You could be write – you don’t see any combat veterans posting on their side. Those are men who know.
Bringing them home immeadiately does not prolong the war. At least not our involvement in it.
And women.
I think there were not women in the AF in Nam; but since then, there have been. Whether or not one agrees with women being in the AF is another question but, nevertheless, women have still served and therefore they too know. Even in Nam, many women nurses were in harm’s way and also know.It does not help your case to blur the lines. None of these are genocide; not murder, not rape, and not episodic mass killings. Those things exist here in the United States and we are not committing genocide.
Really? Al Qaeda, which attacked us many times BEFORE the war will suddenly turn into sweetness and light and cease their attacks on us?
And you acquired this deep insight into their pschology when you lived in the Middle East?
We did that before – the specific case was Afghanistan. Remember what happened?
In what way does it not prolong the war?
Al Queda will always involve us in their war. We are the object of their war regardless of whether they stage their operations from Iraq or from Antarctica. Gilliam has the link to the goals of Al Queda. Looking them up is an eye-opener.
That’s one possibility. Another possibility is that the war will go on until the people who live in Iraq prefer the stability, prosperity, and downright happiness that peace and freedom bring.
That’s one possibility.
Ah! There we see it again! The genocide option for peace! This is a Catholic board. Where in Catholic teaching is genocide promoted as a legitimate option for peace?
Is that an accurate characterization which takes into account reports of Iraqi successes in taking over their own infrasystems?
Thus allowing terrorists-masquerading-as refugees a foothold in the heartland of America? If fighting is the way of life in Iraq what is to stop them from fighting when they have been given sanctuary over here? Just because they are losing their fight over there, they should be allowed to immigrate in the hopes of winning their fight over here? Along the lines of the Nicaraguan War(s)? How many American Jews and Christians and Iraqi immigrants have to be wiped out within our own borders before that gets stale?
So mass killings are okay if they aren’t “genocide?”
I repeat:
My wife was an Army Nurse during the Viet Nam war. She served at Reynolds Army Hospital at Fort Sill, but two of her roommates went to Viet Nam.And women.
Blur what lines? I have asked that the lines be clarified and they have not been. Please clarify the distinction between stopping all war and stopping all genocide.
Oh, you say the killing of 45 million unborn children in America is not genocide? You say that the decimation of 37% of the African American population by means of abortion is not genocide? You say that the decimation of the First Nations peoples in Canada by means of abortion is not genocide?
I disagree. He has made no point. In fact he dilutes the horrors of genocide to avoid a point. And that point is that Catholic teaching allows that some wars are licit while *all *genocide – including abortion – is not licit.
I don’t accept your premise, but there is a great difference between intervening to stop genocide and letting it happen ten years prior and then saying you are there because of genocide. George Bush Sr. knew that Shia were being slaughtered in S. Iraq just as Reagan likely knew that Kurds were being slaughtered in N. Iraq. However, at the time we invaded Iraq, those incidents of genocide had happened more than a decade prior.
vern humphrey said:
But they didn’t and there is a reason they didn’t. Are you suggesting that all things are equal between those that protested Hitler’s expansionist social engineering and those that supported the rise of communism in Vietnam?
Please describe that difference.
The fact that we did not act sooner does not make it wrong to act now.
So you equate the actions of the United States with those of terrorists and brutal dictators?
And there are far better arguments to be made than diluting the horrors of mass murder. But you don’t have any on your side.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Well, she’s a nurse, so it would be an anatomical term of some sort.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifWas it ‘elbow’ they would say?
It’s not obvious to you?
Is that French for “I really don’t know, but my whole argument is based on it?”
No. That is why I asked.
As George Frasier MacDonald said (in the persona of his character, Harry Flashman), "The Kama Sutra purports to describe 99 ways of having sex, but it’s all balderdash. Position 93 is the same as position 2, but you have your fingers crossed."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifNo. That is why I asked.
D-oh! I thought crossing the fingers was instead of Position 93!
There is something wrong with my schooling, I think. Nevertheless, I do support the troops, rope or no rope; fingers crossed with or without elbows. But that’s just me, eh?And without splitting hairs over the meaning of abstract terms. When you find mass graves containing 400,000 bodies (current count) what difference does it make if they were killed for ethinic, religious or political reasons? Are they any less dead if they were killed for one reason, and not another?D-oh! I thought crossing the fingers was instead of Position 93!
