From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 02:52:17 BST
Erin said:
A group of conservative christians sent a letter to Bush
with criteria for a just war. they were obviously
in support for the war.
DMB:
Here's just two cents worth and I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the
MOQ...
This really makes my brain hurt. As far as I can tell, based on this
criteria the war on Iraq is pretty clearly unjustifed. 1) Iraq has not
attacked the USA, Bush just thinks he will in the future. 2) The intent is
to oust Saddam, which is illegal according to international law. 3)Disarming
Iraq through the UN is still a real possiblity, so the we've not yet arrived
at the last resort. 4)The US congress has given him authorization, but it
seems a little less than sincere considering the proximity of election day
and the UN's Security Council hasn't yet authorized it at all. 5)The goal in
Iraq is limited, but its part of a larger, apparently endless war on
terrorism, which is whatever Bush says it is. 6)We've all heard about the
great number of civilians that have suffered and died because of the
sanctions we've already imposed on Iraq. (Not to mention the cancer, lukemia
and birth defects caused by depleted uranium slugs sprayed all over the
country in the last war.) But on this point, to be fair, I don't think
killing civilians there is or was ever the goal. 7) Bush keeps saying that
it'll cost less than doing nothing, but that's only if his dire predictions
come true. The war would be worth it if it really did prevent a massive
attack on the US, but considering the deterant effect of our thousands of
Nuclear armed ICBMs, that's seems like a pretty remote posssiblity. I'm
baffled at how the christian letter writers can think this criteria is met?
That's what makes my brain hurt.
1)In just war theory only defensive war is defensible
2)Second, just war must have just intent.
3)Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort.
4)Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority.
5)Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force must
have a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, "total war" is
unacceptable and the war's goals must be achievable.
6)Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity.( will not target
civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties)
0
7)Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be
addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be
proportionate to the stated objectives and goals? Does the good gained by
resort to armed conflict justify the cost of lives lost and bodies maimed?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:57 GMT