Sheehan Arrested During Anti-War Protest

[MC Just]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 28 2005, 02:00 PM']Oh well good Lord help us if a Catholic or (dare I say) a priest was in a crowd protesting a war!  What in the world would these people be thinking?  That maybe we went into it without any exit strategy of any kind?

Peace lovers... sheesh.
[right][snapback]740078[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oh please you know what kind of people are in that crowd. cough cough...liberals...cough cough, heterodox..they represent a peace that will never reign.

[MC Just]

Peace Lovers? Their protest wasnt even shown on tv because it was so out of control and vulgar. Painting anarchy and antichrist symbols all over. There will only be peace with the reign of the Eucharistic king, not some confused group of unrepentant sinners obsessed with the 60's and 70's.

[infinitelord1]

she was prolly one of those really embarrasing moms.

[Snarf]

I'm not going to hide it, MC Just, that attitude is absolutely stupid. I'm not insulting you as a person, but there is no purer form of ignorance than saying that we can send the world to hell in a FedEx tube because the only thing that matters is the Resurrection.

Aloysius, I agree with you that it would be highly unwise to just pull out. However, I think that protests are important to spread awareness about what the war was really being fought over.

And sure, it's a little immature and counterproductive to paint anarchy signs all over the place, but it's nowhere near the depravity of causing a senseless war or, to put it into the focus of the here and now, trading pictures of eviscerated Iraqis in exchange for access to porn sites.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 28 2005, 09:13 PM']she was prolly one of those really embarrasing moms.
[right][snapback]740481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




I don't know though she doesn't seem very supportive

[missionseeker]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Sep 28 2005, 09:13 PM']she was prolly one of those really embarrasing moms.
[right][snapback]740481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




I don't know though she doesn't seem very supportive

[missionseeker]

sorry. This computer doesn't like me

[dspen2005]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 28 2005, 08:19 AM']The way we interpret National Security is going through a change.  It's no longer quite as clear-cut as the realist (you know, Westphalia and all that) perspective.  We aren't engaging a state, which could be dealt with differently.  We are engaging a non-state actor.  Any terrorist group is a non-state actor and the rules of realism don't apply to them.
Altruism [b]should[/b] be at the bottom of the list, because America is acting in its self interest.  There are those who approach a more collective security M.O., but that view is found wanting when the international community does not serve the interest of the country.  America's security is better served by breaking with the collective security view and acting unilaterally.
So, yes the war should have been started because the international community hampered America's perceived security.  Ultimately, a sovereign state has the authority to act in its own self-interest.  America's National Interest lies in the Middle East and keeping the fight there.
Yay for being the hegemon.
[right][snapback]739804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

National security is not necessarily going through a change. it is still the notion that the sovereign territory of a state ought to be maintained. What has changed is the nature of the threat to national security. You have presumed an error in your statement that "any terrorist group is a non-state actor" -- the example of Sudan an, in fact, sectors of the Afghan government -- if not the entire regime of the Taliban -- prove that terrorist groups may in fact be state-actors. Currently, it is true, that we are not directly engaging a "state actor" of terrorism.

The immediate security of the country is served by the breaking of collective security -- I would venture to say. but when time continues to move ahead, the security of a country can necessarily dissipate, because as the Holy Father alludes to, we are not in an isolated society. the world community is no longer as wide and vast as it used to be. for better or worse, we have become dependent in one form or another on other nations -- so much so, that the effects of a given terrorist act and the security risks ultimately become affective on us and become our risks.
Referring back to the late Holy Father, he would disagree with you on the action of the US in its involvement in Iraq.....

[MC Just]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 28 2005, 08:19 PM']I'm not going to hide it, MC Just, that attitude is absolutely stupid.  I'm not insulting you as a person, but there is no purer form of ignorance than saying that we can send the world to hell in a FedEx tube because the only thing that matters is the Resurrection.

Aloysius, I agree with you that it would be highly unwise to just pull out.  However, I think that protests are important to spread awareness about what the war was really being fought over.

And sure, it's a little immature and counterproductive to paint anarchy signs all over the place, but it's nowhere near the depravity of causing a senseless war or, to put it into the focus of the here and now, trading pictures of eviscerated Iraqis in exchange for access to porn sites.
[right][snapback]740493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

well im not liberal and im not so open minded that my brains fell out. I'm not ignorant. I've seen both sides and lived it and i decided that i dont like the other side. The left is for geniuses, the unwise and unrighteous. I choose the right, its for the wise and the Righteous. ecclesiastes 10:2 dont let the misenterprations of church teachings and vatican II trick you. Charity, love and humility demands correction. People go to heaven, people go to hell, good is good, evil is evil.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 28 2005, 07:47 PM']Okay, Toledo, apply your idea of the war on terrorism waged against one of the least likely targets to the Augustinian/Thomist tradition of "just war".
[right][snapback]740356[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
irrelevant. my statement was that [b]in the current climate of international politics[/b], altruistic motives [b]rightly[/b] belong at the bottom of any list of reasons to enter into conflict.
If the leaders of a state feel that their country would benefit from a course of action, including use of force, then the [b]system allows[/b] them to do so. [b]I'm not arguing for the morality of it[/b]. It's despicable, obviously. But nobody takes their political cues from the pope anymore, and they haven't for almost 400 years now.
Now there [b]is[/b] a humanitarian side of the spectrum which would fit more comfortably with this just war theory. However, that's not what the US is operating under because it [b]does not work for this situation [/b]and relies on too much foreign cooperation.
Political science is interesting. It's fun to contrast the way things [b]should [/b]be with the way things [b]actually are[/b].

I personally would consider conscientious objector status if your conscience does not allow you to clearly fight in this war. Lucky you, we no longer require that service of our men in wartime.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Sep 28 2005, 09:29 PM']National security is not necessarily going through a change.  it is still the notion that the sovereign territory of a state ought to be maintained.  What has changed is the nature of the threat to national security.  You have presumed an error in your statement that "any terrorist group is a non-state actor" -- the example of Sudan an, in fact, sectors of the Afghan government -- if not the entire regime of the Taliban -- prove that terrorist groups may in fact be state-actors.  Currently, it is true, that we are not directly engaging a "state actor" of terrorism. 

The immediate security of the country is served by the breaking of collective security -- I would venture to say.  but when time continues to move ahead, the security of a country can necessarily dissipate, because as the Holy Father alludes to, we are not in an isolated society.  the world community is no longer as wide and vast as it used to be.  for better or worse, we have become dependent in one form or another on other nations -- so much so, that the effects of a given terrorist act and the security risks ultimately become affective on us and become our risks. 
Referring back to the late Holy Father, he would disagree with you on the action of the US in its involvement in Iraq.....
[right][snapback]740503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem with National security is that nobody really knows what that means. it's a notion. I agree that the nature of the threat has changed and the familiar rules don't apply. I would hesitate to categorize factions in a government as state actors as they don't have the full resources of the state at their disposal.
Ideally, the world would get along fine and no states would act purely in self-interest. but that ain't gonna happen.
I understand again that the morality factor here is clearly against the war. It's against just about every war ever...but my point is that these policies are just the way things are now.

[Snarf]

MC Just, the right has just as many (and I'd suppose many, many more) fanatics than does the left. I despise both extremes.

And Toledo, it's nice that you think ethics are irrelevant, but that just seems like a funny stance for someone to maintain while assuming the name "Jesus" in a Catholic message board.