from: Ihs Press
Regular marked price: $16.95Discount Price: $15.25
Cost Savings: $1.70 (10%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 956.704431
EAN num: 9781932528060
ISBN number: 1932528067
Label: Ihs Press
Manufacturer: Ihs Press
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 447
Printing Date: October 28, 2006
Publishing house: Ihs Press
Sale Popularity Level: 769299
Studio: Ihs Press
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
Refuting the myth that America's socially conservative thinkers, journalists, and commentators tend to support the war in Iraq, this text incorporates the opinions of some of the leading figures in America's conservative movement on why the decision to go to war and the continuing occupation of Iraq was and is the wrong course of action. Twenty-five articles by influential thinkers such as former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan; syndicated columnists Sam Francis, Eric Margolis, Charley Reese, and Joseph Sobran; leading economist Jude Wanniski; social critics Tom Fleming and Paul Gottfried; and religious figures Bishop John Michael Botean and the late Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani make the case against the Iraqi conflict using conservative arguments on geopolitics, Christian morality, and common sense. Four detailed appendices on the war teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are also provided.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
Congressman Ron Paul stated in one of the early 2008 presidential debates that the most serious moral crisis facing America was the recent adoption by the Bush administration and the Congress of the evil doctrine of preemptive war and the abandonment of the centuries old Christian doctrine of Just War.
Read this excellent book to find out the reasons why this is such an important moral issue.
Rated by buyers 
-
Is the war in Iraq a great idea? Oh, probably not. But these folks are hardly the ones to preach to us about it! Instead of seeing reasons why we ought to have handled Saddam Hussein's Iraq in some other way, we see outright apologies for Saddam Hussein's behavior! We're told that the case against him is bogus!
I'm against war. I think war is destructive and hurts everyone. And most folks who are against war get some sympathy from me. But not always! In 1945, when the German National Socialists were on the verge of defeat, the Allies could have simply quit fighting, claiming that they were ending the war early. Instead, they continued until they got an unconditional surrender. I think it was wise to do that, and in the long run, such a policy was of significant benefit to quite a few people.
Whenever there is a war, there will be some people who are genuinely for peace, and may be willing to help do things to defend attacked civilians but not willing to be aggressors. But there will also be those who simply side with the thugs: they are more than willing to help aggressors, they're just not willing to help the victims. When they advise the victims to refuse to defend themselves, they are simply part of the problem.
Do the contributors in this volume really appear to me to be against war? Um, no. I think many of them might be rather willing to start a war, an aggressive war no less, in the Middle East, as long as that war were against Israel rather than against some other state. We see a one page introduction from Bishop Hilarion Capucci. And there are articles by Patrick Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Charley Reese, and a bunch of others. I think the whole idea of these people trying to tell the rest of us about morality is silly.
Buchanan blames our misadventures in Iraq on folks who have a "passionate commitment" to Israel "that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country." Really? I'm not so sure that American actions in Iraq were even that useful to Israel in the very first place. And I think such a comment might apply even more to those whose passion to damage Israel causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country. Buchanan also makes fun of the idea that imposing "peace" on Israel might simply be a replay of Munich in 1938. He adds that "U. S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U. S. interests must prevail." Okay. That's fair. I would like to add that the interests of the United States and some extremist and racist Arab opponents of Israel are not identical. And when these interests collide, American interests must prevail!
Hilarion Capucci is both a thug and an archbishop of the Catholic Church. He used his status as a bigwig to smuggle weapons to terrorists. On August 18, 1974, he was finally arrested by Israeli security forces; his car was found stuffed with TNT and guns. Although Capucci was sentenced to twelve years in prison, the Pope pleaded for an earlier release, and he got out in 1977, with an understanding that he would stay out of politics. He hasn't exactly done that. I find it hard to believe that the Vatican would put up with such a misuse of an archbishop's status: does the Vatican really want the Catholic Church's leaders to have their limousines stopped and searched all the time for weapons? Or worse, have their churches inspected for weapons as well? All because it supports having an archbishop smuggle weapons to a terrorist group that's mostly Muslim and anti-Catholic in the very first place?
I do not recommend this book, and I think it says a great deal that Capucci was chosen to write an introduction for it.
Rated by buyers -
The right of war is hateful, and its punishment is most grave; therefore it is to be restricted as far as can be.
- Francisco Suarez, S.J.
All modern war is to be forbidden.
- Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani.
_Neo-Conned!: Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq_, published in 2007 by Light in the Darkness Publications, an imprint of IHS Press, is a collection of essays and writings of various anti-war Catholic intellectuals and philosophers, paleo-conservative commentators, and others. The book maintains that it is "Asserting the traditional, Christian just war doctrine against the neoconservative caricature that masks violence and aggression." It is frequently maintained by those on the left that the war has been fought by the "far right wing"; however, as these essays show, not only are the categories of right and left no longer useful in our modern age, but the reasons given for fighting the War in Iraq were anything but conservative and not in keeping with Just War doctrine. The Catholic Church regards war as a great evil and prays that man may be delivered from war along with hunger and pestilence. The church has condemned radical pacifism (in the sense that one is unjustified to use force in direct self-defence); however the church maintains that a war may only be fought provided it has a just cause. As explained by Romano Amerio, a war is just if: it is declared by a competent authority, it is aimed at righting a wrong, there is reasonable hope of actually righting a wrong, and it is conducted with moderation. The just war doctrine goes back to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and was further developed by later scholars. The authors appearing in this volume maintain that the Iraq War (a pre-emptive war) does not meet these criteria and that further, as some maintain, no modern war may indeed meet these criteria. As such the war is to be condemned by Catholics and can be seen as an integral feature of the "culture of death", including abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Further, it should be noted that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have condemned this war.
The book begins with a foreword by Bishop Hilarion Capucci and an introduction by Prof. George Lopez.
The very first section of this book is entitled "The Statesmen Speak: A War Both Unnecessary and Vain". This includes essays by Jude Wanniski (explaining how he believes the case made against Sadaam to be bogus), Marc Bossuyt (explaining the issue of economic sanctions against Iraq - the callous remarks of Madeleine Albright that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth the price should be noted here and certainly refute the claims made by some that "No one died while Clinton lied"), Joy Gordon (explaining the real "oil-for food" scandal), and Patrick Buchanan (explaining the role of the "War Party" and Jewish neoconservatives in fighting the war against Iraq to further Israeli interests).
The second section of this book is entitled "Conservative and Anti-War: Patriotism, Prudence, and the Moral Law". This section includes authors writing from the perspective of paleo-conservativism, showing the phoney nature of the neoconservative imposters. This section includes essays by Samuel Francis (arguing that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", showing how a false patriotism has been used by the neoconservatives, and illustrating the fundamental difference between the goals of the neoconservatives and those of genuine conservatives and the "Old Right" particularly as they concern the State), Joseph Sobran (showing the immorality of the war and arguing that the war is murder), Charley Reese (arguing that "legal nonsense" has been used to justify the war), Thomas Fleming (showing the history of the Middle East and the role of American imperialism), Wendell Berry (arguing that war is ultimately a failure and that the importation of globalist culture is destroying traditional ways of life and the environment), and Paul Gottfried (showing how the neoconservatives are not genuine conservatives at all and that their zealous lust for global democracy is anything but a conservative program).
The third section of this book is entitled "The Venerable Tradition: Putting the Brakes on Aggression and Securing Justice for Iraq". This includes essays by the following: Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara (explaining that "might is not right" and arguing for the just war tradition), Thomas Ryba (explaining the role of epistemic adequacy in the just war criteria), David Gordon (exposing the fallacies used by neoconservative Catholics to defend the war in Iraq and their abuse of the just war theory for their own ends), and James Hanink (arguing for the role of Iraqi sovereignity and conscience).
The fourth section in this book is entitled "Judgment and Inspiration: The Church Still Speaks with Authority". This ... Read More
Rated by buyers -
I must simply quote Thomas Woods here: "I have never recommended a book as strongly as I am recommending "Neoconned" and "Neoconned Again", two new collections of essays that make just about every argument you can think of against the war in Iraq. Now if you're thinking that you've read enough about this subject already, or that such books just aren't your cup of tea, or that you have too much to read as it is, I urge you to abandon such thoughts right away. These books need to be purchased by everyone, right away, this minute, and need to be circulated just as far as possible.
I was asked early last year to contribute an essay to these volumes. At that time I was consumed by the task of writing The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, along with my usual dozen other projects, and unfortunately had to decline. All I can say is, they sure didn't need my essay. Light in the Darkness Publications has assembled one of the most impressive lineups of scholars and commentators I have ever seen on any subject. Many of the names will be familiar to LRC readers; see the list for volume 1 here and volume 2 here.
Worth the price of the two volumes alone is the very lengthy interview with the late, great Jude Wanniski, the supply-side theorist who had such influence on President Ronald Reagan (and who therefore cannot be dismissed so easily as a leftist peacenik). In recent years Wanniski had become - along with all too few other conservatives - skeptical not only of government intervention on the domestic front but of its foreign interventions as well. (Recall Joe Sobran's amusing dictum: if you want the government to intervene domestically you're a liberal, if you want the government to intervene abroad you're a conservative, if you want the government to intervene both domestically and abroad you're a moderate, and if you don't want the government to intervene either domestically or abroad you're an extremist.)
It may sound like an exaggeration to say that just about every major claim made about Iraq and Saddam by the U.S. government since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait has been misleading or simply false, and that the mainstream media has bought into these distortions with nary a peep of opposition, but that's just about the only conclusion one can draw from Wanniski's case. If you think it's an open and shut case that Saddam "gassed his own people," not to mention countless other episodes routinely cited to work us into a frenzy for war, you need to read this. (Saddam did brutally suppress uprisings against his regime, but violence in the service of nationalism seems to disturb the neoconservative conscience only selectively - China and Iraq bad, Russia and the United States [under Lincoln] good.)
Although not every essay touches on the issue explicitly, the very first of the two volumes is organized around Catholic just-war theory and what it has to say about the war in Iraq. Now hold on a minute before you say you're non-Catholic and just move along. The principles of Catholic just-war theory, long appropriated and developed by a great many non-Catholics, are widely regarded as useful tools for moral reflection, and you'll be surprised at just how satisfying it is to see how dramatically short the war in Iraq falls on the basis of every one of those principles.
Wanniski also reminds us of the real history of the past 15 years. He recalls the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, including the deliberate targeting of water treatment facilities (followed by a sanctions regime that forbade the entry into Iraq of equipment needed to repair them) and other installations vital to civilian life. This was all necessary, say the shills, because Saddam was such a bad person. The sanctions, too, which led to half a million children dead - "worth it," according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who did not question that figure - were routinely defended on the same grounds. (Wanniski also addresses the "if Saddam hadn't built so many palaces he could have fed his people" argument.) A prosperous, secular country that was liberal by regional standards, and which could boast one of the finest health care systems in the Middle East, was reduced to an economic basket case, and plagued by a nightmare of disease, malnourishment, and sick and deformed children - all as the result of a vain effort to dislodge its leader. If the "Saddam was bad" defense strikes you as insufficient to justify the infliction of this degree of suffering - of which this is the tip of the iceberg - welcome to the human race.
That people who describe themselves as Christians supported this policy is but the icing on the cake. As I recall, there was a Christian theologian of no small importance who condemned the idea that we should "do evil that good may come."
A surprising contributor to these volumes is Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who headed what in his ... Read More
Find other books like this one:
