Mr. Bush should be proud

[banjo_boy]

I read earlier someone said we have been messing with the Middle East for decades now. Guess what! They (the Middle East) have been battling longer than most countries were around/ organized!

The US is not the only "aggressers" in the world. 10 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. There are so many battles in Africa it would make your head spin. Does anyone know how many people are killed in China each year? North Korea? Iraq? And these are their own people! Come on! We might look like aggressers because we don't sit on our butts and enjoy cheese and wine all day, but we are hardly the ones that started the whole thing.

My main challenge with these protest is that if the US and Britain drops the whole thing and in a couple months BOOM! Kuwait or the US gets hit again.What then? The US is going to be labeled as wimps, gutless to stand up to terrorists, and paper lions.

Our country was not founded by a bunch of ninnies. But nowadays, it's hard to find people who actually have solid beliefs in a world of "no absolutes". There is evil and there is good. Killing people is evil. However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil. We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11. We want to protect ourselves and others.

The only thing I know is that if a small army of terrorists came into the MidWest, they would have no chance whatsoever.

For me, diplomacy. But, sometimes, kids have to be taken to the woodshed when words don't work.

[Cat]

There is evil and there is good.

Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense.

Killing people is evil.

Best reason ever to start a war.

However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil.

There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.

We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11.

Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?

We want to protect ourselves and others.

Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?

I am disappointed...

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by Cat
Killing people is evil.

Best reason ever to start a war.

I don't get this one.

Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them. But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.

However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil.

There is no such thing as involuntary evil. For every bullet and every bomb, fingers press the trigger: there is a conscious and voluntary choice to kill and destroy.

So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.

We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11.

Terrorism isn't a random natural desaster, but a directed attack. The people who attacked the US wnated to attack the US. They were not simply mad and irrational, maybe manipulatd and misguided, but they had reasons for attacking the US. As atheist still I'd like to echo some wise words: Who is without sin (or guilt depending on translation) throw the first stone. Is the US really so innocent?

No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)

And yes they are wise words.

We want to protect ourselves and others.

Do you think to have the right to interfere with others for their own good? You assume quite a responsibility then... Why did the allied forces then did not at all supoprt the rebellion ensuing the Gulf War? Because of not so noble agreements with the neighboring countries? Where were our ideals then?

We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.

You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.

Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.

I am disappointed...

What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.

I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.

BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.

I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by Cat
There is evil and there is good.

Sure there is! Well simply have to nominate one persone judge of the world and let them point out what is good and what is evil! Everybody of course will agree, since good and evil are so easy to see and identify! And all those shades of grey is just postmodernistic nonesense.

I couldn't have said the 'postmodernistic nonsense' bit better myself! Well put!

I believe that what you call greyscale is actually dithering. Life may be complex, but I don't believe it's ambiguous. I recognize that that's one place where people who believe in absolute standards, absolute good, and absolute evil part with those who don't.

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

We cannot always agree on what is right and what is wrong. Very true. None of us can know everything. Nor can any of us know of ourselves what another person's motives or purposes are. These facts are some of the most compelling reasons that exist for us to stand and fight in the best way possible for that which we do believe to be true and good. We do know some things and we do know our own motivations better than we know any other's, and we should stand up for those things which we know to be true.

Regarding the existence of good and evil and the fight for what we believe is good, I respectfully defer for a moment to Mahatma Gandhi, who most likely would have employed an entirely different approach than any of the leaders on the political forefront right now, don't you think? With regard to Satyagraha (nonviolent resistence for the purpose of political reform) he once said:

Originally posted by Mr. Mohandas K Gandhi
The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by hulkaros
If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here. Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe. They take very real risks. Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example. But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say. It would certainly result in different candidates being elected. Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"? Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence." I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however...

[Cat]

Posted by banyo_boy:

Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them.

This is a bit out of context, since in this case we are talking about an ongoing conflict where clearly one side was attacking the other. His order was a good one, I hope that, unlike last time, the US forces will follow it too...

But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.

I don't get this one ...

So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.

Wrong example, since you ahve to take into account our previous histories: Did I ever threaten or harm the guy? Did he previously harm me? Does he clearly and undoubtedly try to attack me? Certainly I wouldn't attack him or provoke an attack by drawing a weapon, which is more or less what the US is doing now with Iraq...

No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)

Why is it out of context? We are accusing Iraq of having sinned against UN resolutions, the punishment seems to be war, and america seems to be very eager to get to the stone throwing part... while it hasn't yet even concludively been proven before the UN that Iraq has in fact sinned...

We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.

You seem to miss my point by trying to apply it to an entirely different context. If asked, the people in the Towers would have consented. Moreover all of them were in clear and present danger.
I have some doubt that the Iraqi people would ask the americans again to help them, since last time they didn't. Claiming to be working in the interest of the population, while killing it is a bit far-going meddling...
Rather take this example: a women is delivering a child, both could die in the process... who do you save? Mother or child? SAving the one implies risking the others life.. are you ready to take this kind of decisions? Are you ready to decide that you well can sacrifice 200.000 Iraqi's in order to better the other's lives? That is a great responsibility you are taking then ...

You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.

Again, by the use of a far fetched example you misinterpret what I am saying. I would try to separate two guys fighting, I would stand up for the victim of a bully, but I would not go and beat up someone before he even lifts a finger. I would try to talk them out of fighting, not hit them myself!

Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.

Helping each other by starting wars is a very interesting perspective on globalization... I'm not at all happy in my country, I'd like it (the Netherlands) to integrate better into Europe as a whole, to drop barriers to immigration and import, to spend more on help to third-world countries, to invest in clean and durable sources of energy for the good of the entire planet etc. Hitting someone is one of the best methods to be hit back: it's called Newtons Law of SocioDynamics and Escalation ... to every hit corresponds a hit back of opposite verse and equal or greater force ...

What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.
I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.
BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.
I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.

Instead of bombing them, you could try to build them schools, instead of destroying their electricity and water supply, you could try to help them, instead of leeting them remain poor and misguided and victims of religious fundamentalism, you could try to educate them.

You too are misguided since your childhood in believing that the way you view the world is the good one. So do I. But at least I try to overcome my limits, while you seem just comfy inside them. Don't american children get brainwashed too from their early childhood, by letting them sing nationalistic songs and swear undying loyalty to their homeland? Where's the difference?

[Cat]

Posted by jeb1138:

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

Since you know you don't know all the truth, how can you decide whether or not somthing is a part of the ineffable grand design that you cannot (yet) comprehend? Are you ready to take decision that are no more than a bet (like Pascal)? If you lack knowledge of the absolute truth, in a phenomenological sense, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, i.e. if it can principally have no effect whatsoever on my existence, it may as well not exist. Still it is true, that "The good life for man is best spent in seeking the good life for man"!

Good post jeb

[chevy]

Originally posted by jeb1138

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

Your way of thinking is sooo... middle age.

We had several wars and cruisades in Europe, and a very painful inquisition because of that type of thinking.