Bush Has It All Under Control

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

The governments of Spain, Australia, Italy, and the UK have leant support (none more so than the UK), but the overwhelming majority of the populace in those contries have not, which is surely signficant. Indeed, in Spain the government was unable to stay in power (yes 3/11 was a factor, but the government was already unpopular because of their support for the war). Lack of popular support undermines the level of committment and assistance we can expect from a democratic country.

Skilled diplomacy would have garnered not only more support, but stronger support as well. Our inability to succeed here continues to hamper us, especially now that our military is tied down in Iraq and we must rely on non-military options to address other threats, such as Iran and N. Korea. And yes, France and Germany are important countries to have on our side, just as much as the UK is.

Most people would define support from a country to mean support from their government, not a popular opinion survey. Yes, it’s telling, but the point is we received support from “heavy hitter” countries. Much of European and Arab angst against the US is caused by one-sided media coverage. Try watching European and Arab news for a few weeks. You’ll hate the US in a short time.

I think we would be relying on non-military means with Iran and North Korea even if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. I’d be happy to tell you my reasons if you want.

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

But that’s exactly my complaint - that we seem to have been unable to conceive of a way of enforcing UN resolutions short of paying “in blood and money” as you put it. What’s more, it is precisely in “blood and money” that seems to have been the preferred method of payment of the administration. In other words, the reason we’re in Iraq is because President Bush wanted us there, all other reasons being secondary (as to his motivations, I suppose we can only speculate, but I believe the course for war was set the moment he became president).

What you seem to be saying is that we should never have to pay in “blood and money” because there is always a diplomatic solution. I guess we failed in every war going back to the Revolutionary War.

After twelve years of violating UN resolutions, multiple diplomatic attempts by many countries, sanctions and oil-for-food, the US finally went in and enforced both the ceasefire and UN resolutions. Would you put no time limit at all on enforcing UN resolutions with “blood and money”? If not, then how can the UN ever gain credibility? If so, then how much longer would you have waited?

 

[oat_soda]

I cannot recall hearing a dumber argument on these pages than this one. One needs to consider what the death rate would have been in Iraq with a murderous Saddam regime still in power and sanctions still in place. Given the size of those mass graves that have been found, it probably would have been WORSE.

objectively speaking, we kill far more innocent life then sadam’s regime ever has. most of the mass graves were either ethinic kurds from the late 80’s or were related to the uprising after the 1st gulf war. all total, estimates from the u.s. state dept. are around 200k to 300k people killed.

sadam took power back in 1979. since that time, our country allowed the abortion of 1 million babies a year would average out to be about 24 million over the same time span or around 100 times more then iraq. i also would like to point out the JPII called abortion a holocaust in his latest book.

Last time I checked, the Iraqis had their own government and were in charge of making their own laws, so your whole “export the culture of death government” seems a little hollow. In, fact your whole argument seems based more on a hatred of American culture and GWB than any objective analysis of what is going on in the ground in Iraq. I refer you to my previous posts on this thread.

if hating abortion and materialism and the evils of a un-just war equates to hating america, then i guess i do hate america. but i am catholic first, you seem to be american first. you don’t just disagree with me, but also with John Paul II the great and the teachings of the catholic faith.

 

[gilliam]

If you add the numbers of deaths Saddam was responsible for, including the Iran / Iraq war, the invasion of Quwait, and retribution after 1991, the total is over 1 million.

 

[thestickman]

oat soda:

if hating abortion and materialism and the evils of a un-just war equates to hating america, then i guess i do hate america. but i am catholic first, you seem to be american first. you don’t just disagree with me, but also with John Paul II the great and the teachings of the catholic faith.

I notice you still have no quote from JP2 to validate you assertion our removal of Saddam from power was unjust. Still looking foward to that. Also, when did JP2 ever say he hated America or asserted Catholics should do so?

Moral equivilency arguments are always a hoot, ain’t they? Keep trying to make an argument for leaving Saddam in power–it’s enlightening and entertaining at the same time.

Also, remember the last line in CCC’s 2309: **The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Let’s see, in America, that would be the Congress and the President, right? Opps, sorry your theory was just invalidated
**

 

[CatholicChef]

I totally agree.

To the one who made such hateful comments: I am not a “traitor” because I disagree with the war. I don’t “hate” Bush, but I do believe he is an opportunist. Sorry, but I am an American and have a right to my opinion. Would some say that the Germans who disagreed with Hilter were “traitors”?? Let’s just wait and see who Bush goes after next!!!

slewi:

Oh. My. God. Did you really just write this?

Nice catholic sentiment, that.

1. Pro-life? Only when it suits him it seems.
2. 12,896 Americans wounded, 1,902 Ameicans dead.

We’re supposed to sanction peace, not war.

Stephen

 

[oat_soda]

I notice you still have no quote from JP2 to validate you assertion our removal of Saddam from power was unjust. Still looking foward to that. Also, when did JP2 ever say he hated America or asserted Catholics should do so?

first, who said JPII hated america?

JPII: “No to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”

“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society… Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men.”

i guess when he said no to war he really meant unless the u.s. thinks differently

As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. “Certainly not,” he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”

“All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…” The conclusion is one he gave many times: “the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Let’s see, in America, that would be the Congress and the President, right? Opps, sorry your theory was just invalidated

i don’t think you thought this through. with your reasoning, any war or any moral decision by a government is above criticism and is infallible or just, like the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. were the nazi’s and communist were just when they invaded and conquered countries because they made the decision? who else can decide when to go to war? there is a thing called “separation of church and state” for better or worse.

 

[thestickman]

first, who said JPII hated america?

Read the following:

"

if hating abortion and materialism and the evils of a un-just war equates to hating america, *then i guess i do hate america.**but i am catholic first, you seem to be american first. you don’t just disagree with me, but also with John Paul II the great *and the teachings of the catholic faith.

Reads to me like that’s what you were inferring.
oat soda:

		 				JPII: "**No to war**! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity."

So share with us where/when JP2 stated our war with Iraq was unjust? You’ve given the quote where JP2 states, as all Popes to my knowledge have before, their dislike of all war. To my knowledge, no sane person wants war. Sadly, however, it is called for on occasion.

i guess when he said no to war he really meant unless the u.s. thinks differently

LOL!!! Another fallacious assertion. You have no quote from JP2 that our war with Iraq was unjust because he never made one.

i don’t think you thought this through.[/qoute]

You would be wrong.

with your reasoning, any war or any moral decision by a government is above criticism and is infallible or just, like the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki

LOL!!! That’s hilarious. You quote the CCC when it suits you and ignore the portions when it doesn’t. You’ve exercised another fallacious argument in bringing up events or issues from WW2 into this discussion as they have ZIP to do with our removal of Saddam from power.

were the nazi’s and communist were just when they invaded and conquered countries because they made the decision?

LOL!!! Did the nazi’s/communists invade, remove tryannical dictators, end the killing of innocents or did they ensalve or slaughter millions? Again, your moral equvilency fails when held up to the light of reality.

Who else can decide when to go to war?

In America, that would be Congress and the President.

there is a thing called “separation of church and state” for better or worse.

Hmmm yeah…the relevance of this would be?

 

[oat_soda]

So share with us where/when JP2 stated our war with Iraq was unjust? You’ve given the quote where JP2 states, as all Popes to my knowledge have before, their dislike of all war. To my knowledge, no sane person wants war. Sadly, however, it is called for on occasion.

you don’t seem to grasp the concept of a just war. strict requirements are needed to be met for a war to be justified. it is the duty of the state to go to war to protect innocent life, as it was during the crusades when the pope called on europe to unite and go to war. the pope is not a pacifist. when he says “no war” he means “no war” not “war sucks”. if the war was justified, it would have been the duty to go to war. the pope couldn’t say “no war” because he would contradict church teachings.

CCC 2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense

. failure for a government not to defend innocent life is immoral according to the church.

2309

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be** lasting, grave, and certain**; so if iraq was the aggressor, in what ways were they inflicting lasting, grave, and certain, damage on the united states or anyone else? last time i checked, we had him pretty well contained by the northern and southern no-fly zones.

anyone who has half a brain can see that this first condition was never met making the war ipso facto unjust. preemptive war, as B16 said is NOT in the catechism!!

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

maybe so.

• there must be serious prospects of success;

this one is debateable

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. this is the biggest problem with the war. every day more and more innocent lives are taken by car bombings.

A study published by the Lancet

says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

 

[gilliam]

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

10-37,000 is a very large range. That is also an estimate that includes all deaths, even deaths of those who really were not civilians (hard to figure out who the enemy is when, in violation of the Geneva Accords, they don’t wear a uniform). The onlyway to know for sure is to do a background check on all casulties. I doubt that the study asked even if a chemical test for explosive resedue was performed on the victom’s hands to see if they handled munitions.

The whole goal of the terrorists is to cause mass carnage so as to get people to demand we give up. When that happens, they take over, and they win. I would seriously suggest you read: Experts: Iraq withdrawal now would be bad idea

 

[thestickman]

oat soda:

this is the biggest problem with the war. every day more and more innocent lives are taken by car bombings.

LOL!!! Too sad and funny. The war is not the reason for the suicide/homicide bombers in Iraq. Terrorism and cowardice is.

you don’t seem to grasp the concept of a just war.

Nope. I understand the concept perfectly.

strict requirements are needed to be met for a war to be justified.

Agreed and in the case of our war in Iraq, they have.

it is the duty of the state to go to war to protect innocent life,

As the US has done in this war at great risk to our own troops. We could have leveled whole citied and didn’t do so because of our desire to keep civilian casualties as low as possible.

as it was during the crusades when the pope called on europe to unite and go to war.

IMO, Saddam would have capitualted and no war would have been neccessary had France and Germany told Saddam the game was up–opps, they couldn’t do that cuz of oil-for-fraud.

Anyone know if JP2 called for Saddam to step down? I don’t know if he did or not and I’m curious.

the pope is not a pacifist.

I never said he was.

when he says “no war” he means “no war” not “war sucks”.

LOL!!! That’s what he said regarding war in general. Now where is that quote regarding our war with Iraq? You find it yet?

if the war was justified,

It was.

it would have been the duty to go to war.

Hate to break it to you, but according to the Catechism, the Pope isn’t the one to make that call. In this instance, Congress and President Bush are/were.

Here’s my favorite from your whole post:

                          A study published by the [Lancet](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

You mean this outfit actually did a study on the violence committed while Saddam was in power? Actually, they didn’t. Here’s what they did do:

The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore. They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq. They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

LOL!!! Anyone else see the hilarious irony here besides me?

 

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

What you seem to be saying is that we should never have to pay in “blood and money” because there is always a diplomatic solution. I guess we failed in every war going back to the Revolutionary War.

I do, in fact, think that every war, in fact all violence, marks a failure to some degree. While it is true that it is not always a failure equally shared, in the case where it is a war of choice, there is a great deal of responsiblity upon the agressor. In Iraq, that would be us.

The fundamental flaw in Iraq, to my mind, was making the goal “regime change now” That goal virtually guaranteed war, and by that criteria alone I guess Iraq was a “success.” We’ve certainly changed the regime, though into what remains to be seen.

Alternative goals may have been, for instance, to prevent the development and spread of WMDs, in which case the UN inspections turn out to have worked quite well, while arguable our invasion has spurred Iran and N Korea to further work on their own WMD program, the opposite of our intended goal. Or a goal may have been to increase democracy in the Middle East, in which case it would have made more sense to focus on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as we are belatedly doing, or to spend serious political capital on Palestine/Israel or supporting the increasing Westernization of Turkey.

Or perhaps our goal should have been to decrease the number of terrorists and hunt down Al Queada. As someone living in NYC, I have more than a passing interest in this goal, as when the next attack comes there’s a good chance it’ll be here again. Our actions in Iraq, though, seem to have had the opposite effect, and I feel far less secure, not more, than I did before we invaded.

 

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

Most people would define support from a country to mean support from their government, not a popular opinion survey. Yes, it’s telling, but the point is we received support from “heavy hitter” countries. Much of European and Arab angst against the US is caused by one-sided media coverage. Try watching European and Arab news for a few weeks. You’ll hate the US in a short time.

I think we would be relying on non-military means with Iran and North Korea even if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. I’d be happy to tell you my reasons if you want.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss popular support or disapproval for a government’s action when we’re talking about democracies. I think it’s very relevant, in fact.

I would be interested in some discussion on N. Korea and Iran. I suggest you put this in a new thread, though, so we can at least pretend we’re concerned about thread drift

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

IMO, Saddam would have capitualted and no war would have been neccessary had France and Germany told Saddam the game was up–opps, they couldn’t do that cuz of oil-for-fraud.

Ahem…that would have been one possible non-war avenue to pursue. Why didn’t we put more pressure on France and Germany in the whole run up to the war? Again reinforcing my position that there were other, and probably more cost-effective, means of getting our desired ends than a full-out military occupation of Iraq.

 

[gilliam]

France was in the pay of Saddam to get rid of the sanctions. They did everthing they could to usurp our efforts on that front.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Ahem…that would have been one possible non-war avenue to pursue. Why didn’t we put more pressure on France and Germany in the whole run up to the war?

LOL!!! You assume we didn’t apply all the pressure we could just because they didn’t go along with us? Too funny.

You might want to do a lil’ research. We did put pressure on France and Germany. They decided, for their own reasons not to join with us. France obviously was neck-deep in the oil-for-fraud scandal along with others from the Useless Nations who were getting kickbacks from the program.

Again reinforcing my position that there were other, and probably more cost-effective, means of getting our desired ends than a full-out military occupation of Iraq.

Actually, taking something 100% out of context in order to make a fallacious assumption does just the opposite: you invalidated your entire claim.

 

[oat_soda]

LOL!!! Too sad and funny. The war is not the reason for the suicide/homicide bombers in Iraq. Terrorism and cowardice is.

obviously you’re not open to reason. suicide bombings were non existant before the war.

you haven’t provided any reasoning of how this war fufills the just war doctine, especially how*** damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; ***

there is no mention of a “preemptive strike” or “possible future damage”. he was damaging no one immediately before the war and never inflicted any damage on our soil.

“Mr. President, your visit to Rome takes place at a moment of great concern for the continuing situation of grave unrest in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in the Holy Land,” said John Paul, an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. “You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made.”

so you can’t say the pope was neutral, he’s telling bush that he is familiar with the unequivocal position of the holy see!!! clearly, he has only spoken against the war as being unjust.

But in some of the Vatican’s strongest language against a possible war, its foreign minister Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said a unilateral military strike would be a “crime against peace” with no justification on grounds of self-defense.

i can find plenty more outspoke opposition to the war comming from the pope and the vatican.

 

[Richardols]

mike182d:

Actually, I’ve got a better question:

If a man pulls a gun on your daughter, how long do you try to coerce the man “peacefully” into not shooting her? Do you wait for him to pull the trigger?

You are equating a private citizen’s personal reaction to an assault on a member of his immediate family with the way nations must interact with each other as nations? I don’t think you are being serious here.

 

[thestickman]

oat soda:

obviously you’re not open to reason. suicide bombings were non existant before the war.

LOL!!! I guess all those suicide bombers in Israel where just figmants of my imagination–along with the 25,000 dollar payments by Saddam to the homicide-coward’s family.
oat soda:

you haven’t provided any reasoning of how this war fufills the just war doctine, especially how*** damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; ***

I haven’t thus far because you show 100% resistence to reality. The reality is, there was no peace treaty signed at the end of GW1. There was only a ceasefire agreement. Saddam violated all of the tenants of that agreement. By his own choice he refused to show the world what he did with his WMD’s and the programs to make more. Add to that he continually fired upon US aircraft in the no-fly zones, coupled with his fiscal support of terrorists and the terrorist camps he permitted within his borders and you have more than enough justification under that portion of the CCC.

there is no mention of a “preemptive strike” or “possible future damage”. he was damaging no one immediately before the war and never inflicted any damage on our soil.

LOL!!! Never said there was. There was no need to. You might want to educate yourself and read the Congressional Resolution which gave President Bush the authority to remove Saddam from power.

so you can’t say the pope was neutral, he’s telling bush that he is familiar with the unequivocal position of the holy see!!! clearly, he has only spoken against the war as being unjust. i can find plenty more outspoke opposition to the war comming from the pope and the vatican.

LOL!!! Still can’t find a quote where JP2 said our war in Iraq was unjust, can you? When you do, we’ll all be glad to read it, I’m sure. No where in the news story’s you posted is the suggestion our going to war to remove Saddam was going to be (these articles were all written before we removed Saddam from power) considered unjust–which is exactly what you and other have errantly been trying to pass off as fact for a couple of years now.

 

[JOHNYJ]

That statement is pityful. We don’t control Bagdhad ,much less all of Iraq. foreign terrorists are pouring over the Syrian and Iranian borders .What can One expect.President Bush can’t secure the U S border with Mexico .So how can he hope to secure Iraq’s borders.
According to DOD statements we have killed or captured more Terrorists than the D O D originaly told us existed in All Iraq.