What can we do about the new nuclear threat?

[Brad]

Peacemonger:

And what would that solve? Besides killing tons of people.

Although I know Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused horrible death of innocents, it did put a dead stop to further killing that had gone on for over a decade. Was it right to do it this way? Only God knows. But the stopping of killing was the effect.

 

[gilliam]

Iran wants nuclear bombs for defensive use. They know that we don’t invade nuclear powers. They are very afraid we will invade them.

 

[Brad]

Peacemonger:

I’ve never asked an ignorant question in my life!

My answer to the whole Middle Eastern problem is to let the Arabs solve their own problems. If these people are not willing to rise up against brutal dictators and oppresive governments then why in the hell should we do it? And please Lisa, stop kidding yourself in believing that our invasion of Iraq was done because the US cared so deeply for the Iraqi people.

So, what you are saying is this:

Human lives are worthless if they can’t stand up against their dictators. They don’t matter in this case.

These same human lives still don’t matter if the U.S. ousts the dictator and they go on to live in freedom.

However, if these same human lives are killed accidentally by the U.S. or intentionally by terrorists in the process of the U.S. ousting the dictator, they suddently become precious.

So, only if the U.S. intervens and causes negative results to a human life does a foreign human life matter. If the U.S. intervenes and causes positive results to a human life, that life doesn’t matter. If the U.S. does not intervene, that life doesn’t matter because it is too lame to do the right thing.

Now, peacemonger, I really don’t think you see things this way, which leads me to only 1 other possible conclusion - your primary motivation in criticizing the Iraq war has nothing to do with peace but everything to do with being opposed to George W. Bush for personal reasons.

 

[Brad]

Lisa4Catholics:

I prefer peace as well, but if you do nothing to defend people who are being killed by tyrants and look the other way, do not be surprised when they end up on your doorstep.God Bless,Lisa

:clapping:

 

[Brad]

Peacemonger:

I said nothing about looking the other way. But I should have been more clear on that point. I forget that most of my friends here consider violence as the only way to defeat evil.

I think most of your friends here supported the 15 UN resolutions that were ignored by Iraq. Were they violent resolutions?

 

[Michael_C]

Brad:

Now, peacemonger, I really don’t think you see things this way, which leads me to only 1 other possible conclusion - your primary motivation in criticizing the Iraq war has nothing to do with peace but everything to do with being opposed to George W. Bush for personal reasons.

Nice aim, you seem to have hit the nail on the head.

 

[thestickman]

Brad:

So, what you are saying is this:

Human lives are worthless if they can’t stand up against their dictators. They don’t matter in this case.

These same human lives still don’t matter if the U.S. ousts the dictator and they go on to live in freedom.

However, if these same human lives are killed accidentally by the U.S. or intentionally by terrorists in the process of the U.S. ousting the dictator, they suddently become precious.

So, only if the U.S. intervens and causes negative results to a human life does a foreign human life matter. If the U.S. intervenes and causes positive results to a human life, that life doesn’t matter. If the U.S. does not intervene, that life doesn’t matter because it is too lame to do the right thing.

Now, peacemonger, I really don’t think you see things this way, which leads me to only 1 other possible conclusion - your primary motivation in criticizing the Iraq war has nothing to do with peace but everything to do with being opposed to George W. Bush for personal reasons.

!!!

Well said

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

Iran wants nuclear bombs for defensive use. They know that we don’t invade nuclear powers. They are very afraid we will invade them.

This is partially true but certianly not fully true. Iran, more than anyone since 1980 has supported terrorism and would not hestitate to plant a nuke in the U.S. if it were possible to get away with without evidence pointing to Iran. Fanantisicm can delude logic (like sin) and many there think the cause of Allah is greater and he will confuse the U.S. as long as they stick to their “energy” stories.

 

[gilliam]

Brad:

This is partially true but certianly not fully true. Iran, more than anyone since 1980 has supported terrorism and would not hestitate to plant a nuke in the U.S. if it were possible to get away with without evidence pointing to Iran. Fanantisicm can delude logic (like sin) and many there think the cause of Allah is greater and he will confuse the U.S. as long as they stick to their “energy” stories.

I really don’t think Iran has a wish to be inialated. Their goal is to promote Islam, not to become extinct.

 

[Michael_C]

Brad:

This is partially true but certianly not fully true. Iran, more than anyone since 1980 has supported terrorism and would not hestitate to plant a nuke in the U.S. if it were possible to get away with without evidence pointing to Iran.

…and if this did happen and we did find out it was Iran that supplied the nuke, arresting the people that detonated it is a ridiculous response. Justice would be for Iran to be transformed into the grand canyon of the middleest.

 

[Jay74]

Brad:

Now, peacemonger, I really don’t think you see things this way, which leads me to only 1 other possible conclusion - your primary motivation in criticizing the Iraq war has nothing to do with peace but everything to do with being opposed to George W. Bush for personal reasons.

You’re correct that peacemonger doesn’t see things that way. He’s got a good heart. I’ve been critical of his positions, and regretfully towards him, at times, but reading his posts for the past several months has lead me to be certain his intentions are admirable.

I don’t know if personal opposition to Bush is a motivating factor, but i’m guessing it isn’t. I think peace may just be a good hearted man who has trouble seeing that many people in this world are evil hearted (I strugge comprehending how someone can be evil, but i’ve seen enough to know they are). Then again, none of us know him, so we can’t really judge his mind.

Though I’ll continue to disagree with him, I will defend his intentions. And honestly, I wish he were right–I wish taking the lead by destroying nuclear weapons, laying down our weapons, never waging war, etc, would set an example and better the world. But, unfortunately, I don’t believe that would work–i think destroying our nuclear weapons would trigger us to be under nuclear attack, and I believe the only way to deter a nuclear jihad is for those who would wage it to know that wage such an attack would mean the demise of them and their cause.

He’s still a good guy though. Maybe not having an evil bone in his body keeps him from believing that many of our enemies are evil. .

Blessings to all.

 

[Brad]

Jay74:

You’re correct that peacemonger doesn’t see things that way. He’s got a good heart. I’ve been critical of his positions, and regretfully towards him, at times, but reading his posts for the past several months has lead me to be certain his intentions are admirable.

I don’t know if personal opposition to Bush is a motivating factor, but i’m guessing it isn’t. I think peace may just be a good hearted man who has trouble seeing that many people in this world are evil hearted (I strugge comprehending how someone can be evil, but i’ve seen enough to know they are). Then again, none of us know him, so we can’t really judge his mind.

Though I’ll continue to disagree with him, I will defend his intentions. And honestly, I wish he were right–I wish taking the lead by destroying nuclear weapons, laying down our weapons, never waging war, etc, would set an example and better the world. But, unfortunately, I don’t believe that would work–i think destroying our nuclear weapons would trigger us to be under nuclear attack, and I believe the only way to deter a nuclear jihad is for those who would wage it to know that wage such an attack would mean the demise of them and their cause.

He’s still a good guy though. Maybe not having an evil bone in his body keeps him from believing that many of our enemies are evil. .

Blessings to all.

Jay -

As much as I would like to agree with you, I don’t have enough information to assume the intentions are pure and without political bias. The quote I was responding to is one of many that have not shown what I would expect from, say, Mother Teresa. It said:

**
I’ve never asked an ignorant question in my life!
My answer to the whole Middle Eastern problem is to let the Arabs solve their own problems. If these people are not willing to rise up against brutal dictators and oppresive governments then why in the hell should we do it? And please Lisa, stop kidding yourself in believing that our invasion of Iraq was done because the US cared so deeply for the Iraqi people.**

This, in effect leads me to believe that the poster doesn’t give a darn about oppressed peoples under dictators if they are unwilling to help themselves. I don’t disagree that several factors need to be seriously weighed and considered before deciding to wage war to free an oppressed people because they will not/can not do it themselves - however, I could give many reasons why the “hell” we should do it, not the least of which is that human beings in Iraq have just as much a God-given right to dignity as human beings in the U.S.

I have repeatedly asserted that the fact that the US primary motivation to invade was not stated to be “to free them from Sadaam” (although this was stated as a problem to be resolved), that is not relevant to today’s discussion that their freedom is a good end result. Peacemonger says we are kidding ourselves if we think Iraq was invaded because the US cares about the Iraqi people but why does Peacemonger even care to correct us on this point when he/she just said that we shouldn’t have done it for that reason anyways?

I’m still stuck with 2 possible alternatives from someone coming from this perspective:

1. Peace doesn’t matter within a country - it only matters between countries

or

1. Political motivation either against Bush or any president that would wage such a war drives one to make statements that show no care towards oppressed peoples in an attempt to continue justification of the anti-war position.

 

[Jay74]

Brad:

Jay -

As much as I would like to agree with you, I don’t have enough information to assume the intentions are pure and without political bias. The quote I was responding to is one of many that have not shown what I would expect from, say, Mother Teresa. It said:

I’ve never asked an ignorant question in my life!
My answer to the whole Middle Eastern problem is to let the Arabs solve their own problems. If these people are not willing to rise up against brutal dictators and oppresive governments then why in the hell should we do it? And please Lisa, stop kidding yourself in believing that our invasion of Iraq was done because the US cared so deeply for the Iraqi people.

This, in effect leads me to believe that the poster doesn’t give a darn about oppressed peoples under dictators if they are unwilling to help themselves. I don’t disagree that several factors need to be seriously weighed and considered before deciding to wage war to free an oppressed people because they will not/can not do it themselves - however, I could give many reasons why the “hell” we should do it, not the least of which is that human beings in Iraq have just as much a God-given right to dignity as human beings in the U.S.

I have repeatedly asserted that the fact that the US primary motivation to invade was not stated to be “to free them from Sadaam” (although this was stated as a problem to be resolved), that is not relevant to today’s discussion that their freedom is a good end result. Peacemonger says we are kidding ourselves if we think Iraq was invaded because the US cares about the Iraqi people but why does Peacemonger even care to correct us on this point when he/she just said that we shouldn’t have done it for that reason anyways?

I’m still stuck with 2 possible alternatives from someone coming from this perspective:

1. Peace doesn’t matter within a country - it only matters between countries

or

1. Political motivation either against Bush or any president that would wage such a war drives one to make statements that show no care towards oppressed peoples in an attempt to continue justification of the anti-war position.

Good points all. I’ve read many of your posts in the past, and I tend to agree with you on most things.

It is impossible to know his motivations, so I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. I do think his beliefs are contrary to his professed goal–letting evil grow unfought just makes it worse.

Blessings.