1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The "Unjust War" Claims Debunked

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Bible-boy, Oct 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Statements from Religious Leaders about Iraq
    http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2836

    Catholic
    We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military force. US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Letter to President Bush, Sept. 13, 2002

    Episcopalian
    The question for us now must be: what is our role in the community of nations? I believe we have the capacity within us to help lead our world into the way of justness and peace. The freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States oblige us to attend not only to our own welfare, but to the well-being of the world around us. A superpower, especially one that declares itself to be "under God," must exercise the role of super servant. Our nation has an opportunity to reflect the values and ideals that we espouse by focusing upon issues of poverty, disease and despair, not only within our own nation but throughout the global community of which we are a part. The Presiding Bishop's statement on military action against Iraq, September 6, 2002

    Jewish
    International cooperation is far, far better than unilateral action, and the U.S. must explore all reasonable means of attaining such support. Non-military action is always preferable to military action, and the U.S. must fully explore all options to resolve the situation through such means. If the effort to obtain international cooperation and support through the United Nations fails, the U.S. must work with other nations to obtain cooperation in any military action. Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Executive Committee Decision on Unilateral Action by the U.S. Against Iraq

    Lutheran
    While we are fully aware of the potential threat posed by the government of Iraq and its leader, I believe it is wrong for the United States to seek to over-throw the regime of Saddam Hussein with military action. Morally, I oppose it because I know a war with Iraq will have great consequences for the people of Iraq, who have already suffered through years of war and economic sanctions. Further, I believe it is detrimental to U.S. interests to take unilateral military action when there is strong international support for weapons inspections, and when most other governments oppose military action. I also believe that U.S. military action at this time will further destabilize the region. I call upon members of our congregations to be fervent in prayer, engaged in conversation with one another and with our leaders. In the final analysis, we must stand unequivocally for peace. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson's Statement on Iraq Situation, August 30, 2002

    Mennonite
    To speak against war and invasion is to hold up a conviction that, in light of all uncertainties, peace and security are enlarged when authorities choose the path of non-violent diplomacy. The concerns noted above convince us that this is both a moral and a practical path. Our call is also a statement of belief that God wills the path of peace and will work alongside those who have the courage to take risks for peace. Statement of the Mennonite Central Committee, April 20, 2002

    Methodist
    United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice- President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, August 30, 2002

    Presbyterian
    We urge Presbyterians to oppose a precipitate U.S. attack on Iraq and the Bush administration’s new doctrine of pre-emptive military action. We call upon President George W. Bush and other leaders to: Refrain from language that seems to label certain individuals and nations as ‘evil’ and others as ‘good’; Oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping, Guard against a unilateralism, rooted in our unique position of political, economic and military power, that perpetuates the perception that ‘might makes right’; Allow United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq, without undue pressure or threats of pre-emptive, unilateral action; and End the economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been ineffectual but have done untold damage to the Iraqi people. The General Assembly Council and the staff leadership team of the Presbyterian Church (USA), September 28, 2002

    Quaker (Society of Friends)
    We call upon Friends to witness and work to prevent this war, to reverse this new military doctrine, to call upon our governments to implement multilateral, diplomatic responses to the threats posed by the government of Iraq, and to continue developing positive, nonviolent approaches to resolving international conflicts. We know that there are millions of people of good will with whom we can join in this work. Joint Statement in Response to Threat of War with Iraq from the General and Executive Secretaries of Five Quaker Organizations, September 24, 2002


    Unitarian Universalist
    We will not all stand in the same place on this issue. But we can all stand in the same faith. Above all, that is my hope. In these troubling days and all those that lie ahead, my deepest prayer is that we stand in this faith with Universalist Olympia Brown, who wrote, over one hundred years ago, “Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children of God, and must share the wealth of the world. You may say this is impracticable, far away, can never be accomplished, but it is the work we are appointed to do. Responding to the Threat of War: A Pastoral Letter from the Rev. William G. Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association, September 20, 2002

    United Church of Christ
    With heavy hearts we hear once again the drumbeat of war against Iraq. As leaders committed to God’s reign of justice and peace in the world and to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this advance to war. While Iraq’s weapons potential is uncertain, the death that would be inflicted on all sides in a war is certain. Striking against Iraq now will not serve to prevent terrorism or defend our nation’s interests. We fear that war would only provoke greater regional instability and lead to the mass destruction it is intended to prevent. UCC leaders, September 13, 2002

    Ecumenical
    As Christians, we are concerned by the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for civilians. We are unconvinced that the gain for humanity would be proportionate to the loss. Neither are we convinced that it has been publicly demonstrated that all reasonable alternative means of containing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted. We call upon our governments to pursue these diplomatic means in active cooperation with the United Nations and to stop the apparent rush to war. World Council of Churches, August 30, 2002

    We are compelled by the prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution to our governments and our people. We represent a diversity of Christian communities - from the just war traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of these communities in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is our considered judgment that a preemptive war against Iraq, particularly in the current situation, would not be justified. Statement from Religious Leaders, October 11, 2002
     
    #61 JustChristian, Oct 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2008
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    no doubt those are all liberal
     
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    To you they are since you claim that ALL other Christian denominations are liberal except Southern Baptist. Just what does "liberal" mean to you anyway?
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I did not say all other denominations are liberal. Liberals hold a low view of scripture, they hold personal experience equal to or greater than scripture. They deny scriptural context so they may justify a number of sins, and tend to allegorize historical biblical events. They distort the gospel to include social justice. Libs are all about making man happy over glorifying God.
     
    #64 Revmitchell, Oct 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2008
  5. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    You did call all other denominations liberal. If you are trying to take that back then you have to agree that most Christians in the US did not support the war in Iraq. You can't have it both ways given the public statemnets I've posted.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No I didn't. No I am not. And no I don't. No one is trying to have it both ways.
     
  7. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hey RevM,

    Who says that the people who produced those statements actually speak for every Christian that belongs to each of those particular denominations? Making such a claim would akin to saying that every member of the US Congress agrees with everything Nancy Pelosi says in her role as Speaker of the House. Likewise, this "appeal to the masses" has already been demonstrated to be a Formal Fallacy thereby invalidating the entire line of argumentation. Who says a "majority" is always correct in what they say, believe, or do?:tonofbricks:
     
    #67 Bible-boy, Oct 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2008
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    What denominations are liberal and which ones are not?
     
  9. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mennonites and Quakers are both staunch Christian Pacifists so of course they are going to take a no war position. This is fine because those who hold to a Just Warrior belief need Christian Pacifists to keep them from becoming "Crusaders," just as much as Christian Pacifists need the Just Warriors to protect and defend their right to be pacifists in the first place.

    Presbyterian USA is the liberal branch of Presbyterianism in the America. What did the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) have to say on the issue?

    The majority of the national leadership of the Episcopalian Church in America has gone liberal. They have approved women being ordained to the Pastorate; endorse homosexual marriage, and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to the pastorate. That is why a conservative group of Episcopalians in Virginia have proposed to break away from the rest of the communion and follow an Episcopalian (Anglican) Conservative Bishop from Nigeria (they may have already done so).

    Most Lutheran Churches in America with the exception of the Missouri Synod (I think) have gone liberal in their Theology.

    The majority of the leadership in the United Methodist Church also has gone liberal and embraces the same misguided and un-biblical positions held by the liberal Episcopalians.

    Who knows what to say about the RCC they can make up doctrine as they go along and pronounce it to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Bible.

    The Jewish community has its own groups of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. So you are likely to find whatever position you would like among them depending on which group you quote.

    Every mainline Protestant Denomination in America has gone liberal (with the exception of IFBs and the majority of SBCs. But don't take my word for it read The Churching of America 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark.

    However, all this discussion of who is liberal and who is not is way off topic and diverting the discussion of the Just War criteria as it applies to the War in Iraq. So if you all want to continue this who is liberal and who is not please start a new thread on that topic in a more appropriate forum.
     
    #69 Bible-boy, Oct 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2008
  10. Analgesic

    Analgesic New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the strength of my objections vary (for example, #4 is one that I find most closely "ridiculous"). Also, I think it's important to note that all the conditions must be fully and mutually met.

    1. I interpret much of your point here as better falling under #2 where you repeat them, so I'll leave them aside and simply state that Bush certainly did have the constitutionally-mandated congressional approval, meaning the hostilities were engaged with legitimate domestic authority.

    2. You give two reasons. The first is the 1991 agreement, which was, in fact, signed between Iraq and a UN Coalition, not the United States. As such, any punitive actions resulting from Iraq failing to live up to said agreement must be explicitly carried out by the UN. Such authorization never came, thus there is no authority granted to the US by virtue of the 1991 agreement.

    Secondly, I question the "moral responsibility" argument, but I'll largely leave that aside since it's another other discussion. Let me simply say that I don't believe nation-states have moral responsibilities or that they're to be endowed as executors of personal moral responsibilities. Further, I call you to remember the rationale given for the war at the time: WMDs was big, Saddam being mean wasn't. It was only when it became increasingly apparent that no one was discovering WMDs that that "eliminate Saddam and spread democracy" rhetoric took center stage. Incidentally, if the criteria is one of moral responsibility, there's a much stronger case to be made for nations other than Iraq topping the list (eg. North Korea).

    3. Trying to restore peace through war is an extremely nebulous concept. What conditions are considered "peace"? Would the United States be content with a domestically peaceful Iraq which was hostile to America? Regardless, to repeat, the removal of Saddam and imposition of democracy were never initially the primary justifications given for the war.

    4. This is where things get really silly. A last resort? Bombing Hiroshima wasn't even a "last resort", so I'm not sure how the invasion of Iraq could even be remotely considered to be.

    5. You've misstated the proportionality argument, instead explaining proportionality in the context of Jus in bello. For Jus ad bellum, proportionality dictates that the demonstrable benefits of the war must outweigh any harm which might come about through it.

    6. "Success" means more than simply a "mission accomplished" banner. One must also have a reasonable chance of success in legitimately restoring ultimate peace (#3) and minimizing negative effects (#7). Neither of these projects are even close to being reasonably assured, and neither of them were given due consideration during the planning or execution of the initial invasion.

    7. Let me emphasize the word "minimizing". Not "staying to help". Not "training Iraqis". "Minimizing" is an extreme value which carries a degree of responsibility much, much greater.
     
  11. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree the proper authority was sought and obtained. Richard Land also agrees:


    This is simply not true. The original Cease Fire Agreement was signed between top US Military Commanders and Iraqi officials. Then one month to the day later Iraq signed a similar document with the officials from the UN. However, the second document does not negate the obligations of the parties who signed the original Cease Fire Agreement. Your point would be correct if you can produce some document between the US and the UN whereby the US signed away it rights and responsibilities, with respect to original 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq, to the UN.



    I already acknowledged that both Colin Powell and President Bush, in the days leading up to the return to hostilities in Iraq, wrongly began to push the WMD idea so strongly that they appeared to overshadow the stronger case regarding the violation of the original 1991 Cease Fire Agreement. I don’t know about other groups that were discussing this issue at the time. However, clearly the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement violations were at the forefront of SBC Ethicists minds even in late February 2003.
    The N. Korean situation (then and now) is much more complicated than a simple assessment of “who is worse: Iraq or N. Korean.” Engaging in Hostilities with N. Korea surely would result in a WW III with Red China, likely Russia, and Cuba coming to their aid.



    Sorry, but in SBC ethical circles we were discussing regime change early in the debates and again as late as February 27, 2003.


    Based on the fact that Iraq had broken the terms of the original 1991 Cease Fire Agreement, the great amount of elapsed time during which Iraq snubbed its nose at calls for compliance, that Iraq had not been open and honest regarding the status of its WMD program, that Iraq had refused UN inspections, and that the US had exhausted its attempts to urge the UN to take a strong proactive stance, Dr. Heimbach made it clear that




    Okay, so how many Iraqi civilians were gassed, wrongfully imprisoned, raped, and murdered under Saddam’s regime? How many more would these things still be happening to today if we had not taken action to remove Saddam from power? Would be worse to allow these things to go on unchecked or to engage in a war against those committing these evil acts while making sure to have the stated goal to protect the innocent?



    I think you are incorrect when you say that neither of these goals is “even close to being reasonably assured, and neither of them were given due consideration during the planning and execution of the initial invasion.” Our military has very strict rules of engagement that minimize negative effects, we use highly accurate smart bombs to hit very specific targets and limit collateral damage. We do not wage war on innocent civilians. One of the stated goals was regime change and the establishment of a free and democratic Iraqi government. This by default means restoring ultimate peace and is why we have kept a strong military force in the country helping to restore peace while training the Iraqi police and defense forces. Do you have some documented evidence to back your claims to the contrary here? If so please provide evidence and sources.



    Please define your point here.
     
    #71 Bible-boy, Oct 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2008
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    The larger issue is that we are already in Iraq. The question of a just or unjust war, or a war because something is a threat to the United States, should be decided before the war starts. It is really a mute point in the case of Iraq. We are there, and have to go forward to solve the problem, and the solution is not an immediate withdrawal.
     
  13. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    In other words, two wrongs make a right.
     
  14. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, that is a wrong anaolgy. It means we should stop and think of the consequences of each action carefully with lives involved. It takes good, solid leadership.

    What in essence you are saying is, since invading Iraq was given very little thought in regard to long term consequences, and at times poor leadership, lets do it again. In other words, two mistakes are better than one?

    Our number one priority is to protect American lives. Number two is to finish the job swifty with good leadership. The lesson to be learned is to stop and think before it happens the next time.
     
  15. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1


    Correct, and in order to make a statement like "Two wrongs make a right" with respect to the War in Iraq one would first have to conclusively prove that the first "wrong" did indeed actually occur. Hence the point of this thread, and thus far no "wrong" or "error" or anything "unjust" has been proven and substantiated by the sole authority of the Scripture as it relates to biblical Just War criteria.

    Correct, and the first premise has not been established to be valid.


    Correct, with respect to how the War in Iraq was handled during the time between the initial ground war (including the clean up of Saddam's loyalists) to the success of the military surge against the insurgent terrorists ought to be critiqued and lessons ought to be learned. However, mistakes made during that time period do not somehow make the entire War in Iraq somehow "Unjust."
     
  16. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    Some times it's necessary to just cut your losses and leave like we did in Viet Nam. Should we have stayed longer in Viet Nam to get everything right? If we hadn't made enemies out of most of the world and the UN we could have gracefully withdrawn and let somebody else pick up the load.
     
  17. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    And the fallacious and erroneous thinking continues to abound. Before you can make such a claim you first must establish it as fact that Vietnam and Iraq are legitimate comparisons (hint they are not).

    Had war in Vietnam been mismanaged going all the way back to the French-Indochina War? Given that the US had lost nearly 58,000 troops in Vietnam and was not in control of the majority of the country how much more would that war have cost in terms of human lives if we had "stayed and got everything right"? Is Iraq in that same condition today, or is it mostly under the control of the Iraqi government with US aid?

    Finally, regarding the UN it would be impossible to do as you suggest because the UN already demonstrated that it was unwilling to go any further to ensure compliance with the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement and WMD inspections than it had as of March 2003. The UN would not be in Iraq for us to be able to hand the ball off to them. You've set up a strawman with this line are argumentation.
     
  18. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hint: You have the right to your "opinion" and I have the right to mine.
     
  19. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep, and I have the right to expose the errors in your logic and the fallacies you so readily fall into so that hopefully others who read this thread will not blindly follow you into the same error.

    Now please stop trying to divert the discussion of Just War Criteria as it applies to the War in Iraq by hijacking this thread and driving it off topic.
     
  20. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm not driving it off topic. I was responding to you. You're driving it off topic. In addition, I'm not in error you are by blindly supporting the policies of a failed Bush presidency.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...