Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

May 26th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: hmmm...pretty sure that "order" and "stability" was what Emperor Palpatine promised the galaxy...
Do remember, John, that George Lucas intended that promise, made to the Republican Senate, in the context of a war he himself was the primary instigator of. In some ways, many see the scene as a slam on the Congress and the Presidency of the U.S. committing itself to permanent war aboard and greater oppression at home; the director very definitely had contemporary political event in mind with the filming of that scene.

It was meant to hit closer to home than in a galaxy far, far away. mischievous
May 26th 2013 new
Hi John, what size force would be needed to establish peace through armed intervention in Syria at this time ? What are the odds Congress would support such action?

While I agree that it is over 40 years past time that the Assads and their system should have departed Syria, they wouldn't be here without Soviet and current Russian support. I would be interested in hearing how Putin could be convinced to end the investment in Syria which dates to the era when Andropov's analysts believed that "....the world is going our way...." Putin's trip to Israel about a year ago raised many interesting questions.

Which US President or Republican or Democrat Senator is going to tell Putin to pound sand ? Just me, I think the Putin treatment of both Bush and Obama has made clear there will be no retreat from Syria as long as Putin is in power, and that no US leaders are prepared to seriously oppose continued Russian influence in Syria.
May 26th 2013 new
Hi John, it won't take 20 years. The U S House of Representatives is already benefitting from an infusion of military members. The promotion policies of the Clinton and Obama administrations have attempted to eliminate independent leadership. The political consensus and will for intervention are lacking, and the "management" concept of "limited" war would probably mean any intervention under current rules would fail to produce anything resembling peace.
May 26th 2013 new
Hi Rebecca, democracy has been brought at the point of a sword : Germany 1944 to the present, and Japan 1941 to the present. Those countries also have very peaceful records since the sword point was applied.
May 26th 2013 new
You can't compare Germany and Japan to Iraq or Syria. Germany and Japan were countries with a strong national and cultural identities and both had some experience with democracy before. There was a concept of Germany and Japan amongst those people, and a will to live together. The problem of Iraq/Syria is they were nations created by Western powers with people that in them that have a history of fighting... And we didn't go to war with Germany or Japan for to bring democracy at the point of a sword.
May 27th 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: ... And we didn't go to war with Germany or Japan for to bring democracy at the point of a sword.
You're right; we went to war with Japan and Germany to destroy a couple of evil regimes. You know, the exact thing that you think is somehow think is impossible in Syria.

May 27th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Do remember, John, that George Lucas intended that promise, made to the Republican Senate, in the context of a war he himself was the primary instigator of. In some ways, many see the scene as a slam on the Congress and the Presidency of the U.S. committing itself to permanent war aboard and greater oppression at home; the director very definitely had contemporary political event in mind with the filming of that scene.

It was meant to hit closer to home than in a galaxy far, far away.
I think that interpretation is stretching it a bit.

If you ask me, the big Lucas swipe at Bush was in Revenge of the Sith when Obi Wan is confronting Anakin/Vader for the first time on Mustafar. Vader/Ankin says, "If you aren't with me, than you're my enemy." I've always thought that was a reference to Bush's "with us or against us" statement.
May 28th 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: And I 100% think that Americans would change their opinion on collateral damage and bomb raids, if they experienced them here in the United States. have As for North Korea-Korean war was a proxy war a long time ago. The point is you had the North Koreans saying yes we have nuclear weapons-here they are! And Saddam saying we don't have nuclear weapons-and who was the one who got attacked. The one without them. Which is why if I were Iranian, I'd be wanting my government to get them.... Get them and your left alone.
I will again point out that we are NOT the ones bombing things in Iraq. That would be the Iraqis themselves.

You again seem to be operating on emotion not fact. You seem to have an emotional reaction against war that is a prism through which you see everything. What opinion is it that you think American's have about "collateral damage and bombing raids?" The populations that were exposed to bombing raids in WWII didn't suddenly "change their opinions" and demand that their governments stop bombing the enemy, because they had some kind of epiphany. Your contention is actually completely the opposite of what happened in reality.

How do you figure that North Korea was a proxy war? You do know that the U.S. and China both met in direct combat there, right? Kinda precludes it from being a proxy fight, doesn't it?

In any case, it doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong in your assertion about who we're willing to fight.

May 28th 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: Iraq was not a just war. Pope John Paul II we are taking people crying for bread and giving them bombs. I never said that war in itself was never just. I said that war was never the top option, and going to war against a nation that never attacked us is wrong. Thinking you can bring democracy at the point of the sword is wrong.
It as already been pointed out that history demonstrates that you are factually incorrect in your assertion that democracy can't be brought at the point of the sword.

Your interpretation of just War theory is also factually incorrect. Nowhere in Catholic just war theory does it state or even imply that "going to war against a nation that never attacked us" is even a criteria. I think we are again seeing an emotional reaction against war, not a logical application of theory.
May 28th 2013 new
(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: ...Guess what wasn't happening under Saddam-daily bombings hurting civilians. Mainly it was the political prisoners in dictatorships that get killed. Not saying its okay buts its certainly better than worrying about your home with your children in it getting bombed. Once again the Iraqis wanted to get rid of Saddam-that was THEIR business, and at least it would give folks who know the situation to prepare. ...
What you are saying here is somewhat fantastic, not to mention completely contradicted by the facts.

I will again point out that it is the Iraqis doing the bombing of themselves, not us.

Saddam Hussein absolutely was killing civilians on a daily basis. And not only killing them. He employed professional rapists.

How can you sit there and act like pre-war Iraqi parents somehow didn't have to worry about the safety of their children? There is absolutely no basis in reality for this stand.

One of the whole reasons why people were concerned about WMD's in Iraq was because Saddam bombed civilian towns with nerve gas and in one single solitary instance killed over 5,000 civilians, including children! There were pictures in the press of the dead bodies of children lying bloating in the sun on the streets. But according to you this "order and stability." I don't think anybody wants that kind of order and stability.

But death wasn't the only problem for Iraqi parents. If your father (or husband, or brother) did something that the government didn't like but for whatever reason did feel like killing him, he might well be taken into a room. You, as a female relative, would be also taken into that room, so that they could gang rape you in front of him. But it was all orderly, so I guess it was okay, right? These rapists were actually professionals. Think about that for a second. Saddam did this so regularly he had guys on payrolll whose whole job was to rape women in front of their families. It boggles the mind that you constantly bring up how orderly and "secure" pre-war Iraq was. Who cares?

Would it really make you feel better to know that you or your family was might be killed deliberately by your own government than it would to think that if there was a valid military target nearby, and if the Americans attacked it and if they missed that target you might be accidentally killed. Would your really sleep better at night knowing that at any moment the door could be kicked down and you or your mother or daughter or sister, or random friend could be dragged off and incessantly gang raped or otherwise tortured because some informer somewhere whispered something about one of your friends of family members? That's your idea of peace?
Posts 101 - 110 of 192