I just wrote an article for the high school students in my bible study. It involves the concept of a just war and is intended to start a convesation on the current situation with Iraq.

I thought I would give you a chance to read and comment.

See the link at the top right (Just War - Or Not?) after you login at http://www.martinsen.com/cce/.

If you haven't registered and don't want to, you can enter as a visitor.

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 20, 2003

Answers

Hollis, I suggest you read the recent essay of George Weigel in First Things (available online).

In Catholic theology there has always been a distinction between the immorality of duelling and the often moral obligation of the state to defend civilians from unjust aggressors.

In other words, individuals must avoid seeking vengance for personal issues or suffering yet those vested with authority and responsibility for the welfare of others (parents, teachers, rulers), have a positive obligation to safeguard them from harm...including both passive measures (building high city walls) or active measures, such as massing such an overwhelming force against a foe that they sue for peace...

Naturally, peaceful negotiation is always prefered to armed resistance...but when dealing with barbarians who will not reason and will not cease and desist, one cannot "turn the other cheek" if this will mean the slaying of innocents in your charge. The shepherd must sometimes "give his life for the sheep".

This is why BTW individual Christians have always been martyrs and organized Christian nations have always had to fight defensive wars. If a man (for example a Bin Laden) threatens to kill me unless I submit to his religion, I can either defend myself or accept martyrdom. If he threatens my wife I can not choose for her to die. I must "take the aggressor out".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.

Here's a piece I came across that I thought really put things in perspective pretty well. It's just a sermon by a parish priest, but it's one of the best balanced views I have read about the pending war ...

http://www.stmarysgvl.org/2-9-2003.htm

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2003.

Doesn't look like anyone took the time to read my article, but I guess that's what I get for directing you to a link and not pasting the content directly in the forum.

Let me read what you have suggested, modify my article accordingly and then come back here with a new version of my article.

Thanks and God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 21, 2003.

Joe,

I assume you mean the article: Moral Clarity in Time of War. Is that correct?

God Bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 21, 2003.

Most wars are unjust. They destroy property and anihilate people from the face of the Earth. Just people usually don't fight. So normally they will ask God for help. God does justice by using sometimes the ungodly. In the Bible: Chedarlaomer and allies against Sodom and allies (homosexuality), Moses Hebrews against Cannanites ( child sacrifice, homosexuality, ...), Shalmaneser and Assyrians against Northern Israel (no justice, abandoning God), Nebuchadnezzar and Chaldeans against Judah ( no justice, abandoning God), Cyrus vs Babylon ( cruelty), Romans against Syrians (Antiochus IV) for attacking the Jewish state, Romans against Jews (AD 70 ( abandoning God, selling justice, murder,...), Russia (communists) against Capitalist countries (for exploitation, slavery, discrimination), North (USA) vs South (USA) ( 1861-1865 for slavery), Germany VS Belgium(WW1 and WW2 for slavery in the Congo), The problems of the Roman Catholic Church when those wronged seek monetary retribution....

Many of these wars are not in the Bible but are in the visions of people Like Sister Lucia (Fatima 1917) , 2 Popes in 1887 and 1907,...

Now God's justice will be exacted on Saddam Hussein. Even though most of his people have suffered, like the Kurds, Assyrians, Shiahs, still, others have commited atricities beyond what is to be civilized. Is Bush a just person? he doesn't have to. Is the United States a Just country? It doesn't have to. The previous example show the nations or leaders don't have to be Just.

So the next time you complain to God about the injustices in this world, realize that God may work through the unjust minds of nations or leaders to deal with injustice. Or he may play with nature: earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes, snowstorms, drought, floods,...and so on. It doesn't mean we could get better. Only that justice was served.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 21, 2003.

Elpidio,

To some degree I can agree with some of the things you state, but also God has chosen to have us on earth in more of a active mode of carrying out His will.

I do believe "what is needed is trust" is of utmost importance in our lives, and no where in the Bible does it state that "God helps those who help themselves," but there is some truth to the statement.

Just men at times and under certain conditions do go to war. To not go to war under certain conditions would make these very men unjust. Using your scenario, Christians shouldn't work to stop abortions in our country, the Christian countries shouldn't have tied to keep Hitler from killing Jews, etc...

President Bush has a moral obligation to do what he can to ensure the security of US citizens from terrorists and unjust agressors. Due to the size and power of the US military, he may also have an obligation to free citizens of another country from an evil tyrrant. And, yes, it does matter if President Bush is a just man.

There was an old commerical where a mechanic would say "you can pay me now or you can pay me later." (If you're old enough to remember that.) God's will will prevail. We can either co-operate with Him in bringing it about (via just men doing just things) or via scenarios you listed above (he will use even the unjust to bring about his will - but with much more bloodshed). The Old Testament is filled with a series of good and bad rulers and times of faithfullness and unfaithfullness of His chosen people. And there is a direct correlation (intended) in the OT accounts of how well Israel did on a material/political level to how just and faithful were its leaders and people.

So these questions of just leaders and just war are very relevent to us as Christians.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 21, 2003.

Sorry Hollis....but you present a batch of horse puckey.

You use God to further your own agenda and vision. You justify war by claiming it is god's way of working in the world. Your god is a sick puppy, an interfering menace and should be exposed for being but a figment of your own pathology. Keep your god and hide him under a bushel basket. Presenting such an ogre to young minds is the same as what the trainers of the al quaeda do. May god forgive you.

It is time for you and all those who support war to take responsibility for your ignorant inability to recognize that the world...which is now a global community can no longer afford to solve its problems with the barbarism of war. If we don't grow-up and recognize that violence only continues violence and that in this day of "weapons of mass destruction" others means must be found to solve the worlds problems, you and those who think like you will carry the burder of the annihilation of the world on your shoulders. But then again, that is part of the born again syndrome seeping into even the Catholic Church.

The Prince of Peace is watching.

-- Joseph (JDR@aol.com), February 23, 2003.

What truly amazes me in each of these threads about the impending war with Iraq, is that those who advocate peace are full of venom, vitriol, name calling, and insults toward those with an opposing view.

Makes me wonder who is really the "peacemaker," and who is really the "warmonger"!

Re-read your posts!

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youkow.com), February 23, 2003.

Anna,

I must agree. I'm denounced by them without them even reading my viewpoint. (I don't actually advocate a stance for war, although I do list some scenarios where the Just War principles could apply.) Since these folks that are so vilolently for peace now were no where to be seen or heard when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq and Yugoslovia, it really makes me think that it is more anti-Bush, anti- Republican, anti-US/Capitalism than it is anti-war.

Personally, I don't want any innocent lives - US or Iraqi - to be harmed in any way - either by US/British bombs or Saddam's chemical weapons. I'm against war and against Saddam's brutal dictorship and against him using weapons of mass destruction against his own people or other nations.

I hope this problem is resolved in a peaceful manner, but, even more, I hope this problem (i.e. Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction) is finally and properly resolved. (You can pay me now, or you can pay me later. The only problem is the longer you wait, the more expensive the cost - of life and properly.)

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 23, 2003.

All,

I apologize for starting another thread on this topic. I had originally looked to see if there was one on just war and the situation in Iraq, but didn't see it until now.

Since that thread has a several day long conversation, I'll terminate this thread here.

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), February 25, 2003.

I HATE WAR, IT ONLY MEANS DEAD PEOPLE. WE ARE IN A BEAUTIFUL WORLD AND WE HAVE TO CARE IT NOT TO DESTROY IT. PLEASE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO PREVENT WAR.

-- Cristian Leon (clarinette2004@ yahoo.com), March 06, 2003.

Cristian,

I hate war, too. But I also hate horrible dictators that kill their own people, finance terrorists seeking to destoy our country and develop weapons of mass destruction to carry out his plans from Hell.

We can't be naive and think that we can all shut our eyes, hold hands and sing songs and this will stop the evil dictators. Look at Hitler. Many were crying for "no war" with him also, but later had to apologize for this (including the Church). He needed to be stopped and not acting was immoral. The case certainly can be made with Saddam, and maybe even more due to the potential for destruction with the WMDs he has.

We shouldn't be praying for "no war", but for peace (in the long term) and for the disarmament and disempowerment (did I invent a new word?) of Saddam with the least amount of loss of life and property as possible. But the removal of Saddam and disarmament of Iraq is absolutely necessary.

The latest news on what the Vatican is demanding includes the following:

First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms.

Shutting our eyes and wishing for the best ain't gonna' cut it! But a miracle to change the heart of Saddam to truly disarm and give up his 12 year act of deceit and disception, OR the use of force to carry this out will cut it.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.

Hollis as a former seminarian studying in Rome you do the Holy Father and our Church a great diservice spreading such information in a Catholic forum, you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is repulsive from any Catholic yet alone one who studied to be a priest for 8 years. Christian your first thoughts were correct and in line with not only the Pope but with just about every Bishop on the planet.

Hollis has put his faith on the backburner to spread anti Catholic Republican propaganda. Do not listen to him, listen to our Pope.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.

In the 20th century, peace was just an interlude between wars. War is a business for the rich. Stop and think, who are the only ones that profit from war?. War is controlled waste for profit. People come up with noble reasons for war, but that is only the sales pitch. I am neither a Democrat or Republican, just an American who wants peace in our time.

-- Paul Revere (Gus@wakeup.com), March 07, 2003.

Paul/Gus,

You say war is business for the rich. I don't really know what you mean by that, but I'm certain we can find many people who are/were not rich who were glad for certain wars and would view themselves as direct recpients of the goods that resulted from a war.

I think there were many poor slaves who were thankful for the Civil War and its results.

Although some of the Poles, Jews and Catholics in the gulags of Hitlter may have been rich, I'm certain there were many poor folks were quite happy when the Allied forces freed them. We could same the same of the French, Italian, Polish.... citizens and what resulted from WWII.

I'm not going to state that fincances and influences of those in power with not-so-pure motivations don't enter into the decision of countries deciding to go to war or not, one cannot deny the fact that at times war has been needed/justified/moral (and immoral if something wasn't done).

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.

Kiwi,

Come on now - give me a break.

First of all, let me thank you on your recollection of the details of my past! But don't be so quick to judge me.

...you do the Holy Father and our Church a great diservice spreading such information in a Catholic forum, you should be ashamed of yourself

What did I say that was so horrible or against the Pope? I certanily submit both intellect and will to all that the Holy Father and the Catholic Church holds out to the faithful on matters of faith and morals that is to be believed.

I am also well aware that due to my ignorance, weakness, etc. I certainly can fall into error, so enlighten me and bring this wayward child back to the straight and narrow.

I'm 100% behind the Pope that Saddam must disarm. I'm 100% behind him that war should only come as the last resort after all other means have been exhausted. The only thing I disagree with him is that the UN has to be the ultimate authority on whether to go to war or not. But I think I'm well in my bounds to disagree on this matter. If I'm shown otherwise, I'll quickly get in line on this matter.

Hollis has put his faith on the backburner to spread anti Catholic Republican propaganda. Do not listen to him, listen to our Pope.

Although I certainly wouldn't suggest anyone to listen to me over the Holy Father, I don't believe I'm putting my faith on the backburner. Show where I err, brother.

I won't list my reasons against giving full authority to the UN in this post since there are a lot of good threads discussing this matter, and I said I was ending this one. But maybe I'll start another post on the UN.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.

Kiwi,

You don't understand Catholicism! What you are doing to Hollis is wrong! It doesn't matter of his backround. That changes NOTHING on how the Catholic Church operates.

You are calling Hollis on his Catholic faith and painting him as a bad guy because you don't agree with him on Iraq. He is NOT obligated to agree wth the Pope on this. No Catholic is because this is not how Catholicism works! The Pope gave an opinion.

I have seen you disagree on different teachings that are binding to Catholics, and you would be angry if one did what you are doing in this thread to Hollis.

I know it is hard for you to understand, but Catholics are not binded to the Vaticans opinion on Iraq so it is wrong IMHO what you did here.

I think that you mean well though.

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), March 07, 2003.

Hi Hollis, please my words were too strong, "replusive" especialy, my apologies. Please Im no ego maniac, nor political guru and Im quite prepared to listen to any justifictions you have and accept I may be reading your words wrong. So heres my take...

>Cristian,

>I hate war, too.

Great!

> But I also hate horrible dictators that kill their own people, finance terrorists seeking to destoy our country and develop weapons of mass destruction to carry out his plans from Hell.

Stop right there. Youre latching onto republican propaganda, the proof that Iraq is financing terrorists is non existant. Powell didnt convince anyone, least of all our Holy Father.

>We can't be naive and think that we can all shut our eyes, hold hands and sing songs and this will stop the evil dictators.

No but there are other options you should have told Christian about as a Catholic, these options are what the Pope supports.

> Look at Hitler. Many were crying for "no war" with him also, but later had to apologize for this (including the Church). He needed to be stopped and not acting was immoral. The case certainly can be made with Saddam, and maybe even more due to the potential for destruction with the WMDs he has.

The comparison with Hitler and Saddam may possibily be vaild in terms of their personalities but comparison of the threat posed by Germany in 1939 and Iraq 2003 to global security is not at all IMHO, but even if you disagree this is not the issue at hand.

>We shouldn't be praying for "no war", but for peace (in the long term)

No we shouldnt just be praying for a long term peace, peace in the short term is the goal as well. The ends does not justify the means, again you know this and the Pope has been quite clear about this but you mislead the young man and lead him away from the Church to your own views.

>and for the disarmament and disempowerment (did I invent a new word?) of Saddam with the least amount of loss of life and property as possible.

True, disempowerment being the key word here, preferably with no loss of life.

> But the removal of Saddam and disarmament of Iraq is absolutely necessary.

Wrong! The Pope nor the United Nations has never said the removal of Saddam is necessary. Preferable? Of course! Absolutely necessary? Absolutley not. Christian should not be told this on a Catholic forum whatever your personal views are they are not in line with international or Catholic law teachings.

>The latest news on what the Vatican is demanding includes the following:

First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms.

As would only be expected, again the emphasis should be on "under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms". Anway your point being about this quote was....?

>Shutting our eyes and wishing for the best ain't gonna' cut it! But a miracle to change the heart of Saddam to truly disarm and give up his 12 year act of deceit and disception, OR the use of force to carry this out will cut it.

Here is your greatest crime you offer two alternatives, a miracle or force. You discredit the likelyhood of a miracle "shutting our eyes and wishing for the best aint going to cut it" thus leaving force as the only option.

This is terrible for man as holy and learned as you to do on a Catholic forum for at least two reasons.

1. It mocks God by discounting the power of prayer and shows an astounding lack of faith in not only God but The Vicar of Christ, the worlds Bishops and also the vast majority of Catholic laity in the world.

2. You completely ignore offering Christian the option the Pope and the worlds Bishops wish to see continued through the United Nations of inspections.

God bless!

May God Bless you too.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

Hi David, yes I was too rash with Hollis, my concerns were not based on his backround, although it certainly was a factor in my dissapointment.

As for me disagreeing with the Pope. You bet I do! But I dont have my cake and eat it as well. I say to myself...look this doesnt seem right to me, I dont agree with in, BUT I acknowledge I AM IN ERROR not the Pope. I must learn to understand where Ive gone wrong, this can take time, probably too much time in my case :-).

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

Kiwi, I've tried twice to kill this thread I started, but since there is still interest, let's go! Youre latching onto republican propaganda, the proof that Iraq is financing terrorists is non existant No, just giving Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt as I give you. ...comparison with Hitler and Saddam may possibly be valid in terms of their personalities but ... I strongly disagree. Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction and bio/chem weapons with today's technology is much more of a threat to security (especially US security) than Hitler. Especially if you consider the many terrorist cells around the world who would love to help Saddam reek havoc with these weapons. Hitler just had more time with pacifists closing their eyes and hoping for the best to build up his killing machines and then pursue his quest for world dominance. Afterward, many of these pacifists (including the Church, unfortunately) had to apologize for this pacifism. ...we shouldnt just be praying for a long term peace, peace in the short term is the goal as well Sure. I want total peace right now. But those in Iraq being tortured aren't very peaceful. And if Saddam gets a chance to launch his weapons, the loss of life and peace could be much worse than what would result from a possible war now. And, yes, the end does not justify the means, IF the means used is an intrinsic moral evil. The Church clearly teaches that going to war is NOT an intrinsically immoral act. Under certain situations (norms for just war) it is moral, and could even be immoral not to do so (or doing something that can stop the unjust aggressor). True, disempowerment being the key word here, preferably with no loss of life. Agreed. But sitting doing nothing while Saddam tortures and kills his own citizens and works to carry out plans to kill others outside his country isn't acceptable either. Not going to war doesn't guarantee no loss of life, for sure! Just ask the Kurds! The Pope nor the United Nations has never said the removal of Saddam is necessary Once again, I beg to differ. Okay, in a way I can agree with that statement. The Pope or UN isn't specifically calling for removal of Saddam, but they have called for disarmament being necessary. So let's just focus on that part of my statement. You seem to ignore this. (Where are you getting your information? Could it be from some leftist, communist propaganda? ;- ) Just getting back from your opening line.) UN: There are 17 UN resolutions that clearly state that disarmament of Iraq IS NECESSARY. The UN has been saying for over 12 years to Iraq that it must be done, OR ELSE... The only problem is that Saddam and everyone else knows that the UN isn't going to back up the threat. Pres. Bush (whether you agree or not) has been the only one to actually put some meaning to the continually threats coming from the UN. Pope: Cardinal Laghi (as stated previously) was just sent by the pope to the US speak with Pres. Bush and he states that the FIRST thing (implying priority, but I could be reading something in to the quote) is that:

...the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully to its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms.

ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? Those words aren't used, but I believe it is enough give more credence to my view on this matter than yours.

Here is your greatest crime you offer two alternatives, a miracle or force. You discredit the likelihood of a miracle "shutting our eyes and wishing for the best aint going to cut it" thus leaving force as the only option.

Nope. I have great confidence in miracles stopping wars. I have in mind what has happened in the Philippines. The secular press didn't do a good job of reporting what happened there and I don't really remember the details, but war was stopped in a miraculous way as the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared and worked an incredible miracle right at the breaking point. Aquino then came to power and the situation dramatically improved (for a while...). There are also other accounts where praying the Rosary worked great miracles to stop war via obvious miracles (Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and others come to mind). But those responsible for the common good should not just sit back and hope for miracles.

The quote from St. Augustine best reflects by view here: Pray as if all depends on God and act as if all depends upon you.

But, Kiwi, let me finish by stating once again that I am in no way desiring war nor am I stating that the US/UK lead coalition is the best thing to do here. I'm simply making the argument (for discussion purposes) that under certain circumstances it could be justified. God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 08, 2003.

Sorry the paragraph separations got fouled up in the beginning. Hope you can decode.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 08, 2003.

Hollis

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/

Blessings

Mateo you out there again, link wise ;-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

Hollis just read your latest post, I will decipher gotta go thanks

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

Hi Hollis Ive had a read. I dont mean to sound arrogant but lets not mince words on this issue, far too much is at stake. There are just so many mistruths, inaccuracies and double standards in your previous post I honestly dont know where to begin. The arguments you have presented using Catholic just war doctrine have been presented much better from US state officials trained in theology to the Vatican. And guess what? They were found to be woefully inadequate and rejected outright as absurd.

Youre only deluuding yourself if you honestly believe that Catholic doctrine would allow a war to proceed in Iraq given the present circumstances and alternatives available. Rather than painfully and time consumingly counter every sentence you have written Ill take an easier route. Ive just ripped off one example from an Australian point of view as to why you are wrong. I havent even read this cut and paste I dont have time, but I think I know what it will say...something similar to our Pope and every Catholic Bishop on the planet, enjoy!

A just war?

By Bruce Duncan

"If key members of the government are to be believed, Australia seems headed for war against Iraq. Yet in contrast to the debate leading up to the 1991 war against Iraq, there has been practically no mention of the traditional conditions for waging war.

Why is this? I would suggest the reason is that just-war theory does not support a new war against Iraq.

Application of the just-war criteria is seldom clear-cut, but if we have learned anything from the wars of the last century, it is that we should be quite certain that war is the very last resort.

War is rarely an easy option, can inflict great hardship on our own military and their families even over generations, involves killing and destruction on sometimes a vast scale, and often leads to unpredictable consequences.

In a democracy, public debate should be open, vigorous and exacting.

We have only to think of the lies and manipulation of public opinion at the time of the Vietnam War to steel our determination not again to be misled, at the cost of so many lives.

The Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, is arguing that we will face a war against Iraq unless it allows UN inspectors to determine that it is not developing weapons of mass destruction. He talked of war as a last resort, but that Australia would consider any US request for assistance against Iraq.

He warned “that only a fool would support a policy of appeasement” of Iraq, and insisted that the world must enforce international law and UN resolutions against that country.

“The world cannot and must not stand idly by while Iraq develops and manufactures weapons of mass destruction” (Australian 17/7).

The Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, even declared that Australia would join the US in a preemptive first strike against Baghdad (Sydney Morning Herald 19/6).

How do these positions stand up against the just-war criteria?

JUST CAUSE?

The US-led war against Iraq in 1991 in defence of Kuwait was widely accepted as meeting the conditions of a just war.

Currently, however, there is no just cause like this. As the military historian, John Keegan, conceded recently, there is no casus belli (Age 17/7).

Iraq has not attacked any other country. Nor has there been any evidence produced that Iraq was connected with the al Qaeda attacks on the US.

Ironically US animosity is directed against the secularist regime in Iraq, while Saudi Arabia, where the militant Islamist groups were spawned and funded, remains an ally.

We are told that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, but were Saddam to use them against another country, he would invite massive and rapid retaliation.

However, he might well use them if he faced certain and imminent defeat, and decided to ‘go out with a bang’.

This is precisely the scenario which is developing, and hence western military intervention may actually provoke the outcome it is ostensibly portending to prevent.

Indeed, the US warned Britain earlier this year that an attack on Iraq was likely to promote a biological counterattac.

Does its possessing such weapons justify war against Iraq? Mr Downer recalled that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds (in March 1988, killing 5000) and Iranian troops, but omitted to mention that at the time he was a US ally, and that the US and other western countries continued to supply him with plans and the means to make such weapons until he invaded Kuwait, threatening western oil supplies.

No wonder Muslim nations see western condemnation of Iraq on human rights’ grounds as deeply hypocritical.

Does the possession of such weapons mean that the US intends to intervene militarily in other countries with such weapons, notably North Korea, India and Pakistan, to say nothing of Israel and China? Patently not.

These countries see such weapons of mass destruction as a means of deterrence, as presumably does Iraq.

Resumption of weapons’ inspections would allow the world to restrict or eliminate Iraq’s capability in such weapons, and would allow the process of containment of Iraq to continue. Even without weapons’ inspectors, and presuming that Iraq did develop such weapons, even nuclear weapons, it is hard to see how this over-rides the presumption against war.

RIGHT AUTHORITY

Saddam has been rightly condemned as a war criminal guilty of great atrocities, even against his own people.

But does this give any western power the right to launch war against Iraq? Does this mean the US is claiming a right to intervene militarily in any country with such a ruler or regime? This would mean jettisoning the system of international law and the conflict resolution processes around the UN.

One would have to question whether this met the just-war criteria of acting with right authority, which ideally should come from the UN.

FIRST STRIKE

President Bush recently declared that the US henceforth would adopt a first-strike response to threats against it.

The Australian Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, supported this shift in military strategy, but the implications are quite alarming.

First, it means abandoning the whole deterrence strategy that brought some stability and predictability to the Cold War, allowing time for a peaceful resolution.

The first-strike doctrine removes this element of predictability and greatly increases the likelihood of conflict as decisions may have to be made rapidly under intense pressure on the basis of skimpy and unreliable information.

Second, the first-strike doctrine means that the US would presumably be acting unilaterally, assuming an imperial role as the world’s dominant superpower.

In this case, it would be squandering a unique opportunity to nurture a world culture based on the values of liberal democracy in a firm framework of international governance.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

As was pointed out in The Catholic Weekly editorial (Sanctions on Iraq, CW 4/8), the excessively stringent economic sanctions in Iraq resulted in the deaths of half a million children under the age of five by August 1999, according to a UNICEF report.

The exact figures are difficult to determine and are disputed. However, there is no doubt that huge numbers of innocent civilians died, despite the repeated pleas of the Pope and other religious and world leaders to ease the sanctions.

The new so-called ‘smart’ sanctions try to avoid such catastrophic results, although Saddam himself must take much of the blame for the huge death-toll.

Nevertheless, the western sanctions were unnecessarily harsh and, in the view of many, amount to a war crime which demands thorough investigation. The silence of our political leaders and media about all this is thunderous.

The most glaring instance of double standards is, of course, US policy towards Israel which, with billions of dollars of US aid, has continued to expand its settlements through the occupied West Bank. Had the positions been reversed, would the US have tolerated and helped fund continual harassment of Israelis, with Palestinian helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft and tanks firing into civilian areas? Such a disproportionate use of military force does not justify Palestinian militants murderously targeting innocent civilians. But it is no wonder so many people in the Middle East feel intense outrage about what they perceive as double standards when the US ignores UN resolutions on Israel but invokes them to support war against Iraq."

May the debate continue! God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

BTW arguing that President Bush should be left to determine what is a just war fro Catholic is crazy becuase he simply is not using the same framework as a Catholic. . His "just war" framework is very different from the Church's framework the two are incomparable. Likewise is it equally foolish to agree with a pro-choice President like Clinton on abortion. You say.. but Bush is the only one in the position able to make such a decison on war becuase he has information we have. Rubbish, he has no proof, do you think he would not show it?

Right I think Ive just worked my way off just about everyones Christmas card list here, especially Mary Lu, where are you these days girl?

Atila if youre out there I may need some help, I may be about to cop a good old dose of "God guns and guts made America..Lets keep it that way" treatment.

Lord help me!

Anyway Peace to you all :-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

Hi Kiwi, you are doing a wonderful job!

Unfortunately, as I have said, my “holydays” are over, and I am not having time to write here, although I come time and again to read.

Besides that, two other things weakened my will to go on in this intellectual fight here, and I am not sure that I would continue arguing here even if I had more time.

First, I am very sad that Chris Butler withdrew, although I understand his reasons and I feel just like himself frequently. He is absolutely brilliant, and he was the top contributor in this forum for years and years, even before the arrival of John Gecik and Mateo, two other great posters (besides others), while some people who never contributed with anything with substance accused him of ridiculous things. Self-righteous people who post telegraphical and nonsensical little messages but think they are Great Catholic Intellectuals and God-appointed judges.

The other reason is that it is pretty clear to me that we (and the pope) are preaching to the walls. The pro-war catholics in this site have already made their minds and nothing will change that, just like Bush. You, me, Gordon and others are essentially repeating ourselves and presenting every day the same arguments, but they always ignore them and repeat nonsensical claims of “Bush knowing better”, “The CCC giving Bush the ultimate authority to decide”, “the pope is just giving his personal opinion”, “Saddam has mass-destructions weapons and is willing to use them against the USA” although they fail to explain why Bush, who is facing the most serious worldwide opposition, would not present the evidence of such weapons had he had them. If he had such evidence, showing them would silence war-oposers immediately, and he knows that. So, it follows that he has no such evidence, and that’s why he picks ridiculous things like missiles that fly 18 miles farther than they should. And so forth.

What really amazes me is that these people are asking us to distrust people like Ratzinger, Martino, Tauran and Sodano and instead to trust people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Wolfowitz. A cursory analysis of Bush´s aides biographies would make our friends not leave their children in the same room as these people, but they tell us to trust them to be the best and proper interpreters of just- war Catholic doctrine.

By the way, US government is selecting the firms that will reconstruct Iraq after the war, earning billionaire contracts. The most prominent of them is – guess what? – the one that Cheney was president just before running for office as vice-president. The same Cheney who is probably thanking his gods for Sept/11, since just before that date he was every day in the first page of every newspaper for his involvement in the Enron scandal. He was being investigated for many crimes in the stock market by the SEC, when, “unexpectedly”, Bush changed the SEC board and the investigation was halted. Bush himself was being investigated for inside information crimes when he presided his oil company. If Cheney were not vice-president, he would very probably be in jail today. These are the people our friends want us to trust before the pope.

I have many times said here that Bush is dumb, this being the probable reason why he cannot grasp the complexities of international affairs, being therefore manipulated by these very very evil aides he has. People here were offended with this. However, I would like to recall that the dumbness of Bush was the happiness of the press before Sept/11. He was mocked by US press everyday for his evident low level of intellectual power. After Sept/11, in the wake of an understandable surge in US patriotic feelings, it seems that everybody (press included) forgot that, and he suddenly appeared as a highly intellectually gifted individual. It seems that everybody forgot the everyday jokes about his patent thinking limitations. This is the guy whose intelligence, wisdom and discernment people here want us to trust, at he same time that they want us to ignore the pope, one of the most gifted individuals that happened to appear on the surface of the earth in centuries (not to speak of his holiness, wisdom and access to information).

And here we are. On the verge of a war in which the destruction of Iraq is almost irrelevant compared with the destruction of the UN, an organism inspired by the US after the War and supported, despite its flaws, by the Vatican as a tool for the stability, however fragile, of the World. With this precedent, dark times are coming. By destroying the UN, every country from now on will be able to invoke “potential threats” to launch “preventive wars” upon whomever they want. And peace… well, that will be left for when we are dead.

So, Kiwi, I admire your courage and perseverance against the stubbornness of our friends. But I no more believe that our arguments will do any difference. If they only were able to counter our arguments and show where they are faulty, instead of repeating always the same flawed uninformed claims, there would be hope. I’m am pessimistic, both with our future as human kind as with the possibility of changing the minds of people who are so convinced that the pope is wrong and Bush is right as to become impervious to reason.

God have mercy on his creatures.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 10, 2003.

Kiwi,

The article makes some good and weak arguments. But you don't get it. You've misquoted and inaccurately accused me several times throughout this and other threads on this matter. And I'm sure you didn't even glance at the articles I reference as the starting point of this post.

In closing, let me just spell out my points.

- I'm a loyal Catholic and all behind the Pope and his effort to prevent war.

- Much of the "anti-war" rhetoric is blantantly anti-Bush / anti- conservative / anti-US. The biggest proof of this is the complete silence when President Clinton did (not just talked about doing) all the things these folks are now condemning Bush just for talking about. (Also the list of those funding the public rallies gives this away also.) These aren't good, peace-loving folks for the most part. They are very partisian, political activists trying to use this situation for political gain. Others (especially the gullible youth) are pulled in to be, as Stalin called them, "useful idiots" to unwittingly promote their agenda.

- There are some who have purer motivations and honestly don't see the need for war in this case. God bless them.

- Those who think that no war is always the best solution are both dumb and dangerous. War should always be the last resort, but sometimes this "last resort" is needed to stop an even worse evil (principle of proportionality does apply here since war is not per se intrinsically evil).

- Under certain cicumstances, the norms for a just war could be met in this case to justify military action against Saddam. I don't pretend to be privy of all the classified information in this matter as you seem to be, but at least theoretically, the norms could be met. It may be only in retrospect that many of us will be able to see this.

I hear the pope is working a deal for Saddam to go in to exile and that Saddam is investing heavily in diamonds recently (the currency of choice for fleeing dictators), so maybe our great pope with the assistance of our prayers at his request might pull off the miracle to bring about the necessary dissarmament of Iraq and disempowerment of Saddam without anymore (than Saddam has already directly and indirectly killed) Iraqis or others dying.

And if this happy end does come about, we can also thank President Bush for finally being the first world leader in 12 years to have the guts to make a stand when it was needed. (What a joke the UN has been on this matter of disarming Iraq!)

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 10, 2003.

Kiwi,

Okay. I took the time to read the article you posted, so you need to find the time to read this article. Fr. Neuhaus says it better than I can.

------------------------- Start Quote -------------------

Father Richard Neuhaus on the Iraqi Crisis Editor in Chief of First Things Points to Disarmament as a Just Cause

NEW YORK, MARCH 10, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Would the just war principles of Catholic doctrine allow for military action against Iraq?

As part of its ongoing coverage of the arguments surrounding the Mideast crisis, ZENIT asked Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor in chief of First Things and president of the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

ZENIT: On whether there is a just cause for an attack against Iraq, many observers question if there is enough evidence of a direct connection between Baghdad and the Sept. 11 attacks. Others doubt that there is clear evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature by Iraq against other countries. What do you think?

Father Neuhaus: First it must be said that -- although it appears that military action against Iraq may be only a matter of days or weeks away -- faithful Catholics are joined with the Holy Father in fervent prayer that war may yet be avoided.

As he has said, war represents a defeat of the right ordering of peace -- what St. Augustine called "tranquillitas ordinis"; in history nothing is inevitable; and with God all things are possible.

As St. Thomas Aquinas and other teachers of the just war tradition make clear, war may sometimes be a moral duty in order to overturn injustice and protect the innocent. The just cause in this case is the disarmament of Iraq, a cause consistently affirmed by the Holy Father and reinforced by 17 resolutions of the Security Council.

Whether that cause can be vindicated without resort to military force, and whether it would be wiser to wait and see what Iraq might do over a period of months or years, are matters of prudential judgment beyond the competence of religious authority.

In just war doctrine, the Church sets forth the principles which it is the responsibility of government leaders to apply to specific cases -- see Catechism No. 2309.

Saddam Hussein has for 11 years successfully defied international authority. He has used and, it appears, presently possesses and is set upon further developing weapons of mass destruction, and he has publicly stated his support for the Sept. 11 attack and other terrorist actions.

In the judgment of the U.S. and many other countries, he poses a grave and imminent threat to America, world peace and the lives of innumerable innocents. If that judgment is correct, the use of military force to remove that threat, in the absence of plausible alternatives, is both justified and necessary.

Heads of government who are convinced of the correctness of that judgment would be criminally negligent and in violation of their solemn oath to protect their people if they did not act to remove such a threat.

As a theologian and moralist, I have no special competence to assess the threat posed by Iraq. On the basis of available evidence and my considered confidence in those responsible for making the pertinent decisions, I am inclined to believe and I earnestly pray that they will do the right thing.

Q: Strong objections have been raised to the concept of preventive or pre-emptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Is the use of pre-emptive force justified according to just war principles?

Father Neuhaus: Frequent reference to preventive or pre-emptive use of military force, and even to "wars of choice," have only confused the present discussion.

War, if it is just, is not an option chosen but a duty imposed. In the present circumstance, military action against Iraq by a coalition of the willing is in response to Iraq's aggression; first against Kuwait, then in defiance of the terms of surrender demanding its disarmament, then in support of, if not direct participation in, acts of terrorism.

This is joined to its brutal aggression against its own citizens, and its possession of weapons of mass destruction which it can use or permit others to use for further aggression.

To wait until the worst happens is to wait too long, and leaders guilty of such negligence would rightly be held morally accountable.

In the Catholic tradition there is, in fact, a considerable literature relevant to these questions. Augustine, Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez, for example, all wrote on prudential action in the face of aggressive threats. The absence of reference to such recognized authorities in the current discussion among Catholics is striking.

Q: Many voices within and outside the Church ask that the United States not go ahead with an attack without specific U.N. authorization. Is U.N. approval just a prudential course of action, which could in the last resort be bypassed? Or is it obligatory, given the provisions of the U.N. charter and the growing importance of international institutions?

Father Neuhaus: Resolution 1441 of the Security Council, unanimously approved last November, demands that Iraq immediately disarm or face the consequences. Nobody claims that Iraq has complied, and proposals for "extended timelines" and the like appear to invite no more than a repeat of the defiance of the past 11 years.

No further U.N. "authorization" is required. The larger and more interesting question is posed by the frequently heard assertion that the U.N. is the locus of legitimate authority in international affairs. That is asserted but it has not been argued, certainly not in terms of Catholic doctrine regarding legitimate authority.

In view of the U.N.'s frequent hostility to the Church on family policy, population, the sacredness of human life, and related matters, some Catholic leaders may come to regret their exaggerated and, I believe, ill-considered statements about the moral authority of the U.N.

Moreover, if the U.N. is not prepared to support the enforcement of its own resolutions -- resolutions which it cannot itself enforce -- it is likely to go the way of the old League of Nations.

The coalition led by the U.S. intends to act in support of the U.N. If a minority on the Security Council rejects that support, the credibility and future usefulness of the U.N. will be gravely undermined.

There is a necessary connection between power and moral responsibility. Every nation acts and should act in its own interest, in the hope that interests can be coordinated to serve the common good. The U.N. has sometimes been useful toward that end. Many would understandably regret its self-inflicted diminishment or demise.

But in its absence I expect that new institutions more attuned to the nexus of power and responsibility would emerge in order to coordinate national interests in the service of peace, never forgetting that peace as "tranquillitas ordinis" will always be sadly deficient short of Our Lord's return in glory.

Q: On the question of proportionality, many fear that an attack could destabilize the Middle East and cause even greater hostility among Muslims. Others point to the high cost that civilians might pay, due to the precarious nature of life in Iraq. Is the United States giving sufficient weight to these dangers?

Father Neuhaus: It is striking that the Bush administration has addressed the Iraq crisis with very specific reference to Catholic just war doctrine, including proportionality.

Widespread statements in parts of Europe about American inexperience and "cowboy" impetuosity would be insulting were they not so adolescent. They are especially unbecoming when made by distinguished prelates associated with the Holy See.

To take but the last 100 years, the record of the U.S. in combating tyranny, defending freedom, providing humanitarian aid, motoring economic development, and securing a modicum of world order compares very favorably with that of, for instance, Germany, France, Russia, or Italy.

You ask about possible consequences of military action, including Muslim reaction and civilian casualties. The simple answer is that such consequences are unknowable and therefore unknown, except to God.

I know that possible consequences have been considered, day and night for many months, by competent parties. I know there is a determination to minimize damage to innocents, and a reasoned expectation that successful action will weaken Islamist enemies of civilization and strengthen the Muslim forces of decency and freedom. Nobody can know for sure what will happen.

Religious leaders should bring more to the public discussion than their fears. Nervous hand-wringing is not a moral argument.

At this point, we should, with the Holy Father, be on our knees in prayer that Iraq will disarm without military action. If war comes, we must pray that a just cause prevails -- quickly, with minimal damage to innocents, and with a long-term determination to help the Iraqi people then freed from a brutal tyranny.

The Church cannot bless this military action as though it were a Christian crusade. After the war, if there is to be a war, the Church, and the Holy Father in particular, will be indispensable as a dialogue partner in moving Islam away from the most ominously destructive possibilities of a "clash of civilizations."

In sum: Military action in order to disarm Iraq can be morally justified in terms of just war doctrine. Whether, in the retrospect of history, it will be viewed as a prudent course of action, nobody can know. If such action is undertaken, however, it seems to me that we have no moral alternative to praying that a just cause will prevail justly. ---------------------------- End Quote -------------------------

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 10, 2003.

Let me try to kill that pesky bold again. I apologize, but my backslash key gets stuck at times.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 11, 2003.

Atila,

I'm certainly not going to persuade anyone to disagree with the pope. And for the record, I certainly don't. But you don't get my points and are determined not to. So let's just end by saying you're on safe ground if you stick with the pope. That, I think, we can both agree upon.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 11, 2003.

Hello, Atila

You were posting to Hollis tonight, " ...sometimes they resort to adhominem attacks...", and in another post you were complaining about"God-appointed judges".

In your next post you said to Kiwi:

"..The same Chaney who is probably thankinging gods fo Sept/11 since just before....."

"Bush himself was being investigated for inside information crimes...."

Boy Atila you have all the information. It appears to me that you are the one judging and makING a straw man.

And than you said in same post:" If Chaney were not vice-president, he would be very probably in jail today.."

Realy? So you have charged the Vice president with a crime? And than you convicted him, and sentenced him to jail?[if he wasn't vice- president] It sounds like you are the judge bro. Vice president Chaney did nothing wrong. You are grasping at straws now!

You said in same post:"I have said many times here that Bush is dumB, this being the probable reason...."

Your to much Atila. President Bush is not dumb! He knows a lot more than you are aware of, and he is a very inteligent man.

"He was mocked by US press everyday for his evident low level of intellectual power.."

You have been watching to much CNN(Clinton news network). Oh thats right you don't even live in America.:-) And now you have the gall to tell us whats in our press everday.

"It seems that everybody forgot the everday jokes about his patent thinking limitations..."

Say What?? Take the "log" out of your eye Atila!

Have a blessed Lenten season. And lets keep praying.

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), March 11, 2003.

Atila,

Your adhominem attacks on Vice President Chaney are the worse I have ever read in this forum. You said,"...The same Chaney who is probaly thanking his god for Sept 11.."

How dare you say that Vice President Chaney is thanking God that thousands of people were blown up by terrorists! Don you see how far you are gone with this? You are entitled to your opinion, but youare NOT entitled to tell evil lies.

In life we are what we retain. It appears that all you retain is anti- American propaganda, lies.

I think an apology is in order Buster for the Vice President. Do you have anything with more meat on it? Or this is all you are capable of now is making up evil lies about the Vice President of the United States of America.

You should be the "poster boy" for adhominem attacks after this last stunt of yours Buster!

May God give you the Grace to repent for telling such a evil lie. And yes it is a lie, ad a evil one and that.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 11, 2003.

topping for final comment(s)? ...

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2003.

I think Atila owes the Vice President Cheney an apology for making his outrageous statement that Mr. Cheney prayed to God, and thanked God for Sept. 11 2001.

When three thousand and twenty five(3025) people were murdered this is no laughing matter to me.

Atila would try and lead people to believe that Mr. Cheney was thanking our Lord for this because he would be a convinted felon by now. I think you're a sad little man Atila to say such a thing. Please keep Our Lord out of your hateful lies for America sir!

I seen pictures of burned babies from this, and you would joke of this because you were refuted that this is not a just war.

Have you been using an alias on the other thread?

-- David (David@excite.com), March 15, 2003.

I said..."because you were refuted this is not a just war".

It should say,"because your comments are[always] refuted about this not being a just war.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 15, 2003.

+bump+

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 16, 2003.

Doing some research, I discovered that things are even worse than I had imagined. Besides being investigated by illegal accounting practices in Halliburton, for the use of US embassies to secure business for his company and for his involvement in the Enron scandal, I went into this:

-----

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. "Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.

(…)

Cheney has long criticized of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.

Link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

------

By the way, the Washington Post is a pro-war paper.

It is high time people here go to google.com and search for “cheney+iraq+sec+Halliburton”. He is being charged of no less then FOUR different illegal or immoral things, and that is only where I stopped searching!

You will be amazed to see whom some catholics ask us to trust instead of the pope!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

Ironically, the newsmax.com site where I found this article is launching a campaign to boycott France, saying that France “has been in bed” with Iraq. It seems that they failed to read their own site, where they themselves published, in 2001, this article where it is said that Cheney was “in bed” with Saddam.

Thanks to the Internet and to search engines, these inconsistencies can no longer be hidden. If papers were still of paper, nobody would see that!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

So it appears the VP Chenney is acting AGAINST the economic desires of his previous "oil buddies", unlike the French who appear to be primarily motivated by preserving their economic interests wrt Iraq (we'll leave out of this discussion France's illegal sales of goods for Saddam to try to build his WMDs).

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 17, 2003.

Atila,

Do you have anything with more meat on it?

What does your post have to do with the high price of fish in China?

I think I now see why you don't understand what is binding on Catholics about the soon to start war.If You think a man is guilty because you read something in the newspaper, than it shows you're true mentality.

Where does it say that Vice President Cheney was thanking God that 3,025 people were blown up on Sept 11 like you said, a few posts up in this thread?

You owe the man(Mr. Cheney) an apology! Please leave Our Lord out of your assine lies.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 17, 2003.

The latest appeal from the pope is "Never Again War." I guess he's calling all nations to the "turn the other cheek" policy of Jesus. For that to work, all of us REALLY need to step up the prayers and sacrifices to keep the unjust agressors at bay.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

The latest from Cardinal Laghi:

Cardinal Laghi, in an interview published by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, had summarized the concerns of the Holy See by pointing to four negative consequences of military action: "the suffering people will face, the future for the Middle East, the dialogue with Islam, and the consequences for the United Nations."

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

I went through my emails and found a response Chris Butler provided to my question about the authority of the pope on his recent statements against the war in Iraq. I thought I would post them here since no one yet (in this thread or the one about the UN that I started) seems to have made the case as well as Chris. (Hope you don't mind, Chris!)

---------------------------------------------- Hi, Hollis. I have only read quotations from statements from the Holy See, but so far as I know, the Holy Father's opposition to war at this stage appeared in papal speeches, which are Magisterial, and actually do need to be followed.

Ad Apostolorum Principis

His Holiness Pope Pius XII Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China June 29, 1958

"30. Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions-- such as those which concern social and economic matters--in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.

"31. This opinion--it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence--is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:

"32. 'The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so- called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.

"33. 'By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end.'[9]

"34. This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: 'All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad--that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law--fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church.'[10]

"35. Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation."

Full text here:

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12aa.htm

This idea is rarely talked about, but it's been constant Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church has always been more international-oriented than nationalistic. It supported the idea of a League of Nations (while wanting the Holy See to have its rightful place as leader of the world in such a context), and supported the idea of the United Nations from its beginning (while again wanting the same thing). When the Church was at its zenith (Christendom), internationalism was strong.

As far as the minutiae of which countries support Iraq, and why, and what the inspectors can accomplish, etc., I'll just offer the following.

The U.S. (and other countries) has a massive divide between Conservative and Liberal. Each side has a huge number of experts and thinkers who go through issues and try to find every scrap of info that can be stretched or bent to fit its own agenda. The non-expert (like me) has a hard time wading through this material and sifting out what is true, what is exageration, and what is false. This is certainly the case with the status of inspectors halfway around the world in a foreign country monitored by intricate diplomatic issues in the U.N. A person who watches many forms of media can end up being inundated with endless arguments for the necessity of a war on Iraq. After watching/reading enough of this stuff, the Holy See starts to look naive, utopian, not dealing with the real world, etc. This isn't the reality, though. The Holy See has divine assistance even in these types of issues. It has the most sophsiticated diplomatic corps on earth. It has the guidance of the Successor of St. Peter. It has been intimately involved in the U.N. issues from the beginning of the Iraqi issue. It has Catholic communities in Iraq itself. It actually meets with the Hussein regime to discuss the issues. It has diplomatic relations with the U.S., which is trying to convince it of the necessity of an invasion. And still the Holy See says no. This is the same Holy See that said yes to our attack on Afghanistan. It is not radically pacifist. By weighing the issues of the number of civilians who would be killed by an invasion, versus the danger of Hussein, the Holy See takes its position.

As far as referring to Bush, Blair, etc., recall that the latter is pro-abortion, and the former is almost to his second term and not only has done little to slow the abortion holocaust, but he hasn't even been able to get a ban passed on partial-birth abortion. I do not see him out stumping for this. His secreatary of state is pro-abortion, etc. I do not trust his administration. True, it is significantly better than Gore's would have been, but that is not saying much. I pray for the President, and respect him as president, but as the 1.4 million babies keep pouring into the garbage cans every year, and his administration only takes little actions around the edges, I have no reason to believe that it has weighed the "just war" requirements correctly. Indeed, I would not be surprised if you asked him and the key officials in the administation about what has been, and not been, a just war action in history, they would come up with many answers contrary to the popes. The popes, for example, opposed the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it's of course very likely that the Bush administration supports the conventional American view that this act was righteous.

At any rate, I personally do not wish to debate the political minutiae of a war on Iraq. I feel your question was a reasonable one, and I hope maybe something in this email was helpful. Take good care.

In Christ, Chris --------------------------------------------------------------- God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

Brilliant, as always!

Thanks, Chris, for being so far sighted and faithful to our Church. It’s really appalling that you are not more here to explain the Truth with so much clarity.

Thanks, Hollis, for sharing this magnificent message of Chris with us. I had said most of those things here too, but never with the precision and keenness of Chris.

I am curious to see if some people (not you, Hollis, of course; I have never seen you with that attitude) will come here to call Chris Butler a radical liberal anti-American.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.

Well I think the problem lies with that word liberal and it's supposed opposite, conservative, and their twins in crime right and left, and their second cousins (locally here in the U.S.), Democrat and Republican.

None of these terms are attached to the truth. Their meanings are not securely bolt to the grid or coordinate system of absolute truth. Their meanings can change in time and place, and can go so far as to be morphed into their opposites.

They are dangerous terms of the new dialectic, and they will eventually turn on you if you use them.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

You are absolutely right, Emerald.

These terms are not suitable to explain the Truth and dangerous labels used by bigots to disqualify those who do not agree with them.

Some people endear the idea that the Church is “conservative” and “right-wing”. That’s why they get stunned when they see the pope defending things that they consider “liberal”, such as opposing this war.

But that’s not the whole story. As I and Chris Butler have been saying in this forum for years, there are many positions of the Church that would be considered “liberal” or “leftist”, especially in the economics arena, but even in the pro-life camp: the Church is opposing the Death Penalty nowadays, and She supports arms control, two sacred cows for “conservative”, “right-wing”, “Republican” people.

I will risk being the target of bigotry again, but I’ll post here an excerpt of another John Allen column that goes straight to that point (Hollis, you’ll like it too, since it adds to the answer of your question about the UN):

--------------------

The liberal side of John Paul II

Two recent documents from John Paul II, both of which reflect his personal imprint, illustrate anew how insufficient it would be to define this pontificate simply as “conservative.”

(…)

Most pointedly, John Paul echoes John XXIII’s insistence upon the construction of a “new constitutional organization of the human family,” capable of ensuring peace and guiding the development of nations towards a more just social order. The pope carefully notes he is not advocating a “global super-state,” but he leaves no doubt that he is talking about a significantly beefed-up United Nations, with real power to ensure that the global economic order is answerable to a political authority capable of representing the common good. He is, in effect, talking about a form of one-world government.

That’s certainly a more daring vision than one hears from most Western political leaders these days.

The second papal text of note was John Paul’s annual Christmas address to the members of the Roman Curia on Saturday, Dec. 21. It’s the only occasion in which the pope addresses the entire Curia, and he styles the speech as a look back over the year. Curial personnel are always on alert on this occasion, because the pope’s choice of highlights is a way of revealing his priorities. If you want to know the mind of John Paul II, which themes out of all his activity stand closest to his heart, studying these texts is a good place to start. This year, the address touched upon seven themes: peace, inter-religious dialogue, human rights, environmentalism, ecumenism, youth, and holiness.

(…)

All this, it should be clear, does not a conservative pope make. As a thought experiment, translate John Paul’s priorities into a secular political program: a strong United Nations, promotion of social justice, an end to war, environmentalism, human rights, inter- religious tolerance, and a special option for the young. Throw in a couple of the other stands for which the pope is well known, such as staunch opposition to the death penalty and the concept of a “living wage.” Such a candidate could not get nominated for president by the Democrats in the United States, let alone the Republicans, because he would be seen as too liberal. (end quote)

Whole article: http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word1227.htm

On a side note about why the pope supports the UN, we should be aware that in this globalized world there is no such thing as “internal affairs” when it comes to great scale war waged by the US. This war will affect the whole world, will have dramatic impact on the world economy, will have environmental consequences (think about the possibility of Saddam putting fire on the oil camps) etc. So the “common good” expressed by the CCC is the common good of all the people in the world, not only Americans. So, it is obvious that the White House is not “responsible for the common good” of all people in the world, only that of Americans. From this point of view (which seems to be that of the pope) the UN would be the correct forum of decision, not a single country acting unilaterally. Even so, I stick to my interpretation that “those who are responsible to the common good” includes the Church. The recent actions and the tone of the pope’s recent declarations (which are Magisterial, as Chris pointed out very well) is what supports my view on this.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.

American Bishop Bars Faithful from War Effort

Wow! Check out this article.

Arguing that a military assault on Iraq does not fit the criteria of the just-war tradition, Bishop Botean concluded in stark terms: "Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder."

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

Great, Hollis!

From the same article:

"The bishop announced that he "must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin."

Bishop Botean acknowledged that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) identifies public authorities as the final judges of whether military action is justified. But he argued that "the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral." An unjust law or order should not be obeyed, he observed.

Writing with obvious emotion, the Romanian Catholic prelate admitted that "I would much prefer to keep silent." And he pointed out to his people: "Never before have I spoken to you in this manner, explicitly exercising the fullness of authority Jesus Christ has given his apostles." However, he said, he felt a moral burden to guide his people. "

That’s what I have been saying for months.

In that thread about praying for the soldiers to confess before going to war, I argued that we should pray instead that they have the courage to refuse to go to war, claiming “objection of conscience” as Archbishop Martino defended.

It seems pretty clear to me that those catholics who are supporting this war are committing a double sin of disobedience to the pope (dissent) and the support of murder (just like if they were supporting abortion). They should change their hearts and minds and go to Confession. And, of course, should abstain from receiving the Eucharist while they obstinately stay in their support for this war. Let’s pray for them!

Unfortunately, it seems to me that this would require a miracle. Their stubbornness is being so staunch that I fear they are already researching this bishop’s biography, looking for some sexual scandal in his diocese, support for homosexual priests or even abuses in the liturgy practiced at his diocese; anything that may discredit him, however unrelated to the case at hand. This has been their standard procedure. I will not be surprised to read here, latter on, something like “I lived in that diocese and there are altar girls there” or something like that.

Let’ pray for peace, for catholic soldiers and for the misguided catholics who think they can oppose the pope if they feel like to.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.

I just read again the article and I saw that he is not a diocesan bishop, but the Eparch of the Bizantine-Rite Catholics in US.

That reaserch about this bishop's sinfulness will take some work...

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.

Here's the latest from the Vatican:

"The Vatican said on Tuesday countries that decide to wage war on Iraq without a global consensus must take responsibility before God and history -- making clear the Pope would not endorse their actions.

Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history," said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.

I cut and pasted the article, but I think a "not" is missing somewhere in the second paragraph. But at any rate, the Pope is making it clear he's against the war without UN approval (despite the growing number of countries - at least 45 - who endorse the taking of military action against Iraq). I have to admit that I am still baffled at the emphasis placed by the Vatican on getting UN approval and why they think that more talks with Saddam will result in disarmament. History, facts, common sense, etc. all strongly point to the contrary. God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

No matter what your take on it is, one thing seems certain:

As early as in a matter of hours, people are going to pass to the shadow world. They will be either greeted by the friends of heaven or they will be snatched by the entities of death and will wake up to a living and eternal nightmare.

Take a minute to muse about that... waking up to a nightmare.

We have all woken up from a nightmare a breathed a sigh of relief. Imagine it's eternal opposite.

Beg God for mercy on their behalf, and you can wake a few of them in the next couple of hours and alter the course of eternity.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

You guys will probably burn me in effigy but...

If the "world consensus" was FOR military action in Iraq, would that suddenly make war OK? Would the war be automatically moral if surrounding Muslims wanted it to happen and were cheerleading it?

Does democracy (the Yes vote of a majority of nations or mobs) create morality? Remember, the Vatican argued in the UN conference in Cairo that democracy alone cannot establish moral norms....

What about perceived/potential negative reactions...? Up to now the Vatican has only said "armed dismantling the Saddam regime would be bad"... they have not made the argument (which I'm about to make for you guys) that Saddam - while bad - keeps in check forces of chaos, and civil strife that have the potential to be worse for world safety...

But such an argument seems to say that dictatorship is the only safe form of government in the Middle East, in that it keeps all the religious nuts in check...

But such an argument is a prudential matter, not an either/or moral argument. Now I have long mentioned that there is a big difference between something being moral or just and something being prudent.

Lots of human actions are moral while being imprudent. Pius XII would have been morally justified in calling Hitler names...but it would have been imprudent given the situation.

I have serious doubts as to the prudence of war - but technically, I've not seen any serious attempt by anyone to make the case that it would be immoral - other than just saying "Believe me, it's immoral...".

And thus far the Vatican has said: "It's immoral because the UN has not authorized it" or "It's immoral because a billion Muslims will see this as a religious war and retalliate".

The first assertion is true and the second may be true. But neither deals with the morality or just cause of the war.

The crucial issue: Is morality decided by majority vote? Has be sidestepped by fiat - a "no to war" without an explaination for what "peace" looks like or how to achieve it in the real world.

If "this war" is immoral and unjust what viable alternative does the US have - other than capitulation and surrender of our security to an organization that thus far protects the guilty far better than safeguarding the peaceful...?

Does the Pope - do you - think the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese would care very much if someone nuked or polluted an American city? Would any of these powers care if someone invaded Israel? Are their very regimes concerned with "human rights"?

So by all means let us pray for a miracle of peace. Let us pray that Muslims everywhere will not rise up to kill their neighbors or spread bloodshed while the US tries to merely disarm a tyrant...in other words, most of the world problems lies in the Muslim world being prone to violence and tyranny... our prayer should be directed towards their pacification through God's grace rather than through American might.

The goal of "peace" is not that the US sit back, do nothing - until hit by a terrorist and then make feeble "strong statements"...but that those who use violence or WMD in the name of religion or tyranny may be converted and deal civily with the rest of the world.

Many are making morally relativistic arguments: as though the mere use of force was the sin - so that Saddam automatically becomes the good guy because he's attacked and the US automatically becomes the bad guy because we attack him...

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

Good point Joe.

Of course morality is not defined by majority vote.

My view on this is that the pope is not saying that it would be moral WITH the UN. What he is saying is that it would immoral WITHOUT the UN. See the difference? It seems that the Holy See is saying that UN approval is a NECESSARY, but NOT SUFFICIENT condition.

As you and me know well, morality of not the same as legality. All the four combinations may occur (acts which are moral and legal, moral but illegal, immoral but legal and finally immoral and illegal).

When an act is immoral, illegality can lay a second level of immorality on it. By ignoring the UN, the White House not only wages an immoral war but also does it illegally. The consequences are vast. If Bush attacked with the approval of the UN, my view is that the war would be immoral even so, but at least the international law system would be preserved as an institution. Acting as he is, Bush is not only destroying peace, but also the UN, which is supported by the Church, as I have already mentioned and shown why.

That UN approval would not make this war automatically moral can be hinted by the declaration Archbishop Martino gave last week. He denounced the immorality of the USA imposing its views upon small poor countries by means of threat and bribery. He was referring to the well-known attempts by the White House to “buy” votes from Africa countries in the SC of the UN, the same way that the US tried to bribe Turkey to let US forces to use its territory with a US$ 40 billion package.

Of course, the pope knows very well that the UN has flaws. He has in other places said that “the conditions that justify a just war are not present”, By requiring UN approval as ONE of the conditions for the justice of war, he is certainly trying to protect the institution, the same way that, when he is spelling out other conditions, he is trying to protect peace and the Iraqi people.

About prudence, it is clear that imprudence may (and often does) be immoral. This is the argument of pro-war people. However, the Holy See is saying every day that the real imprudence it to attack Iraq. Hollis here quoted Cardinal Tauran with four practical consequences of this war, showing how imprudent it would be. Prudence is a Cardinal Virtue, and is expected to be higher on the most virtuous people. I don’t think many faithful catholics (not to say reasonable people in general) would argue that Bush is more virtuous or prudent than the pope. And, at any rate, the Vatican has been opposing this war not only in “pure morality” mode, but weighting its practical consequences, that is, its prudential opportunity. The pope has many many times in recent weeks repeated that Bush is not considering all the consequences, that is, that he is lacking Prudence (Recta Ratio Agibilium). Again, I find offensive to say that the pope, especially THIS pope (John Paul the Great, as we both call him), is imprudent.

The serious case for the immorality of this war that you call for is being everyday repeated by Church officials. It simply does not comply with the just war criteria. Kiwi posted an article here the other day explaining that in detail. If you say you haven’t seen anybody doing so, you are just not doing your homework properly. In the EWTN site every other day is published a note quoting Vatican officials detailing the immorality of this war. Of course, part of its immorality stems from its consequences, that is, from the fact that it is imprudent.

Here are the two first conditions spelled by the CCC (2309) to grant the justice of war:

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

The second one is clearly not being complied with, since disarmament was taking place, however slowly. The pope has EXPLICITLY said that last Sunday, saying that “there is still time for peace”; the Holy See supported the inspection process witch was unilaterally and illegally halted by Bush.

The first is even frailer in this case. The damage must be “grave and certain”. What does it mean? That Bush would have to unequivocally PROVE that (a) Saddam has WMD and (b) that he means to use them against the USA immediately. Bush gave no evidence whatsoever to neither things.

The argument of Bush having secret intelligence information about these two things (the existence of WMD and Saddam’s intention to use them against the USA) is very very weak. In fact, it is illogical and a product of wishful thinking, not based in fact. As I have asked before, what could be that information? John Gecik keeps repeating this absurd argument, but has not so far been able to present a single example of it. To say “it is secret, so I don’t know” is just an attempt to avoid facing the inanity of the argument.

Let’s work on it.

(a) Weapons nature? Not a secret, Bush tells every day what those arms are supposed to be;

(b) Weapons location? How can it be a military secret? Hans Blix has explicitly charged the US of sabotage of the inspection process by claiming the they had evidence of the existence of those weapons but refusing to give their locations, so that they could be discovered and destroyed; I am not saying that Bush should publish the locations on the first page of New York Times, but can you give any argument why he shouldn’t reveal it to the UN inspectors?

(c) Iraq links to Al Qaeda? I am sure you will agree with me that, if Bush had it, he WOULD HAVE published it at NYT first page! US intelligence desperately searched for such evidence and was not successful. It would be the “smoking gun” necessary to obtain worldwide support for this war. How can it be an “intelligence secret”?

(d) Iraq terrorist cells already located inside the US? This could be classified information, but nothing that the White House could not show to the pope. Unless Bush thinks the pope is a terrorist himself and would notify the terrorists so that they could escape. Anyway, catching those terrorists and showing them to the world would be the best thing to do to obtain support for the war, not keeping it secret.

(e) Weapons origin? Well here is the single one type of information I think the White House would not be willing to show in public. That is, the only certain information the WH may have about Saddam’s weapons it about weapons given him by US government (especially in the Reagan administration). Of course, it would be a shame to admit to the world that the only WMD the US is sure Saddam to posses were given him by the US itself. But then, the secret would not be for “military intelligence” reasons, but for political reasons. So, if Bush really had such evidence, he would be morally obliged to present it, if not to the public, to the international leaders, beginning with the pope.

I can think of no other type of “secret information” that Bush may have that could justify the argument that “he knows things that the pope doesn’t, and so he is the only one in position to decide” that John Gecik keeps parroting here. As I have shown, this argument in inane. If you or John have a real case for that “secret information”, please come and give a credible example.

So, what Bush is saying is “believe me, they have those WMD; I cannot prove, but I’m sure Saddam has them, and I want you to trust me”. No way! These are no evidence, just wishful thinking, to say the best!

What if Bush goes there, destroys the country, kills thousands of innocents and finds nothing? What will he say? “Er… Sorry, guys, I was wrong.. in fact those WMD actually don’t exist…”

Even if the WMD exist, Bush would have to prove that Saddam intends to use them against the US. Just to say “he’s a bad guy” is not enough.

I’ll make an analogy to show my point.

Suppose you are strolling in Bronx at 2 a.m. You see a guy with a threatening face coming in your direction. In the light of a street lamp, you recognize him, from the TV, as a convicted criminal. He is on the other side of the street, but sometimes he glances at you with that frightening look. Claiming the Second Amendment, you carry a gun in your pocket.

Suddenly, he makes a move as if he is about to cross the street and come to you. You take your gun and shoot at him 6 times. He falls dead.

You are taken to the judge.

Judge: Why did you shoot this man?

You: He was a Criminal. I saw his face on TV.

Judge: Did he attack you?

You: No, but I am sure he would.

Judge: Was he armed?

You: I am sure he was. After all, he is a criminal, isn’t he?!

Judge: I mean, did you ACTUALLY see him with an arm? A gun? A knife? Did he show this arm to you or threatened to use it to inflict you harm? Remember you are under oath and may be prosecuted for perjury.

You: Well… Er… In fact, I cannot say I saw that arm, but I am perfectly sure he carried it. I saw on TV that he used arms to commit crimes many times.

Judge: I see. But you confirm that you saw no arm in your encounter with him.

You: Well, er… yes… If you put things this way…

Judge: So you are being charged with murder.

You: Nawaitaminute, HE is the criminal, not me! What I did is only legitimate self-defense!. He was a very bad man, a criminal! I am sure he would kill me!

Judge: He said so?

You: Well, he didn’t, but obviously criminals don’t go saying they will kill you.

Judge: In fact, they often do. Anyway, do you think you can kill a man based on the ASSUMPTION that he is armed and will kill you and then plead innocence on the grounds of legitimate defense?

You: What I know is that he was a criminal, while I am a law-abiding citizen. I pay my taxes. Society should thank me for what I did!

Judge: In fact, you would rather be more accurate saying that you WERE a law-abiding citizen; it happens that what you did is murder, a crime defined in law. Please notice that the law does not distinguish between categories of victims. In our penal system, to kill an unarmed and unattacking man is murder, even if he is a criminal. Indeed, murder is one of the few crimes punishable with Death Penalty in many states of our Country. So, you can see it is a very grave crime.

What do you think? Would the judge let you go?

As many people have been saying, Bush’s case against Saddam would not even be considered in a US court, for sheer lack of evidence.

God Bless.

P.S. Your asking for prayers is good and just and I fully agree with them.

PS II: To think that French and Germans would not care about US being nuked is of course a prejudice you have against those people. Would you care? If so, why assume they wouldn’t? US track record on the defense of human rights is no better than that of those two countries. Of course, the same cannot be said about Chine and Russia.

PS III: Nobody is saying that the US should sit back and do nothing. The US pressure was being successful in beginning a real disarmament process. The “chronogram” proposal was just and fair, and would not rule out war in the end, if Saddam didn’t cooperate. The Holy See supported this proposal. It would work! So what the international community understands is that Bush wanted to wage this war for whatever reason, his main concern not being Saddam’s disarmament at all.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.

The most basic principle of Law is that “everybody is innocent until proved otherwise”, which means that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. This principle holds even if the accused is a well-known criminal. If a well-known robber lives at a town where a robbery has taken place, he may be suspected of and investigated. But he cannot be convicted without proof. I cannot assume he is the responsible for this last crime just because “we know him, he is robber”. Things work like this in any democratic legal system, as you know very well.

So, the burden of proof lies with Bush. He has not presented that proof. So, by all legal systems principles, Saddam is innocent of having WMD and intending to use them against the US until Bush produces evidence that proves otherwise. Case closed. This is an unjust, immoral and illegal war. That’s essentially what the Vatican has been saying.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.

"everybody is innocent until proved otherwise..."

I realize this is the basis law, and in fact I agree with it's use wholeheartedly, but in a strange twist, actually, the following is the truth:

Everybody is guilty until being redeemed.

I know that doesn't seem like it relates, but I believe it has something to do with the root of disagreement about this war.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 19, 2003.

Yes, Emerald, both are truths and, although the second is really the "existential", "theological" basis of all evil, it is still the reason why the first must be maintained.

As all of us are sinners, Justice requires due process for the accused, so that it does not collapse into the Law of Jungle.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.

Hi Joe

>Many are making morally relativistic arguments: as though the mere use of force was the sin - so that Saddam automatically becomes the good guy because he's attacked and the US automatically becomes the bad guy because we attack him...

This is not accurate representation of how the world views America Joe nor of the moral argumets presented against war. I have outlined the moral argument using the just war doctrine but this is not the only reason.No one has said force in itself is a sin. Thats an absurd thing to say. Again no time but Ill paste something that might provide another view point outside that of The Catholic Church.

"Serious anti-Americanism is confined to a small, noisy minority of most countries, as the US discovered when it found overwhelming support for the retaliation it took in Afghanistan. Even now, with large majorities of people in most countries opposed to a unilateral US invasion of Iraq, there is not yet a growing anti-Americanism. There is widespread concern in other countries about the style and character of the President and his national security advisers, but they will not be in office forever. This crisis of confidence has occurred because this time the US is so clearly the aggressor through failing to furnish proof that Iraq represents a real and imminent threat.

Democracies do not go to war lightly. Even generations that have never known warfare sense its terror for those sent to fight and the brutality it breeds. Yet most people will favour military force when the cause clearly requires it. When the cause is clear there is no need for world leaders to spend a full year trying to convince the world that someone presents a real and urgent threat to international security.

The case is simply not convincing. There are Third World countries with worse weapons that Iraq supposedly retains. Crucially, George W. Bush and Tony Blair have utterly failed to provide conclusive evidence that the secular Iraqi regime has supplied the means of mass destruction to extreme Islamic revolutionary terrorists.

This is a moment of truth for the world because it is the first test of Mr Bush's doctrine of "pre-emption". After the terrorism of 2001 and the removal of the Taleban from power in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration declared that the US would no longer tolerate conditions anywhere in the world that could give rise to a threat to its safety. It reserved the right to intervene in "failed" states and to remove "rogue regimes" wherever it decided American security could be threatened.

The doctrine of "pre-emption" does not require a demonstrable threat, merely that the US believes there is one. There is no proof required, no provision for discussion with the accused country, no deference to any sort of world body. Mr Bush means to be prosecutor, judge and executioner in his own right. He would, of course, appreciate the support of other countries but he has made it clear he does not need it and, in the end, he says will do what he thinks necessary.

It is one thing to say it, another to do it. The Security Council should not give in to his warnings of "irrelevance". It cannot stop him doing what he will and it should dare him to go ahead. The US does care what other countries think. It matters to most Americans that their President does not act alone. The UN Secretary-General has warned that the US would be acting outside international law - behaviour the Bush Administration will not easily live down.

The world is well served by a combination of US resolve and UN restraint. There have been occasions, notably before the 1991 Gulf War, when the UN needed some resolute leadership from the United States before it sanctioned military action. Then, as now, it was evident the US would have acted anyway. But that is where the comparison ends.

In 1991 Iraq had just committed an act of aggression that demanded an international response. The only debate was whether war was necessary or whether sanctions might be sufficient. Time has proved the US was correct on that occasion. This time it is not. Mr Bush has foolishly put himself and his forces into a position from which they cannot easily back down. He will go ahead. The best the UN can do is withhold its approval and hope that next time wiser counsels in Washington will prevail."

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.

Great post Kiwi.

Thanks!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Atila wrote: "So, what Bush is saying is 'believe me, they have those WMD; I cannot prove, but I’m sure Saddam has them, and I want you to trust me.'"

Well, not really. What Bush is saying is more like: "Saddam clearly HAD the weapons, a UN resolution demanded that he destroy them, and he most definitely cannot prove that he has done so."

I agree that figuring out what to do about it now is a sticky question (to say the least), but one thing that's not in question is that Saddam DID have WMD. It can be reasonably argued that he hasn't destroyed them, so it can be reasonably assumed that he still has them. In fact, that's the conclusion drawn by most of the world. The arguments have generally been about what (if anything) to do in response.

Atila wrote: "What if Bush goes there, destroys the country, kills thousands of innocents and finds nothing? What will he say? 'Er… Sorry, guys, I was wrong.. in fact those WMD actually don’t exist…'"

But we do KNOW they existed a decade ago (Gulf War). That's precisely why the UN resolutions demanded Saddam destroy them. If Saddam has really destroyed them, he could produce proof of that destruction and the US would instantly lose their strongest reason for enacting war. Yet Saddam chooses instead to go to war over the issue, rather than the simpler (and validly demanded) act of showing proof that he's destroyed the WMD?! Heck, the world community (weapons inspectors, etc) would presumably welcome even flimsy proof at this point!

It seems likely (to me and to many world leaders) that Saddam either 1) still has WMD and steadfastly refuses to get rid of them, or 2) really WANTS the US to start a war against Iraq - perhaps for some reason that I can't see?

Atila wrote: "I’ll make an analogy to show my point. Suppose you are strolling in Bronx at 2 a.m..."

As I've demonstrated, Atila, I think the analogy breaks down when you imply that the "bad guy" didn't even have a gun. Back in the real world, we DO know that Saddam did have WMD. And the world (UN) decided that he must destroy them - and verify it to the world. This is not an "innocent until proven guilty" scenario. Saddam was already found guilty of having WMD a decade ago, and the "court" (UN) ordered him to destroy the weapons. He won't follow the orders, so we assume him still armed.

But I think you're onto something when you said: "Even if the WMD exist, Bush would have to prove that Saddam intends to use them against the US."

While I don't think we have to prove that he intends to use them *against the US*, I *do* think we need to know that he intends to use them for some serious harm. The CCC (2309) lists the following as the first necessary condition for a "just war":

"-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain"

And that's one of the main areas that I am having trouble agreeing that the conditions have been met. It's not clear to me that Saddam currently represents "lasting, grave, and certain" damage to the US or another nation (or even Iraqis). In my mind, that's one of the clear differences between today and the Gulf War. Invading another sovereign country (Kuwait) DOES represent clear damage to another nation. But Saddam's sabre-rattling, hateful speeches, "kill- Americans" sentiment, and the like, do not (to me) mean that our only response left is war.

Because war, we all agree, should be our last option.

In that regard, I find it hard to understand why we don't just keep Saddam in his little box. Maybe his hate will die on the vine. That would require vigilance, to be sure. But probably no more vigilance than conducting a war - and hope of avoiding the casualties of war. But that kind of approach to the situation in Iraq would require patience - something that Americans in general, and Bush in particular, seem kind of short of.

At this point, I pray that God will write straight with crooked lines; I hope that some good will emerge from this challenging darkness.

-- Greg Adas (gadas@familink.com), March 20, 2003.

There is very little doubt that Iraq has WMDs. I would be willing to say that those who have access to current intelligence information (Bush and Blair qualify) have moral certainty on this issue.

On another note (which can be part of making the case of this meeting just war criteria as a response to 9/11), here's a list of articles showing the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Hi Greg,

You made a good point concerning the WMD.

However, you say:

“And that's one of the main areas that I am having trouble agreeing that the conditions have been met. It's not clear to me that Saddam currently represents "lasting, grave, and certain" damage to the US or another nation (or even Iraqis). In my mind, that's one of the clear differences between today and the Gulf War. Invading another sovereign country (Kuwait) DOES represent clear damage to another nation. But Saddam's sabre-rattling, hateful speeches, "kill- Americans" sentiment, and the like, do not (to me) mean that our only response left is war. “

And then it seems that you agree with me. That’s really the crux of the argument. Many countries have WMD, including North Korea, which is very hostile to the USA, and this would not justify invading any country just for the sake of it.

Of course it is a different situation from the Gulf War: then, it was obviously a defensive war and that’s why it was a just one (although some things done then by US military were immoral - like the burrying alive in the desert sand of Iraqi soldiers who had already surrended) and this one now is immoral. Shouting names at the USA and burning American flags does not constitute "lasting, grave, and certain damage”. In my analogy, it is just like the guy knowing that the criminal was armed, but lacking evidence that the criminal would attack him.

If the threat were against another country and not the USA, then the proper forum to approve it would be the UN anyway (unless explicit treaties of mutual protection were in force, I think – I need to investigate this better).

Then you go straight to agree with what the Holy See and the UN were saying:

“In that regard, I find it hard to understand why we don't just keep Saddam in his little box. Maybe his hate will die on the vine. That would require vigilance, to be sure. But probably no more vigilance than conducting a war - and hope of avoiding the casualties of war.”

That’s contention policy. It has worked and was working. In fact, this is the basis of all international political and Law system since WWII, in fact, this was the primary reason why the UN was imagined by Roosevelt and created. In my analogy, this would correspond to have the criminal locked up in jail.

“But that kind of approach to the situation in Iraq would require patience - something that Americans in general, and Bush in particular, seem kind of short of.”

Again straight to the point. And his impatience (political / economical need?) not only led to an unjust war but also to enormous damage to the International Law system.

“At this point, I pray that God will write straight with crooked lines; I hope that some good will emerge from this challenging darkness.”

Diligentibus Deum, omnia cooperantur in bonum. Amen.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Hollis, if these articles really “showed” (that is, *proved*) that link, I doubt very much that anybody would oppose this war. So, I must admit that those “responsible for the common good” (i.e. the UN and the Pope) were not convinced by this “evidence”.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

even if they are true, the fact that all diplomatic steps were not exhausted first might still make the war Unjust - and also the fact that it is being prosecuted by the US and not the UN. we can but speculate as the Pope has opined quite clearly on this but without giving too much away.

-- Elvis (elvis@graceland.com), March 20, 2003.

Well remembered, Elvis, thanks.

I was almost falling into this trap by conceding too much in the name of “forum peace”. Wrong kind of ecumenism, I’m afraid :-)

In fact, even if that link was proved, the second requirement for a just war would still be missing: last resort.

As I (and the pope just last Sunday) have said 100’s of times, the inspection process was working, however slowly, and all UN SC countries had agreed to put up a “chronogram” for Saddam to follow. Nobody came here to explain why such a plan would not work, with due pressure from US troops outside Iraq’s borders.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Atila,

To say that the disarmament process was working is either being intellectually dishonest, a real dube to SH's tactics of stall and deceit, or overly optimistic.

I know the Vatican holds this stance and I believe they fall into the last category - overly optimistic. SH was not disarming and was not planning on disarming. His token gestures (after having a gun to his head - so to speak) were to get the dupes and overly optimistic on his side and to give fuel for the Bush-haters (useful idiots as Stalin called them) - that was it. Am I God, a prophet, or have the ability to read minds to make this statement? No, just someone being intellectualy honest and a realist looking at history and current facts.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

BTW, the missles that were fired by Iraqi forces today were - surprise, surprise - weapons that were banned by the UN resolutions that were to be declared and destroyed. The world was to place trust in SH to disarm? I don't think so.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Hollis, it is not a question of trust in SH.

Of course the process was not working until SH got “a gun in his head”. But, as US pressure increased, it began accelerating. With a unanimous SC decision to elaborate a detailed chronogram (something even France was about to agree with) with the threat of war at the end of it, in a dated deadline, he would have disarmed (or not, but then war would have been lawfully approved). The countries had arrived to a consensus on that at the SC, only Bush halted it. Why? Would it be any different if this war began in a month? Bush only cares for internal support, so giving more time for Bush-bashers (fun expression :-) would do no difference to him (Bush). The only requirement was that the chronogram was a viable one, something Bush and Blair did not permit to be made. Of course, giving Iraq ONE WEEK to disarm is to impose something that could not be materially done. It’s like requiring him to become a woman or a duck to prevent war. Diplomacy requires patience and negociation, something Bush is not very good at, as Greg said.

You claim the US and the UN knew everything about those WMD. If this is correct, surely the SC and the inspectors were able to elaborate a viable chronogram?

Frankly, this is so crystal clear for everybody (hyperbole) outside US that we all find it truly amazing that Americans cannot get it! What people get to suspect? That Bush would wage his precious war anyway, couldn’t care less for the disarmament process and was only playing a comedy to please his European ally. Hans Blix charged the US more than once for sabotaging the process. If the process did not work, a good deal of the responsibility for this goes to the US proper. That's not anti-americanism, is simple reasoning. I guess you don't support that Bush is infallible? I guess you acknowledge at least that he was not even particularly brilliant in conducting diplommacy?

That's really amazing! Catholics who are stopping short of rejecting papal infallibility are so eager to transfer it to Bush? Are you Americans awere that, while calling everyone names, the pope being naive, idealistic or ignorant, the French being I-don´t know why, the Germans being so-and-so, you people are not prepared to admit not the even the most glaring errors Bush has been commiting? And then you are so offended that people call US arrogant? Unbelievable! Everybody else is naive, dihonest or criminal, but the WH does not even commit mistakes? How can you all expect to be taken seriously?

I believe in your honesty and (not so much) in your realism, but you are simply not considering all the alternatives, which is exactly what the pope charged Bush. Of course you are not suggesting that the pope is dishonest or idealistic?

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Of course I don't believe Pres. Bush to be infallible, but it does appear to me from the info I have that the pope is being overly idealistic. He's been through much more than me and is much wiser than be, but I cannot understand his idealism. That's one of the primary reasons for me starting this post and the one on the UN. I'm sure there are some things I'm missing to explain this disparity.

You make a good point about a possible last ditch effort with the detailed chronogram - maybe that should have been tried. But, again, I would agree with Pres. Bush that the intentions of the SC were clear. France, Germany and Russia had ulterior motives and did not want any military action against Iraq that would throw SH out of power. Beside having strong economic ties with SH, each of these countries (well, at least France and Germany - I don't remember seeing reports that showed Russia, but if I were a betting man, I would bet the same) have been shown to have been selling SH - illegally! - the material he was using to make his WMD and other weapons banned by the UN. This gets back to my other post with my serious concerns of the UN. It was a joke and Pres. Bush recognized this. So did PM Tony Blair, but Saddam had taken full advantage of this circus act to divide people and countries. When it's all over, Pres. Bush and PM Tony Blair may be the real heroes. Maybe not. But if the SC was serious about disarming SH, they would have done it long ago. You're fooling yourself if you think one more resolution was going to change anything. But if you want to hold that premise, I'll agree with your conclusion. It should have been tried. But I disagree with that premise and I don't think Pres. Bush and PM Tony Blair are bad, evil, stupid, wanting Iraq's oil, .... for not accepting that premise either. Reasonable people of good will cannot be condemned for not accepting such a premise.

Also, we can question Hans Blix' motivation and competence. He sees Pres. Bush's getting out of the corrupt Kyoto treaty more serious a problem than SH's WMD. (That was not his words and I'm making some assumptions here, but with a little effort, I think I could make this case or maybe something to a lesser degree.) He also had been proved totally incompetent in determining the threat of SH and his possession of WMDs in the past. I could see his accusing the US of hampering the UN inspectors of a way of covering up his incompetence or pushing his anti-US agenda. It also could be that it was the US not letting Blix' incompetence and lack of desire to hold SH accountable as interfering with inspectors. But even if Blix' accusation was true (and I'm not going to without further information), I am confident the inspections would have only been less futile (if that can be envisioned) without the US being involved. You can (and will) certainly disagree with this point, but you can't honestly say that Pres. Bush's and the US' involvment in the SC and inspections have slowed up the disarmament process. Don't believe it for a second.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.

For a good article discussing this issue, click here!

http://www.catholicjustwar.org/aclj.asp

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.

Another good article by Bishop Gregory in the US (Pres. of US Confernece of Catholic Bishops).

It is quite balanced. He agrees with the Vatican's stance and reiterates that people of good will can differ in this matter on the application of the norms for a just war.

There is another article from a US bishop who condemns the statement of Bishop Botean (which declares any action of support of this war to be a mortal sin). I read it but didn't bookmark it and now I can't find it. Did anyone else read that article?

At any rate, I believe it is clear that it is not sinful for a Catholic to hold the stance that (at least under certain circumstances which have not as of yet been shown to be contrary to fact) it is possible that the use of force by coalition forces against Iraq at this time is not per se immoral.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.

Atila,

Sorry for having to reply to posts made way back in the conversation, but I only read bits and pieces and come back to read the posts I missed.

You state that the world would not be opposed to this war if it could be proved there was a link between Iraq and those responsible for 9- 11. This is utterly naive. It is clear that the large majority (I wouldn't say you though) of those protesting this war are not at all concerned about either facts or this war. They hate Bush and/or US and are looking for anything they can to promote this hatred. Extreme Muslims (who have clearly stated that want to destroy the US), communist/socialists and US liberals (who still haven't gotten over the fact that Al Gore was unable to use the courts to overthrow Pres. Bush's clear victory in the past presidential election) are the money and power behind most of the "anti-war" movement. That's why it's tough for many "conservative" Catholics in the US (which would describe a large majority of loyal Roman Catholics here in the US) have a real suspicion and hesitancy to agree with those who, although making a stance against the war with purer intentions, side with the UN (or at least France, Germany and Russia) on this matter.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

Atila,

You ask: "I am not saying that Bush should publish the locations on the first page of New York Times, but can you give any argument why he shouldn’t reveal it to the UN inspectors?"

The answer is simple - if they show it to UN inspectors, it WILL show up on the front page of NY Times, and even worse. I respect you for your optimism and giving the benefit of the doubt to others, but you don't realize that those on the UN Security Council or UN inspectors are NOT honest folks seeking the truth and wanting to disarm Iraq, and Pres. Bush knows this. In many ways, these are the bad guys (China and Russia) who want to destroy the US (or at least knock them down as the world's top superpower which prevents these countries from carrying out some dastardly deeds) or have things to hide (France and Germany plus China and Russia) in Iraq and DO NOT want the efforts of the UN inspectors (which are in the same way influenced as those on the SC) to succeed. No one can fault Pres. Bush and his administration from holding their cards close to their chest in this matter.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

All,

Here's a great article correcting a misquote of the Holy Father stating this war to be unjust. The author is the editor of Catholic World News and has access to news sources we do not to be able to correct the misquote.

Further evidence that my statement that one can be a loyal Catholic and defend the military action in Iraq as just.

---------------------------

Has the Pope Condemned the War? (Opinion/Analysis) Boston, Mar. 24(CWNews.com) - (Analysis by CWN Editor Phil Lawler)

Despite a barrage of media reports to the contrary, Pope John Paul II has not issued a moral condemnation of US military action against Iraq.

There can be no doubt that the Pope has staked out his opposition to the use of force against Iraq. For weeks before the war began, he issued a steady stream of pleas and prayers for a diplomatic solution. Vatican diplomats worked energetically to explore non- military options. When the fighting began last week, he indicated his "deep pain" that war had begun.

Yes, certainly the Pope has made it clear that he would have preferred negotiations rather than a military confrontation. But has he condemned the war? No.

According to one Associated Press report, which has been cited frequently in the American press: "John Paul has said there is no legal or moral justification for military action."

There's just one problem with that AP report. It is wrong.

If he said that there is "no legal or moral justification" for this war, the Pope would be saying that this war is unjust. And if the war is unjust, then Christians cannot participate in or support it. The Pope has said no such thing.

In the weeks leading up to the war, the Holy See has insisted on two points: First, Iraq should disarm. Second, that disarmament should be achieved without the use of military force, through the authority of the United Nations. Notice that this public stance did not "tilt" toward Iraq; on the contrary, the Vatican has always agreed with the proposition that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.

When the war did break out, the Vatican issued a formal statement that said, in part:

On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm. On the other hand, it is to be deplored that the path of negotiations, according to international law, for a peaceful solution of the Iraqi drama has been interrupted. Notice that once again, the finger pointed first toward Baghdad, blaming the Iraqi regime for its failure to disarm. Only then did the Vatican lament that a peaceful solution had not been achieved.

Just a few days earlier, Pope John Paul had issued his own appeal, directing his remarks first to Baghdad and then, indirectly, toward Washington:

The political leaders of Baghdad certainly have the urgent duty to collaborate fully with the international community to eliminate every reason for armed intervention. To them I direct my urgent appeal: the fate of your fellow-citizens should always have priority. But I would also like to remind the member countries of the United Nations, and especially those who make up the Security Council, that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter. That is why, in the face of the tremendous consequences that an international military operation would have for the population of Iraq and for the balance of the Middle East region, already sorely tried, and for the extremisms that could stem from it, I say to all: There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.

When US President George W. Bush announced that he was prepared to issue attack orders, the Vatican responded with an interesting statement:

Whoever decides that all peaceful means that international law has put at our disposition have been exhausted assumes a serious responsibility before God, his conscience and history. Does that statement convey a moral condemnation? Not at all! The Vatican indicates that when a President (or any world leader) makes the decision to go to war, he takes on "a serious responsibility." President Bush acknowledged as much himself, in that same speech.

No one can doubt that the Pope would have preferred to see President Bush make a different choice. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that political leaders have the ultimate responsibility for judging whether the conditions for a "just war" have been fulfilled. In accordance with that teaching, the Pope has avoided any direct statement on the morality of the war.

If American "hawks" are unhappy with the Pope's public statements, they can take some comfort from the fact that European pacifists are also unhappy. As the Italian newspaper L'Espresso recently pointed out, a group of Catholic pacifists recently wrote an open letter to the Holy Father, pleading for "a simple and unequivocal" denunciation of the war. As L'Espresso also pointed out, those pacifists remain unsatisfied; they have never seen the clear papal statement that they want.

Since the war began, Pope John Paul has issued two public statements, each touching on the subject only obliquely.

In a meeting with a group of American Lutherans, the Pope said that "in a world filled with danger and insecurity," Christians "must stand together in proclaiming the values of the Kingdom of God." He said this solidarity was particularly important in light of "the events of recent days." Can anyone disagree with that statement?

Similarly, during his public audience on Sunday, March 23, the Pope said: "When war, like the one underway in Iraq, threatens the future of humanity, it is even more important to proclaim, in a strong and decisive voice, that peace is the only way to build a more just and unified society." He added that "violence and arms can never resolve men's problems." Can anyone reasonably interpret that statement as a denunciation of US policy?

Pope John Paul has frequently raised questions about US strategy toward Iraq-- as have many other world leaders. But to say that the Pope has "condemned" or "denounced" the war is to go well beyond the facts.

------------------

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Hollis, for that outstanding "Catholic World News" article, by a long-time great writer of the orthodox Catholic editorials, Philip Lawler.

The article expresses exactly the thoughts I have had for several months -- and which I have (too little and too late) tried to pass along here at the forum. Again and again, in the face of well-intentioned but misguided opposition, you and Joe Stong have put forward most of the same truths that Mr. Lawler has detailed in this article.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 27, 2003.

Kiwi, are you posting as Elvis? :-)

-- Herbie (David@excite.com), March 27, 2003.

So are we at a point that we can tell if the Iraq war was a just war or not?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Bill, it is not an "Iraq war."

It is "The Battle for Iraq" within an extremely lengthy, enimently just "War on Terror."
This war is being fought between ...
1. a group of loosely confederated, uncivilized, mainly terrorist bands (mainly claiming to be Moslem) and ...
2. an occasionally changing coalition of civilized nations.

The War on Terror erupted around 1970, when the terrorists began a series of outrageous attacks on mankind (mainly airplane hijackings in the beginning). [Many forum regulars and visitors are not old enough to remember this.] Unfortunately, the civilized nations did not react strongly enough to the terrorists for many years, and many sick individuals in the Middle East got bolder and bolder during the '70s and '80s (e.g., those at the Munich Olympics of 1972, those in Syria/Lebanon/Iran, those aboard the Achille Lauro, etc.). The weak replies continued in the 1990s, even when the World Trade Towers were first attacked and some of the U.S.S. Cole's sailors were murdered.

At long last, after the terrorists' attacks of 09/11/2001, a coalition from the civilized world (led by Bush and Blair, with perhaps forty other nations joining in) is responding strongly and effectively. Within the War on Terrror, we have seen the Battle for Afghanistan, the unpublicized Battle for the Philippines, the Battle for the Holy Land, the battles to deprive terrorists of their financial holdings around the world, and the Battle for Iraq.

When the bulk of the U.S. forces are ready to depart from Afghanistan and Iraq, they are likely to engage in a new battle within the War on Terror -- perhaps in Iran (pinching from West and East), perhaps in the Holy Land, perhaps in Korea. Who can say? Only God knows.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Oops! An extra copy of the word "mainly" got into one sentence.
Change the sentence numbered "1." to this:
1. a group of loosely confederated, uncivilized terrorist bands (mainly claiming to be Moslem)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Bill, it is not an "Iraq war." It is "The Battle for Iraq" within an extremely lengthy, enimently just "War on Terror."

You may be right here.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.