Suckered into an Unjust War?

[steveandersen]

Those who will not volunteer to do the job themselves have no moral standing to demand others do it **for **them.

Are you spouting that old Heinlein “only those who do time in the military get a vote” nonsense?

We have a long and strong tradition of civil control of the military.
As well as a tradition that every citizen can express their opinion.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If tht’s our justification, why aren’t we in Darfur? The reality is that we were lied to about the war in Iraq. Remember when it was called “Shock And Awe”? When WMD’s weren’t found, the name was changed to “Operation Free Iraq”. Hmmm… can you say, “trying to pull the wool over our eyes?”

Kim

Let’s not forget Burma (Myanmar)…

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m with you!

Can I join too? Saddam gave every indication that he had WMD and many folks in our government thought so as well before GWB ever came on the scene. I am so tired of hearing the mantra “Bush lied”. I wish I could give all of those folks a dictionary so that they could look up the definition of a lie. Is there no limit to the verbage of those who dislike Bush?

 

[rpp]

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.

I’m with you!

Can I join too? Saddam gave every indication that he had WMD and many folks in our government thought so as well before GWB ever came on the scene. I am so tired of hearing the mantra “Bush lied”. I wish I could give all of those folks a dictionary so that they could look up the definition of a lie. Is there no limit to the verbage of those who dislike Bush?

Me too! Me too!

And Mary you are quite correct. President Clinton also supported Bush going in and supported based on the now apparent bluff from Saddam that Iraq still possessed WMD. We do indeed know that Iraq had them because Saddam used poison gas to attack Kurdish civilians. He also use gas against the Iranian army in the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war.

The entire world believe he still possessed WMD. There were many UN resolutions regarding it. The reason there were sanctions on Iraq was that they refused to publicly give up their WMD programs and no longer allowed UN inspectors in.

But the Bush haters conveniently forget this.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you spouting that old Heinlein “only those who do time in the military get a vote” nonsense?

We have a long and strong tradition of civil control of the military.
As well as a tradition that every citizen can express their opinion.

Why are you so hot against the idea that those who push for war ought to be ready to do their share of the fighting?

 

[estesbob]

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.

As Paul harvey woud say now heres the REST of the Story:

newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/09/26/fallen-soldier-shuster-used-gotcha-game-gop-rep-blackburn-did-not-

 

[rpp]

As Paul harvey woud say now heres the REST of the Story:

newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/09/26/fallen-soldier-shuster-used-gotcha-game-gop-rep-blackburn-did-not-

Cute!

 

[estesbob]

Cute!

Shuster owes an apology that soldiers family for using his sacrifice to try and score cheap political points. Has he NO SHAME!

 

[SoCalRC]

Shuster owes an apology that soldiers family for using his sacrifice to try and score cheap political points. Has he NO SHAME!

Doesn’t anyone every get tired of false outrage and BS?

My father pointed out to me a long time ago that the only principles someone believes in are the ones he/she will stand by when they cost them something.

If you don’t condemn Rush for calling Senator Hagel (who was, by the way, wounded in Vietnam) “Senator Betrayus”, then don’t expect to be taken seriously when you start screaming about the MoveOn ad.

Likewise, don’t expect to be taken seriously when you scream about cheap political points when we are talking about a national politician focusing on a newspaper ad - which, by the way, remains offensive, but factually accurate. Face it, the woman boned up on talking points with regards to political chaf - a cheap diversion from real questions about a war. But doesn’t seem to have time to keep up on her constituents who are making the ultimate sacrifice for the country.

Screaming ‘liberal media’ and ‘cheap shots’ doesn’t change the fact that she did not know (and remember, we aren’t just talking about a single name - she had no clue as to how many of her constituents had been lost total either). If you really care about the troops, how could this not matter to you?

Seriously, on a Catholic forum I surely cannot be the only one who reads my local paper and grieves for this poor kids.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

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.

Oh, for goodness sakes. Whenever I see this in print or hear, I weep for what happened to common sense and clear thinking skills.

You can’t declare war on a tactic!

What’s next, declaring war on war?

Ever notice how everything in the last 40 years is related to war? War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Obesity.

You don’t suppose that betrays a smidge of warmongering/bloodthirst in the US, does it?

Of course not! How dare you suggest anything like that! America isn’t like other countries, why we’re exceptional! We never act aggressively against other countries!

Except Hawaii, the Philipines, Mexico, the Native Americans, Cuba, Grenada, Panama…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Whenever I see this in print or hear, I weep for what happened to common sense and clear thinking skills.

You can’t declare war on a tactic!

What’s next, declaring war on war?

Ever notice how everything in the last 40 years is related to war? War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Obesity.

You don’t suppose that betrays a smidge of warmongering/bloodthirst in the US, does it?

Of course not! How dare you suggest anything like that! America isn’t like other countries, why we’re exceptional! We never act aggressively against other countries!

Except Hawaii, the Philipines, Mexico, the Native Americans, Cuba, Grenada, Panama…

Gotcha! The United States is 100% wrong, all the time! If we were giving out free ice cream we’d be wrong.

 

[rpp]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Whenever I see this in print or hear, I weep for what happened to common sense and clear thinking skills.

You can’t declare war on a tactic!

What’s next, declaring war on war?

Ever notice how everything in the last 40 years is related to war? War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Obesity.

You don’t suppose that betrays a smidge of warmongering/bloodthirst in the US, does it?

Of course not! How dare you suggest anything like that! America isn’t like other countries, why we’re exceptional! We never act aggressively against other countries!

Except Hawaii, the Philipines, Mexico, the Native Americans, Cuba, Grenada, Panama…

When was America aggressive against Hawaii? Or the Philippines? Missionaries (Congregationalists) from the USA first landed on the Hawaiian islands in 1818. It has been in American hands ever since.

The Philippines were ceded to the USA by Spain after the Spanish American war, which only lasted few months in 1898. There was only one battle of any significance in the Philippines, and that was, if my memory serves me correctly, purely a naval battle. And that war was started as an aggression against the USA by Spain. It was also a war of liberation as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Caroline Islands were also ceded to the USA and the USA forced Spain to grant Cuba her independence. The Philippines were supposed to become an independent nation on January 1, 1941, but the Japanese invasion delayed that until after the war, July 4, 1946, a date chosen by the Filipinos themselves to honor the Americans who freed them from both Spanish and Japanese oppression.

The Caroline Islands, better known as Micronesia and Palau, invaded and occupied by Japan in 1914 and were liberated by US forces in 1944-45. The US granted then independence in 1986 (Micronesia) and 1994 (Palau).

 

[HamtramckSteve]

Gotcha! The United States is 100% wrong, all the time! If we were giving out free ice cream we’d be wrong.

Nice try, but don’t put words in my mouth. It makes you look silly.

I don’t believe that America’s government is 100% wrong, but I certainly can’t believe that America is 100% right, either.

My point is that there is an attitude of “American Exceptionalism” that drives our foreign policy, an attitude that we know what’s best for everyone in the world.

This attitude needs to change.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

When was America aggressive against Hawaii? Or the Philippines?

Try reading “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq” by Stephen Kinzer. It’s available through Amazon.

I learned about it when Pat Buchanan wrote a favorable column earlier this year about it.

 

[rpp]

Try reading “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq” by Stephen Kinzer. It’s available through Amazon.

I learned about it when Pat Buchanan wrote a favorable column earlier this year about it.

I am familiar with this author. Kinzer has written several books -]inventing/-] describing “little known” historical events in which America is the villain. I do not consider him a credible source of information.

The fact that he used to work for the NY Times makes him further suspect.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

The fact that he used to work for the NY Times makes him further suspect.

I generally look at employment in any corporate-owned media as suspect until shown otherwise. I don’t buy into the “liberal media” line when they’re owned by multinational corporations without looking at it from the standpoint of a shell game.

As for Kinzer’s book, I suggest you read it. Buchanan’s favorable rating is no Imprimatur, but I hold his opinion in high esteem.

 

[SoCalRC]

When was America aggressive against Hawaii?..

None of these are simple questions. For example, historians disagree on rather Hawaii was the first example of “American imperialism” or just a side note in history.

Certainly, when we rescinded the reciprical treaty of 1874 and imposed the McKinley Tariff, we put a severe financial strain on the monarchy. And, the overthrow itself was largely driven by Hawaiians of American descent (though some natives participated). Most telling is the direct involvement of the USS Boston and US forces. The stated purpose was to protect Americans and American interests, but the action certainly appears to have favored the insurgency. And, of course, the provisional government immediately proclaimed itself “to rule until annexation by the United States.”

Some historians argue that major financial interests would not have colluded with US annexation, because the plantations were dependant on cheap Asian labor. But our treatment of Hawaii post annexation seems earily familiar to how we handle Saipan. Business owners get the benefits (no tariffs in US markets), but remain excluded from immigration and labor laws.

 

[Elric]

Why are you so hot against the idea that those who push for war ought to be ready to do their share of the fighting?

Is that what you were on about!!!

Mate you should have read all my posts before you got that opinion of me, Im not “pushing for war”.

You should only use military might if there is no other option left. There are plenty of examples in our history that show us why we should not easily choose war (I even cites the atomic bombings of Japan as an example).

I know people who have served in Iraq (as well as other places) and there is no way that I would take the decision to send them, or others, to what could be potentially be their deaths lightly. I also consider the civilians of these places because conlict takes a very heavy toll on them (I have heard some horrible stories about what has happened to some civilians in Iraq).

But I do believe that once the decision is made, then it should be done properly. Which I dont believe has been done in this case, especally with the rebuilding.

I cant join the armed forces, it has nothing to do with being gay, becuase Im not gay (I feel that I have to clarify that on these boards). If I could join, then I probably would or I would join a humanitarian group (not a subcontracting company) to help with rebuilding.

 

[rpp]

None of these are simple questions. For example, historians disagree on rather Hawaii was the first example of “American imperialism” or just a side note in history.

Certainly, when we rescinded the reciprical treaty of 1874 and imposed the McKinley Tariff, we put a severe financial strain on the monarchy. And, the overthrow itself was largely driven by Hawaiians of American descent (though some natives participated). Most telling is the direct involvement of the USS Boston and US forces. The stated purpose was to protect Americans and American interests, but the action certainly appears to have favored the insurgency. And, of course, the provisional government immediately proclaimed itself “to rule until annexation by the United States.”

Some historians argue that major financial interests would not have colluded with US annexation, because the plantations were dependant on cheap Asian labor. But our treatment of Hawaii post annexation seems earily familiar to how we handle Saipan. Business owners get the benefits (no tariffs in US markets), but remain excluded from immigration and labor laws.

With what you just said , it is a real clearly difficult to classify the American statehood for Hawaii as an example of American aggression.

And if that is the only defense you can make of your post, well, 'nuff said.

 

[SoCalRC]

With what you just said , it is a real clearly difficult to classify the American statehood for Hawaii as an example of American aggression.

And if that is the only defense you can make of your post, well, 'nuff said.

You seemed confused about Hawaii’s history (as well as a number of other parts of the world). Whenever US forces are directly involved during the overthrow of a soverign state, it is difficult to argue, with intellectual honestly at least, that we ‘did nothing’.

However, as I expressly stated, an exact interpretation of everyone’s intentions is difficult and historians are divided. Had I wanted to take sides in your snit I would have used another example.

But I do find this post of your interesting. Since you allude specifically to “defense” you are apparently admitting to aggression on your part. IE, you are not ‘discussing’, you are ‘fighting’.

Also, you seem to find it self evident that statehood is superior to independance. This would require a values comparison on your part between two cultures, one you apparently know very little about.

Coincidentally, both these themes can be found in this Sunday’s Gospel.