What do you mean when you say you...

[Snarf]

1) That's a broad generalization. Obviously, to protest government activity ad hoc is going to elicit a supportive response from those who protest government at large. But to call every proponent of peace "anti-American" is just blind arrogance, and not the least bit constructive.

2) I'm going to take it that you mean the opposite of what you wrote, if not, then thank you for proving my point. Many people are able to differentiate between the trillion-dollar industry of the military and the hard-working soldiers who have been shafted by the government that sent them overseas by reduction of veterans benefits and such. If someone joined the army because she feels the need to support her country while forging a bright future for herself, then good for her. I hope that she comes to no harm. But for someone to join the war just to go around killing foreigners, I have no sympathy for them. Fortunately, the latter group doesn't really exist to any great extent, though I have met soldiers with that attitude.

I think that one slogan I've heard countless times does fit: The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. I think it would be a mistake to pull out en masse right now, but it shows the right attitude. Our military is over-extended, tired, and out of place. It would be nice if there were an easy solution for the here and now, but there isn't. I just find it horrid that those mistakes were made.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:55 AM']Bush is still a terrible president, and a despicable human being.
[right][snapback]741826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Look, if you wanted a saint in office you are out of luck. Nobody can long remain a saint in the realm of international politics. A leader is forced by his position to make the most effective choices for the country that he can, which are not often the most moral choices. History will tell us whether Iraq was folly or good strategy.

Idealists are doomed to disappointment. Only an act of God could change the face of international politics.

We should also keep in mind that we have a volunteer military and they don't get free college. If you don't want to support the country's affairs, then stay out of the military and you are absolved from any conflict with your conscience. But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military. They're [b]MEN[/b], not CHILDREN.


To answer the thread, I don't believe war is often morally right. However, when the rules of engagement are not followed by certain groups, then those rules CANNOT apply to anyone involved or they will lose. We are at a huge disadvantage by having to follow all these humane rules. Terrorists are not thus disadvantaged.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

While I like Bush and favored this war from the beginning, I'm not going to sit by without saying this: it is possible to support the troops but be against the war.

StColette's brother is over there fighting, but she is and has always been against the war. I would not dare to tell her that she is allied with terrorists, nor a coward, nor two-faced for her beliefs.

A long time ago, the Church declared that you did not have to go out and seek martyrdom. It was okay to avoid it, so long as you didn't deny the faith. That doesn't mean that the Church was saying that we shouldn't love and support those to whom martyrdom was granted.

Not everyone needs to support a cause, but everyone should love and support fellow human beings. We may most certainly support soldiers without supporting the particular reasons for their war.

The early Christians prayed for the emperor, even as he was persecuting them...but they still could not ally themselves with his insistence on pagan worship. This is patriotism. It is a far cry from patriotism--indeed, it is nationalism--to say that those who support the people of the nation must also support the causes of the nation.

I like Bush and I'm glad Saddam's gone.

The same principles apply, that's all I'm saying...you can and should support the troops, even if you don't support the reason they are offering their lives. They are to be honored by all.

[Snarf]

Toledo, you seem to think that this war is somehow different from every war that's ever been faught before. It's not. There is such a thing as a "moral" war, even if war is in any instance unsavory. Of particular note is that there is such thing as a "just" war, and we as Catholics have a stringent procedure of determining if the name fits.

Your attitude that ethics don't matter is irresponsible, anachronistic, dangerous, fool-hardy, and stupid. The crux of western philosophy, including the words of Jesus Christ and the OT patriarchs, decisively dictate that ethics are the foremost priority in living well a life worth having. It is better to act against the constituion than against ethics, and it's becoming very popular to go against both these days.

[i]But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military.[/i]

Oh, man, you totally slayed me for when I said that all the soldiers should bail out on their duty. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that. In fact, I can't remember saying that at all in the first place. Funny thing, the mind.

[i]They're MEN, not CHILDREN.[/i]

I've heard men who've seen more combat than you or I ever will call various modern wars a "children's crusade". Vonnegut used it as an alternate title for his memoirs on World War II, [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i]. Yes, I respect these individuals rights to make decisions for themselves. But could they possibly know into what they were getting themselves? Joining the military to get an ROTC is an honorable way of getting ahead in life. Joining the military out of patriotism is noble. Joining the military for war's sake alone is deplorable, and I have no more remorse for losing one such person over losing an enemy terrorist. They're all the same in my book.

So really, what's your point?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 10:53 AM']Toledo, you seem to think that this war is somehow different from every war that's ever been faught before.  It's not.  There is such a thing as a "moral" war, even if war is in any instance unsavory.  Of particular note is that there is such thing as a "just" war, and we as Catholics have a stringent procedure of determining if the name fits.
[color=blue]
This war is somewhat different as it has broken with convention.  Preemptive war is an activity of which we don't yet understand the full repercussions.  I don't think the war is moral.  Quite the opposite.  I'd rather that we weren't there.  But if we are attacked, we need to win.  If our national leaders feel that the country's security is better served by engagement in Iraq, then so be it.  We are free to criticize or suggest alternatives.  But our leaders probably don't have morals at the top of their list of reasons to fight.[/color]


Your attitude that ethics don't matter is irresponsible, anachronistic, dangerous, fool-hardy, and stupid.  The crux of western philosophy, including the words of Jesus Christ and the OT patriarchs, decisively dictate that ethics are the foremost priority in living well a life worth having.  It is better to act against the constituion than against ethics, and it's becoming very popular to go against both these days.

[color=blue]The crux of modern international political theory is that the state takes its cues from what is in its best interests, not from Our Lord.  A successful (politically at least) state will always act in its best interest.  The Pope himself could yea or nay wars up until Westphalia, but that all changed when the concept of state sovereignty really took off.  We have not returned to a time when morality substantially influenced the use of force.  In many ways force is still governed by the pressing interests of a state, either economically or in terms of national security.  It's not stupid, it's reality.  Reality is that the world is not a nice place and people don't play by Christian ethics when power is on the line.  I have never said that ethics don't matter.  I have said that they are irrelevant to the people making the decisions because they preclude certain options which, though ruthless, are the most effective in solving the problems of the state.[/color]

[i]But to try to tell the gov't that they should let these soldiers skip out on their part of the contract is sheer stupidity. It might be nice, but it's 1. not going to ever work and 2. disrespectful of the soldier who made his choice to join the military.[/i]

Oh, man, you totally slayed me for when I said that all the soldiers should bail out on their duty.  I don't know what I was thinking when I said that.  In fact, I can't remember saying that at all in the first place.  Funny thing, the mind.

[color=blue]I'm sorry, I was referencing the protesters, not you.  It wasn't clear.  I assure you I won't put words in your mouth and cause you to deplete your reserves of sarcasm any further.  I do view the effort to bring them home as advocating the abrogation of their duty.  The men made a choice to tell the gov't they would perform a duty, and they should not be able to get out of it because their mommy is mad.  The military should not care about their mommy.  Now here's an interesting thought:  Are men being rotated out of Iraq or are they serving beyond their required duty amount?  Could that be a problem?[/color]

[i]They're MEN, not CHILDREN.[/i]

I've heard men who've seen more combat than you or I ever will call various modern wars a "children's crusade".  Vonnegut used it as an alternate title for his memoirs on World War II, [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i].  Yes, I respect these individuals rights to make decisions for themselves.  But could they possibly know into what they were getting themselves?  Joining the military to get an ROTC is an honorable way of getting ahead in life.  Joining the military out of patriotism is noble.  Joining the military for war's sake alone is deplorable, and I have no more remorse for losing one such person over losing an enemy terrorist.  They're all the same in my book.

[color=blue]I agree that most wars are fought for childish reasons.  Man hasn't stopped acting childish in certain arenas.  Consider Yassir Arafat meeting with Clinton and Israeli PM Barak.  When given the maximum concession by Israel, Arafat simply turned it down.  Now, an adult mindset would be, "I can't have it all, so this compromise works."  Arafat wanted the whole sandbox for himself.
Joining the military is service to country.  Being drafted is the price we pay for our freedom, and the system has been retooled so that even a Senator's son could go.  Military service is a sacrifice.  It should not be primarily a way to get ahead in life.  I question the motives of those who join [b]solely [/b]to further a career or score points for a later political campaign.  I think that anyone who understands that armies fight and kill understands what they are getting into.  The military will pay for your college and in return it will require you to perform tasks such as are needed to accomplish military goals.  An 18 year old man has enough mental fortitude to understand that basic concept.  Joining to fight for fighting's sake is pretty bad, I agree.  But joining to fight for your country is not bad at all.  It's a civic duty, in my opinion.[/color]

So really, what's your point?

[color=blue]My point is that the world doesn't care about how things ought to be.  There are a number of ideas in political science which are coming to the fore that are critical of realism or the traditional views of the obligations of the state and what defines the National Interest.  These may be worth looking into to promote a more Christian world-view.  But currently, they aren't main policy.[/color]
[right][snapback]742038[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Jaime]

The war is wrong. It was not a just war going into it and cannot be rationalized into a just war now.

That being said the men and women that signed on to defend our country are doing something that I never had to or chose to do. So they get my admiration, respect and thanks.


And George Bush is a ding dong.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

wow, alot of stuff getting thrown around here..

What do I mean when I say I support our Troops but not the war?

Simple, its not the soldiers fault they have to fight a war that shouldnt be..at least in Iraq. They are doing what they are told, just what they signed up for.

However, Lets not have another Vietnam where the soldiers were not supported and became the victims of anti-war protest and carp.

I know a few people, my dad being one of them, that fought in Veitnam..one thing he told me about the war is that people hated them. 'They didnt throw a parade for us when we came home, they gave us protests'.

So get it straight..The soldiers are not a fault, so we must support what they are doing and hope and pray they get home safely. The last thing they need to have on their minds is non support from the people they are representing.

The people responsible is the Bush Administration. They are the ones people should be upset at.

My question still stands..whatever happened to Osama?

Whats Bush say? 'I dont know where he is, I dont think about it much anymore'

so the person responsible for 9/11 is going free, while Haliburton, Saudi, and the Bush family get even wealthier.

I'm with hot stuff..

George Bush is a ding dong.

[dspen2005]

i suppose one could argue that since the troops merely do what they are told, then we can support the troops. but since we do not agree with the order they are being told to carry, we can be against that. e.g. a grandmother doesn't necessarily agree with the means by which her daughter disciplines her children on one particular point, but she still supports her daughter as a mother to her children.

[dspen2005]

isn't it too bad that we can't have Bush for another 4 more years????

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Sep 30 2005, 04:25 PM']isn't it too bad that we can't have Bush for another 4 more years????
[right][snapback]742336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh no no no...
I think 8 years is plenty. I'm sure the President thinks so too!
Have you ever noticed how much they age in office?

[Jaime]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Sep 30 2005, 03:25 PM']isn't it too bad that we can't have Bush for another 4 more years????
[right][snapback]742336[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Bush has one job. Two prolife supreme court justices. If he does it, he had a successful presidency. If not, he's failed.

That's it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 30 2005, 09:07 PM']Bush has one job.  Two prolife supreme court justices.  If he does it, he had a successful presidency.  If not, he's failed.

That's it.
[right][snapback]742591[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In all fairness, I don't think we can say that's all. Yes, it's the key issue, but there are more things...nothing more important, no, and yes, that is an all or nothing issue, but if George Bush could make gay marriage illegal, or work for a worldwide ban on cloning, etc., he would still go down in the books as a very good president.

[Jaime]

This is solely my opinion on the matter

Hypothetically speaking Bush could

end terrorism
bring gas to $1.00 a gallon
cut my taxes in half
Make it a federally mandated law that Sandra Bullock go out with me

And not put two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a failure.

Conversely

Gas could go up to $10 a gallon
we could lose all our individual rights in the name of fighting terrorism
Send the deficit into the bazillions
devalue the US dollar to mere pennies
Make it a federally mandated law that no one ever go out with me ( that may be on the books already)

And put two two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a success.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 30 2005, 05:07 PM']oh no no no...
I think 8 years is plenty.  I'm sure the President thinks so too!
Have you ever noticed how much they age in office?
[right][snapback]742376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

he can take it...

ok, so if not bush-himself... at least someone bush-esque (preferrably CATHOLIC)

[dspen2005]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 30 2005, 09:40 PM']This is solely my opinion on the matter

Hypothetically speaking Bush could

end terrorism
bring gas to $1.00 a gallon
cut my taxes in half
Make it a federally mandated law that Sandra Bullock go out with me

And not put two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a failure. 

Conversely

Gas could go up to $10 a gallon
we could lose  all our individual rights in the name of fighting terrorism
Send the deficit into the bazillions
devalue the US dollar to mere pennies
Make it a federally mandated law that no one ever go out with me ( that may be on the books already)

And put two two prolife SCJs on the bench and I would consider his presidency a success.
[right][snapback]742612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i get the feeling that you do not like Bush -- is my intuition correct?