Originally Posted by robertjordan

ah cbwm. if america nuked a whole country out of existence you still wouldnt be able to discuss it objectively. its for views like your's i found it hard to post on this site.

. It seems that contrary viewpoints would help test and shape your own belief system. Failure to participate in the conversation is like declaring there is no Sun, and hiding in a cave so you can be comfortable with your beliefs.

contrary beliefs i welcome but if you CONSTANTLY shirk away from the truth...

Originally Posted by robertjordan

contrary beliefs i welcome but if you CONSTANTLY shirk away from the truth...

Whose truth are we talking about, your's or mine? I would assert that my truth has more truthiness than your truth.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

To be a little less abstract, we both agree the world isn't perfect. But I'm seeing three ways to respond to that:

1. Actively make things worse.
2. Make things better in ways that don't cost you too much as an individual.
3. Kill yourself in the pursuit of a flawless world.

What's wrong with the centrist position? The others are untenable. One is the definition of immoral, without getting into specifics, and three is suicidal. Number two is a pretty reasonable course of action ... but for whatever reason, a lot of people find it threatening.

Well I disagree that these are the only three options we have in response to an imperfect world, I would add another one…

4. Make things better in ways that cost you everything.

There are numerous examples of people dying for what they believed would make the world a better place; Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, William Wallace (ok I just got done watching “Brave heart” it’s a great movie). The point is war is sometimes a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

There obviously a vast array of opinions and I agree that the subject of war is complicated and can never by fully answered / understood as there will always be a right and wrong side depending on which side of the fence your on, even is your sat on the fence opinions vary depending on the scenario.
Personally I think the world would be a very dangerous place without war (i know, that sounds contradictory) but humans, like most things in nature hold true to the 'survival of the fittest' - many of the wars have been thought to protect those which would have otherwise be susceptible to the fitter.

The war in iraq is controversial and I can't really comment on it other than to say more countries should stand and be counted for making hard decisions, America is a very easy target as its a superpower (probably the only one left) - what about the atrocities that have been going on around the world (some would class as genocide) over the past decade which America have not been involved with to any great extent (such as Africa) - I am very pro America and (I'm English by the way not American) think as a superpower America is more careful than many other countries when it comes to war, they do not commit genocide and, like any government, or country will act in accordance with what is in their best interest.

I will now sit back and await the flurry of posts criticising my OPINION, everybody has one and is entitled to one, at least in a country that promotes free speach - one thing they can't be critisied for folks.

I appreciate you saying that Carl.

I'm not a huge war supporter in any way but at times I guess it's required but in many cases, especially in U.S. history, there's a few that could've been avoided. If you were actually attacked by another countries army then obviously you'll have to defend.

Hard topic though I think, for the most part I dislike war but not completely.

Originally Posted by BrandBurnMedia

I'm not a huge war supporter in any way but at times I guess it's required but in many cases, especially in U.S. history, there's a few that could've been avoided. If you were actually attacked by another countries army then obviously you'll have to defend.

Hard topic though I think, for the most part I dislike war but not completely.

Sometimes war doesn't begin just by someone attacking you and you say your defending your self. In the case of the U.S. history about war, not all war has been about defending the country. Most of them is about suppressing other countries and just being greedy for authority and power. Yes and wars could have been avoided by not starting it.

The main reason i disagree with the iraq war is that like what was said above bush has not felt any sacrific in fact the exact oposite.

Bush hard "earnt" millions and millions of US tax dollars because of the war. now while im a UK cit i think thats misuse of power. and no one seems to notice it!!

Bush owns Arms companies... no war no guns no money.
Bush starts war... soldiers need guns... US military (us tax money) pays for them money goes in Bush back poket.

Quite a nice retirement ah? buy arms company... start a war make a packet retire.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

contrary beliefs i welcome but if you CONSTANTLY shirk away from the truth...

There are a lot of neo conservatives who believe in "moral relativism" which means anything they believe is true by definition. The sheer act of believing something (no matter how bizarre) makes it true.

This explains people sending get well soon cards to the drug addict Rush Limbaugh, who told those people who drug addiction is a moral weakness and character flaw. Rush was hypocritically exempt from his own judgments, because he believed he was exempt.

Getting back to the point, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because we believed he had weapons of mass destruction. He was working every second with Osama bin Fogotten because, well, again, neo cons are big into moral relativism, where there's no absolute truth, one man's truth is as valid as another's, and saying a thing makes it true for all intents and purposes.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

There are a lot of neo conservatives who believe in "moral relativism" which means anything they believe is true by definition.

Moral Relativism denies there are any absolute moral facts, a belief more strongly supported by the left. Case and point is Adam, who is borderline Nihilist, a point at which you deny anything is absolutely real.

I think the word you were looking for is hypocrisy, an attribute shared by many on the left, and the right. Rush's drug addiction, Spitzer's call girl flings, O'Reilly's sexual harrassment, all good examples.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Getting back to the point, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because we believed he had weapons of mass destruction. He was working every second with Osama bin Fogotten because, well, again, neo cons are big into moral relativism, where there's no absolute truth, one man's truth is as valid as another's, and saying a thing makes it true for all intents and purposes.

Perception is greater than reality they say. Pointing a realistic looking toy gun at a cop will get you shot every bit as much as pointing a real one, regardless of whether you were factually in possession of a real gun. Not sure what that has to do with moral relativism, but if what you alledge is true, the overwhelming majority of the democrats in congress must have been caught up in "one mans truth". It must have had some truthiness about it.

life is a war. we are always at war. i personally am always at war with evil.

see what im saying?

No war should be.

Originally Posted by asadullah.ansar

No war should be.

should be... ... fought with water guns? ... led by George Bush? ... fought while naked?

George Bush fighting naked with a water gun. Phil has strange, strange fantasies

Nasty thoughts nasty thoughts...

Originally Posted by joder

George Bush fighting naked with a water gun. Phil has strange, strange fantasies

OMG I have just accidentally uncovered my deepest and darkest secrets!!!