Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 14th 2012 new

So John. You consider the war with Iraq as having no provocation?


Shamefully, I haven't read all the posts. To me, harboring and aiding terrorists that have vowed to destroy a country is provocation.

Dec 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Fredrick-483665 said: I am with you if you are talking about just getting the bad guys. I was thinking more about th...
(Quote) Fredrick-483665 said:

I am with you if you are talking about just getting the bad guys. I was thinking more about the warrior ethos. the Spartans or Maori would not think much of sitting safe while blowing thinks and people up.www.youtube.com

--hide--

Oh, no question about it. The Greeks considered the bow and arrow to be the weapons of cowards. No doubt they would have considered drones to be infinitely worse.

I think it must no doubt be much harder to instill a warrior ethos in a unit that will always be located as far behind the lines as possible.

Dec 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Julie-909449 said: So John. You consider the war with Iraq as having no provocation?Shamefully, I haven&...
(Quote) Julie-909449 said:

So John. You consider the war with Iraq as having no provocation?


Shamefully, I haven't read all the posts. To me, harboring and aiding terrorists that have vowed to destroy a country is provocation.

--hide--

Sadam not only harbored and aided terrorists, he rewarded them financially.

Dec 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Julie-909449 said: So John. You consider the war with Iraq as having no provocation?Shamefully, I haven&...
(Quote) Julie-909449 said:

So John. You consider the war with Iraq as having no provocation?


Shamefully, I haven't read all the posts. To me, harboring and aiding terrorists that have vowed to destroy a country is provocation.

--hide--

Not at all. I have a very long history of defending the war in Iraq. My response to Charles was not an endorsement of his view that the war was unjustified, it was simply phrased to try and avoid hijacking this thread down that path yet again.

Dec 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Peter-449116 said: John, in a situation like that with an unstable NK I would support a preemptive attack in tandem ...
(Quote) Peter-449116 said:

John, in a situation like that with an unstable NK I would support a preemptive attack in tandem with the South Korean military, as long as the intelligence was genuinely sound- unlike our phony intelligence on Iraq in 2003. It would also be wise to keep the Chincoms in the loop to avoid a disastrous wider war.

--hide--

I don't particulalry object to keeping the ChiComs in the loop to an extent. But I doubt they are willing to bleed for N. Korea again. They've brought Hong Kong back into the fold and are economically more capitalist than communist at this point. So the thought of having a capitalist and united Korea on their border porbably does't bother them nearly as much as it did in the 50's.

Dec 15th 2012 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: Definitely not on the same page with definitions. If there is no threat in exi...
(Quote) John-336509 said:





Definitely not on the same page with definitions. If there is no threat in existence, there is nothing to pre-empt, therefore no pre-emptive war.



The case you are citing (weapon aimed at you) is clearly a pre-emptive strike- you're attacking before the other guy does, the very essence of pre-emption.



The initiation of war where there is no threat is simply a war of aggression and has nothing to do with pre-emption.

--hide--


Given how the pre-emptive war concept is generally used, I believe there is a dichotomy between it and a truly defensive war. If someone points a gun in your face, in the eyes of the law he is the aggressor. Even if you don't respond in any way and he takes no further action other than pointing the weapon, he is still the criminal. Similarly, were Country A to aim weapons at and explicitly threaten Country B, Country A the aggressor. Country B is perfectly within its rights to take defensive action. Country B is not acting pre-emptively...the threat is existent and explicit.

Contrast this to the Iraq War. Putting aside the dubious proof that WMDs even existed, even if they did there was no reasonable evidence that an explicit threat existed to the US. Even by your own definition of what constitutes a pre-emptive war, you would have to admit that Iraq was an all-out war of aggression.

Going back to the whole drone business, the applicability of JWT to justify the actions falls apart completely. To suggest that the drones strikes defend the US from a war is to give the targets of these drones strikes far too much credit. Terrorism is a tactic. The legitimate targets of these strikes are criminals more than they are soldiers. If the constant use of drone strikes defends us from anything at all, they certainly don't defend us from war. War, as it was perceived by people like St. Augustine or St. Aquinas when they developed the basis for the Church's teaching on JWT is nothing like the war that people insist terrorists threaten us with today. This is why Pope Benedict XVI questioned whether a Just War was even possible anymore. I'm not saying that it's entirely impossible to find some way to morally justify the use of drones (although I'm sure you know where I stand on that subject), but just don't try to do it using the Just War Theory. There is no threat of war that the US is defending anyone from.
Dec 15th 2012 new

You were 15ish at 9/11? A specific act directed at people to get some material stuff is criminal. A specific act to destroy someone or something personal is criminal. To destroy an entire nation based on personal beliefs (unfortunately there are a lot of people out there like that) is a blatant act of war.

Dec 15th 2012 new

An act of war can also be personal but how many are involved and who the target is makes a huge difference. Nothing is black and white.

Dec 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Given how the pre-emptive war concept is generally used, I believe there is a dichotomy betwee...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Given how the pre-emptive war concept is generally used, I believe there is a dichotomy between it and a truly defensive war. If someone points a gun in your face, in the eyes of the law he is the aggressor. Even if you don't respond in any way and he takes no further action other than pointing the weapon, he is still the criminal. Similarly, were Country A to aim weapons at and explicitly threaten Country B, Country A the aggressor. Country B is perfectly within its rights to take defensive action. Country B is not acting pre-emptively...the threat is existent and explicit.

Contrast this to the Iraq War. Putting aside the dubious proof that WMDs even existed, even if they did there was no reasonable evidence that an explicit threat existed to the US. Even by your own definition of what constitutes a pre-emptive war, you would have to admit that Iraq was an all-out war of aggression.

Going back to the whole drone business, the applicability of JWT to justify the actions falls apart completely. To suggest that the drones strikes defend the US from a war is to give the targets of these drones strikes far too much credit. Terrorism is a tactic. The legitimate targets of these strikes are criminals more than they are soldiers. If the constant use of drone strikes defends us from anything at all, they certainly don't defend us from war. War, as it was perceived by people like St. Augustine or St. Aquinas when they developed the basis for the Church's teaching on JWT is nothing like the war that people insist terrorists threaten us with today. This is why Pope Benedict XVI questioned whether a Just War was even possible anymore. I'm not saying that it's entirely impossible to find some way to morally justify the use of drones (although I'm sure you know where I stand on that subject), but just don't try to do it using the Just War Theory. There is no threat of war that the US is defending anyone from.
--hide--

Look, Charles, I realize you have totally bought into the anti-Bush "WMD's were the only reason for Iraq" BS propaganda, and I realize you refuse to admit that we have any right to defend other people, like say the Iraqi people themselves, etc. etc. but even if I agreed with you, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by trying to completely meld Iraq into the poster child of all things pre-emptive.

If this entire discussion is nothing more than another opportunity for you to complain about Iraq, or just another opportunity for you to complain about the U.S. government, I'm really not interested in continuing, especially not on this thread. Start a new one if you really want to go there yet again.

I also do not belive you are using the word pre-emptively anywhere close to its definition. Frankly, I have trouble imagining how you are defining it. I get the impression you just feel it has negative connotations and are simply slinging it aroung for that reason alone.

As far as your parapgraph about drones, I'm really not following you. You are once again making absolutely no effort to distinguish the tactical from the operational from the strategic. I'm not sure how you think any tactical weapon, be it a drone or a spear, is going to defend anybody "from war." The entire concept is non-sensical to me. It the basis for the moral use of a weapon is an ablility to "defend from war," than perhaps the only moral weapon would rather ironically be an ICBM.

Dec 15th 2012 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: Look, Charles, I realize you have totally bought into the anti-Bush "WMD's were the onl...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



Look, Charles, I realize you have totally bought into the anti-Bush "WMD's were the only reason for Iraq" BS propaganda, and I realize you refuse to admit that we have any right to defend other people, like say the Iraqi people themselves, etc. etc. but even if I agreed with you, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by trying to completely meld Iraq into the poster child of all things pre-emptive.



If this entire discussion is nothing more than another opportunity for you to complain about Iraq, or just another opportunity for you to complain about the U.S. government, I'm really not interested in continuing, especially not on this thread. Start a new one if you really want to go there yet again.



I also do not belive you are using the word pre-emptively anywhere close to its definition. Frankly, I have trouble imagining how you are defining it. I get the impression you just feel it has negative connotations and are simply slinging it aroung for that reason alone.



As far as your parapgraph about drones, I'm really not following you. You are once again making absolutely no effort to distinguish the tactical from the operational from the strategic. I'm not sure how you think any tactical weapon, be it a drone or a spear, is going to defend anybody "from war." The entire concept is non-sensical to me. It the basis for the moral use of a weapon is an ablility to "defend from war," than perhaps the only moral weapon would rather ironically be an ICBM.

--hide--


Trust me, I have no intention of getting into a lengthy Iraq War debate here either. Since the discussion was about pre-emptive war, I only mentioned it as it is the most glaring modern example.

This discussion started from the suggestion that drones were a form of pre-emptive war and that JWT did not contradict pre-emptive war. This is what I was addressing. Any discussion of tactics and strategy are of secondary importance to this matter. First the war needs to be justified.
Posts 81 - 90 of 98