How is the war in Iraq

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

I selectively quote because I think people waste space taking hte whole thing. Plus I think people waste space typing with these kinds of messages as far as quoting is concerned. I think I've gotten your message.. the others are just responses and clarifications and stuff. If you disagree, i'm sorry. I'm not going to change unless you can show me a good reason why. I think I caught teh whole essense of your thing that's important thought I do acknowledge that I didn't get the whole context.

Now as for your argument. I don't think most people would take your argument. Most would argue that WMD are the reason. You're saying an weopons would be incidental while most say helping people is incidental.

This is a frustrating things that happens here. I make good arguments to the majority and end up arguing with one or two people about somehting else and it throws everything out of whacjk. Luckily not too many are posting here. (untill I say something that pisses people off.. then they're just respond with simple declarative statements.. it is sin.. that is good.. this is bad.. and no arguments.. sorry for the rant)

I think I've covered the WMD thing unless someone wants to take their argument further than they held. (unless I misunderstood them to begin with in which case let me know)

Your idea I might agree with but I dont' think it was intended on part of the JWD. It appears that they were talking about being the ones to have been inflicted on. It is unclear. Actually you can read it in anyway you want. (which leads to another rant about catholic hierarchical literature.. wishy washy about gray areas and strong on the absolutues but dressing up the wish washy with abstract statements.. "people should not go hungry" sorry again I'm not angry just thinking out loud) I'd be willing to guess that's not what they meant the way you do. Apparently.. unless there's somethin else.. we're gonna just agree to disagree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think hope we got that what I consider side dispute settled. As for the majority disupte, I think you'll have to deal with this.

[quote]WWII. If there was clear to pretty certain danger then then we didn't attack soon enough. You'll say that maybe there was not "enough" then and now look at what happened to them back then. For one, I don't think we have enough information to draw an analogy. For two, that strict "truth" of the just war theory is that you have to have clear danger, not just maybe danger. If a catastrophe occurs from not fighting a maybe danger, then that's just the way it is. [/quote]

I may consider the maybe danger personally. But I don't think it is just to use according to the JWD. My view is inherently wishy washy case by case. I could see you saying that for JWD I suppose. Is this your argument? In a way it is in that case by case the local authorities must address the "imminent" danger. I and probably JPII just don't think it's imminent. And when you consider what might really be imminent, then you might see that's it's not.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I say it's maybe danger. Will you agree that it is maybe danger?

If we can agree to that then you must think the maybe danger is imminent and I don't. I'm curious to hear if you think it's more than just maybe danger.