How is the war in Iraq

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 01:01 PM'] When was the hiring? Can you support this statement?


It doesn't matter who Bush declared war on. We're not arguing about whether or not he's baiting the public with 911 and going for Iraq, so you shouldn't be saying this. Otherwise, you could.






If we're not sure if he had them, that seems to be a lot of uncertainty to base a war on. I think you'd have to recant saying your give the benefit of the doubt to him not having weopons immediately before, after, and during the war.


If there was clear to pretty certain danger ahead then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is.



The way I understand it, this does not justify a just war. I don't see the relavence aside from a secondary benefit.




- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.



- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.


- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war.

[/QUOTE] [/quote]
[quote]When was the hiring? Can you support this statement?[/quote]

I cannot provide direct documentation right now, but give me some time. I'll get back to you.

[quote]It doesn't matter who Bush declared war on. We're not arguing about whether or not he's baiting the public with 911 and going for Iraq, so you shouldn't be saying this. Otherwise, you could.[/quote]

I was merely responding to what you said in a previous post which said:

[quote]The only way it might seem that way is to say that Iraq had connections with Al Quida.[/quote]

My argument is that it doesn't matter if Iraq had Al Quaida connections because the President declared war on all terrorism. This includes, Al Quaida, Hammas, the Egyptian-Islamic Jihad, Hezzbolah, and others.

[quote]If we're not sure if he had them, that seems to be a lot of uncertainty to base a war on. I think you'd have to recant saying your give the benefit of the doubt to him not having weopons immediately before, after, and during the war.[/quote]

You missed the point on this one twice. First of all, we ARE sure he had them. How do we know? Because he used them on his own people. We have found a ton of evidence that Iraq had a chemical weapons program over there. The question still remains, where are they now? Furthermore, just for the sake of argument, let's say he never did have them. Why would you hide a fact like that when faced with what he was. All he had to do was take the weapons inspectors around on anyone of the 17 times they were ordered to go there and look and say, "See, I don't have any WMDs." The second way you missed the point was that I was arguing that we shouldn't even be debating whether or not he had WMDs because it isn't an integral part of the JWD. The burden of proof is on you to show why WMDs are relevant. I'm arguing that they are not because whether or not he had them when we attacked does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein ROUTINELY raped, murdered, and tortured people. I'll go into detail later.

[quote]If there was clear to pretty certain danger ahead then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is.[/quote]

So are you arguing that WWII was unjust? There certainly are plenty of analogies. Adolf Hitler attacked a small country when he was relatively weak. Saddam Hussein attacked a small country when he was relatively weak. Both conducted massive genocide. neither directly attacked the United States. What other variable would you introduce to justify war against Germany but not Iraq? If a catastrophe occurs then that's just the way it is? What if that catastrophe is a nuclear bomb blowing up in Times Square? OK, granted, that's speculative, but what ISN'T speculative is that if the U.S. hadn't acted, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and he would still be:
-putting human beings through wood shredders
-kidnapping children and dismembering them in front of their parents
-raping women
-shooting unarmed civilians for fun
-pushing people off of buildings
-shocking men and women in their genital areas
-breaking bones
-giving acid baths
-and the list goes on and on

How do you who are so supportive of human rights justify these abuses because they most certainly would still be going on if we hadn't acted.

[quote]The way I understand it, this does not justify a just war. I don't see the relavence aside from a secondary benefit. [/quote]

I was using an analogy to demonstrate a truth. It's called an argument from an analogy. You're right, it doesn't demonstrate the justness of the war, it does demonstrate that it is the right and just thing to stand up for one's friend which is what we did for the Kurdish people.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]You missed the point on this one twice. First of all, we ARE sure he had them. How do we know? Because he used them on his own people. We have found a ton of evidence that Iraq had a chemical weapons program over there. The question still remains, where are they now? [/quote]

And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.

[quote]The burden of proof is on you to show why WMDs are relevant. I'm arguing that they are not because whether or not he had them when we attacked does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein ROUTINELY raped, murdered, and tortured people. I'll go into detail later.[/quote]

WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Svjatyj_Boze]

If someone sincerely believed, prior to the war, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, then the war would be justified from that person's perspective. In hindsight, however, it seems that this was not a just war.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree with your stand Svjatyj_Boze.

Incidentally with regards to Bush, I'd think he'd have been more keen on looking into the uncertainties a little better. From my understanding of the 911 commission report, two agencies had different views on Iraq. One said that he probably had WMD and one said he probably did not (or it might have just been that there's too much uncertainty). The commission (granted that I've only gathered from spins and talks.. maybe I should buy the report, a best seller by the way probably becaues of the spin) said that Bush consulted only one person/group and not all. It was a simple mistake and that's why they want to fix intelligence communication. I may be wrong on this. But anyway, I suppose you could make the case that we should have gone based on the innocent mistake, but it still seems that we could have planned better and maybe he could have sought to find a better margin of error. It doesn't look like it was that hard to find.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 09:17 PM']
And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.



WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of. [/quote]
First, why did you selectively quote me instead of taking everything I said, which is what I've done for you?

OK, you said.

[quote]And you missed mine. I do admit I didn't make it very clear. Even if he did have them in the far past, doesn't mean we should go to war. There's no imminent danger. I think you'd be streching it to say there was. (and I bet JPII would say that too) I won't say that you're absolutely wrong that you can't justify it, but I'd insist on my opinion that it's a strech.[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time, I'm glad you agree with me. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs is completely irrelevant. It makes absolutely no difference.

[quote]WMD seems to be the only way to make a just war. So if you're arguing that how he treated his people is the reason, then you're not following the just war doctrine that I'm aware of.[/quote]

I am arguing that how he treated his people was the reason. Let me quote you, from the Catechism, what the just war teaching of the Church is and you can see for yourself that it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about WMDs.

[quote]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.[/quote]

You will want probably want to focus on this sentence. [quote]The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote]

Notice that it doesn't say WMDs are a criteria, only that "modern means" weigh heavily in the decision. Again though, I put it to you, if he didn't have them, why didn't he just let inspectors in and see?

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

I selectively quote because I think people waste space taking hte whole thing. Plus I think people waste space typing with these kinds of messages as far as quoting is concerned. I think I've gotten your message.. the others are just responses and clarifications and stuff. If you disagree, i'm sorry. I'm not going to change unless you can show me a good reason why. I think I caught teh whole essense of your thing that's important thought I do acknowledge that I didn't get the whole context.

Now as for your argument. I don't think most people would take your argument. Most would argue that WMD are the reason. You're saying an weopons would be incidental while most say helping people is incidental.

This is a frustrating things that happens here. I make good arguments to the majority and end up arguing with one or two people about somehting else and it throws everything out of whacjk. Luckily not too many are posting here. (untill I say something that pisses people off.. then they're just respond with simple declarative statements.. it is sin.. that is good.. this is bad.. and no arguments.. sorry for the rant)

I think I've covered the WMD thing unless someone wants to take their argument further than they held. (unless I misunderstood them to begin with in which case let me know)

Your idea I might agree with but I dont' think it was intended on part of the JWD. It appears that they were talking about being the ones to have been inflicted on. It is unclear. Actually you can read it in anyway you want. (which leads to another rant about catholic hierarchical literature.. wishy washy about gray areas and strong on the absolutues but dressing up the wish washy with abstract statements.. "people should not go hungry" sorry again I'm not angry just thinking out loud) I'd be willing to guess that's not what they meant the way you do. Apparently.. unless there's somethin else.. we're gonna just agree to disagree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think hope we got that what I consider side dispute settled. As for the majority disupte, I think you'll have to deal with this.

[quote]WWII. If there was clear to pretty certain danger then then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look at what happened to them back then. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is. [/quote]

I may consider the maybe danger personally. But I don't think it is just to use according to the JWD. My view is inherently wishy washy case by case. I could see you saying that for JWD I suppose. Is this your argument? In a way it is in that case by case the local authorities must address the "imminent" danger. I and probably JPII just don't think it's imminent. And when you consider what might really be imminent, then you might see that's it's not.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I say it's maybe danger. Will you agree that it is maybe danger?

If we can agree to that then you must think the maybe danger is imminent and I don't. I'm curious to hear if you think it's more than just maybe danger.