Explaining the Vatican’s surprising pro-US line on Iraq


#1

ROME – For anyone familiar with the Vatican’s recent history of bitter opposition to any US use of military force in the Middle East, Rome’s increasingly vocal support for the recent American airstrikes in Iraq may seem, to say the least, a little disorienting.

On Monday, the Vatican’s previously tacit approval for the American intervention turned explicit, as two senior officials offered what amounts to a blessing through official communications channels.

Archbishop Giorgio Lingua, the pope’s ambassador to Baghdad, told Vatican radio that the American strikes are “something that had to be done, otherwise [the Islamic State forces] could not be stopped.”

Lingua spoke plaintively of the ordeals faced by an estimated 100,000 Christian refugees from northern Iraq – many of whom, he said, are children – to account for his view of the American campaign.

“You can see these kids sleeping on the streets,” Lingua said, adding, “[there is so much] suffering.”

In a similar vein, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s envoy to the United Nations in Geneva, told Vatican Radio that “military action in this moment is probably necessary.”

bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/08/11/explaining-vatican-surprising-pro-line-iraq/gPwU2wDzk94t2Orvr5gmsK/story.html?event=event25


#2

It’s fairly simple really. The Vatican is seeing how much suffering and killing is being done to Christians, thus, they support US military intervention.


#3

It fits into the just war doctrine, unlike the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Jim


#4

Why is this a just war but Iraq wasn’t?


#5

Because Iraq was contained and not committing genocide.

Iraq was not a threat to the US and the UN had voted against Bush’s proposal to invade.

ISIS is committing mass murder and will be a threat to the world should they form their new Islamic State.

Heck, even Al Qaeda has disbanded from ISIS because of their cruelty.

Jim


#6

Please stay with the present day


#7

Because ISIS is cutting the heads off of toddlers!!!

True evil cannot be ignored.

catholic.org/


#8

That doesn’t answer my question.


#9

Who cares what the UN thinks? They have no authority over sovereign nations. Furthermore, they are very anti-American.

Iraq was a threat and had WMD’s.

So you would be okay with the US invading Iraq this time?


#10

While I can’t be too critical of airstrikes against ISIL and aid drops to refugees, I remain extremely suspicious of any action by the US government. There are just too many stories linking the US and it’s good allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to the rise of ISIL. We’re suppose to believe a thorough vetting process was carried out on recruits in Jordan and Turkey before weapons were handed out and training was administered, and then we have Hillary Clinton’s comments that sent the Lebanese foreign envoy to the US embassy to ask if the US created ISIL or not.


#11

I didn’t way the first war wasn’t just.

However, in hindsight, it can be argued that it was unjust. Iraq didn’t attack us. President Bush thought he was doing the right thing because he was being told Iraq had WFDs but he was also emotional because Saddam tried to kill his dad (President G.H.W. Bush). If someone tried to kill my dad, I might be a little emotional too.

The people who wanted to invade Iraq played to G.W. Bush’s emotions on this situation and told him what he needed to hear in order to invade.

Iraq wasn’t an interment threat like Al Qaeda, and less of threat when compared to other nations like Iran & North Korea.


#12

Hindsight? Hindsight is irrelevant seeing as the decision to go to war is made before the war starts, not after, with the information you have before, not after.

There’s a lot of things the Catholic Church did that, in hindsight, could be considered unjust.


#13

No Iraq didn’t have WMD’s and Bush even admitted they didn’t.

Even if they did, they were not a threat to the us or anyone else.

Also, other nations do have WMD’s, like Syria, but we’re not attacking them.

The entire invasion of Iraq was pushed by the members of the Carlylel Group, headed by VP Cheney, which had written then President Clinton, demanding that he take down Saddam Hussein.

The invasion of Iraq brought strong criticism from Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger.

It also brought criticism from Middle East experts who predicted that our invasion would create a civil uprising of sectarian violence like we’ve been seeing ever since and is now at its worse.

Jim


#14

You know that for sure? Beyond a shadow of a doubt you are absolutely sure that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s? That they weren’t moved?

It doesn’t matter what intelligence you gather after the war. You go to war with the intelligence you have at the moment. And that intelligence said WMD in Iraq. The war was supported by both parties based on the intelligence at the time.

Even if they did, they were not a threat to the us or anyone else.

Of course they were.

Also, other nations do have WMD’s, like Syria, but we’re not attacking them.

And why aren’t we? Is it because we have a weak Commander-in-Chief? Those WMD’s in Syria probably came from Iraq, many think so.

The entire invasion of Iraq was pushed by the members of the Carlylel Group, headed by VP Cheney, which had written then President Clinton, demanding that he take down Saddam Hussein.

Source?

The invasion of Iraq brought strong criticism from Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger.

Before, during, or after?

It also brought criticism from Middle East experts who predicted that our invasion would create a civil uprising of sectarian violence like we’ve been seeing ever since and is now at its worse.

Jim

It wouldn’t have if we had stayed in Iraq.


#15

True. But let me be clear. I never said it was unjust. Someone else did.

I personally, wasn’t really in favor of it, but I supported it. I wasn’t in favor because I wanted us to focus on Al Qaeda. However, I never considered it unjust.

All I’m saying is that I can understand why one might argue that it is, and that in hindsight we understand more of what took place.


#16

Okay. My apologies.


#17

freeRadical

You know that for sure? Beyond a shadow of a doubt you are absolutely sure that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s? That they weren’t moved?

The just war doctrine doesn’t allow for hunches. Saddam didn’t have Nuclear Weapons which was the real WMD issue Bush and Cheney try to sell to the world.

Never gas, most of the nations have them, even Syria and Iran, but we would be wrong to invade them based on that premiss.

It doesn’t matter what intelligence you gather after the war. You go to war with the intelligence you have at the moment. And that intelligence said WMD in Iraq. The war was supported by both parties based on the intelligence at the time.

Cheney used his “1% Doctrine.” The 1% doctrine fails the Just War Theory.

And why aren’t we? Is it because we have a weak Commander-in-Chief? Those WMD’s in Syria probably came from Iraq, many think so.

Syria had their own WMD’s before. But even so, it was know that Saddam could move nerve gas out of the country before we’d get there anyway.

Here White House Admits WMD Error

But again, it wasn’t nerve gas we were after, but their nuclear capability which is what the UN inspectors were looking for, but found none.

Remember, Assad is Shiite, Saddam was Bathist and opposed to a Shiite government, like Iran has and Iraq has now.

Jim


#18

My feelings exactly. In addition, we should stop funding the UN.


#19

So you are absolutely confidant that Saddam did not have WMD’s? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? That he didn’t move them? And you knew this before we invaded?

You go to war with the information that you have at that moment. It easy to say, in hindsight, that something is just or unjust.


#20

I think we should kick the UN off US soil but not before they pay all those unpaid parking tickets they have.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.