Iraq War

[MichaelFilo]

The justification was WMDs. These have not been found. It is therefore unjustified. I don't remember other justifications for it, is the point. They came up after the WMDs were NOT found. So, the primary justification is flat. Of course, the morality of going to war to remove a tyrant who had the country in better shape before the war than it has become post war should signal some flags as to exactly how moral (or immoral) it was.

God bless,
Mikey

[Curt F.]

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but Mikey, I am surprised at your stance on this subject. It's good to know we can agree on a few matters sometimes because, as of this point in the thread, I have a agreed on you on every point you have made. I really see no need for me to express my opinion when you are expressing it in almost the same matter I would.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Curt F.

[musturde]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 7 2005, 02:11 PM'] The justification was WMDs. These have not been found. It is therefore unjustified. I don't remember other justifications for it, is the point. They came up after the WMDs were NOT found. So, the primary justification is flat. Of course, the morality of going to war to remove a tyrant who had the country in better shape before the war than it has become post war should signal some flags as to exactly how moral (or immoral) it was.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
yeah... the situation is very sensitive. Now it's gunna be worse than before.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CanCath' date='May 7 2005, 11:53 AM'] You cannot even compare Hitler with Saddam.... WWII was not a result of his treatment toward he Church OR other ethnicities. WWII was strickly a war to contain an expantionnary regime.

I think the US is in Iraq because of Self Interest. It is Definitely NOT doing it because it feel it is MORAL OBLIGATION. I'll never by it. If the US was in Iraq because they felt that something needed to be done, it would also have felt that something needed to be done in Darfur, in Burma, and Zimbabwe. I don't buy it. [/quote]
The US's involvment in the European War of WWII was started to protect the financial interest of the US banking establishment, as I said we where invloved in the European war 2 years before Pearl harbor and I don't just mean by shipping England War material, I mean involved, we where chaseing subs and pointing them out to the Brit's so they couold be sunk, knowing that they wouldn't fire on our war ships. That is participating in the War a s a belegerant whatever nice word you might use to hide behind.


If WWII had had to be subject to the same criteria as this war, all of Europe would be speaking german.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='musturde' date='May 6 2005, 11:42 PM'] I'd seriously say the war on Iraq, whether justified or not, was not all that well planned out and the outcome is weak. The being said I can't even out the good or bad from it, only that right now the situation isn't going to be that great. I believe the Vatican released a statement saying since we already had many troops in Iraq that other countries should help and send more. Participating in it right now isn't bad and I think that's what should be argued if it comes down to morality. Bush didn't really decide on the war anyways, it was his cabinet. I don't think he could have masterminded it himself. That's just me though. I don't like Sadam very much. I'm very happy he gave Christians more rights than some rulers in the area but not more than all rulers in the area. Even Syria gives more rights to us (thats sad). I believe Iraq deserves much better than this but I can't say how. I don't like the war mostly because of what's going on now and what will happen soon but I do like Sadam out. And how is the UN evil? I don't quite understand what you mean.

POST 3333... perfection....lol [/quote]
Saddam had Christians in the Cabinet does Syria?

[guardsman]

Dudes-You guys talk as if the war is over. It's not. It will be a long time before this war is over. In today's modern age, obviously, toppling the government does not mean the end of the war. We've got to defeat the foreign insurgents as well. We will, but it takes a strong national will to fight this kind of war. Stay cool, support your local troops, and celebrate victory later.

[Timothy]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 6 2005, 04:55 PM'] No. Bush is the leader, he desides whether to go o war or not, the moral burden for that decision is only his. I support the desicion of men to use lethal force agianst those who threaten their family, however, the moral burden for that decisionis on them, not on me. Some years ago I stood with a rifle and defended a robbery and assualt victem from the men who where going to kill him in the road, I would have shot them, one literally came only a hairs breth from getting shot( I was already putting preasure on the trigger), he decided to withdraw and I did not shoot him. In every respect the moral responsability was on me, I chose to intervene, I chose to use lethal force to defend the injured man( I didn't know at the time what had happened only that he was helpless and bleeding and that the other man was going to kill him.) though I only ended up using the threat of lethal force morally I used it because I was going to use it,  and I chose not let him withdraw, anyone that that man hurt after that was my fault I LET HIM GO, it all is my moral burden because I was the one making the decisions. Simularly  Bush alone is responsable for the decisions he makes. [/quote]
I 'm called to remember the time when Jesus was arrested in the dark hours of the night. Peter had pulled out his sword to defend Christ, yet Christ told him to withdrawal the sword. Furthermore, Don how can we defend evil against evil? Isn't killing another for the sake of someone killing another evil fighting evil? Isn’t the only true way to defeat evil with love a compassion. I think John Paul II showed us a great example of this through out his life. Especially when he forgave the person who tried to assassinate him.

Also, when called to make a decision in life, we are usually faced with several options. Thus, upon choosing an option it tends to lead you down a path, in which ultimately you are held responsible for the decision that you made. It is my belief that yes a grave moral burden fall upon Bush for the decision he has made. Also, I believe that a grave moral decision falls upon those who either support or do not support the war. Just as Bush has a choice, so do we. Thus, as we make our choice we choose the path that the choice leads us to. If you believe in your heart that the choice of war leads you closer to Christ, then that is your burden. As I choose the path of peace and am willing to accept the burden of my choice when I face Christ in His Kingdom. It is not my responsibility to tell you whether you’re right or wrong with your decision, as you appear to be an extremely intelligent individual, you can make that decision for yourself. [u][b]However, it is all of our responsibility to accept the burdens for the choices we make in life.[/b][/u]
God Bless.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Timothy

[Winchester]

WMD is a misused term. A car bomb can qualify as a WMD. Nuclear and WMD are not synonyms. It is very easy to smuggle weapons out, and this is likely what happened.

Yes, Jesus told Peter to put down the sword. Peter was meant to die another way; he was not to be a warrior of this world, and that's fine. Christ was also condemning only Himself to die, not innocents and noncombatants purposely targeted by a grotesque tyrant or a warped religion. Nowhere in our Doctrine is war condemned.

The question is asked, what if they threw a war and nobody came?

I answer: The tyrants would continue their tyranny. Some must fight the evils of this world with the sword, or there will be no more people left to tell us not to.

I challenge you to love and compassion a gun out of an assailant's hand when an innocent life is threatened.

[Jaime]

[quote]I challenge you to love and compassion a gun out of an assailant's hand when an innocent life is threatened.[/quote]

You mean like Ghandi or Martin Luther King?

[Timothy]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 10 2005, 08:57 AM']
You mean like Ghandi or Martin Luther King? [/quote]
Those are great examples hot stuff! As I think your challenge has been met Winchester (interesting name). As for the doctrine that Christ laid forth, I am in no way a scholar of the doctrine, but I think many times through out scripture Christ ask us to love our enemy. How can we fight evil by killing it with blood? Isn't one of the commandments thou shall not kill? I don't think that leaves much room for argument. I can go one this topic for awhile, but [b]I would rather challenge you to show me where Christ tells us to fight evil with evil.[/b] If dying for your cause is the outcome of resolving manners in a peaceful way, then I think it is a righteous death.

God Bless!

Edited May 10, 2005 by Timothy

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 10 2005, 08:57 AM']
You mean like Ghandi or Martin Luther King? [/quote]
The both ended up dead by gunfire, not your best example.

Besides that neither are particularly good examples, while I cannot KNOW their fate, both where educated men in the modern world, it is unlikely that either where invincibly ignorant so I'd bet its more likly that you'll find Vlad the impaler in Heaven than either of them. Ghandi particularly was hostile to Christ, although thats not what you hear, he " approved" of what he though Christ teachings where but rejected the supernatural power of Christ and God.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Timothy' date='May 10 2005, 09:35 AM'] Those are great examples hot stuff! As I think your challenge has been met Winchester (interesting name). As for the doctrine that Christ laid forth, I am in no way a scholar of the doctrine, but I think many times through out scripture Christ ask us to love our enemy. How can we fight evil by killing it with blood? Isn't one of the commandments thou shall not kill? I don't think that leaves much room for argument. I can go one this topic for awhile, but [b]I would rather challenge you to show me where Christ tells us to fight evil with evil.[/b] If dying for your cause is the outcome of resolving manners in a peaceful way, then I think it is a righteous death.

God Bless! [/quote]
Violence is not evil, killing is not evil, War is not evil. Thus Christ never said to fight evil with evil, he didn't because that would be absurd, however since fighting Evil is Good it is irrelevant.


By the way there is no commandment " thou shalt not Kill" do a little bit of research; that is not a proper translation of the word, it should read Thou shalt not Murder, which is a whole differant thing altogether and something I think Winchester and I would certianly concede to Murder is evil, killing may or may not be murder.

[Jaime]

[quote] The both ended up dead by gunfire, not your best example[/quote]

That's hysterical!! Not my best example.. too funny!

Whether or not either is in heaven, is not my determination nor is it yours. However whether or not either are in heaven really isn't germaine to this discussion now is it? Nor is it relevant that they were not Catholic.

The question was whether one could defy someone with a gun, simply with love.

Both men I cited changed the world without ever taking up arms.

Civil rights
Free India

Both done non violently.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 10 2005, 10:19 AM']
That's hysterical!! Not my best example.. too funny!

Whether or not either is in heaven, is not my determination nor is it yours. However whether or not either are in heaven really isn't germaine to this discussion now is it? Nor is it relevant that they were not Catholic.

The question was whether one could defy someone with a gun, simply with love.

Both men I cited changed the world without ever taking up arms.

Civil rights
Free India

Both done non violently. [/quote]
No the challenge was to "love and compassion a gun out of an assailant's hand when an innocent life is threatened." Both of them where killed by gun weilding assailants, so they kinda failed there.


2. niether civil rights nor Indias independence was brought about without violence that is a myth.



3 Where they are and whether or not they where Catholic is entirely relevent to the discussion since it is about acting as Christ would have us.

[Jaime]

So are you suggesting that any accomplishments done by non Catholics are irrelevant and have no application to our lives?

Edited May 10, 2005 by jaime