Are We In A Just War?

[Aloysius]

regardless: if we hadn't acted when we did war with this madman was still inevitable. you cannot deny he was seeking to disobey the UN at every turn and he would have liked nothing better than to put a nuke in the hands of Al Quaida.

and as soon as that happened, there'd be a big investigation and everyone would be questioning why Bush didn't act with all the intelligence he had been given about Saddam.

[White Knight]

Well it could have been done very carefully, and in such secrecy the only way we would ever truely find out is if we have another tradegy like 9/11 or maybe worse.

I mean Saddam had a solid 14 years to build, use, sell, and hide WMD, 8 of those years were under the Clinton Adminastration, he did nothing except launch a few missles thats it, First Four Years were under Senior Bush's Adminastration, and thats a total of 12 right now, we haven't even been in Iraq for a solid 2 years yet with the current Bush's Adminastration. But my estimate on Saddam w/w'o WMD could be wrong, matter of fact could be slightly higher than that.


I think its safe to assume that its a Fact that Terrorists Groups World Wide, have some sort of WoMD, rather they be Middle Eastern, European, Asian, African, South American and North American.

Al Quaida probally has them for sure.
Asian Terrorist groups probally have them for sure.
European Terrorists groups probally have them for sure.
Maybe even North American Terrorists groups have them.


Yes its a crazy and possiable senerieo.


thats just how I see it, I could be wrong.

Edited August 3, 2004 by White Knight

[Ellenita]

[quote]What do you mean: Saddam didn't break every single UN resolution? Of course he didn't break EVERY one. If you mean they could have written more resolutions, then, of course they COULD have, but it would not have been effective. You can't just sit there and keep writing resolutions without being able to back them with any force. That is what the UN is: a bunch of pacifist socialists trying to end all war/violence, including even the ownership of a gun by a civilian! No country should involve itself with such a pacifist, pro-abortion/contraception organization! [/quote]


No, I wasn't suggesting that Saddam wasn't breaking all the UN resolutions! What I was referring to was the last mandate which would have given the coalition the legal justification for the war in the eyes of the world - although there might be differences of opinion about the role of the UN, (I'm sure! ) it is still the organisation where [b]nominally [/b]consensus is achieved concerning matters relating to world affairs.

Of course, it may be that the significance of the UN is considered less in the US than in the UK - the UK is a signatory to many of the UN human rights treaties and I know that the US isn't.

This presents problems in the UK with Iraq - Tony Blair may well face a UN court as a war criminal in the future while Bush will not. There is certainly a case going through our courts at the moment by Iraqi families claiming compensation for the loss of family members as a result of the war - if they don't get recompense from UK courts they will take the case to the international arena. They are likely to win because the UN mandate for war wasn't given and therefore the war can be deemed as 'illegal' in the eyes of the international court.

I would have been happier if we had had the mandate for war from the UN first, and even more happier if we had dealt with the problem properly at the end of the first gulf war rather than just walking away with the job half complete which finds us in the mess we're in now.


[quote]he would have liked nothing better than to put a nuke in the hands of Al Quaida.[/quote]


There is no evidence at all that links Saddam with Al Quaida prior to the war - Wahhabi Islamic belief such as Al Quaida holds is as opposed to the Sunni Islamic belief which the ruling party in Iraq held under Saddam, as it is to Western ideals.
Of course there is evidence of Al Quaida operating in Iraq [b]now[/b]- they want to establish a Taliban type of regime there and are killing muslims as well as well as our soldiers in order to de-stabilise the country.

I find myself in a curious position in this thread of defending the case 'against the war', when in reality I didn't disagree with it when it first began! I still have a tiny shred of hope that WMD will be found and my belief that Tony Blair had integrity and would not have taken us to war without that justification will be vindicated!

[Madonna]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 3 2004, 04:27 AM'] Actually the war on the Barbary Coast pirates was a war against scattered terrorists.

Nations have often fought wars against what could be could be called, international terrorists, criminals, and privateers. [/quote]
Thank you for correcting me. But with this being the case, doesn't that make the probability of success very slim? It is nearly impossible to hunt out all of the terrorists cells.

[Aloysius]

there IS evidence that Saddam and Al Quaida were working together under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type deal, despite the fact that they dislike each other. There are documents found in Iraq that proove this. it was prooven that Iraq had no role helping Al Quaida plan 9/11, but it is proven that they had an uneasy alliance.

while i would like to see some WMDs, lack of them would not destroy my faith in the credibility of Tony Blair or George W. Bush, because I believe that when they decided to go to war after much careful diliberation about the morality of it, they really believed based on the intelligence given them that Iraq had WMDs and was prepared to use them somehow whether by nuking one of their neighbors or accidently dropping it in Al Quaida's lap so Al Quaida would use it against America.

we also DO know that the Iraqui scientists were working on the developement of WMDs because of their confession to it.

[MorphRC]

The Iraq War Is Unjust.

1: Its got nothing to do with WMDS - Bush and Powell said in 2001 Saddam was no threat at all, and had no chances of getting or making nuclear weapons.

2: Its all about oil. The Bush and Saudis are partners, and Iraq is the victim.

3: [quote]# Last resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.[/quote]

HA! Yeah. Buzz of UN were going in!.

Its an unjust war, and a terrorist act.

[Aloysius]

oh boy, michael moore has brainwashed yet another victem...

Bush is not partners with the Saudis that is a [b]LIE[/b]

Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.

this was NOT about oil. a much better case could be made that the UN's opposition to the war was about money (can anyone say "Oil For Food"?) than could be made to try to say the US's decision to go to war was about oil.

The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will! The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)

The UN doesn't care. The UN thinks inaction is the best way to acheive peace. History prooves otherwise (umm... HITLER!!!!)

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 4 2004, 01:47 AM'] oh boy, michael moore has brainwashed yet another victem...

Bush is not partners with the Saudis that is a [b]LIE[/b]

Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.

this was NOT about oil. a much better case could be made that the UN's opposition to the war was about money (can anyone say "Oil For Food"?) than could be made to try to say the US's decision to go to war was about oil.

The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will! The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)

The UN doesn't care. The UN thinks inaction is the best way to acheive peace. History prooves otherwise (umm... HITLER!!!!) [/quote]
LOL Yeah Right.

A man with deep pockets you mean. If he was a christian, he wouldnt have attacked any country, since christ never condoned any violence against anyone, and he didnt condone the apostles, remember when they went off to buy swords, he shouted at them 'Enough', meaning they misunderstood.

And I havent been brainwashed by Michael Moore. Ive seen 5 other documentaries on Bush and his family that show and give more evidence than what Moores got. Bush is a terrorist, he aint christian, or moralistic.

[quote]Bush is a man of deep faith who weighed this decision carefully, the night before the invasion he called up a theology professor at Christendom Colledge to discuss Just War theory.[/quote]

Really who says? Bush..

This is about Oil. Its always about Oil. OMG HES IN THE BUSINESS!!!!!!!!..lol

[b]Bush is a war criminal.[/b]

[b]A Vote For Bush is a Vote for Terrorism[/b]

[Aloysius]

no, i never heard Bush say that... the person who said it was the professor at Christendom Colledge

[MorphRC]

[quote]The UN does not have sovereignty over Congress in the United States of America, and I pray it never will!  The UN is all about inaction even when genocides are occuring (RWANDA...)[/quote]

Yeah and look whats happening.Its turning into an imperialistic state! There is 11,000 troops in Afghanistan, where Bin laden is, but nearly 200,.000 in Iraq... Err wasnt bin laden the target in the first place!

Also it was the US and the UN who let genocides happened, they both couldnt settle on the word genocide in 1996, they also let that happen in Seirra leone, and other african places. The amount of money bush is spending on his oil campaign in iraq could help every single person in africa.

[MorphRC]

Ill never trust Bush or anyone in the current Administration.

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote]Its all about oil. The Bush and Saudis are partners, and Iraq is the victim.
[/quote]

Actually, the only groups for whom this seemed to be all about oil where the French and Russians who had made sweatheart oil deals with Saddam and the UN who "managed" the Food For Oil program which has been found to be riddled with corruption. This all happened at the expense of the Iraqi people.


I think that the WMDs were only one reason for the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately they were almost the only reason mentioned leading up to the war. One of the other reasons was to remove a cancer from the Middle East and establish a country that could be the first step in transforming the whole region. Of course you can't tell the Arab countries you rely on for assistance that you want to transform the whole region so you must come up with another reason (WMD's) for the war that will keep those countries on your side. Another explanation I have heard was that Iraq was intended to be "flypaper" to attract terrorist from all over the Islamic world and to deal with them there as opposed to in our own cities. Whether this was the plan or not, that appears to be the current situation over there with a lot of the resistance coming from foreign fighters.

[Aloysius]

Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said to them: It is enough.

Jesus condones the owning of a sword, and therefore the use of a sword. so long as one does not live by the sword, but it is right and just for a man to have a sword to defend himself or others who are in need of defence. that means violence.

[MorphRC]

Nice twist there Aloy

[MorphRC]

Wait. That means I can own a Katana, since I despise guns, and swords are 'safer' to use and defend people. Kool