Should Catholics be opposed to war?

[edwest2]

It is called defending your country. There are also treaties where certain countries agreed to come to the aid of another if attacked.

My father was a World War II veteran. After the war, when I was young, he rarely spoke about what actually happened. I was watching a war movie and I asked, “Dad? Was it like that?” He said, “No, son. Not at all.” My mother was forcibly removed from her home in 1939 and transported in a railroad car along with her neighbors of around the same age, to Germany. The German Order Police told them their country no longer existed. That it was now part of the Greater Reich. Due to the threat of sabotage or coming under fire by partisans, she and others were told to throw out the one suitcase each was allowed to have. They were then told how to jump from the train when it slowed down.

Britain and France had a treaty agreement to come to Poland’s aid if attacked.

Peace,
Ed

 

[clem456]

My wife’s family has cousins that were Martyrs of Nowogrodek in Poland, murdered by the nazis. Sisters of the Holy Family.

 

[edwest2]

To my Polish-Catholic Brothers and Sisters:

amazon.com/Forgotten-Holocaust-German-Occupation-1939-1944/dp/0781809010

Peace,
Ed

 

[R1ch4rd]

To my Polish-Catholic Brothers and Sisters:

amazon.com/Forgotten-Holocaust-German-Occupation-1939-1944/dp/0781809010

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for the link Ed
My Grandkids call me Dziadzia

 

[edwest2]

You’re welcome.

Ed

 

[St_Francis]

I thank all of you who served in the military for your service, and military personnel and their families are one of our regular intentions in the Rosary.

 

[OneSheep]

We could have definitely done a lot more to avoid attacking Iraq…

Like ?

First of all, we have to look at the main reasons we attacked Iraq in the first place. The reason is very similar to the reason why we are gearing up to attacking Iran.

There are plenty of cruel rulers in the world, Saddam did plenty of bad things, but this is never enough to get our military involved. The first issue is that Saddam was a big enemy of Israel, as Iran is today. The second Intifada (uprising against Israel) by the Palestinians occurred in late 2000, while we were busy electing a president. Money to fund the intifada was reportedly partly coming from the Iraqi government, and partly from the Palestinian refugees (moneyed) living in Iraq, as well as other sources. Note: this was the same issue against Iraq when the first intifada occurred, which resulted in our first attack on Saddam during Bush 1.

When president Bush first met with his cabinet in January 2001, an attack on Iraq was already on the agenda (IMO it would have been there if Gore was elected too). The Intifada was causing a lot of grief in Israel. Saddam was paying something like 50k to the families of suicide bombers. This was in response to Israel destroying the homes of the bomber’s families. Israel saw the demolitions as deterrence and retribution, Saddam saw the money as charity. All understandable, but AIPAC and other Israeli groups were pushing very hard for the U.S. to get rid of their enemy. Also, very understandable.

So, one very big thing that could have been done was for the U.S. to stop supporting Israel’s confiscation of land, expansion of settlements, and occupation of Palestine, and push much harder for reconciliation between Israel and their Palestinian neighbor, which were the main reasons for the Intifadas in the first place. This was not done, because it was blocked politically. But it certainly could have been done instead of going to war against Iraq.

All of the accusations about WMDs were about getting buy-in from the American public. The administration searched far and wide for evidence. One “strong” bit of evidence came from a kid (a teenager) who lives in our county. He wrote an essay speculating that Saddam had WMDs, and put it on the internet. He later retracted his essay when there was all the talk about attacking his home country, but it was too late, it was already accepted as “evidence”. There were no WMDs, it was all to get the American public to buy in. The strongest bit of “evidence” was put forth by an Iraqi who later was proved to be a fraud.

Even if there were WMDs, Just War theory has no clause for “pre-emptive war” as Bush called it. The idea of preemptive war really bothered the veterans that I know, and it bothered me a lot too.

There was also an oil aspect, but not the most obvious one, like an oil-grab, or something like that. No room here for that, but that aspect also could have been resolved through diplomacy.

And I must note again here: alternatives involving diplomacy and other strategies of dealing with Iran are being blocked politically, by our congress. They have actually passed laws inhibiting our State Department from doing their job. This is a violation of Just War and a violation of our Gospel values.

 

[sedonaman]

We could have definitely done a lot more to avoid attacking Iraq…

First of all, we have to look at the main reasons we attacked Iraq in the first place. The reason is very similar to the reason why we are gearing up to attacking Iran.

There are plenty of cruel rulers in the world, Saddam did plenty of bad things, but this is never enough to get our military involved. …

I don’t agree with anything you have said here. Here’s why:

…the case for the war in Iraq … was, and remains, extremely straightforward and reasonable:

1. 
   *]Saddam Hussein was required, as part of the treaty which ended the first Gulf War, to disarm himself of certain weapons, especially WMD, to remain so disarmed, and to agree to regular inspections intended to verify his compliance;
   *]He repeatedly violated the terms of this treaty; so,
   *]The re-commencement of hostilities was prima facie justified. (The question of the legitimacy of “pre-emptive” war is thus utterly irrelevant; the action against Iraq was no more “pre-emptive” than is the arrest of a convicted felon for violating the terms of his parole.)

1. 
   

   Furthermore, whereas there may sometimes be good reasons for refraining from war even when it is justified,
   *]The risk of Iraqi WMD someday being slipped to terrorists for use against the United States was, post-9/11, plausibly seen as significant enough that continued Iraqi non-compliance could no longer be tolerated. (The question of whether the threat was “imminent” is thus also irrelevant; and the threat was, of course, never claimed by the President to be imminent in the first place.) Also counterbalancing any possible reasons for refraining from war were:
   *]The fact that modern methods of war make possible to an unprecedented degree the avoidance of civilian deaths (though of course these can never be avoided entirely);
   *]The liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship would, in the short and long runs, save more lives than would be lost in a military campaign and produce other obvious benefits for the Iraqi people as well;
   *]The elimination of the Baathist regime would put the fear of God into the hearts of other dictatorships who might think to produce or use WMD (as it in fact has in the case of Libya – though this has not stopped some anti-war types from denying the obvious);
   *]It would eliminate an important source of funding and/or training for Palestinian and other terrorist groups; and
   *]It would allow the United States finally to pull its forces out of Saudi Arabia, their presence being, however justifiable, a source of resentment within the Arab world and a rationalization for terrorism on the part of the likes of Osama bin Laden.

   In short, there was by virtue of Hussein’s non-compliance alone a defensible justification for war; and the other considerations served to override any reservations one could raise about whether the price for going to war, even if justified, might be too high. Nor does the endless nonsense about Bush having “lied” about WMD carry any conviction. For one thing, we don’t yet fully know what in fact Hussein had or thought he had. More to the point, no one, including the intelligence services of governments opposed to the war, doubted before the war that he had WMD; and only a fool would have interpreted his years-long non-compliance with the inspections regime as implying anything other than that he had something to hide. Finally, it takes a Flat Earth Society-level of credulity to believe that not only Bush, but also Blair and dozens if not hundreds of their employees, would have risked political suicide and/or criminal prosecution to cover up their alleged knowledge that Iraq had in reality absolutely no WMD to speak of.

   The Mustache on the Left
   By Edward Feser Published 01/08/2004
   techcentralstation.com/010804A.html

   In short, the world can no longer afford to have power-hungry despots dominate any important area of the planet.

 

[epan]

We could have definitely done a lot more to avoid attacking Iraq…

First of all, we have to look at the main reasons we attacked Iraq in the first place. The reason is very similar to the reason why we are gearing up to attacking Iran.

There are plenty of cruel rulers in the world, Saddam did plenty of bad things, but this is never enough to get our military involved. The first issue is that Saddam was a big enemy of Israel, as Iran is today. The second Intifada (uprising against Israel) by the Palestinians occurred in late 2000, while we were busy electing a president. Money to fund the intifada was reportedly partly coming from the Iraqi government, and partly from the Palestinian refugees (moneyed) living in Iraq, as well as other sources. Note: this was the same issue against Iraq when the first intifada occurred, which resulted in our first attack on Saddam during Bush 1.

When president Bush first met with his cabinet in January 2001, an attack on Iraq was already on the agenda (IMO it would have been there if Gore was elected too). The Intifada was causing a lot of grief in Israel. Saddam was paying something like 50k to the families of suicide bombers. This was in response to Israel destroying the homes of the bomber’s families. Israel saw the demolitions as deterrence and retribution, Saddam saw the money as charity. All understandable, but AIPAC and other Israeli groups were pushing very hard for the U.S. to get rid of their enemy. Also, very understandable.

So, one very big thing that could have been done was for the U.S. to stop supporting Israel’s confiscation of land, expansion of settlements, and occupation of Palestine, and push much harder for reconciliation between Israel and their Palestinian neighbor, which were the main reasons for the Intifadas in the first place. This was not done, because it was blocked politically. But it certainly could have been done instead of going to war against Iraq.

All of the accusations about WMDs were about getting buy-in from the American public. The administration searched far and wide for evidence. One “strong” bit of evidence came from a kid (a teenager) who lives in our county. He wrote an essay speculating that Saddam had WMDs, and put it on the internet. He later retracted his essay when there was all the talk about attacking his home country, but it was too late, it was already accepted as “evidence”. There were no WMDs, it was all to get the American public to buy in. The strongest bit of “evidence” was put forth by an Iraqi who later was proved to be a fraud.

Even if there were WMDs, Just War theory has no clause for “pre-emptive war” as Bush called it. The idea of preemptive war really bothered the veterans that I know, and it bothered me a lot too.

There was also an oil aspect, but not the most obvious one, like an oil-grab, or something like that. No room here for that, but that aspect also could have been resolved through diplomacy.

And I must note again here: alternatives involving diplomacy and other strategies of dealing with Iran are being blocked politically, by our congress. They have actually passed laws inhibiting our State Department from doing their job. This is a violation of Just War and a violation of our Gospel values.

I disagree with your analysis. But we don’t need to go into that.

You bring up the Bush Doctrine, which was indeed a radical departure from previous US policy, perhaps the most significant foreign policy change in decades.

I think the motivation behind it is the fact that state players are using terrorist groups as proxy agents. The point was to put sovereign states on notice that the US would consider support for such covert action as an act of war.

Terrorism targets civilians. Going after terrorist groups with special ops and other covert means is nothing new. What is new is the size of potential attacks, particularly with states supporting the terrorist groups.

Just as a hypothetical, let’s say that the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were to fall into hands inimical to US interests. Let’s further assume that no state actor would launch missiles against the US, fearing retaliation. If it became known to us, that I new Pakistani government was providing nuclear arms to terrorist groups to smuggle into the US, what would you propose as a response? Talk? Pleading? Verbal threats? Embargo?

I think that a case could be made for military action, based on the Just War Theory which covers self defense, in such a scenario.

The difficulty in dealing with a Saddam, or the current state of Iran, is to weigh how imminent a threat is. When you consider the states around Iraq during Saddam’s latter reign, it would have been foolish for him not to claim to have WMD. It was a bluff, which he carried out very well, and which contributed to his own demise. Even some military people in Iraq believed that they were in possession of biological weapons, in 2003.

 

[sedonaman]

…Terrorism targets civilians. Going after terrorist groups with special ops and other covert means is nothing new.

And targeting civilians and other non-combatants is a war crime, which nobody ever talks about. The only “war crimes” of interest are the inadvertent killing of enemy non-combatants. Nor does anybody hold terrorists responsible for anything.

What is new is the size of potential attacks, particularly with states supporting the terrorist groups.

Just as a hypothetical, let’s say that the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were to fall into hands inimical to US interests. Let’s further assume that no state actor would launch missiles against the US, fearing retaliation. If it became known to us, that I new Pakistani government was providing nuclear arms to terrorist groups to smuggle into the US, what would you propose as a response? Talk? Pleading? Verbal threats? Embargo?

IOW, appeasement.

I think that a case could be made for military action, based on the Just War Theory which covers self defense, in such a scenario.

The difficulty in dealing with a Saddam, or the current state of Iran, is to weigh how imminent a threat is. When you consider the states around Iraq during Saddam’s latter reign, it would have been foolish for him not to claim to have WMD. It was a bluff, which he carried out very well, and which contributed to his own demise. Even some military people in Iraq believed that they were in possession of biological weapons, in 2003.

It might have been a bluff, but it was even more credible given the fact that he had used them in the Iraq-Iran War and against the Kurds, his own people, BTW.
:sad_yes:

 

[ahollars]

For the record, Iraq did have WMDs.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

Proof of fallout…

Munitions Found in Iraq Renew Debate

And if that wasn’t enough…

Syria’s Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam’s Iraq

 

[St_Francis]

For the record, Iraq did have WMDs.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

Proof of fallout…

Munitions Found in Iraq Renew Debate

And if that wasn’t enough…

Syria’s Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam’s Iraq

I remember that when this all first came up, the anti-war sites all had lists of the munitions and ingredients for WMDs sold to Iraq by various nations including the US. The idea was that since these nations had sold them the stuff, they could not now turn around and attack Iraq for their misuse.

I wish I had taken a screenshot of those lists, since they were taken down after they changed their line to No WMDs.

 

[epan]

I remember that when this all first came up, the anti-war sites all had lists of the munitions and ingredients for WMDs sold to Iraq by various nations including the US. The idea was that since these nations had sold them the stuff, they could not now turn around and attack Iraq for their misuse.

I wish I had taken a screenshot of those lists, since they were taken down after they changed their line to No WMDs.

Such a determination was (and is) above my pay grade. What I do know from first hand personal experience, is that the guys who surrendered to us had atropine injectors. The only reason for that is if one expects neurotoxic weapons. I am talking regular iraqi army, not republican guard. nobody was expecting the US to use such agents. we expected them to. we drilled and drilled and drilled and drilled getting into our MOP suits quickly enough in a gas attack.

anyone in that region would be foolish not to have WMD. We have them, and we supply them or a promise to use them to all of our allies.

but i am not sure that the possession of WMD makes one a candidate for invasion under the provisions of Just War Theory. If it were, then an invasion of the US would be justified, or Israel, or Great Britain, or China, or Pakistan… etc…

 

[Brendan]

For the record, Iraq did have WMDs.

I always wondered how anyone could doubt that. Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians in the 80’s.

So not only did Saddam have them, he USED them.

The UN Secretary General condemned Iraq for using them in 1986.

Yet people said Iraq never had WMDs…??

 

[onenow1]

I’m not sure how I feel, but are we supposed to be opposed to war?
Should we be proud of America and all that?
I’m unsure. You know with
“Thou shalt not kill” and all…
Should we proud when our sons/daughters wish to join the army?
I’m just unsure what the teaching is on this. Going to check the catechism now

:thumbsup:Check it out
As long as evil exists wars will exist,Satan said I will not serve; the start of all war ! But scripture says.> Genesis.4:7-8

God Bless

 

[OneSheep]

Epan and Sedonaman:

I respectfully disagree with your opinions. I will stand by my words that much more could be done to avoid war with Iran (like sitting people from Israel and Iran down at a table) and that we could have done with Iraq. Nothing on paper forces people into war. Anything on paper can be changed.

Terrorists, though their methodology is atrocious, have legitimate needs and concerns that can also be addressed by diplomacy and negotiation. Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies and turn the other cheek. What this means is restraining our compulsion to punish, forgive our enemies, and instead work toward real reconciliation, where both sides get to say what they feel and need, and something can be worked out.

I am not talking about refraining from protecting ourselves. I am not talking about letting people walk all over us or being allowed to continue doing harm. I am talking about reconciliation.

This can be done! I would be willing to play Saddam’s role, the U.S. role, Israel’s role, Iran’s role, even a terrorist’s role on a fictional negotiation/reconciliation. We can all present our concerns and see if we can work it out, if you are willing to take the time. Let me know which role you want me to play, and give me which role you would like me to play.

This thread is about whether Catholics should support war, and I am willing to present a Christian means to avoid war. Want to give it a try? It’s okay to say no. It is also okay to totally disagree with me, like I said, I respect (and understand) your points of view.

 

[Timothysis]

Terrorists, though their methodology is atrocious, have legitimate needs and concerns that can also be addressed by diplomacy and negotiation.

Terrorists are, by very definition, illegal combatants employed in illegal actions without uniform or a sovereign flag.

Thus, any “need” or “concern” of theirs is inconsequential until they start acting under the framework of the law.

 

[Timothysis]

Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies and turn the other cheek. What this means is restraining our compulsion to punish, forgive our enemies, and instead work toward real reconciliation, where both sides get to say what they feel and need, and something can be worked out.

I do not believe that the Church teaches this interpretation of “turn the other cheek.”

The pope’s former butler has been tried and sentenced to jail for stealing confidential letters from the Holy Father’s desk. That seems to fly in the face of what you posted above.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It is worth noting that Jesus mentions the victim’s right cheek in this passage. Now, most people are right-handed, and so the easiest way to strike a person’s right cheek with your right hand is a slap with the back of the hand.

However a backhanded slap is an insult rather than an attempt to hurt a person. Therefore, Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is not a call to pacifism.

 

[sedonaman]

Epan and Sedonaman:

I respectfully disagree with your opinions. I will stand by my words that much more could be done to avoid war with Iran (like sitting people from Israel and Iran down at a table) and that we could have done with Iraq. Nothing on paper forces people into war. …

That’s right; we could have ignored the terrorists and those who give them shelter. But ignoring an aggressor is what we did in the case of Japan in the '30s up to Pearl Harbor. As I said before, it is a form of appeasement that the adversary interprets as weakness or apathy, or both.

Anything on paper can be changed.

This is true, but what are you going to replace it with? Nothing? Or are you going to throw away the lessons of history and replace it with the same failed notions? Or … ?

Terrorists, though their methodology is atrocious, have legitimate needs and concerns that can also be addressed by diplomacy and negotiation. Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies and turn the other cheek. What this means is restraining our compulsion to punish, forgive our enemies, and instead work toward real reconciliation, where both sides get to say what they feel and need, and something can be worked out.

I don’t know where you got this idea. Terrorists do not [repeat, **do not] have legitimate concerns. They might be concerns, but they are not legitimate. Their governments are responsible for addressing whatever grievances they have; that is what government is for, especially WRT international issues. Therefore, whatever grievances they do have are with their own government. As someone pointed out, terrorism is unlawful combatancy, and it is unlawful for a number of reasons: terrorists do not have the authority to negotiate with foreign governments because they are not part of a lawful, responsible organization on their side. International law prohibits private warfare; only government can wage lawful warfare. Terrorism also specifically targets persons and property protected by international agreement. Those agreements were instituted to minimize death and destruction caused by war; now you want to forget that and encourage more terrorism by legitimizing the terrorists.

I am not talking about refraining from protecting ourselves.

Yes, you are. The minute you give in, you are sending messages; and one is the terrorists have legitimate complaints, which they do not, at least not with the US. Another is that if they attack us, we will do nothing.

I am not talking about letting people walk all over us or being allowed to continue doing harm.

Again, yes you are because that’s the way the world sees it.

I am talking about reconciliation.

You are talking about reconciliation with evil.

This can be done!

This is what the liberal democracies tried to do with Hitler in 1938.
…

This thread is about whether Catholics should support war, …

No, it isn’t. It’s about whether Catholics should oppose war. The CCC recognizes there are times when it is unavoidable. You are saying it is always avoidable because “we can do more”. I suppose so; we can always call another meeting. But, your position contains one giant flaw, and that is the terrorists want to solve a disagreement peacefully. They do not. If I am wrong here, please point to just one of their agreements that they have abided by.

For some historical background, I suggest you do some reading. For starters, here are a few pertinent articles:
Appeasement as War Doctrine
By David Yerushalmi & Tom Snodgrass
January 23, 2007
intellectualconservative.com/2007/appeasement-as-war-doctrine

Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology
By Lee Harris

“Psychoanalytically, perversion involves simultaneously the acting out of an individual’s fantasy, using the other as an object for gratification. The reality of the other is essentially denied. They exist to play a part in the fantasy world of the pervert.”
hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3459646.html

---

“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” – Alexander the Great