You have heard a monk once say "I like your Jesus but I don
Actually, going to war often is humanitarian. Getting rid of Hitler and Saddam are two examples that come to mind readily. The Civil War freed a lot of Black people and a military presence ensured delivery of their civil rights. Oh yes, I would say military violence is often absolutely crucial to humanitarian causes.
Had the US military intervened in Rwanda, would you ahve considered that an humanitarian intervention?
If military intervention causes 100,000 deaths, but saves 1,000,000 lives, how is that not an humanitarian use of the military?
Exactly. How do you weigh one life against the other? To save x number of lives, we will kill y.
Also, the number of lives we have saved from Saddam is purely speculative. Is it more that has already died so far?
These ethical conundrums are what makes life interesting but also challenging and also painful.
True but I think with him in power, we could be guaranteed of more of the same. WE have a long way to go to catch up to his tally but the question becomes why American lives must be sacrificed for improvements to Iraqi lives. Where are their fellow Arab brethren? the Germans? the French? the UN? the Chinese? Russians? Indians? etc.? Why is it always our moral responsibility to help while everyone else (read: rascal) carp endlessly on the sidelines? While we can certainly be criticized for acting, cannot also those who refused to act be treated with the same level of scrutiny? I think we have reached the point where more of an accountability by these people must be given. We have long gone past the stage where “only following orders” was an acceptable excuse.
Actually, going to war often is humanitarian. Getting rid of Hitler and Saddam are two examples that come to mind readily. The Civil War freed a lot of Black people and a military presence ensured delivery of their civil rights. Oh yes, I would say military violence is often absolutely crucial to humanitarian causes.[/quote]
The Civil War was actually about keeping the Union together, not about freeing slaves.
TM wrote:
[quote]Had the US military intervened in Rwanda, would you have considered that an humanitarian intervention?
If military intervention causes 100,000 deaths, but saves 1,000,000 lives, how is that not an humanitarian use of the military?[/quote]
Opps okay, caught me out there red handed. 
Yes, someone should have intervened in Rwanda. But it just doesn’t occur to me that enough, or the ‘right’ conversation, talking is being done before we go to war.
Well, its true that Lincoln originally stated that the reason for the North to fight was to “preserve the Union”. However, by mid to late part of the war, it had become also very much about slavery.
This for Rascal and those who think as he does.
[quote]The differing threat perceptions in the United States and Europe are not just matters of psychology, however. They are also grounded in a practical reality that is another product of the disparity of power. For Iraq and other
Well, its true that Lincoln originally stated that the reason for the North to fight was to “preserve the Union”. However, by mid to late part of the war, it had become also very much about slavery.[/quote]
Yea, that’s because they realized they could used the extra manpower since the Confeds were gaining a foothold…But that’s for a whole nuther thread. And Fred you aren’t invited. 
once again Fred’s source is questionable, to say the least…
are you honestly quoting the washington times???
the times is not a newspaper, it’s a tract from the Unification Church of South Korea. Rev. Moon, the founder of The Times, thinks he is the second coming of Christ.
drawing your news from the Moonies is probably not going to gain you any credibility…
Neither will attacking the messenger rather than the messege gain you any credbility… 
[quote][b]Europeans generally believe, whether or not they admit it to themselves, that were Iraq ever to emerge as a real and present danger, as opposed to merely a potential danger, then the United States would do something about it
huh? 
here’s the thing, the messege comes from such a suspect source that i find it terribly hard to believe. your above statement is a cop-out.
if Oprah Winfrey decided to take on foriegn policy issues, i’d be skeptical of her motives…even if the message was, at first glance, coherent.
Which other sources that I have posted do you disagree with?
YES.
Prove it. Prove that the Washington Times has ever reported things that were not true. You may disagree with its editorials, but you cannot argue against its coverage, but feel free to prove anything. It seems to me that the problems in the past with untrue “facts” have occurred at the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and CBS. Remember Dan Rather? haha Oh and don’t forget the BBC.
The Moonies do not dictate how the facts are reported and if and when they do, you can certainly feel free to call them on it. Got anything as in proof that any story printed in the Washington Times is not true? Then come forward. I guarantee you that it will receive national attention.
I am still amazed at how many people profess to have been unaware of the reasons Bush gave for going to war in Iraq.
Here is a comment regarding the justification of pre-emptive war that was made prior to the invasion:
[quote=“Steven C. Welsh, Esq., Center for Defense Information, Research Analyst”]In the past, Bush has been somewhat reserved with respect to his own presentation of a preemption doctrine, and his decision to lead a multilateral coalition against Saddam Hussein was presented with [color=blue]a tapestry of arguments[/color] among which were references to Security Council resolutions, the ongoing situation since the previous Gulf War, Saddam’s ties to terrorists, and [color=blue]
humanitarian concerns
[/color].[/quote]
Some people apparently were not paying attention, I guess… 
The cop-out is your refusal to address the messege.
According to Human Rights Watch the Iraq invasion did not meet the criteria for a humanitarian intervention.
What were Bush’s stated humanitarian concerns? What was happening in Iraq that justified a humanitarian intervention?
I havent heard Bush talk much about humanitarian concerns. Does he delineate these humanitarian concerns in any of his speeches?
so if i am to understand your posts Fred & Tigerman, i am at fault because i won’t dignify that drivel with a response???
to follow that logic, i am also at fault because i didn’t take pat robertson’s recent comments seriously???
you guys are reaching.
here is a nice look at the “Moonie Times”:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=57
let me take a stab at your reply…
-“look at where you got that article, a left-wing radical source…”
you’d be hard-pressed to find a more esteemed organization doing excellent work. they are a well-established source.
Honda Grease:
So you cannot prove that the Washington Times has ever misreported facts or deliberately mislead its readers? You just disagree with the ownership but guess what, we live in a world where you would have to prove that the Washington Times was changing the facts in its stories to fit its Moonie Agenda. Can you? Nope. Hence your evasive reply. But looking to non-Moonie run organizations like the Washington Post, NY Times, BBC, CNN and CBS, we all see that in recent years they have had to retract major news stories because they were fabricated or factual evidence was misreported. That has not been the case so far with regard to the Washington Times, but hey good luck. If you can find something, I am sure you will have your name in headlines.
the difference is the other organizations are willing to admit their problems. the problems are not systemic within their ranks. the incidents you refer to are isolated and very rare.
the times misleads and does so unapologetically. thankfully they are not taken seriously by the lion’s share of the american public. they are looked upon as just a step above the national enquirer and the like.
keep defending those fringe groups. they need all the help they can get. perhaps if you pray hard enough, you can conjure up the ghost of Reagan…lol 