Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Aquinas on war with Iraq

Expand Messages
  • Anthony Crifasi
    The recent strong objection by the Vatican to a US war on Iraq leaves me wondering exactly what criterion of Just War they are using. For example, in ST
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The recent strong objection by the Vatican to a US war on Iraq leaves me
      wondering exactly what criterion of Just War they are using. For example, in
      ST II-II.40.1, Aquinas gives three criteria, all of which seem to be
      satisfied in the current situation:

      "In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the
      authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it
      is not the business of a private individual to declare war..."

      The commander in chief is certainly not just a private individual declaring
      war here.

      "Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked,
      should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault."

      The list of faults here is about a mile long, ranging from blatant
      violations of paragraph 4 of United Nations resolution 1441 (which
      explicitly states that anything less than full cooperation by Iraq is a
      material breach, and the inspectors have already stated that they are not
      receiving full cooperation), to massive crimes against humanity in his own
      country that are easily comparable to anything that happened in Serbia.

      "Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful
      intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of
      evil."

      Both Bush and Powell have laid out the avoidance of evil argument in detail
      on many occasions, primarily having to do with avoiding the acquisition of
      weapons of mass destruction.

      So what exactly is the Vatican's reasoning here? I realize that modern just
      war theory lists more criteria, but even there, what exactly is missing? The
      fact that Hussein has not blatantly attacked the US? Must we wait for a
      nuclear bomb or chemical weapon to be unleashed on a major US city before
      war is justified? That doesn't seem right.

      puzzled,

      Anthony Crifasi

      _________________________________________________________________
      The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
    • Scott Sullivan
      The CCC elaborates more than the ST: 2309. The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such
      Message 2 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The CCC elaborates more than the ST:

        2309. "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military
        force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision
        makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one
        and the same time:
        - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community
        of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

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

        - there must be serious prospects of success;
        - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than
        the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction
        weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
        These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called
        the 'JUST WAR' doctrine.
        The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to
        the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the
        common good."


        As I understand, it is the Vatican's opinion that the criteria
        above "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown
        to be impractical or ineffective" has not be exhausted.

        The Vatican's second reason for not thinking the war unjust is more
        baffling to me - that the decision must be made by the UN. I know of
        nowhere in traditionally accepted political theory that it is
        morally obligatory for a nation to get the approval of a non-state
        entity in order to defend itself. The UN is not a polis. The US
        government has the authority of a legitimate political body founded
        upon natural law and can make these decisions on their own, it is
        they who have responsibility for the common good and should exercise
        prudential judgment.

        Scott


        --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi@h...>
        wrote:
        > The recent strong objection by the Vatican to a US war on Iraq
        leaves me
        > wondering exactly what criterion of Just War they are using. For
        example, in
        > ST II-II.40.1, Aquinas gives three criteria, all of which seem to
        be
        > satisfied in the current situation:
        >
        > "In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First,
        the
        > authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be
        waged. For it
        > is not the business of a private individual to declare war..."
        >
        > The commander in chief is certainly not just a private individual
        declaring
        > war here.
        >
        > "Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are
        attacked,
        > should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some
        fault."
        >
        > The list of faults here is about a mile long, ranging from blatant
        > violations of paragraph 4 of United Nations resolution 1441 (which
        > explicitly states that anything less than full cooperation by Iraq
        is a
        > material breach, and the inspectors have already stated that they
        are not
        > receiving full cooperation), to massive crimes against humanity in
        his own
        > country that are easily comparable to anything that happened in
        Serbia.
        >
        > "Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a
        rightful
        > intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the
        avoidance of
        > evil."
        >
        > Both Bush and Powell have laid out the avoidance of evil argument
        in detail
        > on many occasions, primarily having to do with avoiding the
        acquisition of
        > weapons of mass destruction.
        >
        > So what exactly is the Vatican's reasoning here? I realize that
        modern just
        > war theory lists more criteria, but even there, what exactly is
        missing? The
        > fact that Hussein has not blatantly attacked the US? Must we wait
        for a
        > nuclear bomb or chemical weapon to be unleashed on a major US city
        before
        > war is justified? That doesn't seem right.
        >
        > puzzled,
        >
        > Anthony Crifasi
        >
        > _________________________________________________________________
        > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
        > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      • Daniel Scuiry
        ... The political map has become far more complex than the medieval world of Aquinas in which we have international law and cooperation between sovereign
        Message 3 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 06:05 PM 03/05/2003, you wrote:
          >"Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked,
          >should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault."
          >
          >The list of faults here is about a mile long, ranging from blatant
          >violations of paragraph 4 of United Nations resolution 1441 (which
          >explicitly states that anything less than full cooperation by Iraq is a
          >material breach, and the inspectors have already stated that they are not
          >receiving full cooperation), to massive crimes against humanity in his own
          >country that are easily comparable to anything that happened in Serbia.

          The political map has become far more complex than the medieval world of
          Aquinas in which we have international law and cooperation between
          sovereign states that did not exist in Aquinas' time. There was
          international consensus for the war in Yugoslavia; there is no such
          consensus on a proposed war with Iraq.

          Just war theory also holds there must be a clear and immediate threat to
          the security of another sovereign state. There is no consensus that the
          Iraqi regime poses such a threat; the fact that the US believes that it is
          does not make it so. There is room for disagreement on whether the Iraqi
          government poses such a threat. The US thinks it does; the Vatican does
          not. Hence it is a difference of judgment on how one applies the just war
          theory to this particular case.

          I do not know if just war theory provides for the liberation of the
          oppressed of another sovereign state. It seems to me that it does not, but
          I may be wrong here.

          Preemptive strike ethics is tricky. It says that if you are pointing a
          loaded gun at me with your finger on the trigger I have the right use
          deadly force to prevent you from shooting me. Is Saddam pointing a loaded
          gun at us with his finger on the trigger or is he just brandishing a loaded
          weapon that he might hand to someone who will pull the trigger?

          Daniel




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Anthony Crifasi
          ... It is an interesting philosophical question, then, why Aquinas did not include this criteria in his list. Did he think the above is obvious and therefore
          Message 4 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Scott Sullivan wrote:

            >As I understand, it is the Vatican's opinion that the criteria
            >above "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown
            >to be impractical or ineffective" has not be exhausted.

            It is an interesting philosophical question, then, why Aquinas did not
            include this criteria in his list. Did he think the above is obvious and
            therefore unnecessary to explicitly include in his list? I don't think so,
            because the three criteria that he does list are equally obvious. Was the
            absence of the above criterion from his list due to his historical
            circumstances? No, since the above general principle would apply equally
            then as now, whether to a single nation or to an international body, so
            there is no historical reason why it should not have occurred to Aquinas
            too. So the only conclusion I can come to is that for Aquinas, the above
            should not be included among the criteria for war. In that case, perhaps he
            has more foresight than us, since it is now obvious how certain nations in
            the UN are blatantly stretching the meaning of "ALL OTHER MEANS" for their
            own interests, to the point of ignoring the very resolution that they
            themselves passed (resolution 1441). In doing so, they have in effect
            neutered the UN - something that Aquinas would never accept for any supposed
            governing body.

            Daniel Scuiry wrote:

            >The political map has become far more complex than the medieval world of
            >Aquinas in which we have international law and cooperation between
            >sovereign states that did not exist in Aquinas' time.

            But Aquinas had very strict criteria for what counts as a legitimate
            governing body, and they go beyond mere "cooperation." After all, there can
            be cooperations and agreements among peoples within a single nation too, but
            these do not necessarily count as "law."

            >There was
            >international consensus for the war in Yugoslavia; there is no such
            >consensus on a proposed war with Iraq.

            On the contrary, President Clinton did not receive the consent of the UN
            Security Council for the war in Yugoslavia, and in fact at the time, the
            Secretary General explicitly complained about proceeding with the war
            without such consent. It is very interesting that many of those who use this
            reason against Bush now were quite silent at that time.

            >Just war theory also holds there must be a clear and immediate threat to
            >the security of another sovereign state. There is no consensus that the
            >Iraqi regime poses such a threat; the fact that the US believes that it is
            >does not make it so. There is room for disagreement on whether the Iraqi
            >government poses such a threat. The US thinks it does; the Vatican does
            >not. Hence it is a difference of judgment on how one applies the just war
            >theory to this particular case.

            I read the American bishops' elaboration of what would constitute an
            immediate threat, and I am serious when I say this: the unstated but logical
            conclusion of their reasoning is that a weapon of mass destruction would
            have to actually be USED before war is justified; until then, we have not
            exhausted any and every alternative, since inspections can always go on. I
            have read nothing in recent Vatican statements which are different from such
            a line of reasoning.

            >Preemptive strike ethics is tricky. It says that if you are pointing a
            >loaded gun at me with your finger on the trigger I have the right use
            >deadly force to prevent you from shooting me. Is Saddam pointing a loaded
            >gun at us with his finger on the trigger or is he just brandishing a loaded
            >weapon that he might hand to someone who will pull the trigger?

            Well either way, isn't it an immediate threat by Iraq? Whether Iraq itself
            uses a weapon of mass destruction on a city either in the US or a close ally
            like Israel, or Iraq is willing to hand it to a member of Al Quaeda who will
            use it at the nearest opportunity in the US or Israel, Iraq would pose an
            immediate threat. Wouldn't this easily satisfy Aquinas' "avoidance of evil"
            criterion in ST II-II.40.1?

            Anthony Crifasi

            _________________________________________________________________
            MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
          • Carlos Mancini
            The most complete article on Aquinas position is Michael Novak: http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp CM ... From: Anthony Crifasi
            Message 5 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              The most complete article on Aquinas position is Michael Novak:

              http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp


              CM

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Anthony Crifasi [mailto:crifasi@...]
              Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:41 PM
              To: aquinas@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [aquinas] Aquinas on war with Iraq


              Scott Sullivan wrote:

              >As I understand, it is the Vatican's opinion that the criteria
              >above "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown
              >to be impractical or ineffective" has not be exhausted.

              It is an interesting philosophical question, then, why Aquinas did not
              include this criteria in his list. Did he think the above is obvious and
              therefore unnecessary to explicitly include in his list? I don't think so,
              because the three criteria that he does list are equally obvious. Was the
              absence of the above criterion from his list due to his historical
              circumstances? No, since the above general principle would apply equally
              then as now, whether to a single nation or to an international body, so
              there is no historical reason why it should not have occurred to Aquinas
              too. So the only conclusion I can come to is that for Aquinas, the above
              should not be included among the criteria for war. In that case, perhaps he
              has more foresight than us, since it is now obvious how certain nations in
              the UN are blatantly stretching the meaning of "ALL OTHER MEANS" for their
              own interests, to the point of ignoring the very resolution that they
              themselves passed (resolution 1441). In doing so, they have in effect
              neutered the UN - something that Aquinas would never accept for any supposed
              governing body.

              Daniel Scuiry wrote:

              >The political map has become far more complex than the medieval world of
              >Aquinas in which we have international law and cooperation between
              >sovereign states that did not exist in Aquinas' time.

              But Aquinas had very strict criteria for what counts as a legitimate
              governing body, and they go beyond mere "cooperation." After all, there can
              be cooperations and agreements among peoples within a single nation too, but
              these do not necessarily count as "law."

              >There was
              >international consensus for the war in Yugoslavia; there is no such
              >consensus on a proposed war with Iraq.

              On the contrary, President Clinton did not receive the consent of the UN
              Security Council for the war in Yugoslavia, and in fact at the time, the
              Secretary General explicitly complained about proceeding with the war
              without such consent. It is very interesting that many of those who use this
              reason against Bush now were quite silent at that time.

              >Just war theory also holds there must be a clear and immediate threat to
              >the security of another sovereign state. There is no consensus that the
              >Iraqi regime poses such a threat; the fact that the US believes that it is
              >does not make it so. There is room for disagreement on whether the Iraqi
              >government poses such a threat. The US thinks it does; the Vatican does
              >not. Hence it is a difference of judgment on how one applies the just war
              >theory to this particular case.

              I read the American bishops' elaboration of what would constitute an
              immediate threat, and I am serious when I say this: the unstated but logical
              conclusion of their reasoning is that a weapon of mass destruction would
              have to actually be USED before war is justified; until then, we have not
              exhausted any and every alternative, since inspections can always go on. I
              have read nothing in recent Vatican statements which are different from such
              a line of reasoning.

              >Preemptive strike ethics is tricky. It says that if you are pointing a
              >loaded gun at me with your finger on the trigger I have the right use
              >deadly force to prevent you from shooting me. Is Saddam pointing a loaded
              >gun at us with his finger on the trigger or is he just brandishing a loaded
              >weapon that he might hand to someone who will pull the trigger?

              Well either way, isn't it an immediate threat by Iraq? Whether Iraq itself
              uses a weapon of mass destruction on a city either in the US or a close ally
              like Israel, or Iraq is willing to hand it to a member of Al Quaeda who will
              use it at the nearest opportunity in the US or Israel, Iraq would pose an
              immediate threat. Wouldn't this easily satisfy Aquinas' "avoidance of evil"
              criterion in ST II-II.40.1?

              Anthony Crifasi

              _________________________________________________________________
              MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
              http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


              This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of Slow
              Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by e-mail,
              mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



              ---
              Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03

              ---
              Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03
            • Daniel Scuiry
              ... Perhaps. Except we do it selectively. Those nations that are on our side , that are part of our world order are allowed to keep their toys despite their
              Message 6 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:41 AM 03/06/2003, you wrote:
                >Well either way, isn't it an immediate threat by Iraq? Whether Iraq itself
                >uses a weapon of mass destruction on a city either in the US or a close ally
                >like Israel, or Iraq is willing to hand it to a member of Al Quaeda who will
                >use it at the nearest opportunity in the US or Israel, Iraq would pose an
                >immediate threat. Wouldn't this easily satisfy Aquinas' "avoidance of evil"
                >criterion in ST II-II.40.1?
                >
                >Anthony Crifasi

                Perhaps. Except we do it selectively. Those nations that are on "our side",
                that are part of "our world order" are allowed to keep their toys despite
                their abysmal human rights record. Those who are not on our team or are not
                playing by our rules don't get to keep their toys.

                Daniel




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Daniel Scuiry
                ... Anthony, Don t you think the humanitarian crisis was far worse in Yugoslavia? In Iraq you have a regime that systematically tortures its dissidents, but
                Message 7 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 10:41 AM 03/06/2003, you wrote:
                  > >There was
                  > >international consensus for the war in Yugoslavia; there is no such
                  > >consensus on a proposed war with Iraq.
                  >
                  >On the contrary, President Clinton did not receive the consent of the UN
                  >Security Council for the war in Yugoslavia, and in fact at the time, the
                  >Secretary General explicitly complained about proceeding with the war
                  >without such consent. It is very interesting that many of those who use this
                  >reason against Bush now were quite silent at that time.

                  Anthony,

                  Don't you think the humanitarian crisis was far worse in Yugoslavia? In
                  Iraq you have a regime that systematically tortures its dissidents, but you
                  don't have thousands of people pressing the borders fleeing the cities in
                  an ethnic cleansing campaign.

                  Daniel





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Daniel Scuiry
                  Anthony, Do you think it would be too hokey to compose a mock question and answer with sed contra on this subject in the voice of the Angelic Doctor? Who is
                  Message 8 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Anthony,

                    Do you think it would be too hokey to compose a mock question and answer
                    with sed contra on this subject in the voice of the Angelic Doctor?

                    Who is bold enough to guess what the "I Answer That" would be?

                    Daniel






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • crifasian
                    ... Iraq itself ... close ally ... Quaeda who will ... pose an ... of evil ... on our side , ... despite ... are not ... But perhaps Aquinas would accept (as
                    Message 9 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Daniel Scuiry wrote:

                      > >Well either way, isn't it an immediate threat by Iraq? Whether
                      Iraq itself
                      > >uses a weapon of mass destruction on a city either in the US or a
                      close ally
                      > >like Israel, or Iraq is willing to hand it to a member of Al
                      Quaeda who will
                      > >use it at the nearest opportunity in the US or Israel, Iraq would
                      pose an
                      > >immediate threat. Wouldn't this easily satisfy Aquinas' "avoidance
                      of evil"
                      > >criterion in ST II-II.40.1?
                      >
                      > Perhaps. Except we do it selectively. Those nations that are
                      on "our side",
                      > that are part of "our world order" are allowed to keep their toys
                      despite
                      > their abysmal human rights record. Those who are not on our team or
                      are not
                      > playing by our rules don't get to keep their toys.

                      But perhaps Aquinas would accept (as did the "world community" when
                      the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441, which
                      ONLY deals with Iraq) that there may be some good reasons for that
                      selectivity, and that "our world order" may have more philosophical
                      legitimacy than Hussein's world order.

                      > Don't you think the humanitarian crisis was far worse in
                      Yugoslavia? In
                      > Iraq you have a regime that systematically tortures its dissidents,
                      but you
                      > don't have thousands of people pressing the borders fleeing the
                      cities in
                      > an ethnic cleansing campaign.

                      Estimates for Albanian Kosovars killed by Serb forces range from
                      100,000 (US State Department, 1999) to most current post-war survey
                      estimates of 2,500.

                      Estimates for deaths attributable to Hussein range from 1 to 1.5
                      million. Yes many are dissidents, but we have seen pictures of
                      Hussein's definition of a "dissident" in Kurdish territory.

                      Anthony Crifasi
                    • Daniel Scuiry
                      ... I wonder why this difference has not been given more attention. Has major consideration has been given to angering the whole Muslim world against the West
                      Message 10 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 12:50 PM 03/06/2003, you wrote:
                        >Estimates for Albanian Kosovars killed by Serb forces range from
                        >100,000 (US State Department, 1999) to most current post-war survey
                        >estimates of 2,500.
                        >
                        >Estimates for deaths attributable to Hussein range from 1 to 1.5
                        >million. Yes many are dissidents, but we have seen pictures of
                        >Hussein's definition of a "dissident" in Kurdish territory.
                        >
                        >Anthony Crifasi

                        I wonder why this difference has not been given more attention.

                        Has major consideration has been given to angering the whole Muslim world
                        against the West and its impact on international stability? In Kosovo there
                        was little risk of angering a whole coalition of allied states against us.
                        Our leaders seem to think either this won't happen or if it does we can
                        deal with the consequences.

                        Do you really think we are doing this to liberate an oppressed people? It
                        seems to me we are doing it because we believe Iraq is a terrorist threat,
                        that he cannot be trusted with the weapons and technology he as acquired
                        and that he would put it into the hands of some terrorist organization that
                        would use it against us. I really think the political oppression issue is
                        secondary in the minds of our leaders.

                        Daniel




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • James Miguez
                        I think it is a moot point to ask what would Aquinas think about the pope s position on the illegal and immoral status of America s war scenarios against
                        Message 11 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think it is a moot point to ask what would Aquinas think about the
                          pope's position on "the illegal and immoral" status of America's war
                          scenarios against Iraq. Although, a humble man and a saint, Aquinas no
                          doubt would back the pope.

                          The question of authority to wage war supersedes in extent Aquinas'
                          principle of the king who can wage a just war. First of all, we have
                          the development of international law which only began with the Domincan
                          thomist Francisco de Vitoria at Salamanca in Spain in the 16th century,
                          when Vitoria refuted the seven traditional arguments as to the right of
                          war in the conquest of America. The first argument to refute was the
                          false notion that the emperor was the master of the world, a view that
                          was commoningly held in the High Middle Ages.

                          The question of international law above all is at issue in the question
                          of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has displayed NO
                          evidence at all of complicity in 9\11. The fact that Sadaam is an
                          unjust ruler does not affect this issue of international law in regard
                          to a preemptive strike against a nation that is completely without the
                          means to attack the US. Nor do the Arab countries fear such an attack.
                          What is even more ironic, is that the US help Sadaam in his war against
                          Iran in which he used illegal gases, but perferred not to say anything
                          as long as it was in the common interest.

                          In point of fact, President Bush has no authority to start a war against
                          this nation. The US hardly stands for the common good, or for
                          international law, rather it serves its own interests, as has been seen
                          time and time again in history. No need to go into details.

                          No, only an institution on the world level, that takes into
                          consideration, not only the private good, but the international, world
                          good can make such a decision, if indeed such an institution is viable.
                          And the UN is viable. This was witnessed by Pope John XXIII in his
                          encyclical Pacem in Terris, or Peace on Earth. This same encyclical was
                          revisited by Pope John Paul II, in his new years day talk recently. The
                          pope was a prophet.

                          Hence the authority for war that pits one sovereign nation against
                          another rests with the UN. This might not be real politique a la
                          Kissenger and others, but it is the Christian moral stance.

                          As for the intention of the US, how can one not call this into question
                          given the abyssmal record of the US government and politicians, and CIA.
                          In fact this war was cooked up long before 9\11, it comes from the top,
                          and is held together by the propaganda of the War Party.

                          More is at stake here than Hussein's wretch regime. Rightly so, the
                          world sees the US as the obsessive bomb dropper who arrogantly thinks
                          that it alone is the conscience of the world and the agent of God. If
                          Bush goes through with this war...I hate to even think about the
                          consequences, which I can see all too well.

                          One this for sure, the end will not be as glorious as the beginning.

                          Nor will Bush get my vote.

                          James, pacem in Terris
                        • Jim Newland
                          ... From: James Miguez To: Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [aquinas] Re: Aquinas on war
                          Message 12 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "James Miguez" <kxd7050@...>
                            To: <aquinas@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:04 PM
                            Subject: Re: [aquinas] Re: Aquinas on war with Iraq


                            > The question of international law above all is at issue in the question
                            > of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has displayed NO
                            > evidence at all of complicity in 9\11. The fact that Sadaam is an
                            > unjust ruler does not affect this issue of international law in regard
                            > to a preemptive strike against a nation that is completely without the
                            > means to attack the US. Nor do the Arab countries fear such an attack.
                            > What is even more ironic, is that the US help Sadaam in his war against
                            > Iran in which he used illegal gases, but perferred not to say anything
                            > as long as it was in the common interest.
                            >
                            > In point of fact, President Bush has no authority to start a war against
                            > this nation. The US hardly stands for the common good, or for
                            > international law, rather it serves its own interests, as has been seen
                            > time and time again in history. No need to go into details.

                            This is not a preemptive strike, and saying it over and over again won't
                            make it one. Hussein agreed to certain conditions for the cessation of war
                            against him in 1991. He has completely failed to meet the obligations he
                            agreed to. Therefore, that war has never ended.

                            Of course, the question whether Bush has the authority to enforce the law
                            that the UN refuses to enforce, since the first war was fought under UN
                            auspices, is a different question. But that this will be a "preemptive war"
                            is nonsense.

                            Lastly, as for the US serving its own interests, I hardly know what to say.
                            Of course the US serves its own interests. *Every* nation serves its own
                            interests. That's what nations are *supposed* to do. Where did you get the
                            idea that the government of the United States exists to serve the interests
                            of the people of, say, Zambia? Such an arrangement would, in fact, be a
                            gross violation of Thomistic political principles, which charges to rulers
                            the care of those over whom they have authority (and no others). Moreover,
                            you say that the US doesn't "stand for" international law, whatever that
                            might mean. I presume you are accusing the US of *violating* (no, more than
                            that: habitually violating) its international agreements, in which case I'll
                            thank you to put up some evidence. Notwithstanding your attempt to get by on
                            your own say-so, I think there *is* a need for you to go into details about
                            so serious a charge.
                          • James Miguez
                            ... Of course, the issue is a preemptive strike. What are you talking about? You speak of a war that never ended. These are your words. But only Congress
                            Message 13 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim Newland wrote:

                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: "James Miguez" <kxd7050@...>
                              > To: <aquinas@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:04 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [aquinas] Re: Aquinas on war with Iraq
                              >
                              >
                              > > The question of international law above all is at issue in the question
                              > > of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has displayed NO
                              > > evidence at all of complicity in 9\11. The fact that Sadaam is an
                              > > unjust ruler does not affect this issue of international law in regard
                              > > to a preemptive strike against a nation that is completely without the
                              > > means to attack the US. Nor do the Arab countries fear such an attack.
                              > > What is even more ironic, is that the US help Sadaam in his war against
                              > > Iran in which he used illegal gases, but perferred not to say anything
                              > > as long as it was in the common interest.
                              > >
                              > > In point of fact, President Bush has no authority to start a war against
                              > > this nation. The US hardly stands for the common good, or for
                              > > international law, rather it serves its own interests, as has been seen
                              > > time and time again in history. No need to go into details.
                              >
                              > This is not a preemptive strike, and saying it over and over again won't
                              > make it one. Hussein agreed to certain conditions for the cessation of war
                              > against him in 1991. He has completely failed to meet the obligations he
                              > agreed to. Therefore, that war has never ended.
                              >
                              Of course, the issue is a preemptive strike. What are you talking
                              about? You speak of a "war" that never ended. These are your words.
                              But only Congress has the authority to declare war, and this power is
                              invested solely in the legislative branch as is very plain in the US
                              constitution. But NO war has ever been declared against Iraq, so you
                              have equivocated in your use of the term "war". Moreover, the removal
                              of Saddam was NEVER an aim of the coalition of forces that kicked Iraq
                              out of Kuwait. Remember Bush Sr.? This aim did not come about until an
                              independent group (with influential connections) drew up this plan in
                              conjunction with Israeli policy to Palestine. See Novak's column. But
                              an independent partisan group has no claim to international legitemacy.
                              Therefore there is "war" and there is no authority to remove Saddam.

                              > Of course, the question whether Bush has the authority to enforce the law
                              > that the UN refuses to enforce, since the first war was fought under UN
                              > auspices, is a different question. But that this will be a "preemptive
                              > war"
                              > is nonsense.
                              >
                              What is nonsense is your claim that a legitmate "war" with Iraq has been
                              going on for over 10 years.
                              Of course the War Party has its aims, but this is not the aim of the
                              international community or the US per se. The whole argument for war
                              with Iraq (at least ad populum) centers on the claim that Iraq has
                              weapons of mass destruction and it will use them on the US.

                              Militarily speaking, the war WILL be a preemptive strike against Iraq,
                              because Hussein supposedly has weapons of mass destruction.

                              > Lastly, as for the US serving its own interests, I hardly know what to
                              > say.
                              > Of course the US serves its own interests. *Every* nation serves its own
                              > interests. That's what nations are *supposed* to do. Where did you get the
                              > idea that the government of the United States exists to serve the
                              > interests
                              > of the people of, say, Zambia? Such an arrangement would, in fact, be a
                              > gross violation of Thomistic political principles, which charges to rulers
                              > the care of those over whom they have authority (and no others).

                              But the moral issue (a new one) as held by the Magisterium (stemming
                              from Aquinas' principle of legitimate authority) is precisely that
                              national government does not have a right to wage unilateral war without
                              the consent of a viable world authority such as the UN. This you do not
                              address much less answer.

                              > Moreover,
                              > you say that the US doesn't "stand for" international law, whatever that
                              > might mean. I presume you are accusing the US of *violating* (no, more
                              > than
                              > that: habitually violating) its international agreements, in which
                              > case I'll
                              > thank you to put up some evidence. Notwithstanding your attempt to get
                              > by on
                              > your own say-so, I think there *is* a need for you to go into details
                              > about
                              > so serious a charge.
                              >
                              Perhaps you ought to read history closely. The Louisiana Purchase in
                              1803 violated international law and treaties. Have you ever heard of
                              the CIA? How it unlawfully put the Shah of Iran in power, only later to
                              bring about the radical Islamic revolution. Perhaps you ought to speak
                              to the Iranians about US regard for international law. Or what about
                              Eisenhower's U2s over Russia, or many other similar episodes, such as
                              the CIA in Latin America.

                              In any case, to say that the US does not "stand for" international law
                              (spoken, in the context of national interest over international common
                              good), is not a misstatement. It only serves to point out the need for
                              a legitimate international authority to safeguard the international
                              common good. This is the purpose of the UN has asserted by Blessed John
                              XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II.

                              James

                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > ADVERTISEMENT
                              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245221.2994078.4377227.2244331/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1484259/R=0/*http://click.atdmt.com/COL/go/yhxxxchm00200120col/direct/01/&time=1046995901344988>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
                              > Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
                              > e-mail, mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Brad Williams
                              ... Then what really is international law? Since the most powerful country in the world can (and I would say: should) ignore it, what does it matter? How can
                              Message 14 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > The question of international law above all is at issue...

                                Then what really is international law? Since the most powerful country in
                                the world can (and I would say: should) ignore it, what does it matter? How
                                can what is unenforceable be called "law?" Can you show that it is a valid
                                concept, or at least how it would fit into Thomistic philosophy?

                                Brad Williams
                              • Anthony Crifasi
                                ... Then read the international law at issue here, which is UN resolution 1441: 4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
                                Message 15 of 27 , Mar 6, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  James Miguez wrote:

                                  >The question of international law above all is at issue in the
                                  >question of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has
                                  >displayed NO evidence at all of complicity in 9\11.

                                  Then read the "international law" at issue here, which is UN resolution
                                  1441:

                                  "4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
                                  pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
                                  and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this resolution shall
                                  constitute A FUTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."

                                  So Iraq has explicitly violated this international law on two counts:

                                  1. The inspectors have ALREADY found items that were not listed in the
                                  declaration of weapons but which were required to be delcared (the things
                                  they were required to declare are explicitly listed in paragraph #3 of the
                                  resolution - you can read it here: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

                                  2. The inspectors have already explicitly said that they have not received
                                  FULL COOPERATION (explicit words above) from the current regime.

                                  Therefore, Iraq is in explicit material breach of international law, James.

                                  Anthony Crifasi

                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                • James Miguez
                                  ... The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is also a law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the resolution you cited, 1441,
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Mar 7, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Subject:
                                    > Re: [aquinas] Aquinas on war with Iraq
                                    > From:
                                    > "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi@...>
                                    > Date:
                                    > Fri, 07 Mar 2003 03:43:52 +0000
                                    > To:
                                    > aquinas@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > James Miguez wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >The question of international law above all is at issue in the
                                    > >question of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has
                                    > >displayed NO evidence at all of complicity in 9\11.
                                    >
                                    > Then read the "international law" at issue here, which is UN resolution
                                    > 1441:
                                    >
                                    > "4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by
                                    > Iraq
                                    > pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply
                                    > with,
                                    > and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this resolution shall
                                    > constitute A FUTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."
                                    >
                                    > So Iraq has explicitly violated this international law on two counts:
                                    >
                                    > 1. The inspectors have ALREADY found items that were not listed in the
                                    > declaration of weapons but which were required to be delcared (the things
                                    > they were required to declare are explicitly listed in paragraph #3 of
                                    > the
                                    > resolution - you can read it here:
                                    > http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)
                                    > <http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm%29>
                                    >
                                    > 2. The inspectors have already explicitly said that they have not
                                    > received
                                    > FULL COOPERATION (explicit words above) from the current regime.
                                    >
                                    > Therefore, Iraq is in explicit material breach of international law,
                                    > James.
                                    >
                                    The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is also a
                                    law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the resolution you
                                    cited, 1441, is precisely that -- a resolution, it does not put forward
                                    a principle on which law is based. Strictly speaking, you are saying
                                    that Iraq is in material breach of a resolution, a resolution to disarm
                                    Iraq and one that most people considered was merely a pretext for Bush
                                    to pull the trigger on a war which was planned from 1996 (see Novak's
                                    column). That is why the wording of the resolution was so sticky, and
                                    lengthly debated, in that assurance were sought so that the US could not
                                    simply declare Iraq in "material breach" and thus find permission to
                                    wage war in the name of the UN. Moreover, this is why a new resolution,
                                    apart from 1441, is being sought by the US to receive UN sanction for
                                    its unilateral war.

                                    But the argument for a just war according to Catholic principles (which
                                    stem from Aquinas) far exceed the scope of resolution 1441. And even
                                    if the UN per chance would sanction the war, which is highly unlikely,
                                    this still does not meet the critera for just war on its face.

                                    See Catholic News Service for a summary of Vatican position.

                                    For a war to be just all means but be used to avert war it possible.
                                    But this is just what the War Party in the US is not doing. The war
                                    was planned years ago. (See Novak's article).

                                    James Miguez

                                    > Anthony Crifasi
                                    >
                                    > _________________________________________________________________
                                    > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                    > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                                    > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245221.2994078.4377227.2244331/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1484259/R=0/*http://click.atdmt.com/COL/go/yhxxxchm00200120col/direct/01/&time=1047008634938309>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
                                    > Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
                                    > e-mail, mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                    > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Anthony Crifasi
                                    ... But you were the one who appealed to international law in support of your position here, and the primary document around which the entire Iraq debate now
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Mar 7, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      James Miguez:

                                      >The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is also
                                      >a law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the resolution you
                                      >cited, 1441, is precisely that -- a resolution, it does not put
                                      >forward a principle on which law is based.

                                      But you were the one who appealed to international law in support of your
                                      position here, and the primary document around which the entire Iraq debate
                                      now revolves is UN resolution 1441. Other than that, the UN doesn't pass
                                      "laws" anyway, so if this doesn't count as international law in this case,
                                      then you can no longer appeal to the UN as a lawmaking body at all, thereby
                                      overturning your own appeal to international law.

                                      >Strictly speaking, you are
                                      >saying that Iraq is in material breach of a resolution, a resolution
                                      >to disarm Iraq and one that most people considered was merely a
                                      >pretext for Bush to pull the trigger on a war which was planned from
                                      >1996 (see Novak's column). That is why the wording of the resolution
                                      >was so sticky, and lengthly debated,

                                      and passed UNANIMOUSLY by the UN Security Council.

                                      >in that assurance were sought so
                                      >that the US could not simply declare Iraq in "material breach" and
                                      >thus find permission to wage war in the name of the UN. Moreover, this
                                      >is why a new resolution, apart from 1441, is being sought by the US to
                                      >receive UN sanction for its unilateral war.

                                      No, the new resolution will simply say that Iraq is in explicit material
                                      breach of paragraph #4 of resolution 1441, and will force a vote only on
                                      that conclusion. If you can honestly read paragraph 4 of that resolution and
                                      tell me that Iraq is not in material breach as specifically defined there,
                                      the definition of which was unanimously passed by the Security Council, then
                                      I would like to see how. Paragraph 4 is only about 5 lines long and can be
                                      found at the link I provided.

                                      >But the argument for a just war according to Catholic principles
                                      >(which stem from Aquinas) far exceed the scope of resolution 1441. And
                                      >even if the UN per chance would sanction the war, which is highly
                                      >unlikely, this still does not meet the critera for just war on its
                                      >face.
                                      >
                                      >See Catholic News Service for a summary of Vatican position.
                                      >
                                      >For a war to be just all means but be used to avert war it possible.
                                      >But this is just what the War Party in the US is not doing. The war
                                      >was planned years ago. (See Novak's article).

                                      and Iraq at that time was ALREADY breaching the 1991 UN resolution that laid
                                      out the conditions that Iraq had to fulfill. The beginning of resolution
                                      1441 explicitly says that. When a country does not filfill the terms of
                                      surrender of a war, then the same justification for the original war
                                      pertains. That is why it is inconsistent to have supported the first gulf
                                      war but not this one.

                                      Anthony Crifasi

                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                      Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                    • Blake Butterworth
                                      ... Regardless, the UN time and time again has shown itself to be ineffective at enforcing its own resolutions. Further, per the US Constitution, it has _no_
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Mar 7, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > In any case, to say that the US does not "stand for"
                                        > international law (spoken, in the context of national
                                        > interest over international common good), is not a
                                        > misstatement. It only serves to point out the need for
                                        > a legitimate international authority to safeguard the
                                        > international common good. This is the purpose of the
                                        > UN has asserted by Blessed John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and
                                        > Pope John Paul II.
                                        >
                                        > James

                                        Regardless, the UN time and time again has shown itself to be
                                        ineffective at enforcing its own resolutions. Further, per the US
                                        Constitution, it has _no_ authority over our government or people.
                                        Ceding the US government's authority to make and enforce law over its
                                        own citizens is tantamount to the annihilation of our country's
                                        sovereignty. Our government is obviously not perfect, but an
                                        institution which allows Iraq to chair the disarmament committee and
                                        Libya to lead the human rights commission is truly a joke.

                                        Blake
                                      • James Miguez
                                        ... No, I appealed to the Catholic doctrine of just war as enunciated by a series of popes, and to John Paul II in particular. No, my remarks on international
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Mar 7, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Anthony Crifasi wrote:

                                          > James Miguez:
                                          >
                                          > >The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is also
                                          > >a law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the resolution you
                                          > >cited, 1441, is precisely that -- a resolution, it does not put
                                          > >forward a principle on which law is based.
                                          >
                                          > But you were the one who appealed to international law in support of your
                                          > position here,

                                          No, I appealed to the Catholic doctrine of just war as enunciated by a
                                          series of popes, and to John Paul II in particular.

                                          No, my remarks on international laws have nothing to do what you are
                                          getting at. You are constructing a straw man.

                                          >"The question of international law above all is at issue in the
                                          >question of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has
                                          >displayed NO evidence at all of complicity in 9\11."

                                          > and the primary document around which the entire Iraq debate
                                          > now revolves is UN resolution 1441. Other than that, the UN doesn't pass
                                          > "laws" anyway, so if this doesn't count as international law in this
                                          > case,
                                          > then you can no longer appeal to the UN as a lawmaking body at all,
                                          > thereby
                                          > overturning your own appeal to international law.

                                          The debate is whether or not the US can unitlaterally attack a sovereign
                                          nation without the consent of the UN. The pope, the entire national
                                          bishop's conferences, the Anglican Church, the National Council of
                                          Churches, and Bush's own pastor, and world opinion say NO. Your straw
                                          man is completely besides the point. Resolution 1441 does not give the
                                          US the authority to attack Iraq for the purpose of a regime change, pure
                                          and simple. This is why a new resolution is needed, or the US will go
                                          alone to its own peril.

                                          >
                                          >
                                          > >Strictly speaking, you are
                                          > >saying that Iraq is in material breach of a resolution, a resolution
                                          > >to disarm Iraq and one that most people considered was merely a
                                          > >pretext for Bush to pull the trigger on a war which was planned from
                                          > >1996 (see Novak's column). That is why the wording of the resolution
                                          > >was so sticky, and lengthly debated,
                                          >
                                          > and passed UNANIMOUSLY by the UN Security Council.
                                          >
                                          > >in that assurance were sought so
                                          > >that the US could not simply declare Iraq in "material breach" and
                                          > >thus find permission to wage war in the name of the UN. Moreover, this
                                          > >is why a new resolution, apart from 1441, is being sought by the US to
                                          > >receive UN sanction for its unilateral war.
                                          >
                                          > No, the new resolution will simply say that Iraq is in explicit material
                                          > breach of paragraph #4 of resolution 1441, and will force a vote only on
                                          > that conclusion. If you can honestly read paragraph 4 of that
                                          > resolution and
                                          > tell me that Iraq is not in material breach as specifically defined
                                          > there,
                                          > the definition of which was unanimously passed by the Security
                                          > Council, then
                                          > I would like to see how. Paragraph 4 is only about 5 lines long and
                                          > can be
                                          > found at the link I provided.

                                          This does nothing to justify a preemptive strike on the part of the US
                                          against a nation that does not really threaten it. Have you read the
                                          inspector's reports? Iraq has no nuculear capability, and it is
                                          cooperating to get rid of its missles.

                                          >
                                          > >But the argument for a just war according to Catholic principles
                                          > >(which stem from Aquinas) far exceed the scope of resolution 1441. And
                                          > >even if the UN per chance would sanction the war, which is highly
                                          > >unlikely, this still does not meet the critera for just war on its
                                          > >face.
                                          > >
                                          > >See Catholic News Service for a summary of Vatican position.
                                          > >
                                          > >For a war to be just all means but be used to avert war it possible.
                                          > >But this is just what the War Party in the US is not doing. The war
                                          > >was planned years ago. (See Novak's article).
                                          >
                                          > and Iraq at that time was ALREADY breaching the 1991 UN resolution
                                          > that laid
                                          > out the conditions that Iraq had to fulfill. The beginning of resolution
                                          > 1441 explicitly says that. When a country does not filfill the terms of
                                          > surrender of a war, then the same justification for the original war
                                          > pertains. That is why it is inconsistent to have supported the first gulf
                                          > war but not this one.


                                          The justification for the original "war" was to kick Saddam out of
                                          Kuwait, an artificially-constructed oil-rich protectorate (at the end of
                                          WWI) of the western powers that denies Iraq its traditional access to
                                          the sea. There never was a justification to bring regime change in
                                          Iraq. This is a plot hatched in 1996 involving the War Party in America
                                          in league with oil and other interests.

                                          Also only Congress can declare war. Thus was never done. The act of
                                          President Bush Sr. was unconstitutional insofar as the act can be
                                          considered a war. It was illegal. Also immoral, as the pope said.
                                          Moreover the sanctions imposed on Iraq which has resulted in the deaths
                                          of 1 million children is also immoral. The evil accomplished by America
                                          in that scheme far outweighed the good.

                                          It is not necessary to attack Iraq to disarm it.

                                          James

                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Anthony Crifasi
                                          >
                                          > _________________________________________________________________
                                          > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                          > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                          >
                                          > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1047050403%3eM=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1047050403%3eM=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=2>
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
                                          > Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
                                          > e-mail, mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                          >
                                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Anthony Crifasi
                                          ... On 3-6-02 you wrote: The question of international law ABOVE ALL IS AT ISSUE in the question of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Mar 7, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            James Miguez:

                                            > > >The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is
                                            > > >also a law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the
                                            > > >resolution you cited, 1441, is precisely that -- a resolution, it
                                            > > >does not put forward a principle on which law is based.
                                            > >
                                            > > But you were the one who appealed to international law in support of
                                            > > your position here,
                                            >
                                            >No, I appealed to the Catholic doctrine of just war as enunciated by a
                                            >series of popes, and to John Paul II in particular.
                                            >
                                            >No, my remarks on international laws have nothing to do what you are
                                            >getting at. You are constructing a straw man.

                                            On 3-6-02 you wrote:

                                            "The question of international law ABOVE ALL IS AT ISSUE in the question of
                                            a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has displayed no evidence
                                            at all of complicity in 9\11."

                                            >Resolution 1441 simplies states that if Iraq is found to be in further
                                            >material breach then the UN decides to meet to assess the situation.

                                            No that is not all it "simply states". It also "simply states" the specific
                                            criteria for a further material breach:

                                            "4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
                                            pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
                                            and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this resolution shall
                                            constitute A FUTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."

                                            Now, Iraq has failed both of these criteria of material breach, because:

                                            1. The inspectors have already explicitly found weapons that were supposed
                                            to be included in the declaration of weapons submitted last year, but were
                                            not.

                                            2. The inspectors have already explicitly said that they are not receiving
                                            FULL COOPERATION (explicit words above) from Iraq.

                                            So I want to know whether you agree that Iraq is in explicit material breach
                                            of resolution 1441, according to paragraph 4 above?

                                            > > No, the new resolution will simply say that Iraq is in explicit
                                            > > material breach of paragraph #4 of resolution 1441, and will force a
                                            > > vote only on that conclusion. If you can honestly read paragraph 4
                                            > > of that resolution and tell me that Iraq is not in material breach
                                            > > as specifically defined there, the definition of which was
                                            > > unanimously passed by the Security Council, then I would like to see
                                            > > how. Paragraph 4 is only about 5 lines long and can be found at the
                                            > > link I provided.
                                            >
                                            >This does nothing to justify a preemptive strike on the part of the US
                                            >against a nation that does not really threaten it. Have you read the
                                            >inspector's reports? Iraq has no nuculear capability, and it is
                                            >cooperating to get rid of its missles.

                                            Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 does not just say "cooperating". It says FULL
                                            cooperation. And the inspectors have already explicitly said that they are
                                            not receiving full cooperation. Therefore, according to paragraph 4, Iraq is
                                            in explicit material breach of resolution 1441.

                                            > > >For a war to be just all means but be used to avert war it
                                            > > >possible. But this is just what the War Party in the US is not
                                            > > >doing. The war was planned years ago. (See Novak's article).
                                            > >
                                            > > and Iraq at that time was ALREADY breaching the 1991 UN resolution
                                            > > that laid out the conditions that Iraq had to fulfill. The beginning
                                            > > of resolution 1441 explicitly says that. When a country does not
                                            > > filfill the terms of surrender of a war, then the same justification
                                            > > for the original war pertains. That is why it is inconsistent to
                                            > > have supported the first gulf war but not this one.
                                            >
                                            >The justification for the original "war" was to kick Saddam out of
                                            >Kuwait, an artificially-constructed oil-rich protectorate (at the end
                                            >of WWI) of the western powers that denies Iraq its traditional access
                                            >to the sea.

                                            I assume that the last little comment does not reflect any opinion on your
                                            part that Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait.

                                            >There never was a justification to bring regime change in
                                            >Iraq. This is a plot hatched in 1996 involving the War Party in
                                            >America in league with oil and other interests.

                                            Um, for the second time, Iraq was ALREADY in material breach of the 1991 UN
                                            resolution that spelled out its post-war obligations. The beginning of
                                            resolution 1441 explicitly states that Iraq had already breached the 1991
                                            resolution. Therefore, by 1996 there was already plenty of justification,
                                            because any country that does not fulfill the terms of surrender is in
                                            effect defying the surrender itself, which means that the same
                                            justifications for the first war remain.

                                            >Also only Congress can declare war. Thus was never done. The act of
                                            >President Bush Sr. was unconstitutional insofar as the act can be
                                            >considered a war. It was illegal.

                                            Um, ever heard of the Warpowers Act? Since it is precisely the terms of
                                            surrender from the FIRST gulf war that were breached (as explicitly
                                            referenced at the beginning of 1441 - please read it), then the
                                            congressionally approved Warpowers Act still applies, because it dealt
                                            specifically with that issue.

                                            >Also immoral, as the pope said.

                                            The pope is wrong about this specific. The Holy See has been wrong about
                                            such things before.

                                            >Moreover the sanctions imposed on Iraq which has resulted in the
                                            >deaths of 1 million children is also immoral. The evil accomplished by
                                            >America in that scheme far outweighed the good.

                                            Those deaths were due to Hussein's redistribution of the goods that DID get
                                            into Iraq. Proof? His army has the food and medical supplies that those
                                            children who died lacked. Proof? The child mortality rate in the KURDISH
                                            areas of Iraq (i.e., the areas that are also under sanction but are NOT
                                            under Hussein's control) is the same as before the FIRST gulf war.

                                            >It is not necessary to attack Iraq to disarm it.

                                            I guess this particular induction takes the intellect more than 12 years to
                                            abstract.

                                            Anthony Crifasi

                                            _________________________________________________________________
                                            The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
                                            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                                          • James Miguez
                                            ... I also wrote: I think it is a moot point to ask what would Aquinas think about the pope s position on the illegal and immoral status of America s war
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Mar 8, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > James Miguez:
                                              >
                                              > > > >The ruling of the supreme court that allows abortion on demand is
                                              > > > >also a law, but it is certainly not moral. In any case, the
                                              > > > >resolution you cited, 1441, is precisely that -- a resolution, it
                                              > > > >does not put forward a principle on which law is based.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > But you were the one who appealed to international law in support of
                                              > > > your position here,
                                              > >
                                              > >No, I appealed to the Catholic doctrine of just war as enunciated by a
                                              > >series of popes, and to John Paul II in particular.
                                              > >
                                              > >No, my remarks on international laws have nothing to do what you are
                                              > >getting at. You are constructing a straw man.
                                              >
                                              > On 3-6-02 you wrote:
                                              >
                                              > "The question of international law ABOVE ALL IS AT ISSUE in the
                                              > question of
                                              > a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has displayed no
                                              > evidence
                                              > at all of complicity in 9\11."

                                              I also wrote:

                                              "I think it is a moot point to ask what would Aquinas think about the
                                              pope's position on "the illegal and immoral" status of America's war
                                              scenarios against Iraq. Although, a humble man and a saint, Aquinas no
                                              doubt would back the pope."

                                              >
                                              > >Resolution 1441 simplies states that if Iraq is found to be in further
                                              > >material breach then the UN decides to meet to assess the situation.
                                              >
                                              > No that is not all it "simply states". It also "simply states" the
                                              > specific
                                              > criteria for a further material breach:
                                              >
                                              > "4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
                                              > pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply
                                              > with,
                                              > and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this resolution shall
                                              > constitute A FUTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."

                                              The UN decides [therefore] to meet to assess the situation.

                                              >
                                              > Now, Iraq has failed both of these criteria of material breach, because:
                                              >
                                              > 1. The inspectors have already explicitly found weapons that were
                                              > supposed
                                              > to be included in the declaration of weapons submitted last year, but
                                              > were
                                              > not.
                                              >
                                              > 2. The inspectors have already explicitly said that they are not
                                              > receiving
                                              > FULL COOPERATION (explicit words above) from Iraq.
                                              >
                                              > So I want to know whether you agree that Iraq is in explicit material
                                              > breach
                                              > of resolution 1441, according to paragraph 4 above?

                                              The UN decides to meet. That is all. France, Germany, Russia, China,
                                              Mexico seek to prolong the inspections. International law.

                                              >
                                              > > > No, the new resolution will simply say that Iraq is in explicit
                                              > > > material breach of paragraph #4 of resolution 1441, and will force a
                                              > > > vote only on that conclusion. If you can honestly read paragraph 4
                                              > > > of that resolution and tell me that Iraq is not in material breach
                                              > > > as specifically defined there, the definition of which was
                                              > > > unanimously passed by the Security Council, then I would like to see
                                              > > > how. Paragraph 4 is only about 5 lines long and can be found at the
                                              > > > link I provided.
                                              > >
                                              > >This does nothing to justify a preemptive strike on the part of the US
                                              > >against a nation that does not really threaten it. Have you read the
                                              > >inspector's reports? Iraq has no nuculear capability, and it is
                                              > >cooperating to get rid of its missles.
                                              >
                                              > Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 does not just say "cooperating". It
                                              > says FULL
                                              > cooperation. And the inspectors have already explicitly said that they
                                              > are
                                              > not receiving full cooperation. Therefore, according to paragraph 4,
                                              > Iraq is
                                              > in explicit material breach of resolution 1441.
                                              >
                                              > > > >For a war to be just all means but be used to avert war it
                                              > > > >possible. But this is just what the War Party in the US is not
                                              > > > >doing. The war was planned years ago. (See Novak's article).
                                              > > >
                                              > > > and Iraq at that time was ALREADY breaching the 1991 UN resolution
                                              > > > that laid out the conditions that Iraq had to fulfill. The beginning
                                              > > > of resolution 1441 explicitly says that. When a country does not
                                              > > > filfill the terms of surrender of a war, then the same justification
                                              > > > for the original war pertains. That is why it is inconsistent to
                                              > > > have supported the first gulf war but not this one.
                                              > >
                                              > >The justification for the original "war" was to kick Saddam out of
                                              > >Kuwait, an artificially-constructed oil-rich protectorate (at the end
                                              > >of WWI) of the western powers that denies Iraq its traditional access
                                              > >to the sea.
                                              >
                                              > I assume that the last little comment does not reflect any opinion on
                                              > your
                                              > part that Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait.
                                              >
                                              > >

                                              America is an empire. Early America was not.

                                              > There never was a justification to bring regime change in
                                              > >Iraq. This is a plot hatched in 1996 involving the War Party in
                                              > >America in league with oil and other interests.
                                              >
                                              > Um, for the second time, Iraq was ALREADY in material breach of the
                                              > 1991 UN
                                              > resolution that spelled out its post-war obligations. The beginning of
                                              > resolution 1441 explicitly states that Iraq had already breached the 1991
                                              > resolution. Therefore, by 1996 there was already plenty of justification,
                                              > because any country that does not fulfill the terms of surrender is in
                                              > effect defying the surrender itself, which means that the same
                                              > justifications for the first war remain.
                                              >
                                              The UN justification for the first action (around which the coaliton was
                                              built) was the ejection of Iraq military from Kuwait. Later there were
                                              resolutions to disarm Iraq. Only the UN can justify regime change, and
                                              if this is to be moral, it must be in line with Catholic just war
                                              teaching. Bush is talking about bypassing the UN.

                                              > >Also only Congress can declare war. Thus was never done. The act of
                                              > >President Bush Sr. was unconstitutional insofar as the act can be
                                              > >considered a war. It was illegal.
                                              >
                                              > Um, ever heard of the Warpowers Act?

                                              Have you ever heard of constitutionality?

                                              > Since it is precisely the terms of
                                              > surrender from the FIRST gulf war that were breached (as explicitly
                                              > referenced at the beginning of 1441 - please read it), then the
                                              > congressionally approved Warpowers Act still applies, because it dealt
                                              > specifically with that issue.
                                              >
                                              > >Also immoral, as the pope said.
                                              >
                                              > The pope is wrong about this specific. The Holy See has been wrong about
                                              > such things before.
                                              >
                                              The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the common good of
                                              the world is magisterially pronounced especially by Blessed John XXIII
                                              and hence infalliable. John Paul II is a man of stature, the leader of
                                              the anti-war movement, and has the backing of world opinion, the
                                              national bishop conferences, the clergy, the Anglicans, the National
                                              Conference of Churches, and others. Bush has no moral authority to
                                              bypass the UN. His own pastor counsels him against it.

                                              > >Moreover the sanctions imposed on Iraq which has resulted in the
                                              > >deaths of 1 million children is also immoral. The evil accomplished by
                                              > >America in that scheme far outweighed the good.
                                              >
                                              > Those deaths were due to Hussein's redistribution of the goods that
                                              > DID get
                                              > into Iraq. Proof? His army has the food and medical supplies that those
                                              > children who died lacked. Proof? The child mortality rate in the KURDISH
                                              > areas of Iraq (i.e., the areas that are also under sanction but are NOT
                                              > under Hussein's control) is the same as before the FIRST gulf war.

                                              >
                                              > >It is not necessary to attack Iraq to disarm it.
                                              >
                                              > I guess this particular induction takes the intellect more than 12
                                              > years to
                                              > abstract.

                                              No, it is known by peaceful persons who believe in dialogue and the
                                              dignity of the human person. More will be accomplished by firm
                                              resolution and accountability and dialogue than by bombs and insults.

                                              James



                                              >
                                              > Anthony Crifasi
                                              >
                                              > _________________________________________________________________
                                              > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
                                              > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                              > ADVERTISEMENT
                                              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245221.2994078.4377227.2244331/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1484259/R=0/*http://click.atdmt.com/COL/go/yhxxxchm00200120col/direct/01/&time=1047092451356538>
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
                                              > Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
                                              > e-mail, mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                              >
                                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Anthony Crifasi
                                              ... Yes but my point was that you explicitly said that international law ABOVE ALL is at issue, so I treated it as such, and cited the specific one at issue
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Mar 8, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                James Miguez wrote:

                                                > > >No, my remarks on international laws have nothing to do what you
                                                > > >are getting at. You are constructing a straw man.
                                                > >
                                                > > On 3-6-02 (should be 3-6-03) you wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > "The question of international law ABOVE ALL IS AT ISSUE in the
                                                > > question of a preemptive strike against a soverign nation that has
                                                > > displayed no evidence at all of complicity in 9\11."
                                                >
                                                >I also wrote:
                                                >
                                                >"I think it is a moot point to ask what would Aquinas think about the
                                                >pope's position on "the illegal and immoral" status of America's war
                                                >scenarios against Iraq. Although, a humble man and a saint, Aquinas no
                                                >doubt would back the pope."

                                                Yes but my point was that you explicitly said that "international law ABOVE
                                                ALL is at issue," so I treated it as such, and cited the specific one at
                                                issue in this case: UN resolution 1441. So (1) it was not a straw man, and I
                                                would appreciate it if you retracted that accusation, and (2) it was indeed
                                                explicitly said by you to be what is at issue "ABOVE ALL," not a secondary
                                                argument.

                                                > > >Resolution 1441 simplies states that if Iraq is found to be in
                                                > > >further material breach then the UN decides to meet to assess the
                                                > > >situation.
                                                > >
                                                > > No that is not all it "simply states". It also "simply states" the
                                                > > specific criteria for a further material breach:
                                                > >
                                                > > "4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
                                                > > by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time
                                                > > to comply with, and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this
                                                > > resolution shall constitute A FUTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."
                                                >
                                                >The UN decides [therefore] to meet to assess the situation.
                                                >
                                                > > Now, Iraq has failed both of these criteria of material breach,
                                                > > because:
                                                > >
                                                > > 1. The inspectors have already explicitly found weapons that were
                                                > > supposed to be included in the declaration of weapons submitted last
                                                > > year, but were not.
                                                > >
                                                > > 2. The inspectors have already explicitly said that they are not
                                                > > receiving FULL COOPERATION (explicit words above) from Iraq.
                                                > >
                                                > > So I want to know whether you agree that Iraq is in explicit
                                                > > material breach of resolution 1441, according to paragraph 4 above?
                                                >
                                                >The UN decides to meet. That is all. France, Germany, Russia, China,
                                                >Mexico seek to prolong the inspections. International law.

                                                That is not what I asked you. I asked you whether you agree that in light of
                                                the weapons that the inspectors have found which were not listed in Iraq's
                                                arms declaration but were supposed to be listed, and in light of the
                                                inspectors' explicit statements that they are not receiving FULL cooperation
                                                (exact words from paragraph #4 above), is Iraq in material breach? Yes or
                                                no.

                                                > > >The justification for the original "war" was to kick Saddam out of
                                                > > >Kuwait, an artificially-constructed oil-rich protectorate (at the
                                                > > >end of WWI) of the western powers that denies Iraq its traditional
                                                > > >access to the sea.
                                                > >
                                                > > I assume that the last little comment does not reflect any opinion
                                                > > on your part that Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait.
                                                >
                                                >America is an empire. Early America was not.

                                                I assume this little comment does not reflect any opinion on your part that
                                                Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait. Because if it does, then you
                                                contradict your own appeal to Pope John Paul II, since he did not oppose the
                                                first gulf war.

                                                >The UN justification for the first action (around which the coaliton
                                                >was built) was the ejection of Iraq military from Kuwait. Later there
                                                >were resolutions to disarm Iraq. Only the UN can justify regime
                                                >change, and if this is to be moral, it must be in line with Catholic
                                                >just war teaching. Bush is talking about bypassing the UN.

                                                because the UN is bypassing the UN, by ignoring paragraph #4 of resolution
                                                1441, according to which Iraq is in explicit material breach of a UN
                                                resolution. By doing this, the UN has in effect neutered itself as a viable
                                                governing body.

                                                > > >Also only Congress can declare war. Thus was never done. The act of
                                                > > >President Bush Sr. was unconstitutional insofar as the act can be
                                                > > >considered a war. It was illegal.
                                                > >
                                                > > Um, ever heard of the Warpowers Act?
                                                >
                                                >Have you ever heard of constitutionality?

                                                The Warpowers Act was passed constitutionally by congress. So since it dealt
                                                specifically with presidential powers towards Iraq in the first gulf war,
                                                and it is precisely the terms of surrender of that war which have been
                                                breached, then the same congressional authorization (constitutionally
                                                passed) pertains.

                                                > > Since it is precisely the terms of
                                                > > surrender from the FIRST gulf war that were breached (as explicitly
                                                > > referenced at the beginning of 1441 - please read it), then the
                                                > > congressionally approved Warpowers Act still applies, because it
                                                > > dealt specifically with that issue.
                                                > >
                                                > > >Also immoral, as the pope said.
                                                > >
                                                > > The pope is wrong about this specific. The Holy See has been wrong
                                                > > about such things before.
                                                > >
                                                >The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the common good
                                                >of the world is magisterially pronounced especially by Blessed John
                                                >XXIII and hence infalliable.

                                                Specific statement please, as well as proof of its "magisterial" nature
                                                (specific church definition of "magisterial" and citation of said definition
                                                please) and its infallible status.

                                                In addition, Clinton also bypassed the UN to conduct the war in Serbia, and
                                                in fact, the Secretary General at that time complained about that. Did you
                                                protest that war, since the UN was bypassed?

                                                >John Paul II is a man of stature, the
                                                >leader of the anti-war movement, and has the backing of world opinion,
                                                >the national bishop conferences, the clergy, the Anglicans, the
                                                >National Conference of Churches, and others. Bush has no moral
                                                >authority to bypass the UN. His own pastor counsels him against it.

                                                His own pastor is not infallible, nor is the John Paul II on this specific.
                                                There have been many campaigns in the history of the Church which were not
                                                opposed by the Holy See, which today would be opposed by the Holy See.

                                                > > >It is not necessary to attack Iraq to disarm it.
                                                > >
                                                > > I guess this particular induction takes the intellect more than 12
                                                > > years to abstract.
                                                >
                                                >No, it is known by peaceful persons who believe in dialogue and the
                                                >dignity of the human person. More will be accomplished by firm
                                                >resolution and accountability and dialogue than by bombs and insults.

                                                "Firm resolution"? Iraq has already breached at least 2 "firm resolutions."
                                                But then again, Aristotle did say that it may take some more time than
                                                others to abstract from particular instances. But I don't think he meant 12
                                                years.

                                                Anthony Crifasi

                                                _________________________________________________________________
                                                Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                                http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                              • James Miguez
                                                ... Are you kidding? It is well known in Catholic circles that John Paul II vigorously opposed the first Gulf War. It made all the paper Catholic
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Mar 9, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Anthony Crifasi wrote:

                                                  > James Miguez wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > >America is an empire. Early America was not.
                                                  >
                                                  > I assume this little comment does not reflect any opinion on your part
                                                  > that
                                                  > Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait. Because if it does, then you
                                                  > contradict your own appeal to Pope John Paul II, since he did not
                                                  > oppose the
                                                  > first gulf war.

                                                  Are you kidding? It is well known in Catholic circles that John Paul II
                                                  vigorously opposed the first Gulf War. It made all the paper Catholic
                                                  publications. John Paul has been consistent saying that war "is always
                                                  a defeat for humanity." This is why the pope is such a credible leader
                                                  today.

                                                  >
                                                  > >The UN justification for the first action (around which the coaliton
                                                  > >was built) was the ejection of Iraq military from Kuwait. Later there
                                                  > >were resolutions to disarm Iraq. Only the UN can justify regime
                                                  > >change, and if this is to be moral, it must be in line with Catholic
                                                  > >just war teaching. Bush is talking about bypassing the UN.
                                                  >
                                                  > because the UN is bypassing the UN, by ignoring paragraph #4 of
                                                  > resolution
                                                  > 1441, according to which Iraq is in explicit material breach of a UN
                                                  > resolution. By doing this, the UN has in effect neutered itself as a
                                                  > viable
                                                  > governing body.
                                                  >
                                                  UN has meet to access the situation.

                                                  > > > >Also only Congress can declare war. Thus was never done. The act of
                                                  > > > >President Bush Sr. was unconstitutional insofar as the act can be
                                                  > > > >considered a war. It was illegal.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Um, ever heard of the Warpowers Act?
                                                  > >
                                                  > >Have you ever heard of constitutionality?
                                                  >
                                                  > The Warpowers Act was passed constitutionally by congress. So since it
                                                  > dealt
                                                  > specifically with presidential powers towards Iraq in the first gulf war,
                                                  > and it is precisely the terms of surrender of that war which have been
                                                  > breached, then the same congressional authorization (constitutionally
                                                  > passed) pertains.
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Since it is precisely the terms of
                                                  > > > surrender from the FIRST gulf war that were breached (as explicitly
                                                  > > > referenced at the beginning of 1441 - please read it), then the
                                                  > > > congressionally approved Warpowers Act still applies, because it
                                                  > > > dealt specifically with that issue.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > >Also immoral, as the pope said.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > The pope is wrong about this specific. The Holy See has been wrong
                                                  > > > about such things before.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > >The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the common good
                                                  > >of the world is magisterially pronounced especially by Blessed John
                                                  > >XXIII and hence infalliable.
                                                  >
                                                  > Specific statement please, as well as proof of its "magisterial" nature
                                                  > (specific church definition of "magisterial" and citation of said
                                                  > definition
                                                  > please) and its infallible status.
                                                  >
                                                  If you are to discuss just war theory from a Catholic perspective I
                                                  assume you would know the relevant references.

                                                  > In addition, Clinton also bypassed the UN to conduct the war in
                                                  > Serbia, and
                                                  > in fact, the Secretary General at that time complained about that. Did
                                                  > you
                                                  > protest that war, since the UN was bypassed?

                                                  > >John Paul II is a man of stature, the
                                                  > >leader of the anti-war movement, and has the backing of world opinion,
                                                  > >the national bishop conferences, the clergy, the Anglicans, the
                                                  > >National Conference of Churches, and others. Bush has no moral
                                                  > >authority to bypass the UN. His own pastor counsels him against it.
                                                  >
                                                  > His own pastor is not infallible, nor is the John Paul II on this
                                                  > specific.
                                                  > There have been many campaigns in the history of the Church which were
                                                  > not
                                                  > opposed by the Holy See, which today would be opposed by the Holy See.
                                                  >
                                                  John Paul II is guided by the Holy Spirit and is a prophetic witness to
                                                  the universal common good and the right for peoples to speak out against
                                                  national selfish aims. He has all the bishops with him. This is the
                                                  magisterium of the Church. You in turn trust the secular government and
                                                  national movements.

                                                  > > > >It is not necessary to attack Iraq to disarm it.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I guess this particular induction takes the intellect more than 12
                                                  > > > years to abstract.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >No, it is known by peaceful persons who believe in dialogue and the
                                                  > >dignity of the human person. More will be accomplished by firm
                                                  > >resolution and accountability and dialogue than by bombs and insults.
                                                  >
                                                  > "Firm resolution"? Iraq has already breached at least 2 "firm
                                                  > resolutions."
                                                  > But then again, Aristotle did say that it may take some more time than
                                                  > others to abstract from particular instances. But I don't think he
                                                  > meant 12
                                                  > years.

                                                  Never to late for peace.

                                                  Thank you.

                                                  >
                                                  > Anthony Crifasi
                                                  >
                                                  > _________________________________________________________________
                                                  > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                                                  > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                                  >
                                                  > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1047156575%3eM=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1047156575%3eM=247865.3003379.4374531.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705020585:HM/A=1482387/R=2>
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
                                                  > Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
                                                  > e-mail, mailto:aquinas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                                  >
                                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Anthony Crifasi
                                                  ... Then my mistake, I *RETRACT* my erroneous statement (interesting concept, retracting mistakes, eh James?). *But*, that war still had UN sanction. So, was
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Mar 9, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    James Miguez wrote:

                                                    > > I assume this little comment does not reflect any opinion on your part
                                                    > > that
                                                    > > Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait. Because if it does, then you
                                                    > > contradict your own appeal to Pope John Paul II, since he did not
                                                    > > oppose the first gulf war.
                                                    >
                                                    >Are you kidding? It is well known in Catholic circles that John Paul II
                                                    >vigorously opposed the first Gulf War.

                                                    Then my mistake, I *RETRACT* my erroneous statement (interesting concept,
                                                    retracting mistakes, eh James?). *But*, that war still had UN sanction. So,
                                                    was it an immoral war?

                                                    > > the UN is bypassing the UN, by ignoring paragraph #4 of
                                                    > > resolution
                                                    > > 1441, according to which Iraq is in explicit material breach of a UN
                                                    > > resolution. By doing this, the UN has in effect neutered itself as a
                                                    > > viable governing body.
                                                    > >
                                                    >UN has meet to access the situation.

                                                    The Security Council is not even going to vote on whether resolution 1441
                                                    was breached at all (much less on military action), when according to the
                                                    specific criteria for a material breach listed in paragraph #4, Iraq has
                                                    failed on both counts, since (1) the inspectors have found weapons that were
                                                    supposed to be listed in the arms declaration last year, but were not, and
                                                    (2) the inspectors have already explicitly said that Iraq has not given them
                                                    FULL cooperation (exact words from paragraph #4). So according to these
                                                    explicit criteria from resolution 1441, James, do you agree that Iraq is in
                                                    material breach of a United Nations resolution? Yes or no.

                                                    > > >The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the common good
                                                    > > >of the world is magisterially pronounced especially by Blessed John
                                                    > > >XXIII and hence infalliable.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Specific statement please, as well as proof of its "magisterial" nature
                                                    > > (specific church definition of "magisterial" and citation of said
                                                    > > definition please) and its infallible status.
                                                    > >
                                                    >If you are to discuss just war theory from a Catholic perspective I
                                                    >assume you would know the relevant references.

                                                    I do not know the reference you are referring to, so please humor me.

                                                    > > There have been many campaigns in the history of the Church which were
                                                    > > not
                                                    > > opposed by the Holy See, which today would be opposed by the Holy See.
                                                    > >
                                                    >John Paul II is guided by the Holy Spirit and is a prophetic witness to
                                                    >the universal common good and the right for peoples to speak out against
                                                    >national selfish aims. He has all the bishops with him. This is the
                                                    >magisterium of the Church.

                                                    ...and there have been wars in church history which also had the sanction of
                                                    the Pope and all the bishops, that would not be supported by today's group.

                                                    > > >No, it is known by peaceful persons who believe in dialogue and the
                                                    > > >dignity of the human person. More will be accomplished by firm
                                                    > > >resolution and accountability and dialogue than by bombs and insults.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > "Firm resolution"? Iraq has already breached at least 2 "firm
                                                    > > resolutions."
                                                    > > But then again, Aristotle did say that it may take some more time than
                                                    > > others to abstract from particular instances. But I don't think he
                                                    > > meant 12 years.
                                                    >
                                                    >Never to late for peace.

                                                    ...as Chamberlain said.

                                                    Anthony Crifasi


                                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                                    Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
                                                    http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
                                                  • Scott Sullivan
                                                    ... good ... John ... I m unsure who posted this, but its so blatantly erroneous that it to comment on it probably gives it more credence than it deserves.
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Mar 10, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      > > >The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the common
                                                      good
                                                      > > >of the world is magisterially pronounced especially by Blessed
                                                      John
                                                      > > >XXIII and hence infalliable.

                                                      I'm unsure who posted this, but its so blatantly erroneous that it
                                                      to comment on it probably gives it more credence than it deserves.
                                                      Nowhere has a pope infallibly claimed ANYTHING about the UN. It is
                                                      simply false to say otherwise.


                                                      Scott














                                                      --- In aquinas@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi@h...>
                                                      wrote:
                                                      > James Miguez wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > > I assume this little comment does not reflect any opinion on
                                                      your part
                                                      > > > that
                                                      > > > Hussein was justified in invading Kuwait. Because if it does,
                                                      then you
                                                      > > > contradict your own appeal to Pope John Paul II, since he did
                                                      not
                                                      > > > oppose the first gulf war.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Are you kidding? It is well known in Catholic circles that John
                                                      Paul II
                                                      > >vigorously opposed the first Gulf War.
                                                      >
                                                      > Then my mistake, I *RETRACT* my erroneous statement (interesting
                                                      concept,
                                                      > retracting mistakes, eh James?). *But*, that war still had UN
                                                      sanction. So,
                                                      > was it an immoral war?
                                                      >
                                                      > > > the UN is bypassing the UN, by ignoring paragraph #4 of
                                                      > > > resolution
                                                      > > > 1441, according to which Iraq is in explicit material breach
                                                      of a UN
                                                      > > > resolution. By doing this, the UN has in effect neutered
                                                      itself as a
                                                      > > > viable governing body.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >UN has meet to access the situation.
                                                      >
                                                      > The Security Council is not even going to vote on whether
                                                      resolution 1441
                                                      > was breached at all (much less on military action), when according
                                                      to the
                                                      > specific criteria for a material breach listed in paragraph #4,
                                                      Iraq has
                                                      > failed on both counts, since (1) the inspectors have found weapons
                                                      that were
                                                      > supposed to be listed in the arms declaration last year, but were
                                                      not, and
                                                      > (2) the inspectors have already explicitly said that Iraq has not
                                                      given them
                                                      > FULL cooperation (exact words from paragraph #4). So according to
                                                      these
                                                      > explicit criteria from resolution 1441, James, do you agree that
                                                      Iraq is in
                                                      > material breach of a United Nations resolution? Yes or no.
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >The teaching of the authority of the UN to safeguard the
                                                      common good
                                                      > > > >of the world is magisterially pronounced especially by
                                                      Blessed John
                                                      > > > >XXIII and hence infalliable.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > Specific statement please, as well as proof of
                                                      its "magisterial" nature
                                                      > > > (specific church definition of "magisterial" and citation of
                                                      said
                                                      > > > definition please) and its infallible status.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >If you are to discuss just war theory from a Catholic perspective
                                                      I
                                                      > >assume you would know the relevant references.
                                                      >
                                                      > I do not know the reference you are referring to, so please humor
                                                      me.
                                                      >
                                                      > > > There have been many campaigns in the history of the Church
                                                      which were
                                                      > > > not
                                                      > > > opposed by the Holy See, which today would be opposed by the
                                                      Holy See.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >John Paul II is guided by the Holy Spirit and is a prophetic
                                                      witness to
                                                      > >the universal common good and the right for peoples to speak out
                                                      against
                                                      > >national selfish aims. He has all the bishops with him. This is
                                                      the
                                                      > >magisterium of the Church.
                                                      >
                                                      > ...and there have been wars in church history which also had the
                                                      sanction of
                                                      > the Pope and all the bishops, that would not be supported by
                                                      today's group.
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >No, it is known by peaceful persons who believe in dialogue
                                                      and the
                                                      > > > >dignity of the human person. More will be accomplished by firm
                                                      > > > >resolution and accountability and dialogue than by bombs and
                                                      insults.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > > "Firm resolution"? Iraq has already breached at least 2 "firm
                                                      > > > resolutions."
                                                      > > > But then again, Aristotle did say that it may take some more
                                                      time than
                                                      > > > others to abstract from particular instances. But I don't
                                                      think he
                                                      > > > meant 12 years.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Never to late for peace.
                                                      >
                                                      > ...as Chamberlain said.
                                                      >
                                                      > Anthony Crifasi
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > _________________________________________________________________
                                                      > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
                                                      > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
                                                    • davidhempstead
                                                      I must admit that I had not read United Nations resolution 1441 until this whole discussion began on this group, and it will forever stand out in my mind as
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Mar 10, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        I must admit that I had not read United Nations resolution 1441 until
                                                        this whole discussion began on this group, and it will forever stand
                                                        out in my mind as proof of why one should always refer to an original
                                                        document instead of relying on media coverage. Before this
                                                        discussion, I had thought that in order for Iraq to breach resolution
                                                        1441, the weapons inspectors would have had to actually find weapons
                                                        of mass destruction. Then I went to the link that Anthony posted
                                                        (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) and read the section numbered
                                                        4. Sure enough, two very clear triggers for material breach are laid
                                                        out in perfectly lucid language. Iraq does not have to actually be
                                                        caught red handed with such weapons, because the language very
                                                        clearly states that there is a material breach if "Iraq at any time"
                                                        fails to "cooperate fully," which are the words Anthony has repeated
                                                        again and again to James, and which James has refused to address
                                                        again and again. Not even the most radical protestors are willing to
                                                        claim that Iraq has given its full cooperation to the weapons
                                                        inspectors. On this alone, there has already been material breach by
                                                        Iraq. The same section then outlines yet another way that there can
                                                        be a material breach: "false statements or omissions in the
                                                        declarations submitted by Iraq". As Anthony has repeatedly pointed
                                                        out (and James has once again repeatedly refused to address), the
                                                        weapons inspectors have already affirmed that they have discovered
                                                        certain things that should have been declared by Iraq, but which were
                                                        not included in their declaration.

                                                        I have seen Anthony at least 3 times post a request to James to
                                                        answer whether by the rules laid out in section 4, there has been a
                                                        material breach of resolution 1441 by Iraq. I have yet to see James
                                                        answer this question. I am beginning to think that James will respond
                                                        only if Anthony posts the question in French.

                                                        David
                                                      • Jim Newland
                                                        ... Obviously, what is needed is more dialogue.
                                                        Message 27 of 27 , Mar 10, 2003
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          > I have seen Anthony at least 3 times post a request to James to
                                                          > answer whether by the rules laid out in section 4, there has been a
                                                          > material breach of resolution 1441 by Iraq. I have yet to see James
                                                          > answer this question. I am beginning to think that James will respond
                                                          > only if Anthony posts the question in French.

                                                          Obviously, what is needed is more dialogue.
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.