That’s one opinion.
Again, your opinion.
Many can disagree all they wish. In this instance, the Congress and the President have the responsibility for the common good of our nation.**
If you think so, then you go ahead and think so.
Iraq was considered a legitimate state even as we went to war with it. Iraqi soldiers were given the protection of the Geneva Convention as combatants of a state, not as insurgents or guerillas.
Yes, this seems unclear. Why would the leaders try to morally evaluate under the Catholic conditions if they weren’t Catholic?
It’s available online from the USCCB site:
Not calling American soldiers names is not what this war is about. You seem overly sensitive about the subject, Vern. Believe it or not, American soldiers don’t break down and cry if someone calls them bad names.
The Iraqi Army has been defeated, and Saddam is in custody. How long do you want the “war against terror” to drag on?
Like we’re supposed to be upset if Ahbar the Ragpicker guffaws when he reads that another American has been killed?
That’s very useful. Thanks
Thanks, Miguel. Our “Support the Troops = Support George Bush’s War” posters would do well to reflect on what a conservative, not some leftist has written.
Thanks. But, that’s just one opinion. Would those same GIs say that we don’t support them because we didn’t support what went on at Abu-Ghraib?
It was much more than one opinion. But I know you are set in your ways, so /shrug
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like Democratic Party support for abortion-on-demand. Nevermind that abortion hasn’t solved a single social ill like was promised; let’s just do everything we can to keep it legal so women can keep on choosing to kill their babies.
– Mark L. Chance.
Because I believe the war is unjust, I cannot support it. I can, however, support such things as better armor and other safety equipment and better veterans benefits, and I most certainly can and do pray for the safety of all in the field. I can and do wish them well, but I cannot violate my conscience. If they feel this is not “supporting them,” I’m sorry, but I guess our opinions of what constitutes “support” will just have to differ.
So they can live another day and continue the war you (generic you here, nothing personal) are doing all you can to subvert at home? And as you subvert it, out of the other side of their your mouth you are saying you wish them well? They would say, come on, pick a side and stick to it!
Now, now. Subverting means to corrupt by undermining morals, allegiance, or faith. Do you really think that opposition to Bush’s War is undermining the morals, faith, or allegiance of our soldiers? To the contrary, opposition to the war is confirmation of the principles of free speech and of varying political viewpoints that we value so highly.
You’re an expert on “cluster munitions” and depleted uranium, are you?
Yes, subverting allegiance in what they are doing and faith in what they are doing. And for some people undermining in all ways possible. Spending hours and days online undermining their efforts.
I want them to live another day. They are human beings, and so the choice of what they do in the future is theirs to make, not mine. Their humanity takes precedence over their role as soldiers. Of course I would prefer that they were not fighting an unjust war, but it does not follow that I have any right to wish them dead or maimed.
If being an expert on a topic is the criterion for posting here, either we’d have very few posters on this Forum or we’d have people who’d be awfully limited about what they could post.
That notion is a cheap emotional trick - that opposing the Administration’s policies is equivalent to wanting to kill American soldiers. The only people who say those things are right-wingers who have to resort to jingoistic emotionalism to justify their desired denial of another’s right to dissent.