It's 1938 all over again

actually, when I talk about 'socialist' programs to address such issues, I am talking about contributing. Any such program would is weakened by imposing it. I'll argue like hell to persuade you to contribute but I wouldn't force you.

You can opt out of contributing if you want, as long as you accept that you won't get to benefit from it either.

In other words those who don't contribute won't be defined as poor.

If I was advocating war, I'd be out front with my tin hat and my gun, saying come on boys let's get 'em.
If you haven't got the courage of your convictions, what exactly are you?

Actually calling those sorts of initiatives wars, on poverty, drugs, terror or some such is usually a good sound byte and an ineffective policy. Probably becuase they aren't wars and that initial inaccuracy means you miss your target from the getgo.

I could win against drugs tomorrow, I'd just legalise them, all we keep doing is fighting the symptoms of them being illegal.

being taken prsioner back in the old days was four choices
You could just die.
You die later as a slave.
You could switch sides and die as a 'traitor'
If you were valuable you could buy your life.

The latter was a choice available to about one in a hundred. For every bold night in shining armour, there were 99 peasants in smocks with pitchforks and bits of wood to soak up all that nasty hot oil and stuff.

Chivalry was for the rich, dying for the poor.

Conscription was actually the big change, that came in with the musket and was still pretty much up close and personal. The best way to break a musket regiment was to kill it's officers, hard to ransom a bloke with an extra big hole in his head.

Your distinction between terrorists and our own armed forces is now a recognisable uniform, with some sort of symbol on it. The distinction you are making is tactical one, not one of legitimacy.

I know it sounds horribly callous but the terrorists are being as effective as they can be. In fact, the tactic they are using is the only one with even a remote possibility of success.

Sending a bunch of civilians even ones who could fight against a competent group of soldiers is a death sentence for them.

It's not a soldier's gun that makes him effective at killing, but his discipline.

so they can feel better about themselves.

It's a failing in the human psyche. Unfortunately in these modern times, there's no Dariwinian solution for these people unless they also happen to be dee-dee-dee and we happen to get lucky.

are not Christians, but Paulians. Christ came with a message of love - he reduced the ten commandments to two - 1/. Love they God with all thy heart, body, mind, and soul; 2/. Love they neighbour as yourself.

Paulians follow the teachings of the apostle Paul, these teachings are his interpretations of Christ's teachings, and they do vary a lot. Most of the main stream Christian churches have a lot of Paulian teachings in them as they are based on the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is very Paulian. The main points of variation between Christianity and Paulianity are:

1. Christ taught that every person has the right to speak with, and receive revelation from, God. Each has the same authority to speak to God and to spread his word.

The Paulians are authoritive and teach that only those who are ordained ministers have any authority to speak on God's behalf, and the higher up you are in the church, the more authority you have, and the more righteous you are. This leads into the teaching that the more righteous have more right to tell others how to behave. Thus the Bishop can tell priests and individuals what to do, etc.

2. Christ taught that he came to save the sinners. Paulians teach that the righteous have the right to order the sinners about.

3. Christ taught that we have free will and can choose to follow God's teachings or not. Paulians teach that we should all follow God's teachings, as they see them, no matter what, and they have a right to make us do so.

4. Christ said that all that has gone before is now void. Thus, a true Christian follows the teachings of the New Testament, if you do then you follow the two commanments above and all of the ten commandments etc are rolled into them. Paulians teach that you should also follow the Old Testament rules and all its teachings. Nothing in the Old Testament over rules the teachings of the Gospels, yet the Paulians believe certain aspects do.

The Old Testament is there to show the authority of Christ through the prophecies related to him, and where the church came from. Nothing in the Old Testament is valid doctrine to a Christian, except where it is reinforced in the Gospels by Christ's teachings, then it's used to refine some aspects of Christ's teachings.

5. Christ taught that you should love everyone, including your enemies. Paulines teach you to hate people who disagree with you.

6. Christ taught that all those who believe in Christ shall be saved, he did not teach that they HAD to believe in him their entire life. He acknowledged that many would come to now and believe in him late in life, and they would be accepted and saved. He also taught that they had to come to him of their own free will and choice. Paulians teach that people must be made to believe.

----
Most of what the fundamentalists teach is from the Old Testament and the Epistles (the letters where apostle send replies to people about specific problems in their area). The epistles are not the direct word of God or Christ, but an individual's interpretation of certain aspects.

BTW Satan got kicked out of heaven for saying that he would force the people to obey God's commandments - kind of like how the fundamentalists behave isn't it. And that's kind of scary.

And yes I'm a Christian. Want to learn a bit more try

www.lds.org

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1082-1,00.html

rises from the Old Testament and the epistles, not the teachings of Jesus. The one clear incident we have of Jesus dealing with a promiscuous person has him telling the others to behave themselves (let he who is without sin, cast the first stone) and telling the woman concerned to go away and behave herself - and don't forget she was caught in adultery, not just casual sex, adultery: a married person having sex with someone not their spouse.

There are many teachings in the Old Testament against adultery, whoredom and other forms of extreme promiscuity - yet nothing against unmarried people in medium or long term loving relationships involving sex. Homosexuality is spoken against a being unnatrural, why unnatural - because it doesn't lead to promulgation of the race. the scriptures has a number of references to God telling people to breed and cover the earth.

The only definite reference to abstinence from sex is in the epistle where, in response to a complaint about the cost of housing the entourage of married missionaries, it's advised to send out unmarried men as missionaries and for them to forego thinking about, or dealing with, women during their mission. This was based on practicalities not scriptural teachings. At that time most missionaries were independently wealthy, that's why they could afford to go out on things other than what was needed to make a living. Such people usually moved about with a gaggle of servants and their immediate family. Two such families would mean a group of around 30 plus individuals. In those days it was upto the Christians in an area to house and feed visiting missionaries, such things for such a large group was one heck of a cost for a small community of Christians. Yet if the missionaries were sinlge men, they usually travelled with only one servant or none, then the group to be cared for is only two or four - a huge saving.

Even then, the epistle only says that they should forego women and sex for the duration of the mission.

All the major religions have a history of persecution and some related messages from that period, but they all teach "Loving they neighbours" as a main aspect - you can't love and hate them at the same time.

say, but by the middle ages most conflicts were being fought by farm workers under the orders of their local lords. Few were prepared to indisciminately kill the general soldiers as it would lead to retaliation, and no one could afford to lose to many of their farm workers. Thus the practice of damaging general soldiers to the extent that they could still work but be no good for armed conflict. This was general practice throughout Europe for several hundred years. This did not apply to the conflicts in the middle east, the old choices applied there.

Regarding your comment about civilians against soldiers - I can only mention the differences between how the current terrorists behave, armed with military weapons and explosive, and the way that the freedom fighters in Europe behaved during ww2, armed with some military weapons and explosives. Those civilians who take up arms against their government or an invading force, make a choice as to how they will fight - if they decide that their trouble is with the soldiers and make surgical strikes against the soldiers, then they are freedom fighters - if they choose to target unarmed civilians instead, then they are terrorists. They are only interested in creating terror, not fighting a military campaign.

Your comment about discipline is true, and just emphasises that the terrorists are undisciplined murderers using an excuse to get their jollies from killing people. The vast majority of the people are capable of exercising discipline, the only difference between a soldier and civilians, is that the soldier is trained to exercise it in a limited way while cooperating with his mates. Many other professions require higher levels of discipline than that displayed by general soldiers.

I draw a solid line between the uniformed and armed troops of two countries fighting a declared war, and that of armed people fighting their own government or invading troops - different rules apply. They are two totally different situations.

I see no difference between the actions of McEvey in Oklahoma City, and the bombers in Iraq. Both are murdering civilians for the fun of it - both are terrorists. If they were taking a sniper rifle and shooting soldiers at a base or similar surgically directed strikes, then they are conducting a military campaign.

If you disagree, you disagree, as is your right - but you cannot, in my eyes, justify the intentional murder of your fellow citizens as a way of registering a complaint against the military of your government or another government.

Who chose and wrote the text for the old testament for the bible and when ?

How could you possibly rebutt my argument of the origin of sexual repression in the bible with bits of text written by them after the fall of the roman empire about 'times long ago'.

If you can't do better than that, give up, my dog saw the hole in that 'logic'.

of freedom fighters.
They use guerilla tactics as well, the reason they use them is they are outnumbered and outmatched. There were a fair number of successful attacks against occupying forces. Generally though the troops doing the occupying were not competent, they were trainees, screw ups and usually under the command rear echelon bullet dodgers. The sort of people who went to France to get further away from the russian front. There weren't that many strikes though, the germans often implemented a policy of decimation in reprisal. Brutal but effective.

As for the terrorists, their lack of scruples and passion are no use against a group of well armed soldiers, they won't scruple to dispassionately shoot the crap out of them.

Some terrorist units are soldiers, a lot of the boys in afghanistan, became very good ones.

The other fools that strap C4 waistcoats on, are about the worst soldier material you could imagine. A gibbering coward would be more use.

I was addressing the actual content of the scriptures and how they should be seen. So, I wasn't even trying to dig a hole in your logic. We have very good reason to believe that the Old Testament is over 3,000 years old, so it predates the Romans in that area. There are some copies from the first century BC, and were told that they are copies of older copies that go back for over a thousand years before that. But the Latin versions all date from the 1st to 4th century AD, and a large number of books were culled from the Bible in the 4th century AD because the church leaders of the time disagreed with the doctrine stated in those books. They set an approved list of valid scriptures that agreed with their authortarian doctrine - the rest were discarded.

BTW - the people involved in the culling were clearly a bunch of prudish control freaks.

It is interesting to note, that of the 12 gospels written by desciples of Jesus, only four were included in the 'approved' Bible.

Your reasons for what was and wasn't included in regards to sexuality could very well, and probably are, true. But I didn't address those reasons. Sorry if that disappoints you. I addressed the actual scriptures themselves, and spoke on their content, and validity to a Christian as against a Paulian.

Better aim next time, mate.

There were resistence units right across europe, even a German resistence unit. In some areas the German troops were inexperienced garrison troops, in some areas they were highly experience comabt troops, especially after the fall of North Africa, and what was left of the Africa corp were pulled back to France.

One thing common the the majority of the resistence forces was that, they target military targets. Blow up munitions trains or military infrastructure, railway lines, bridges, phone lines. Shot at troops, blew up German barracks and HQs - they also went out of their way to minimise civilian casualties, often calling off strikes due to too many civilians being in the area. They were quite effective in tying up lots of troops in 'pacified' areas. You have to look at what the French did, the Greeks, the Chechz, the Poles, etc.

And I agree the average terrorist is a useless cowardly murderer. And as soon as the general population in the area start dealing with them in that way, the sooner things will settle down.

I wonder how long an organisation like Hezbollah would last, if everytime they started to set up their rocket launches in an urban area, the local civilians just shot the sheite out of them. Ahh, if fishes were wishes, we'd never go hungry.

The issue here is that when the Hezbollah fighters set up their mobile rocket launchers to pop off a couple towards Israel, the local population [b]don't[/b] shoot at them. When you can actually get your head around [b]why[/b] they don't - and won't - you will understand why the lumping together of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas isn't appropriate.

I don't condone any of the actions of Hezbollah in and before the recent conflict. I hate violence but, unfortunately, I will make you a wager that the violence won't stop now. Hezbollah are not destroyed. The International Force will fail to disarm them and, if they push, many will die trying. The Lebanese Army will not disarm them. Israel's actions have - as usual - made the whole area considerably less safe.

Were I a farmer in southern Lebanon, I would remember that ninety percent of the cluster bomb strikes that mined my fields occurred in the last three days of the war - the time leading up to the cease-fire. The next time that Hezbollah want to borrow my barn...

schism.

The stories in the old testment might be 3000 years old the current version you are reading mose definitely is not.

Lot for instance nice upstanding guy, his neighbours are disturbing him while he's memorising the instructions on how leave them all to die. In the older versions he sent out his daughters to 'entertain' the mob. What do reckon , bit of ventriloquism, juggling, unicycle, playing the pink oboe ?

was wishful thinking. I agree with what you said though. I, too, doubt that the International Farce (yes I did spell it that way deliberately - truth in advertising, you see) will not be able to disarm Hezbollah, nor will the Lebanese. I think within 4 years we'll see more Hezbollah attacks and the Lebanese govt and the International farce getting upset when Israel fight back again.

I just wish Israel would take a leaf out of the Russian GRU book on this - don't send the troops in, send the spies and assassins in, and have them sneak about executing ALL the Hezbollah people involved in organising and ordering the attacks. That way the poor farmers would stand a chance.

The real crazy thing about this is that Hezbollah claim they are doing this to kill jews, yet the majority of the people they do hurt in Israel are Muslim Arabs living in Israel.

Aggh, maybe we should just pull out, do nothing and let them fight it out, winner takes all. Then we get either no Israel, or an Israel the size of the old Persian empire.

Lot was a self righteous bugger, that comes through in all the versions of the Bible. Want to see someone really get shat upon, look at what happened to Job. And the Jews lived in slavery for hundeds of years too.

the Bible is a combination of History book, religious doctrine, and lyfestyle teachings - I also think some of the tales have a bit of urban myth as well. But the Old Testament is just a history book to someone who follows the teachings of Christ, i.e. Christians. Sadly, many non-Christians claim to be Christains, they are actually Paulians, and follow the teachings of Paul about Christ - and Paul had some real issues.

Why does one need to subscribe to a certain religion in order to be said to be moral or have a moral character? I can give many examples of men who claim they are non-religious and who have exhibited moral behavior in their writings.

I have heard of and read excerpts from Sun Tzu?s "The Art of War" but I have never heard of a Chinese writing called "The Moral Law".

What I am referring to as the Moral Law is not the writing you indicate but a commonly understood concept of ?Moral absolutism? which is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

Moral absolutism states that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God, or some other fundamental source. According to the tenants of moral absolutism, ones actions are inherently moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, torture, rape, and murder to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

E-Democracy was a term used by former opposition leader Mark Latham (Australian Labour Party (ALP) leader 2002-2005).

The problem I have is that in an election there should be an near infalable paper trail that can be use to verify a result beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe its just nostalgia but give me a simple "tick box" voting form that I can put into a box. Voting is something I prefer to do with my own two hands.

Yes there are good people on earth among all religions. It is not just a question about people, to me, it is more a question of how much and what a religion expects from its followers. By the very nature of humans, there is goodness and badness in each of us. It is a question of how much support a religion gives to the "badness".

In the modern times, it is far easier to work up a frenzy among muslims because of their religion than others.

The issue is more about Islam than Muslims.

anything after that is either a cultural / societal abstract or more. There are no universal morals that apply to all people at all times.

People who believe in the universal absolutism of morals claim, amongst others, things as absolute morals like:

- It is always wrong to kill someone.

- It is always wrong to eat your dead enemy, canabalism.

Yet there were times in history when it was moral, and a requirement of racial survival to eat the enemy dead, shortage of required proteins. The only difference between a modern sophisticated person and a modern canabal, is how many generations since your ancestors were canabals.

As for killing, it would be wrong to stand by and let someone kill small children because you thought it was morally wrong to kill anyone under any circumctance. Killing in defence of self or innocents is not only correct, it's required of anyone with any personal morals of any value.

Moral absolutism is an attempt by certain people to impose their moral code onto others, that's all it is.

It was to demonstrate that if I should beleive the FUD about Chavez I should beleive the FUD about Bush. The relatively unbiased news reports I read say that both are democraticaly elected leaders. Based on biased reports and hearsay why should I beleive your political system is any cleaner than theirs?

This is a question and not a accusation, examples are mostly unproven accusations like the ones given to me about chavez.

Radical Islam is at war with the world, and we need to root it out while we can. They have defined Iraq as the battlefield (better than NYC!) so we HAVE to win there.

Additionally, our survival depends on no other Islamic country gaining nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we must keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and the diverse groups within it.

Wake up Sleeping Giant!

This is Tech Republic. It is for IT related issuse.
There are other sites where world affairs are the topic.
Please use the proper forum.

Thank you

but I've lived in places where the average temp was mid 40s centigrade.

BTW There is no 'a' in my name, it's a name not an adverb. the Deadly is a very old nickname, from an old 1960s Australian TV show, Horror movies with Deadly Earnest, the compare looked like a zombie. So a lot of Ernests got Deadly as a nickname after that. I've had it for most of my life and your not liking it ain't gunna bother me a bit. But do try to learn how to spell properly, especially when the correct spelling is right there on the screen.

Right on all three premises in your first sentence.

By the way, try not to be so anally retentive. Your thread in 'Feedback' would have been sufficient to flag up your displeasure.

Neil :D

If I were you, I would be complimented to be called "Spawn of
the Antichrist" in Arizona. I'm from a part of the country that is
made up of 'elitist intellectuals' and they would probably hang
me in Arizona just for the way I look.

But the country there is beautiful and I would like to welcome
you to the USA. One thing to keep in mind is that this is a big
country and you can't judge us all from one area. I'm sure you
know that already.

You know, despite what I wrote, I must enjoy this in some way
because I did get involved. It just gets my dander up when I see
such ridiculous political statements made and these guys are
serious.

Have a great time.

Mr Edison,

I guess I'm in with both feet now and I can't get out without
having the last word.

I'm not sure if I'm a hypocrite, I have to think about that one.

There are a lot of things that I should be doing right now instead
of this, but the genie is out of the bottle. (Check out discussion:
The Soap Box.) Notice: I have not expressed what my position is
on this discussion; What would be the point?

Please don't let me spoil the fun. I take back what I wrote. It was
naive of me.

But I still think Mr Deadly is an arse.

Enjoy

It's truly amazing how this discussion started and how it's ending.

"Not with a bang but with a whimper"

Good night all.

.
As quoted by a State Department counterterrorism officer to Clinton's refusal to retaliate for the bombing of the Cole:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JeffJacoby/2006/09/28/a_war_we_have_to_win

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it's not the same as yours.
As far as the "How can any one advocating religious genocide call themselves a christian" comment, what about what the so-called "terrorists" are doing? Jihad is indeed a "holy war", and I know American-Muslims who advocate Islam as a 'peaceful religion' and in no way condone the actions of the "terrorists" (even though they believe that they are doing "God's Work"). You could conversely ask "How can any one advocating religious genocide call themselves a follower of the teachings of Mohommad?", because they are killing people of different religious ideals.
Also, let us not forget "The Crusades" or the persecution of the Jews in Islamic Spain hundreds of years ago. It's not like this is new, and it's not like it's merely just the doing of us 'Evil Christian Americans'. And for the record, the US didn't get into this "War on Terror" because it's primarily a Christain country.
And as far as dismissing what a World War II veteran said as "senile ramblings" - wow, that was incredibly bold of you. Perhaps his words do echo the sentiments of the general feeling that America had from late 2001-2002, and I will agree that his words may be a bit harsh for the current state of affairs, but that gives you no right to call him 'senile'; you don't know him, so why judge his words? Would you call your grandfather 'senile' even though he's in complete control of his mental faculties? What about if he said "Kill 'em all!"?
As far as "Intolerance" and "hypocritical perpetutation of ignorance", I find most of your words to be just that. I find you to be "Ignorant" because you're judging what this man said from his youth, and FYI, vivid memories from early childhood can be the most-easily conjured-up memories that people have (even for Alzheimer's victims), and science can back me up there. I also find you to be "Intolerant" because you were so bent out of shape by what someone said who just so happened to have a different sentiment than you did.

I'm really sorry. I walked into something that I was completely
ignorant about. I thought that all the bombast and extreme
opinions were meant to be inflammatory. I didn't realize that it's
basically the same group of people who like to express their
personal opinions, the more radical the better. They make a
provocative statement or question and then watch the fur fly.
If you don't understand, like I didn't, it seems like the site is
being taken over by right wing radicals. In actuality it's as
harmless as a political talk shows on the radio. Actually it's
probably better because it's not as one sided.

I don't want to go back to see how our fight stated. We are
probably on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but that
makes life interesting.

You are not a ARSE or at least I don't know you well enough to
make a statement like that. You are entitled to any nickname
you like without ridicule. I have no idea how you would do in
NYC, but everybody should visit it at least once in their life. As a
New Yorker, I talk tough but I'm really a pussy. People there
shout at each other all the time, but it rarely comes to blows. As
you know, if you come from any big city, you have to be tough
or people will walk all over you.

I'm offering you an olive branch, which you can except or reject.
That's up to you. But I will not tweak you nose again. I might, if
I'm tempted, respond to one of your comments negatively, but I
will not be personal about it.

I didn't mean to go on this long but I felt that I needed to
explain myself.

Take it or leave it.

You asked, [i]"How can any one advocating religious genocide call themselves a Christian?"[/i]

I ask you, who are you talking about? Who's advocating religious genocide? (Except the Islamic fanatics, who are advocating religious genocide AGAINST Christians -- AND Jews!)

I have studied a great deal of the comments in this thread, and some of you should do your homework before shooting your mouths off. I was a history major in college, and a good deal of what's been posted here regarding the lead up to WWII is flatly incorrect. I won't delve into it other than to say you're well advised to go back and study it. Additionally, I was also a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, retiring after 29 years of service in the Active and Reserve components. Much of what's been said of US foreign policy in this thread is inaccurate and taken out of context with both world events and history. Again, I won't delve into it other than to say, go back, study it, and educate yourself. The statements regarding use of US economic pressure fail to take into consideration that all nations have their own subsidized industries and enact laws and tariffs to protect them. The last I noticed is that there are a lot of multi-national corporations that have edged their way into my country. Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp is the prime owner of media outlets in the US. Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Atlantic is a British citizen. Get your facts straight. KFC and McDonald's are only in your community because people buy there. I won't delve further into that. I consider myself open minded, but I'm not so open minded my brains fell out, so I will leave you with some sound thoughts by a few folks who articulated them far better than I myself could.
President Thomas Jefferson:
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. But the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our choice."

President Ronald Reagan:
"No arsenal is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism.
We must take a stand against terrorism in the world and combat it with firmness, for it is a most cowardly and savage violation of peace. We must remember our heritage, who we are and what we are, and how this nation, this island of freedom, came into being.
And we must make it unmistakably plain to all the world that we have no intention of compromising our principles, our beliefs or our freedom, that we have the will and the determination to do as a young president [John Kennedy] said in his inaugural address 20 years ago, 'Bear any burden, pay any price.'
Our reward will be world peace; there is no other way to have it." - Excerpted from a speech.

Sir Winston S. Churchill:
?A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.?

?Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.?

Dame Margaret Thatcher:
?Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction.?

Edmund Burke: (Anglo Irish statesman, orator, political theorist and philosopher, 1729 ? 1797)
?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?

?No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. ?

?There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.?

Jorge Agustin Nicolas Ruiz de Santayana: (Spanish Philosopher 1863 ? 1952)
?Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.?

everyone is entitled to theirs, and nearly everyone in this forum, respects that. Like Voltaire, they may disagree with your opinion, but they'll respect and defend your right to have it. Most of us can, and do have some very lively discussion on some subjects, however, few of use jump in with personal comments about each other. And some get a bit hot when flamed. Some, when flamed, will respond with a flamethrower. I try, and usually manage, to respond with a mirror or tennis racket - ie let them have it back as is.

Expressing a personal opinion on any subject is never out of line, flaming or attacking a person usually is. If someone says something personal that i don't like, I usually dispell any emotions by typing a suitable response, rarely do I actually send that one.

I try to take the approach, if it doesn't fit, who cares about it. However, the correct spelling of my name is the one thing that will get a response, as it will from most people.

I see no problem with letting this sub-thread becoming water under the bridge and wiped off the slate. I like accepting olive branches, now all I need is the olive press, then I can make olive oil. But I better watch out for popeye.

BTW I have an odd random association factor, and my humour is almost as bad.

There is a problem with defining certain actions as "war". Some wars are like the war on poverty or drugs, on the surface who could want poverty or drug problems; dig deeper and it becomes a series of actions that hurt the most vulnerable to reward blind belief. The war on terrorism is no different.

After 9-11, I supported the actions to take out the Taliban and weed out Al Qaida from Afganistan. But, that effort fell apart fast when we let the local brigands do our fighting. We should have used the local brigands like hunting dogs and once the Taliban and Al Qaida were treed, kill them instead of letting them slip through our fingers.

I was never satisfied with the justifications for attack Iraq, I could see that the inspectors were keeping Sadam from moving very far with his nuclear program. Whatever the vicious nature of Sadam and Iraq; they were key in keeping Iran from doing the stuff they are doing now.

Back to 9-11, the perpetrators of this were from "friendly" Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. During the build up to war in Iraq; the world discovers that there is a black market in nuclear bomb technology and that the head Pakistani nuclear scientist was at the heart of the distribution of knowledge and parts. This black market was shut down and does have the benefit of Libya coming clean and dismantling their nuclear research as a result.

This is not a war about religion, religion is being used to justify actions that history may find to be unjustifiable. This is the culmination of centuries of conflict coupled with the use of technology to make mass murder easier to do but more impossible to stop.

I have no qualms about taking out the scum who are preying on their own people in a bid for power. On all sides of this conflict we see scum drumming for a fight that someone else will die for.

The current meme is that if we are threatened by bad guys who are actively killing us, then we have the right to kill them first and to not kill them is an act of cowardice. The act of cowardice was provoking a war against a nation that was not involved with the acts of 9-11 and unleashing ambitions of neighboring states.

If you only get you news from American news media, you may not have been given the information you need to understand the problems and what to do to resolve them.

This is an unproven comment. Most historical documents indicate that Pershing's rule as military governor in the Philippines was very benevolent.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm