Is There Such A Thing As A Just War?

[JustChristian]

I quoted post #9 there is no use of the word maybe in the entire post by you. So again I ask for your source.

It probably is not correct to say that this was a unilateral attack. It is probably correct to say that this was a bilateral attack primarily with token support from other countries.

What's the difference? Have you EVER quoted a source?

 

[Enoch]

Is There Such A Thing As A Just War?
Yes. Read the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Common knowledge, the U.S. and the U.K. Notice I said attack. This doesn't include those attacked.

It's common knowledge that other countries were involved as well.

 

[Revmitchell]

It probably is not correct to say that this was a unilateral attack. It is probably correct to say that this was a bilateral attack primarily with token support from other countries.

You are lost. I asked for a source for this statement:

Most of these countries provided only token support to the war. They didn't want to face the wrath of the world's supreme military power. It was primarily the US and the UK.

Notice the bold part. Source please

 

[JustChristian]

It's common knowledge that other countries were involved as well.

Of course, but I don't call the involvement of a country who sent 200 troops even close to that of one who sent 150,000 do you?

 

[Don]

Well, that depends; how many military did they have overall to send?

For example, I think we did the math in another thread, and came up with somewhere over 2,000,000 U.S. military members. A country that only sent 200 might have only 230,000 troops (Ukraine being an example; the Dutch Ministry of Defence employs over 50,000 military and 20,000 civilians).

So sending 150,000 or only 200 is relative to how many you have. Try a different argument.

 

[Revmitchell]

Of course, but I don't call the involvement of a country who sent 200 troops even close to that of one who sent 150,000 do you?

Neither do you act like they are not there just so you can justify your political agenda. So who has 200? here is a little reality:

# United Kingdom - 7,100 - January 12, 2007
# South Korea - 2,300 - February 22, 2007
# Poland - 900 - February 22, 2007
# Australia - 550 - February 22, 2007
# Georgia - 900 - February 22, 2007
# Romania - 600 - February 22, 2007
# Denmark - 460 - January 2, 2007
# Total Coalition Troops ~13,205 March 7, 2007

 

[Jim1999]

Some countries do have other peace keeping duties in other countries as well.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[JustChristian]

You are lost. I asked for a source for this statement:



Notice the bold part. Source please

Just exactly what do you mean by lost? I've told you at least 3 times that this was my opinion. Please show proof for whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just exactly what do you mean by lost? I've told you at least 3 times that this was my opinion. Please show proof for whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

I have shown it twice on this thread.

 

[JustChristian]

Well, that depends; how many military did they have overall to send?

For example, I think we did the math in another thread, and came up with somewhere over 2,000,000 U.S. military members. A country that only sent 200 might have only 230,000 troops (Ukraine being an example; the Dutch Ministry of Defence employs over 50,000 military and 20,000 civilians).

So sending 150,000 or only 200 is relative to how many you have. Try a different argument.

The real question is why do we have over 2M in the military. Essentially what you're arguing is that the most militaristic nations could send the most troops. Well, the U.S. sent by far the most. Good argument for reducing the size of our military.

 

[Don]

The real question is why do we have over 2M in the military. Essentially what you're arguing is that the most militaristic nations could send the most troops. Well, the U.S. sent by far the most. Good argument for reducing the size of our military.

I have to admit, you are a master at rabbit-trailing.

Your original point was that the U.S. sent over 150,000 as opposed to some other country (which you didn't name) that only sent 200. Someone has pointed out how many troops participating nations have contributed, and they were all a tad over 200.

My point in identifying that we have over 2 million military members in the U.S. was to show that your argument was invalid, because each nation contributed based on how many troops they had available. This is called equivalency.

Your job now is to admit that your bringing up the number of troops contributed by each country didn't help your original position in any fashion, and then form some other argument that might support it.

But I don't think you're intellectually honest enough to do that.

 

[Revmitchell]

The real question is why do we have over 2M in the military. Essentially what you're arguing is that the most militaristic nations could send the most troops. Well, the U.S. sent by far the most. Good argument for reducing the size of our military.

Has nothing to do with whether or not we should reduce our military.

 

[JustChristian]

I have to admit, you are a master at rabbit-trailing.

Your original point was that the U.S. sent over 150,000 as opposed to some other country (which you didn't name) that only sent 200. Someone has pointed out how many troops participating nations have contributed, and they were all a tad over 200.

My point in identifying that we have over 2 million military members in the U.S. was to show that your argument was invalid, because each nation contributed based on how many troops they had available. This is called equivalency.

Your job now is to admit that your bringing up the number of troops contributed by each country didn't help your original position in any fashion, and then form some other argument that might support it.

But I don't think you're intellectually honest enough to do that.

What is rabit trailing? Now I see. It's not a real argument just another personal attack. You didn't answer my question. Why does the U.S. need to have 2M soldiers? We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Tell me why a Christian should support that policy which is in place to ensure world supremacy. If not, why do we need all those soldiers and why do we need to spend all that money on war?

 

[matt wade]

We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.

Have a reference for that fact? From the information I've seen, the US accounts for 48-49 percent of the world wide spending on military, not more than the rest of the world combined.

Also...since we are having fun with figures, you know that the US is 28th on the list of countries in military spending when you look at military spending as a percentage of GDP. Who's ahead of us on that list? Muslim country after muslim country (oh and some communists as well).

 

[JustChristian]

Have a reference for that fact? From the information I've seen, the US accounts for 48-49 percent of the world wide spending on military, not more than the rest of the world combined.

Also...since we are having fun with figures, you know that the US is 28th on the list of countries in military spending when you look at military spending as a percentage of GDP. Who's ahead of us on that list? Muslim country after muslim country (oh and some communists as well).

You realize you're making a big point over whether the U.S. spends 48 or 49% of the world's spending on its military or 50.0001% right? I don't think it's significant but this source says you're right. The U.S. spends "only" 48.5% of the world total on war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


I suppose what I'm saying is what happened to NATO? What happened to our other allies? With so many out of work and with a broken health care system why should our priority be our military?

 

[matt wade]

You realize you're making a big point over whether the U.S. spends 48 or 49% of the world's spending on its military or 50.0001% right? I don't think it's significant but this source says you're right. The U.S. spends "only" 48.5% of the world total on war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

No, I'm making a big point that you were spreading a false statement. Don't make statements that aren't true.

BTW, a 5% shift would amount to 73.5 billion dollars. I consider that a pretty good chunk of change .

 

[Don]

What is rabit trailing? Now I see. It's not a real argument just another personal attack. You didn't answer my question. Why does the U.S. need to have 2M soldiers? We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Tell me why a Christian should support that policy which is in place to ensure world supremacy. If not, why do we need all those soldiers and why do we need to spend all that money on war?

"Rabbit trailing" is when you start working a different topic than what you were previously discussing.

The subject was, from page 7, whether one country or many were involved; you tried to use the number of troops each country sent as some sort of justification to ignore that other countries were involved by saying that you didn't consider a country who only sent 200 troops on par with a country that sent 150,000. I merely pointed out that speaking in terms of relative percentages, other countries sent their equivalent of the same amount. Remember, I finished my comparison with "try a different argument."

You then "rabbit-trailed" into an argument about whether we need a large military, rather than stick with your previous argument.

In other words, you're committing a red herring fallacy. You cannot win your original premise, so you continually shift to a different argument.

 

[Don]

I suppose what I'm saying is what happened to NATO? What happened to our other allies? With so many out of work and with a broken health care system why should our priority be our military?

What about them? NATO is present in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other countries. What about our other allies? They're there. So what's your point?

 

[JustChristian]

No, I'm making a big point that you were spreading a false statement. Don't make statements that aren't true.

BTW, a 5% shift would amount to 73.5 billion dollars. I consider that a pretty good chunk of change .

How about a 50% reduction? How many of our poor would live instead of die if we let our allies shoulder part of the burden of maintaining peace in the world? Of course if that isn't our objective.........