What do you mean when you say you...

[philothea]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:29 PM']Our new national security strategy does not say we should attack only those direct threats to the US.  [i]Potential[/i] threats are potential targets.  It's a new idea, a new system, and a new way of going about things that is meeting a lot of resistance from people who are unfamiliar with it.  It's also encouraging heretofore unfriendly countries to be more friendly towards us...or at least to mind their manners when we're watching.
[right][snapback]746360[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have heard many intelligent people (none of them actually in the government) put forward the suggestion that the invasion of Iraq was step one in a grand plan to establish democracy and stability in the Middle East. But I have two problems with this theory.

(1) I never saw Bush or any of his advisors say that. It sounds sensible (in its way) so why wouldn't he say so if that was the truth?

(2) If you're trying to get rid of dangerous radical Muslim extremists, why do you [i]first[/i] invade the one nation in the area which has a completely secular leader who has been supressing the religious extremists!?

[philothea]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 4 2005, 10:19 PM']Morality should trump politics.

OOOOOOOOH, look at Seth, he's saying that doesn't ever have to happen and that we can all live in peace by letting dictators rule the world.

Nope.  When others break the rules, it's our responsibility to punish them ACCORDING TO the rules.  There are abstract moral arguments to be applied to when and when not we should go to war, but it's easier to go by the concrete rules of the Church: the doctrine of Jus Ad Bellum.

If the United States denegrates itself to Machiavellian pre-emptive war, then it's no better than the terrorists it seeks to squelch.
[right][snapback]746429[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well that's a whole other debate. (Which we have had on and off, and people tell me I'm wrong and then never answer when I ask for clarificiation... Um, anyway.)

I agree with you. I seem to do that a lot.

[Snarf]

That would probably change if you were to read the Coeternalism thread. C'est la vie.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 4 2005, 06:59 PM']your comparison is a false one --
first, you equate the priest's with the war in Iraq, and Catholicism with the troops themselves.  A better analogy would have been to switch the premise "condemning all pedophile priests as a result of Catholocism."  This is the true analogy in response to what I proposed.  When looking at it, we see that the notion is absurd because it implies within that it is somehow inherently wrong to condemn pedophile priests.  MOrally speaking, it is not wrong to condemn them -- technically, though, it would be more appropriate to condemn the action.
[right][snapback]746192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree that it's a weak analogy but it's not false. One cannot attack our troops (opposite of [i]support[/i]) based on policy they have no more control over than the rest of the population has, in the same way that one cannot credibly attack the whole of Catholicism based on actions of pedophile priests, which the Church does not endorse. But it doesn't matter. The point is that support of our service men and women does not necessitate support of the policy that set them in motion.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 4 2005, 05:39 PM']Do I believe that Bush went to war to line the wallets of his cronies?  I honestly don't know why he dragged us into war.  I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without consulting his father.  I don't know why he would think about going to war with Iraq without having any semblance of an exit strategy.  But I do not believe that he led us to war for the reason(s) he's given us.  I don't believe that for a second.  [/quote]I don't want to argue about this here, maybe on another thread... I view this as purely choice of opinion and not really reasonable or intellectually honest. What makes you think he didn't consult his father for his input as an ex-president? You think he didn't have conversations with his dad during the first Gulf War? When going to war, the US Government has to address many Congressman's motives and reasons to go to war. They can't pick one reason and get everyone to agree. Stabilizing the area, stopping Saddam, terrorists, injecting democracy, putting political pressure on Iran, providing political support for Turkey, spreding democracy, stablizing future oil supply, making the UN accountable for it's 'sanctions', etc. Any one who can't think of reasons to go to war in Iraq (whether they agree with them or prioritize them the same) have not put much effort or thought into the matter. The same is true about the exit statagy. Much depended upon how the war went, what the civillians would do, how much destruction would happen, what the other army would do, etc. After Afgahnistan, who could anticipate the foreign insurgents that would attack people applying to be police with suicide bombers? Who could anticipate foreign insurgents that would go into a school and drag out teachers and shoot them in the head in the street?
[quote]This was the first test of the pre-emptive doctrine and it failed.  Are we ethically bound to stick around and clean up after ourselves?  Absolutely.  That is why I can say I support the troops and not the war.  I want them to be successful and come home safely.  But we are in a worse place now because of Bush's decision.

We are less safe as a nation.
[right][snapback]746118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I don't think we are in a worse position as a nation. I base this on the everyday security measures that any resident of London goes through and compare what the US does. I base this on conversations with my neighbors who are in the intlligence staff at MacDill where they direct much of the war. I base this on the abscence of significant terrorist acts in the US. Could you imagine the US enduring the sort of suicide bombers that Iraq and Isreal suffer from daily or weekly? The thought we are less safe is a matter of perspective since we have been made aware of our previous and current vulnerabilities.

When you are a big 6th grader on the playground, you don't ignore the 4th grade bully picking on his 4th grade classmates and others who can't defend themselves. Nor do you wait until he picks a fight with you. If you ignore him, he eventually will attempt to bully your. It's inevitable. A pre-emptive confrantation is simply addressing the inevitable and hopefully will prevent the suffering of others if you had waited.

[photosynthesis]

I am so, so tired of debating this war... I just wish it would be over already so that all my Navy buddies could come home

[dspen2005]

[quote name='philothea' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:34 PM']I have heard many intelligent people (none of them actually in the government) put forward the suggestion that the invasion of Iraq was step one in a grand plan to establish democracy and stability in the Middle East.  But I have two problems with this theory.

(1) I never saw Bush or any of his advisors say that.  It sounds sensible (in its way) so why wouldn't he say so if that was the truth?

(2) If you're trying to get rid of dangerous radical Muslim extremists, why do you [i]first[/i] invade the one nation in the area which has a completely secular leader who has been supressing the religious extremists!?
[right][snapback]746446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i can't answer your first point; because I cannot know the reasons for Bush's silence on that point. however, i can point to seveal pundits and "experts" who have put forward that notion of democratizing the mideast.

in asnwering your 2nd point, could it possibly be for that very reason? A secular leader, who in essence ruled a quasi-secular culture. secularism is easy to "democratize" than a deeply religious culture. Iraq wasn't completely secular, by any means. But when there is 20 years of a secular regime, the religiosity of the people, though it can be maintained, does lose its maximum fervor. Also, Iraq is strategically located -- the middle of the Middle East.

I don't purport to favor these ideas, but i was just mulling them over as possible answers, explanations to your points.

[Jaime]

[quote]I don't want to argue about this here, maybe on another thread... I view this as purely choice of opinion and not really reasonable or intellectually honest.What makes you think he didn't consult his father for his input as an ex-president? [/quote]

Excuse me? He said exactly that.

[quote]Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.

”The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,” says Woodward.[/quote]


The only man in the world who could relate to exacty what he was going through and he did not consult with him.


[quote] Any one who can't think of reasons to go to war in Iraq (whether they agree with them or prioritize them the same) have not put much effort or thought into the matter. The same is true about the exit statagy. Much depended upon how the war went, what the civillians would do, how much destruction would happen, what the other army would do, etc. After Afgahnistan, who could anticipate the foreign insurgents that would attack people applying to be police with suicide bombers? Who could anticipate foreign insurgents that would go into a school and drag out teachers and shoot them in the head in the street?[/quote]

The Gulf war had an exit strategy for Kuwait but they could not come up with one for taking over Baghdad. That is why Bush Sr didn't try to take Hussein out. I suspect the reason they could not come up with an exit plan was due to some of the very concerns you've listed and we've witnessed.

[Aloysius]

how do you not support the war but support the troops? it's very simple really.

there's an american soldier standing on the corner of an Iraqui street helping to hand out food and things to the people there. there's an iraqui militant on the same street with a bomb. who do you support?

or even, say, there's a battle raging and American soldiers are shooting at Iraqui insurgents. Who should win?

the men being fought are bad men. we may or may not be there for the right reasons, but the soldier that kills an iraqui insurgent who is attempting to destablize the country is doing a just act.

John Paul II basically ended up in this position. He opposed the war, but supported the troops... because he supported the effort to stabalize the region.

you don't support the decision to invade, but once the invasion happens which side do you support? I feel fairly confident that JPII wouldn't be supporting Saddam Hussein.

The original action may have been unjust. But since it's way in the past, you need to judge whether the current actions of fighting the iraqui insurgents is just or not. it is just.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 5 2005, 08:48 AM']The original action may have been unjust.  But since it's way in the past, you need to judge whether the current actions of fighting the iraqui insurgents is just or not.  it is just.
[right][snapback]746747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Really?

Would the situation be the same if the USA had been (as you say) [b]unjustly[/b] invaded? It would be wrong for Americans to continue to try to get rid of the invaders?