Big Blue Machine Posted September 8, 2004 Report Posted September 8, 2004 I believe the Iraq war was right but the Republican's reasons for going to war were wrong. Everyone hated Saddam, and most people believed he had SOME weapons of mass destruction. But I don't believe that he was going to use the weapons soon. Yes, Saddam should have been taken out of power. The fact that Iraq has a large amount of oil would be coincidence. It wouldn't be the main reason for the war. If Bush had explained that Saddam needed to be removed because he had been bad to his people and he made them suffer. Then he could have got some UN support. Then the war would have been better fought. Quote And as I take man's last step from the surface, for now but we believe not too far into the future. I just like to say what I believe history will record that America's challenge on today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And as we leave the surface of Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and god willing we shall return with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17. Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, December 1972.
theloniusfleabag Posted September 9, 2004 Report Posted September 9, 2004 Dear Big Blue Machine, Good lord, what a hackneyed piece of claptrap you have written. No offence, and I really try to not criticize other posters on their ability, but this hardly makes sense. If Bush had explained that Saddam needed to be removed because he had been bad to his people and he made them sufferThat is exactly the reason Bush gave, before the war. That is why our beloved PM Chretien said 'da proof is da proof, but regime change was not in the UN resolution'.Then the war would have been better fought.Semantics here, really, but the US could not have 'fought the war better'. They crushed the Iraqi army. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Try2Live4God Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 I think the Iraq war happened for a reason that we might not ever know the reason why. However, the good Lord allowed it and as long as the Lord is in control, I will let him guide everything... Quote
idealisttotheend Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 TLG, you may want to ask DAC to inform you on free will. Mankind is free to act as he sees fit without the Lord's interference whilst he is on Earth and he is responsible for his actions. He must answer to God only after he dies (so the story goes). Your philosophy is the worst kind of moral relativism (not a typo) that I've ever seen and proves that the relativism/objectivism argument is like any other in that the extremes on both sides so closely resemble each other they are indiscernable. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
theloniusfleabag Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Try2Live4God, However, the good Lord allowed it and as long as the Lord is in control, I will let him guide everything...Does the 'Lord' insist you wear underpants, or does he prefer 'commando'? (Just kidding, I saw this question posed about Satan on an atheist website).The 'Good Lord' allows a lot of things, I suggest you don't accept them all as 'His Will'. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Black Dog Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 I think the Iraq war happened for a reason that we might not ever know the reason why. However, the good Lord allowed it and as long as the Lord is in control, I will let him guide everything... The Good Lord's track record for stopping acts of inhumanity is, frankly, abominable. Quote
socrates Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 things in religion are he persons personal shoice and if you have a reason to object you are probaby not part of there religion or you operate on a different level then they do on the god worship scale in which case you have no reaon to reply and no opion that is worth hearing. Quote
The Terrible Sweal Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 It's got at least equal validity to what it replies to, I should think. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 If Bush had explained that Saddam needed to be removed because he had been bad to his people and he made them suffer. Then he could have got some UN support. Then the war would have been better fought. The reason they did not use humanitarian reasons as the causus belli was precisely because the UN would not allow war on those grounds. Under the UN charter, nations can only fight wars in self-defence. The other problem with your argument is if nations are allowed to wage unilateral war for humanitarian reasons, who draws the line? There's many, many regimes in the world as bad as Saddam Hussein, yet there's little clamour to invade them all. The ultimate flaw of the Bush doctrine is that under it, might makes right. It is not a formula for peace and security, but of neverending conflict. Multilateralism is the only way. If the UN is not sufficient, reform the institution, do not abandon the principles upon which it was founded. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.