God Conquers Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I think in terms of the war, pre-emptive strikes could almost never be considered just. [quote]However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106[/quote] Where was the danger of war with Iraq? Are you telling me that Saddam was about to attack the US? Waiting another 4 or six months would not have raised any more threat to America... and would have had the benefit of probably bringing in more allies and having better intelligence. I think you're fooling yourself and underestimating the gravity of war by saying that a pre-emptive strike against a nation whose only crime is having an unjust (and mildly so at the point of attack) leader is a just one. The spiritual implications of any offensive war are HUGE. Men (and now women) are placed in positions where they have to kill others, they are placed in the midst of harm's way, of temptation and of discouragement. They can be acting in justice, but the problems still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 4 2004, 01:25 AM'] I think in terms of the war, pre-emptive strikes could almost never be considered just. Where was the danger of war with Iraq? Are you telling me that Saddam was about to attack the US? Waiting another 4 or six months would not have raised any more threat to America... and would have had the benefit of probably bringing in more allies and having better intelligence. I think you're fooling yourself and underestimating the gravity of war by saying that a pre-emptive strike against a nation whose only crime is having an unjust (and mildly so at the point of attack) leader is a just one. The spiritual implications of any offensive war are HUGE. Men (and now women) are placed in positions where they have to kill others, they are placed in the midst of harm's way, of temptation and of discouragement. They can be acting in justice, but the problems still exist. [/quote] Saddam was supporting terrorism. End of story. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Many people and countries were and are supporting terrorism..... Perhaps one of the largest supporters of terrorism is Saudi Arabia. It is also one of the biggest suppliers of terrorism, most of the terrorists that attacked on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian. Osama bin Laden himself is Saudi.Yet our relationship with Saudi Arabia is much different than our relationship with Iraq.....isn't it? Which really makes me hope W. has some good ideas for our energy policy. I do not like the way we are so dependent on hostile middle eastern countries for oil. God bless, Balthazor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Supporting terrorism, that's pretty tenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 [quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 4 2004, 12:36 PM'] Many people and countries were and are supporting terrorism..... Perhaps one of the largest supporters of terrorism is Saudi Arabia. It is also one of the biggest suppliers of terrorism, most of the terrorists that attacked on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian. Osama bin Laden himself is Saudi.Yet our relationship with Saudi Arabia is much different than our relationship with Iraq.....isn't it? Which really makes me hope W. has some good ideas for our energy policy. I do not like the way we are so dependent on hostile middle eastern countries for oil. God bless, Balthazor [/quote] The Saudi gov. is not supporting terrorism... that's like blaming the Catholic Church for the IRA. [quote]tenuous[/quote] LOL... not quite... A man that was openly paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers for suicide bombing is a strong supporter of terrorism.... if he was doing that in the open, imagine what he was doing in secret. He wasn't following the sanctions, he wasn't allowing the UN Inspectors to inspect because he needed time to move his stuff around.... Simple bro... Saddam had his chance, he was warned repeatedly... 6 months, 12 months, 5 years more would not have made one bit of difference. When you tell a child that you will do something if they don't comply, you must follow through with what you said you'd do. Saddam had been warned for the entire Clinton admin, and nothing happened... Bush was right... and I support the decission because I know a few facts... Bush is going to have access to intelligence that the Pope does not. Bush is going to have access to intelligence that cannot be made public knowledge. Bush met the "Just War" criteria. Nothing else to be said. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 "The Saudi gov. is not supporting terrorism... that's like blaming the Catholic Church for the IRA." Ironmonk A poor comparison..... now if I was saying that the one of the sects of the Muslim religion was supporting terrorism and we should go to war with them....then,...... yes, it would be like blaming the Catholic church for the IRA. God Bless, Balthazor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 What!? Half the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia..... NONE were from Iraq. 25000... to bomb ISRAEL. Israel may have had a just war... not the United States. More info than the Pope? hmmm.... I'll take the Holy Spirit over the CIA any day. Secret info? Why keep it secret. If he's being crucified internationally for starting this war, why would he keep secret reasons secret? It makes no sense. The real question is not whether he had information, it's whether that information and those facts justified a pre-emptive war. I think it's pretty clear to 75% of the world, including the pope and most bishops, that the information did not justify it. The threat was not from Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The complete opposite of Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now