What are the views of people on the American Government's response to the September 11 atrocity?

I won't add anything else yet because I don't want to bias the discussion towards my viewpoint initially.

-- Love Panda (dambra@breathe.com), February 09, 2002

Answers

Love Panda

How is that a Catholic topic?

Try a different LUSENET Active Public Forum.

-- (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 09, 2002.

Love Panda,

As Mike mentioned above, that is not really a topic for this Catholic forum. But if you care to see how most of us feel about this topic, please go to the Current Events folder of this forum HERE and view the pertinent threads. You should be able to discern them by their titles.

By the way, as far as I am concerned, so far so good.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), February 09, 2002.

I'd suggest that there is an issue for Catholics about this, and about any war. There is an established body of Catholic teaching on what constitutes a "just war", or a "permissable war".

Without going into details, the Church teaches that a country should have a just reason for going to war and that it should carry out the war in a just manner.

I'd gloss the last point by saying that, in any war, some unjust acts will be committed, but that the issue is whether, overall, the war is carried out in an ethical way. (St Thomas Aquinas makes a similar comment, that all monks and nuns make mistakes but that the test is the overall effect of their apostolate.)

Coming to the present "war against terrorism", I think it meets the test on both counts. The US Government is perfectly justified to attack these terrorists (and, in fact, is obliged to do so). And it seems to me that the attack is being carried out in a morally appropriate manner.

-- Felix Moore (felixmoore@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Felix,

You're correct. The concept of how should Catholics understand this war is a valid topic. I erred above and apologize.

But most of this was discussed at the end of last year (in one of them we argued whether it was a "just war" according to the Catholic Catechism). Please review the group of threads I referenced above.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), February 11, 2002.

My concern in going to war with "terrorism" is that to a certain degree is attack the countries with terrorists in them.

Having the IRA on the doorstep here in England means that I am aware that it is very difficult for any government to deal with terrorism.

Whilst it is right that action should be taken to prevent people commiting acts of terror. We must be careful because the countries which America is currently targeting are already ravaged with poverty as a result of climate or war and steaming in with both barrels could escalate the situation.

-- Love Panda (dambra@breathe.com), February 12, 2002.

Love Panda,

I was impatient in my first response for you to go elsewhere with the topic. I was being moderator John Wayne of the electronic wilderness. Sometimes I get really ignorant. Sorry.

"Having the IRA on the doorstep here in England means that I am aware that it is very difficult for any government to deal with terrorism."

That's cool you are from England, I always assume most posters are American. When I say "America" in this post I also mean allies.

"Whilst it is right that action should be taken to prevent people commiting acts of terror."

This is where the Catholic in me comes in. I see the war to be self- defense in light of the oppositons initial WTC attacks. America's act is also prevention because we have dealt with the acute situation and now dig out the root. Also we could have instead "turned the other cheek" if we wanted. We could have done nothing but pray for our enemy and make a vebal statement. America would never do that but it could have been done and it would have been courageous in God's eye.

"We must be careful because the countries which America is currently targeting are already ravaged with poverty as a result of climate or war and steaming in with both barrels could escalate the situation."

Or it's poverty may be the result of no history of significant Christianity in their country. I see India this way. A priest told me that whole sections of India are possessed by the devil. He said this is partly because it is not a baptized nation. I don't think Islamic nations are baptized either.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 12, 2002.

Hi, Panda.

You said, " We must be careful because the Countries which America is currently targeting are already ravaged with poverty as a result of climate or war... "

I think that when you are in war, that you must do what you have to do to win the war! We did not target any Country first. The economic situation of the Country that we are defending ourselves against should have nothing to do with the way the war is played out! Our goal is to stop terrorism and put a end to as much of it as we can.

I know we are dropping tons of food to the people over there. But I think if you try and be too careful, and worry about how poor a Country is than we would be putting more American soldiers lives at risk. Rember, never under estimate your enemy. Russia did and looked at what happened to them in their war over there.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (ASDZXC8176@AOL.COM), February 12, 2002.

Russia's war in Afghanistan was land based almost entirely a mistake America learnt from for this war. Also, let's not forget that Russia was crippled by the cold war. Excluding itself from the free market meant that Russia could not sustain the arms race as easily as America.

In this current campaign America has relied almost entirely on aerial bombardment. Which has meant that Afghani troops experience of digging in and toughing it out was effectively useless.

Let's not forget that America put the Taliban in power. And now have put the Northern Alliance in power.

Northern Alliance troops have tortured and executed their prisoners during this campaign.

America are refusing to classify the prisoners taken in the war against terrorism as POWs

Civilian targets have been hit and continue to be destroyed in the modern aerial war.

The knee jerk reaction to these kinds of statements is that you have to break eggs to make an omelette.

But I worry that we are in danger of pragmatically justifying war. Just because we must respond to these acts. Need it be war and if we decide it must be war then do we just accept everything that happens because ther eaon for war was just.

Or do we need a modern, catholic (purposefully small c), moral and ethical framework for war.

If we say we will go to war and say that it is just in the eyes of God. Should we not say what a catholic war is. As war has changed beyond all recognition over the last twenty years alone.

In Somalia there were nearly as many casualties among the Civilian and U.N. population as a result of American Special forces actions as there were military casualties. I agree that action must be taken to help our fellow man but every country has a poor success rate.

Perhaps this poor success rate is because of our pragmatic response. Which is currently flatten their country and then pay off our conscience with aid packages.

Would it not be more sustainable to lead by example. I'll admit that I don't know what form this would take but the police in Afghanistan haven't received a wage for 6 months and all the aid delivered so far won't cover that.

The taliban for e.g. in a bid to improve their international image were about to outlaw growing poppies (the 1st stage in Heroin production). The Northern Alliance have said that anyone who wants to can do. This is likely to lead to $6 Billion dollars of Heroin coming onto the market over the next year. if we could avoid that surely that is a good thing.

As for a lack of Catholicism leading to poverty. I don't think that stands up to examination. Certainly you could suggest a link between a country becoming increasingly catholic and similarly increasingly rich but I think that historically this has been more of a social and political shift going hand in hand.

I don't mean that to sound argumentative or confrontational but I feel that part of the Churches waning popularity (in England) at least is that people are increasingly well educated and critical and quite often archaic language used around religion turns people off so that they refuse even to look at the option.

That doesn't mean you don't have a way of discussing that issue (I don't know if it's true) but you could look for a reason that the prevelant religion in a country contributes to poverty and argue from that angle. The why of what you are saying doesn't change but you don't shunt the very poeple you are trying to 'convince' straight into not listening.

-- Love Panda (dambra@breathe.com), February 16, 2002.

Panda,

You have all the answers for America! How wrong we were in Somalia, how we are refusing to classify prisoners, how we learned from Russia's war. How we are wrong for defending ourselves after thousands and thousands of innocent people were blown up at work supportting their familys.

You should not tell another Country, that they have a stick in their eye, when yours has a log in there eye! How long has your Country been at war? We could bring up that shobackle, but maybe we should keep this a Catholic forum!

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), February 16, 2002.

Hello, Love Panda.

I imagine that you would like us Catholics (mostly U.S. citizens) to respect you and what you have to say. But you cannot gain people's respect by saying things that are ridiculously false and things that you cannot prove to be true. You would be much better keeping silent about this war until you have the story straight. Here are some of the things you got wrong or can't prove (with my comments in brackets):

"Let's not forget that America put the Taliban in power." [FALSE!]

"And now have put the Northern Alliance in power." [Wrong again. There is a coalition, and Mr. Karzai is a Pashtun, not from the North.]

"Northern Alliance troops have tortured and executed their prisoners during this campaign." [You cannot prove how much, if any, this has happened. But what does it have to do with American -- and especially Catholicism -- anyway?]

"America are refusing to classify the prisoners taken in the war against terrorism as POWs." [I believe that some are being so classified, while others are not because they fail to qualify under the Geneva conventions. They are unlawful combatants -- terrorists, or mercenaries. Even they, however, are getting most of the points of good treatment that PoWs enjoy.]

"Civilian targets have been hit and continue to be destroyed in the modern aerial war." [Every time it has happened, it has been accidental. Furthermore, considering the number of bombs dropped, the number of accidents has been phenomenally low, far lower than in any past war. The Taliban intentionally killed and maimed far more with their bare hands than wayward bombs have accidentally harmed. You ought to be rejoicing that American and Great Britain have knocked the Taliban and Al Quaeda out, instead of whining about it.]

"But I worry that we are in danger of pragmatically justifying war. Just because we must respond to these acts. Need it be war and if we decide it must be war then do we just accept everything that happens because the reason for war was just. Or do we need a modern, catholic (purposefully small c), moral and ethical framework for war. If we say we will go to war and say that it is just in the eyes of God. Should we not say what a catholic war is." [Come on, Love Panda. Why did you just come to accuse, without first doing some research? If you read the Christian principles of "just war" (see below), you will realize that this is such a war. Did you not realize that such principles exist?]

"Perhaps this poor success rate is because of our pragmatic response. Which is currently flatten their country and then pay off our conscience with aid packages." [There is no desire to "flatten" a country, but to drive evil-doers out of lands they have invaded (Saddam) -- or out of power, if they are illegitimate rulers giving haven to terrorists (Taliban). With the exception of the tiny minority that has accidentally lost family members, the decent Afghan people are thrilled about what America has done. You shoud follow suit.]

"The taliban for e.g. in a bid to improve their international image were about to outlaw growing poppies (the 1st stage in Heroin production)." [Look further into this. You will find that you don't have the full story. The Taliban's record was not clean on this score either.] The Northern Alliance have said that anyone who wants to can do. [The coalition government does not agree to this and will fight it, with U.S. and British help.] "... I feel that part of the Churches waning popularity (in England) at least is that people are increasingly well educated and critical and quite often archaic language used around religion turns people off so that they refuse even to look at the option." [When you speak of the "Church's waning popularity," you must be speaking of the decline of the (Protestant) "Church" of England (CoE)-- since I have repeatedly heard that the Catholic Church is growing, and its numbers will surpass the CoE in the years ahead.]

Here are a couple of paragraphs about war from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2308 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.'

"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 moderm 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."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 16, 2002.