[Vision2020] Six gay men shot to death in Iraq

[Paul Rumelhart]

Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Paul,
>  
> My point is, societies that beat their woman, legalize rape of their 
> woman, set woman on fire, and mass murder gays, should not be funded 
> by the US, supported by the US, and the US should make serious efforts 
> to stop the behavior, not justify it, excuse it, and ignore it.
>

Sounds like a great reason to work with the UN to apply sanctions to the 
country in question in a concerted effort to change their behavior.  
This happens every day, and Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly the only two 
countries in which this kind of behavior exists.

>  
> My second point is, that you are so opposed to any war, of any kind, 
> at any time, in any place, that you would most likely even oppose war 
> against Hitler, had you existed then. Bottom-line, I believe you think 
> opposing war is ALWAYS the right thing. I think you are wrong. And I 
> am proved correct by your inability to come up with a real or 
> fictional scenario where you think war or military action is right. I 
> believe you are confused to think there is never a situation that 
> calls for military action or forceful action against another group of 
> people.
>

Just like an average person should not employ violence against anyone 
else unless they absolutely have to, we should not enter in to a war 
without *VERY* good reason.  The main reason for this, one of which I'm 
sure you're aware, is that people die in wars.  Lots of people.  Us, 
them, people not even involved, you name it.  Sometimes in the hundreds 
of thousands or even millions.  Each and every one of them leaves behind 
family and friends that have to suffer the aftermath of a loved one 
being killed.  The other reasons why war is bad are trivial by comparison.

War should be a last resort, because the cost is so high in human 
lives.  We shouldn't go to war to try to enact a change in policy in a 
country.  We shouldn't go to war because we think the leaders of a 
country might be planning something unless we have very good intel 
showing that to be true.  We should try all sorts of other options, 
including diplomacy, to avoid it.

Bush, as far as I can tell, went to war based on the following reasons:

*mumble* *mumble* 9/11 *mumble* *mumble* Saddam *mumble* *mumble* 
terrorism *mumble* *mumble* weapons of mass 
destruction!!!!!1!!one!!!1!!!!1!!!!

Not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to expend lives (ours and 
theirs).  Our former President had a responsibility to the members of 
the US military that he downright disregarded for who knows what reasons.

The threat of Nazi Germany was a completely different situation.  You'll 
remember that we didn't join that war until we were attacked, which I 
can see the rationale for.  Comparing the reasons for going to war with 
Iraq vs. going to war with Germany and Japan is almost impossible, 
because they are not even in the same county, let alone in the same 
ballpark.

So, to answer your insinuations, yes - I oppose war unconditionally at 
first, until I've been convinced that there is an extremely good reason 
for it - and even then I do so with a heavy heart, knowing that many 
people will die along the way.  I'm not apologetic about this.

Paul

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov through 
the character Salvor Hardin in "Foundation".