What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
2006-09-24 17:55:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush Loves oil? Is that moral enough for you? Probably not. but it is moral enough for the Cons.
2006-09-25 12:34:32 · answer #1 · answered by JS 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well when Germany attacked Poland it convinced the German people that Poland was behind a terror attack in the form of a fire on thier capitol building and was planning an attack on the German people. They even went as far as to tell the German people if they didn't do somthing right away that Poland would take over .
Does that sound like a moral reason to you - ? Poland is accused of commiting a terror attack and it is thought Poland might attack So the German army went in with tans against a calvery on horseback as calvery's ussually are.
But the Slavic people (Poland being one of the Slavic peoples) were considered stupid and barbaric uneducated and possibly crazy so there would be no way of predicting them. Hitler used the ignorance and predujuice of the Germans to convince the Germans action MUST be taken for the safety of the father land and the children ....
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
2006-09-24 18:03:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberation. The main cause for joining in WWI and WWII was to protect the liberties of our allies in Europe. Germany didn't initiate significant aggression against us on either occasion. Yet we joined in brutal conflict against them to aid our allies, protect our interests, and push back a potential threat to our way of life.
2006-09-24 18:06:25 · answer #3 · answered by RazzleDazzle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the existence of the soul would be good. but the fact that you need to include the heaven and hell means dogma. the concept of hell and punishment will drive your arguers away because the concept of hell lacks logic. you cant argue with faith. a person will only engage in a conversation or debate if the apponent makes sense and is logical, otherwise a person may as well be arguing with a wall. so if you are gonna argue punishment, it will never work. your only source would be the bible. but that is full of logical flaws and well as lack of emperical evidence
2016-03-27 08:00:07 · answer #4 · answered by Sylvia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know of a nation that did not do something to us that we have not had the right to attack yet. Pretty much all countries have screewed the USA at some point just not bad enough to bomb the hell out of. .Yet..
2006-09-24 17:58:21 · answer #5 · answered by Don K 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well if you we're president Bush the answer would be (OIL). Sad but true.
2006-09-24 17:58:04 · answer #6 · answered by dirty bird 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
smoke anotherv one.
2006-09-24 17:57:53 · answer #7 · answered by phillip.c 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is none
2006-09-24 17:56:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋