|
|
April 10, 2003
Archbishop Carroll on the War's Success
Archbishop Carroll proves why moral leaders could largely ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of Saddam Hussein - it wasn't about Iraq at all: Australian Catholic Bishops Conference president Archbishop Francis Carroll has said the apparent "successful" outcome of the war does not alter the Bishops' doubts about its morality. The Canberra-Goulburn Archbishop said: "If the 'success' of this war leads to a greater acceptance of war as something more than a 'last resort' in resolving conflicts or removing unjust regimes, then it is a move in a very dangerous direction."Posted By Steven Kruczek at April 10, 2003 07:10 PM | TrackBack Comments
"If the 'success' of this war leads to a greater acceptance of war as something more than a 'last resort' ..." So, apparently war is acceptable if it's a 'last resort.' Of course, he does not explain what qualifies as a 'last resort.' So, since the last 12 years of resolutions, inspections, and economic embargoes have not worked in disarming Saddam, leaving us with the feeling that this was a war of last resort, then was this war not justified? Posted by: Joe D. at April 10, 2003 07:31 PMI agree that war should be a last resort, but I do think that is what happened. When either side doesn't just stop cooperating with meseures supported by it best friends but in truth never starts cooperating, the only other choice is to proclaim them victorious - which in this case would be immoral as well as dangerous. Ditto on both of the previous comments. War is a last resort, and it was in this case as well. There is no case to be made, in my mind, that more time for ineffective inspections was going to accomplish anything. Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at April 10, 2003 08:43 PMSorry to be simplistic, but the guy's a moral midgit. Aren't logic and ethics required course in the seminary? Posted by: DSmith at April 10, 2003 09:57 PMapparently not. Posted by: rumcrook at April 10, 2003 11:03 PMAs someone who thought more diplomatic work was possible, but botched on all sides, and who supported military action when it became inevitable, I must admit that comments like this annoy me. The article seems to indicate that the archbishop had nothing to say about the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam's Stalinesque boot. But then, he's a sodding priest, with his own authoritarian agenda, isn't he? Posted by: General Patton, in France at April 11, 2003 12:25 AMYou'd think they'd be the first to recognize evil. Posted by: brule at April 11, 2003 10:27 PMPost a comment
|