah. as an M.P. im proud to work alongside you guys any time i can. God bless you and yours. and glad to see you made it home safe.

 

[benidict]

To start with your last point, Germany declared war on the United States first.

As for your claims, those are all relatively recent (and oftentimes subjective) statements. What was done to get there though required more of the same. In essence you’re saying the End justified the means. Additionally, as I pointed out in my previous post you are setting up a system where you now have a moral imperative to act as you have everywhere. If it was moral theologically to interfere in Iraq, then it is immoral, theologically to leave Iran, China, Russia, Sudan, etc. alone.

However as I already said, none of that was the cause for war, and the casus belli cannot itself be defended under those grounds as “just”, certainly the United States, and indeed all its allies in the war, need to stay in until there is stability, but that is the occupation, not the war, and whether the end results of the occupation may result in some type of justice, the war itself was not.

to the people that live here these are not just suggestive statements my friend, they are the reality. and i would have to say that yes, i believe it is immoral to leave these other regimes alone. i would love to go home through iran, even if i had to stay an extra year or two. it would be wonderful to see the dictatorship there toppled too. unfortunatley i not gonna get my way… we handled China differently. my chaplain grew up in viet nam during the war. the way he explained it, we forced China to sign trade agreements by blocking their trade routes through viet nam. it worked. however they are still communist, but given time and effort, i believe that regime will crumble under its own corrupt weight. all the other places you mentioned. yep. i think any where you have a two bit dictator running things, and abusing the civillians, then yep. i think we should put a stick through their spokes any time we can.

 

[John21652]

I didn’t answer that because as I’ve repeated several times over I accept Just War theory. What I responded to was the contention that pacifism is relativistic, and simply said they’d have a better argument that you are being relativistic. I disagree that you are, but the argument is there, and it is stronger for them since they’re the ones who have an absolute on their side.

As for what the Catholic Church says, yes, it is irrelevant when it comes to what non-Catholics believe.

I think you should realise that there is a gulf between Just War as a doctrine and pacifism. In between are wars waged on relativist principles. Germany invading Poland fits this category. It cannot be justified on objective moral grounds at all. It was purely a nationalistic, morally relative action. The Just War doctrine is rooted in moral objectivity. It has to be justified according to objective moral criteria. I did not broach the subject of pacivism because that is an alternative absolute that I would contend is not rooted in Natural Law morality. It actually negates some of the objective universals contained in Natural Law. The last part of my post, I used the sentence “stepping outside the dictates of the Catholic Church” and by that I was referring to a purely objective, non theological appeal to Natural Law objectivity which underpins western societies. Hence, the argument for the doctrine of Just War can continue without recpourse to Catholic teachings.

I still contend that Catholic Church says is still relevent to non Catholics. It is only irrelevant to those who wont listen.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think you should realise that there is a gulf between Just War as a doctrine and pacifism. In between are wars waged on relativist principles. Germany invading Poland fits this category. It cannot be justified on objective moral grounds at all. It was purely a nationalistic, morally relative action. The Just War doctrine is rooted in moral objectivity. It has to be justified according to objective moral criteria. I did not broach the subject of pacivism because that is an alternative absolute that I would contend is not rooted in Natural Law morality. It actually negates some of the objective universals contained in Natural Law. The last part of my post, I used the sentence “stepping outside the dictates of the Catholic Church” and by that I was referring to a purely objective, non theological appeal to Natural Law objectivity which underpins western societies. Hence, the argument for the doctrine of Just War can continue without recpourse to Catholic teachings.

While you’re right that the space between Just War and pacifism is relativistic, I was asking if the person I was talking to was a pacifist. The space in between has no barring on what I was saying.

 

[Nine_Two]

Authority:

UN Resolutions, which include the ones dating to the Gulf War. Looking at it in its full context, there actually was a near continuous state of war going back to the cessation of ground combat from DS/DS. More than 700 anti-aircraft attacks on Coalition enforcement of the no-fly zones, etc.

US Congress (HJ 114) passed by both the House and the Senate in mid-October.

I believe there were longer lists of these resolutions mentioned in another forum.

Intent:

Our primary intent was to remove an unjust regime. ‘Regime removal’ was actually in the formal military orders contained in the Intent section of OpOrd 1003V that kicked the whole thing off. We also had the intent to allow the establishment a legitimate leadership in that country.

A long, long, long series of backsliding and non-compliance with no sign of change - with his sons in the succession line.

What do those UN resolutions authorize the United States to do if they are not obeyed though? Do they authorize the States to go in and depose the government and set up a new one? The casus belli of removing an unjust regime does not seem to match the authority of enforcing treaties.
The UN resolutions in this sense seem more like a pretext than a legitimate reason.

 

[campeador]

What do those UN resolutions authorize the United States to do if they are not obeyed though? Do they authorize the States to go in and depose the government and set up a new one? The casus belli of removing an unjust regime does not seem to match the authority of enforcing treaties.
The UN resolutions in this sense seem more like a pretext than a legitimate reason.

Please explain how the US disobeyed UN resolutions.

 

[Sufjon]

The UN resolutions in this sense seem more like a pretext than a legitimate reason.

Dear Friend Nine Two: I think you may have a very good point. The moral imperative is to ensure that any endeavor that involves violence be justified and that every single other option be explored first. In my opinion, this means we should not fish for excuses to go to war. Case in point: During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day. Many of these call for cessation of belligerent activities and attacks on neighboring states. In spite of this, we have never considered invading Israel or overthrowing their government. We need to ensure that we are not applying a double standard when we go to war, and that we are not simply finding excuses.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[John21652]

While you’re right that the space between Just War and pacifism is relativistic, I was asking if the person I was talking to was a pacifist. The space in between has no barring on what I was saying.

Fair enough.

 

[John21652]

What do those UN resolutions authorize the United States to do if they are not obeyed though? Do they authorize the States to go in and depose the government and set up a new one? The casus belli of removing an unjust regime does not seem to match the authority of enforcing treaties.
The UN resolutions in this sense seem more like a pretext than a legitimate reason.

Actually Nine_Two has hit on something that has been on my mind for many years. Sufjon has picked it up as well.

I vividly remember Colin Powell giving his briefing and ‘reasons’ for invading Iraq. At the time his case seemed pretty lame and full of ‘maybes’. Nine_Two is right to suggest that the casus belli of removing an unjust regime, and, I might add, creating a front on which to fight terrorism, do not match the Un Treaties. There is, in my opinion, a particular reason why and it is this. The US and its allies had every right to instigate an invasion according to a Just War doctrine. If the US, Britain and Australia had initiated such a call, they would have been fully supported, I think, by their own populations. After all, is it not the role of governments to keep their citizens safe and feeling secure? In my opinion, the cry that Saddam had weapons of WMD was an attempt at making the justification for the invasion fit the positivist rules, regulations and treaties of the UN. I suspect that UN approval was sought to firstly give the semblance of a global agreement to the invasion and, secondly, to use the UN resolutions and treaties to hold other Muslim nations in check. In attempting to make the reasons for the Invasion fit in with UN legalistic treaties, the allies unwittingly departed from , or at least weakened, the Just War doctrine and in doing so, weakened their case, because too much emphasis was on the search for WMD. In my opinion, the emphasis should have been solely on the need for the allies to make their citizens safe and secure from terrorist attacks at home and abroad and the Natual Law argument for doing so would have been very strong indeed.

To put it into the venacular, the corrupt UN should have been told to go suck eggs!!

 

[campeador]

In attempting to make the reasons for the Invasion fit in with UN legalistic treaties, the allies unwittingly departed from , or at least weakened, the Just War doctrine and in doing so, weakened their case, because too much emphasis was on the search for WMD. In my opinion, the emphasis should have been solely on the need for the allies to make their citizens safe and secure from terrorist attacks at home and abroad and the Natual Law argument for doing so would have been very strong indeed.

I disagree. Saddam Hussein had proven to the world he could not be trusted with any amount of WMD’s. He had a history of using chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war and against the Kurds.

Halabja massacre (wiki link):

The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history…

The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.

 

[John21652]

I disagree. Saddam Hussein had proven to the world he could not be trusted with any amount of WMD’s. He had a history of using chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war and against the Kurds.

Halabja massacre (wiki link):

Yes we know this. My post was about the justification for the invasion according to the Just War doctrine compared to seeking and abiding by UN resolutions. My point is that the Natural Law theory of Just War was slightly compromised by using the UN, whose charters do not properly reflect the Natural Law morality.

 

[benidict]

What do those UN resolutions authorize the United States to do if they are not obeyed though? Do they authorize the States to go in and depose the government and set up a new one? The casus belli of removing an unjust regime does not seem to match the authority of enforcing treaties.
The UN resolutions in this sense seem more like a pretext than a legitimate reason.

with all due respect my friend. i really dont give two hoots what the U.N. authorizes or doesnt authorize. we are a sovereign nation. i do not fight for the U.N. nor would i fight under that blue rag they call a flag. all the U.N. is, is an organization to prop up socialist communist nations. this is a bit of simplification, because i have to run soon, but thats it in a nutshell.

 

[Sam_777]

How is that justification for the war though? Are you saying the United States has a moral imperative to overthrow every dictatorship? Is war automatically just if one side is a dictatorship?

Maybe you did not/do not live under dictatorship regime, the oppression that comes from your brother and relative under the “Islamic name” is much harsher than the one from a secular stranger…