Troop pull-out unjust?

[vz71]

Then why did we ignore Rome’s and the USCCB’s pleas regarding our obligation to refugees and ending our support for ethnic cleansing and genocide?

Are we now claiming to be more Christian than the Magesterium?

Not at all.
I am simply stating the case for staying in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves.

It would be naive to believe that there will not be atrocities attributable to the power vacuum created if we leave too early.

 

[vz71]

SoCalRC asks a good question but further to a point, do you think America is acting in a Christian manner and more importantly should we as Americans project such a notion to the world so that when our military is engaged by an enemy, the enemy is fighting against Christian ethics and morals?

Valid question perhaps.
But an aside to the real issue…Is a troop pullout just.

For the simple reason that our presence is stopping escalated violence, the answer is a very firm “not right now.”

 

[Verisimilitude]

Okay, I can accept our difference on this matter. Perhaps it underlies all our our disagreements.

I think it is certainly plays a significant role in it.

Because he believes it is better to treat one another with kindness rather than hostility. I agree with him.

Could it be because he is speaking as the legitimate authority of the early Church and to demonstrate a clear separation from the old way to The new Way?

Because violence is not what Christianity is about.

Could it be because there is legitimate self defense but not enough for a war? A few verses later He commands the Apostles to stop fighting in His defence with those very swords.

Not that your answers are wrong but maybe too simplistic for my view of this particular topic that I felt the need to clarify.

Are you a pacifist?

No. In my ‘Chinese troops in America’ scenerio I would be considered an insurgent to you maybe if you supported the Chinese. Would you turn me in if you knew I was the one who blew up their fuel supplies or attacked their patrols in my efforts to expel them from America?

Jesus on many occasions came to the defense of the weak and persecuted, stopping aggression and offering help.

Can you give me a reference? Not to be too blunt but I can’t think of a incident/parable that ever has Jesus/the ‘owner’ of the house leaving the safety of his own home to kick in the door of another persons home looking for sinners/killers to bring to justice in an effort to protect the people that had their door kicked in.

The two swords permitted for defense then is not the might of the US Military today. To now call the mission in Iraq a defensive one is more than just disingenuous if that is what you are saying. I’m not sure. The defense of Iraqis is low down on the list of political/economic reasons to go/be in Iraq.

The sanctions greatly hurt the Iraqi people. It was a slow hard squeze on them. I am tempted to say that during the Gulf War we should have continued on into Iraq after evicting the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. But after the mess we have made of Iraq during this current conflict, I am not sure that would have been better.

Wouldn’t a consistant non-interventionist foreign policy like the one prescribed by our Law serve us better than what we have been doing the last 60 years?

There is no hypocrisy - each nation has a right to self-determination. If the people of one country elect a government which is hostile to ours, then our countries will be hostile to one another. But this doesn’t take away the right of self-determination.

I could give a list of countries after of WWII the US has interfered with to justly say we took away, or tried to, their self determination like Iraq if you feel it neccessary though you might know of them already. There is hypocrisy if we actively support a continuation of it. Some people are fine with being a hypocrite here. I’m not.

Because we didn’t have good cause to invade. But once we did invade and made a mess of things, the moral character of the conflict(s) changed. It is now our responsibility to restore Iraq.

Sounds like: I stab a man in a fit of lunacy and he is bleeding and making a mess of things, I get more crazy and now I have to hide the body.

Do you support the practice of the last few decades where Congress gives the President discretion/authority to declare war/commit combat troops instead of Congress making that call?

I don’t think America should be in the business of creating governments. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. But once we created anarchy, we have a responsibility to restore a stable government.

We did not create the anarchy in Iraq; yesterday, today or tomorrow. It is the birthplace of civilization for goodness sake and the people there are old hands at in-fighting particularly since the influence of Islam.

We dictated the terms of surrender to the Axis powers of WWII that formed those governments which was just and smart largely because we had a formal declarartion of war to morally/legally do so. What we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is maybe the dumbest thing we could have done politically and in the long run humanitarianly, and ultimately in the spiritual sense with respect to the acceptance of Islam as a political force in the manner of communism. We lost the chance to outlaw Islamic law, and that was what attacked us on 9/11. If you didn’t know or guess yet I am not a fan of Islam politically or spiritually.

We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong way. Even if Iraq becomes like Jordan or Egypt politically; do you really call that a success? We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by staying.

 

[Dale_M]

Could it be because he is speaking as the legitimate authority of the early Church and to demonstrate a clear separation from the old way to The new Way?

St. Paul is a legitimate authority of the early Church. Although the interpretation you mention isn’t the impression I got from the piece, it certainly is a theme in the Gospels.

Could it be because there is legitimate self defense but not enough for a war? A few verses later He commands the Apostles to stop fighting in His defence with those very swords.

Hmm… I suppose that is one possible interpretation.

Not that your answers are wrong but maybe too simplistic for my view of this particular topic that I felt the need to clarify.

I do believe you feel much more strongly about this topic than do I.

In my ‘Chinese troops in America’ scenerio I would be considered an insurgent to you maybe if you supported the Chinese.

Are we talking about your scenario, which you haven’t detailed, or are we talking about my scenario? (which you asked me to propose) In my scenario, the Chinese are invited guests of our government to protect us from invasion because (mysteriously) our military is too weak. In my scenario, you would be aiding the enemies of the US who are threatening to invade.

Now, if you care to propose an alternative scenario as to why the Chinese are in America, I am willing to consider it.

Can you give me a reference?

Sure, John 8:5-11, the story of the adulterous woman he protected from stoning. And Matthew 15:30,

Great crowds came to him, having with them the lame, the blind, the deformed, the mute, and many others. They placed them at his feet, and he cured them.

Or Not to be too blunt but I can’t think of a incident/parable that ever has Jesus/the ‘owner’ of the house leaving the safety of his own home to kick in the door of another persons home looking for sinners/killers to bring to justice in an effort to protect the people that had their door kicked in.

Jesus was willing to put his own life on the line in order to protect and help others. That is a major theme of the Gospels.

The two swords permitted for defense then is not the might of the US Military today. To now call the mission in Iraq a defensive one is more than just disingenuous if that is what you are saying.

As I have mentioned a couple of times, we didn’t have good reason to invade Iraq, and I opposed it. It was a colossal blunder, a black mark in the history of our nation.

The defense of Iraqis is low down on the list of political/economic reasons to go/be in Iraq.

Then we disagree on that point as well.

Wouldn’t a consistant non-interventionist foreign policy like the one prescribed by our Law serve us better than what we have been doing the last 60 years?

I am not convinced that non-interventionism is the only interpretation of the New Testament. But certainly you are entitled to that interpretation.

There is hypocrisy if we actively support a continuation of it. Some people are fine with being a hypocrite here. I’m not.

Great! I hope you have been voting against George Bush, then.

Do you support the practice of the last few decades where Congress gives the President discretion/authority to declare war/commit combat troops instead of Congress making that call?

No, I think it is dangerous. But neither of the two major parties of the US seem interested in overturning the practice.

We did not create the anarchy in Iraq; yesterday, today or tomorrow.

Yet another point on which we disagree.

Even if Iraq becomes like Jordan or Egypt politically; do you really call that a success? We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by staying.

Again we disagree. Since we disagree on so many points, is there any point in continuing this discussion?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Valid question perhaps.

Relevant as well.

But an aside to the real issue…Is a troop pullout just.

For the simple reason that our presence is stopping escalated violence, the answer is a very firm “not right now.”

Our presence is a major cause of the violence. Right now would be best.

The confusion reflects the dilemma facing Iraqi government leaders.

On the one hand, many of them - particularly among the Shia factions - face a public which regards the US presence as a problem rather than a solution.

With provincial elections coming up soon, they could be outflanked by more militant elements such as the supporters of cleric Moqtada Sadr, who wants American forces out now and opposes negotiations that would cover their continued presence.

Yet the government knows that its own forces are not yet in a position to stand on their own against the two major challenges they face - the Sunni radicals of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the militant Shia militias which were partly suppressed in fierce battles this spring in Basra and Baghdad.

Both groups could simply bide their time awaiting the American withdrawal before making a comeback drive.

Violence has fallen off considerably from the horrendous levels of 2006 and the first half of 2007, but hundreds of people are still dying violent deaths every month.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

Events in Iraq are bewilderingly complex. When this is combined with personal vanity and bureaucratic parochialism, which typically overstate the influence of prized projects, administrative officials and key commanders might fail to grasp just what has happened in Iraq over the past two years.

The fog of war and official mindsets are not conducive to understanding complex events, and the impact of the “surge” on reducing violence is greatly inflated in Washington and the Green Zone in Baghdad alike. Similarly, much of the American public subscribes to this attractive story line, resonant as it is with popular views of the resourcefulness and determination of their military.
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG31Ak02.html

The fiercely anti-U.S. Sadr issued his second statement in three days on Sunday, telling followers they could still defend themselves despite his decision last month to extend a ceasefire for his feared Mehdi Army militia for another six months.

“If a military war is conducted against us by the occupiers we will defend ourselves,” Sadr said in a statement bearing his personal seal, his second in three days.
reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL09327107

 

[Verisimilitude]

I am not convinced that non-interventionism is the only interpretation of the New Testament. But certainly you are entitled to that interpretation.

How about the Constitution?

Again we disagree. Since we disagree on so many points, is there any point in continuing this discussion?

No.

 

[vz71]

Our presence is a major cause of the violence. Right now would be best.

Considering the violence before we were there (remember the various atrocities commited by their dictator), and the amount of violence that is occuring now, that is a tough sell.

 

[vz71]

How about the Constitution?

I thought we were discussing just and unjust??
At what point did the constitution enter?

One need look no further then the various laws in this country to know that Constitutionality and morality do not necessarily coincide.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I thought we were discussing just and unjust??
At what point did the constitution enter?

How do you define what is just and what is not? Why would our law be excluded from it’s determination? Is our law unjust? Why would I dismiss my faith to redefine what is just or not? The 10 Commandments list one particular code which is not to kill. What justified setting aside that commandment when the US performed it’s ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign in Iraq in 2003? What set aside the requirement for Congress to declare war against another nation that did not attack America?

One need look no further then the various laws in this country to know that Constitutionality and morality do not necessarily coincide.

The law of this country defines the limits of our justified actions and if we act outside of those laws they can reasonably be determined to be unjust. The Founders were very clear the use of our military was intended for defense of America and a standing army was hardly envisioned. To send them around the world to be stationed in permanent foreign installations hardly seems to conform with the specifics or intent of our laws, particularly when Congress gives this responsibility to the Executive Branch which was purposely denied such authority in the Constitution.

You personally argue very strenuously about the abortion issue claiming human life is sacrosanct in the womb but you seem to make a different determination about life once they are an adult living overseas. If each life is precious and to be protected in the womb then each life living in an apartment in Badgad is also precious to be protected. The guided munition we send to end the life of some bad people hiding in the apartment building in Bagdad has made no justification to the good people it destroys yet you call this just for some reason.

 

[vz71]

You personally argue very strenuously about the abortion issue claiming human life is sacrosanct in the womb but you seem to make a different determination about life once they are an adult living overseas. If each life is precious and to be protected in the womb then each life living in an apartment in Badgad is also precious to be protected. The guided munition we send to end the life of some bad people hiding in the apartment building in Bagdad has made no justification to the good people it destroys yet you call this just for some reason.

With respect to your long answer concerning constitutionality…the discussion is based upon the just or unjustness of pulling troops out of Iraq.
I base my decisions of just or unjust upon the teachings of God’s church, not the constitution. Any many instances, they coincide, in many others they do not. I find it rare that they ever conflict.

Of course, I argue strenuously for the sanctity of all human life.
I am one of the few on this board that also take it to the logical conclusion and go against the death penalty as it is currently used.

That said, I must weigh the good that is being done against the evil caused by our own prescence there and against the evil that would be caused by our early pullout.
I am not looking at, nor will I look at, the issue of if we should have been there or not. Not in this discussion. The question is of a pullout, and it matters little at this point. We are there now, we have to deal with that reality.
The case has been made for me, and becomes clearer with every news article about the good work that is being done there for the Iraqi people. A pullout at this point would simply allow for a genocide. Our prescence there is holding that back. Once the Iraqis can defend themselves, I am confident a pullout can be made.

Of course, I expect there will forever be an American base there, just as there is an American base nearly everywhere that we have fought in the past century.

 

[Verisimilitude]

With respect to your long answer concerning constitutionality…the discussion is based upon the just or unjustness of pulling troops out of Iraq.
I base my decisions of just or unjust upon the teachings of God’s church, not the constitution. Any many instances, they coincide, in many others they do not. I find it rare that they ever conflict.

The illigitmate dismissal of our Constitution as a guide to determine if our actions are just or not with respect to our civil law makes your position unbalanced. It cannot be dismissed from the discussion.

You have yet to reference anything from Gods church to support your position of a justified reason to stay. The Just War criteria wasn’t met to go into Iraq. I am not familiar if there is a Just Occupation criteria so what do you use to support staying. I have only asked half a dozen times. Do you just not want to answer? The other person responded eventually with John 8:5-11 as an example where Jesus came to the defense of another person as his justification seemingly, and though I didn’t respond directly then I will say here there is no similarity or parallel to draw with that and Iraq. Do you have any substance to your feelings or are they just feelings?

Of course, I argue strenuously for the sanctity of all human life.
I am one of the few on this board that also take it to the logical conclusion and go against the death penalty as it is currently used.

Your logic escapes rational thought if you do not include the innocents of Iraq while arguing to preserve the life of a legally convicted person.

That said, I must weigh the good that is being done against the evil caused by our own prescence there and against the evil that would be caused by our early pullout.

Yea, this is what I have been asking you to support with teachings of the Gospels or other Church position. Your definition of good is as nebulous as the evil you claim to be supporting the fight against. Is it just to send 200 Tomahawk missiles into a city we have no formal declaration of war against? The innocents we kill are justified by what Doctrine? The guilty we kill are adjuicated by what law? Church law? If you are only using Gods church as you justification it shouldn’t be too difficult to reference at least one thing is it?

I am not looking at, nor will I look at, the issue of if we should have been there or not. Not in this discussion. The question is of a pullout, and it matters little at this point. We are there now, we have to deal with that reality.

You can limit your view all you like but the fact remains the US has tens of thousands of combat troops in a country we have no justification to be in to begin with yet you advocate the 5 years already spent there are not enough. We just walked in we can just walk out.

The case has been made for me, and becomes clearer with every news article about the good work that is being done there for the Iraqi people. A pullout at this point would simply allow for a genocide. Our prescence there is holding that back. Once the Iraqis can defend themselves, I am confident a pullout can be made.

I challange the veracity of your statment about the good our overall presence has had for the average Iraqi in the last 5 years and Fox News as most news sources in America are little more than propaganda machines for the administration. The oft cited threat of ‘genocide if we pull out now’ is tripe, but even if we did pull out and a mass killing took place it is not the fault of America they are killed. It is the fault of those who kill them.

Of course, I expect there will forever be an American base there, just as there is an American base nearly everywhere that we have fought in the past century.

Do you support such an action? Does Gods church support such an action? The Constitution obviously does not support it though you inappropriately dismiss it.

 

[vz71]

…even if we did pull out and a mass killing took place it is not the fault of America they are killed. It is the fault of those who kill them.

So if you are in a position to prevent and evil from happening, but do not do so, you do not have culpability in the evil?

I read a post on another thread concerning abortion that seems rather fitting as well her.
“I didn’t kill him…the train did. I just left him on the tracks.”

 

[bobzills]

If the Church authorities have already said that the war was unjust to begin with and if it was started on false pretenses anyway, then I would guess that it is immoral for the US to continue to have troops in Iraq. I think that the present leader of Iraq has indicated that he wants the US troops out of the country by the end of 2010? What moral right does the US have to stay in the country when the leader of that country wants the troops out?
To keep the troops in against the will of the leader of the country seems like it is immoral naked aggression of a big country against a smaller one, and this sets a bad precedent and bad example.

 

[Verisimilitude]

So if you are in a position to prevent an evil from happening, but do not do so, you do not have culpability in the evil?

Our perspective of our position might be different and evil is happening; I am trying to end further guilt for our part of the harm we are still doing 5 years late.

The embassy we are building in Iraq, which is about the size of the Vatican should be renovated to a hospital and donated from the American people to the People of Iraq as a parting gift…along with the numerous military bases we have built. I think we have borrowed and spent enough on Iraq. They will figure it out on their own like they should.

I read a post on another thread concerning abortion that seems rather fitting as well her.
“I didn’t kill him…the train did. I just left him on the tracks.”

Whatever source you want to cite the number of killed, maimed, displaced, homeless…for whatever reason or justification you want to cite for our part in their killing, maiming…makes staying as an occupying force to protect the Green Zone inhabitants a token nobility not worthy to be couched in the Christian image.

Some people want help that don’t get it. Some people get help that don’t want it. If you want to be nobel and help people, go without a weapon in your hand to those who want it. If we can’t force our good everywhere we shouldn’t force it anywhere. Pro-life and pro-war are not compatible.

If you want to fight the evil that is fighting us, fight the ideological cause not the physical tactic.

 

[vz71]

I am going to repeat what you said earlier.
I do not believe you understand the position your statement has placed you in.

…even if we did pull out and a mass killing took place it is not the fault of America they are killed. It is the fault of those who kill them.

If we are in a position to prevent an evil (in this case, the mentioned ‘mass killing’) and we do nothing, we are culpable.
You cannot talk your way around that.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I am going to repeat what you said earlier.
I do not believe you understand the position your statement has placed you in.

I am thinking the same about you as you continually intonate a Christian mission in Iraq.

If we are in a position to prevent an evil (in this case, the mentioned ‘mass killing’) and we do nothing, we are culpable.
You cannot talk your way around that.

You cannot talk your way into nobility/justification by saying the US military was sent initially or is acting now in a nobel manner for it is not the purpose of their mission. You put a gun in the hands of Jesus by your position and that is something I will not do for that would be against everything I know about Jesus. He did not protect othe people much less Himself by the use of violence and war.

You think too highly of your statement as well regarding the supposed mass killing that may take place. We/I am not responsible if they have a civil war.

 

[KingAlfred]

If the U.S. packs up and flees from Iraq, causing the place to turn into a hideous blood-bath, much moreso than it already is, America will be committing a mortal sin. McCain is right: we might to have to stay in Iraq for the next century, if it means preventing a holocaust. We’ve invested so much in rebuilding Iraq, that a sudden pull-out, which would expose tens of thousands of former collaborators to revenge-killings, could never be justified, morally.

 

[bobzills]

If the U.S. packs up and flees from Iraq, causing the place to turn into a hideous blood-bath, much moreso than it already is, America will be committing a mortal sin. McCain is right: we might to have to stay in Iraq for the next century, if it means preventing a holocaust. We’ve invested so much in rebuilding Iraq, that a sudden pull-out, which would expose tens of thousands of former collaborators to revenge-killings, could never be justified, morally.

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded a US withdrawal timetable. My guess is that the Iraqi prime minister knows a little more about what is going on in his country than some anonymous blogger on CAF.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4288108.ece

 

[liberational]

I can’t believe that someone actually posted that, what Iraqi citizens want is irrelevant!

That’s what I call American arrogance at its absolute worst.

Your government invades a country lead by a former ally on the false premise regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and your government fed the world a line about bringing democracy to Iraqi citizens. No mention of oil!

…and then you post that the Iraqi citizen’s opinion matters not, after your government single handedly destroyed the infrastructure, stability and security…why don’t you just colonize Iraq into a Middle East America!

 

[BamaRider]

Staving off the threat of genocide is a poor and unjust excuse to stay in Iraq when genocide is happening in a number of other places we have no national interest in. We (America) were not appointed to save the world from demons and monsters. It is enough to take care of ourselves.

No but the Cahtolic Church is, and it is much easier to spread our Faith to a free society, then a land under govt tyranny. Democracy and religous freedom go hand in hand. Install a democracy and Catholicism thrives. When our priests and workers are free to operate without fear of being rounded up, and jailed, and can work in the open, things are better, would you not agree?

Why do you think Jihadists fought so long and hard in Iraq? One being the thought of Christian missionaries swarming into the Mid East, and operating carte blanche, they are NOT gonna have that.

We can’t free every people so we free none? I do agree millions live under tyranny, you just want to forget them by saying, “not our business.”

Do you not support taking the Fatih into places like China? The Sudan? Democracy and religious freedoms go hand in hand. When a society is free, it is much easier for our people to spread the Faith, and less of them will be imprisoned, tortured or killed, I’d think you’d be for supporting EVERY nook and cranny wanting freedom. I’m for exporting American style freedom to every inch of this globe. You find a people struggling to gain their freedom you help them. That could be arms, political, and intelligence, it does not always mean direct military intervention, but you always leave that option on the table, and after the last 5 years bad guys know we WILL use it, at a place and time of our choosing.

Now if you don’t believe freedom is a good thing, or some some don’t deserve it, or can’t govern themselves, then by all means stay at the house, and while you enjoy YOUR freedom, you can let lanquish those left behind.

If we don’t bring freedom to these places, who else will? The rest of the free world has neither the will or the means. Just me :twocents: