War Supporters

[MrsFrozen]

I support the war in Iraq, and the whole War on Terrorism. Saddam was a tyrant. His people were afraid of him. He gassed and tortured them. I think we did the right thing getting him out of there.

I did not enlist, but my husband is in the Air Force. Unfortunately, he will be going to the desert in two weeks.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='MrsFrozen' post='1147985' date='Dec 23 2006, 07:18 AM']
I support the war in Iraq, and the whole War on Terrorism. Saddam was a tyrant. His people were afraid of him. He gassed and tortured them. I think we did the right thing getting him out of there.

I did not enlist, but my husband is in the Air Force. Unfortunately, he will be going to the desert in two weeks.
[/quote]

[hijack ]

Your family will be in my prayers. My brother is in Iraq right now (not the same as husband, I know!) so I understand a little bit of the stress you're feeling. My husband and I have been apart for the greater part of a year now (he is serving in Korea... hopefully we'll get to join him over there SOON), so I definately understand how NOT fun that is. Will you be staying in Japan or coming to the States while he is away?

[Winchester]

I support both invasions and the soldiers I know do as well.

I did not enlist. I am, however, one of the people who would deal with a terrorist attack as a responder, so I'm involved. The guys over there and here dealing with these bozos are making me safer.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146356' date='Dec 20 2006, 12:13 AM']
I would like to piont out Groo is 37 years of age, and he, because he knows he's incorrect, has restored to calling 17 year old kid names.
[/quote]

Problem is, you bring this all upon yourself. Anyone who has engaged in debates with you can testify to the fact that the vast majority of the time you rely on emotionalism and feel-good soundbites, even after we refute you with logic, facts, and figures. And if you go into the seminary, trust me, such lines of reasoning (or more appropriately, lack thereof) will only get you a lot of comments in red ink in the margin from your profs.

Granted, you made an attempt with your list of seven reasons and at least we got some intelligent debate over your facts and figures, but then you regressed and brought up the former Vice-President and intelligence. What does that have to do with the debate at hand?

[avemaria40]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1146373' date='Dec 20 2006, 01:44 AM']
Well, their all Convseravites and we know how bright they all are.
[/quote]

Excuse me, I know a lot of conservatives and they are the most intelligent people I know.

[Anything4Him]

JPII denounced the war on terror in front of President Bush.

I stand by my Church before my country.

'nuf said...

Love in Truth,
ANYTHING4HIM

Edited January 1, 2007 by Tucker M

[avemaria40]

I support the war. I am very glad that Saddam was taken out and I pray that peace can be made there. I also wholeheartedly support our troops, who've had to sacrifice so much just to protect freedom, ours and that of the Iraqis. Now, I wouldn't enlist, but only because I'm not sure I have the emotional capacity to endure that and I don't do well under stressful situations. I also don't believe that God is calling me to that lifestyle. But I have an intense respect for the military, and I pray every night for our troops.

[aalpha1989]

I supported the war in Iraq until recently....idk I remember a thread where era was talking about how sick he was of the fighting and war, and how it was unneccessary...and i also was trying to reconcile to myself how JPII would be against it, because I trust him so much....I trust George Bush, and I believe that he will always make decisions guided by his conscience, and I probably would have made the same mistake, but I do believe that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I know that the media doesn't show the whole story, but still. I guess 'civil war' isn't exactly the right term to describe what is happening in Iraq, but enough is enough. Less people were dying before we went there. There are too many different factions fighting. I know the general populace there is grateful, and Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and that Iraq CAN be better without him. However, I don't see it as our buisness to rid Iraq of him. Also, I don't see a stable government coming any time soon. Also, preimenent strikes are condemned by the Church. This war is not like the first Gulf War. In the first war Hussein was invading neighboring countries.

From the Catechism;

2308
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense,[color="#FF0000"] once all peace efforts have failed."106[/color]

2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

[color="#FF0000"]* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[/color]
*[color="#FF0000"] all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/color]

* 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.


These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.


I don't believe that "all peace efforts" failed, neither was Hussein "the aggressor" (at least, not in this war), nor were all other means of putting an end to his atrocities implemented. Granted, neither I nor anyone here can fully understand the situation, as does Bush and his administration, so the war [i]may[/i] be just, simply from all the given information I do not believe that enough was done before the war to prevent it. However, now that we ARE in Iraq, I think that we need to stay. I don't really see a good plan for pulling our soldiers out, because we ARE the peace keeping force now. Our actions caused the current state of chaos there, and so we are guilty for that, but now that we are there we have to help the people as much as we can. So I guess if by "against" the war you mean that we shouldn't be there in the first place, I'm against the war. But our troops' actions currently I believe to be right. I support everything that we are doing in Iraq now, I just don't think we should have gone there in the first place. Does that make sense?

[DAF]

Catholicinsd, are you in favor of stopping global warming? Have you signed up to go on the next trek to Antarctica yet?



Give me a break.

Edited January 2, 2007 by DAF

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='DAF' post='1154350' date='Jan 2 2007, 01:12 AM']
Catholicinsd, are you in favor of stopping global warming? Have you signed up to go on the next trek to Antarctica yet?
Give me a break.
[/quote]


lol that's amusing to me.....Anyone else read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? I really don't believe that global warming is caused by humans...or that it is a real threat....i have met ONE person who agrees with me, most people think im a moron, but whatever...

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='avemaria40' post='1153084' date='Dec 31 2006, 07:38 PM']
Excuse me, I know a lot of conservatives and they are the most intelligent people I know.
[/quote]

even me?

[Lounge Daddy]

(Double post... my bad)

Edited January 2, 2007 by Lounge Daddy

[DAF]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1154355' date='Jan 2 2007, 02:16 AM']
lol that's amusing to me.....Anyone else read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? I really don't believe that global warming is caused by humans...or that it is a real threat....i have met ONE person who agrees with me, most people think im a moron, but whatever...
[/quote]
Lol, I kind of agree though. I mean, how self absorbed can you be to think that humans have [i]that[/i] much of an impact on the globe.

[Mercy me]

I support the war 100%. The reason I am not in the military is none of your business. Let us just let it suffice to say that I am not able to serve. I do my part in the war effort by prayer, and volunteering with organizations that support the troups.

I resent the notion that if I am not serving then I am a hypocrite. I would say that apologies are due.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1154287' date='Jan 2 2007, 12:29 AM']
I supported the war in Iraq until recently....idk I remember a thread where era was talking about how sick he was of the fighting and war, and how it was unneccessary...and i also was trying to reconcile to myself how JPII would be against it, because I trust him so much....I trust George Bush, and I believe that he will always make decisions guided by his conscience, and I probably would have made the same mistake, but I do believe that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I know that the media doesn't show the whole story, but still. I guess 'civil war' isn't exactly the right term to describe what is happening in Iraq, but enough is enough. Less people were dying before we went there. There are too many different factions fighting. I know the general populace there is grateful, and Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and that Iraq CAN be better without him. However, I don't see it as our buisness to rid Iraq of him. Also, I don't see a stable government coming any time soon. Also, preimenent strikes are condemned by the Church. This war is not like the first Gulf War. In the first war Hussein was invading neighboring countries.

From the Catechism;

2308
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense,[color="#FF0000"] once all peace efforts have failed."106[/color]

2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

[color="#FF0000"]* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[/color]
*[color="#FF0000"] all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/color]

* 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
I don't believe that "all peace efforts" failed, neither was Hussein "the aggressor" (at least, not in this war), nor were all other means of putting an end to his atrocities implemented. Granted, neither I nor anyone here can fully understand the situation, as does Bush and his administration, so the war [i]may[/i] be just, simply from all the given information I do not believe that enough was done before the war to prevent it. However, now that we ARE in Iraq, I think that we need to stay. I don't really see a good plan for pulling our soldiers out, because we ARE the peace keeping force now. Our actions caused the current state of chaos there, and so we are guilty for that, but now that we are there we have to help the people as much as we can. So I guess if by "against" the war you mean that we shouldn't be there in the first place, I'm against the war. But our troops' actions currently I believe to be right. I support everything that we are doing in Iraq now, I just don't think we should have gone there in the first place. Does that make sense?
[/quote]

I'd like to know what you guys think of this, because I trust you guys too well, some of you . so anyway...

*bump*

[MissScripture]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1154355' date='Jan 2 2007, 01:16 AM']
lol that's amusing to me.....Anyone else read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? I really don't believe that global warming is caused by humans...or that it is a real threat....i have met ONE person who agrees with me, most people think im a moron, but whatever...
[/quote]
I agree with you...as does my father...and brother, and mother and sister...But this is off topic, so I'll stop now.

[ironmonk]

[b]The gist of a general unknowing question...[/b]
"Why don't you sign up and fight if you support the war"


[b]The answer:[/b]
Everyone has their place in life. Some people are not fighters. When innocent people are dying because of a madman in power, that madman needs to be removed. Our military is completely voluntary - thank God for them fighting for us and the innocents in Iraq. I am greatful to God for them. They have saved many lives by giving their own for this cause. Before the war people in Iraq lived in fear because Saddam tortured people... and I don't mean with rap music and humiliation... real torture: pulling their insides out of their rear with a hose, beating them, electro shock, pealing their skin off, experimented on them like the Nazi's did with the Jews... etc...

If I didn't have a family, I would have been there. See, I know history and I know the Catholic faith... I know what the Church teaches about "just war"... and all conditions were met.

There are evil men in this world that have power over many innocent people. Thank God the US Gov. is here to help them. Maybe we can't help all of them, but at least we can help some of them.


[b]The attack:[/b]
"It's hypocritical to support a war you won't join"

[b]Applied thought to the attack:[/b]
If you are not a saint, then you too are a hypocrite. So this is not even a valid attack. It is a rant lacking of thought and knowledge of what a hypocrite is. We are all hypocritical. All of us. The only ones that are not hypocrites are the saints who do not sin. So "hypocritical" is not even a logical or reasonable attack because it has nothing to do with the premise of "support but not joining" question.



[b]The attack:[/b]
"The war is only about oil"


[b]The answer:[/b]
No it's not. That of course is part of it. We do need to protect our interests.

If it wasn't for oil we would not have everything we do today. Society could not be as large as it is. Many more things than just gas rely on oil. Plastics need oil. Latex gloves used by doctors need oil. Products on the shelves of the store you buy your food from need oil to develop fuel for the trucks carrying them, many of them use plastics as containers.

People who complain about the war and complain about the gas prices saying that the government should do something about gas prices have no moral right to complain about a war in which oil is involved because the government is doing something about it.

When oil prices go up, many many things are affected... not just gas. Who is it that suffers most? The poor, the old, and the sick.


[b]Another war point:[/b]
Something that people should really take notice on and open their eyes to is that when Clinton went to war for less of a just cause, the media was mute. The only reason why the media is making such a stink about it is because the majority of them are dems. It is pure bias that drives what the media actually reports.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1157955' date='Jan 7 2007, 01:38 AM']
[b]The gist of a general unknowing question...[/b]
"Why don't you sign up and fight if you support the war"
[b]The answer:[/b]
Everyone has their place in life. Some people are not fighters. When innocent people are dying because of a madman in power, that madman needs to be removed. Our military is completely voluntary - thank God for them fighting for us and the innocents in Iraq. I am greatful to God for them. They have saved many lives by giving their own for this cause. Before the war people in Iraq lived in fear because Saddam tortured people... and I don't mean with rap music and humiliation... real torture: pulling their insides out of their rear with a hose, beating them, electro shock, pealing their skin off, experimented on them like the Nazi's did with the Jews... etc...

If I didn't have a family, I would have been there. See, I know history and I know the Catholic faith... I know what the Church teaches about "just war"... and all conditions were met.

There are evil men in this world that have power over many innocent people. Thank God the US Gov. is here to help them. Maybe we can't help all of them, but at least we can help some of them.
[b]The attack:[/b]
"It's hypocritical to support a war you won't join"

[b]Applied thought to the attack:[/b]
If you are not a saint, then you too are a hypocrite. So this is not even a valid attack. It is a rant lacking of thought and knowledge of what a hypocrite is. We are all hypocritical. All of us. The only ones that are not hypocrites are the saints who do not sin. So "hypocritical" is not even a logical or reasonable attack because it has nothing to do with the premise of "support but not joining" question.
[b]The attack:[/b]
"The war is only about oil"
[b]The answer:[/b]
No it's not. That of course is part of it. We do need to protect our interests.

If it wasn't for oil we would not have everything we do today. Society could not be as large as it is. Many more things than just gas rely on oil. Plastics need oil. Latex gloves used by doctors need oil. Products on the shelves of the store you buy your food from need oil to develop fuel for the trucks carrying them, many of them use plastics as containers.

People who complain about the war and complain about the gas prices saying that the government should do something about gas prices have no moral right to complain about a war in which oil is involved because the government is doing something about it.

When oil prices go up, many many things are affected... not just gas. Who is it that suffers most? The poor, the old, and the sick.
[b]Another war point:[/b]
Something that people should really take notice on and open their eyes to is that when Clinton went to war for less of a just cause, the media was mute. The only reason why the media is making such a stink about it is because the majority of them are dems. It is pure bias that drives what the media actually reports.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]

According to His late Holiness the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II all diplomatic efforts were not exhausted and the War was (and is) not just.

And what was Clinton's War?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1154287' date='Jan 2 2007, 01:29 AM']
I supported the war in Iraq until recently....idk I remember a thread where era was talking about how sick he was of the fighting and war, and how it was unneccessary...and i also was trying to reconcile to myself how JPII would be against it, because I trust him so much....I trust George Bush, and I believe that he will always make decisions guided by his conscience, and I probably would have made the same mistake, but I do believe that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I know that the media doesn't show the whole story, but still. I guess 'civil war' isn't exactly the right term to describe what is happening in Iraq, but enough is enough. Less people were dying before we went there. There are too many different factions fighting. I know the general populace there is grateful, and Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and that Iraq CAN be better without him. However, I don't see it as our buisness to rid Iraq of him. Also, I don't see a stable government coming any time soon. Also, preimenent strikes are condemned by the Church. This war is not like the first Gulf War. In the first war Hussein was invading neighboring countries.

I don't believe that "all peace efforts" failed, neither was Hussein "the aggressor" (at least, not in this war), nor were all other means of putting an end to his atrocities implemented. Granted, neither I nor anyone here can fully understand the situation, as does Bush and his administration, so the war [i]may[/i] be just, simply from all the given information I do not believe that enough was done before the war to prevent it. However, now that we ARE in Iraq, I think that we need to stay. I don't really see a good plan for pulling our soldiers out, because we ARE the peace keeping force now. Our actions caused the current state of chaos there, and so we are guilty for that, but now that we are there we have to help the people as much as we can. So I guess if by "against" the war you mean that we shouldn't be there in the first place, I'm against the war. But our troops' actions currently I believe to be right. I support everything that we are doing in Iraq now, I just don't think we should have gone there in the first place. Does that make sense?
[/quote]



Something to consider... JPII would not have access to all intelligence info that the Pres. would have access to. JPII does not have the responsibility for the common good (i.e. he's not the civil authority).

CCC 2309 "[b]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good[/b]."

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=22309&hl=just+war"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...amp;hl=just+war[/url]


Saddam Hussein bribed high-ranking officials in France and Russia and perhaps even China through the UN oil-for-food program.

...
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted WMD scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3200 from 40.
[url="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/17/1097951554218.html?oneclick=true"]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/...l?oneclick=true[/url]


...
The beneficiaries allegedly included Benon Sevan, the U.N. diplomat who ran the oil-for-food program; officials from at least three U.N. Security Council member nations (Russia, France and China) and several U.S. companies. Duelfer identified several of the foreign countries and officials, but, citing privacy laws, he did not name the suspected U.S. firms, an inconsistency both odd and unfair.
[url="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=267041"]http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=267041[/url]




[quote]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[/quote]


Saddam has been supporting suicide terrorism well before 1990. Saddam supported various terrorist networks. He trid to destroy all Kurds. He tortured his people, etc...


[quote]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/quote]

Over 10 years of sanctions, innocent Iraqi's were suffering. Saddam was developing more weapons. He was not letting inspectors inspect... Why would he do that? Because he was creating WMDs.


[quote]there must be serious prospects of success;[/quote]

There was no way Saddam could beat the USA in a war. Success was a given.


[quote]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/quote]

Saddam was one of the greatest evils of our time. He just didn't gas his own people.... He demanded that innocent people to be tortured. One of the techniques that they like to use is putting a rubber hose up men's anuses, then yanking them out fast to disembowl their victim. They would beat men to almost death, then shoot them. They would let a couple men go each month so that they could tell the people of Iraq the horrors that they faced.

The US Armed forces are now teaching Iraqis to defend themselves. They have helped build hundreds of hostpitals and schools... they have done so much good for the Iraqi people... they no longer need to live in fear of Saddam torturing them if they didn't like one of his policies.





God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited January 7, 2007 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1157957' date='Jan 7 2007, 02:44 AM']
According to His late Holiness the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II all diplomatic efforts were not exhausted and the War was (and is) not just.

[/quote]


JPII did not have the responsibility for the common good.
JPII did not have access to what Saddam was doing.
Over 10 years of issues with Saddam well indeed exhaused diplomatic efforts. The situation was getting worse not better.

[quote]And what was Clinton's War?[/quote]
If you got to ask, this shows that you do not have enough knowledge of history to even be arguing the topic.

Kosovo.


God Bless,
ironmonk