Support of the Iraq war by American Catholics

[jasJis]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Apr 13 2006, 01:12 PM']Ironmonk, I don't think an article written in April 2003 comes anywhere close to being credible.  Furthermore, the article is deceptive by talking about civilian deaths, but he mysteriously includes in his pre-war figures the 500,000 deaths that were mostly military resulting from the Iran War.  That's not just being manipulative of data, that's outright lying.
[right][snapback]946357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Please correct me if I'm wrong, Snarf. The report I read authored by Amnesty International put the responsibility of the war deaths on Sadaam as he initiated the war. How is that manipulative or a lie?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Apr 13 2006, 03:12 PM']Ironmonk, I don't think an article written in April 2003 comes anywhere close to being credible.  Furthermore, the article is deceptive by talking about civilian deaths, but he mysteriously includes in his pre-war figures the 500,000 deaths that were mostly military resulting from the Iran War.  That's not just being manipulative of data, that's outright lying.
[right][snapback]946357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do the research and do not be so lazy.

Wise up a bit and think. Compare the numbers.

The numbers found that saddam killed before the war grow from time to time because he didn't particularly keep records of those in the mass graves, just like the nazi's mass graves... They are not going to shrink.

Less people are dying.

What I find sad is that you fail to do any research. Knowlege does not happen by osmosis. You actually have to work at gaining it. If you did the research you wouldn't ask ignorant questions or make ignorant statements. Just because something was written in 2003 does not negate how many people Saddam has killed. Why would someone write about it now anyhow? There is no reason to because the man has been out of power for a while.

Most deaths now and for many months are due to Saudi terrorist... the deaths of today are not due to the USA.

[amandaplus5]

Well said.

[onathing1]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 13 2006, 05:07 PM']Do the research and do not be so lazy.

Wise up a bit and think. Compare the numbers.

The numbers found that saddam killed before the war grow from time to time because he didn't particularly keep records of those in the mass graves, just like the nazi's mass graves... They are not going to shrink.

Less people are dying.

What I find sad is that you  fail to do any research. Knowlege does not happen by osmosis. You actually have to work at gaining it. If you did the research you wouldn't ask ignorant questions or make ignorant statements. Just because something was written in 2003 does not negate how many people Saddam has killed. Why would someone write about it now anyhow? There is no reason to because the man has been out of power for a while.

Most deaths now and for many months are due to Saudi terrorist... the deaths of today are not due to the USA.
[right][snapback]946495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


*applaud*

Well said!

[Desert Walker]

I have read all posts subsequent to my first.

Ironmonk and JasJis make a strong case for war against Saddam; not just a conflict with him, but outright annihilation of his regime. I say "HOORAH!" to that. It was just to throw him down. Bush has made the same case, appealing to our sympathies and emotions and fears. I find that I stand with him, feeling a sense of righteousness and nationalism, when he does that. It would have been even more righteous had GW's father finished the job in Gulf War I. He didn't, and I have little respect for him because of that.

But that aside, I find it difficult to trust GW these days. I voted for him both times so it is hard for me to say that. I am suspicious that he is a globalist and not a TRUE U.S. patriot.

You see, I've come to realize that a war against Islamic states, that are governed by extremists and supporters of terrorist organizations, is a necessary thing to establish the absolute rule of the government of a World State. Fundamentalist Christianity, Islam and orthodox Catholicism stand in the way of the efforts of the United Nations to control a worldwide social reconstruction (which is modeled on Marxism and atheistic secular humanism).

I think Bush is using the American fear of terror to move American soldiery against Islamic extremists so that secular humanist Marxism can be introduced in a reconstructive fashion into the cultures of religious Islam. The "building of democracy" in Iraq is actually a mere front for the reconstruction of Iraqi culture away from its traditional roots to the banal, milquetoast embrace of the New World Order.

[Snarf]

Ironmonk:

Your posts demonstrate the exact strategy that have placed us into this quagmire, and that is deliberate rotation of the issues at hand. Why go to Iraq? Because of weapons of mass destruction, of course. Sorry, put up or shut up. Okay, Iraq has ties to Al Quaeda. Prove it. Alright, Saddam is a really mean guy who killed lots of his own people. Good point there, except by Republican standards in the case against Milosovic, that's not reason to go to war. Furthermore, unlike Milosevic, Saddam's travesties were all water under the bridge; he didn't have the capacity any longer to commit full-scale genocide in his own country or elsewhere.

So, while you can pretend to have some kind of intellectual superiority by calling others "ignorant" because they overlook propaganda, even when you have no clue as to how much research anyone else has done (evidently you're more interested in slander than verisimilitude), all you have done is post the same tripe that has been flying around since BEFORE the war.

As for weapons of mass destruction, a few dozen sarin gas projectiles doesn't quite cut it for just war criteria. What was it that Bush said, that they could attack the United States within 45 minutes back in 2003? The word "stockpiles" also springs to mind. Oh, sorry, I forgot that none of this constitutes "research" since it's inconvenient to your indoctrination.

Yes, it was a tragedy that so many people died in Saddam's genocide. However, killing scores of thousands of MORE civilians doesn't quite bring them back to life. It'd be one thing if you could argue that Saddam had the capability and desire to commit more mass murders, but the truth stands to the contrary. Your comment that most civilian deaths occuring now are caused by Saudi terrorists is nominally true, but do you really think they'd be there if not for the occupation? And don't say that it's not our fault that the terrorists came, any moron could have prognosticated that and in fact the White House was COUNTING on it as a post hoc justification for the misnomer of the Iraq War being the War on Terror.

I honestly think that it's wonderful that Saddam is no longer in power. However, much of reality is a two-sided coin, and the next several years are going to brutally demonstrate that the gains of such an expenditure will not come anywhere near to justifying the costs. More people have and will continue to die due to the American occupation than would have if Saddam were left in power.

I also find it quite sad how you contradicted yourself in the following manner. You say that a major justification for war in Iraq is the attrocities commited by Saddam. You say that these attrocities are common knowledge. Yet, you say that John Paul II was not privy to the information held by the White House, so he was incapable of determining whether or not the war was just. That is absolute nonsense, and in your heart I'm sure you're aware of this.

As for the war being about weapons of mass destruction, the British government recently conceded that Bush had told them that the invasion of Iraq was going to happen regardless of any Iraqi weapons disclosure or disarment. Granted that was pretty obvious to anyone listening to Bush speak in the months leading up to war, but it's still nice to hear someone be honest for a change. What this proves is that the weapons were nothing but an excuse to exercise military force for ulterior motives. It takes very little common sense to affirm this just by the history of the war itself.

[jasJis]

Snarf,
I know you're young, but not that young. Roll back your memory banks. Sadaam agreed to not develop weapons of mass destruction in treaties with the United States AND the United Nations. It was fact that Sadaam had programs that may have been used for development of WMD and was funneling $$ into the military in Direct Violation of the treaties and sanctions. The UN weapon inspectors COULD NOT CONFIRM Sadaam DID NOT HAVE WMD already or indevelopment.
What were the penalties of these violations? What were the threats?
I for one, never was one of those parents or adults who would make threats that were empty or baseless. Countries and International Bodies cannot afford to make empty promises or threats either as that undermines their authority because rules have no power of enforcement. Think, man.

[God the Father]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 12:58 PM']Ok, what do YOU think is going on?  You actually BELIEVE what you see on TV?
[right][snapback]946240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If we believed what was on TV, the general consensus would be that upwards of five tactical nuclear missles were deployed on Iraq, and now the survivors are horribly mutated psychotic killers bent on violently spreading the word of Allah across the world.

[CrossCuT]

[color=330000]All hail Allah







[/color]

[amandaplus5]

[quote]If we believed what was on TV, the general consensus would be that upwards of five tactical nuclear missles were deployed on Iraq, and now the survivors are horribly mutated psychotic killers bent on violently spreading the word of Allah across the world.[/quote]





So true...