Supporting President Bush

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
josephdavid:
Where is the evidence there were terrorists before invasion?

When he said they had no link? Intelligence said they had no link to 9/11 or harboring terrorists.

Also the Soviet Union was a eminant threat to the U.S. but we never invaded? Why?
Oh brother! Have you been asleep for the last 5 yrs?
 
joseph,

We did not invade Russia because they could have blown us away with their nukes. As for Iraq, the intelligence was wrong, Bush recently admitted that. Yet, when he chose to go to war he used the best intel he had at the time (as President, it is up to him to decide, not us). You and the dems want to play monday morning QB, no problem, have fun with that. Yet, tread carefully, because if you really believe the war was unjust, then that means ousting Saddam is unjust and that also means Saddam should be immediately re-installed. Is that what you want? Be honest, do you want Saddam back in power, yes or no?
 
joseph,

Your post #80 simply restates what I have been saying. Bush wanted to stop a threat BEFORE it became emminent. He told the country that and he followed through.
 
I have read that Laura Bush was confined to bed for quite some time before the twins were born, with toxemia, I believe. I think it very unseemly to judge a person’s heart and intentions when you have no facts. Not in the spirit of this forum.
she could adopt. there are plenty of poor children around the world. even ronald regan adopted. what could W’s excuse be? he was too busy to raise a big family?
 
mike,

Yes, it is a shame that so many people let their hatred cloud their intellect.
 
No I do not want him in power who does. Majority of the Middle East hated Saddam and would loved to have seen him dead. Just not by Americans.

We have never invaded a country before with out proof of eminant threat. There is a possiblity he may have “cooked” the intelligence, much like the Tonkin affair.

Furthmore this war has been mismanaged from the beginning. It is deplorable that they ill concieved plans to invade a country with only less than half million troops. It is amazing that men who could not have the guts to fight in wars of their time send men and women over to fight with out enough troops strenght (General Shalikashvili recommended for 500K troops and urged caution and doubts).

Have you seen war?

As for the Democrats? They are bunch of sorry misguided misfits. They should of fought hard like Kennedy to stop this uneccessary war.

As for war you can not morally pick and choose which wars you will fight (or start). It is hypocritical.

War should be last resort.
 
oat soda,

George Bush is not a Catholic, and likely has different views then we do about children. Most Protestants are rasied in 1-3 child homes. While I wihs more Christians would have more kids, it is not realizitic to expect Bush to have a Catholic attitude towards children, especially since many Catholics do not.
 
Yet, tread carefully, because if you really believe the war was unjust, then that means ousting Saddam is unjust and that also means Saddam should be immediately re-installed. Is that what you want? Be honest, do you want Saddam back in power, yes or no?
this logic doesn’t follow any catholic teaching. a justified war must meet conditions:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
this isn’t a legal definition of guilty or innocent, but a qualitative set of conditions which when met, justify a war. it is based on moral theology.

the pope praised post-war efforts to bring peace to iraq and reminded the u.s. and allies of our responsiblity in establishing order in iraq. what makes this war probably unjust is the fact that the use of arms clearly produced more evil and disorder then the evil to be eliminated. the point is you can have an evil leader and an unjust war. the two are not mutually exclusive.
 
joseph,

You cannot have it both ways. If you truly believe the wear was unjust, then that means all of the consequences of the war are unjust as well. That means in your world Saddam should still be in power. If you think that Saddam was a monster and that it is good he is gone, then you cannot say the war is unjust. It cannot go both ways.

I agree that there are many other things we could do to help the world and our own people. Yet, go try to take voting power away from the Iraqis now that they have it. Go try to take their hope away now that Saddam is gone, they have a new government and they have the right to vote…try to take that away and see how that goes over with the citizens of Iraq.

As for wmds, I personally suspect that the chapter on those has yet to be written.
 
is not realizitic to expect Bush to have a Catholic attitude towards children, especially since many Catholics do not.
i agree. but it still is true weather bush recognizes it or not. plus, many protestants have big families. i think it depends on how traditional they are. i think it shows how selfish our country as a whole is, me especially included. i think this will be our undermining. the attack on the family is only gaining strength.
 
oat soda,

I do not agree. Saddam was at the very heart of why we went to war. He personally is proven to be a threat to the entire region and imo the war met all Catholic criteria for just war. Take note that JPII spoke against going to war, yet he never called the war unjust.

This is similar to the Hitler situation in World War II. Gernmany was the country we fought, yet the very heart of the war was to stop Hitler, just as the very heart of the war in Iraq was to stop Saddam. The war continues only because there is a new Hitler/Saddam in Iraq creating havoc for Iraqi citizens…they do not want a new Iraq.
 
Perhaps this will set precident and we will have to invade Napal, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, and a continuing list of people tortuing and adminstering genocide.
 
Quote by Della:
No one is obliged to have as many children as possible nor to adopt.
true, but your not obligated to do anything. you have freedom of choice. but charity demands you should have a just reason to limit your family in which case extremely rich politicians really do not have any excuse. minus they are totally unfit for raising a family in which case they shouldn’t be president.
Piffle. By this reasoning people who could adopt but don’t shouldn’t be in any office or have any kind of authority or power. Pure nonsense!

Quote:
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
And what does this have to do with people who are not Catholics and have never heard of this teaching in their lives? Does God hold people culpable for things they don’t know? You know very well that he doesn’t, so why quote Catholic teaching that has no bearing on the people we are discussing? I see no good reason except to cloud the issues at hand. Hardly a method a Catholic ought to be employing in a search for the truth.
i can only think of one justified reason why a family would be intended to be small. 1) the parents are not able to provide for a family. such as love, food, water, medice, shelter, …etc. this may be because they are too poor, or they are forced not to have kids by the state due to overpopulation.
You can think of only one reason and yet list several? So, which is it? Please!

You don’t really care if these people could have had children or ought to have adopted or not. Nothing you are saying or quoting is being done out of charity or pity for poor sinners. Frankly, your citing how many children these people have or should have had is unchristian and unnecessary and just plain despicable. It’s no wonder, with attitudes like yours we aren’t winning converts from the pro-death crowd. :rolleyes:
God punishes wicked nations by letting them be run by poor leaders.
And God punishes people who slander and judge others for things that are none of your or my business.
 
And ok… now the damage has been done. What are we doing to bring resolve to the situation.

Bush’s only answer “Stay the course” That is not a battle plan. I know what a battle plan is and this is not.
 
joseph,

Or, perhaps Iraq will demonstrate that freedom (at least to some degree) is not something that is impossible for other nations. The more free nations there are in the world, the safer everyone will be.
 
Pray that it does but understanding and seeing that region first hand… The moment we leave there will be civil war much like the Balkans.
 
40.png
josephdavid:
And ok… now the damage has been done. What are we doing to bring resolve to the situation.

Bush’s only answer “Stay the course” That is not a battle plan. I know what a battle plan is and this is not.
Bush is smart enough to let military people decide military strategy. So, if the generals are telling him to stay the course, then that is what he is going to do.

It’s a little too late to start second-guessing what course to take next, in any case. We have to stay until the country is stable enough to run itself or we will have seen nothing in the way of bloodshed up until now, which has been bad enough without letting them run amok with no one to restrain them over there.
 
joseph,

Civil war is possible…no doubt there. Yet, the impact a free Iraq can have on the region is worth taking a chance. I also do not see us just pulling out until things are far more stable and we will have some level of troops there for many years as support.

Freedom in this life is neither free, nor easy. Safety is also not easy or free. From a Christian point of view, I wish those facts were not true…yet we live in a fallen world and if desire freedoms then we must be willing to maintain that freedom. There are spiritual wars waging everyday across this globe and the flesh wars are often a reflection of the larger more important battle–imo.
 
This thread has nothing to do with Catholic news and has been right the line on charity for some time. It has now crossed that line. THREAD CLOSED.

Walt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top