Do anti-war people not believe in sins of omission?

It may be so that the greatest evil of all is when good men do nothing, but this sentiment shouldn't be taken too liberally. Loosely interpreted, it could serve as justification for all kinds of ridiculous conflicts. Depending on the situation, war should never be off the table, but only used as a last resort in the face of an immediate threat. Iraq may or may not have been in this category. Brilliant people are on both sides.

It's a very good question and brings up some interesting thoughts:

There are leaders and/or high-ranking officials in foreign governments who think that certain people in the US government played a part in fogging the 9/11 explaination and who also think it was to used to fuel false support for war. Under your hypothetical, should those counties invade the US in order to "save" citizens from the government?

As you state in your question, this is what we have done to Iraq -- to protect and free those citizens while apparently protecting ourselves. That same mentality could be applied to those two or three or four government who feel the US government can no longer be trusted. Would you support their war against us?

Additionally what happens when good men do something that other good men feel they need to do something because the original act was not good? Who's good and who is bad and how do you know?

Okay first off, we, as a nation, went against international law and are liable for war crimes for invading a sovereign nation without the authority of the United Nations. We did not invade to retaliate against something they did to us. We simply invaded with supposedly bad intelligence against the will or authority of the United Nations.

It is NOT our place in the world to go invade every nation that has a corrupt leader. Let's not mention the fact that most of these 'corrupt leaders' were put in place BY the United States because they are so corrupt instead of looking primarily out for their constituents, they are willing to be bribed to primarily look out for ours.

If we are to do what is morally superior, we would first look after our own country, meanwhile sending out humanitarian aid as we can in the form of education, food, and medical aid. Anything else would need to be authorized by the United Nations in conjunction with other nations.

In regards to 'sin', I'm not sure I can answer that, as we do have a separation of church and state, and we don't make foreign policy based on biblica faux paux's. But if I were to dabble in the idea, I'd say we have much more serious sins to take care of over here, than over there even in that arena.

Bush was challenged to a duel by Saddam Hussein in 2002. Had he accepted the loss of life, reputation and cash would have been significantly lower.

What is omitted, is that those who invest in war make very big money with no physical risk. Those who fight in these wars get the crumbs of the crumbs and those get taken away.

why is this question for "anti-war people"

it could / should be for everyone.

pro-war people are just as capable of lying (sinning) by omission.

your claim that Iraq is a necessary war or "the only option" is Highly debatable !

------------------------

In my opinion Iraq was a massive mistake, and it is the pro-bush / pro-Iraq War people that are the sinners.

-----------------------

okay, But..

we can help Sudan or Dafur without going to war !!!

First off it is rebels, not rebals.

Second, more people have died in Iraq since the US invaded than under the ENTIRE 30+ years under Hussein. So don't try to claim the moral high ground.

Hitler used that same excuse!

Who gets to decide what "evil" is!

Starting a war is evil!

There is no justification unless you are attacked