Most of this essay has little to do with Catholic doctrine and, ironically, Lawrence’s review seemed geared toward pointing out that the US abided by its own desires (i.e. laws), not showing how the war really was justified from the standpoint of Catholic doctrine.

Not that it would affect my own opinion of the war (feel sorry for the Iraqis, but it's such a useful way to get rid of the worst scum produced by the lowest trailer trash breeders on the continent, and better the towels deal with the human refuse than me) as I am not Catholic, but as I understand Catholic just war doctrine, the Iraq war doesn't match up.

I fail to see how any of the things you've listed is against the Christian belief system, as you never mentioned any evidence to it. Instead, I read a 'Iraq war bad' essay. The title and the conclusion do not fit with the essay at all.

Oy, the Uninformed run rampant again...

"The United States’ official reasoning for going to war was that Iraq was illegally harboring nuclear and biochemical weapons that posed a grave and imminent threat to the rest of world. Iraq’s possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) was a violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and had to be disarmed immediately and removed"

Sorry Mr. Vargas, but you're wrong. The media's position was the one above, the Bush Administration's was that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN Resolution 687 and was thus subject to military action as agreed upon by the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the WMD issue was used as an argument to bolster the above argument, in such a way to say that Hussein either has or will have these weapons and that his complicity with terrorists in the past makes him an enemy of the free world.

"he UN was unable to find substantial evidence of WMDs and never gave the US permission to invade Iraq."

The UN, did, however, find evidence of dual-use programs and the ability for Iraq to reconstitute it's WMD programs at any given time.

And the UN did not NEED to give US permission.

"The first was Legitimate Authority because President Bush failed to receive required endorsement from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq."

You have no understanding of the law, it would appear. The USA, under the provisions agreed upon by the UN and Iraq at the conclusion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War state, in Resolution 687, that if Hussein violated any of the agreements, he was subject to military action by members of the UNSC...he broke those agreements, and thus the US and Britain metted out the punishments promised.

"Also, by the laws of the Constitution, Congress has the right to declare war, not the President."

The War Powers Act of 2002 passed by the Congress granted the President the powers to make and conduct war.

"There has been much speculation that President Bush used the war with Iraq to resolve a personal vendetta with Saddam Hussein."

As of 05/12/2006 that continues to remain "speculation." It also remains a conspiracy theory, up there with aliens.

"The evidence for this is the false intelligence reports that Bush used to justify the war in the first place."

You imply that Bush created these false intel reports himself. That's ridiculous--the CIA, and the rest of the world's intel agencies, were duped by a dictator so paranoid to hold on to power that he lied to his own generals about weapons capabilities. Read Cobra II, you'll understand more.

"Another piece of evidence is The Downing Street Memo, a document that presented the minutes of a meeting that took place on July 26th, 2002 (7 months before the invasion of Iraq). In the meeting, President Bush expressed a need for the removal of Saddam from Iraq through military action and discussed possible means of justification of such action."

First off you moron, Bush had nothing to do with Downing Street--the memo was between Blair and his advisors and MI6 heads to discuss the American's intentions towards Iraq.

Second, this is not odd or out of place--heads of state discuss problems and solutions around the world all the time.

"nd when 89 members of Congress formally addressed the President about the document, he refused to answer a single question."

The majority of those 89 are far-left looney tunes out of the House--which has 435 members...hardly a majority.

"The US knew that Iraqi forces would not fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention and would in fact use guerilla tactics."

The US knew nothing of the sort. In fact, Fedayeen militia were scarcely brought up during pre-war planning. Cobra II would do you well, Mr. Vargas.

"The US still invaded Iraq and thus violated the third just-war condition; Probability of Success."

The US was successful: The objective was regime change; Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party were in power prior to US military action. After, they were removed from power. The mission was successful. Your point is thus false, and this effectively destroys your central argument.

You must stop basing your arguments off what the media tells you, and read on your own.

"The estimate for dead Iraqi civilians is between 70,0 and 100,0 while the estimate for American armed forces dead is merely 2,418."

Those numbers you list are grossly inflated and overestimated--furthermore, those numbers include militia dead as well as those murdered through militia tactics...yet you feel you can unjustly apply those numbers to the US.

" The final reason why the Iraq War is unjust is the condition of Last Resort. War was not the only way to solve the conflict in Iraq. There could have been UN sanctioned peace talks, compromises, along with the deployment of other diplomatic strategies."

The time for diplomacy had ended. Over 12 years of "talks" and compromises, etc. had taken place--there had not been no budging for Hussein. War was the final solution.

Sometimes, kiddo, and because you have no respect for education, you might not understand this, but we cannot always just "talk out our feelings."

Neville Chamberlain can attest to that.

"Nonviolence could have easily been implemented in the conflict with Iraq."

No, it couldnt. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 proved that.

"The US could have dialogued about the rift between The West and the Middle East."

For what purpose? That was not the discussion concerning Hussein...he does not speak for the "Middle East"...it would have been a colossal waste of time...on par to reading this essay.

"There is a lot of animosity towards the United States because of the coup against Mohammed Mossadegh."

LOL...oh Lord, someone opened a history book. Kid, Operation AJAX is the least of anyone's concern except the Iranians in the Middle East. No Afghani or Yemeni or Saudi gives a rat's ** about what happened in 1953.

"All the countries around Iran are Islamic and share many religious and cultural ties."

You don't get many A's in school, do you? Iran has almost nothing in common with her neighbors--they are Arab, Iran is Persian. They speak different languages--the only thing they might have in common is with Iraq, and thats the Shiite population.

Get a clue, squirt.

"If the US would simply take responsibility for its actions and apologize for the coup against Mossadegh, perhaps the Middle East would be a little more open to Western ideas."

LOL...yeah right, sure. And if we had only let Saddam Hussein win at Connect Four, the whole war would have been avoided.

You lack education, as evidenced in your profile. Perhaps, if you want to be taken seriously in the future, you would benefit from reading.