Originally Posted by bobzills View Post
How would people in the USA feel if China took it upons itself to invade the USA for the humanitarian purpose of teaching good manners in public schools. Since there has been so much shooting of innocent children at USA schools, and the USA government is unable to provide protection for these innocent students, it seems only proper and just that a foreign country should embark on a humanitarian mission and invade and occupy the USA in order to protect the students in the USA. And at the same time, perhaps an occupying power, such as China, would be able to teach good manners to American students.
Yours is a flawed ideology and is not in accordance with any Scripture or Dogma. Other than that, before the war oil was under $30 bbl and now is over $100. If we set out to secure cheap fuel we have failed.So long as we have a petroleum based economy…then yes…oil…any source of oil…is in our national interest. Every part of our nation is dependent on oil, from agriculture to zoos…
But I asked, because I did my tour in A’stan…and I had commented on my experiences and was told:
Let’s clear up some points:Yours is a flawed ideology and is not in accordance with any Scripture or Dogma. Other than that, before the war oil was under $30 bbl and now is over $100. If we set out to secure cheap fuel we have failed.
More intersting is your lack of comment regarding the war on terror which took us to Iraq to begin with and keeps us in Afghanistan. When I served I was very much against fighting for UN resolutions. Do you think that is the intended and good use of the US military?
Plus the other poster asked a relavant and pertanent question. How would you feel if China invaded us because they thought their ideology was better than ours? What if they supported LaRaza in Mexico to take over the South West much like we are protecting Taiwan from China?
How do you know what my ideology is? I did not espouse any in my post…unless pointing out the obvious is an ideology.Yours is a flawed ideology and is not in accordance with any Scripture or Dogma. Other than that, before the war oil was under $30 bbl and now is over $100. If we set out to secure cheap fuel we have failed.
My views of the war on terror have been outlined in other places on this thread…I see no reason to repeat myself in every post.More intersting is your lack of comment regarding the war on terror which took us to Iraq to begin with and keeps us in Afghanistan. When I served I was very much against fighting for UN resolutions. Do you think that is the intended and good use of the US military?
Your last post shows a striking lack of historical background. The Taiwanese government is the historically rightful government of China. The Kuomintang government ruled all of China until we allowed Mao and his thugs to take over the mainland…of course, since Mao was supported by the Soviets, we had little choice. The Nixon Administration in an effort to ease international relations withdrew recognition of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and conferred recognition on the People’s Republic of Taiwan (ChiComs) both in US international relations and in the UN. That is a vastly different set of circumstances than between the US and Mexico.Plus the other poster asked a relavant and pertanent question. How would you feel if China invaded us because they thought their ideology was better than ours? What if they supported LaRaza in Mexico to take over the South West much like we are protecting Taiwan from China?
Ok, I understand you better. You think war for oil is legitimate regardless of the sovereign rights of others. I saw nothing to respond to specifically regarding your reply.Let’s clear up some points:
I was asked if oil (the PP mentioned Iraqi specifically) was our national interest. Oil is a strategic necessity. EVERYTHING in our economy and our military relies greatly on oil. That was the question that I was asked…and that was all that I answered to. I did not comment on what his response to my reply was…I only answered the question. What I find interesting is the utter lack of response to my reply.
Pardonez moi?Ok, I understand you better. You think war for oil is legitimate regardless of the sovereign rights of others. I saw nothing to respond to specifically regarding your reply.
Your profile calims you to be Catholic. By that I have a very good idea what your ideology is or should be. Unless you are like other “Catholics” like those in public office (Kerry, Pelosi, Richardson, Giuliani…) that do not uphold the tenets of the faith for political/personal reasons. Then it is hard to guess at ideology even when it is so stated.How do you know what my ideology is? I did not espouse any in my post…unless pointing out the obvious is an ideology.
I assume you are pro-war, and an interventionist. Your response about oil supports my assumption. Fear does not justify offensive wars. Foreign oil may very well be a national interest but it does not belog to us.My views of the war on terror have been outlined in other places on this thread…I see no reason to repeat myself in every post.
I served in Korea. Yes, I think we should pull out of the ROK and Japan…everywhere. I think we should not march at the UN’s request which were reasons stated by the President. If need be we can reach anywhere in the world quickly and with overwhelming force. We do not need to subsidize those nations with our tax money, and no matter the reason would I not support foreign troops on America’s soil. What is good for the goose…If you are so opposed to enforcing/fighting UN resolutions, do you support a unilateral pull-out from Korea? After all, our troops have been engaged there since 1950 in support of the UN, just curious. The purpose of the US military is to undertake operations in support of US national security. If our nat’l security happens to agree with what the UN says…good…if not…the UN can go hang.
I maybe know history better than you, but that does not excuse or give us permission or a ‘right’ to enforce our beliefs on others no matter how correct we take them. Any noble reason we placed permannet bases around the world after WW2 have long since vanished. The US is one of many nations in the world. How did we ‘allow’ Mao to do anything…by not going to war to stop them? It is that attitude that keeps us going the way of an empire and that is no where in the Constitution you swore to defend from enemies foreign and domestic. It was never the ideology of our founders and in fact is very much in opposition to it.Your last post shows a striking lack of historical background. The Taiwanese government is the historically rightful government of China. The Kuomintang government ruled all of China until we allowed Mao and his thugs to take over the mainland…of course, since Mao was supported by the Soviets, we had little choice. The Nixon Administration in an effort to ease international relations withdrew recognition of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and conferred recognition on the People’s Republic of Taiwan (ChiComs) both in US international relations and in the UN. That is a vastly different set of circumstances than between the US and Mexico.
True, I think we invaded for selfish, greedy and fear reasons. Saddam is gone, a new government is in place, all outstanding UN resoultions are satisfied, and there are no WMDs that threaten America from Iraq. Mission accomplished. Why stay?We did not invade Iraq because of ideological reasons. After all, the Iraq Liberation Act had been US law for half a decade before we followed it to is logical conclusion.
And his comment about Chinese invasion, was not about ideology…his rational for a Chinese invasion was because our students are rude… As a teacher…I might have to go for that one:thumbsup:
Regards,
As an example assume for a moment a mineral is abundant in America but not China- say uranium, and the Chinese say it is in their national interest to secure it. Do we not have the right to sell it to them or not? If they tried to take it or secure it by force would you think them justified as well?
Pray then, tell me, what should my ideology be? Obviously I need to realign my way of life to suit your views.Your profile calims you to be Catholic. By that I have a very good idea what your ideology is or should be. Unless you are like other “Catholics” like those in public office (Kerry, Pelosi, Richardson, Giuliani…) that do not uphold the tenets of the faith for political/personal reasons. Then it is hard to guess at ideology even when it is so stated.
Heh…my response about oil said nothing about wanting to seize, control, manipulate or steal any one else’s oil. It only reaffirmed a well-known fact. Our economy…in fact the entire Western World’s economy is based on petroleum.I assume you are pro-war, and an interventionist. Your response about oil supports my assumption. Fear does not justify offensive wars. Foreign oil may very well be a national interest but it does not belog to us.
Why did you not oppose the Korean War if you are so opposed to fighting for the UN…I was a tad bit too young, but Korea marked my dad’s second war…I served in Korea. Yes, I think we should pull out of the ROK and Japan…everywhere. I think we should not march at the UN’s request which were reasons stated by the President. If need be we can reach anywhere in the world quickly and with overwhelming force. We do not need to subsidize those nations with our tax money, and no matter the reason would I not support foreign troops on America’s soil. What is good for the goose…
Mayhaps you do…mayhaps not…We were not enforcing our beliefs…in all actuality what we enforced were the agreements that Iraq and the Coalition Forces reached in the Cease-Fire agreement of 1991. Saddam did not abide by the agreement, when one side abrogates a cease-fire then there is a return to hostilities…I maybe know history better than you, but that does not excuse or give us permission or a ‘right’ to enforce our beliefs on others no matter how correct we take them. Any noble reason we placed permannet bases around the world after WW2 have long since vanished. The US is one of many nations in the world. How did we ‘allow’ Mao to do anything…by not going to war to stop them? It is that attitude that keeps us going the way of an empire and that is no where in the Constitution you swore to defend from enemies foreign and domestic. It was never the ideology of our founders and in fact is very much in opposition to it.
See above. Maybe we stay to stabilize the country and preclude the possibility that another terrorist supporting regime will set up shop there. Just maybe.True, I think we invaded for selfish, greedy and fear reasons. Saddam is gone, a new government is in place, all outstanding UN resoultions are satisfied, and there are no WMDs that threaten America from Iraq. Mission accomplished. Why stay?
Again, I have never stated that I believe our invasion of Iraq was intended to control the Iraqi oilfields…we have more oil in ANWR than in Iraq, and its closer to home. This was NOT about oil.As an example assume for a moment a mineral is abundant in America but not China- say uranium, and the Chinese say it is in their national interest to secure it. Do we not have the right to sell it to them or not? If they tried to take it or secure it by force would you think them justified as well?
The following supports the thesis that the invasion was about oil:Again, I have never stated that I believe our invasion of Iraq was intended to control the Iraqi oilfields…we have more oil in ANWR than in Iraq, and its closer to home. This was NOT about oil.
It was never technically a warRegardless of the nature of the original conflict, the current situation in Iraq is no longer technically “war.”
alrightyThe U.S. is cooperating with the legitimate Iraqi government to suppress insurgency and terrorism. Since the terrorists are not synonymous with the state, it is not a war in the conventional sense.
now that is complete, total and utter non-senseThis enemy is most likely the most ruthless in the history of mankind.
Don’t the poll’s show that most Iraqi’s beleive US presence is the primary cause of sectarian violence?They have killed their fellow Muslims, countrymen, women and children in their cause. If we don’t battle them, there is no telling the amount of damage that will be done.
The current operations there, which involve many things other than fighting, are best classified as MOOTW, Military Operations other than Warfare.
Scott
It is not my view that needs to align with yours. Even if I am not the best Catholic in practice I understand what it means to be Catholic and that is not to use my anger, wealth and fear to wage offensive and unjust wars just because I can. We should practice more restraint even if it makes itr more difficult. The sanctity of life for the unborn should not be waived for the living in a war zone. Do you not see the double standard with those two mindsets? It is one thing to fail our faith on a personal private level, it is another to do so publicly and on a social level like supporting this war.Pray then, tell me, what should my ideology be? Obviously I need to realign my way of life to suit your views.
So what? The reality is for all to see. We have control of the oil fields. To quibble about the effect of our presence in Iraq is disingenuous. Does it make it better that we havn’t stolen the oil outright but pay over $100 a bbl to those who foster and support the ideology we are fighting? If not the oil and not to enforce our ideology on them…why are we there?Heh…my response about oil said nothing about wanting to seize, control, manipulate or steal any one else’s oil. It only reaffirmed a well-known fact. Our economy…in fact the entire Western World’s economy is based on petroleum.
I wasn’t alive to oppose witch burnings or forced conversions by Spain in the New World but as I get older and learn history better I can make sound judgements on them. Also when I served I was very much like you are now- a neocon with an icorrect view of our place in the world. Now I am just an American. Though even if I disagreed then I would have still served honorably becasue that is the duty of a soldier. Whether or not the current civilian policy is unlawfull is for others to decide but the debate is worth having. you sound as if you are good fighting for the UN. Do you pick and choose or will you fight America when America violates UN resolutions?Why did you not oppose the Korean War if you are so opposed to fighting for the UN…I was a tad bit too young, but Korea marked my dad’s second war…
Give a scenerio that would require massive US forces to fight in a country not our own that could not be done from our own shores in a timely manner or from our submarines or our carrier grioups that sail in international waters all the time.As far as force projection…we do NOT have sufficient air- or sea-lift capabilities to rapidly deploy more than 1 heavy brigade (about 5,000 troops) or one light (read airborne) division (about 10-12,000 troops). Neither of which is sufficient to qualify as “overwhelming” force. Forward deployed bases help us to stabilize areas before overwhelming force is needed.
Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, Pappa Doc, Mugabee have violated similar resolutions in their time and currently. Why do we not attack then or now?Mayhaps you do…mayhaps not…We were not enforcing our beliefs…in all actuality what we enforced were the agreements that Iraq and the Coalition Forces reached in the Cease-Fire agreement of 1991. Saddam did not abide by the agreement, when one side abrogates a cease-fire then there is a return to hostilities…
So what? The French, Germans, Chinese, and others cheated with Saddam throughout the 90’s. Why didn’t we do something about that if we are acting so noble?Saddam abrogated that agreement within 6-months…my wonder is why we took so long to enforce the agreement.
If you answer one question from this answer me this: What current Moslem country could Iraq become most like for you to call the mission a success?See above. Maybe we stay to stabilize the country and preclude the possibility that another terrorist supporting regime will set up shop there. Just maybe.
Again, I have never stated that I believe our invasion of Iraq was intended to control the Iraqi oilfields…we have more oil in ANWR than in Iraq, and its closer to home. This was NOT about oil.
God bless,
You may not believe it but it is true. Environmentalist in the US are a tougher fight than militant killers in a foreign country since they have successfully prevented construction of new refineries, nuclear power plants, and drilling in our own country which makes us more dependant on foreign oil, and keeps us tied to a petroleum based economy.
You make the claim that we did not invade to enforce our beliefs but yet to make this statement true:Originally Posted by txsoldier94
So long as we have a petroleum based economy…then yes…oil…any source of oil…is in our national interest. Every part of our nation is dependent on oil, from agriculture to zoos…
we must change their ideology to provide that stable environment like we did in Japan at the end of WW2. (Unconditional surrender that included a forced rejection of their living god-emperor, Tojo) We haven’t even tried to change it in Iraq or the ME. In fact we are promoting it and that is about as dumb a thing as I can think of.Maybe we stay to stabilize the country and preclude the possibility that another terrorist supporting regime will set up shop there. Just maybe
You have better arguments than this silliness.I understand what it means to be Catholic and that is not to use my anger, wealth and fear to wage offensive and unjust wars just because I can.
Our faith does not prohibit us from supporting this war; there is no failure to do so.It is one thing to fail our faith on a personal private level, it is another to do so publicly and on a social level like supporting this war.
To keep a reckless megalomaniac from controlling much of the world’s oil, destabilizing an already unstable region of the world, supporting terror, and acquiring even more dangerous weapons? Just a guess.If not the oil and not to enforce our ideology on them…why are we there?
Different strokes for different folks. They represented different levels of threats.Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, Pappa Doc, Mugabee have violated similar resolutions in their time and currently. Why do we not attack then or now?
Jordan would be nice. Turkey, the UAE, Maylasia …If you answer one question from this answer me this: What current Moslem country could Iraq become most like for you to call the mission a success?
“About oil” is really much too vague. I’m sure one of our concerns was about maintaining a stable supply of oil; we clearly did not go there with the intention of controlling their oil.You make the claim above that it is not about oil but yet you support war for it…
Well reasoned statements dont’t get traction like silliness does seemingly.You have better arguments than this silliness.
If we were to put the measure on a scale and place on each side the justifications for and against I would wager opposition to the war would have the greater weight. By far.Our faith does not prohibit us from supporting this war; there is no failure to do so.
They will sell it. They cannot drink it. The oil was flowing cheaper before this war. Name one nation in the region that does not support the unrest? Our ‘friends’ in Pakistan already have nukes and bio weapons. Good thing our CIA is doing in their country what we would maybe hang our leaders for doing here such as election manipulation, funding opposition groups, and military assistance against their majority population that does not like US policy in their country. I know being the “good guy” has some advantages but then there is always that integrity thing when it comes to our personal ideology and faith.To keep a reckless megalomaniac from controlling much of the world’s oil, destabilizing an already unstable region of the world, supporting terror, and acquiring even more dangerous weapons? Just a guess.
Talk about silliness. The only difference are the ‘national interests’ of the US. Selective justice in that view is not justice.Different strokes for different folks. They represented different levels of threats.
Ah yes, Jordan (my last name actually). A moderate Islamic king that continues to keep his Islamic bretheren and sisters in the ghettos of the non-state of Palestine because Israel does not have the right to exist as a nation. The Quran is the basis of their law as it is in madrassa laden Maylasia and though the UAE likes western/european tourists and our money, dhimmitude for the non-Moslem residents and service workers is a blight upon my sensibilities when human rights are consistantly violated. As long as they don’t fly planes into our buildings and sell us oil at high prices I guess we can put up with just a little discrimination. I am sure others can speak better at how progressive and enlightened those Islamic nations really are. I have my doubts.Jordan would be nice. Turkey, the UAE, Maylasia …
“About oil” is really much too vague. I’m sure one of our concerns was about maintaining a stable supply of oil; we clearly did not go there with the intention of controlling their oil.
I agree it is a bit broad but it is not to be denied. It is about influence, it is about greed for oil companies and the governments (people in them) that make contracts with them. It is about population control and keeping the lights on in America.Ender
It is the direct threats against the US by WMD…though they have no delivery system other than a backpack.Different strokes for different folks. They represented different levels of threats.
I think that the war is clearly an unjust war and is not supported by Catholic principles. This has also been clearly enunciated by Bishop Botean.Our faith does not condone or prohibit support for this war.
Israel.Name one nation in the region that does not support the unrest?
What justifies the intervention in the affairs of another country? That’s a pretty high bar to cross; national interest is at least one significant contributor.The only difference are the ‘national interests’ of the US. Selective justice in that view is not justice.
It is necessary to distinguish between undesirable and unacceptable.I am sure others can speak better at how progressive and enlightened those Islamic nations really are. I have my doubts.
I feel about that comment as you would surely feel if I said I had visited an alien spaceship.it is about greed for oil companies and the governments (people in them) that make contracts with them. It is about population control and keeping the lights on in America.
Securing is not controlling. First, we didn’t want the ecological disaster we had in Kuwait, and second we recognized that Iraq would need the money from the oil to rebuild their country. We don’t control it today: how can you still believe that that was our primary objective for invading?We clearly did go there with the intention of controlling their oil. It was the first objective to secure them from sabotage.
Good. At least we both recognize this truth.Our faith does not condone or prohibit support for this war.
Our faith is no component of understanding the past consequences of the invasion nor of estimating the future consequences of withdrawing.Our faith guides how we see the consequences of our actions in light of the circumstances. Having done so, in consideration of my faith I cannot support this war.
Funny. My intent was specific to Moslem nations because it is a Islamic nation we are attempting to democratize. Why not comment your support for the rest of that paragraph?Israel.
Not much. Don’t you think it at least fair to apply what we would accept ourselves from a foreign power if we are going to do it to another? Under what circumstance would you accept what we are doing in Iraq here in America by another nation? Who was that who said something similar? It is escaping one of us.What justifies the intervention in the affairs of another country?
It is such a high bar that national interest does not equal unilateral right and America’s thirst for oil is not a justification for an offensive war. If our intelligence regarding energy does not give us a path to avoid offensive war then our faith must win out over self interest.That’s a pretty high bar to cross; national interest is at least one significant contributor.
That’s just it. I do not want to have a hand in making it one or the other because it is impossible to control or get anything good from it, but would rather let them figure it out and deal with it from a distance. I do not see any Islamic government in any form ever being either desirable or acceptable. Do you? What is more stupid: a) Create bigoted hostile religious governments; or b) Support bigoted hostile religious governments. ?It is necessary to distinguish between undesirable and unacceptable.
Yea, well I can think of a few reputable people who would give a convincing tale of just that. Go figure. Truth is often stranger than fiction and in politics, power and money there is little I would put past men in the pursuit of all three. Why do you think 2008 is much different than 1908 except our ways to kill have improved?I feel about that comment as you would surely feel if I said I had visited an alien spaceship.
Silly symanitcs. Come on. We pay to blow it up and pay to rebuild it. Where is all that lost US tax payer funds gone? Truck drivers from North Carolina drive trucks in Iraq for what could pay 50 Iraqi truck drivers working rather than setting IED’s. Protecting the ecology was far far down the list of concerns. The spice must flow…Securing is not controlling. First, we didn’t want the ecological disaster we had in Kuwait, and second we recognized that Iraq would need the money from the oil to rebuild their country. We don’t control it today: how can you still believe that that was our primary objective for invading?
Likely not for the same reasons.Good. At least we both recognize this truth.
Our faith is no component of understanding the past consequences of the invasion nor of estimating the future consequences of withdrawing.
It most certainly does. Why have it if it doesn’t? Our faith should guide our actions if we are strong and wise enough to follow themunless we fall prey to the past. There is only one reason to support this war that our faith can understand and justify in an odd sort of way. Fear. Any other reason either alone or in combination of others is not justification and therefore unless you admit your fear you could very well be a hypocrite. I wouldn’t want to assume.Ender
Another point of agreement. Our disagreement is over the reasons for our presence in Iraq. If I thought your understanding of the situation was correct I wouldn’t support the war either but I don’t believe the government is as mendacious as you describe it.Our faith should guide our actions.
There are several valid reasons for going to war according to the Just War theory. One is to come to the aid of others.There is only one reason to support this war that our faith can understand and justify in an odd sort of way. Fear. Any other reason either alone or in combination of others is not justification.
The war actually started as a response to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, then there was a cease fire that held for a decade, finally hostilities were resumed. There were several conditions that contributed to that decision but the desire to control Iraqi oil was not one of them. It is reasonable to hold that the combined weight of all the reasons still did not justify the action but that should be argued out based on the accuracy of the judgments made at the time. Simply ascribing it to personal folly in not a defensible argument.We should not start wars to prevent war or to help make the illusion of us being more safe for its justification. There is no reason for the war in Iraq in a moral Catholic sense
I understand the intent of this charge. You need a better understanding of the definition of the word.End the empire peacefully.
This explains why we aren’t in Darfur and didn’t get into most of the other mean, stupid situations around the world. We have a difference of opinion about Iraq.It is not our responsibility and is not in our interests.
You are almost as bad as discussing things with Moslems. You don’t answer most direct questions when the answer obviously contradicts your position, and it isn’t about a untruthfull government as much as an unwise one.Another point of agreement. Our disagreement is over the reasons for our presence in Iraq. If I thought your understanding of the situation was correct I wouldn’t support the war either but I don’t believe the government is as mendacious as you describe it.
You are really reaching for that one. Iraq does not satisfy any of the Just War criteria for America to start the offensive war to include coming to the aid of others. John Paul the Great even said so. Selective reasoning along with selective justice does not support your view of being in accordance with the Just War doctrine. More than one of the many criteria must be met. Only one has weak legs to give marginal cause and the others do not rate at all.There are several valid reasons for going to war according to the Just War theory. One is to come to the aid of others.
I am well aware of when/why the first Iraq war started. 4 months before I separated from the USAF Saddam invaded Kuwait and I was woken up to get my plane ready to deploy over the next 48 hours. The air war started when I was honorably discharged. I am also well aware that regime change was US policy since the previous administration. That war did not meet the Just war theory. Subsiquient violations of the no-fly zones, the sanctions, the UN resolutions, and all the rest does not support Iraq war 2 as a Just War then or now. It simply does not.The war actually started as a response to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, then there was a cease fire that held for a decade, finally hostilities were resumed. There were several conditions that contributed to that decision but the desire to control Iraqi oil was not one of them. It is reasonable to hold that the combined weight of all the reasons still did not justify the action but that should be argued out based on the accuracy of the judgments made at the time. Simply ascribing it to personal folly in not a defensible argument.
You need a better grasp of the reality. It is not a matter of definition, it is fact. We are an empire no different from when the sun nver set on the British Empire, or Napoleon’s attempt at it, or the Romans when Christ walked the earth. Where is that in our national ethic?I understand the intent of this charge. You need a better understanding of the definition of the word.
We differ in fact and that makes this discussion a bit more poignant. Fact is the USA has no moral justification to fight this war in Iraq. To piggy back a thin compassionate justification to aid others in accordance with the Just War doctrine while the other criteria are ignored (proportionality, last resort, right intention, and probability of success) is flat out wrong.We have a difference of opinion about Iraq.
Ouch. Just stick the knife in and twist it.You are almost as bad as discussing things with Moslems.
If you don’t like my answers, phrase your questions more carefully. I’m prepared to accept that the government was unwise but your charges against them are of a different sort: *“I think we invaded for selfish, greedy and fear reasons.” *Since those were not the advertised reasons you very much believe the government was untruthful. I don’t care which position you take but you should take only one, stick with it, and not change it between posts.You don’t answer most direct questions when the answer obviously contradicts your position, and it isn’t about a untruthfull government as much as an unwise one.
Yes it does.Iraq does not satisfy any of the Just War criteria for America to start the offensive war to include coming to the aid of others.
No he didn’t. (These declarative statements are so much easier than having to explain a position; I can see why you prefer them.)John Paul the Great even said so.
You are confusing separate aspects of Just War theory. The reason for going to war has to be valid - and one of the valid reasons is to free the innocent from oppression in another country. That alone does not justify a decision for war because there are other criteria that also have to be met, but the rescue of the oppressed is a valid objective. Don’t confuse the parts with the whole: even if the criteria as a whole aren’t met this doesn’t affect the validity of the intent.More than one of the many criteria must be met. Only one has weak legs to give marginal cause and the others do not rate at all.
Yes it does. (Hmm, back to this are we?)It simply does not.
Convince me: define empire.We are an empire no different from when the sun nver set on the British Empire, or Napoleon’s attempt at it, or the Romans when Christ walked the earth.
Well, compared with the Muslim insult this one doesn’t cut very deeply.I don’t want to choose your particular fear for you as there are many to choose from. The only option other than fear is hypocrite.