“It isn’t in the war business.” Which is why it has many declarations about war. It most certainly IS in the war business because war is a moral issue, and the Church speaks of faith AND morality (which are not really distinct). But in this it is in the war business as a critic of war and the moral voice which declares the justice or lack of justice of war.

“The decision to go to war is one that is left to civil authorities,” but not the decision of the morality or lack of moraity of that war. And if a civil authority decides to engage in war, it doesn’t mean that the war is justified (after all, Saddam himself decided to take on Kuwait; does that mean he was just when he did so? ) Your position is not Catholic, it is in fact, anti-Catholic because it shares in the height of arbitrary morality where it is left for political figures to decide when moral rules apply. OF course, let’s take what you said further; I hope you are against abortion, but is it not another war which is going on, with state-backed authority declaring it just? So I guess you will not do anything against this war against the unborn, will you? Or will you declare the state is in error in this war?

JPII not only said no to war, he also said that there are moral issues to war which must be accepted. The state is not the final decider of morality. Now whether or not Saddam listened to the Pope has no issue on whether or not the war is just. Bush didn’t listen to the Pope (so should Iran invade the US on that? )

Saddam WAS letting the weapon inspectors in; Bush was the one taking them out. The data at the time was clear that Bush only cherry picked those things which supported war; and EVEN IF what Bush said was true about WMDS — that doesn’t a just war make. Repeat after me — there are rules for just war. The “king of the hill” bully syndrome which says “we have them, you can’t and you are a threat” isn’t one.

The same justification Bush used for war was the one Hitler used for war, and the one many tyrants use for war. The state is the final decider. The Church always says otherwise. The Church says when war is justified (when, not at any time) then it is up to the authority of the state to determine if they will go to war (not that it is a necessity). And even IF that happens, that doesn’t make questions of morality in war go away — but makes them that much more central. Thinking war makes them all go away is just an excuse for abuse.

You still have yet to reflect on all the Iraqis IN IRAQ NOW.

The Church doesn’t dictate when one can go to war. It isn’t in the war business. The decision to go to war is one that is left to civil authorities. Specifically, when it involves an international conflict, it should be handled by the United Nations. In this case, the United Nations did not insist that our friend Saddam live by the rules that were agreed to when Iraq became a member of the United Nations. The whole point of the UN is to preserve the peace. So what happens when the UN abdicates responsibility?

Pope John Paul II was saying NO to war, it’s true–and seeking from every angle to prevent it, including an un-heeded appeal to Saddam to COOPERATE with the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam could have listened to the Pope–but instead, Saddam chose to play a shell game. Repeat after me, Henry: Saddam didn’t listen to the Pope, or the UN. And the UN did not hold him accountable. Say it again.

The war was avoidable, it’s true–if Saddam had let the weapons inspectors prove his situation. Was American military action justified? You think absolutely not. I’m not absolutely sure. I’d say that is very hard to evaluate in light of Saddam’s non-cooperation with the requirements of the UN–and the testimony of the International Intelligence Community on his possession of WMDs. Standing in the tension of those two things, what was the responsible thing to do–wait and see?

I don’t think my friend’s remark about Saddam was so much satisfaction of desire for revenge–as just plain ole relief.

The ends do not justify the means. Please, repeat after me, the ends do not justify the means. One more time. The ends do not justify the means.

Now why do I say this? Of course we know things were not great in Iraq. However, things are not great in the United States either (millions are killed via abortion, right? would that justify Iran coming into the US and liberating the nation because of its brutal policies against its own?)

To engage in war requires strict rules; there are rules which deal with when one can go to war (the Church said no; and still says no); rules of what one can do when in war (cluster bombs don’t meet that); rules of expectations and conduct after the war (which have not been met). So yes, you can tell us about Iraqis who are living out of Iraq who are not affected by what is happening in Iraq today are so happy to see Saddam gone (which sounds like satisfaction of the desire for revenge, not a Christian thing); but that doesn’t deal with the Iraqis currently in Iraq who experience the chaos and death squads (some from our own soldiers) currently in Iraq now.

My Iraqui friend is a young Catholic 20-something refugee to a European country studying medicine. His cousins are the Iraqui’s in Detroit– you remember the TV footage, the ones who were revelling with joy the day Saddam’s statue came down. I don’t mean to downplay the loss of life/children’s lives that you referred to–but American freedom (Revolutionary War), African American freedom (Civil War), Jewish freedom (WWII) costed exactly that. I for one am grateful for those who laid their lives down so that I could be free. Perhaps one day, the cause of freedom will require my own life as well. Frankly, I’d prefer to be a casualty than be in a world ‘at peace’ but at the expense of my right to govern myself, to follow my conscience, to worship the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent, and to lead others to do likewise.

For all the chatter here about American injustice, I’ve seen precious little analysis of the atrocities that were committed against human life in Iraq by the previous regime–these went well beyond waterboarding. It seems as if some people here think the Iraqui’s were just relaxing in a desert oasis in a hammock in those idyllic days. How many more mass graves do you think we might find over there? Would like to see you give equal time to your criticism of Saddam’s policies and methods.

Lastly, as to waterboarding. It looks like, indeed, a terrible suffering, if what I saw on film is what it is–having a pillowcase on your head while they pour water on your face till you are ready to talk. However….you can recover from it. While no doubt it’s an awful experience, it seems much less serious, to me, than being ripped limb from limb till you are dead.

nice little bit of moral equivalency there. I tell you what, if I was a baby about to be aborted I would voluntarily undergo waterboarding every day for a week in order to be reprieved from having a forcep shoved into my skull and my brains vacumed out.

the proximity of Clinton to the act of abortion (especially partial birth abortion) is more distant than that of Bush to each act of torture. To put it another way, Bush could wave his hand and ged rid of torture. Even if he wanted, Clinton could have little impact on abortion.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. Clinton furthered the cause of abortion in his actions by approving funding and by his appointments. You really can’t bring yourself to put the babies ahead of the terrorists can you?

God Bless,

Matt

Overview:

63 percent think invasion and occupatio by US was wrong; 80 percent disapprove of what US is doing in Iraq; 57 percent think attacks on occupying troops are acceptable.

And listen to the Church. Bishop Wardani of Baghdad said clearly that life was better under Saddam.

Ipsit dixit reigns supreme!