I'm debating some conservatives on a different forum at the moment, and thought you guys might be interested in participating in the debate on TBT. Here's what one of them wrote in defense of the "war on terrorism"...
"For a definition of a just war we turn to Saint Thomas.
#1. A war must be started and controlled by the authority of a state or ruler.
#2. The war must be fought for a just cause.
#3. The war must be fought for good, against evil, to restore law and order.
Church authorities later added two additional conditions.
#4. The war must be a last resort.
#5. The war must be fought proportionally. No more force than necessary may be used, and the lives of civilians must be safeguarded.
Unfortunately, some of the wars my family participated in did not fulfill all of those conditions. I sincerely believe that our war against worldwide terrorism is a just war that must be fought to insure our survival."
And my reply:
"It is an unjust war. The "war against terrorism" is an extremely broad blanket term the government uses to justify its actions, which are inherently unjustifiable. Which war are you asking about, Adrienne? The one in Iraq? We invaded that country on false pretenses. Hussein never had any nuclear weapons, and I don't think it was our place to meddle in his affairs. As mangaman correctly noted, we depend on the Middle East for oil. Considering that many Bush cronies, such as Rice, held prestigious positions in oil companies prior to their work in the government, it is not surprising that we invaded Iraq for oil.
As for possible upcoming wars, such as a confrontation with Iran, they will also be for naught. Iran's threats are meaningless; they will not dare to launch a nuclear weapon, because they understand that they risk complete annihilation if they do so. If the US wanted to, they could wipe Iran off the map within hours. Ahmadinejad may talk a lot, but his bark is considerably worse than his bite.
I support Ron Paul's call for non-interventionism, which is different from isolationism. We should stop invading countries and start worrying about our own problems, instead of foreign problems we barely understand. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for longer than the U.S. has been in existence, but for some reason our government officials are haughty enough to say they have a profound understanding of it. Until we can get our act together and put the economy back on track, I think we should stay out of conflicts that don't concern us.
Do you guys realize WHY "innocents" are being killed by "terrorists"? We have a long history of meddling in affairs that don't concern us, and taking sides in conflicts we don't understand. We would not be targeted if we did not have such a prominent role in Middle Eastern conflicts. This isn't the first series of U.S. campaigns in the Middle East, and sadly, it will not be the last. Until we stop intervening, we will be targeted by terrorists. I am not justifying their actions, but they are at least understandable. So no, I don't believe U.S. soldiers are "defending innocents" by fighting in Iraq. In fact, I think it's the opposite; they are endangering civilians by prolonging U.S. intervention."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where do you guys stand on the subject?
"For a definition of a just war we turn to Saint Thomas.
#1. A war must be started and controlled by the authority of a state or ruler.
#2. The war must be fought for a just cause.
#3. The war must be fought for good, against evil, to restore law and order.
Church authorities later added two additional conditions.
#4. The war must be a last resort.
#5. The war must be fought proportionally. No more force than necessary may be used, and the lives of civilians must be safeguarded.
Unfortunately, some of the wars my family participated in did not fulfill all of those conditions. I sincerely believe that our war against worldwide terrorism is a just war that must be fought to insure our survival."
And my reply:
"It is an unjust war. The "war against terrorism" is an extremely broad blanket term the government uses to justify its actions, which are inherently unjustifiable. Which war are you asking about, Adrienne? The one in Iraq? We invaded that country on false pretenses. Hussein never had any nuclear weapons, and I don't think it was our place to meddle in his affairs. As mangaman correctly noted, we depend on the Middle East for oil. Considering that many Bush cronies, such as Rice, held prestigious positions in oil companies prior to their work in the government, it is not surprising that we invaded Iraq for oil.
As for possible upcoming wars, such as a confrontation with Iran, they will also be for naught. Iran's threats are meaningless; they will not dare to launch a nuclear weapon, because they understand that they risk complete annihilation if they do so. If the US wanted to, they could wipe Iran off the map within hours. Ahmadinejad may talk a lot, but his bark is considerably worse than his bite.
I support Ron Paul's call for non-interventionism, which is different from isolationism. We should stop invading countries and start worrying about our own problems, instead of foreign problems we barely understand. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for longer than the U.S. has been in existence, but for some reason our government officials are haughty enough to say they have a profound understanding of it. Until we can get our act together and put the economy back on track, I think we should stay out of conflicts that don't concern us.
Do you guys realize WHY "innocents" are being killed by "terrorists"? We have a long history of meddling in affairs that don't concern us, and taking sides in conflicts we don't understand. We would not be targeted if we did not have such a prominent role in Middle Eastern conflicts. This isn't the first series of U.S. campaigns in the Middle East, and sadly, it will not be the last. Until we stop intervening, we will be targeted by terrorists. I am not justifying their actions, but they are at least understandable. So no, I don't believe U.S. soldiers are "defending innocents" by fighting in Iraq. In fact, I think it's the opposite; they are endangering civilians by prolonging U.S. intervention."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where do you guys stand on the subject?
