A Faithful Catholic Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 yes. for the most part, you correlate with my faith in God. i am well aware of the catchism thank you. abortion is always wrong. but like abortion, war is never an option. peace is the only answer. no matter how many violations of a UN policy. Self defense is not against the Lord's Teachings. This includes SOCIETIES. The Civil Authorities have a SACRED DUTY to protect those people they are put in charge of. Legitimate defense is acceptable..... If you are familiar with the Catechism, you are familiar with this: 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Self defense is not against the Lord's Teachings. This includes SOCIETIES. The Civil Authorities have a SACRED DUTY to protect those people they are put in charge of. Legitimate defense is unacceptable..... If you are familiar with the Catechism, you are a fool: 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration and a large donation to the pope. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of monetary donations. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be small and uncertain; - all other means of putting an end to it must not even be considered; - there must be serious prospects of monetary gain; http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The West Sider Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Self defense is not against the Lord's Teachings. This includes SOCIETIES. The Civil Authorities have a SACRED DUTY to protect those people they are put in charge of. Legitimate defense is acceptable..... If you are familiar with the Catechism, you are familiar with this: 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309 Blah, blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Casualties in Iraq The Human Cost of Occupation Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact American Military Casualties in Iraq Date Total In Combat American Deaths Since war began (3/19/03): 3987 3262 Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3848 3154 Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3526 2956 Since Handover (6/29/04): 3128 2629 Since Election (1/31/05): 2550 2366 American Wounded Official Estimated Total Wounded: 29320 23000 - 100000 Latest Fatality Mar. 11, 2008 Page last updated 03/13/08 12:05 am EDT Iraqi Casualties US Military Deaths by Month from Icasualties.org Put a Casualty Counter on Your Website Others Other Coalition Troops 308 US Military Deaths - Afghanistan 485 American Civilian Casualties Sources: DoD, CentCom, MNF, and iCasualties.org Daily DoD Casualty Release 20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed The Faces The List Sources American Casualties Iraqi Casualties Contact U.S. lacks mechanism to accurately track troops wounded in Iraq A Running Log of the Wounded UPI reports : As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems. Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum. That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems. The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,651 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released by the hospital. Also see The Missing Wounded. American Count Dates and sources of Americans killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 are documented in this file. Admittedly the file is incomplete, for the Department of Defense does not maintain old records. All data was compiled from http://www.defenselink.mil. If something is amiss in the data collection, please contact Margaret Griffis. Iraqi Civilian Count We maintain a daily count based on news reports. It is not intended to be complete. There is no agency that keeps track of accurate numbers of Iraqis killed. JustForeignPolicy maintains a running estimate based on the Lancet study with the rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. Sources and Links Web page listing names of those killed since 5/1/03 Central Command Department of Defense Cost of War BBC News Coalition Casualty Count The Washington Post JustForeignPolicy Fox News Listing by month Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com Bush is not protecting the rights of unborn children, OR the rights of Americans... He PROMOTES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Liberal drivel. The Lancet Study?????????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Bush is not protecting the rights of unborn children, OR the rights of Americans... He PROMOTES Bush would love to ban abortion, but he can't. He gave it a serious threat to R v W in his appointments to the Supreme Court. Abortions have cost more lives since R v W then all the wars combined from WWI to the present day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 BUSH: Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life. I'm the first president ever to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells. But we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. so much for prohibiting abortion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 BUSH: Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life. I'm the first president ever to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells. But we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. so much for prohibiting abortion Get a CLUE: Federal funding of research using existing embryonic stem cell lines is consistent with the President's belief in the fundamental value and sanctity of human life. The President's decision reflects his fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life and his desire to promote vital medical research. The President's decision will permit federal funding of research using the more than 60 existing stem cell lines that have already been derived, but will not sanction or encourage the destruction of additional human embryos. The embryos from which the existing stem cell lines were created have already been destroyed and no longer have the possibility of further development as human beings. Federal funding of medical research on these existing stem cell lines will promote the sanctity of life " without undermining it " and will allow scientists to explore the potential of this research to benefit the lives of millions of people who suffer from life destroying diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 so bush is playing god... i thought he was president.. i knew he was muslim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 why arent we bombing countries that allow abortions. if abortions arent our first priority, why are we in iraq. oh yea, to liberate, and prevent future abortions now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 so bush is playing god... i thought he was president.. i knew he was muslim So you are playing a brain dead Lefty lemming. And you're doing a wonderful job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 why arent we bombing countries that allow abortions. if abortions arent our first priority, why are we in iraq. oh yea, to liberate, and prevent future abortions now. Why aren't you back at your drive thru window? Maybe your customers can make some sense from your moronic non sequitur questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 I rest my case. Rest your case in your own delusional world stay out of the one run by adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Rest your case in your own delusional world stay out of the one run by adults. You’ve been here long enough to know that if you’re going to make outrageous claims, you’d better come up with some more convincing arguments and link some references (credible, relevant ones, a concept moonbats seem to have trouble with) or be called a lying ignoramus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.