G
geezerbob
Guest
What were we supposed to learn from Somalia? That some people aren’t worth helping? Please explain.
- Status
W
walstan
Guest
geezerbob said:
Don’t interfere unless you are very very sure of the outcome.
You call Somalia a humanitarian mission but how many Somalians died because of a poorly thought out and badly exocuted operation? I was also under the impression that the same excuse is now being used for Iraq. In an earlier post somebody said:
I assume from this that all the others, Iraq’s etc. don’t count.
M
mike182d
Guest
I posted this yesterday, but not many people were interested in it. I guess no one wants to hear good news about the Iraqi war. You tell me who is ignoring reality. 
Iraq: The Killers Keep Losing
By AMIR TAHERI
June 1, 2005 – A MONTH after the forma tion of Iraq’s first freely elected government, news of suicide attacks, car bombs and kidnappings continue to dominate the headlines from Baghdad. In April and May the number of people killed in terrorist attacks rose to an average of 15 a day, compared to five for February and March.
Does this mean that the insurgency has fresh wind in its sails? Are the terrorists winning, as some Western commentators suggest? The answers: No, and no.
To be sure, the insurgency still holds the tactical initiative in the sense that, within the area where it has an effective presence, it can still decide where and when to strike. Strategically, however, the insurgency is weaker today than it was a year ago. This is because the struggle for Iraq is ultimately a political one, the outcome of which will not be decided by how many people each side kills but by how those killings and other acts of violence are translated into political realities…
(–snip–)
Full article: nypost.com/postopinion/o…nists/47500.htm
Iraq: The Killers Keep Losing
By AMIR TAHERI
June 1, 2005 – A MONTH after the forma tion of Iraq’s first freely elected government, news of suicide attacks, car bombs and kidnappings continue to dominate the headlines from Baghdad. In April and May the number of people killed in terrorist attacks rose to an average of 15 a day, compared to five for February and March.
Does this mean that the insurgency has fresh wind in its sails? Are the terrorists winning, as some Western commentators suggest? The answers: No, and no.
To be sure, the insurgency still holds the tactical initiative in the sense that, within the area where it has an effective presence, it can still decide where and when to strike. Strategically, however, the insurgency is weaker today than it was a year ago. This is because the struggle for Iraq is ultimately a political one, the outcome of which will not be decided by how many people each side kills but by how those killings and other acts of violence are translated into political realities…
(–snip–)
Full article: nypost.com/postopinion/o…nists/47500.htm
M
mike182d
Guest
He probably means the deaths are far less in number than the millions of Iraqi’s tortured and killed under Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime.
M
mike182d
Guest
So, you want one side to fight in all fairness, completely by the book, rule for rule, while their opposing side fights by any means accessible to them?
Guess who would win that battle.
M
mike182d
Guest
Let’s see…who got us involved in those wars?
Korea - Democrats
Vietnam - Democrats
Cambodia - Democrats
Somalia - Democrats
By electing a Republican we *did *learn from history, and the Iraqi war, and Afghanistan, has turned out far better than any other military operation since WWII.
S
space_ghost
Guest
…a little surprised at you gilliam…
…you might disagree, but why would you think any american would possibly hope for more terrorism… not very american of you, IMHO…
…yep, beneath you i think…vacation time…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Even worse, they aided the enemy, encouraging them to drag out the war. Most of those who died in Viet Nam died because of arrogant jerks who thought it was fun to protest the war.
W
walstan
Guest
The ones who follow a code of law, who follow basic human rights (just like those Jesus taught us) and those who are seen by the rest of the world to be unbaised, fair and who administer true justice. Simple really!!
W
walstan
Guest
So, the ones Saddam killed count, but the ones we killed didn’t? I always thought the catholic Church taught that ALL life was sacred, not just some. Is there some theological paper out there that we don’t know about?
T
Trelow
Guest
“rEpUbLiCiAnS aRe WaR mOnGeRz!!!1111 WoOaRgh!!!1111”
–Howard Dean
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
So you say we are morally equivallent to Saddam Hussain? There’s no difference between our troops and Al Qaeda terrorists?
M
mike182d
Guest
You mean basic humans rights like those that allow flying two Boeing airliner jets into two civilian building, killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children?
Jesus taught us that when our enemies hurt us, we are to offer the other cheek. I guess that means we should invite them to blow up more buildings and slaughter more innocent men, women and children, right? Isn’t that what Jesus taught?
Fact of the matter is that Jesus deliberately stayed out of politics. His primary concern was personal norms and maxims, how we as individuals are to treat each other. Relationships between individuals and the relationship between a governing body entrusted with the care and protection of its citizens are two entirely different matters. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas, in explaining just war doctrine, states that no individual is allowed to take up arms against another individual, except in the case of self-defense. The only entity permitted to engage in war are governing bodies entrusted with maintaining a peaceful and just society.
Bear in mind that “peace” is not the absence of war, but rather the preservation of a well-ordered, and just society.
M
mike182d
Guest
No. What I’m saying is that if you’re strickly concerned with how many people die, it is better for 15 people to die a day than 27 (the average number of people who died under Saddam Hussein a day).
“Theoretically” we’ve saved 12 people a day, on average.
But that’s only if your sole basis for judging a war as just or unjust is body count.
M
mike182d
Guest
Trelow said:
lol.
Actually, let’s go further back in history:
Civil War - Southern Democrats
WWI - Democrats
WWII - Democrats
Korea - Democrats
Vietnam - Democrats
Cambodia - Democrats
Somalia - Democrats
Notice a trend?
Anyone who says Republicans are “war-mogerers” have no idea what they’re talking about.
W
walstan
Guest
vern humphrey:
Nope, what I am saying is that you can’t use one wrong as a justification of another. At the end if the day people have died, mothers have lost their children and children their mothers, and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to them whether the bullet came from an Iraqi, American, British or Al Qaeda gun or bomb, they are still dead.
W
walstan
Guest
My point in a nutshell!!!
M
mike182d
Guest
I’m not quite sure I follow you. Here’s a quote from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Ad Caelia Reginam:
“…let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God…”
I would be interested in hearing what your idea of maintaining a “just” society would have been after 9-11. Just because men die, it doesn’t follow that the cause of death was unjust. Prior to the liberation of Iraq, millions of men, women, and children were gassed, thrown in to shredders alive, tortured, et cetera, and for what? So that a brutal dictator could maintain his wealth and power. After the liberation of Iraq, men, women, and children are dying to secure a society free of tyranny and oppression.
Which situation is better or more “just?”
M
mike182d
Guest
We’re not talking about their means of death but rather why they died.
For example, one man dies from overdosing on heroine while another is shot for proclaiming his faith in Jesus Christ. Both are equal, right? It doesn’t matter how a person died, right? To think as such undermines the whole theology of martyrdom. It is not the death of a man who is going to die anyway that is evil but rather the reason why they died. In the example I just gave, the death of the martyr is incredibly noble while the death of the heroine addict is incredibly tragic. Just because they both died doesn’t mean that both deaths are equal.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When you call self-defense a “wrong” you are drawing a moral equivallency.
What’s YOUR solution?
They drove a van with a bomb inside into the World Trade Center. We treated it like it was a matter for police.
They were the masterminds behind killing US troops in Somolia, and we pulled out.
They bombed the USS Cole, and we did virtually nothing.
They blew up two US embassies in Africa, and we gave them a slap on the wrist.
Not hitting back certainly didn’t help.
- Status