Lets hope for justice.

The hallmark of this post-conflict conflict has been piss poor planning based on unbelievable arrogance and a cavalier attitude. "Oh, no. We have all the troops we need!" I wonder how long ago Saddam might have been captured (and perhaps how many casualties might have been avoided) if the Rumsfeld crowd actually planned to the mission instead of their fancy -- like even put enough force in place to secure huge ammunition dumps.

The most recent Iraq war was one of the shortest in history, and an incredible success.

National Security Council

It was actually a variety of reasons, only one of which was his failure to comply with the UN regarding WMD's

one of the most openly antagonistic regimes

but in what manner were they antagonistic?

Now they have to clean up the results as best they can, and if they can make it out of there with a secular, democratic government in place, I'd say it was a success.

hey, at least we try

Congratulating the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists?

My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

Though, to me, the human rights violations within Iraq were enough to go to war over. My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

This was about money.

This war was not about WMDs, lots of countries have WMDs.

This was not about getting rid of a dictator, there are plenty of dictators in the world.

So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities?

(I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

Yeah, ever since Farm Aid...

We are talking about killing people, Iraqis and western soldiers, versus what could be described as an inconvienience.

Even if it could be conclusively proven that Saddam Hussein fornicated with animals and ate babies for breakfast, he was still the legitimate head of a sovereign nation, and the United States of America had neither legal nor moral authority to invade and destroy that country.

Morals is the ultimate subjective term

Without morals, whoever has the most physical power can set the laws in their favor, and subjugate whomever they please.

Whose morals?

Morals is the ultimate subjective term

if we say that our personal moral beliefs supercede laws, any society degenerates into anarchy.

To some zealots, their personal moral code says that flying into buildings or shooting abortion doctors is moral. I wonder how many dictators and despots were absolutely sure of the moralness of their cause?

except (generally) insofar as groups of people adopt a divine sponsor for their morals and then they can become frighteningly absolute.

I have to say, if I were and atheist (and I don't say any of this to put anyone down), I think I'd probably have to reject the notion of morals all together as empty and meaningless.

I have to say, if I were and atheist (and I don't say any of this to put anyone down), I think I'd probably have to reject the notion of morals all together as empty and meaningless. Any discussion of right vs. wrong would be moot as there would be no meaningful outcome of any action. What I think I would do is simply whatever felt right, whether it was consistent with my previous actions or not. I know that's a pretty bleak picture and maybe I'd see things differently on "the other side," but from this vantage point (of believing in absolute truth) that's how it all appears to me.

This is terribly offensive.

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

You're implying that because I don't believe in God, Allah, or whoever that my life is meaningless

Just because I don't believe in God (and let me just abbreviate to God -- no offense intended to any non-Judeo-Christians reading this) doesn't mean that I don't hold certain values as sacred. The most important moral rule to me is the Golden Rule. Or the Hippocratic Oath. Or whatever version of it you want to recite.

The fact that many different cultures with different religions have come up with the same ideas implies the existence of morals that are set in humanity, not in some external force.

So the idea that because I don't believe in God puts me on the same level as a sociopath is offensive.

I also find it offensive for the religious folks, as it also implies that the only reason you're following this moral code is to gain a reward or avoid a penalty.

After all, if the morals are absolute as defined by God, then God made them up arbitrarily.

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

This is a man just as intelligent and well educated as you are, with just as strong a sense of morality and right and wrong as you have -- and yet his morals are diametrically opposed to yours, and no amount of discourse between you would change either one of your opinions.

Still think that morality is absolute?

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

So the idea that because I don't believe in God puts me on the same level as a sociopath is offensive.

I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am.

another is the desire and the need to worship something.

do you regard yourself as a good person? if so, have you ever told a lie? have you ever stolen something? have you ever had impure thoughts about someone else? well, if so, then a holy and righteous being will regard you the same as the vilest of people. everyone has sinned, and everyone is at the same level in His eyes.

i think it takes more faith ...

So how did it all start? Yeah, I know, the Big Bang. But how did that start and where did it come from?

Please note that the same question exists whether you look at the beginning of creation from a theistic or an atheistic point of view. So neither belief yields an answer.

So we all have a search for the truth. You just have to find it.

My views really are just too different for you to understand.

I think it's rather the former.

I'd much rather humanity truly learn where it came from, or at least aspire to, than accept simple stories as truth.

Do you take it on faith that you're looking at a computer right now?

The things we can't prove are just theories. They could well be wrong.

I'm aware of this Christian concept

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

Slavery is wrong irrespective of the quality of the master. It may be inviting, but its wrong.

I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am.

Which is the definition of subjective, which was exactly the point Doug was trying to make.

Removing him from the country does take away a longterm problem

Think of it like this: two people are talking about jumping off a building. One guy says not to do it because he'll die, but the other guy truly believes he'll just float down and not be harmed.

ik wil een mooi nederlands meisje neuken.... lief poesje.

Don't steal, don't kill (members of your own "tribe"), treat everyone as you would have yourself treated...all of these are necessary for a society to exist