News Is President Bush's stance on contraception in line with his Christian beliefs?

[plover]

Most of your post is off-topic. This isn't a political debate, but rather an ethical debate. We are discussing whether or not the lives lost during the invasion gels with Bush' Christian views. All I am saying is that, privately, Bush must have considered the lives that he would be saving in the long run, which would make invasion acceptable to him on a moral level.

Ok, if considered solely in the context of squaring Bush's Christian values with possible outcomes for Iraq that might follow from invasion, there's no real problem. However, those outcomes do not happen in a vacuum. Morally, the attack upon Afghanistan incurred an obligation on the part of the U.S., an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil. I'm not sure why you would define these consideration as political rather than moral or ethical. (Was that what was intended by saying I'm off topic?)

As for the second section of my post, the concern is logical. It appears you are trying to back up the idea that the Iraq invasion is not about oil by with the implication in your questions that current oil prices indicate that the U.S. does not "have control of oil supplies". These ideas do not connect directly.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Morally, the attack upon Afghanistan incurred an obligation on the part of the U.S., an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil. I'm not sure why you would define these consideration as political rather than moral or ethical. (Was that what was intended by saying I'm off topic?)

Morally, Bush was under no obligation to inflict violence on Afghanistan according to Christian scripture, and was certainly under no moral obligation to invade Iraq. He did so only because he was able to square in his own mind that the loss of life would be justified.

As for the second section of my post, the concern is logical. It appears you are trying to back up the idea that the Iraq invasion is not about oil by with the implication in your questions that current oil prices indicate that the U.S. does not "have control of oil supplies". These ideas do not connect directly.

1. Prices have risen, which usually indicates less control of supply. If you truly control the supply, you control the prices. If I commit acts that guarantees that I can have all the potatoes I want, I am not going to pay as much for potatoes. Controlling supply is controlling prices, because we already could buy as much oil as we wanted; we simply didn't like the price tag.

2. High oil prices have hurt Bush politically.

So tell me again why Bush's invasion of Iraq was all about oil. From an oil standpoint, where has he benefitted?

 

[plover]

Morally, Bush was under no obligation to inflict violence on Afghanistan according to Christian scripture, and was certainly under no moral obligation to invade Iraq. He did so only because he was able to square in his own mind that the loss of life would be justified.

ok... I don't disagree, but how is this a response to the quote that preceded it?

I'll restate the first sentence from that quote in case the original form is unclear:

By attacking Afghanistan, the U.S. incurred a moral obligation to help that country with reconstruction, an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil.
​

1. Prices have risen, which usually indicates less control of supply. If you truly control the supply, you control the prices. If I commit acts that guarantees that I can have all the potatoes I want, I am not going to pay as much for potatoes. Controlling supply is controlling prices, because we already could buy as much oil as we wanted; we simply didn't like the price tag.

2. High oil prices have hurt Bush politically.

So tell me again why Bush's invasion of Iraq was all about oil. From an oil standpoint, where has he benefitted?

Your points above were, in fact, the argument I drew from your original post. Also, I never said that he has benefitted in those terms, I said the argument fails to prove that it wasn't part of his intentions. (And I also explicitly stated that is not a proof of the converse viewpoint.)

Your argument implies that the situation in Iraq is in accord with the administration's intentions. Considering, however, that on more or less every count other than removing Saddam from power, the excursion to Iraq has either failed abysmally or is in a state of uncertainty, it seems unlikely that the effect that the current state of Iraq has on oil prices was any part of those intentions. From a different direction, if Iraq were going swimmingly but oil prices were high anyway, it would still be necessary to show that things hadn't been set up for a longer term payoff for Bush and/or his associates.

I shouldn't have said, "These ideas do not connect directly"—it doesn't really convey the meaning I wanted. It's not that the argument itself isn't clear, it's more that the background necessary for the argument to work has not been established, and indeed I have trouble seeing that the information that would be required to accomplish this is even available.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Considering, however, that on more or less every count other than removing Saddam from power, the excursion to Iraq has either failed abysmally or is in a state of uncertainty...

Really? The last time I looked the sanctions that had killed thousands had actually been lifted.

Bush has given Iraq a golden opportunity. I can't blame Bush if too many in the population are too stupid to understand that blowing up your own infrastructure and killing your own people are bad things to do. And, to move back on topic, Bush' actions certainly were consistent with his Christian views.

 

[plover]

Really? The last time I looked the sanctions that had killed thousands had actually been lifted.

I can agree that this is a good thing. It's also a fairly direct result of removing Saddam from power. Whether that it means it was effectively "included" in my original statement or not doesn't seem worth arguing about.

Bush has given Iraq a golden opportunity. I can't blame Bush if too many in the population are too stupid to understand that blowing up your own infrastructure and killing your own people are bad things to do.

Hmm, this is right up there with "she was asking for it"...

And, to move back on topic, Bush' actions certainly were consistent with his Christian views.

I already agreed with this for Iraq considered as an isolated case. You still haven't addressed the idea considered in the context of Afghanistan.