The Drift to War - by Rev John Mardsden

[ITW [the irish boy]]

I suggest before analysing the proposed war with Iraq, all members of the board have a read of this letter to the editor of the Irish Times yesterday. At the start, it is a bit heavy to read but it gets easier. Please read it coz it'll take me ages to type it....

Madam,
The circumstances in which war might be considered morally justified have within Christendom been decided by applying the arguments advanced in what is known as the "Just War" tradition or theory, which can be traced back to Augustine and underwent substantial refinement and development by the Canonists during the medieval period. The classic expression of "Just War" theory is found in Thomas Aquinas and still forms the basis of current thinking.
Under the heading of the right to make war (jus ad bellum), the theory begins with a consideration of the circumstances  where recourse to war is justified, and offers several criteria: there must be a just cause; war must be sanctioned by legitimate authority; there must exist a right intention; the good to be achieved must outweigh the harm done ( the proportionality principle); war must only be undertaken as a last resort.
The "Just War" tradition also makes provision, under the heading jus in bello, for restraint in the conflict of war. Here it offeres the criteria of discrimination and proportionality, which are usually understood as involving non-combatant immunity and restrictions on the type of weapons used.
In the current debate over conflict with Iraq, it is difficult to see how even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, war against a potential aggressor could be considered to constitute a just cause. Such a notion would justify war with North Korea, China, between India and Pakistan, and goodness knows how many future wars.
In terms of the good to be weighed against the harm done (proportionality), it must be borne in mind that if the Iraqi military remain loyal a war would risk regional instability and store up yet more of the kind of resentment that has fuelled international terrorism. Moreover, the likely consequences of such a war fought in a largely urban setting would be massive civilian casualties, which would also fail the test of "discrimination" and "proportionality" in the conduct of war.
On the question of "right intention", when the biggest oil consumer seeks yet more influence among the biggest oil producers, economic interests are clearly involved and it is difficult to deny that the motive for war is in part economic.
With regard to the criterion of "last resort" this test fails too, since there are alternatives to war with Iraq. First, a policy of containment, whereby it is the use of weapons of mass destruction that would warrant action. Second, a policy to develop the juristiction of international law to bring Saddam Hussein to justice for his crimes against humanity.
It is regrettable that the Irish government has not done more to oppose war with Iraq, not least through it's stay in the Security Council of the United Nations. It would seem that although we are still ostensibly a Christian country, concern about US investment in Ireland has resulted in a disinclination to apply Christian principles to Mr. Bush's foolhardy and dangerous policy. This indifference is lamentable and must not go unchallenged.
Yours,etc,
Rev. JOHN MARDSDEN
Co.Kildare,
Ireland

Wow, my fingers are sore now. I hope you enjoy reading it and understand the points made. I think we could all learn a bit from it.

ITW

[Jay ay Beee]

I don't understand this Iraq crisis

The weapons inspectors have found fuck all

So where's the war?

Good letter

[Don Seer]

So where's the war?

america wants to fight saddam so they have a stronghold in the middle east. then they will attack north korea. then they will attack iran. and then will be in a position to attack europe and china to take over the world.

[Woodrow]

So where's the war?

america wants to fight saddam so they have a stronghold in the middle east. then they will attack north korea. then they will attack iran. and then will be in a position to attack europe and china to take over the world.

Lol... This isn't Risk...


*America moves 12 units to the border of Iraq*

[Jay ay Beee]

Ok Engel, tell me, if there have been no weapons found, why are America gonna fight?

Answer the question because you specialise in dodging them

[Woodrow]

Ok Engel, tell me, if there have been no weapons found, why are America gonna fight?

Answer the question because you specialise in dodging them

I dodge questions? Show me.

While you are at it, please show me where President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld has said that we are going to war

[Jay ay Beee]

I dodge questions? Show me.

While you are at it, please show me where President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld has said that we are going to war

[Woodrow]

Perhpas you don't understand...

You said:

"Ok Engel, tell me, if there have been no weapons found, why are America gonna fight?"

The thing is, we aren't going to fight unless we have to. If you show me where Bush or Rumsfeld said that "there is no question, we are going fight iraq" then I'll answer your question.

Thats like saying, tell me why Tony Blair hates cottage cheese... He probably dosen't but thats just what Im assuming, so argue aginst that assumption...

I deal in facts. When you show me some, I'll answer you.

[Jay ay Beee]

Ok, do you believe that if war on Iraq was declared without any evidence from the inspectors of the presence of WMD, it would be justified?

Yes or No

[Woodrow]

Thanks for the negative karma  

If when Jan 27th comes around and the inspectors find no evidence of WMD, then I will re-evaluate my opinion.


If this happens, and this turns out to be false, the how would you feel?