Support of the Iraq war by American Catholics

[Snarf]

Ironmonk:

Your posts demonstrate the exact strategy that have placed us into this quagmire, and that is deliberate rotation of the issues at hand. Why go to Iraq? Because of weapons of mass destruction, of course. Sorry, put up or shut up. Okay, Iraq has ties to Al Quaeda. Prove it. Alright, Saddam is a really mean guy who killed lots of his own people. Good point there, except by Republican standards in the case against Milosovic, that's not reason to go to war. Furthermore, unlike Milosevic, Saddam's travesties were all water under the bridge; he didn't have the capacity any longer to commit full-scale genocide in his own country or elsewhere.

So, while you can pretend to have some kind of intellectual superiority by calling others "ignorant" because they overlook propaganda, even when you have no clue as to how much research anyone else has done (evidently you're more interested in slander than verisimilitude), all you have done is post the same tripe that has been flying around since BEFORE the war.

As for weapons of mass destruction, a few dozen sarin gas projectiles doesn't quite cut it for just war criteria. What was it that Bush said, that they could attack the United States within 45 minutes back in 2003? The word "stockpiles" also springs to mind. Oh, sorry, I forgot that none of this constitutes "research" since it's inconvenient to your indoctrination.

Yes, it was a tragedy that so many people died in Saddam's genocide. However, killing scores of thousands of MORE civilians doesn't quite bring them back to life. It'd be one thing if you could argue that Saddam had the capability and desire to commit more mass murders, but the truth stands to the contrary. Your comment that most civilian deaths occuring now are caused by Saudi terrorists is nominally true, but do you really think they'd be there if not for the occupation? And don't say that it's not our fault that the terrorists came, any moron could have prognosticated that and in fact the White House was COUNTING on it as a post hoc justification for the misnomer of the Iraq War being the War on Terror.

I honestly think that it's wonderful that Saddam is no longer in power. However, much of reality is a two-sided coin, and the next several years are going to brutally demonstrate that the gains of such an expenditure will not come anywhere near to justifying the costs. More people have and will continue to die due to the American occupation than would have if Saddam were left in power.

I also find it quite sad how you contradicted yourself in the following manner. You say that a major justification for war in Iraq is the attrocities commited by Saddam. You say that these attrocities are common knowledge. Yet, you say that John Paul II was not privy to the information held by the White House, so he was incapable of determining whether or not the war was just. That is absolute nonsense, and in your heart I'm sure you're aware of this.

As for the war being about weapons of mass destruction, the British government recently conceded that Bush had told them that the invasion of Iraq was going to happen regardless of any Iraqi weapons disclosure or disarment. Granted that was pretty obvious to anyone listening to Bush speak in the months leading up to war, but it's still nice to hear someone be honest for a change. What this proves is that the weapons were nothing but an excuse to exercise military force for ulterior motives. It takes very little common sense to affirm this just by the history of the war itself.

[jasJis]

Snarf,
I know you're young, but not that young. Roll back your memory banks. Sadaam agreed to not develop weapons of mass destruction in treaties with the United States AND the United Nations. It was fact that Sadaam had programs that may have been used for development of WMD and was funneling $$ into the military in Direct Violation of the treaties and sanctions. The UN weapon inspectors COULD NOT CONFIRM Sadaam DID NOT HAVE WMD already or indevelopment.
What were the penalties of these violations? What were the threats?
I for one, never was one of those parents or adults who would make threats that were empty or baseless. Countries and International Bodies cannot afford to make empty promises or threats either as that undermines their authority because rules have no power of enforcement. Think, man.

[God the Father]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 13 2006, 12:58 PM']Ok, what do YOU think is going on?  You actually BELIEVE what you see on TV?
[right][snapback]946240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If we believed what was on TV, the general consensus would be that upwards of five tactical nuclear missles were deployed on Iraq, and now the survivors are horribly mutated psychotic killers bent on violently spreading the word of Allah across the world.

[CrossCuT]

[color=330000]All hail Allah







[/color]

[amandaplus5]

[quote]If we believed what was on TV, the general consensus would be that upwards of five tactical nuclear missles were deployed on Iraq, and now the survivors are horribly mutated psychotic killers bent on violently spreading the word of Allah across the world.[/quote]





So true...