Is the War in Iraq Justified?

[Nirvana-Eld]

Wasn't it evil when GW Bush declared war on and killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's for no provable reason? But isn't he a good Christian that follows the Bible's teachings?

Please tell me that you cringe at the sight of this terrible mis-understanding.

This was brought up in a thread concerning the nature of evil and it lead me to wonder about different opinions. And to link this to religion, im going to provide St. Thomas Aquainas' theory on just war. Three things are needed to make a war just.

1) a just cause

2) a just(legitimate) authority

3) a just intent

Personally i think the current war passes this test, but it is up to you. I would like to see facts, statistics, and logic, not the biased opinionated lie seen above.

[juliod]

The fact is that Iraq had WMD's.

Doesn't the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld (and Powell) all now agree that Iraq did not have WMDs matter to you at all?

The fact that America cannot win wars is because of liberals and not conservatives. That is a fact.

Stange opinion, considering that our "best" wars, such as WWI and WWII, were fought under "liberal" principles.

Razing the land of insurgents would be the right thing to do in a war.

This did not work for Nazi Germany in either Yugoslavia nor Russia. Nor is it working for Russia in Chechnya. Nor, BTW, has it worked for the US in destroying Falluja.

But aside from that fact that it won't work, I would question your use of the phrase "right thing".

Though I am a moderate on many things

I doubt it.

fighting wars against countries like Iraq should have been a complete stomp and celebration.

Fighting against the country Iraq was indeed a "stomp". They were able to offer only limited resistance by conventional means. So you can be as proud of that as, say, kicking a child.

But as for fighting the people of Iraq, we will loose. Since WWII, no foriegn country has defeated an insurgency. It matters not at all how strong the counter-insurgency, nor how weak the rebels. Nor, indeed, how brutal the occupation.

This article (part of it) from beliefnet on end times sheds light on the kinds of people that allow America to become a spineless strip mall of cowards.

People who believe that sort of thing are dangerous loonies who should be institutionalized. It's a real danger that Bush and some of his administration officials adhere to this lunatic branch of pseudo-christianity. We now live in the real fear that they will start a nuclear war because they think god wants them to.

DanZ

[1John2_26]

This website runs conservatives out of town on a rail as quick as they post.

The last two posts show that there is no desire for any differing opinions. Liberal does not mean the same thing today as it did when America used the word morally.

[bernee51]

The last two posts show that there is no desire for any differing opinions. Liberal does not mean the same thing today as it did when America used the word morally.

It is noted that you did not defend your opinions with evidence.

Differing opinions are what are being espressed.

'Liberal' doesn't mean today what it did in Australian in the past either. The current Prime Minister is a lapgog to Bush who prides himself is being seen as 'deputy sherrif'.

[micatala]

Let me put on my moderators hat for just a bit here.

People who believe that sort of thing are dangerous loonies who should be institutionalized. It's a real danger that Bush and some of his administration officials adhere to this lunatic branch of pseudo-christianity. We now live in the real fear that they will start a nuclear war because they think god wants them to.

I think I understand where this is coming from, but I don't think it is appropriate or necessary to refer to those holding these views as 'loonies,' especially as it can be inferred to be an implied personal attack on a forum participant. My suggestion would be, if you think these views present the danger you describe, to provide evidence or at least a reasoned argument as to why.

This article (part of it) from beliefnet on end times sheds light on the kinds of people that allow America to become a spineless strip mall of cowards.

Similarly here.

[1John2_26]

Not many conservatives around here. Which is a pity because it is they that I want to slap around.

This seems to be the theme song at this website.

[micatala]

I would hope not!

After all, even if folks sometimes disagree rather vehemently, it wouldn't be much fun if we did not have a wide diversity of viewpoints. Obviously, each member is free to write their own 'theme song.' I don't know that I have my own, but maybe I would borrow the old Supertramp hit 'The Logical Song' .

[USIncognito]

This website runs conservatives out of town on a rail as quick as they post.

Are you referring to "this site" debatingchristianity.com or "this site" beliefnet.com? If you're referring to the former, perhaps that's because most conservatives can't handle having their ad hoc assertions questioned by someone who thinks differently. If being asked to defend one's assertions counts as "running out of town," then I can see why you cite Fox News so frequently.

The fact is that Iraq had WMD's. They had a vast amount of time to move them.

The former assertion was true in 1988. How true was it in 1991? For some reason he chose not to use them on coalition troops. Was it true in 1995? In 1999? In 2003? And yes, we're all familiar with the gospel amongst hawks that a caravan of trucks took the WMDs to Syria, but where's the evidence? Where are these mythical satellite photos?

Rumsfeld is a perfect person to be involved in all of this because he was around when the US gave the Iraqi's the WMD technology. AND, they used it.

Apart from his involvement in the PFANAC which made him know that none of Saddam's 152mm chemical shells could create the "mushroom cloud" the President alluded to (and at that in 1988), but still led him to promote a war of choice and tie it again and again - just like the president to 9/11.

The fact that America cannot win wars is because of liberals and not conservatives. That is a fact.

You mean conservatives like Richard Nixon? But to be less flippant, America does not lose wars because of politics, but because of politicians. And not politicians of one stripe or another, but because of the hubris of those who instigate wars without proper consideration because they think pluck, luck and money will ensure our victory.

Razing the land of insurgents would be the right thing to do in a war.

You must never have studied a single thing about the Vietnam war. You must not be paying attention to your own hawks who gripe about the "media" not reporting on the opening of schools. You must have misplaced your talking points because the people we're fighting in Iraq are supposed to be "terrorists" not "insurgents."

I'm not really sure either of these historical soundbites are both, if either, salient, but your comment is tells volumes about your attitude when one thinks first of the campeign of Scipio against the Catheginians where, after he had defeated them, he killed everyone, burned the city to the ground, then sewed salt into the soil so that nothing would ever grow there again. On the flip side, I've seen WW II pilots talking about the incendiary bomb raids in Tokyo and other Japanese cities state that if we'd lost the war they'd have been the ones brought up on war crimes.

Though I am a moderate on many things, fighting wars against countries like Iraq should have been a complete stomp and celebration.

I can't imagine, other than your partisanship why you would think this. Obviously liberating any country from a dictatorship is good, but liberating it to descend into civil war and Islamic theocracy, when our whole justification was to spread Western liberal democracy (well, apart from that whole WMD sleight of hand) is worth thousands of lives and what will ultimately be a trillion dollars?

I'm sorry, but your mentality is utterly foreign to who I am today (and I was a military brat, Army officer and child of the 80s), but after watching the Soviet Union crumble due to people power, I don't really think we should be applying the failure of democracy (which is was war is ultimately) in situations where less lethal and costly efforts might be more productive.

{beliefnet.com quote and comment snipped}

[snappyanswer]

I'm sorry, but your mentality is utterly foreign to who I am today (and I was a military brat, Army officer and child of the 80s), but after watching the Soviet Union crumble due to people power, I don't really think we should be applying the failure of democracy (which is was war is ultimately) in situations where less lethal and costly efforts might be more productive.

The former soviet union is now the source of what? Child sex slavery where pederasts the world over go for lunch. The failure of liberal and conservative democracy. It loosens sicker demons.

The war in Iraq was not worth it because of similar morality of the people that will fill the void left by Saddam's iron fisted totalitarianism that makes sense in Islamic countries. One evil traded for another.

It is clear that the kinds of people that live in Islamic and arabic countries have no desire for democracy.

Why don't we Americans just let everyone alone to suffer at the hands of the governments they allow to govern them and just by oil from countries instead of meddling with the politics of reprobates.

The only thing of justification in Iraq would be to fight it as if we were Muslims and genocide the whole place for ideological and religious power. But that'll never happen. We want more ex-soviet-like playgrounds. They buy stuff too.

[bernee51]

It is clear that the kinds of people that live in Islamic and arabic countries have no desire for democracy.

"The kinds of people...." - such bigotry!

It may come as a surprise to you that many people have had no exposure to demorcracy and thus have no idea what the word means. What they SEE of democracy is the 'Great Satan' coming to THEIR country and bringing with it 'shock and awe' - death imprinted with Made in the USofA.

They also see the hypocrisy of a particular democratic nation that claims to be "god's own country" yet are the greatest ever purveyors of pornography the world is likely to see.

Many of 'those kinds of people' may be uneducated - but they know hypocisy when they see it and if that is what democracy brings...

Why don't we Americans just let everyone alone to suffer at the hands of the governments they allow to govern them and just by oil from countries instead of meddling with the politics of reprobates.

Good idea - they can then begin to clean their own backyard.

The only thing of justification in Iraq would be to fight it as if we were Muslims and genocide the whole place for ideological and religious power.

The greatest genocide of the past century has perpetrated by a 'christian' nation. Why pick on Muslims - they are rank beginners when it comes to genocide.

They buy stuff too.

Like WMD's or the means to make them.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Sry I have been on hiatus with the whole holiday routine. I'm back.

It may come as a surprise to you that many people have had no exposure to demorcracy and thus have no idea what the word means. What they SEE of democracy is the 'Great Satan' coming to THEIR country and bringing with it 'shock and awe' - death imprinted with Made in the USofA.

They also see the hypocrisy of a particular democratic nation that claims to be "god's own country" yet are the greatest ever purveyors of pornography the world is likely to see.

Many of 'those kinds of people' may be uneducated - but they know hypocisy when they see it and if that is what democracy brings...

Thats why we present it to them and then let them choose. They chose a parlimentary form of government. I like how you use "shock and awe" as what we used to bring democracy when that was one of the operations used to oust a tyranical genocidal regime. Nice twist there. I agree that America isn't the most 'moral' place to be, but I would like to see how we think that we're "God's own country" other than our traditional songs, or should we change them just because we're not perfect? America is not the only democracy right? Look at Britain, they've had one for over half a milenium (1215). They are doing incredibly well.

Good idea - they can then begin to clean their own backyard.

Great Idea - they were probably inable to and when they tried, they were crushed.

The greatest genocide of the past century has perpetrated by a 'christian' nation. Why pick on Muslims - they are rank beginners when it comes to genocide.

When that genocide happened (I'm supposing your talking about the holocaust) look at what happened. The fascist regime was destroyed, the genocide ended, and a democracy began. Germany is now a good productive nation. It recently had its first female Chancellor. You an't say thats a bad thing. If we look at the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussien they are worse than any other nation out there now. Find one and I will shut up about it.