Dear Intent community.
I think the Nobel prize speech of President Obama needs to be more thoroughly analyzed and I would like to hear your voices on this.
I have also put a question to Deepak Chopra as originator of the yow of Non-Violence if he thinks a President of the United States could at all take the vow and under which conditions or if he would consider this irresponsible.
I think we need to change our current paradigm. I would love to hera from you and it would be good to come up with a list of workable solutions to avoid the application of military force – even in the case of Afghanisthan, Al-Quaeda, Bin Ladens etc..
Here a few thoughtful contributions to the "just war" doctrine I found:
President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace yesterday in Oslo, justifying his escalation of the Afghanistan War by citing just war doctrine. What are the requirements for a war to be deemed just? And does the Afghanistan War fit these criteria? Andrew E. …
WMD were not vital for war says ex-PM ahead of appearance at Chilcot inquiry
Dennis Kucinich commented on the "Just War" remark:
So did Ron Paul more emphatically criticizing the Christian bias – akin to Bush’s "crusade" remark re Iraq. See his interview with Alex Jones yesterday;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHcs3ebCLAU part 1 9mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTeH8hjLo9s part 2 9 mins
The concept of "just war" – that wars can be considered "just" only if they meet certain criteria – is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s part of what the official Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about a just war:
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
I am totally tired right now and therefore this blog contributions give an a little incoherent impression – but I think we cannot let Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech remain uncommented.
Looking forward to hearing from you!