The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[Kleerance]

I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

Other strong opinions...?

I am just curious.......

[Rommel]

[Capt. Andtennille]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

[Rommel]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

Do you know that one Norwegian special soldier was killed in Afghanistan. Do you know there are a family without a father like a lot of US family and Afghanistan family.
Pray to God that there are not are more killed in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. What will happen when the your/our soldier go home? Will there be peace? The only i know is that Saddam and his staff is gone.





I don't like war at all

http://www.nuav.net/weserubung2.html[/url]

Do you know your history?



This post has been edited by Rommel: 08/16/07 6:49am

[Capt. Andtennille]

I don't like war at all

On this we agree. I don't know anyone who likes war, it's just that somethimes the ramifications of not being willing to fight when necessary are much worse than the war itself.



I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

What kind of "man" has nothing they consider worth fighting for?



If the islamofascists had been content to target Europe and the middle east, then the U.S. would probably have not gotten involved. When they came to our shores and attacked us here they got a bit more than they bargained for. Since they are only able to function with state support, George Bush made it very clear that countries harboring terrorists are no different than the terrorists themselves. If Norway (for example) were to decide that it's OK for terrorists to train there and make plans to attack the U.S., I would fully support attacking Norway. We had all the authority we needed to attack Iraq because of the dozens of UN resolutions they were violating from the first gulf war, thier involvement with the sponsorship of terrorism was just the spark.



BTW, after further consideration, I will still support helping Norway out should they ever need it. Sort of like an intervention with a friend whos' on drugs...

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

------------------

The FULL UNEDITED quote is this...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.
John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," pp. 208-09, in John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and Discussions (Boston: William V. Spencer, 1867).

Heavy reading, but it means much more than the "simplified version". Especially of note is the part cut out that states "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."

Also of note is the part that states "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself." It could be argued that part of the quote UNDERMINES the justification for war being built upon fear of WMD's, or the "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" agument since, boiled down, that is about people concerned about nothing more than their personal safety, and thus cheerleading others to do the real fighting while they shop at the mall in peace.

Anyway, John's saying that there are wars worth fighting for as long as strong moral reasons exist and are the prime factor, and those people doing the fighting believe in them. Does Iraq qualify? Was the primary justification to allow the Iraqi's to be free? Would the American people sign on for any war based solely on Mill's theories?

I wish I could have found even more about what Mill was talking about before and after this except. He was an interesting thinker and a "classic liberal", which today it a rare thing indeed. I suppose a classic liberal today is referred to as a libertarian.

Anyway, here's another quote...

"All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil."

Hmmm.

[Capt. Andtennille]

I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

------------------

The FULL UNEDITED quote is this...

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.
John Stuart Mill, "The Contest in America," pp. 208-09, in John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and Discussions (Boston: William V. Spencer, 1867).

Heavy reading, but it means much more than the "simplified version". Especially of note is the part cut out that states "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."

Also of note is the part that states "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself." It could be argued that part of the quote UNDERMINES the justification for war being built upon fear of WMD's, or the "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" agument since, boiled down, that is about people concerned about nothing more than their personal safety, and thus cheerleading others to do the real fighting while they shop at the mall in peace.

Anyway, John's saying that there are wars worth fighting for as long as strong moral reasons exist and are the prime factor, and those people doing the fighting believe in them. Does Iraq qualify? Was the primary justification to allow the Iraqi's to be free? Would the American people sign on for any war based solely on Mill's theories?

I wish I could have found even more about what Mill was talking about before and after this except. He was an interesting thinker and a "classic liberal", which today it a rare thing indeed. I suppose a classic liberal today is referred to as a libertarian.

Anyway, here's another quote...

"All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil."

Hmmm.

From your post:



A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice--is often the means of their regeneration.



Last I checked the military is all volunteer and supports the mission in Iraq by huge margins.



Heavy reading, but it means much more than the "simplified version". Especially of note is the part cut out that states "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."




Surely you aren't claiming that President Bush is executing this war for "selfish purposes"? More likely is the war on our trooops and on George Bush that has been waged by the left for the selfish purpose of gaining power.



Also of note is the part that states "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself." It could be argued that part of the quote UNDERMINES the justification for war being built upon fear of WMD's, or the "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" agument since, boiled down, that is about people concerned about nothing more than their personal safety, and thus cheerleading others to do the real fighting while they shop at the mall in peace.



It undermines nothing. The war wasn't "built on the fear of WMD's". WMDs were only one of the many reasons we went into Iraq. I want the fight to happen over there rather than over here because I wan't to protect my family. I also don't want it to become a police action here in the US where the ACLU makes us take the islomnofascists to court. Should the excrement hit the cooling device in my presence, I am prepared to respond accordingly and not wait for the police to assist. Some people don't have what it takes to defend themselves, the least they could do it STFU and let those better than themselves protect them.



Anyway, John's saying that there are wars worth fighting for as long as strong moral reasons exist and are the prime factor, and those people doing the fighting believe in them. Does Iraq qualify?



Yes.



All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil.



No argument from me that the state is evil. I fully support limiting the power of the Federal government, but most of the "bias" relating to Iraq is coming from those who don''t support the war. (John Kerry, Barack Obama, John Murthe, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, et.al). Not unlike the notion that the "Separation of Church and State" is guaranteed in the constiution. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.