S
steveandersen
Guest
What does a person’s ability/desire to volunteer have to do with national policy?
- Status
What does a person’s ability/desire to volunteer have to do with national policy?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Those who will not volunteer to do the job themselves have no moral standing to demand others do it **for **them.
What does a person’s ability/desire to volunteer have to do with national policy?
S
snowgarden
Guest
Can what some people believe started as an unjust war become a just war? Is it just to leave if people will be slaughtered even more by the elements that will take over? Or do you leave now and go back in 5, 10, or more years if it’s deemed just - to end a genocide that may have developed in the interim by your absence?
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
People forget a few things about the “war”. President Bush did not declare war on Osama, nor Al Qaida. He declared a war on terrorism. There are dozens of terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Problem is, they are all over the world too. Not all of them are Islamic, but most of them are. In response to Elric, all I can say is that the US cannot police the entire world. We can only target the areas which most threaten the US. IMO, the bigger problem is Saudi Arabia, with millions of dollars funding terrorism.
Mirdath, you are wrong, my friend, Osama very much did target our economy and is quoted as such. Not only were the Twin Towers an economical hub, he also knew that to draw us out in a war would deplete our economy. The sick thing is that he learned much of this from the US government. When he was in Afghanistan and we were backing the Taliban against the Soviet Union, many of these tactics were used. Draw the enemy away from their homeland, attack them continuously on foriegn soil, make them spend more and more money for the war and then watch their economy crumble. Here is an interesting and frightening book on the subject that contains Osama’s quote. I heard the author on Al Kresta’s radio show, and can’t remember exactly how it goes, but that Osama’s tactics very much involved economy and are very much modeled after what the US taught the taliban. Ugh.
And by the way, we who sit here in America have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in Iraq unless we have folks who give us info from the front lines. All I have to say is that all is not as it seems. Yes, we are getting pummelled financially. But what our military has found in Iraq is blood-curdling…and classified.
I feel heartsick about the atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. But you can bet that if we had had repeated “9/11’s” we would be singing a different tune. Not many people stop to wonder why there haven’t been further attacks on US soil–not even a shopping mall bombing. It may have been economical suicide to take this “war” to foriegn lands that are melting pots of Islamic terrorism, but I bet many more Americans would have died these last 6 years if we had not done so. That is an opinion, of course.
I think BlueKnight has a very good idea. We must pray for our leaders. I think praying to Our Lady of Guadalupe is who I will ask to pray for us. Anyone familier with her picture can probably guess why.
Mirdath, you are wrong, my friend, Osama very much did target our economy and is quoted as such. Not only were the Twin Towers an economical hub, he also knew that to draw us out in a war would deplete our economy. The sick thing is that he learned much of this from the US government. When he was in Afghanistan and we were backing the Taliban against the Soviet Union, many of these tactics were used. Draw the enemy away from their homeland, attack them continuously on foriegn soil, make them spend more and more money for the war and then watch their economy crumble. Here is an interesting and frightening book on the subject that contains Osama’s quote. I heard the author on Al Kresta’s radio show, and can’t remember exactly how it goes, but that Osama’s tactics very much involved economy and are very much modeled after what the US taught the taliban. Ugh.
And by the way, we who sit here in America have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in Iraq unless we have folks who give us info from the front lines. All I have to say is that all is not as it seems. Yes, we are getting pummelled financially. But what our military has found in Iraq is blood-curdling…and classified.
I feel heartsick about the atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. But you can bet that if we had had repeated “9/11’s” we would be singing a different tune. Not many people stop to wonder why there haven’t been further attacks on US soil–not even a shopping mall bombing. It may have been economical suicide to take this “war” to foriegn lands that are melting pots of Islamic terrorism, but I bet many more Americans would have died these last 6 years if we had not done so. That is an opinion, of course.
I think BlueKnight has a very good idea. We must pray for our leaders. I think praying to Our Lady of Guadalupe is who I will ask to pray for us. Anyone familier with her picture can probably guess why.
E
Elric
Guest
Recruiting station?
For what purpose?
Joining the armed forces wont solve what happens in China, it wont abbolish slavery in Africa or the sex trade in Asia. Its not even helping matters in Iraq.
T
tomarin
Guest
excellent question. some people seem to think so but to me it’s just an excuse to maintain troops there indefinitely, regardless of the consequences. i think it raises the issue of the intention with which the war is being fought. presumably the intention doesn’t change in mid-war.
as archbishop fulton sheen wrote in “conditions of a just war”:
*It cannot be too often repeated that all three elements must be good: the action itself, the intention, and the circumstances. An act must therefore be good not only in its end but in its means. That is what the modern pagan forgets: he thinks that because the end is good, he can use any means he pleases. No! The end never justifies the means. And incidentally, for those who have been deceived by lies, the Jesuits never taught anything else but this traditional Christian doctrine. *
E
Elric
Guest
Just to clarify, I didnt say the USA. I have been refering to the co-alition in my posts which includes more countries than just America.
In reference to the global problems, it would require a global effort that would probably be better lead by a country other than America. I dont think of America as the world police and never would.
E
estesbob
Guest
In your opinion it was unjust. In my opinion it is just. What must be noted is that the Church has no opinion on whehter or not it is just.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Why to do your part to end the killing and oppression, of course!
So how long were you in the armed forces in Iraq?
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Thank you for clarifying. Mea Culpa.
You are absolutely correct that global problems need a global response.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I often find it interesting to see your comments lined up. You ask a question. Then make an assertion. Granted, it is not quite true, it is the Republicans in Congress and the President who want to do it “on the cheap”. Even in the minority Democrats were proposing amendments to increase military pay, VA funding, family benefits, and etc. Since gaining the majority, Democrats have passed military related funding in excess of the President’s requests, even after he vetoed a bill containing constraints on how the money should be spent.
But, you close by asserting that standing up and saying anything about underfunding, or the complete lack of political progress in Iraq - which, by the way, the US military says is the only way to end the conflict is somehow ‘not supporting the troops’.
As you say, sounds like the usual drivel to me. I think the David Shuster nailed it on MSNBC with Rep. Blackburn (R-TENN) the other day. The Congress woman went on at length about MoveOn and the New York Times, but was flumoxed when it came to how many young men and woman from her district had been killed in Iraq, or the name of the last one. For the most part, all the chest thumping and shouting about patriotism is coming from people who care more about domestic politics than US soldiers in harms way.
E
Elric
Guest
Yep that would work, especally since its the soldiers who choose where to go.
Me personally, I wasnt in Iraq or the armed forces. The armed forces wont allow me to join.So how long were you in the armed forces in Iraq?
I really hope that you are not trolling.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
No, the Church has suggested that the war is unjust. However, it is a prudential teaching, not an infallible one.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Now there’s a non-sequitor for you.
We cannot send soldiers we do not have. Nor will politicians take risks in such matters. If we had a flood of volunteers, the politicians could be convinced that there was enough support for such an action.
Ah.
No more than you are.
E
estesbob
Guest
I suspect before he was asked this question not one of the mebers of congres could answer it BUT Ill bet everyone of them can today!
S
snowgarden
Guest
I’m one of the few who does believe it was just and feels it must be continued until we secure the country enough to leave it in Iraqi hands. I honestly feel that Pres. Bush was on the offense after 9/11 and was trying to stop further dangers from coming to fruition. I was just wondering if those who feel it was unjust in the first place have ever wondered if it would be worse for us to abandon the people we were trying to help by getting rid of a murderous dictator who acted suspiciously like he did have those elusive WMDs.
E
Elric
Guest
No they couldnt.
What do you mean by that?
You will have to explain that one, it makes no sense.
E
estesbob
Guest
I’m with you!
S
SoCalRC
Guest
That was the point. They boned up on what was important to them - and that involved scoring political points and distracting from the real question at hand. It raises the question of Blackburn’s priorities.
Notice how she did reply. She said her office works closely with the families. Now, if that were true, and they were a priority to her, chances are good that she could not only rattle of the name, but recall a few details about the family. I certainly know quite a few of the names from my community. And that is just from reading my local paper - and, of course, having it be a priority to me.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Haven’t we already begun to abandon them? We’ve started aiding Sunni militias, it was the Shia majority that Sadam primarily oppressed. Similiarly, we’ve ignored the pleas of the USCCB and the Pope to setup safe havens for fleeing Christian’s in the north because of our new desire to build up Sunni alliances.
In other words, the only tangible progress we’ve made in recent months on security has involved essentially switching sides. As multiple Pentagon officials have now noted, we’ve largely given up on anything remotely resembling a western democracy. That leaves two basic choices, allowing the majority, who are Shia to establish a theocracy with strong ties to Iran, or somehow empowering the Sunni minority, who would hopefully ally itself with the Saudis.
The Saudis, of course, are the principle backers of Islamic terrorism (most the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi), but at least we have an uneasy triange between the House of Saud, extreme Wahabism, and a US thirst for oil.
Iran, on the other hand, is also potentially dangerous, but we seem utterly incompetent when it comes to dealing with them. The citizens are, surprisingly, more in tune with western ideas than most of the region, but we have a knack for killing reform. Two examples, Iran was actually tacidly helpful when we invaded Afghanistan. Many experts thought that there would be a real thawing of our relationship. Then, of course, we dubbed them part of an “axis of evil”. Another would be Amahdinejad. He was spectacularly unpopular with Iran, primarily because he had failed to deliver a number of modest reforms on women’s and social rights in Iran, but his popularity has soared since we’ve begun to demonize him in the US press.
So, it seems likely that ‘winning’, should it ever be achieved, will be to have some form of Sunni controlled military state establish security. But at least be ‘friendly’ to US interests. I use single quotes because Sadam was considered friendly to US interests before Kuwait.
I think this is short sighted, but US politics does not lend itself to long term planning.
- Status