The following link is written by a Jesuit priest regarding his view on the war. Your thoughts if you care to read it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-21.htm
I know, I know, he is an extremist bead wearing priest against war… How dare a priest be against war why that’s heresy!
More irrelevant drivel.
Marimba, you are definitely non partisan with your views and criticism. I don’t believe it’s the end all either. I just wanted to offer an opposing view from a religious perspective since 75 percent of folks who support this war do so in the name of God.
I think morally the war is wrong and If Jesus exists, I don’t think he would be in favor of this at all. Not the Jesus, I learned about going to Lutheran school as a wee lad.
Again, I’m not a hippy who doesn’t believe in war. I would shoot Bin Laden myself given the opportunity. I am against the Iraq war which didn’t in my view meet a war justification and the numerous deaths that will continue as a result of it.
Saddam could have been delt with in a different manner. Sure it might have meant being patient and Haliburton not getting some juicy contracts, but you can’t argue it would be any less effective then what’s going on now.
e,
hussein wasn’t being contained. No resistance or covert operations were effective.
He was bribing the “international community.”
As duefler pointed out, he was pouring money into his WMD programs.
The end of the ineffectual oil for food program was in sight.
Not a chance in hell this cancer would have just gone away.
Thanks for repeating your falsehoods ad nauseum.
You do realize that repetition without any supporting evidence makes not only your argument, but you, look bad.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
e,
hussein wasn’t being contained. No resistance or covert operations were effective.
He was bribing the “international community.”
As duefler pointed out, he was pouring money into his WMD programs.
The end of the ineffectual oil for food program was in sight.
Not a chance in hell this cancer would have just gone away.
Thanks for repeating your falsehoods ad nauseum.
You do realize that repetition without any supporting evidence makes not only your argument, but you, look bad.
JeffR[/quote]
jeffler, you lack evidence. You keep pointing out WMD’s of which none other then your glorified sarin filled artillery shell have been found. Hardly to be considered stock piles. Your logic applied to yourself makes you look like a ranting fool.
Peace out
Elk,
“You keep pointing out WMD’s of which none other then your glorified sarin filled artillery shell have been found. Hardly to be considered stock piles. Your logic applied to yourself makes you look like a ranting fool.”
The Senate Resolution authorizing war had a list of 23 counts against Saddam - WMD was one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,
“You keep pointing out WMD’s of which none other then your glorified sarin filled artillery shell have been found. Hardly to be considered stock piles. Your logic applied to yourself makes you look like a ranting fool.”
The Senate Resolution authorizing war had a list of 23 counts against Saddam - WMD was one.[/quote]
Thunder, I agree there were 23 total counts. Do I think the 23 were justification for war and the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians for what I think won’t be any positive gain… a big resounding NO! He was a paper tiger no matter how much jerffy wants to make him out to be the anti-christ who held the demise of the world in his hand.
Elk,
As for the article, it is an interesting read in that their are plenty of very religious people - very religious people - who identify with antiwar and generally other Left wing causes.
Without doubting the author’s sincerity - which I don’t - I have always been a bit puzzled by the ‘religion’ double-standard.
On one hand, when a devout religious person, particularly a clergyman, espouses various policy preferences in the name of his religion that agree with the Left - ie, being against the Iraq war for nonviolence reasons, more help for the poor in terms of higher taxes, etc. - the Left labels such activity as ‘following his conscience’ or ‘being true to his , and ultimately, humanity’.
On the other, should a religious person, particularly a clergyman, espouse a view that the war in Iraq was justified or refuses to endorse something as radical as gay marriage, the Left shrieks that he is trying to implement a ‘theocracy’ or he is ‘letting his religious beliefs get in the way of his politics’ or is ‘forcing his religious beliefs on others.’
I personally think this guy is wrong, but I respect that his approach to nonviolence is deeply rooted in his spirituality and he dare not defy his own conscience. I can respect that because I think people’s deepest values - often rooted in their religion - obviously influence the direction of their politics.
But I ask, does the door not swing both ways?
I don’t believe that Jesus was non-violent (ie. chasing the money changers out of the temple), especially in the way this preist is characterizing Him, so I think his argument falls apart pretty quickly.
My 2 cents.
Elk,
“Thunder, I agree there were 23 total counts. Do I think the 23 were justification for war and the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians for what I think won’t be any positive gain… a big resounding NO!”
The question was not whether you though they met President Elkhunter’s threshold - you said there was no evidence. I am saying there was a slew of evidence, agreed to with a bipartisan vote.
“He was a paper tiger no matter how much jerffy wants to make him out to be the anti-christ who held the demise of the world in his hand.”
Well, neither Bush, nor the US Senate, nor the United Nations Security Council agreed with you. Even those in the UNSC that didn’t agree with the war thought Saddam was an international danger - they just disagreed on how to handle him.
Your views are in a very small minority.
Thunder, you are right about the door, but just like you think mine and the writers are swinging the wrong way, I think your door is.
I am not a religious person, but was when I was younger and went to a Lutheran school for quite a few years. My view of the teachings of Jesus Christ would lead me to believe you would exhaust every last option humanely possible before starting a war where thousands would suffer.
I don’t agree with religion much anyway anymore because as I got older much of it and the way it is practiced seems highly hypocritical and not beholding to again what I thought Jesus was teaching.
I think that quite the opposite of what the Bible teaches the current leaders were chomping at the bit to get this war started for if not all some very greedy and less then holy desires.
If I was in George Bush’s shoes, I wouldn’t have sent thousands to their deaths on the argument that he used to do just that. It would have taken much much more for me and with that I would have been able to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day.
He lives in a dream world.
It is intellectually dishonest to simply say war is bad. There should be no war. That is sticking your head in the sand.
War is real. War is part of the human condition.
e,
I’m tired of spoon-feeding you. I’m even more weary of showing you evidence without you reading the links.
My first response was edited as being too large. I was going to post the ENTIRE link. My hope was that you would at least make a superficial attempt to educate yourself. The shotgun approach.
Here is just a taste of Duefler:
There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. All sources suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.
Huwaysh claimed that in 1999 Saddam asked how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents. Huwaysh tasked four officials to investigate, and they responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard within six months. VX and Sarin production were more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard?if it were prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.
Miscalculation, 2002-2003
As the reality of the UN?s impending return sank in, Iraq rapidly initiated steps to prepare for inspectors. Committees and groups were formed to ensure sites and key scientists were ready to receive the inspectors.
As had often occurred in the past, individual scientists, heads of departments and security officials examined their plans of work for items or documents that would be subject to inspections. In every relevant location in Iraq, to some extent, normal work was disrupted in the effort to ensure Iraq was not suspected of undertaking proscribed activities.
According to a senior chemist at the MIC, Huwaysh in October 2002, issued an order?the same order issued several times in the past?which held scientists personally responsible for any materials, equipment, or other prohibited items found by the UN.
Vice President Taha Ramadan chaired a meeting of over 400 scientists before the inspectors returned, threatening scientists with dire consequences if the inspectors found anything that interfered with Iraq?s progress towards the lifting of sanctions.
When inspections resumed, foreign experts were hidden from the inspection teams.
In the final days of his Regime, Saddam continued to pursue efforts to enhance Iraq?s industrial base, with plans underway for the construction of a multipurpose chemical plant, and nine oil refineries in Southern and Northern Iraq. The plans for this chemical plant were the result of years of the IIC?s efforts to coordinate research into the indigenous production of chemicals.
The Ministry of Industry and Minerals (MIM) owned a plot of land west of Baghdad that it set aside for construction of this multipurpose production facility, which was designed to produce a year?s supply of 100 chemicals using only 10 independent pilot-scale production lines. (For more information, see Iraq?s Infrastructure: Production Capability).
Construction was scheduled to begin in March 2003, but was halted just prior to OIF. The plant would have provided Iraq with an indigenous multi-purpose production facility capable of producing large quantities of chemicals, in a relatively short time"
Pretty easy to see what he was up to.
For people who are trully interested in challenging their preconceptions…
JeffR
Yes thunder, but much of the hyperbole about the resolutions came after 9/11 when the right hijacked the mood of the country in it’s mourning over that tragic event. If any one dare spoke up in a slightly questioning manner about anything going against the Bush grain it meant career or political suicide.
Look at the people who did speak up from Gov. and how they were smeared. A rationale Gov. would have looked for alternative methods then war for the paper tiger Saddam.
Oh, and regarding all those resolutions, I remember back in 2001 and 02 Bush’s speeches on TV. He wasn’t saying resolution number bla bla bla. He was saying mushroom cloud over an American city, stockpiles of WMD’s, can attack America in forty five minutes, that was his ace in the hole to get public and congressional support from all those dems who were afraid to stand up in the face of what was almost fascism after 9/11.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I just wanted to offer an opposing view from a religious perspective since 75 percent of folks who support this war do so in the name of God.
[/quote]
What did you pull that stat out of?
[quote]doogie wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
I just wanted to offer an opposing view from a religious perspective since 75 percent of folks who support this war do so in the name of God.
What did you pull that stat out of?[/quote]
You are correct, that is not an official stat. From what I have seen it seems like every evangelical and most catholics are supporters of the war.
clearly Bush thinks hes getting Gods approval for this war.
if not, why then God chose him to be the president?
and THAT is the problem.
it may take 10 or 20 years, but Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents ever.
and evidenses of Saddam having WMD?
or his links to Al-Queda?
…please,even horses laugh at those “evidenses”.
Hey Jeff,
Could you, without checking the net, tell me the difference between mustard and VX and sarin? Wouldn’t that be something good to know if you are going to make this argument? How complicated is it to make mustard? Could you ever justifiably call mustard a WMD?
I would also like to address the difference between a chemical plant and a chemical weapons plant. Every oil producing country has chemical plants. Oil refineries are chemical plants from which we get petrochemicals. So basically, the last three paragraphs of your evidence could easily state that Saddam wanted to improve his economy.
Where is your evidence of nuclear or biological threats?
Please forgive me if I am not immediately swayed by the compelling nature of your evidence.
TH
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He lives in a dream world.
It is intellectually dishonest to simply say war is bad. There should be no war. That is sticking your head in the sand.
War is real. War is part of the human condition. [/quote]
Yes, you know why war is part of the human condition? Because there are too many dumbasses in the world who choose that option over using their brains and compassion and dignity for their fellow man. I mean that about mankind in general.
So, Zap, if I was a Christian man, my philosophy would be Jesus taught peace at all costs, but Jesus was kind of foolish and lived in a dream world with his hand in the sand. So, even though, I am a Christian and he is my spiritual leader he is really full of it.
Elk, I don’t know why people fight wars, I just know they have fought throughout history.
One sides belief in a god that does not allow them to fight and the other sides belief in a god that encourages killing will soon sort itself out.