|
|
Re: The Front Line Adventure
by Sticupus (sticupus@hotmail.com)
on Apr 17, 2003 - 04:48 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.obolisk.com
|
You shouldn't be even joking about that. If we have a war with North Korea, the male population in the U.S. will be crippled by war casualties. Korea has the fourth largest army in the world, and they DO have weapons of mass destruction- unlike Iraq. And these strikes on other foreign countries does noting for the prevention of terrorism, it only puts more American lives in danger or destroys them all together. Not to mention it does simply too much good financially for the self driven bureaucracy that is the current administration. Our country hasn't known more than 500,000 soldiers to die in foreign wars throughout our history- and that’s in EVERY past foreign fought war. This time it can get put into the millions with this kind of mentality- and there simply won't be any males ages 18-26.
Is that protecting Americans? or is it serving the officials in office? Young males aren't Garbage for the government to use when it likes to or needs more money!
|
- *COUGH* by MorteAscendo on Apr 18, 2003 - 06:39 AM
I'll Take That Bait
by Monolycus on Apr 18, 2003 - 08:08 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Arthegarn, if you are genuine about wishing to debate with someone who is opposed to the United States' military action in Iraq, I am ready, willing and able to do so... PROVIDED that it is debated genuinely and is not merely an intellectual game to see who can "corner" whom.
I would be particularly interested to know how your stance can be reconciled with Catholicism's tenet of being a Just War church as opposed to an Historic Peace church. Since the 4th century A.D., the Catholic church has established that warfare can be engaged in IF AND ONLY IF certain very tight conditions are satisfied. The Just War doctrine (that Pope John Paul II said the United States was in violation of) provides for war if:
- There exists a grave public evil. (Debatable)
- Injustice exists to one side and not to the other. (Debatable, unless you are very careful about describing who constitutes a "side". If it is the Ba'ath regime vs. the Iraqi people [Kurds and Shi'ites, mostly] then this condition is probably satisfied. If you define the Ba'ath regime as representing a global threat, then your argument becomes procrustean and is aimed at the simple minded and uninformed)
- There exists an appropriate, non-involved authority who can announce the end of aggressions once appropriate measures have been taken. (Violation, this authority would have been the United Nations)
- There must be a clear probability of success. (This is actually the only condition that was undeniably met as it was internationally recognised that Iraq could not defend itself from us)
- All alternatives must be exhausted. (Violation, despite rhetoric about "diplomatic measures having failed", it is recognised by all who are not being entirely sophist that diplomatic measures were never seriously engaged in and UN weapons inspectors had not completed their tasks before they were told to evacuate the country)
- There must be less harm done to engage in war than there would be not to. (Violation, although there was no way to know it beforehand. It is not insignificant that Iraq never used their mythical "weapons of mass destruction" in their own defense during their most dire hour)
- The principle of proportionality must be observed at every step. (Clear violation. By narrowing the U.S. objectives to smaller and smaller numbers of individuals, it was always necessary to "sacrifice" more civilians than "enemy combatants")
- It can not be undertaken for vengeance, personal gain, or any other reason than to keep the peace. (Violation. The serious conflicts-of-interest are too numerous to outline in this short space. If Iraq represented a genuine global threat, then any other nation on Earth should have been sanctioned to pursue changing its regime instead of the one with the most personal history and stake in the matter)
Pope John Paul II specifically cited that the criteria of just cause, just authority and proportionality had not been met, although, as I have just outlined, he needn't have stopped there. Incidentally, I am not a Christian myself, and all of my personal arguments against the campaign are entirely secular.
If you are truly interested in debating the issue, I would recommend that we do so in the forums, as this is really Morte's space here. By the way, as strongly as I feel against what the United States' government has done (and intends to do in Syria and Iran... NOT, as you suggested, in North Korea), I do want to mention that I am glad that Morte is back and in good health. Nice to see you around here again, buddy!
~Monolycus.
|
|
|