Dem Leader Declares: 'war Is Lost'...

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1254776' date='Apr 23 2007, 11:27 PM']The fact is Senator Reid has basically told every US military personal that has served in Iraq and those who made the ultimate sacrifice, that their efforts were for absolutely nothing.[/quote]

With respect, the trust and service of US service personnel have been cynically abused by the administration in pursuit of a war that is both questionable in its motives and its objectives, the fruit of which is evident for all to see. The issue is that this war is a debacle. Senator Reid [i]calling[/i] it a debacle is the least of our problems.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']13 little colonies went up against the greatest empire of the time, and won. Read the book of Daniel, God sets up kings and puts down kings.[/quote]

Hey, Thess brought up divine right. I'm simply asking, why is it "sin and rebellion" for me to question our elected leaders but not "sin and rebellion" for the American colonists to have taken up arms against King George III?

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']Do you take this to be an absloute? Does "nothing positive" come from Iraq? What would pulling out cause?[/quote]

Good question. The reality is, we really have two choices: ramp up our troop presence big time in order to quell the insurgency, provide the stability the political process requires to take root, or pull out. The steady drip, drip, drip of violence and death the is the result of an inadequate troop presence simply begs the question, since we won't be successful at these troop levels, why don't we simply get out now?

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254823' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:46 AM']And I as American and Catholic argue that the war is just. You argue it is not, what then should the President and his men be charged with? Mass Murder? Or something of like? What should their punishment be?[/quote]

The short answer is, yes, I believe that the administration has acted unconstitutionally in pursuit of this war, and has committed crimes with respect to prisoner abuse and torture, and should be held accountable.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1254933' date='Apr 24 2007, 10:29 AM']With respect, the trust and service of US service personnel have been cynically abused by the administration in pursuit of a war that is both questionable in its motives and its objectives, the fruit of which is evident for all to see. The issue is that this war is a debacle. Senator Reid [i]calling[/i] it a debacle is the least of our problems.[/quote]


It is different for a civilian than it is a soldier's, the mindsets are different. I'm not a soldier (yet), but I know many who are, and they are disgusted by this. Not to mention, the Democrats are the ones who want to cut funding to our troops. Because of this, the Army now has to cut back on services which is not wise during a time of war. Whatever happened to the saying "I'm against the war, but support the troops"? It seems they are now also after the troops. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh right-winger, but this issue is real sensitive to me.


[b]Eramight[/b], I apologize about my previous post, I honestly didn't know that was a curse word.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1254974' date='Apr 24 2007, 09:36 AM']It is different for a civilian than it is a soldier's, the mindsets are different. I'm not a soldier (yet), but I know many who are, and they are disgusted by this. Not to mention, the Democrats are the ones who want to cut funding to our troops. Because of this, the Army now has to cut back on services which is not wise during a time of war. Whatever happened to the saying "I'm against the war, but support the troops"? It seems they are now also after the troops. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh right-winger, but this issue is real sensitive to me.
[b]Eramight[/b], I apologize about my previous post, I honestly didn't know that was a curse word. [/quote]

Look, clearly there is a very fine line that needs to be trod between having an open, honest debate about the objectives and conduct of the war, and not wanting to undermine the morale of the troops.

The reality is that this war is going badly even in terms of the limited goal of the surge, i.e. to minimize violence in Baghdad in order to allow the political process and political institutions to take root. Pretending that the war [i]is not[/i] going badly isn't helping our troops, either.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a registered independent voter. Having said that, the Democrats [i]have not[/i] cut off funding for the troops. What they've done is prepare a funding bill that includes a timeline - and in the compromise bill, it's not even a requirement but a target date - to begin withdrawing troops. President Bush finds that unacceptable and states that he'll veto the bill. That's the legislative process. But it shouldn't be mischaracterized as cutting off funding for the troops.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1255054' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:52 PM']Look, clearly there is a very fine line that needs to be trod between having an open, honest debate about the objectives and conduct of the war, and not wanting to undermine the morale of the troops.

The reality is that this war is going badly even in terms of the limited goal of the surge, i.e. to minimize violence in Baghdad in order to allow the political process and political institutions to take root. Pretending that the war [i]is not[/i] going badly isn't helping our troops, either.[/quote]

Yes, but to take advantage of your political position to make such a statement on national television is wrong. Not only does it undermine the efforts of our troops, it also gives our enemy even more motivation to increase their attacks.


[quote]For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a registered independent voter. Having said that, the Democrats [i]have not[/i] cut off funding for the troops. What they've done is prepare a funding bill that includes a timeline - and in the compromise bill, it's not even a requirement but a target date - to begin withdrawing troops. President Bush finds that unacceptable and states that he'll veto the bill. That's the legislative process. But it shouldn't be mischaracterized as cutting off funding for the troops.[/quote]


- [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132611,00.html"]Pace: Funding May Affect Readiness[/url]

- [url="http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,132901,00.html"]Budget Delays Force Army Spending Cuts[/url]

- [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133428,00.html"]Air Force May Cut Pay For Surge[/url]


Some quotes from the last article:

[quote][b]Air Force May Cut Pay For Surge[/b]

[i]The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay.

Due to a congressional delay in approving a wartime supplemental funding bill this year, the Pentagon pulled about $880 million from the Air Force’s personnel accounts to make up for a shortfall it warned lawmakers would come in mid-April.

-------------------------------

The shortfall could delay permanent change of station moves, temporary duty expenses and other pays that “take care of people,” he said.

On April 15, the Army announced it would have to cut training, depot repair, and maintenance of non war-related gear because funding for the surge in Iraq, combat operations in Afghanistan and other Global War on Terrorism costs was running dry.

The Army also requested that about $1.6 billion be diverted from the Air Force and Navy personnel accounts to help put the wartime funding tab in the black.[/i][/quote]

Edited April 25, 2007 by Paladin D

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1255644' date='Apr 24 2007, 08:38 PM']Yes, but to take advantage of your political position to make such a statement on national television is wrong. Not only does it undermine the efforts of our troops, it also gives our enemy even more motivation to increase their attacks.[/quote]

We'll have to agree to differ. What you characterize as taking "advantage of [one's] political position," I characterize as having a debate. Why isn't it "taking advantage" of his political position for the president to state that he'll veto any bill that includes a timeline? If he vetoes the bill, why isn't [i]he[/i] being characterized as "cutting off funding" for the troops?

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1254831' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:17 AM']This has be debated [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=62687&st=0"]before[/url]. Iraq is not a preemptive war, even so that would not make it unjust. Again occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. There is not one war in history that meets your strict understanding of the just war doctrine.

Example, Men wiser than ourselves [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/tcc1299-1338"]Fathers Carthy & Rumble[/url], M.S.C. say in a repose to a listener who states

"Pope Pius XII, broadcasting on air-raids, condemned aerial warfare "that knows no law or limits" That proves I am right in saying that the war was unjust."

"Occasional injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. In condemning unrestricted aerial warfare, the Pope was but stressing the principle that even a good end does not justify the use of morally unlawful means; and that it is evil to indulge in an aerial warfare which is not limited to military objectives and which results in wanton destruction of civilian lives and property. Nor did his utterance imply that those on both sides might not be sincerely convinced of the justice of the cause in which they were fighting."
Such aerial warfare is against the just war doctrine, and the Fathers would have know this in their response. Clearly your strict understanding of the just war doctrine is not held by these two very wise men. And their response can be also applied to any comment or statement the Pope has made about the war in Iraq.[/quote]
Knight I agree with you on two things

One we've certainly hashed this out before.

and B There certainly wiser men than us that are discussing it.


But when the Prefect of the CDF (and now pope) comes out with such a clear statement about the nature of an action, its hard to dismiss regardless of whether or not the Church is going to have an official stance on this war or any other. And he seems to disagree with you in respect that the US did indeed strike first. Wiser men than ourselves will finally decide if this war is just or not. However, no one can argue that the door has been left open because of the actions taken to start the war, the treatment of prisoners, etc.

[Didymus]

Reid: "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog,"

I'm not gonna call you a dog, you dog