Why is Everyone so Against the War?

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Aztec Reef
So its the Koran vs. the bible he?
The saddam regime attacked you on 9/11? lol.
Aztec the Debunker..
? Your comments are apropos of nothing.
Radical Islamic Jihadists certainly claim the Koran as the source of their moral authority. I don't think its inappropriate to recognize this.
And I explicitly stated that Saddam did not attack us on 9/11.
Honestly, did you read what I wrote?
Ozmar the Perplexed

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Ozmar, I'd like you to explain the "legal and moral" agrument you have for the invasion of Iraq.
OK, briefly:
Legal: Saddam invaded Kuwait. We kicked him out. He signed an armistice that said, among other things, that he would comply with UN weapons inspectors and respect a no-fly zone over the northern third of Iraq. Over the next 12 years, he systematically violated UN resolutions, even kicking inspectors out of his country in the late 90's. His troops often shot at our planes which were enforcing the no-fly zone. (Even one such incident was sufficient legal grounding to justify a renewal of our conflict against them. The Clinton administration, however, neglected to pursue this option.) Ultimately, a final UN resolution that designated military consequences should Saddam fail to comply was sought and obtained by our government, and we chose to enforce that resolution. Finally, our US Congress (the only legal authorization we need - we don't actually need to respect "international law" except insofar as we do need to comply with legally ratified treaties) authorized our government to use military force to remove the Saddam regime.
We had many legal justifications for this so-called "illegal" war.
Moral: Saddam was a vicious and brutal tyrant who gassed his own people, institutionalized the ---- of one's family members for political prisoners, cut off hands, fed people into shredders and terrorized his people. He starved them while bleeding money off of humanitarian efforts to help the people of his country. He was a sworn enemy of our country, vowing to defeat us at every opportunity, and he had ordered an unsuccessful assassination attempt on one of our leaders. He continually sought to obtain more chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and there is little doubt that he would be pleased to pass such weapons to terrorists who would try to use them in the US. After 9/11, and after he evicted weapons inspectors, there was credible reason to fear this possibility.
For humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people, and for fear of protecting American citizens, there were strong moral reasons to seek the removal of the Saddam regime.
I am not a legal scholar or a professional philosopher or ethicist. I am, however, a citizen of a free country, and I think it is therefore my responsibility to consider these things. I would encourage us all to do so.
Ozmar the Citizen

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
If America is going on a "crusade" against these Jihadists why did we not attack any other Muslim country? Why not Iran? That does not explain why we went into Iraq.
Well, there are practical concerns. For those of you who think we bit off more than we can chew in invading Iraq, how do you think we could possibly also invade Iran and several other Muslim nations?
Muslims are not the problem. Radical islamists are the problem.
It amazes me that critics of the Iraq war effort seem to think that war proponents are completely blind to nuance or realpolitik. One of the reasons we're in Iraq is because its possible. There are reasons to combat many nations and groups, but we have to do one thing at a time. I believe the strategy is: deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan (check), deal with the Saddam regime in Iraq (check), stabilize Iraq, provide a better alternative to radicalism in the Middle East (working on it!) and... then deal with Iran, I suppose?
Ozmar the Strategist

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
Wars are neccessary, doesn't mean we should like it. What's the differnce between wanting a war with men and women dying and those "baby killers" who get an abortion?
There's a difference between not "liking" a war and not supporting a just and necessary war.
To the question you propose, I find it difficult to envision a situation where having an abortion will prevent a great evil or the deaths or enslavement of whole populations.

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
Well, there are practical concerns. For those of you who think we bit off more than we can chew in invading Iraq, how do you think we could possibly also invade Iran and several other Muslim nations?
Muslims are not the problem. Radical islamists are the problem.
It amazes me that critics of the Iraq war effort seem to think that war proponents are completely blind to nuance or realpolitik. One of the reasons we're in Iraq is because its possible. There are reasons to combat many nations and groups, but we have to do one thing at a time. I believe the strategy is: deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan (check), deal with the Saddam regime in Iraq (check), stabilize Iraq, provide a better alternative to radicalism in the Middle East (working on it!) and... then deal with Iran, I suppose?
Ozmar the Strategist
Then try to make them all believe what we believe......................
Iraq war effort
Wow, that is a new word for it. I think the "effort" has afforded too much of our resources.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
You may not want to admit it but we are no better than the Iraqis, Al Queda or anyone else. Not to be cheesy but all people are truly created equal. We may not decapitate journalists on the internet but you want to drop bombs that will blow the limbs off children. They killed over 2000 people in the 9-11 attacks. We have killed several times that amount of citizens, including women and children. You may not want to see this but, as I've stated before, there are no good guys or bad guys. There is only death.
Wow. That is soooo totally wrong. There is a huge, wide, vast gulf of a difference between them (al Qaeda) and us (America). We do not target innocents as policy. It is an unfortunate fact that innocent civilians do get killed, but we make every effort to minimize this. Al Qaeda and their ilk actively target innocent civilians in their terrorist plots. They literally behead prisoners, including young children, women and girls! How can you even compare the two?
I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference, then you don't have a developed sense of morality. Did you get too much college education? That can be an impairment to clear moral thinking, I've heard.
Ozmar the Educated

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by AAnthony
this is basically my opinion on the war
We are making it easier on the terrorists
Heres why:
Because way back when, before we were in Iraq they had to travel all the way to america to kill americans, now we are in their home land, so if they want to kill some americans, its only a 20 minute drive
Yeah, but they don't find defenseless women and children who are on their way to work or at the playground, innocently living their peaceful lives. They find the best trained and most competent warriors in the world: free men and women standing up ready to kill them and defend their homeland from their murderous ambitions. And more often than not, these terrorists find only their own deaths at the end of that convenient 20 minute drive.
Isn't that better?

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
If we pull out before achieving victory I certainly will blame everyone for the slaughter that will take place.
When the next terrorist strike occurs (and it will) I will certainly blame those that have weakened the Patriot Act and emboldened the terrorists by looking weak.
Do you think that it isn't going to happen anyway? I am curious to know your thoughts behind this. The death toll of American soldiers in Iraq is rapidly reaching those lost in Vietnam. And that is on THEIR soil, or should I say sand. This is not gorilla warfare going on. This is our troops just there serving for the cause. They did not use their own weapons to attack our country, they used OURS, which we invited them to train on!!!!! My goodness, whom are we kidding?

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by Jovial

Ozmar, I like your point of view.
Thanks!

I appreciate your wisdom and take that as a compliment. And I like your avatar, too.
Ozmar the Grateful

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Did you just suggest that our war in Iraq is now for "humanitarian concerns"?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, Ozmar the delusional.

Ha ha. Read the whole post, please. For your convenience, I'll repeat:
Originally Posted by Ozmar
Ouch, that's kinda cruel. What ever happened to "you break it, you buy it?" What about a sense of responsibility? Even if you think we made a major mistake going in, don't we have some kind of obligation to clean up our mess?
Even if you want our country to abdicate our national sense of responsibility, what about basic humanitarian concerns? Are not the millions of innocent Iraqi people who would likely die in the subsequent violence worth our consideration?
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Even if I thought the war was a mistake (which, obviously, I don't), I'd want us to stay and finish the job.
The likely scenario we pullout prematurely is that millions of innocent Iraqis would die. This is a humanitarian concern.
So yeah, we're still there partially for humanitarian reasons.
Ozmar the Rational

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
As much as it may pain you to hear this, all men are created equal under god. Death is death. You can justify our killing while condeming theirs. You believe that peace is achieved through subjecting them to more violence than they can subject us to. This is the essence of your goals. Your mentality is the same as the enemies. Success through imposing massive death upon the other side. And you callously justify our killing of women and children by suggesting that it was not "on purpose". That makes it so much better under the eyes of god. That makes it so much more righteous to the person in charge of cleaning babies' severed limbs off the street. Killing gets easier if you can convince yourself of your own righteousness, doesn't it?
We won WW2 by inflicting more death on the Germans than they could inflict on us. This is the way wars are fought. That's why war sucks. But it is necessary.
When killing is necessary, it is a moral act.
Ozmar the Reductionist

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
When killing is necessary, it is a moral act.
Ozmar the Reductionist
So if it seems necessary to kill a single person it is moral? As long as the murder is justified? It seems more "moral" to me to kill a single peson than to kill many. So, who deems the act of murder as necessary? I hope not congress nor our alies being that Bush did not have their consent when he ordered the first attacks.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Let me just say this to the people on the other side of this debate. While I've been sitting here tonight, I find myself getting frustrated, only because this is an issue that I feel VERY strongly about. I may have posted things directed at some of you in the argument. Just want to let you know that if anything I've said is offensive then I apologize. I cannot back off my beliefs and everything I've said is what I truly believe, but I have not had the intention of disrespecting anybody and I don't want to get this thread closed.
I get a little heated when I feel strongly about something... I've had some wild times in the courtroom. lol.
That's cool. I accept your apology as sincere. Let me be clear, though, that morally equating our country, the honorable motivations of us as a nation, or the brave men and women in our military service with the brutal barbarians who would deliberately kill 3000 of our fellow human beings, is a very offensive proposition.
I understand that you have strong feelings about the sanctity of human life (which I share) and that you likely feel that this war is causing unnecessary and unjustified human misery, and I can respect that. But I would encourage you to examine your feelings and ask yourself if a US soldier trying to defend and protect freedom (even if he's following what you believe to be a misguided policy) is really on the same moral plane as a jihadist who would behead a girl in order to impose his religious vision of coerced submission to his vision of God's will.
Ozmar, Not a Moral Relativist

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Who made us the sovereign, being we were the ones who "authorized" without the consent of the rest of the world. Is it a just cause? That is a matter of oppinion. What about rightful intention? Two and three go had-in-hand.
In our case, the sovereign is our president, or the US Congress. I guess the whole government, duly elected by our laws.
The cause is just. My opinion. Shared, by the way, by a majority of our elected representatives at the time when the determination was made.
Rightful intention. Again, my opinion is that it is right to bring democracy to Iraq. This is our intention. Whether we can succeed remains to be seen...

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by frozenguy
where did you hear this? That they are Iranians.. Bush?

This "war on terror" is moving from afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to who knows where next. THANK GOD our government doesn't allow Bush another term.

I think everyone should get satalite tv and watch real un-f*cked with/ un-biased reporting on this "war"
EDIT: I also think its messed up that we can have presidents from the same family let alone the next of KIN!! Oh oil men and their money.. When will it ever change?

Can I assume then that you oppose Hillary's bid for the presidency, then?
Where did I hear about Iran's influence in Iraq? Hmmm... I probably read it in a book, perhaps one of these. I am pretty sure it comes from various sources, most of them our own military, or embedded reporters. I get a lot of news from a lot of sources: magazines, radio, many various internet sites, books, and even a little TV from time to time. I've heard it a few times, and believe that it is very credible.
Here's one , but I guess since its from our government, you wouldn't trust it?
Check out Michael Yon , he's a good reporter, and I don't think you'll find him unduly biased.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Then try to make them all believe what we believe.
Absolutely.

But of course, by "make", I mean "persuade". Like we all are free to attempt in a free and pluralistic society.
I don't mean "force", like I suspect you meant (sarcastically, of course). We don't force people to accept our beliefs, and that itself is one of our beliefs.

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
Do you think that it isn't going to happen anyway? I am curious to know your thoughts behind this. The death toll of American soldiers in Iraq is rapidly reaching those lost in Vietnam.
Dude. C'mon. What is it up to now? 3,500? After 4+ years?
That doesn't even compare to the 50,000+ casualties of Vietnam.
Lets keep things in historical perspective, shall we?

 

[sepulatian]

Originally Posted by Ozmar
In our case, the sovereign is our president, or the US Congress. I guess the whole government, duly elected by our laws.
The cause is just. My opinion. Shared, by the way, by a majority of our elected representatives at the time when the determination was made.
Rightful intention. Again, my opinion is that it is right to bring democracy to Iraq. This is our intention. Whether we can succeed remains to be seen...
Realy? It was not shared by the majority of anyone. Bush chose to go to war. He did not have the right to make himself the sovereign one. It was later decided that it was a good decision. He did not seek anyones approval on that. How is it "right" to force democracy on another country? Other countries do not share our beliefs. Half of the world does not have our democratic view.

 

[sepulatian]

Ozmar, do you actualy have your own thoughts are are you jumping on/off the band wagon?

 

[ozmar]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
So if it seems necessary to kill a single person it is moral?
Yes. For example: self defense. Or executing a murderer. You have to be right, though. It can't just "seem" necessary. It has to "be" necessary.
Originally Posted by sepulatian
As long as the murder is justified?
No. Murder is never justified. Murder is, by definition, the unjustified intentional taking of a human life.
If I kill a man in self-defense, that is not murder.
If I kill a legal combatant in war, under sanctioned conditions (i.e., not a prisoner for example), that is not murder.
If I kill a man by accident, that is not murder. It may be manslaughter. It may be a tragedy, but it is not murder.
If the state lawfully executes a criminal for a capital offense (i.e., for murder), that is not murder. It is just.
If I kill an animal, for any reason, it is not murder. It may be immoral, cruel or wrong, but it cannot be murder.
Murder is the unjustified intentional taking of a human life.
A curious, but important, note is that the Commandment often translated as "Thou shalt not kill." is more correctly translated from the original Greek as "Thou shalt not murder."
Originally Posted by sepulatian
It seems more "moral" to me to kill a single peson than to kill many. So, who deems the act of murder as necessary? I hope not congress nor our alies being that Bush did not have their consent when he ordered the first attacks.
As moral animals, we each have a responsibility to make moral judgments in all areas of our lives. So who deems it as necessary? Each of us does. If I see you kill someone, I'll make a judgment about whether that was moral or not. Just as you will need to make that judgment before you act. The legal authorities will make the judgment about whether you acted legally or not, and what temporal punishment applies. The final judge, is of course, whatever God has dominion over our souls. And that, my friend, is something I have beliefs about, but which we all must leave up to God.
Ozmar the Ethics Lecturer