[Travis]

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

My argument is this, it was the right thing to do, and we had the ability to do it. Thus, we had the moral authority.

You’re obviously assuming your conclusion by having “it was the right thing to do” as one of your premises. I disagree that it was the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

And your idea that Saddam was the people of Iraq's government is ludicrous.

When did I say Saddam was the people of Iraq’s government? That doesn’t even make any sense.

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

Why do we have no right to impose an idea on another nation?

Because it’s not our nation.

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

As far as missiles go, the only problem was that they might attack Israel

Which threatens us how?

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

Your moral equivalency to Germany is sick.

Huh?

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

Bull crap, why didn't the fed have the right to do anything about it?

Because there is no Constitutional reason why a state cannot secede.

And honestly the Civil War discussion is off-topic.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Travis

Which threatens us how?

I think the treaties we have with them would require us to intervene if they actually were attacked on a large enough scale, although that's a moot point here, since they weren't.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by fifsuperpod37

My argument is this, it was the right thing to do, and we had the ability to do it. Thus, we had the moral authority. And your idea that Saddam was the people of Iraq's government is ludicrous. They had absolutely no choice as to what happened to them. It wasn't the people's government it was Saddams.

You are assuming your conclusion, as one of your premises is "it was the right thing to do".

Can I prove that it would have been morally wrong? That's inept. As far as the destruction of their countries, anyone who knows history can tell you that our bombings of Germany had left the country in ruins. And in Japan, two of the biggest cities that weren't bombed were eventually nuked into oblivion.

Which are things we should not have done in the first place.

It wouldn't be feasible. We should certainly support any opposition to the communist party. Why do we have no right to impose an idea on another nation? Where's the scripture that supports that position?

If you want to get specific, the Biblical doctrine of jurisdiction. A nation has jurisdiction over only those in their lands. Support for this is found in the fact that the Law applied to all who came into the land of Israel, but over those outside of it, the Israelite judges had no authority.

As far as missiles go, the only problem was that they might attack Israel, another neighboring country, or U.S. troops in the region.
Our main concern is biological and chemical agents, not being hit by Iraqi missiles.

Israel and neighboring countries being attacked has nothing to do with us being attacked.
And why do we have troops in there anyway? Previous unjustified conflicts?

You have missed the point. Of course it was because Saddam posed a threat that he needed to be removed, by point is that we also had the moral authority to do it.

You are trying to split the issue way too much. Just because someone is doing something bad does not give us the automatic right to punish them. There is still the issue of jurisdiction.

Your moral equivalency to Germany is sick. Furthermore, you missed the point again.
If something bad is happening, and you have the ability to stop it, you are usually morally obligated to help. It's like the theme of Spider-Man. With great power comes great responsibility.

You are not addressing jurisdiction.

[/quote]Of course we should do what we think is right! Especially if we can, and we are actually right![/quote]

If we are actually right....

It's not as if Saddam threatened terroristic actions against the US when we were planning to invade him. And whether or not Saddam even directly sent terrorists is unimportant, what's important is that he didn't give weapons to anti-US terrorist groups like al-qaeda.

He didn't give them weapons? So what is this about Iraq and terrorists again?

[+Donny]

fifsuperpod37 said:
Your moral equivalency to Germany is sick.


Huh?

I equated what he said to Germany in WWII, since Hitler also thought what he was doing was right and certainly had the power to do it.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Luke

Yes, but you have to establish that voting for Bush is a sin before you can argue on that basis. If you could do that, then you'd convert me pretty much instantly, because I'm too smart to dabble in goal-oriented ethics.

Travis: responding to this would do wonders for your position.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

We were attacked. I assume you remember Pearl Harbor.

Germany did not attack us at Pearl Harbor. Japan did.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

What evidence? And shouldn’t that evidence be had before we act on the basis of having it? Going forth with action before evidence would be like arresting a man because we are sure we will find evidence later.
No.

the evidence that was given to the UN Security Council by Powell before the war began. Or maybe you forgot about that.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

That's not the supposed reason for attacking them, though. Bush said that we were attacking them because they had WMDs.

you are just like the liberal bush haters, only hearing what you want to hear. WMD were not the only reason for going into Iraq.

Why the double standard? Why can we have weapons but anyone who disagrees with us cannot?

because we aren't going to give the weapons to some radical group of nutjobs to use against innocent people.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Germany did not attack us at Pearl Harbor. Japan did.

His principle remains the same, though, since the Axis Powers were allied with each other.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bryan

because we aren't going to give the weapons to some radical group of nutjobs to use against innocent people.

Do you know how Iraq got most of their weapons in the first place?

And that wasn't my question. My question was not "should we give them to them" but rather, why we have the right to deny their right to have them.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bryan

the evidence that was given to the UN Security Council by Powell before the war began. Or maybe you forgot about that.

What specifically was this evidence?

[Bryan]

i don't remember.

i've slept since then.

and because I really don't care to debate about whether we should or should not be in Iraq. It is a moot point now. I almost didn't post in this thread because I really think it is pointless to debate over the past when it really has no relevance as to how we will handle the Iraqi situation in the future.

[Bryan]

and so are the terrorists who attacked us and Sadaam. (albeit loosely)

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Travis

And that wasn't my question. My question was not "should we give them to them" but rather, why we have the right to deny their right to have them.

because they will use them against us, either directly or indirectly.

and your question was

Why the double standard? Why can we have weapons but anyone who disagrees with us cannot?

and my answer is that we can have them because we aren't going to give them to somebody radical nutjob who wants to kill innocent people.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bryan

i don't remember.
i've slept since then.

Either stop pointing to it or tell me what it is. You keep saying "look at the evidence" but when I ask for it you can't give it to me. So basically you just want me to trust you that it's there.

Originally Posted by Bryan

and because I really don't care to debate about whether we should or should not be in Iraq. It is a moot point now. I almost didn't post in this thread because I really think it is pointless to debate over the past when it really has no relevance as to how we will handle the Iraqi situation in the future.

Actually, I somewhat agree. The decision to go into Iraq was made, so it wouldn't make much sense to debate that point with regards to what we should do there now. But that's not what we are discussing and therefore it is not a moot point. We are discussing for whom we should cast our votes in the next election, not what wes should do in Iraq now, and I think the decisions made by our current president are certainly relevant to that discussion.