NonViolence

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

It has already been pointed out that the nonviolent approach of Gandhi and King succeeded because they were directed against opponents who had moral scruples against the use of violence toward the innocent.

I agree and I was the one who first brought this up. Gandhi himself said it would not have worked in other places. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make nonviolience the first choice.

Darfur is a good example of the expected result of nonviolence against a regime that is not so constrained.

Darfur is not an example in the use of nonviolence, because both sides were involved in violence to begin with. Its now a matter of the winner, paying back and exterminating the losers. However, in their minds of those in power, its self-defense against the rebels who have caused the trouble in the first place.

I think Rwanda would’ve been a better example of the failure of nonviolence, but then again, the hatred perpetrated, goes back to tribal wars, where violence was used.

If we look at the American Indians, the Cherokees used nonviolence in their fight, but ended up losing and were forced marched to Oklahoma, 4000 of them died. However, if they had taken up arms against the US government, its safe to say far more than 4000 would’ve died.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Darfur is not an example in the use of nonviolence, because both sides were involved in violence to begin with.

Darfur is certainly an example of nonviolence on the part of the nations who have the military power to end a level of killing approaching genocide. Also, it seems a great disservice to those who are being slaughtered to lump them together with those doing the slaughtering and charge that “both sides were involved in violence”.

What would your nonviolent advice have been to Rwandans during the slaughter of from 500,000 to one million people in barely 100 days in 1994? Unsurprisingly, the Hutu butchery of Tutsis only ended when a Tutsi dominated rebel group overthrew the Hutu government and took power. Violence on the part of the Tutsi saved them; nonviolence would have led to their extermination.

Ender

 

[Bennie_P]

If we look at the American Indians, the Cherokees used nonviolence in their fight, but ended up losing and were forced marched to Oklahoma, 4000 of them died. However, if they had taken up arms against the US government, its safe to say far more than 4000 would’ve died.
Jim

The situation withthe Cherokees is a better example of the Just War theory.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

-** there must be serious prospects of success; **

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Since there was no serious propspects for success the only logical thing to do was go to OK. The Cherokees had legitiment claim to have thier situation addressed and to defend thier property, but they did not have the means to successful fight back, when thier situation was ignored by the government and courts. If they thought they could have successfully fought back with he use of arms they would have. The use of non-violence didn’t protect thier property rights, but they had no other logical choice. How was this a successful use of non-violent action? It was logical use of Just War Theory.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Sequoyah.jpg/140px-Sequoyah.jpg

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Darfur is certainly an example of nonviolence on the part of the nations who have the military power to end a level of killing approaching genocide. Also, it seems a great disservice to those who are being slaughtered to lump them together with those doing the slaughtering and charge that “both sides were involved in violence”.

What would your nonviolent advice have been to Rwandans during the slaughter of from 500,000 to one million people in barely 100 days in 1994? Unsurprisingly, the Hutu butchery of Tutsis only ended when a Tutsi dominated rebel group overthrew the Hutu government and took power. Violence on the part of the Tutsi saved them; nonviolence would have led to their extermination.

Ender

My response would’ve been to fight back if possible. However, I’ve read of those who fought back and were killed.

In the book “Left To Tell,” by Immaculée Ilibagiza, she tells about her father who chose to fight back, and was swiftly cut down. She herself, hid with 7 other women for 95 days, in a bathroom measuring, 4’ x 6’. Good book, written by an extraordinary Catholic woman. She herself, used nonviolence and stared down one of the killers, and walked away to tell her story. Heaven was on her side.

However, the violence between Hutus and Tutsis began hundreds of years before the 1994 slaughter. Also, Tutsi rebel groups had been crossing into Rwanda and attacking Hutu’s. So it wasn’t a case of where violence was replaced with nonviolence. Violence was part of the history and culture.

As I said before, nonviolence in my perspective, does not
mean being a pacifist in the sight of brutality. In fact, it would be immoral to not attempt to stop brutality, if possible. However, nonviolence would be the first approach.

In fact, nonviolence is not pacifism, but activism. People who take to the streets to protest unjust wars, or sale of weapons to foreign nations, are believers in nonviolence. Pacifist just stay out of the way and watch.

Currently, I’m more of a pacifist, for I have not reached a spiritual level such, to be a person who practices nonviolence. I’m praying for the transformation, however.

Jim

 

[Tiber_Squid]

Saddam’s evil does not fit the Just War Doctrine. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, or his neighbors. Saddam’s neighbors, opposed our invasion.
…
As in all wars, once the shooting starts, all debate ends, and those who were opposed to the war from the begging, are now called traitors. The case of the Iraq war is a classic case in how a government uses this strategy and why those who oppose violence, are labeled and considered, liberals, left-wingers, peace-niks, or whatever term that can be used to discredit their position.
Jim

Your statements clearly show a disregard for what life was like under Hussein and what his aims where in the region. No-one in the region wanted the US to do anything along with the spineless Europeans, except for our British allies for a variety of political reasons including bribery in the UN under the oil-for-food fiasco. We’ve got to remember history and look past our pre-conceived notions at what really happened in Iraq, what the UN resolutions were, and what we knew and thought in 2003.

Labels that you complain about are possibly one of the few liberal things that some conservatives do which are unfair. However, in some cases, there are extreme statements made and even more media leaks on highly classified military and intelligence operations that are major breeches of national security. Most don’t understand that because they have never had to deal with classified information and don’t understand that not EVERYONE has the right to know exactly what’s going on. Such things are treasonous. Anti-war views on here I would not call treasonous although some of the arguments IMHO appear to show a somewhat naive picture of the world and such calls for pacifism take a skewed view of Christian doctrine.

As far as your charges of propaganda – everything that tries to argue for the other side can be painted as propaganda. How about the liberal media that constantly wants to paint the war as one series of bomb explosions without any context and any balanced view of what is actually going on. Both sides are biased. Just because you don’t agree with going to war, you don’t have the right to start claiming use of propaganda. Please bring up specific cases of outright propaganda and manipulation for and against the war within context of their source.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Saddam’s evil does not fit the Just War Doctrine. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, or his neighbors. Saddam’s neighbors, opposed our invasion.
Jim

Jim, you have reached this prudential conclusion. However, in charity, you could say “in my opinion” as such a statement would recognize respect of others who have made a different prudential conclusion.

The justness of this war is one which sincere Catholics have reached contradictory conclusions.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tiber Squid

Your statements clearly show a disregard for what life was like under Hussein and what his aims where in the region.

Its not a disregard, but where in the Just War Doctrine does preemptive strikes against other nations are justified?

Where in the US Constitution, does it say that we are responsible for the liberty of people in other countries?

No-one in the region wanted the US to do anything along with the spineless Europeans, except for our British allies for a variety of political reasons including bribery in the UN under the oil-for-food fiasco.

The Arab nations bordering Iraq, did not see Saddam as a threat and opposed the war. Please explain how they were being spineless? Please explain why countries like France and Germany, who knew what the cost of going into Iraq would be, are spineless? Based on all the facts, they were honest and accurate. We were deceptive and foolish.

We’ve got to remember history and look past our pre-conceived notions at what really happened in Iraq, what the UN resolutions were, and what we knew and thought in 2003.

Where does it say that the US has the sole responsibility to enforce UN resolutions? Iraq didn’t sign the cease fire agreement with just the United States and Great Britain.

Labels that you complain about are possibly one of the few liberal things that some conservatives do which are unfair. However, in some cases, there are extreme statements made and even more media leaks on highly classified military and intelligence operations that are major breeches of national security.

Please provide us with the classified material that was leaked and published by the media.

As far as your charges of propaganda – everything that tries to argue for the other side can be painted as propaganda. How about the liberal media that constantly wants to paint the war as one series of bomb explosions without any context and any balanced view of what is actually going on. Both sides are biased.

So you deny the body count of both American and Iraqis, it was just the liberal media making stuff up?

Just because you don’t agree with going to war, you don’t have the right to start claiming use of propaganda. Please bring up specific cases of outright propaganda and manipulation for and against the war within context of their source.

I have every right to disagree with the war. Show me where I don’t have this right.

Propaganda? Heck, thats easy. Saddam has WMD. Saddam tried to purchase yellow cake uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. Cripes, I don’t have the time to list them all. You sound like a person who supported the war, and now is in a state of denial of how it was not only a bad idea, but we were misled into it.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Its not a disregard, but where in the Just War Doctrine does preemptive strikes against other nations are justified?

We were already at war with Iraq - we had a signed cease fire that they violated. Beyond that re the just war doctrine, our invasion was justified: “from the fact of the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Where in the US Constitution, does it say that we are responsible for the liberty of people in other countries?

This is backwards: we are allowed to do whatever is not specifically prohibited.

The Arab nations bordering Iraq, did not see Saddam as a threat and opposed the war.

Oh I doubt that Kuwait would agree.

Please explain why countries like France and Germany, who knew what the cost of going into Iraq would be, are spineless?

The cost to France was losing kickbacks from the oil-for-food program.

Based on all the facts, … We were deceptive and foolish.

We may have been foolish - although I think not - but there was no deception. Name anyone in the government who said that Iraq didn’t have WMD. The UN thought the same as did most of the world’s intelligence agencies. I think it is unfair to accuse Democrats of voting to authorize a war they didn’t believe in.

Ender

 

[Orionthehunter]

Saddam’s evil does not fit the Just War Doctrine. Saddam was not a threat to the United States, or his neighbors. Saddam’s neighbors, opposed our invasion.
Jim

We were already at war with Iraq - we had a signed cease fire that they violated. Beyond that re the just war doctrine, our invasion was justified: “from the fact of the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way” (Catholic Encyclopedia) Ender

Jim, you have reached this prudential conclusion. However, in charity, you could say “in my opinion” as such a statement would recognize respect of others who have made a different prudential conclusion.

The justness of this war is one which sincere Catholics have reached contradictory conclusions.

Ender, I think my response to Jim applies to you as well. You have reached a prudential decision that the war is justified. Jim holds a contrary opinion.

Each of you have different factors that are influencing your decision (Jim a general pacifist approach vs. Ender a belief that it is our Christian duty to not sit by while people suffer grave injustice) which are within the realm of proper prudential factors as they are both motivated by sincere Christian principles.

I think we should not engage in terminology or innuendo that questions the morality of the other.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Each of you have different factors that are influencing your decision (Jim a general pacifist approach vs. Ender a belief that it is our Christian duty to not sit by while people suffer grave injustice) which are within the realm of proper prudential factors as they are both motivated by sincere Christian principles.

Orion,
You misunderstand me. I do not hold a pacifist approach of, sitting by and doing nothing. I lean toward an activist approach, but through activity that is nonviolent.

God Bless
Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

We were already at war with Iraq - we had a signed cease fire that they violated.

We within the coalition of UN nations, were at war and had a signed cease fire agreement. It was up to the UN, not the US to enforce.

Beyond that re the just war doctrine, our invasion was justified:

The Catholic Church declared that it was not a just war under the doctrine. I agree with the Pope.

Oh I doubt that Kuwait would agree. The cost to France was losing kickbacks from the oil-for-food program.

The majority of Kuwaiti’s opposed the invasion. There were even protest against the US and the war.

We may have been foolish - although I think not - but there was no deception.

There was plenty of deception. Bush and Cheney cherry picked intelligence to sell the nation the justification of going to war. The ignored intelligence, which didn’t support war.

Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know. Anyone who did a little studying on the different ethnic groups in Iraq, would’ve easily understood, that once Saddam’s government fell, there would be sectarian violence.

If a person like myself, who is not in government was able to predict the consequences of going into Iraq, why couldn’t those in the upper echelons of the US government?

Name anyone in the government who said that Iraq didn’t have WMD.

George Tenet, Director of the CIA, said that Saddam having WMD was not conclusive. His “Slam Dunk” statement, was about the intel that was going to be used to convince the American people and members of Congress, that war was necessary.

The UN thought the same as did most of the world’s intelligence agencies. I think it is unfair to accuse Democrats of voting to authorize a war they didn’t believe in.

The UN Security Council oppose the war, until the inspectors could finish the job. After, Bush got his approval for war, and the inspectors were thown out of Iraq.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: The Catholic Church declared that it was not a just war under the doctrine. I agree with the Pope.

The Church has made no such binding statement on the faithful. The statements of the Pope are statements of his own prudential judgement. Your cause is not served by misrepresenting the Church’s position. I’ve earlier pointed this out to you before.

From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know.

There are many Islamic countries that are democracies. Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Palestine, a couple of “stans” that are former Soviet sattelites.

From JimR-OCDS: Anyone who did a little studying on the different ethnic groups in Iraq, would’ve easily understood, that once Saddam’s government fell, there would be sectarian violence.

While it was certainly far from a concensus, it has proven to be the case. In my mind the primary failing to understand what was ahead regarding sectarian violence was because our nations closeness to Sunni nations (Saudia Arabia, et. al.) and fear of Iran (a Shia nation). In my mind, Sunnis are the problem.

From JimR-OCDS: If a person like myself, who is not in government was able to predict the consequences of going into Iraq, why couldn’t those in the upper echelons of the US government?

Probably luck since nearly unanamously Congress didn’t forsee what is now happening. I was opposed myself but I don’t claim to have any superior insight.

Orion,
You misunderstand me. I do not hold a pacifist approach of, sitting by and doing nothing. I lean toward an activist approach, but through activity that is nonviolent.

God Bless
Jim

I guess I was just taking at face value what was said below. I must have misunderstood.

From JimR-OCDS: Currently, I’m more of a pacifist, for I have not reached a spiritual level such, to be a person who practices nonviolence. I’m praying for the transformation, however.

 

[Tiber_Squid]

Its not a disregard, but where in the Just War Doctrine does preemptive strikes against other nations are justified?

From the Catechism: ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war_CCC.htm
That clearly lays out the criteria and certainly as we are involved in conflicts within this loose set of operations and actions we call GWOT, the application of those gets very fuzzy. We’re not dealing with nation states and conventional attacks and seizures of land. We’re dealing with a far more cancerous, hidden, and insidious threat that has a longer attention span, potential access to very destructive weapons, and continutally recruits more and more radicals to its cause. Destabilizing western economies would have drast consequences world-wide and it’s not just about greed. We can argue over the prudential judgment of wars based on these conditions, although like it says it is ultimately up to the government to make this determination because we don’t have access to all of the information on what the conditions were and the true extent of the threat.

Where in the US Constitution, does it say that we are responsible for the liberty of people in other countries?

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and dometic – that would certainly include terrorist groups and countries that have and will support them like Iraq and Afghanistan under Hussein and the Taliban. The Constitution empowers the President to act in defense of the country generally, but does not speak specifically for or against it, like many things.

The Arab nations bordering Iraq, did not see Saddam as a threat and opposed the war.

They don’t have to – and you and I know full well the political landscape and their reasons for not wanting to Speak. Hussein invaded Kuwait, would have entered Saudi Arabia had we not stopped him, gassed the Kurds in his country, threatened us on many occasion, had at one time a significant WMD stockpile which he refused to demonstrate it’s disposal to the UN (it’s not that we didn’t find anything – it’s that he didn’t prove he got rid of everything he had).

Please explain why countries like France and Germany, who knew what the cost of going into Iraq would be, are spineless? Based on all the facts, they were honest and accurate. We were deceptive and foolish.

Oil for food bribes? Pacifism?

Where does it say that the US has the sole responsibility to enforce UN resolutions?

No where – it’s a matter of our realization that isolationism is stupid and if any tyrant is allowed to thumb his nose at the greater world community to only be given stronger resolutions, we’re headed for trouble.

Please provide us with the classified material that was leaked and published by the media.

None of us have the material and I doubt most of the people on here have a clue about classified material handling. However, let’s talk about the treasonous NY Times – plenty of information about troops movements and other things but perhaps the biggest is the NSA wire-tapping of foreign communications into this country. That has Congressional and judicial oversight and for very good reasons should have remained a black project. Catching the terrorists in the planning phase even before they start infiltrating the country is the best option. Newspapers compromising this to try to find the next Watergate to put them in the spotlight is treasonous and criminal.

So you deny the body count of both American and Iraqis, it was just the liberal media making stuff up?

The number varies widely from many sources, some which have been shown on this forum to be statistically invalid.

I have every right to disagree with the war. Show me where I don’t have this right.

And many have fought for all of our rights to free speech. My concern was that you claim propaganda when the government or individuals such as myself and others on this forum make a rational and maybe perhaps an empassioned argument to go to war.

You sound like a person who supported the war, and now is in a state of denial of how it was not only a bad idea, but we were misled into it.

What precisely am I denying – I have acknowledge the good, the bad, and the ugly in most of my posts in these threads. Your ideology may be clouding your vision of what is happening. By all means we must seek non-violent resolution to world conflicts. However, at some point, certain groups only react to threats or actual action.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Orionthehunter

The Church has made no such binding statement on the faithful. The statements of the Pope are statements of his own prudential judgement. Your cause is not served by misrepresenting the Church’s position. I’ve earlier pointed this out to you before.

I didn’t say it was a binding statement, but it was a statement that the war did not fit the just war doctrine, and I said I agree with it. You obviously disagree with the late Pope John Paul II on this.

There are many Islamic countries that are democracies. Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Palestine, a couple of “stans” that are former Soviet sattelites.

At best, they are shaky democracies. Lebanon is once again under strife against Hezbollah. Egypt, has a democracy, but is run by a government that is almost as ruthless in putting down opposition as Saddam was. Egypt in fact uses torture of prisoners. We the United States, sent prisoners to Egypt for interrogation, because they do use torture. It removed all moral credibility for us. Afghanistan was not an election by the entire country, but rather the two major cities. The tribes throughout the rest of the country boycotted the elections. Also, they hate the Karzai government because they hate Karzai, who they see as an Indian sympathizer. Also, they remember that when his fellow Afghani people were fighting against the Soviet Union occupation, Karzai was living comfortably in India. After the election, his first move was to allow India to establish an embassy in Afghanistan, which they see as an act of treason. Its also the reason the Taliban is getting support from Pakistan.

While it was certainly far from a concensus, it has proven to be the case. In my mind the primary failing to understand what was ahead regarding sectarian violence was because our nations closeness to Sunni nations (Saudia Arabia, et. al.) and fear of Iran (a Shia nation). In my mind, Sunnis are the problem.

CP Cheney said in an interview by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, that it was not important that the administration have knowledge and understanding about the culture of a nation such as Iraq, before invading. This administration clearly did not care. It was treated as a business strategy over all else.

Probably luck since nearly unanamously Congress didn’t forsee what is now happening. I was opposed myself but I don’t claim to have any superior insight.

Congress is made up of politicians who use political expediency over moral judgement. There were a few members however, who knew what was coming and voted against the war resolution. Rep Ron Paul Tx was right on in his assessment. The neoconservatives labeled him a traitor at the time.

I guess I was just taking at face value what was said below. I must have misunderstood.

Correct. I said I was more of a pacifist right now, because I haven’t developed the spiritual depth and discipline to be an activist in nonviolence.

Nonviolence requires spiritual strength and strong discipline for it to work. I’m not at that level, yet.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From JimR-OCDS: Also, besides that, anyone who did a little studying on Islam, prior to the war, would easily understand that there was no way an Islamic nation would accept democracy as we know.

As you later pointed out, Lebanon and Egypt are shaky or less than perfect. But this is not the case with Turkey, which has had a stable democracy since just after WWI, the “stans” from the former Soviet Union and even the budding democracies in Afghanistan and Palestine.

But, more importantly, as Catholics, we should not be prejudiced against Muslim’s capacity for democracy. Christ and the Holy Spirit have imbued into all person’s souls the desire to do good. I have reached a different prudential judgment that Islam and democracy are compatible because of and through God’s grace evidenced by the example of successful Islamic democracies.

CC 1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

From Jim R-OCDS: If a person like myself, who is not in government was able to predict the consequences of going into Iraq, why couldn’t those in the upper echelons of the US government?

From Orionthehunter: While it was certainly far from a concensus, it has proven to be the case. In my mind the primary failing to understand what was ahead regarding sectarian violence was because our nations closeness to Sunni nations (Saudia Arabia, et. al.) and fear of Iran (a Shia nation). In my mind, Sunnis are the problem.

From Jim R-OCDS: Congress is made up of politicians who use political expediency over moral judgement. There were a few members however, who knew what was coming and voted against the war resolution. Rep Ron Paul Tx was right on in his assessment. The neoconservatives labeled him a traitor at the time.

I again refer you to CC2478. You are making serious accusations of the motives and intent of an awful lot of people. More importantly, you seem to fully discount the public statement of internal angst of many in Congress and the President at the time of Congressinal authorization of the invasion.

JimR-OCDS: The UN Security Council oppose the war, until the inspectors could finish the job. After, Bush got his approval for war, and the inspectors were thown out of Iraq.

This is wholly devoid of the facts. The UN authorized the US and assembled coalition to enforce previously approved resolutions by force and deferred the decision to the US/Coalition.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: The Catholic Church declared that it was not a just war under the doctrine. I agree with the Pope.

From OriontheHunter: The Church has made no such binding statement on the faithful. The statements of the Pope are statements of his own prudential judgement. Your cause is not served by misrepresenting the Church’s position. I’ve earlier pointed this out to you before.

From JimR-OCDS: I didn’t say it was a binding statement, but it was a statement that the war did not fit the just war doctrine, and I said I agree with it. You obviously disagree with the late Pope John Paul II on this.

First, the statement I bolded above certainly gives the appearance that you assert it was a binding statement. As a Catholic, you should know full well that “The Catholic Church declared” is materially different than an expression of the Pope’s personal prudential judgment. In such matters, Catholics of good will are free to come to different prudential judgment.

Second, your statement about disagreeing w/ the Pope on his prudential statement on the justnesss of the war appears to imply that such a person is a “lesser” Catholic. Do you intend such an implication?

Third, I opposed the full-scale invasion of Iraq and have said so both on this thread and others.

From JimR-OCDS: The majority of Kuwaiti’s opposed the invasion. There were even protest against the US and the war.

You need to support this statement with evidence. Even the most ardent opponents of the war do not make this assertion.

From JimR-OCDS: There was plenty of deception. Bush and Cheney cherry picked intelligence to sell the nation the justification of going to war. The ignored intelligence, which didn’t support war.

There is substantial evidence the prism used to make this decision appears to support that all information was not treated equally. However, as Catholics we are called to give other’s motive the benefit of the doubt.

Catechism 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way. IMHO, this is evidence of the President’s judgment and maybe even competence. However, history will be the better judge.

Considering that you are willing to cherry-pick “facts” (see above regarding the Kuwaitis and below regarding Congress), I would think you would be one careful not to make a rash judgment of their motives.

See Part 2 Below

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Orionthehunter,
well at this point, I’m going to have to just agree to disagree and wait for history to play itself out.

Also, I stand corrected about Kuwait opposing the war.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Orionthehunter

I didn’t say it was a binding statement,** but it was a statement that the war did not fit the just war doctrine**, and I said I agree with it. You obviously disagree with the late Pope John Paul II on this.

No, the Pope didn’t even say that much. He was too much of a theologian to know that he did not have the authority to make a determination of the Justice of the war.

He knows that Catholic doctrine leaves that decision to the secular authorities.

All Pope John Paul II said was that he had doubts that it met the criteria.

And I 100% agree with the Holy Father that he had doubts on the subject.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Orionthehunter,
well at this point, I’m going to have to just agree to disagree and wait for history to play itself out.

Also, I stand corrected about Kuwait opposing the war.

Jim

Pardon for being a little confused? We are going to agree to disagree on the following:

1. 
   *]We disagree on if your statement that the Catholic Church “declared” the Iraq war violated the Just War Document was misleading?
   
   *]We disagree on if the Pope’s statement on the war was more than his personal opinion and one binding on all Catholics.
   
   *]We disagree on if I was opposed to the full-scale invasion and subsequent police action? Love to hear your arguments on this.
   
   *]I’m glad we don’t disagree on if the Kuwaiti’s supported the over-throw of Saddam.
   
   *]We disagree on if you contain omniscience to make credible charges about the interior, personal motives of the President and member of Congress who authorized the Iraqi war. Alternatively,
   
   *]We disagree on if you are bound to the Catechism # 2478 which says we should “should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”
   
   *]We disagree on if Muslims are capable of living in a democracy despite the exampe of Turkey, the “stans”, etc.
   
   *]We disagree if it is factual that the UN authorized the US and assembled coalition to enforce previously approved resolutions by force and deferred the decision to the US/Coalition.
   
   If these are the items to which we disagree, I’m quite comfortable in my prudential judgment, concurrence w/ regard to Catholic moral teaching, and standing w/ regard to the facts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pardon for being a little confused? We are going to agree to disagree on the following:

*]We disagree on if your statement that the Catholic Church “declared” the Iraq war violated the Just War Document was misleading?