"Preventive (Iraq) War", a Violation of Just War Doctrine

[vluvski]

Elaine's Cross:

Why would I want to do that? I am only interested in the Catholic pov.

How can you discuss whether or not the Iraq war is just without understanding the decisions involved in going to war?
If I put an apple in a box, close the lid, and then start talking about how it isn’t an orange, what good does that do? You have to know and understand the apple before explaining how it is not an orange, and especially before you start telling other people it is not an orange.

I would also like to share something interesting a priest pointed out at a parish I visited just this past weekend. As a member of the National Guard (his vocation before his priestly vocation, where he still serves his weekend duties), he has been privy to many briefings. He cautioned against people, clergy included, making blanket statements over whether the war was just or not based on their limited information. He didn’t come out and say either way, but his attitude would imply that there is information unavailable to the general public that still suggests the war in Iraq is a just one.

 

[Brad]

vluvski:

How can you discuss whether or not the Iraq war is just without understanding the decisions involved in going to war?
If I put an apple in a box, close the lid, and then start talking about how it isn’t an orange, what good does that do? You have to know and understand the apple before explaining how it is not an orange, and especially before you start telling other people it is not an orange.

You haven’t gone to the school of liberal thinking. What you are supposed to do is decide that you want it to be an orange, find a couple of other people that use very large words to describe oranges and quote them, and vigorously defend the box from ever being opened so that noone gets the crazy idea that it is an apple - after all that would be discriminatory towards oranges, which don’t get enough press. You don’t want to be a bigot against oranges by being an apple fundamentalist.

vluvski:

I would also like to share something interesting a priest pointed out at a parish I visited just this past weekend. As a member of the National Guard (his vocation before his priestly vocation, where he still serves his weekend duties), he has been privy to many briefings. He cautioned against people, clergy included, making blanket statements over whether the war was just or not based on their limited information. He didn’t come out and say either way, but his attitude would imply that there is information unavailable to the general public that still suggests the war in Iraq is a just one.

Sounds like the same line of thought that Fr. Neuhaus has most recently expressed.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Ani Ibi:

Elaine, ‘bandied about’ is some pretty strong – and inaccurate – and, in the absence of any supportive argumentation, discourteous language.

Is there a problem with making a simple statement, supporting it, and providing a link? Or does the least little thing cry out to be a snipe?

There was no discourtesy intended.

I provided the link on “Double Effect” in the first post.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Elaine's Cross:

There was no discourtesy intended.

I provided the link on “Double Effect” in the first post.

Are you retracting the term ‘bandied about’?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Brad:

What you are supposed to do is decide that you want it to be an orange, find a couple of other people that use very large words to describe oranges and quote them, and vigorously defend the box from ever being opened so that noone gets the crazy idea that it is an apple - after all that would be discriminatory towards oranges, which don’t get enough press. You don’t want to be a bigot against oranges by being an apple fundamentalist.

Schrodinger’s Apple?

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Ani Ibi:

Are you retracting the term ‘bandied about’?

No. It was used in the same context as would “thrown about”, discussed, mentioned, etc.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Elaine's Cross:

No. It was used in the same context as would “thrown about”, discussed, mentioned, etc.

‘to bandy’; the denotative meaning from dictionary.com:

1. 
   *]**a. To toss or throw back and forth. b. **To hit (a ball, for example) back and forth.
   *]**a. **To give and receive (words, for example); exchange: The old friends bandied compliments when they met. **b. **To discuss in a casual or frivolous manner: bandy an idea about.
   
   I see here, from etymonline.com that ‘to bandy’ was to play an Irish hockey game!
   
   1577, “to strike back and forth,” from M.Fr. bander, from root of band (2). The sense apparently evolved from “join together to oppose,” to opposition itself, to “exchanging blows,” then metaphorically, to volleying in tennis. Bandy was a 17c. Irish game, precursor of field hockey, played with curved sticks, hence bandy-legged (1688).
   
   I think the distinction is the use of the preposition ‘about.’ ‘To bandy an idea’ could well mean to discuss an idea. But ‘to bandy about an idea’ means to discuss in a casual or frivolous manner. I don’t believe the idea of Double Effect has been discussed in a casual or frivolous manner on this forum.
   
   As for being bandy-legged: I suspect that, if I lift any more heavy boxes of clay, then I will become either bandied-legged or very long-armed. Now, since it is lunch, it is time for a bandied salad. I wonder who is playing tonight on the National Bandy League; I hope Don Cherry bandies about the new rules.