Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Bogus from the outset. The morality of [your] war is predicated upon personal ideology and deemed such by a deemed consensus. Since there are two sides [at least] to every war; one consensus calling the war immoral, while another calling it moral... Based on what criteria is either consensus the victor in this ideological struggle for moral high-ground?

Until you can answer that to EVERYONES satisfaction, nothing is "Resolved." All you accomplish is raising a banner and swishing it about in a kind of self-congratulatory, faux victory.

Bravo! Well done!


....You pose, nonetheless, an intriguing question
 

On the surface, I agree entirely.

Today, for the first time in quite a while, I was listening to El Rushbo. He played a few clips from Hardly a Hardball with David Crosby and Graham Nash as the guests. Musically, I love these two guys together, but they are definitely in the "Shut Up And Sing" category. After an incredibly convoluted question by Matthews, Crosby suggested that recruits are lied to that they are signing up to protect their mothers and sisters only to find that they're going overseas to kill someone else's mothers and sisters. To that, Rush properly suggested that if that were in any way what was going on, there would be a ton of protest and refusals to fight. So Crosby described an obviously immoral war that would justify undermining. But then, this isn't an immoral war.
 

Say ER, I guess you turned over a rock there didn't you. I kind of think that all wars are "immoral", even the one I participated in.

So you express a political opinion and get a personal attack. Seems like that is the solution to that which we have no other answer to.
I mean that's the way the leadership of the Nation does it, so it must be correct.

It bothers me more that the war is illogical and ill executed than it is immoral. We should have won the damn thing in the first year and left. We didn't. Now what? Declare Victory and come home?

Saturday I will attend the send off of 3,500 National Guard members from Oklahoma as they go to Iraq. So much for "home by Christimas" promises. My friend's son will among those going as will be two teachers (out of 16)from my wife's school. Some chunk of these people will not be coming back.

I don't mind immoral too much if necessary preceeds it. But to continue to do stupid stuff, and un-necessary stuff, and spend our wealth doing it, now that may be immoral. Telling lies about it is immoral. No, declaring the war to be immoral is too abstract. Let's target that charge a little closer to its source. Bush is immoral. Cheney is immoral. Hell, the list can go on and on until it gets down to me even for not shouting at the top of my lungs, NO!

Now that war is resolved to immoral, what moral way out is there? Undermining the war is not enough. What now?

Maybe there are no solutions and the immoral exit will be as vaild as the immoral entrance. There will be no satisfying exit. It can not now end well.
 

"Personal Attack"

!!!

Where!?

There's no attack in what I said.
 

EL, I didn't see any personal attack. I saw a little personal derision, is all. :-)

I agree that immoral war is in the eye of the beholder. I accept that war, being hell, comes with immoralities.

But Drlobojo has nailed it. However this fustercluck ends, it will not be moral.


A Centurymark (news note), from the current issue of The Christian Century:

"NO EXIT? In a New Yorker article (September 17), George Packer considers different exit strategies in Iraq and asks, 'What if there is no such thing as a "responsible" exit from Iraq?' The problems created by the Iraq war will persist after American troops leave, including 'the rise of Iranian power, the emergence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the radicalization of populations, the huge refugee crisis, the damage to a new generation of Iraqis who are growing up amid the unimaginable.' He concludes: 'Whenever this country decides that the bloody experience in Iraq requires the departure of American troops, complete disengagement will be neither desirable nor possible. We might want to be rid of Iraq, but Iraq won't let it happen.' "

That last part, I think, is what informs Hillary's stance: This thing is so effing effed up that it probably would be as irresponsible to walk away from it as it was to start it in the first place.
 

The problem with ELAshley's position, while correct in the abstract - the determination of "immorality" is a lengthy one, and determined by certain subjective understandings - is that in this specific case (the Iraq war/occupation), it is clear, and has been since before the invasion, that war in this instance was and continues to be immoral. Even the original proponent of the Christian "just war" theory (St. Augustine) urged active resistance to the immoral use of force by the sovereign.

In the specific case of Iraq - there was neither an immediate, nor even a medium nor long-term threat; non-violent measures (isolation, containment, economic restriction) were proving more than effective; the actual threats the United States faced (al Qaeda, on the run after our invasion of Afghanistan) required the focused attention of the military and its civilian leadership, which became distracted in the planning for the Iraq invasion; the entire premise for the war as presented by the Administration throughout the summer and fall of 2002 was false on its face, and known to be false not only by those propagating it, but by many who were the recipients of that message; the continuation of the occupation in the face of damage it continues to do to the United States both domestically and around the globe warrants our pullout as soon as possible. These are only a few of the reasons that (a) make the initial invasion and our continued presence in Iraq not only immoral, but illegal (in both our national and international law); (b) it is vital to oppose not only the war, but those who continue to boost it and the Administration that continues it in the face of overwhelming public demand for its cessation.
 

It's obvious that this is an entirely subjective discussion. That would include both the morality of it, as well as the logic or execution of it.

Some may think what was being done before the invasion was working. Well, that might be true if you consider embezzling aid money (oil for food), murdering and torturing citizenry, supporting terrorism, (such as prize money to families of suicide bombers), firing upon our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, ignoring the terms of, what, 17 UN resolutions, etc. In the face of that, it would be immoral to do nothing. We also have a better idea now than we did before the invasion of just how involved Hussein was in other terrorist activities.

It would have been entirely illogical to pretend that Hussein didn't harbor intentions to expand his power, especially after Kuwait, and we now know from captured documents that seeking nuclear assets were part of his game plan. Pretending he was contained, while he jerked around inspectors, was allowing time and opportunity to meet his goals. His constant demonstrations of his rebellion in the face of international opinion would make not removing him illogical indeed, and regime change was a goal of the previuos administration as well.

It is easy to sit back and play Monday morning quarterback when reviewing the execution of the war. Few would have trouble finding flaws. Fewer would have had the correct plan at the outset considering the unique nature of this enemy. It is arrogance to pretend that it should have gone one way or another and pretend this if the first time the original plans have been without error. I doubt there's ever been a war that went flawlessly. D-Day wasn't perfect by any means, and there was this little fiasco called Operation Market Garden that didn't end that war by Christmas. Everybody's a freakin' military genius.

There has been quite a bit of immorality in the manner in which this war has been depicted by Bush opponents, and that is far more true and obvious than judging the righteousness of the war itself. This is seen in what people believe about the intentions of the administration and what they knew before hand as opposed to what they believed they knew or feared was true. There has been NO proof of any devious or underhanded plots to go to war, only the rantings of those unhappy with the results of the 2000 election. Argue whether the war is run well or not, whether Bush is the smartest CIC or not, but don't pretend to know his intentions beyond what he states publicly or can be proven by witnesses. That would be immoral.
 

How odd that the conservatives commenting here seem to be promoting a rather postmodern understanding of "morality" (ie. morality is whatever consensus says it is.)

I can't understand how anyone could try to argue that a preemptive strike against a basically unarmed opponent was "subjectively" moral. And I don't see how anyone could be surprised that there's no moral way out of a war that was immoral to begin with. It's very hard to spin straw into gold.
 

Bob Woodward, in his book, "Bush at War," provides all the documentation needed to show that Bush came into office with plans to take this country to war with Iraq on whatever pretext he could find. The White House approved of the book. The only reason for the war that I ever accepted, the only reason I ever supported it in the first place, was the stated threat of mushroom clouds on this continent. They lied. They lied. They lied. The lyibng bastards lied. The lying bastards have lied about too much for me to give them the benefit of the doubt on WMD. And to see how conservatives -- "conservatives" -- have glommed onto ANY OTHER REASON to justify the unjustifiable makes me physically ill sometimes if I think about it too long.
 

What's most amazing about Marshall's comments is that he, again, displays that Bizarro World tendency to make claims that are demonstrably false - not just proved false since they were originally made, but actually disproved almost immediately. Yet Marshall, like the Vice President, continues to spout nonsense, the exact opposite of reality, and assume that people have not already done the work of showing it is nonsense.

The "morality" is not "subjective". The criteria for the justice of any particular war, and this one in particular, is both straightforward, and considering the record, clear. War-boosters may not like it, for whatever reasons. Claiming that the issue is either "subjective", or (and simultaneously, in this case) using untruths to support immorality - it kind of boggles the mind, actually.
 

Good discussion.
In the end, the morality or immorality of the war is irrelevant. It is a patently illegal war fought by an illegitimate administration on completely false premises. All three of the balancing agents of our constitution failed us at the same moment. That is unprecedented in American history. It almost happened in the Civil war but not quite. Now it has.

We have yet to understand that we are at the most important turning point America has seen yet. This is our forth turning. If we follow the course that history has followed before we will emerged stronger and more powerful than before. But if we continue on our prescent course, we will emerge as a footnote to someone else's empire.

Right now I think it is even odds which way we go. We have a 70/30 split in American opinion. That's about the same split as in Russia in 1910. There the 30% won. It can happen again. What shall it be.
 

It may be moral and patriotic-- but its patently UNAMERICAN! Geesh- you must not be christian OR republican!
 

Yes, it IS moral to undermine an immoral war no matter who's waging it.

Yes, we have a moral obligation to do so, if we think the evidence is sufficient to support the notion.

AND, not only ought we work to undermine it - we ought to do so without resorting to immoral means.

Which is the problem with this "war" in the first place.

I'd suggest that we would do ourselves as a nation a favor if we more clearly defined what is and isn't a Just and Necessary War and what Means we will use to prosecute it.

We have, of course, done so in our laws but our leaders find enough room for interpretation to do whatever the hell they want anyway, so we need to close some loopholes and make it clear that we, the people will not abide abusing our military and good name in the fashion that Bush has done.

Prosecutions all around. Including Clinton and Pelosi, if the investigations bear out their guilt.
 

Do what?

It's unAmerican to lobby Congress to end the war? To complain about it being Bush's pet project? To agitate, bitch, moand a gripe -- and to support candidates who will have the balls to stand against the administration and its congressional lackeys?

Ah, no. Dissent is more American than the rocket's red glare.
 

Hmmm, that mighta been a satirical comment ...
 

"an illegitimate administration"

???

You mean because Gore was unsuccessful in his attempted theft of the election in 2000?

Please wipe the foam and spittle from your lips before replying. Oh, that's right! Doesn't matter if Randi Rhodes admits to falling down on her own, it just had to be a member of the EVIL Conservative hate-machine who beat her up, no matter WHAT she says to the contrary.

Sheesh. I thought you had some sense, but if you're going to spout that kind of craziness, you give me no reason to take you seriously.

Do you have integrity enough to admit you dislike and/or hate Bush because Gore couldn't scape up enough votes in how many recounts?

As to the topic. Morality from a Godly perspective is uniquely totalitarian in its ends yet righteously just despite... But the world sees morality differently. Different cultures see morality differently. So yes, Alan, strange as it may seem to you, some of us Conservatives are capable of recognizing the existence, and debating the merits (or lack thereof) of both. Which is why I asked from the get-go "Based on what criteria is either consensus the victor"... God's morality or Man's? Because by his very nature, Man twists everything he touches.
 

ELA "an illegitimate administration"
???
"You mean because Gore was unsuccessful in his attempted theft of the election in 2000?
Please wipe the foam and spittle from your lips before replying."

My, my, my, reverted have we, and you were trying so hard, but you took the hook anyway.

I recently heard Pat Buchanan his own self laugh and say somthing along the lines that not even he believes that there were that many Jewish voters in Brower county Florida who voted for him (in 2000).

So if you hold to the mythology that 2000 was a legitimate election you're even to the right of Pat. Now thats a long ways to the right it is.

Morality in politics and war? The grand-dady of Bush's political understandings, Lee Atwater, would laugh his ass off at the thought of such. Old Lee was a nasty man and a damn good mentor for GW.
 

Um, ELAshley, what in the Sam Boot Hill were you talking about? What does the election of 2000, Randi Rhodes' accident, or anything else, have to do with the topic at hand? Who brought it up?

Is it because someone used the phrase "illegitimate administration"? You know, like Marshall, you also display this Bizarro World thing - as all the publicly available evidence pretty much indicates (and indicated at the time) that it was the Bush campaign that was manipulating the process - the notion that Gore was trying to "steal" anything is just risible.

Since we're on the subject, I just thought I would remind anyone who might need reminding of just one little tidbit that drove me past the point of patience. Jim Baker would get in front of the microphones and whine about Gore trying to prevent soldiers from voting, about Gore going to court, etc., etc. CNN (which I watched at the time) would duly report what Baker had said. Then, almost immediately, the very same newsreader who reported Baker's comments would report on Bush's court filings, and the Bush campaign's attempt to quash a recount of overseas service personnel votes. There was this strange disconnect - Baker would lie, CNN would talk about the lies as if they were of utmost seriousness, and then report the facts, which were the opposite of the nonsense spouted by Baker.

In any event, none of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, which you failed to address. I believe that is because you cannot, at least with integrity.