"We must do everything possible"-'No more war'

[goout]

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/angelus/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20030316.html
From this perspective of faith, I wish to renew an urgent appeal to intensify the commitment to prayer and penance, to invoke from Christ the gift of his peace. There is no peace without conversion of heart.

Peace is also the fruit of well ordered human action. The development of virtue plays a prominent role in well ordered human activity.
Our culture is anything but virtuous, unfortunately. I pray that we turn that corner.
I am grateful that calm heads among heads of state,.

 

[Asinner]

Yes, I am insulting him by calling him Salami.

“Avoiding war” was impossible since Iran had already attacked the US multiple times, via proxies and under the command of Salami. Just War doctrine doesn’t mandate pacifism or appeasement, because neither works.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I am insulting him by calling him Salami.

Really? What purpose does that serve?

“Avoiding war” was impossible since Iran had already attacked the US multiple times, via proxies and under the command of Salami.

The sanctions against Iran were already acts of war in that they were provocative. Since the Trump admin. backed out of the nuclear agreement, that also was a step toward greater animosity.

We very much could have avoided killing Soleimani. All previous administrations chose not to kill him. The leaders of our military have plenty of actions planned in attacking Iraq. If planning attacks justifies war, then Iran would be justified in killing our own military leaders. Do you see how such thinking not only is illogical, but does nothing to avoid war?

There is not a single veteran I have talked to who agrees with preemptive war, either what both Bushes did,or what Trump is doing. It is a waste of the lives of our servicemen to not exhaust diplomacy.

 

[CatholicSooner]

1. Since the current US administration is against diplomacy with Iran, they certainly have not done all they could rather than the assassinations

3. The assassination does nothing to help our national security or the security of Iraqis. Soleimani was simply replaced, the people of both Iran and Iraq are very angry, and if the US had any role in Iraqi national security, that role has been replaced with seeing the US as a threat to Iraqi citizens, and now they want us out. This means that the action made everything worse, creating “evils and disorders worse than the one eliminated”. All escalation does this.

Frankly, I don’t see how the assassination comes anywhere close to meeting the criteria.

How do you know this? Like i said, a lot goes on behind the scenes. From an external view, yes it appears that the US isn’t trying diplomacy. But what if they have information that makes diplomacy not a valid options?

That is an interesting take. Yet the US is evil for not taking care of Mexico’s people? A little bit of a double standard

Trump isn’t Catholic. And the US isn’t a Catholic nation. They don’t have to meet the criteria

 

[CatholicSooner]

Yes, I am insulting him by calling him Salami.

Really? What purpose does that serve?

“Avoiding war” was impossible since Iran had already attacked the US multiple times, via proxies and under the command of Salami.

The sanctions against Iran were already acts of war in that they were provocative. Since the Trump admin. backed out of the nuclear agreement, that also was a step toward greater animosity.

oh good gracious. This is just ridiculous. Now a nation can’t put sanctions or pull out of agreements without it being an act of war?

 

[OneSheep]

How do you know this?

Trump backed out of the nuclear agreement instead of renegotiating it.

But what if they have information that makes diplomacy not a valid options?

Can you come up with a scenario by which diplomacy is not a valid option, instead of assassination?

Trump isn’t Catholic. And the US isn’t a Catholic nation. They don’t have to meet the criteria

True, but remember this:

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life . Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

If we are truly working to create the Kingdom, to make it real, we are to do all we can to avoid war.

Pray with me.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

How do you know this?

Trump backed out of the nuclear agreement instead of renegotiating it.

But what if they have information that makes diplomacy not a valid options?

Can you come up with a scenario by which diplomacy is not a valid option, instead of assassination?

Trump isn’t Catholic. And the US isn’t a Catholic nation. They don’t have to meet the criteria

True, but remember this:

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life . Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

If we are truly working to create the Kingdom, to make it real, we are to do all we can to avoid war.

Pray with me.

A scenario would be if they have tried diplomacy in the past and Iran was deceitful. Or if Iran is not open to diplomacy. Or if the US has a valid believe to think that diplomacy will not work

And why should a nation be bound to accept any agreemets with other nations? A nation has a right to do what is best for its citizens. If the nuclear agreement was not in the best interest of the US, it is justifiable to back out of it.

 

[OneSheep]

oh good gracious. This is just ridiculous. Now a nation can’t put sanctions or pull out of agreements without it being an act of war?

If we do these things as a means of avoiding war, then that is in conformity with Just War Doctrine. However, to do these things without seeking resolution, before going to war, is against Just War Doctrine.

Instead, our pulling out of the nuclear agreement, and the imposition of sanctions, was an escalation.

 

[Usagi]

Trump isn’t Catholic. And the US isn’t a Catholic nation. They don’t have to meet the criteria

They do if we Catholic Americans are to consider the action just and support it.

Justice is one of the four natural virtues, not one of the three supernatural ones. Anyone can and should practice it, not just Christians. The idea of what it takes to justify state violence is not something just for Catholics.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

oh good gracious. This is just ridiculous. Now a nation can’t put sanctions or pull out of agreements without it being an act of war?

If we do these things as a means of avoiding war, then that is in conformity with Just War Doctrine. However, to do these things without seeking resolution, before going to war, is against Just War Doctrine.

Instead, our pulling out of the nuclear agreement, and the imposition of sanctions, was an escalation.

Whatever. pulling out of agreements that do not benefit the US is not an escalation. And if it is, that is on Iran. This is just ridiculous ideology.

What is hilarious is that if the roles were reversed and Iran backed out of an agreement they didn’t think benefited them, and the US retaliated, you would say that Iran has every right to back out of the deal and the US escalated it.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

Trump isn’t Catholic. And the US isn’t a Catholic nation. They don’t have to meet the criteria

They do if we Catholic Americans are to consider the action just and support it.

Justice is one of the four natural virtues, not one of the three supernatural ones. Anyone can and should practice it, not just Christians. The idea of what it takes to justify state violence is not something just for Catholics.

You can’t hold a person to the Just War doctrine when they don’t believe in the Just War doctrine!

 

[Usagi]

And regarding consequences? Iran is backing down. They’ve given up. They’re not retaliating, except for one purely symbolic gesture that was calculated not to kill anyone or escalate. Blowing up Salami is probably the most genius military move I’ve ever seen in my life.

And that’s great as long as we let that be the end of it. Unfortunately, our current President is the kind of guy who takes great pleasure in the idea of American “muscle,” and I am afraid he will still insist on flexing it instead of letting the matter drop after Iran’s token retaliation.

 

[OneSheep]

A scenario would be if they have tried diplomacy in the past and Iran was deceitful.

If this was a consistent experience, I can see your point. But that was not the case. They were in compliance with the nuclear agreement, as all involved agreed.

Or if the US has a valid believe to think that diplomacy will not work

This goes back to the same question.

And why should a nation be bound to accept any agreemets with other nations?

Good point. If there are agreements that better relationships between nations, the old agreements should be abandoned.

If the nuclear agreement was not in the best interest of the US, it is justifiable to back out of it.

It was in the best interest of the US and Iran, and especially Israel. It could have been better.

Whatever. pulling out of agreements that do not benefit the US is not an escalation.

There was great benefit to all involved. It was a means toward cooperation, it was cooperation.

What is hilarious is that if the roles were reversed and Iran backed out of an agreement they didn’t think benefited them, and the US retaliated, you would say that Iran has every right to back out of the deal and the US escalated it.

Please, it is against forum rules to say what others think. Both the US and Iran had the right to back out of the agreement, but such backing out definitely led to the opposite of what was wanted: war. The US shut down diplomacy and resorted to doing what Netanyahu (AIPAC, Bolton) want, military action against Iran.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

A scenario would be if they have tried diplomacy in the past and Iran was deceitful.

If this was a consistent experience, I can see your point. But that was not the case. They were in compliance with the nuclear agreement, as all involved agreed.

Or if the US has a valid believe to think that diplomacy will not work

This goes back to the same question.

And why should a nation be bound to accept any agreemets with other nations?

Good point. If there are agreements that better relationships between nations, the old agreements should be abandoned.

If the nuclear agreement was not in the best interest of the US, it is justifiable to back out of it.

It was in the best interest of the US and Iran, and especially Israel. It could have been better.

Whatever. pulling out of agreements that do not benefit the US is not an escalation.

There was great benefit to all involved. It was a means toward cooperation, it was cooperation.

What is hilarious is that if the roles were reversed and Iran backed out of an agreement they didn’t think benefited them, and the US retaliated, you would say that Iran has every right to back out of the deal and the US escalated it.

Please, it is against forum rules to say what others think. Both the US and Iran had the right to back out of the agreement, but such backing out definitely led to the opposite of what was wanted, war. The US shut down diplomacy and resorted to doing what Netanyahu wants, military action against Iran.

Well, its good to know that a poster here has insider information to everything that is going on between closed doors.

 

[Asinner]

And calling a dead guy a mean name is an act of war too.

 

[OneSheep]

On one hand you have an evil human being being brought to justice.

The Catholic Church is against the death penalty, I might add. Punishment, according to the CCC, is supposed to correct the problem in the sinner.

 

[Usagi]

You can’t hold a person to the Just War doctrine when they don’t believe in the Just War doctrine!

I can expect that anyone that I am to consider a decent person or nation follows it, however, and condemn them as unjust if they don’t.

If the proper response to someone who commits unjust acts but doesn’t believe they are unjust is to shrug, then we can’t talk about the justice of having killed Soleimani at all, since his unjustified killings are the entire reason given for eliminating him.

 

[Asinner]

The action the President took has put us in a perfect position to start negotiating with Iran from a position of strength. Unlike you, I am much more optimistic he will use this opportunity to do so, based on his statement yesterday.

Now here’s my crazy idea. I think we should offer Iran the following exchange: if they pay Saudi Arabia compensation for the oil field they bombed, then we will pull troops out of Iraq. Whatever time frame they choose to pay is the time frame that we will pull out. And they don’t even have to admit guilt for the attack, even though they are.

 

[JW55]

My position on this is pretty much the same as it has always been regarding the use of the US military-Seek a strong defense of this country( in this country) and avoid intervention in the direct affairs’ of other nations as much as possible.

There has always been internal strife in the Middle East itself between tribal groups. However, the west really stirred things up with the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the 1920’s. The US involvement was firmly cemented with Operation Ajax in 1953. The US now has a military presence of some kind in about 150 countries, They have either been involved directly or indirectly involved in several foreign regime or government changes.

Once you have your hand in the pudding, it becomes increasing hard to just pull it out and go away. We have a large number of pro-war and interventionists in both major parties. There are economic profits to made by some in these type of activities making it difficult to just “quit”. It definitely complicates the political chess board.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

On one hand you have an evil human being being brought to justice.

The Catholic Church is against the death penalty, I might add.

That is debatable