"what has America done for us?"

[Lounge Daddy]

a very nice op-ed article posted at the Times.uk reads:
[quote]
“What have the Americans ever done for us?” “Well, they did get rid of the Taleban in Afghanistan. ’Orrible bunch, they were.”

“All right, the Taleban, I grant you.”

“Then there was Iraq. Knocked off one of the nastiest dictators who ever lived and gave the whole nation a chance to pick its own rulers.”

“Yeah, all right. Fair enough. I didn’t like Saddam.”

“Libya gave up its nuclear weapons.”

“And then there’s Syria. Thousands of people on the streets of Lebanon. Syrians look like they’re pulling out.”

“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.”

“The Palestinians and the Israelis are talking again and they say there’s a real chance of peace this time.”

“All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us?”[/quote]

it then follows with 2 pages of his thoughts on the mid-east...
you can read it all [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003_1,00.html"]HERE[/url]

[argent_paladin]

[Phazzan]

Often with the good there is also the bad. The Americans slaughtered (albeit unintentionally) thousands of innocent people (including children) to acheive their goals. Do the ends justify the means, I wonder?

[argent_paladin]

You have a misunderstanding of the terms "ends" and "means". An end is a goal that you wish to reach. A means is a way to achieve that goal. The end was to liberate Iraq. The means to do so was not to "slaughter thousands of innocents". That is a separate category: side effect or unintentional end. Killing innocents was not an intended end, but liberating Iraq was. However, both ends are intertwined. This is important because killing an innocent person can never be a moral means to any end.
The classic case is self-defense. One can kill someone who is attacking you because your end is to stop that person from killing you (not to kill them). Your means is to shoot them. The unfortunate but unintended side effect is that this endangers their life, and that there is a high probability that they will die. But it is not the means to an end, it is part of the same act that is the end, another aspect. Compare it to another scenario:

Someone imprisons you and the only way that you can be released is to kill an innocent person. The means is immoral, even if it is the only way to save your life.
Another example: your plane malfunctions and will crash. You are over a large city and so deliberately crash it in an abandoned field. So, are you intentionally committing suicide and murder since you are crashing your plane with people aboard? No, your primary, intended end is to avoid killing people on the ground. The unintentional related consequence of this intention is that you kill yourself and those aboard the plane.

This is not to say that the war in Iraq was moral. But it does mean that not every action that results in the death of innocent people is automatically an immoral act.

[Phazzan]

Thanks for the lecture, but I have a perfect understanding of the terms "ends" and "means". Wasn't the original reason for going to war to rid Sadaam and his regime of the Weapons of Mass Destruction the CIA and Pentagon allegedly had proof of? Yeah it was, but once they realised he had no WMD they tried to sugercoat it with sentiments of "freedom" and "liberation" for the Iraqi people. Do these reasons alone justify the invasion? No, since the invasion was made just on the false intelligence Sadaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, of which he had none. No war can be made just unless there is a pre-emptive threat made by the enemy, and this threat alone is what was used to vindicate the war, nothing to do with freedom from oppression or liberation blah blah blah. So if innocent people got killed trying to eliminate the threat Iraq posed against America, fair enough, but in the end that threat wasn't proven to be real, yet thousands of innocent people died.

In the end it's up to the Iraqi people to decide whether the war was worth the lives lost, and the families of those who died too. Oh yeah and God, but not you or I.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Mar 4 2005, 04:26 AM'] Often with the good there is also the bad. The Americans slaughtered (albeit unintentionally) thousands of innocent people (including children) to acheive their goals. Do the ends justify the means, I wonder? [/quote]
seeing as Saddam did the same intentionally and on a regular basis - i would say yes

[jasJis]

Lounge Daddy,
You're going to try to have a mature discussion with Phazzan ?

[Scofizzle]

[quote]In the end it's up to the Iraqi people to decide whether the war was worth the lives lost, and the families of those who died too. Oh yeah and God, but not you or I.
[/quote]

ask the 8 million people who voted in the elections if it was worth it.

[azaelia]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Mar 4 2005, 01:30 PM'] seeing as Saddam did the same intentionally and on a regular basis - i would say yes [/quote]


[quote]ask the 8 million people who voted in the elections if it was worth it.[/quote]

[Phazzan]

It would be like if America invaded North Korea, defeated communism, established democracy yet killed thousands of people were killed in the process. Does America have this right? Of course not, not according to international law, not according to Just War doctrine. Iraq was never about WMD, oil or freedom for the Iraqi people, it was the next phase in the war on terror. Iran will be next. I still can't believe people think this "freeing people from oppression" is reason to start a war. It's cr@p! Catholics in Iraq are suffering because of this.

[quote]ask the 8 million people who voted in the elections if it was worth it. [/quote]

Give it a couple of years, and the war will remembered as one where the evil Christians unjustly invaded their homeland and raped them of their sovereignty. And I really don't think the positive turn out at the elections is a reflection of good will towards the Americans, but a sign of Iraqs determination to move foward. Wait a few years, the "ends" and the "means" wont mean a thing.

[Antonius]

Regarding Iraq, the Pope said nope!

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Mar 4 2005, 09:26 PM'] Regarding Iraq, the Pope said nope!

[/quote]
that's not really accurate.

The Holy Father said it is always a loss for humanity if war comes about, he said war should be a last resort, he said everything possible should be done to avoid going to war. What he did not say was that the war was unjust, as he cannot. The Catechism is quite clear that the justness or unjustness of a war is determined by the government in question, in this case, that would be the U.S. government.

I see many articles that quote the Holy Father throughout and then paraphrase him when saying he opposed the war. If he really opposed it, don't you think that quote would appear in every publication talking about the war? The fact is, that is a myth made up by the left to try and trick Catholics into thinking they could not in good conscience support the war.

Now, I have been unreservedly pro-U.S. throughout Iraq. After talking with MichaelFilo, I have realized that I may be misguided. However, I would need more than the opinion of one person. As someone pointed out, there were 8 million Iraqis who voted in their election as a testament to the fact that they like their freedom. It would be like in the United States saying that the eduction system is bad because some students still flunk out. Those students flunking out may be an indication of a larger problem, but it doesn't in and of itself prove that there is a problem. The same thing applies with my discussions with Michael. I sincerely appreciate his unique input and I an truly sorry for what his family has had to suffer, but his story may be indicative of a larger problem, or it may not be.

[MichaelFilo]

JPII is right, the Pope didn't call the war unjust, but he has called it an illegitmate child that must be loved and taken care of. This is the reference to the rebuilding of Iraq. The Pope doesn't seem to be in support of the war, but he can't rule it unjust, and he hasn't.

Of the family that I know either went or didn't go, they all went. That is a total of 2. I'm not really sure how many people from my family voted though.

Saddam killed political enemies, you must keep that in perspective. Those particular political enemies are the Kurds.

Phazzan, although mildly crazy, does make a point, we went in for the WMD's and at best we found ... well I can't say, but lets just say what we found was research on super-defensive weaponry, namely Anti-air guns. I will refrain from the details, as I am still not sure what my dad told me was classified and what wasn't (he gets to translate in Iraq, so he knows the dealio).

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

My sister is married into an Iraqi Catholic family who still has extensive family (Childean) living in Mosul and Bahgdad. I haven't asked about the vote, but they are very pro-Americans being there but are highly offended that American's and the world think 2,000 lifes are more important that the 10's of thousands Iraqis that were killed prior, and now. They may be atypical because they have a large family here in the US and Iraq and they had traveled back and forth alot. The feel that Iraq should have freedom and democracy. They are pissed that the world and Bush1 didn't overthrow Saddam after the Kuwait invasion and did the economic sanction thing that did not punish or hurt Saddam, but only the people suffered. I don't know if any of their family has died there, I know some have been hurt. I American family in the military there and my second cousin was killed there a month ago.
According the the Just War theory, once a war has been embarked on, all efforts should be focused on getting it done quickly to minimize the suffering of the populace. We should be there in overwhelming force. What Countries are screaming about the neighboring Countries that aren'g keeping their borders secure to keep the foreigh 'insurgents' out? What about Syria's role in harboring, aiding, abetting, and supporting terrorists that are going into Iraqi to kill my family that are Iraqi or American?
My dad's family, and many of the families my siblings and cousins married into come from other countries that were/are run by dictators or oppressive regiemes. The worst thing about Americans is that they take freedom for granted and have no real idea what living in oppression really is.

[DonCamillo]

Yes, the pope was [b]categorically[/b] against the war in Iraq. He made many statements against it. He did call the war unjust through his emissary Pio Laghi. (Sorry to contradict you Michael, but that's the truth.) He did also call it illegal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For example "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that [b]only peace[/b] is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society".
or ""Violence and arms can [b]never[/b] resolve the problems of man."
He expressedly said: "[b]No to war![/b]"
He also said: "War is not always inevitable. It is [b]always[/b] a defeat for
humanity."
and ""[b]War[/b] itself is an [b]attack on human life[/b] since it brings in its wake
suffering and death. The battle for peace is [b]always[/b] a battle for
life" .

More here:
[url="http://www.iht.com/articles/83231.html"]http://www.iht.com/articles/83231.html[/url]

The pope also sent his emissary Cardinal Pio Laghi to the White House with his message: " A war would be a "[b]defeat for humanity[/b]" and would be [b]neither morally nor legally justified.[/b] "
"[b]It's illegal, it's unjust[/b]." Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.

More here:
[url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-03-05-bush-catholic_x.htm"]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-catholic_x.htm[/url]

Almost importantly, The [b]US Conference of Catholic Bishops[/b] (Our bishops)
also spoke out against the war in Iraq.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some links. Note all the links below are from [b]Catholic[/b] sites.,
except for the last one.

[b]The pope[/b]
[url="http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php?id=article&article=361"]http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php...cle&article=361[/url]

[b]Our bishops[/b]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-235.shtml"]http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-235.shtml[/url]
[url="http://www.sju.edu/campus_ministry/JesuitWarDefeat.htm"]http://www.sju.edu/campus_ministry/JesuitWarDefeat.htm[/url]

[b]Bishops from several Christian denominations (including Catholic)[/b]
[url="http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.US-UK_statement"]http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.US-UK_statement[/url]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peace to you all

Edited March 5, 2005 by DonCamillo