Do you support war and your religion?

robtex said:

2) The attainment of divine revelation as a justification of anything is the divorce from reason and deduction in exchange for faith. To ask any nation to kill members of another nation on faith alone is poposterous.

Click to expand...

We should remember that, if someone acts alone, and kills in the name of god, or because the voice in their head told them to, they would be locked up in a heartbeat, if not executed.

The Path of the Grey Jedi is an enigma. What would the Force want? What would the Force not want? War is necessary sometimes, unnecessary at others. Iraq... I don't know if it was necessary or not. We deposed a tyrant, which is good. We stopped the subjugation of the kurds and other minorities, which is good. the administartion lied, which is bad. I'm pretty much 50/50 on this one. The Jedi are warriors, and I would fight in or support a war that helped humanity, or my country. As Obi-wan said, "I will do what i must".

corrupt_priest said:

i am talking about negotiations after a war, you can win a war without completely crippling you opponent (like a "total victory" would secure) and then start the negotiations to prevent further war, deal with the grievances that started the war etc

Click to expand...

I'm cautious to agree that your premise is true in a majority of cases. It has been a while since the last time I studied the history of war, but I suspect that most of the time, violence only ended when one side was completely crippled.

World War I & II.... The Civil War...

Of course, Vietnam and Korea didn't end that way at all. Neither did the American or French Revolutionary Wars. But Romes wars against the "barbarians" did. Many of the wars between Chinese Dynasties ended with total victory. I don't know. Maybe there are circumstances when a people just lose the will to fight.

Darkdale said:

I'm cautious to agree that your premise is true in a majority of cases. It has been a while since the last time I studied the history of war, but I suspect that most of the time, violence only ended when one side was completely crippled.

World War I & II.... The Civil War...

Of course, Vietnam and Korea didn't end that way at all. Neither did the American or French Revolutionary Wars. But Romes wars against the "barbarians" did. Many of the wars between Chinese Dynasties ended with total victory. I don't know. Maybe there are circumstances when a people just lose the will to fight.

Click to expand...

it was poor politics after the first world war that resulted in the second one - it would have been avoided if the proper negotiations for peace had taken place after WW1

their are many cases throughout history where total victory has been achieved, that does not however mean to say tha tis the best or the only way to achieve peace, it just means it is the method prefered by governments

corrupt_priest said:

their are many cases throughout history where total victory has been achieved, that does not however mean to say tha tis the best or the only way to achieve peace, it just means it is the method prefered by governments

Click to expand...

Given human nature being what it is, I think it should be the preferred method of rational people everywhere. Without crippling the economy, the military and/or the will of a people to fight at all, those that want to keep fighting will have the means to do so. Total Victory is the best way to create peace. It is decisive. Look at the war on drugs. Total Victory is impossible. The war on terror, in the broadest definition cannot be won. Just as the war on Communism was never won. You can only defeat nations... not ideas. You can defeat armies. You can defeat economies. But not ideas. When two ideas endlessly conflict, i.e. Palestinians v. Israel, total victory is necessary... or all you get is violence begets violence. You have faith in reason and cooler heads prevailing. While I admire the optimism, it is an extremely dangerous faith, one that can lead to many more deaths and much more destruction in the long run. In a manner of speaking, I believe Total Victory to be the compassionate goal of any nation at war.

no one has the right to kill innocent people,whatever his religion says,about 9/11,there's no way anyone could know the intensions of those who died,so it was a criminal not a moslem attack and about iraq,what in hell has 9/11 got to do with poor innocent iraqis?

Mujahid said:

no one has the right to kill innocent people,whatever his religion says,about 9/11,there's no way anyone could know the intensions of those who died,so it was a criminal not a moslem attack and about iraq,what in hell has 9/11 got to do with poor innocent iraqis?

Click to expand...

Not a thing as far as I am informed.

~Victor

Victor: i respect you for being honest

War is not a good thing by any means. But sometimes it is a neccessary evil. The terrorists have attacked the USA. It is up to us to hunt them down and kill them. What, you think they'll leave us alone if we just leave them alone? No. They hate Americans. They want to wipe us off the face of the Earth. We have to beat them to it. If innocent civilians are accidently killed, then that is regrettable. But good grief. This is war, not a tea party. Civilians were killed during WWII. Pearl Harbor was bombed, even when the USA wasn't involved in the war. But did the greatest generation sit back and say "Well, if we don't bomb them, maybe they won't bomb us." No way!!! Luckily, at that time, our country was mostly made of courageous people who didn't complain-who just jumped right in and did what they had to do to defend their families and their freedom. We should follow their amazing example, and do likewise.

Mujahid said:

no one has the right to kill innocent people,whatever his religion says,about 9/11,there's no way anyone could know the intensions of those who died,so it was a criminal not a moslem attack and about iraq,what in hell has 9/11 got to do with poor innocent iraqis?

Click to expand...

don't you know? Iraq and Al-qaueda, they both have q's in their names! This is our evidence, attack! :biglaugh:

Mujahid said:

no one has the right to kill innocent people,whatever his religion says,about 9/11,there's no way anyone could know the intensions of those who died,so it was a criminal not a moslem attack and about iraq,what in hell has 9/11 got to do with poor innocent iraqis?

Click to expand...

We can't win the war on terror by just fighting wars. We have to win in the "ideals" department as well. A free, democratic, economically and socially stable Middle East will draw us all together in peace. But we want to remove those obstacles that stand in the way. At least, I think that is the idea. I'm not sure if we actually have a real plan or if the Bush Administration is just kind of winging it. *shrugs* 35% Approval rating... 55% of Americans refer to themselves as conservatives. That means that a large minority of conservatives no longer approve of Bush's job, including overseas.

America can WIN the war on terror if you only say the truth,what made rage rise against you is america's very bad policies against everyone,i know many americans are very nice as individuals,but the policies of their governament is what brings them harm

Mujahid said:

America can WIN the war on terror if you only say the truth,what made rage rise against you is america's very bad policies against everyone,i know many americans are very nice as individuals,but the policies of their governament is what brings them harm

Click to expand...

No. It's crazy, militant, Islamic Socialists blowing up men, women and children and crashing planes into our buildings and threatening every moderate, freedom loving muslim in the Middle East that causes us harm.

yes i can't deny that there are many morons,crazy,idiots that are calling themselves moslems,but that's not the only reason

Mujahid said:

yes i can't deny that there are many morons,crazy,idiots that are calling themselves moslems,but that's not the only reason

Click to expand...

Yes. It really is the reason.

Who is running the Middle East? The moderate Muslim population? Hell no. You have dictators, Monarchies and Oil Barrens who pocket the nations wealth and leave the people in relative poverty; while the clerics from the mosques blame it on the Jews and on America. It's BS. It's really not our fault and it shouldn't be our problem. But it was made our problem, so we are dealing with it.

what's BS ?

it means bullshiit

The war in Iraq had no base whatsoever. Michael Moore, a socialist weasel he might be, but he raised a fair point in "Farenheit 9/11" - Iraq was a sovereign nation before the war. It was a sovereign nation that had never attacked the USA, killed a US Citizen outside the bounds of war, or threatened to attack the USA. There have been no proven links with Al-Qaieda and there were no weapons of mass destruction. I'm not saying that it was all peachy and lovely over there, but I think it's pretty much a fact that the USA and Britain along with their allies had no right to march in and change things. If we're talking about removing bad regimes, then the armies of the west should be preparing to march against all the other similar regimes around the world. Why doesn't Tony Blair move against Mugabe? I look at Michal Moore's work with greater suspicion these days, but there are some undoubtedly striking things in "Farenheit 9/11" - For example when they showed the clips of Colin Powell demonstrating Saddams awesome capabilities in WMDs and Chemical Weapons, and then straight after Condoleeza Rice saying (only 2 years previous) - 'His armed forces have not been rebuilt' - 'He had no WMDs' - 'WE ARE ABLE TO KEEP WEAPONS FROM HIM'. That was pretty striking in my mind.

To cut the ramble short - the poster is right on the matter of the Iraq war - it was an unforgiveable and nonsensical act carried out by men who have forsaken all principle for the sake of oil. Before the war I was an avid supporter of Tony Blair but now I'm not sure. I was glad to see Labour re-elected but I was also glad that Blair's career in charge is coming to an end, even if we have to wait a while longer. All those soldiers left over there fighting a fight they never should have to have become invoved in, those people who went over there to help rebuild and have been murdered, and all those innocent civilians killed. History will remember this war as an act of western aggression, not as any crusade against terror.

: I really believe this personality contest has gone to far. Bush also wanted in Argentina to win for peace.

; Of course, let us be weary of this idiot in government. He could have, and still needs to work with the OAS.:woohoo: