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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Asinner said:
And since you won’t acknowledge that your incredulity was unwarranted, I have to assume you’re not willing to reevaluate your positions based on new information.
Click to expand...
The quotes I was incredulous about were contained in videos CNN said they couldn’t verify. Given there’s a prominent Saudi-funded terrorist cult that pumps out anti-regime propaganda constantly, and that I’m familiar with the last 40 years of Iranian-American relations and Western media reporting on such, I remain incredulous.
 
Asinner said:
I explained that days ago in an earlier post on this thread (somewhere around #80 maybe). I won’t repeat myself.
Click to expand...
So he was involved in nebulous ‘attacks’ and was riding with a guy who killed one American and ‘wreaked havoc’ in Iraq. If that is justification for assassination then yes, there are hundreds of current U.S. officials and thousands historically that other countries would be fully justified assassinating.
 
Not changing my story: we responded proportionately to the aggression by Iran in the reasonable hope that it would cause Iran to back down. Conversely, not retaliating brought the expectation that Iran would continue to escalate the situation.
 
mythbuster1 said:
Not changing my story: we responded proportionately to the aggression by Iran in the reasonable hope that it would cause Iran to back down. Conversely, not retaliating brought the expectation that Iran would continue to escalate the situation.
Click to expand...
The US responded to the death of one contractor by doing bombings that killed 25 Iranian soldiers in Iraq, and then when the Iraqi people protested and demonstrated against the US embassy, we killed an Iraqi military leader along with Iran’s leader of their equivalent of the CIA.

Your argument about escalation is illogical. The Iranians, by your logic, should have preemptively killed more Americans because of our planned disproportionate escalation.

Can you see why none of this meets the criteria of Just War Doctrine? There was little attempt at diplomacy, all this has been about using violence to solve problems.

You don’t have to “change your story”. The truth is that there was nothing “proportionate” about our actions over there, and now the Iraqis want us out. Now, in addition, the US is not going to try to stop ISIS from regaining power in Iraq. So, now, we are not even helping in that aspect of Iraqi security.

Why are we still keeping our troops there, and why should the Iraqi government even want us there? Because of new threats of sanctions from the US? Can you try to imagine how you would feel if another government was doing this to us?
 
Last edited:
“War forces people to be just and temperate while the enjoyment of good fortune and being at leisure in peacetime makes them arrogant” - Aristotle
 
We have a saying in the English world: NOT SEEING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES,
which means, I believe, that one is blinded by the petty issues and, therefore, cannot see the big picture.

In my opinion that “big picture” is the threat of a global nuclear war which remains with us.
If the ancients prophets had not left us with dire predictions that seem to indicate a nuclear war, and if another verified prediction did not say that we will have just one more Pope before our judgement by fire, then I would not be so certain that we, as a nation do, indeed, need to do “everything possible” avoid war.

The one and only thing that we could accomplish to avoid the coming global nuclear war would be unilateral nuclear disarmament. It will take two nuclear superpowers to enable this war. With only one, it is not possible. I do not believe that Scripture demands that the USA be the world’s policeman or that the USA must maintain a nuclear arsenal.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
You ignored any action prior to your single instance.
Click to expand...
Okay, yes, I did. Please feel free to describe the cycle of violence that preceded what I posted.
You can be assured that if and when Iranian forces did anything against US forces, the US media would headline it, so it should be very easy to find. I had no luck with a cursory search.
 
Last edited:
Do your own research, the issue as been well covered in threads here. I only condemned your cherry picking, which results in a faulty argument.

There is always room to argue we shouldn’t have done it, without ignoring all the facts. I’m just not going to do your work for you.
 
Theo520 said:
There is always room to argue we shouldn’t have done it, without ignoring all the facts. I’m just not going to do your work for you.
Click to expand...
I presented the facts. You said I “cherry-picked”, I think it is up to you to prove your point. I looked up the facts I did and found nothing else. Where did you get the idea I “cherry picked” if you don’t already know more facts?

The US responded to the death of one contractor by doing bombings that killed 25 Iranian soldiers in Iraq, and then when the Iraqi people protested and demonstrated against the US embassy, we killed an Iraqi military leader along with Iran’s leader of their equivalent to the CIA.

And BTW, Soleimani was a hero in the eyes of most people in Iran for his leadership in defeating ISIS. And now we are telling the Iraqis that we aren’t going to try to stop ISIS any more. What does that say about US having troops there to “protect the Iraqis”? It is a falsehood.

While you are at it, try to support that what we were did complies with Just War Doctrine.

It does not.
 
Last edited:
And not fighting back is a good way to get massacred. 9/11 happened because the Clinton administration failed to respond to multiple terrorist attacks against our people, with the bombing of the USS Kohl chief among them. Conversely, bin Laden dared not target nuclear power plants on 9/11 because he feared that President Bush would answer with nuclear weapons and indiscriminate slaughter. What President Bush actually would have done, I do not know (and I am certainly not justifying indiscriminate slaughter), especially since nuclear power plants would probably withstand jetliners crashing into them, but bin Laden feared the possibility and so dared not attempt anything that could be interpreted as a nuclear attack. Indeed, senior White House officials planned a nuclear response to 9/11, only for President Bush to overrule them.
 
OneSheep said:
I presented the facts
Click to expand...
Facts? Yes, facts, but do people who say they follow Jesus want to hear the facts given? How about Christ’s teaching on retaliation - Mt 5:38-48
On the night he was to be betrayed and one of the disciples struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said,“stop, no more of this! Then he healed the slave’s ear.
It also says in the Gospel of Mt at the arrest of Jesus-- Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
The president of the United States used a drone (which can be used for good or evil) to murder others in another country. A precedence has started for worse violence to happen. President Trump has given an example to the world that he can kill whom he wants. Now all in the USA have an example to go by – take a drone and kill those evil people. There are many dictators in the world, Hitlers in the world – and many people who just don’t like the guy next door. As a nation we already have been killing the unborn for decades. Unfortunately the Democrats gave us a corrupt choice for the past election and many people went for Trump because they wanted our Nation to respect life and wanted laws to respect life from the moment of conception to death. And horrifically Trump has just added to the culture of death in our Nation, in the world and tragically in Middle East. Trump has never had to experience the poverty there that is in Iraq and Iran. He plays golf while a drone kills some men in Iraq. And now other innocent people are dying there.
 
Last edited:
No cherry picking at all – 2302 It helps to see what Jesus teaches and what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the fifth commandment.
2302 states By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
 
Last edited:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
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
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
 
strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. - gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one & the same time:
  • damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, & 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.
“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.
Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense .

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
  • Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

**[2317] Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112
 
Last edited:
Divine3 said:
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Click to expand...
This part should have been bolded also. The government of Iraq is that which is responsible for the common good of the people in that nation, not Donald Trump, not the US congress.
 
And it is on this point that I disagree with OneSheep: I am convinced that the requirements of the Just War doctrine were satisfied in the assassination of Soleimani, and he is not. I believe the assassination was necessary to get Iran to back down from a full-scale war, while he believes it will provoke one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top