for or against war???

[Laura]

Today at 02:52 PM Cammie said this in Post #19

Thank you Kookaburra! That was very well thought out. Don't worry about Laura, her problem is with ME, not my opinions. She feels the need to disagree with everything I say to try and cause a fight.

And Kookaburra--you're right. Sometimes innocent lives are lost for the greater good. Using Christ dying on the cross was an excellent example.

Cammie, I don't have a problem with you. I don't feel the need to disagree with you because you are you; I feel the need to disagree with you because of some of the ridiculous things you say.


And please don't ever use Christ dying on the cross in comparison to something like this war.

 

[paulewog]

I'm not sure she was using it as a thing for war

it sounded more like she was just pointing out that innocent people sacrifice themselves in order to help others, Jesus being the prime example of "laying down one's life for his friend."

Miss Laura, please don't think I'm directing this at you - this would be my view on war, not an assault on your view =)

Anyways... doesn't God use war? Didn't God use the Israelites in war to punish other nations, and didn't God use other nations to punish Israel... all through war? Certainly God is not against it.

God says that the government, which HE has ordained and given authority to, "does not wield the sword in vain" and is there "for the punishment of evildoers." (I think that's in 1st Timothy... big section about the government). Why do you weild a sword? You dont' use a deadly weapon like that just to gently tap someone on the wrist and say "bad boy," hehe (mom never did that to me either, it wasn't a tap and not on the wrist ).

And then we even have Ecclesiastes. A time for war, a time for peace....

As for murder - I think some wars could be considered murder, heh. Protection is not murder, however. And if war was coming to our soil - yes, my view would change... I wouldn't have a shadow of a doubt about my view. Peace is always better, but war is sometimes necessary, and if someone was going to attack our country - ok then, my country better fight back

That said, there are many innocent lives everywhere. There were many innocent lives in the Twin Towers. Many innocent lives lots of places. There are many Christians that get persecuted in North Korea by the communist government (which is there because of our lack of victory fighting them, heh).

 

[ElohaySelichot]

I don't like to see war, or my friends going to war, but i am convinced that it could be our only choice, therefore i am completely supportive. as of now on e of my friends is serving in Quatar (by saudi arabia) it's not something that i want to see, but  i feel that it if this does not happen now it could be my children down the road.  We didn't deal with saddam when we should've and now we are in this mess, if we do not deal with him now we will have a bigger mess down the road.

I am in total "150%" agreement with paulewog....

 

[KristiXP]

I'm for it. If this is what it takes, then I'm for it. I pray that the outcome will be positive for the U.S., and make Iraq take a step back.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

the UN is really rather silly. They haven't done muich of what they were formed to do ever

yup! not much better than the League of Nations was imho! Although i do think that if America doen't get their backing first, they will earn more enemies than they deal with!

 

[Zoe Girl]

I've been trying to stay objective about this war, since I'm not quite sure yet if I think we should attack.  However, I'm feeling myself leaning towards having this war.

Here are my reasons-

Saddam may have these weapons (actually I believe he does have them, without a doubt), but he's no idiot.  He knows that if he uses them he is dead.  That said, I think we are increasing our chances of him using the weapons on us by attacking him.  If we attack him, he knows he's dead, so he's dead either way, why not use the weapons?

Also, is it really our business to go over there and change their way of government?  If we go, and make our military presence known, then the people of the middle east will resent us (mostly out of pride, since they can't do it themselves), but if we pull our military out of all these places around the world, things will inevitably get worse for them and they will resent us for leaving.  It's a no-win situation.

On the protestors:  We all go to college (or went to college, or have friends who do...), and my particular college is very liberal, very anti-war, etc.  All of my friends have been complaining nonstop about all of this, but what I have noticed is that they aren't anti-war (so much that warrants all of these peace rallies) so much as they are anti-Bush.  They just need an excuse to tear him down, which I think is completely unethical.  If you're going to tear Bush down, do it for what it is, don't use peace rallies as a false facade.  I have a really hard time respecting these people because they aren't being honest.  Also, I'm reading a book that talks about people who are for peace at all costs.  They see themselves as being morally superior, since they want peace and everyone else is obviously war-mongors.  But I find a huge contradiction in this belief.  If someone has the capability to end tyranny in a nation that can't help itself, isn't it immoral to stand by and not do anything at all in the name of peace? 

Oil:  We aren't attacking Iraq for oil as so many people are saying.  If we wanted oil, we'd just get it from Kuwait since we already occupy it.  War isn't needed for us to get oil.

I really just wish that people would think about the consequences of their actions.  The protestors do have a loud voice, but they aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions.  They want what they want regardless of the outcome, they need to think about what it would mean if they got their way.  Just looking at Vietnam can show what protestors can accomplish.  Because of the protestors during Vietnam, America pulled out of the war.  The good thing was that a lot of soldiers didn't die who most likely would have, but the cost was that two million Cambodians were slaughtered, who would have been spared if we had stayed in the war longer.  So do we put ourselves first and say that we don't want to lose any Americans over something that really isn't our business, or do we put others first and say, even if we lose American lives, we are doing a better good by helping the
helpless?

 

[paulewog]

the most annoying thing is... the UN does not much, and I don't THINK the US is part of it, are we? officially anyway.

We fund a LOT of it with our money (our poor national debt ) and house the building and everything.

hehe, I think it's sorta like Social Security - probably better if we'd never gotten involved, much better if it had never been needed

 

[Zoe Girl]

My opinion is that the UN wouldn't be much of anything at all if the US wasn't a part of it.  It seems like a controversial topic, but it also seems pretty obvious that the United States is the most powerful nation, and the UN is the US.  We just humor the other countries into thinking they have a say.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[paulewog]

The first part is right. Without our money, aid, food, and might, I doubt the UN would be able to do a whole lot... espcially the money part. Most countries are plain broke.

As for the humoring, I don't know about that - the UN seems to tell us what to do more than we get to decide completely ourselves. Yeah, if the US was totally going to do this one thing, I doubt the UN would try exactly to stop the US

However, in the history of the UN, it simply hasn't done what it was meant to do. Especially when dealing with communism, heh.

 

[YouthPastor]

actually untill 9/11 we owed the U.N billions of moneyt because we withheld our dues because of how stupid the UN has been - after 9/11 we paid our back dues.

IRan or china chairs the un commission on human rights! Iraq will in march take over the commission on disarament. does this make sense?

WE know he has the weapons. Whne inspectors left in 98 - he had them. he will not say where they are or offer proff that he destroyed them.

 

[Zoe Girl]

It really makes no sense to me.  If the US left the UN what the UN be?  And we owed them money?  I wonder what the numbers are on how much money each country gives to the UN.  It wouldn't surprise me if the US gives the most. 

 

[paulewog]

We do.

What other country HAS money?

 

[the outlaw]

Very true Paulewog, Have you noticed the sum of money we are offering Turkey to stage the war from the bases there is more than Turkey's GNP in their history as a nation? And they still have a problem with it!!

The UN has never been what it set out to be. They are very suspect on several issues.

Anyway, the original point...War, yes or no? There is no question in my mind that war is the only solution now. (Aside from Hussein stepping down and leaving for good...HA!) 12 years....17 UN resolutions...How many more do we need? You've got terrorist training camps in Baghdad where terrorists are trained to hijack planes. The links to 9/11 aren't concrete but Hussein's reign of terror is undeniable. Gassing Kurds, training terrorists, torturing his own people, invading Kuwait in an attempt to seize control of the oil market which would have gave him significant "power" in the world economy. This man is evil and nobody in a blue helmet looking under rocks is going to stop his maniacal plans for the rest of the world. He has biological weapons now which he isn't supposed to have. UN inspections have not worked in that regard. If they haven't worked in that regard, how long before he has nuclear weapons? America can't take that risk because if we do, and Saddam does what he has done before...Americans will pay. 9/11 was the wakeup call, and apparently, some people have hit the snooze button...

 

[IslandBreeze]

Speaking of $$$, and 9/11....who helped us out? WE HELPED OURSELVES. Had any other country been attacked, we'd have sent millions of dollars in aid to help them out. I didn't see anyone rushing to our aid with millions of dollars. Quite frankly, we need to pull out of the UN. They don't support us, yet we supply them with the majority of their money. Something's not right there....

 

[Job_38]

If war is needed, let everyman pray to God for guidence.

 

[Blessed-one]

um, why not send some special troops in and just take off Saddem, then the innocent civilians don't have to suffer due to this one single guy's actions.

yeah, i know this's impossible, but just a thought.

as to for or against war.. i'm against. If civilians were involved, which often are, then there's absolutely no reason to start a war whatsoever. Destruction is easier than restoration.

 

[Zoe Girl]

Today at 10:14 PM Blessed-one said this in Post #37

um, why not send some special troops in and just take off Saddem, then the innocent civilians don't have to suffer due to this one single guy's actions.

yeah, i know this's impossible, but just a thought.

as to for or against war.. i'm against. If civilians were involved, which often are, then there's absolutely no reason to start a war whatsoever. Destruction is easier than restoration.

If I understand it right, assassination is illegal.  It would be a war crime (I think) if we went in and killed him. However, I'm not really sure what they would do with him otherwise.

 

[paulewog]

If I understand it right, blowing up teh twin towers would be a war crime.

What happened? Not much.

So are all the bombings against US Embassies and all that....

Really, I think we've been WAY too lenient. What's the use of a threat, an army, ANYTHING, if you don't use it?

I don't think innocent people should get killed, either. If they are... I guess that's just sort of what happens in a war. What will happen if we DON'T take action now? I can just picture the whole US getting shot at with nukes, and I DON'T think Saddam Hussein as the same thoughts about "innocent people" as we do.

 

[Defender of the Faith 777]

I don't care about war or no war, I just want to see the chemical and nuclear weapons annihilated.

I'm at the point where I don't even care. I'm sick of talking. If we're going to go to war, then just do it. If not, then stop pretending like we are.

 

[Zoe Girl]

Today at 12:14 AM paulewog said this in Post #39

If I understand it right, blowing up teh twin towers would be a war crime.

What happened? Not much.

So are all the bombings against US Embassies and all that....

Really, I think we've been WAY too lenient. What's the use of a threat, an army, ANYTHING, if you don't use it?

I don't think innocent people should get killed, either. If they are... I guess that's just sort of what happens in a war. What will happen if we DON'T take action now? I can just picture the whole US getting shot at with nukes, and I DON'T think Saddam Hussein as the same thoughts about "innocent people" as we do.

I was in the 6th grade during the Gulf War and I remember wondering back then why we didn't just send some assassins in and kill the guy.

You have to keep in mind that the US, with all of our power, will be criticized no matter what we do.  If we don't go to war, we'll be criticized for not helping out the people of Iraq.  If we do go to war, we'll be criticized for killing innocent Iraqis.  If we don't kill Saddam, we'll be criticized for letting a tyrant rule.  If we do kill Saddam (through assassination), we'll be criticized for being unethical.

I wish we would have taken care of this a long time ago, and it's unfortunate that they can get away with killing thousands of innocent Americans (among others) and we have to tiptoe around getting permission from everyone to do something about it.

I heard an interesting little tidbit on the news tonight.  Ari Fleischer was rebutting the argument that America has no place forcing our democracy on middle eastern countries.  He said democracy isn't something from America, it's from God and all people have the right to live in one.