Is this an immoral statement by Congressman John Boehner?

Question

Wednesday November 14, 2007 on the House floor, Rep. John Boehner said, "... and who doesn't think that if we get out of Iraq, they won't follow us home and we will have to deal with them on the streets of America?"

Now, I understand the fear of this; BUT, is that not completely immoral to say? Is that not the exact thing as stating innocent Iraqi lives are not as valuable as American lives?

Is this not saying that it doesn't matter that we started a war in Iraq that turned out to not be for valid reasons and now we have brought Al Qaeda there... so too bad that Iraqis have to die because of our mistake?

Is he not saying that it is better our mistake cost Iraqi lives and not ours?

How is this moral, Christian behavior?

Answer 1

There is no mistake, this statement is attempting to legitimize keeping troops in an illegal, immoral war, that was expected to cost many lives of Iraqis, Americans in Iraq, and Americans in the USA by increasing the threat of "terrorism".

Morality does not concern our leaders, they beleive only in enriching themselves, holding on to power, keeping the masses scared, disillusioned and distracted, "only we can protect you". They couldn't care less about anyone else except themselves and their clan.


The leaders of the USA, most Republicans, and many Democrats must have known that the "intelligence" used to persuade the American People to go to war, against yet another impoverished nation, was frabricated.

Anyone with the responsibilty of voting to send other peoples children to war must do a little research before they decide. They have to listen to all the arguments, and look at the reports from weapons inspectors and other experts. These are intelligent people, they are not oblivious to History.

They knew, they knew darned well, and yet they approved it, and most of them still do. Knowing this, and knowing that the invasion would increase, and is increasing the risk of terrorism in the USA, our leaders perpertuate the lies, continue the deception, play with our lives.

It appears that weapons inspectors were used only to make sure that Iraq had nothing to defend itself with, and to give notice of when best to attack it.

This is nothing new, the same script was used in Vietnam, and in many wars. The deceptions are tried and tested.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Nuremberg Trials


edit : hot off the press: Conservative morals:-

It appears that a philosophy originating from a strict fatherly upbringing leads conservative to beleive that only those who are successful can be moral, those unsuccesful should be punished (tough love), America is more successful than Iraq, therefore Iraqis deserve their punishment!

Source(s)
http://reiras.vodpod.com/video/113503-george-lakoff-on-moral-politics-how-liberals-and-conservatives-think
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5814991079793167368

Answer 2

I understand your argument for the morality of the statement. It concerns me that body counts quoted seem to be only our troops or American citizens (or sometimes even foreigners) but not innocent Iraqis. It concerns me that the reported damage caused by the war seems to ignore the majority of those suffering.
So yes - I agree that the way some can justify suffering to others merely on the benefit it brings Americans is immoral.
But I am always stunned by this argument. I cannot understand why, if Iraqi insurgents are willing and able to follow us back, they do not simply strike us here now where it would cause us a great deal more pain. If we want to argue for the responsibility of stabilizing Iraq before leaving then fine, but I wish we would do so instead of using trite sound bites like this to invoke fear that will perpetuate a political, rather than moral or even rational, stance.

Answer 3

Boehner's statement sounds exactly like a question someone would post here.

It is dishonest rhetoric meant to persuade the sheep. Boehner says nearly everyone believes we must stay in Iraq: "who doesn't think.." Undoubtedly, Boehner knows that the majority of Americans don't think this because they the have said in poll after poll that they want the troops home as soon as possible. The last time I checked, dishonesty was immoral.

If Boehner's premise, that "they" will "follow us home" was true, it would mean that our troops are defending US streets by being in Iraq. Defending one's country is not immoral. This could be his sincere belief; we should never underestimate the power of self deception..

Is the war itself immoral? Yes, it has been an unjust and immoral war from the time the first bomb dropped.

"Just war or just a war?" March 9, 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDE113FF93AA35750C0A9659C8B63

Answer 4

A) i laugh at his name, c'mon, boehner? get serious
B) alright, people care about those that they can relate to more than anything thing else. In an us or them situation (like they make it) it will always be the us that is better and deserves saving in the case that they are threatened. I think it is much the same in most situations
ie) a firefighter called to another town when his own is burning down. Makes sense if saving the other town would be more efficient, but there is no guarantee of that, which is the same case here. We don't know what is best, so we stick with what is important to us.

Answer 5

This quote came from the Czech Republic and was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper, Prager Zeitungon. The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.

Answer 6

yes, it makes a thinking person sick in the stomach to hear such an argument and that people with this mentality and moral values are allowed to lead us!!!

and it makes ya even more sick when a bunch of non-thinking ignorant sheep follow them blindly, and after the damage is done "mistakes were made, well put people on this to make sure it never happens again"!!!!

fu**ing unbelievable!!!!

Answer 7

I see that you are able to conceptualize words and break them down to their deeper meaning.

Cons do not have this ability

I gather that a parent figure traumatized them into submission and conformity.
Keeping them stuck at the emotional development of a child.

This adult bodied child will not have all of the mental processing faculties that a mature person will.

i just felt like rabbling for attention..... sorry

Answer 8

Yes exactly.

How anyone can support that and continue to claim they are Christian has probably to do with applying Christianity selectively. Don't forget Hilter claimed he was a Christian as well so nothing new

Answer 9

This won't be a popular answer, but I'd rather face them here. They'd stick out like a sore thumb. In reality, they won't show. Wouldn't that disappoint the bushies!

Answer 10

Yes, it is very immoral and a war crime to set up a battleground in another country just so that you can fight them over there instead of fighting them here.