[marshmallow]

I've noted the situation in Iraq before the invasion and I also note the conditions now. Could we really say things have changed for the better? They look immeasurably worse, to me. As far as the future goes, if the Islamic radicals ever assume power in Iraq, it will make Saddam's time seem like "the good old days".

The Catechism says this:

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

That's a very high standard. Note the wording. It does not say "possible", "probable" or even "highly likely.". It says certain.

2) - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;.

Were they? Or did we simply tire of Saddam playing games with UN inspectors and decide to eliminate him?

3)- there must be serious prospects of success;

OK, fair enough. We truly thought we could turn Iraq into a model Middle Eastern democracy.

(4)- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

This is where it really falls apart, in my opinion. The "evils and disorders" which an Islamic, sectarian, destabilized Iraq will present, surpass Hussein's secular dictatorship, I believe. Not to mention the American lives lost. And for the Christians, in Iraq, life is now infinitely worse. Most have left Baghdad and are sheltering in enclaves for protection.

Being one's "brother's keeper" is not synonymous with the application of overwhelming military force and the declaration of war.

[Miss Marple]

I don't think one can KNOW what "evils and disorders" will come from a war. Plus, we are not finished yet. In 10 years, what if there is a lasting peace in the Middle East, Iran gets rid of the nut case, and a solutioin is found for the Palestinian problem because there is no one to fund Hammas? Is it then a just war, according to the catechism?

We did not go into Iraq for glory, or for conquest, or for monetary gain. We went in to stop someone from acquiring nuclear weapons, at which point he would have been able to threaten a large portion of the Middle East (including Israel) and also a fair chunk of Europe. We also went in to depose a man who was torturing and murdering his population.

Right now Iran is ramping up to get nuclear weapons. Is your position that we should WAIT until they have a nuclear weapon and USE IT?