Decision to attack

[geocajun]

Protect our country from what?! Show me one ounce of solid proof that OUR country was in danger? OUR country had nothing to do with this. What about Bin Laden??? What happen to our search for him? All of the sudden he became a thing of the past, explain that to me!

We have to trust in our leaders that there was a threat, and since it is their duty to assess that threat, and defend our country, then until we have seen evidence to the contrary, we have a duty to support them.

Your jumping around all over the place here, a minute ago it seemed you said we should be fighting in other countrys to stop their oppression of their people, but now you say, that we didn't have any proof of threat to us which would give us the right to be in iraq so we shouldn't have gone there to protect ourselves, which also means we wouldn't have stopped the oppression of their people. It all seems a bit incoherent to me...

We haven't stopped searching for bin laden, it just isn't getting the same headlines as it was since the iraq war.

 

[PeterPaul]

You say we have to trust our leaders, yet I can't say I have to. After all, we don't trust them to protect children, babies, our rights to place Ten Commandments in front of court houses, they change the law without our consent (homosexual marriages), they rip out one belief from public schools and endorse another "theory". So, tell me again why I have to trust my leaders?

 

[Michelina]

People know Bush is serious now, so they won't play games like Saddam did.

Good point. Did you see how Ka-daffy suddenly went sane?

 

[Christy4Christ]

Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.


I would rather die myself than kill ONE child in the name of war. I believe we could have silently gone in and taken out Saddam if that was the goal. Bombing that place to smithereens was a monsterous thing to do! I do not wish to be enemies with a single person on this forum over this and if we disagree on this it should be of no consequence because we are sure to find other things on which we DO agree. As for the war. I totally disagree and think it was wrong. I am firm on that and I am sure you are firm on your opinions as well.

 

[geocajun]

It's called patriotism to trust your Country, and its elected leaders.
Simply abandoning the system and refusing to vote or other such nonsense, is an atrocity.
You could get involved, and try to change things that way - this is a democracy ya know..

 

[geocajun]

Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.


I would rather die myself than kill ONE child in the name of war. I believe we could have silently gone in and taken out Saddam if that was the goal. Bombing that place to smithereens was a monsterous thing to do! I do not wish to be enemies with a single person on this forum over this and if we disagree on this it should be of no consequence because we are sure to find other things on which we DO agree. As for the war. I totally disagree and think it was wrong. I am firm on that and I am sure you are firm on your opinions as well.

just to be sure we are clear, is it your position that war is inherently wrong, and there are no just reasons for a war?

 

[PeterPaul]

Change what? The parties remain the same. I don't see twenty parties out there. I see two. So we are just zig zagging from one party to another. How is it an atrocity to not vote for Satan and vote for his pal the AntiChrist? I know I'm exaggerating, but honestly.

I don't care for patriotism, after all, it is baloney nationalism which doesn't lead closer to Christ. Christ is the answer, not the Republican party which attempts to tighten its control over our lives with Patriot Acts, globalization or the Democratic party with its Socialist control over people's wallets.

To me, they are both one and the same. Its called blindness to trust leaders because it is "patriotic". That's not a good reason for you to trust Democrats is it? We trusted Clinton and Nixon did we not?

Sorry Marx is here and well.

 

[PeterPaul]

By the way, the Church recognizes just war theory, however it does involve defense not attack.

 

[geocajun]

Change what? The parties remain the same. I don't see twenty parties out there. I see two. So we are just zig zagging from one party to another. How is it an atrocity to not vote for Satan and vote for his pal the AntiChrist? I know I'm exaggerating, but honestly.

I don't care for patriotism, after all, it is baloney nationalism which doesn't lead closer to Christ. Christ is the answer, not the Republican party which attempts to tighten its control over our lives with Patriot Acts, globalization or the Democratic party with its Socialist control over people's wallets.

To me, they are both one and the same. Marx is here and well.

Sorry to hear you say that PeterPaul

We do grow closer to Jesus when we help eachother. We are given certain gifts by which we can better help one another, and to bury our talents in the sand is what hurts us, but when we use them for the glory of God, we will be richly rewarded for it.

I highly recommend that you reflect on the following section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Chapter Two, The Human Community, paragraphs 1877-1917.
This covers the human vocation, communal character, and participation in social life.

 

[Christy4Christ]

Geo,

I guess I would say that there probably would be a reason for "Just War" I don't know about that but I am so glad I don't have to be the one to decide!

As far as me saying we should be jumping around going to war in other places. I am so sorry you took it that way, that is not what I meant at all! I only meant to show an example of other countries we could have targeted but did not. My question was WHY?

As I said I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this. I am just glad to have the freedom here to express my opinions no matter how controversial they may be. I also do not hate my country and I recognize how our forefathers have fought for that very freedom. I have a tough position. To agree with one war and disagree with another really makes no sense at all, I am aware of that. I just cannot help but feel there is a lot about that war we do not know.

Now for the statement that will hang me for sure..

In my opinion Mr. Bush is USING his position as an alleged Christian to gain the votes of the many Christians in the US. Ofcourse I cannot say that for sure because that would be very judgmental. I must make clear that I SEE it that way but I am in noway saying it is a fact. Perhaps he is a Christian indeed, I guess only time will tell. In truth only God knows his heart. I just think we should use caution with him because his actions have been contrary to his words.

 

[geocajun]

By the way, the Church recognizes just war theory, however it does involve defense not attack.

correct, but that does not preclude going on the offense as a defense as was the case in Iraq.

 

[PeterPaul]

Then why aren't we entering China or North Korea?

 

[Christy4Christ]

Geo we are posting over the top of each other please back up and see my response to you

 

[geocajun]

Then why aren't we entering China or North Korea?

Patience Bro, it may happen.
Do you think we should attack China and N. Korea?

 

[PeterPaul]

They pose a bigger threat than Iraq did, and yet by the logic presented by the government, they should have been invaded. Are there not more humanitarian abuses in China then there ever have been in Iraq? No, we make China a trading partner thanks to Bill Clinton.

I think if Bush had shown proof, not speculation, not testimony from some people, but pictures, reliable intel, then I can see our invasion, otherwise, we have no justification without invading many countries in the world.

 

[geocajun]

Geo we are posting over the top of each other please back up and see my response to you

Christy, I saw your response, and I don't have much to add to it other than to point out that you did in fact decide if we should go to war or not, but your decision wasn't based on military intellegence, but rather news media reports, and it didn't have the same authority as the Presidents decision which was based on Military Intel and authority.

And I think Bush is a principled man, and he has done what he says he is going to do. I agree with him on most social issues, and in a time when we are legally permitting abortions, and fighting against homosexual marriage, I can think of nothing more important.

I am voting for Bush.

 

[nyj]

I believe we could have silently gone in and taken out Saddam if that was the goal.

Talk about a global backlash if Saddam had suddenly been assassinated.

 

[Christy4Christ]

NO NO NO I don't want us to attack anyone!!! If they attack us then defend ourselves but otherwise why can't we go after individuals?? Why must we BOMB PEOPLE??? Can't we just go after the bad guy himself??? We do have the intelligence to do that you know!

 

[nyj]

If they attack us then defend ourselves but otherwise why can't we go after individuals??

So you're against war, but for murder.

Killing an individual solves nothing. Whole regimes must be replaced.

 

[Christy4Christ]

Talk about a global backlash if Saddam had suddenly been assassinated

Whats the difference between that and what we did?