A post from "Jesusland"

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

You don't think war is ever justifed? Do you consider it murder? Or is just this war murder, because you feel it's unjust? Or is this just an academic point based on my reply to a direct question as to whether war is murder?

I'm not going to get into the rest with you because we'll just continue to duke it out, but every war is murder. Sorry, but I'm not okay with calling an innocent victim of war a "casualty." That's sickening. Unjust wars are even worse in my book. If you think this current war that our country is engaged in is "just," I have to seriously question your judgement and sense of respect for the human race. Like I said previously, let's send you over to the front lines and see what you have to say if you return.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm not going to get into the rest with you because we'll just continue to duke it out, but every war is murder. Sorry, but I'm not okay with calling an innocent victim of war a "casualty." That's sickening. Unjust wars are even worse in my book. If you think this current war that our country is engaged in is "just," I have to seriously question your judgement and sense of respect for the human race. Like I said previously, let's send you over to the front lines and see what you have to say if you return.

I tend to agree. I mean when it comes to someone like Hitler or OBL, then war perhaps is more just because these were and are horrible people. But, even in those cases, if preventative action had been taken, whatever that might be, then perhaps those situations could have been avoided In Hitler's case, if Europe and the U.S. perhaps had not made the WWI war reparations so onerous on Germany that they drove Germany into a hyper-inflation depression so great that the Germans were so poor and starving that even someone like Hitler seemed good to them - maybe Hitler would never have risen to power - thus, perhaps no WWII. I know that is a simplistic explanation of the complex state of Europe in that time, but I think it, even that simplistic form, serves to illustrate my point, which is an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure

Fast forward to the last 20 years. If we (by we I mean Rumsfeld acting on behalf of America) had not been so blind in our hatred for Iran that we essentially chomped at the bit to put SH in power and arm him/Iraq in the 80's to do out dirty work to Iran, it is possible that this war would never have happened. So, while I readily admit that region of the world is seemingly just prone to violence, an ounce of prevention or at least a little forethought before acting in blind rage, might have helped prevent this current autrocity.

Anyway - food for thought!!!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Fast forward to the last 20 years. If we (by we I mean Rumsfeld acting on behalf of America) had not been so blind in our hatred for Iran that we essentially chomped at the bit to put SH in power and arm him/Iraq in the 80's to do out dirty work to Iran, it is possible that this war would never have happened. So, while I readily admit that region of the world is seemingly just prone to violence, an ounce of prevention or at least a little forethought before acting in blind rage, might have helped prevent this current autrocity.

Common sense tells you that you don't give WMDs to a man like Saddam Hussein. But we did. So, like it or not, we're pretty responsible for this mess regardless.

I just cannot wrap my head around the thought that people don't consider war to be murder. Calling a victim a "casualty" is so cold and dehumanizing. The mothers of soldiers killed probably would not liek their son or daughter to be referred to as a "casualty," why should an innocent Iraqi? Justifying the deaths of babies and their mothers cannot be done, especially when you consider that as hard as we might try, Iraq will not become a stable democracy. In the end, people justify killing thousands by comparing our "casualties" to Saddam's murders...and that is not only reprehensible, but irresponsible and an utter failure to respect the lives of others.

My personal favorite moment from Rumsfeld in the past two years was his press conference where he boasted about how "humane" our weapons are. That must be true human nature in action, eh?

[SuzeQuze]

It is murder, people are killed, no? On Air America I think it was Randi Rhodes who pointed out that if Saddam had WMDs we would have known it for sure because we have satellite surveillance and can see everything.

Originally Posted by dissention

Common sense tells you that you don't give WMDs to a man like Saddam Hussein. But we did. So, like it or not, we're pretty responsible for this mess regardless.

I just cannot wrap my head around the thought that people don't consider war to be murder. Calling a victim a "casualty" is so cold and dehumanizing. The mothers of soldiers killed probably would not liek their son or daughter to be referred to as a "casualty," why should an innocent Iraqi? Justifying the deaths of babies and their mothers cannot be done, especially when you consider that as hard as we might try, Iraq will not become a stable democracy. In the end, people justify killing thousands by comparing our "casualties" to Saddam's murders...and that is not only reprehensible, but irresponsible and an utter failure to respect the lives of others.

My personal favorite moment from Rumsfeld in the past two years was his press conference where he boasted about how "humane" our weapons are. That must be true human nature in action, eh?

[SuzeQuze]

For those interested in the movement to keep the separation of church and state that is in the constitution, check out Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It is murder, people are killed, no? On Air America I think it was Randi Rhodes who pointed out that if Saddam had WMDs we would have known it for sure because we have satellite surveillance and can see everything.

Murder by its strict definition means:

the noun

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bi...rder&x=23&y=13

the verb

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
______________________________________________________-

Thus, murder requires mens rea which is malice aforethought, etc. All legal def. of murder require this as well. All war contemplates and indeed usually regrets the killing of innocent people as a consequence. Thus, aforethought is met. But, I submit outside of someone like Hitler who invaded counties to take them over (can we please NOT get into the W = Hitler argument again ) this is not done with the adequate legal malice to satisfy that burden from a legal standpoint. Whether in the abstract or non-legally speaking it does is a whole other ball of wax

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, I submit outside of someone like Hitler who invaded counties to take them over (can we please NOT get into the W = Hitler argument again ) this is not done with the adequate legal malice to satisfy that burden from a legal standpoint.

Jason, you have this very odd habit of bringing up all these old unresolvable arguing points and then making the request that we not discuss them. Maybe this is just the lawyer in you trying to sneak in one last word.

Just me and my observation.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Jason, you have this very odd habit of bringing up all these old unresolvable arguing points and then making the request that we not discuss them. Maybe this is just the lawyer in you trying to sneak in one last word.

Just me and my observation.

It was not with malice aforethought I just thought someone would make the argument in response to the reasoning in my post that W's actions in Iraq were the same as Hitler's action in the 30's and 40's - and we would all get into that whole W = Hitler thing again. So, I was trying to head it off at the pass. That is all. Sorry if any offense

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It was not with malice aforethought I just thought someone would make the argument in response to the reasoning in my post that W's actions in Iraq were the same as Hitler's action in the 30's and 40's - and we would all get into that whole W = Hitler thing again. So, I was trying to head it off at the pass. That is all. Sorry if any offense

No offense at all. Just one of those cute little quirks!