A better question would be where do you start? Iraq is a campaign in the war on terror as a whole, placing democracies (though admittedly in their infancies) on the East and West of Iran is a good thing. Creating regional stabilty is a greater thing. Thus in the long run their very creation will help it so these "crusades" as you put it will not have to happen. IMO though a reformation will have to take place within Islam. As for China being number one...thatmay happen, only time will tell, but since the return of H.K., I wouldn't say that it is being accomplished through communism.

 

They only justifiable to the ones that commit the act....Are they justifibale to the majority of Iraqi's? How about the majority of Al Jazeera viewers? There is a difference between killing ones enemy in combat and sawing off the head of a civilian contractor. Your inablity to see that equates to only those who have commited the acts, that is your folly. Maybe someday you will understand that, but I doubt it.

 

Warning Warning we have a new jackass in the building... Please ignore his silly statements and move along.

 

Hahahaha. Exactly. That's whay I'm saying. In your value system, you have certain things that are evil, bottom line. But other people have different systems that have different evils. You harping over and over that certain things are inherently evil only makes you look more and more narrow minded. People who do the things you think are evil are not setting out to be evil...they are doing what they think is right. Who are you to say they're wrong and you're right? Maybe when you die you'll find out that you are a saint and will be fovever remembered as being great. Or maybe you'll find out that your entire belief system is wrong and that the things you thought were evil actually were good. Or maybe you'll just cease to exist and it will show that good and evil are a human construction...meaning that they are subject to the opinions and feelings of all humans, and that there is no such thing as an ultimate evil or good...it all depends, and yes it is all in the gray area.

 

I probably have been here longer than you, only not posting and just watching all the giberish and utter crap you post in order for me to get a laugh, only after a while did I realize you were serious about your opinions is when it no longer became amusing....but frightening.

 

Please read the small print. There is a difference between killing as combatants and combatants purposely killing non combatants. That is not a shade of grey. You have completely proved the point of Mr. Pragers article. Your failure to even recognize evil makes you worth nothing.

 

What I'm saying is that no matter what, the definition of good and evil is OBJECTIVE. Unless you believe in a higher power. But if you do, then a military itself is evil (Though shalt not kill. Plain and simple).

Don't take that article as truth. If you do, you're selling yourself short. Evil has no definition, no particulars, because any act can be seen as good or evil by different people. And if you think someone is evil, then they probably think you're evil and like I said before, why do you think you're opinion is worth more than theirs.


You're right, I am worth nothing....I'm priceless.

 

Judiaism nor Christianity consider soldiers evil, though I'm not a Christian you may want to consider the story in Luke about Jesus and the Centurion. Nor was Jesus a Pacifist: NAB LUK 22:35 Jesus speaking "...And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one."
John 15:13 Jesus speaking "There is no greater love than this: to lay down ones life for one's friends."
Also King David was also a general which leads me to your Commandment quote “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Moses walked down Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments which include all these concepts on love. When Moses got to the bottom of the mountain, he found the Israelites having orgies and worshiping a golden calf. Moses could not get control of the situation. So Moses went to the Levites and gave the order to put on their battle armor. That day, the same day Moses brought down God’s commandment, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’, Moses lead Levite troops into battle and killed three thousand of his defiant countrymen. Like King David, God was with him in battle.

After the battle, Moses walked back up Mt. Sinai and intervenes between God and those Israelites who hate him. Moses says to God, "If you would only forgive their sin! If you will not, then strike me out of the book that you have written.”. "The book" meaning the book of those who inherit eternal life. Moses puts his eternal soul on the line in order to persuade God to forgive his enemies sins. Moses is second only to Jesus when it comes to turning the other cheek and loving those who have hated him. Though Moses kills three thousand of his countrymen he bears no hatred or vengeance for them. It is Moses who gives God's command to take no revenge.

Most people do not realize it was Moses, not Jesus, who first gave us the command to love our neighbor as oursleves and take no revenge.

 

Ok, that's cool...mythology. But you're proving my point even more. Even something as plainly evil as homocide can be seen in many different lights. Murder for your lord is good. Murder for Allah is bad...according to you. But just like you can quote all that scripture as reason for your definitions of good and evil, someone else can quote from another book of mythology for their definitions of good and evil. It's OBJECTIVE. That's my point...you're definitions of good and evil, no matter how popular, are still objective and therefore cannot be right or wrong. It really IS in the grey area, even though you'll never admit it.

 

And speaking of ultimate rights and wrongs, wouldn't you consider murdering someone for a tank of gas evil? How about a few thousand citizens and even more of your own soldiers for some barrels of crude?...that's evil to me, how about you?

 

nice job of moving the goal posts.

 

Please show me where the free gas is that we are getting due to our huge oil reserves in Iraq now and I will consider your argument. It would have been cheaper to fully develop ANWAR than invade Iraq for oil. Again weak sauce!

 

hahahaha, you're the one who brought up the religious babble.

 

I'm sorry...welcome to the TRUTH. We did invade Iraq for oil. Even the resident conservatives here have admitted that oil is the biggest reason we're there.

 

Oh this guy is classic he has moved past Hella in the way out there section. Brings a tear to my eye.