Does Christian Doctrine support or condemn war?

[Quarkhead]

Do you feel that Christianity preaches a doctrine which justifies war? Specifically, the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror? Why or why not?

[bernee51]

[
I agree Christianity is no real threat to anybody, except evil people,

And a Muslim would say that Islam is no real threat to people, except evil people.

How can a Muslim be condemned for citing the Koran to justify the defence of his religion, his country and his way of life and a Christian freely justify the barbarity of armed conflict by using bible verses.

Does that not stirike you as just a tad hypocritical?

Who are the terrorists?

From dictionary.com

terrorism:
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

I think Pot has given you the civilian body count in Iraq.

[Biblestudent]

I would be very interested in your definition of a terrorist.

It's not a freely elected leader sending his countries all-volunteer military into Iraq to liberate an oppressed people. Is all killing murder? Intent must be proven. I understand that civilian causalties are awful, but I have yet to hear from you what you would do regarding terrorists. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. Do you think we can do this without fighting somewhere? You are including all deaths (Iraqi police officers who have volunteered, government officials killed by terrorists, etc. ) and you are blaming George Bush? All you can do is criticize a man and a country who wants nothing but for nations to be free like we are. What do you think made this country so great on its own, except captilistic freedom? We built this nation from scratch. It's not for oil. That is ridiculous. We get our oil from Mexico and Canada.Why would our soldiers spill their blood on foreign soil for something they don't believe in. Are they there for oil? Why was the Iraqi election turnout such a success if "everybody" knows George Bush is a terrorist?

If an aggressive country invaded America, murdered large numbers of women and children, killed members of the Senate and the Congress, imprisoned your President and imposed martial law would you fight against them?
If you decided to fight against them would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

If I were oppressed by a tyrannical government and a stronger nation wanted to give me freedom for me to determine my own destiny? If they were to come here and spill their blood for my freedom? Where are you coming from? Was Hussein's government a good government? Iraqis are free now to decide for themselves. Who made that possible?

Were the French Resistance terrorists when they fought against the Nazi occupation of France?

To equate the U.S. government, people who gave millions of lives to liberate Europe, with the NAZI regime hardly deserves a response.

The USA has invaded Iraq without any direct aggressive action on the part of Iraq to justify this action. They have killed or imprisoned the existing government and killed innocent men, women and children whilst going about it (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ ) and have imposed their own rule over Iraq citizens.

I am not, in any way, trying to defend the position of Saddam, however the facts are the facts. The classification of those within Iraq as terrorists, when they are fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion, appears to me to be purely arbitrary - you call them terrorists because they are fighting you. If they had been fighting the Russians in a similar situation(such as Afghanistan) you would have called them freedom fighters and supported them - as indeed the USA did when it supported Bin Laden in his conflict with USSR invaders.

Are you talking about Saddam's old army? Or who? Where are these "freedom fighters" that you are referring to? Why don't they go vote? They are free now. The way you present it, they were living in paradise until George Bush woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.

I find it ironic that you refer to Saddam gassing his citizens when the US gave him the technology to facilitate this when he had not yet fallen out of favour!

Did we force it on him, like we are "forcing" our freedom on the Iraqis?

Well...it would take rather a large number of terrorists to surround America.

That is exactly what would happen if we didn't deal with this now.

Do you really believe that the USA was at any time in danger of being invaded or attacked in any significant way? Yes a lot of people died in 9/11 and it was shocking. One child dies every 15 seconds from the lack of clean water in the third world - that is also shocking. More people died from firearms accidents in the USA last year than were killed in 9/11 - that is also shocking. Many things are shocking - they do not warrant the suspension of international law and the invasion of a country that does not appear to have had any links to AQ at all and which was not developing any WMDs that could have threatened the USA's interests (access to oil aside, of course)...

It's not our oil. The oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, not us. Where do you get this? Michael Moore?

When one country decides to replace the regime of another purely on the grounds that they have greater military power then we are on the slippery slope to dictatorship and imperialism.

Which resolution stated "America is invading Iraq "purely" on the basis of our military?"

Ask people in Muslim countries who are the terrorists in Iraq - you would probably not like the answer...

I don't have to ask them. They showed me what they thought last Sunday on election day. Why don't you let the Iraqi's actions "speak" for themselves.

[Biblestudent]

You are trying to impose your will and your values upon everybody. Period.

Our "will" is for the world to be free to make their own decisions. Christian values are what have made us great in the last 225 years.
I don't fall for the postmodern, pluralistic nonsense of our day. Everyone has the right to choose his religion, but all religions are not equally right.

...and for "evil" read "Islamic" (as viewed by Americans)

Islam was established throughout the world by war. "Islam or the sword." I understand that there are moral, peaceful Muslims, but their founder was not.

In other words "might is right". Why not simply establish an American Empire and have done with it?

If by empire you mean freedom with free enterprise for all people, then we are certainly trying our best to help them.

[Biblestudent]

It is a book of myth and metaphor for the same reason as the Koran, or the Bhagvad Gita. Do you claim it is not?

Wholeheartedly, based on reason and evidence.

That I would not deny...what about you?

Ditto.

[Biblestudent]

And a Muslim would say that Islam is no real threat to people, except evil people.

I'm not pluralistic. Either Jesus or Mohammed was right. Both can't be.

How can a Muslim be condemned for citing the Koran to justify the defence of his religion, his country and his way of life and a Christian freely justify the barbarity of armed conflict by using bible verses.
Does that not stirike you as just a tad hypocritical?

The original thread asked if Christian doctrine approved of war. Romans 13:1-4 indicates clearly the authority given by God to government to excercise enforcement.

Who are the terrorists?

From dictionary.com

terrorism:
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Did George Bush calculate which civilians would be killed like the terrorists do? No. Did George Bush ever threaten the Iraqi people? No. He threatened the Axis of Evil. Our goals are to establish freedom for the Iraqi people, hence Sunday's elections. The state is separate from the church, so it was not religious. Freedom is inate in every human being, so it is not ideological in nature, it's pure nature. Which Iraqi citizens did George Bush intimidate, or coerce, or instill fear in by setting up elections for them?

I think Pot has given you the civilian body count in Iraq.

Yes. And highly misrepresented for what reason they died. You two have only assumed murder and assigned all deaths to Americans, which is ridiculous.

[Dilettante]

Scott Perry wrote:

The UN Oil for Food Program scandal may shed more light on this.
Conservative estimates indicate that Saddam was able to divert 21 billion
dollars. To whom? Also, connections have been made between Hussein\'s
government and Al-Quaida (World Net Daily, Enemies Within).

Connections certainly have been made between Saddam and Al-Quaida, but never proven. Can you point out any hard evidence that I may have missed? Are you suggesting that the UN Oil for Food program was used to finance some terrorist group? It’s true that terrorists cannot operate without money. But why suspect Saddam instead of someone in Saudi Arabia, a country with a much more direct connection with the Sept. 11 attackers?.

Saddam was a proven murderer of his own
people, and he invaded Kuwait. He should have been removed during the
first Gulf War.

I never disputed that, I agree 100% on that point.

I know that you are glad he was removed, so how
would you have done it differently?

I would have liked to have seen some evidence that Saddam was preparing to rebuild his arsenals, but no real evidence was ever found. I do not doubt that he would have been willing to do it, but he just didn’t have the capability. Why didn’t he collaborate with the UN inspectors then? Perhaps we will never know, but a plausible explanation is that he was afraid that admitting his weakness would provoke an attack by Iran in retaliation for Iraq’s invasion of Iran’s oil rich region in 1980. By 2003 Saddam’s power was only a shadow of what it had been in the past. For one thing, he did not control vast areas of his own country (the no-fly zones) It’s not totally clear that a war was necessary since Saddam posed no imminent threat to US interests, except if we consider his dealings with oil-hungry China a danger to the American geopolitical agenda. In any case, the war should have been conducted differently. Toppling Saddam was in itself good, but it resulted in chaos. The American government had been warned about this possible chaos, but for some reason failed to take steps to prevent it.

Do you think a terrorist dictator can be reasoned with through Arab translators?

I wasn’t suggesting that. The Arab translators are needed to interpret the tons of intercepted recorded conversations in Arabic which could potentially yield valuable information but which American intelligence operatives do not know what to do with because they can’t understand the language.

Are you saying that the American government is dishonest in their
motives? Or that they were deceived by intelligence reports?

I’m not privy to George W. Bush’s conscience and I wasn’t a fly on the wall when his advisors discussed the war, so I won’t pretend to know his “real” motives. But one thing is clear: they did not tell the public the whole truth and they played up the uncertainty of the intelligence. Mind you, not that any politician ever really tells the whole truth. The use of the political lie is at least as old as Plato. The idea that only Washington politicians are deceitful, while down-to-earth, born-again Texans are honest is a myth.

Do you think that our government officials are war mongers, and that we want to impose our will on the world?

I think the US is the only real global superpower and that a Pax Americana is among its priorities. I don’t know if US officials “want” to impose their will, but they probably believe it is their duty to impose some sort of world order to the extent that they realistically can. It’s a sort of “manifest destiny” theory where they idealistically see themselves as exporters of democracy and civilization. Iraqis are seen as savages, so steps were not taken to avoid abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib until pictures leaked out. Now, I sympathize with Western values and the US undoubtedly represents those values--although not always lives up to them. But this sort of idealism can be dangerous, and imposing democracy by force has always been a tricky business.

The UN has proven to be a useless organization in creating peace
throughout the world. This is becoming more evident all the time (Sudan).

The UN needs reform and it needs it badly, I have no quarrel with that. The UN itself is a by-product of American idealism of the Woodrow Wilson variety and there are a number of reasons why it has failed in promoting peace. But that is another debate. Let’s not fence more land than we can plow here.

The liberal media loves to shed the light only on the negative side of our liberation of the Iraqi people.

You are using loaded words. As for the media, they are not objective, we must remember that. The “liberal media” in the US was strangely uncritical of the Iraq war until the war ended. After that they just did their job. Just like the conservative media do their job by exposing the negative side of liberal politicians. That’s how it works.

We are dealing with a global war on terror
against an Axis of Evil governments

The term “Axis of Evil” is a perfect example of loaded language, just like Reagan’s “Evil Empire” nickname for the USSR. The word “Axis” helps establish an association with the enemy forces in WW II, which is in turn perceived as the epitome of a just war. It’s clever, but uninformative.

We are not going to let it escalate like the UN would (by never enforcing their resolutions) to the point where we are fighting it only here in America because of some Just War Theory that says we can't hit anybody until they hit us first.

I did not invent the Just War Theory. You don’t even have to accept it. I was just pointing out that preemptive strikes are not part of it, and were never justified by any Christian thinker until George W. Bush came along. And the UN can’t enforce their resolutions if the member nations don’t cooperate. We don’t have a world government yet. I think it’s fantastic that the Iraqis voted, although the conditions were far from optimal. The Shia Muslims and the Kurds are happy, but the Sunnis seem convinced that the occupation forces are against them. They boycotted the elections. These are Iraqis too.Perhaps we should listen to their reasons also. (I’m not suggesting negotiating with the terrorists, who are mostly foreign).

The Bible is a self-interpreting book

No book interprets itself. All require an interpreter. The fact that the Bible admits many interpretations can be illustrated by looking at any American Phonebook. How many Christian denominations are there where you live? I bet they all differ in their interpretations of scripture. The hermeneutic circle you allude to presents the problem of getting beyond the letter to the spirit, when we cannot interpret the letter unless we have a prior understanding of the spirit.

I don't understand what you mean by "fits the Roman idea of an Emperor-god"? Are you saying Paul somehow credited that Roman belief?

What I mean by “fits the Roman idea of an Emperor-god” is simply that it was an idea the Romans could accept because they could relate it to previous ideas. I'm not suggesting that Paul believed the Emperor to be a god, of course.

Was not the Roman Empire, to which Paul was referring, an
"international" organization?

The Roman Empire was hardly an international organization. That is quite a stretch. The idea of the “nation/state”, key to the issue of international relations, is relatively recent (16th-19th century Europe). Today I am a Spanish citizen, but 2000 years ago I would have been a Roman citizen from the province of Hispania, like Trajan, Hadrian or Seneca. To a Roman, only Roman citizens have rights. With few exceptions (like the Greeks), the rest are barbarians to be conquered and "civilized". Although the idea of "ius gentium" was created by the Romans, it didn't develop into international law until 1780 when Bentham coined the word. Sorry about the length of this post.

[Biblestudent]

Connections certainly have been made between Saddam and Al-Quaida, but never proven. Can you point out any hard evidence that I may have missed? Are you suggesting that the UN Oil for Food program was used to finance some terrorist group? It’s true that terrorists cannot operate without money. But why suspect Saddam instead of someone in Saudi Arabia, a country with a much more direct connection with the Sept. 11 attackers?

Two meetings were mentioned between Hussein's government and Al-Quaida in the book Enemy Within. The informatioin is at World Net Daily. That is what the author suggests. The Saudi government has had a good relationship with many American administrations over the years. That they would be involved is unrealistic because of the wrath they would suffer for betrayal. Do you have any reason we should suspect them other than the terrorist's nationality?

In any case, the war should have been conducted differently. Toppling Saddam was in itself good, but it resulted in chaos. The American government had been warned about this possible chaos, but for some reason failed to take steps to prevent it.

How do you prevent what other people are going to do? The Global War on Terror must be fought at some point. The earlier the better. What decent nation doesn't want to eradicate systematized terrorism from the world? How and when would you do it?

But one thing is clear: they did not tell the public the whole truth and they played up the uncertainty of the intelligence

.

So you think they knowingly withheld information to start a war? Or they ignored information? Wilfully?

The idea that only Washington politicians are deceitful, while down-to-earth, born-again Texans are honest is a myth.

I understand all people have the capacity to lie, even "born-again" Texans as you put it, but the impression that the, yes, liberal media gives of George Bush is that he is a liar. All the while they praise Bill Clinton who told a bald-face lie to our entire country and the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. This is why I say our media is liberal. I,m interested to know if you distinguish between our democrat and republican parties, or do you see them as the same? Do you prefer one party over another?

It’s a sort of “manifest destiny” theory where they idealistically see themselves as exporters of democracy and civilization. Iraqis are seen as savages, so steps were not taken to avoid abuse and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib until pictures leaked out. Now, I sympathize with Western values and the US undoubtedly represents those values--although not always lives up to them. But this sort of idealism can be dangerous, and imposing democracy by force has always been a tricky business.

You know how we view Iraqis? You know we view them as "savages." Our troops give their lives for "savages." Come now.
Finally, the context came out on Abu Ghraib after the media interpreted the pictures for everyone for the first 6 months. Those men had caused a riot just prior to those pictures being taken. The pyramid is a common strategy so they wouldn't run. Also, they were naked so they would not be tempted to riot or escape, and the worst treatment they got was a woman pointing a finger and laughing at them? What about the terrorists who cut people's heads off? The problem I have is the constant emphasis on how bad a good Texan is who is trying his honest best to help people, and very little blame or emphasis is put on the terrorists.

Let’s not fence more land than we can plow here.

This is pretty good. Can I use it?

Our media generation has been liberal since the Vietnam War. They do not just report what happens. They have an agenda, and they promote it. A la Dan Rather.

The term “Axis of Evil” is a perfect example of loaded language, just like Reagan’s “Evil Empire” nickname for the USSR.

I'm sorry, but a Lenin based, Atheistic government is evil. What did it do for its people besides kill all who disagreed with them and ship them to Siberia?

No book interprets itself. All require an interpreter. The fact that the Bible admits many interpretations can be illustrated by looking at any American Phonebook. How many Christian denominations are there where you live? I bet they all differ in their interpretations of scripture.

By that I meant that it is harmonius. A person can understand it by reading it (Ephesians 3:4). Because the Bible has many interpretations is no fault of the Bible. Rather, it is ignorance, emotional attachment to deceased family members, apathy, etc. that causes people to remain divided since the great apostasy and reformation (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3) These cause the various denominations. The differences among these "Christian" groups involve contradictions, therefore either one is wrong or both are wrong. They are all sinful (1 Corinthians 1:10). The Bible speaks of one church and one faith (Ephesians 4:1-6, 13) not "many faiths" as you have pointed out that sadly, do exist everywhere.

The hermeneutic circle you allude to presents the problem of getting beyond the letter to the spirit, when we cannot interpret the letter unless we have a prior understanding of the spirit.

I don't know what you mean here.

The Roman Empire was hardly an international organization. That is quite a stretch. The idea of the “nation/state”, key to the issue of international relations, is relatively recent (16th-19th century Europe).

This is semantics to me, the principle regarding government was established by God. That was the apostles whole point. The principle Paul revealed applies to all government.

Dilettante, it has been a pleasure responding to you. I look forward to your response.

Scott

[bernee51]

It is a book of myth and metaphor for the same reason as the Koran, or the Bhagvad Gita. Do you claim it is not?

Wholeheartedly, based on reason and evidence.

By 'reason' do you mean logic or subjective opinion?

And evidence...I have had many christians make this claim but none to date have been able to supply any credible evidence that the bible, on the whole, is nothing more than myth and metaphor. As are all reliigious scriptures.

That I would not deny...what about you?

Ditto.

[bernee51]

And a Muslim would say that Islam is no real threat to people, except evil people.

I'm not pluralistic. Either Jesus or Mohammed was right. Both can't be.

A false dichotomy.

They could both be wrong.

The original thread asked if Christian doctrine approved of war. Romans 13:1-4 indicates clearly the authority given by God to government to excercise enforcement.

My question stands - how is it any different from the Koran?

In other words, how is a christian relying on biblical verse to justify the killing of another human being ant different to a muslim doing the same thing?

[potwalloper.]

Scott Perry wrote

I would be very interested in your definition of a terrorist.

It's not a freely elected leader sending his countries all-volunteer military into Iraq to liberate an oppressed people.

Well I am sure that there are a lot of Democrats in America who would disagree with your proposal that Bush was "freely elected" when he began to wage war on Iraq...however that is another issue.

Hitler was freely elected. The SS were volunteers. Freely elected Hitler sent his volunteer army into European countries in the second world war. I am not equating Bush with Hitler. What I am doing is saying that the concept of free election and volunteer armies does not convey any degree of respectability upon an aggressor nation.

Is all killing murder? Intent must be proven.

Unlawful killing is murder. The war on Iraq was unlawful. Bush intended to kill civilians when he ordered the attacks. You cannot argue otherwise - he knew at the point at which he ordered the invasion that the consequence of that action would be that American military action would result in the deaths of innocent men, women and children. He may not have pulled the trigger - despots rarely do - but he killed them as certainly as if he had personally shot each and every one of them through the temple.

I understand that civilian causalties are awful, but I have yet to hear from you what you would do regarding terrorists.

So - your young son has had both arms and both legs blown off by an American missile has he? You have witnessed your wife and your mother lying with their intestines spread across the floor of your house? You have waded through the blood of tiny children and picked up their blown off limbs? You've seen a pregnant woman shot through the stomach choke to death on her own blood?

You clearly have no idea about the scale of terror, misery and death caused by American action in Iraq - "awful" does not begin to describe it...

This issue is not about what I would do about terrorists - it is about the consequences of American action in a foreign state that took no aggressive action against America.

The problem of terrorism is a complex one and I do not pretend to have the answer. Perhaps an examination of the reasons why people feel the need to turn to such action would be a good first step - certainly the support by America of Israel's policy of systematic denial of basic human rights to the Palestinians would be a good place to begin. Your country supports a dictatorship in the middle-east and by so doing supports torture, murder and the disenfranchisement of Palestinians. Is it any wonder that other islamic nations resent you and that people in the middle-east hate you to the extent that they will give up their lives to damage American interests?

We are in the middle of a global war on terror. Do you think we can do this without fighting somewhere?

I keep hearing this phrase in the media and from politicians. Where is this global war on terror? Please, give me some evidence. There have been a small number of terrorist attacks. Yes people have died. But this is hardly a "war on terror".

Where are all of these terrible opponents? Are islamic people waiting to kill you? Where are these armies? Surely a "war" requires two opposing groups. So where are they?

There are a small number of extremists who are prepared to commit terrible acts of violence, that I will not deny. There always have been such people. There is no evidence that there is any "global terror network" in existence beyond the fictional statements made by politicians and built upon by the media.

You will say Bin Laden I suppose and mention training camps. A few training camps and a nutter don't constitute a war. Sorry but I just don't buy this myth about global terror. You are more likely to be killed by a coconut falling on your head than by terrorist action! Indeed more people died last year in the UK from traffic accidents than died in 9/11. Perhaps we need a global war on cars?

Can you not see that it is in the politician's interests to stir up this fear of terrorists and they certainly seem to have succeeded in your case...

You are including all deaths (Iraqi police officers who have volunteered, government officials killed by terrorists, etc. ) and you are blaming George Bush?

The site in question lists civilian deaths caused by your military action not deaths caused by terrorists.

All you can do is criticize a man and a country who wants nothing but for nations to be free like we are. What do you think made this country so great on its own, except captilistic freedom? We built this nation from scratch.

The key phrase here is "like we are". This attitude epitomises the American view that your way of life is right for everyone. Perhaps you won't be satisfied until there is a MacDonalds in every town, we all convert to Christianity, and we are all driven by capitalist greed?

It's not for oil. That is ridiculous. We get our oil from Mexico and Canada.Why would our soldiers spill their blood on foreign soil for something they don't believe in. Are they there for oil? Why was the Iraqi election turnout such a success if "everybody" knows George Bush is a terrorist?

Global oil production will peak in less than three decades. America's economy is dependent upon oil. The pressure of increasing oil consumption in China and India will only exacerbate the situation and the middle-eastern oil supply will become increasingly important as this occurs. America invaded Iraq for one reason only - oil.

If Saddam had been a dictator in charge of an African country with no oil reserves America would have taken no action. Why? Because there would have been no demonstrable economic benefit from such.

If an aggressive country invaded America, murdered large numbers of women and children, killed members of the Senate and the Congress, imprisoned your President and imposed martial law would you fight against them?
If you decided to fight against them would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

If I were oppressed by a tyrannical government and a stronger nation wanted to give me freedom for me to determine my own destiny?

So what if the country that came to free you was a communist state perhaps? What if it was the USSR that killed your "tyrannical government" and sought to apply their values of non-Christian belief and Communism to you? Would you still look upon them as heroes? And what if they had killed your child, your wife, your mother in the process?

The reason I give this example is to try to make you appreciate that your perception of the situation in Iraq may differ from the perceptions of Iraqis and other muslims.

Was Hussein's government a good government? Iraqis are free now to decide for themselves. Who made that possible?

Of course Saddam's regime was not a good regime. However I am doubtful whether or not you could call the Iraqis free. Free within your parameters of what is right and wrong, free as long as they meet American requirements, free as long as their faces fit. Freedom is open to interpretation - I certainly don't see the Iraqis as being free and doubt if they ever will whilst American influence prevents self-determination.

Were the French Resistance terrorists when they fought against the Nazi occupation of France?

To equate the U.S. government, people who gave millions of lives to liberate Europe, with the NAZI regime hardly deserves a response.

I gave this example to illustrate that the perception of who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter depends whose side you are on, not to equate the American invasion of Iraq with the Nazi occupation of France.

I am not, in any way, trying to defend the position of Saddam, however the facts are the facts. The classification of those within Iraq as terrorists, when they are fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion, appears to me to be purely arbitrary - you call them terrorists because they are fighting you. If they had been fighting the Russians in a similar situation(such as Afghanistan) you would have called them freedom fighters and supported them - as indeed the USA did when it supported Bin Laden in his conflict with USSR invaders.

Are you talking about Saddam's old army? Or who? Where are these "freedom fighters" that you are referring to? Why don't they go vote? They are free now. The way you present it, they were living in paradise until George Bush woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.

Once again this was to illustrate that just because you view those who are fighting Americans in Iraq as being terrorists does not mean that everyone does. To opponents of Americans in the middle-east they are seen as dying for their cause, as heroes and as martyrs.

I am not making any judgement here I am just trying to show you that there are diverse perceptions of this situation and it may help if you were, for a moment, to pretend that you were an Iraqi who is opposed to American occupation.

Of course Iraqis were not living in paradise. Many people do not live in paradise. People in the Sudan are being murdered daily (no oil), people in Zimbabwe are suffering terrible oppression (no oil) people in lots of countries without oil suffer oppression and America takes no action. Please don't cloak this cynically economic action in a disguise of altruism - I'm afraid the mask has slipped.

I find it ironic that you refer to Saddam gassing his citizens when the US gave him the technology to facilitate this when he had not yet fallen out of favour!

Did we force it on him, like we are "forcing" our freedom on the Iraqis?

You supported him while it was in your interests to do so. The word "hypocrisy" comes swiftly to mind.

Well...it would take rather a large number of terrorists to surround America.

That is exactly what would happen if we didn't deal with this now.

Once again where from? Please give me details of their fleets of warships, their fighters, their tanks, their bases. Or are you talking about cells of islamic terrorists hiding in dark corners in the USA just waiting to slit your throat in the middle of the night, or to kill millions of Americans in millions of suicide attacks. Get real - a few people does not equate to any threat in real terms.

It's not our oil. The oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, not us. Where do you get this? Michael Moore?

Well, Mr Moore says a lot of things that are uncomfortable for supporters of Bush to listen to. Perhaps if they listened to him they would stop accepting what politicians and the media say at face value.

When one country decides to replace the regime of another purely on the grounds that they have greater military power then we are on the slippery slope to dictatorship and imperialism.

Which resolution stated "America is invading Iraq "purely" on the basis of our military?"

The whole point is that there was no resolution. America justified its attack on the failure of Iraq to comply with previous resolutions. Israel has failed to comply with UN resolutions - I see no sign of America attacking Israel or even withdrawing support. Could be something to do with the fact that the Israelis are only oppressing muslims I suppose.

Ask people in Muslim countries who are the terrorists in Iraq - you would probably not like the answer...

I don't have to ask them. They showed me what they thought last Sunday on election day. Why don't you let the Iraqi's actions "speak" for themselves.

There are many muslims in countries other than Iraq. Try talking to them a little to appreciate their view on the American war on Islam, you would be surprised. I have many friends who are Muslims - they almost universally view America as an aggressor against Islam who is hiding that aggression behind the excuse of a war on terror.

Quote:
You are trying to impose your will and your values upon everybody. Period.

Our "will" is for the world to be free to make their own decisions. Christian values are what have made us great in the last 225 years.
I don't fall for the postmodern, pluralistic nonsense of our day. Everyone has the right to choose his religion, but all religions are not equally right.

So what you are saying is that America should take action to make the world free as you see it; free with your religion; free with your approach to the economy; free with your values.

May I be long dead before such a world is in place. Perhaps the strongest defence against the American approach to life is coronary heart disease?

Quote:
...and for "evil" read "Islamic" (as viewed by Americans)

Islam was established throughout the world by war. "Islam or the sword." I understand that there are moral, peaceful Muslims, but their founder was not.

So you do see Islam as evil.

Perhaps the war on Islam should be rebranded by your spin doctors as "The All New Crusades". Americans could make a film, rewrite history, do a violent computer game, and make a million dollars.

Quote:
In other words "might is right". Why not simply establish an American Empire and have done with it?

If by empire you mean freedom with free enterprise for all people, then we are certainly trying our best to help them.

And this would be the freedom that is expressed at Guantanomo Bay would it? The freedom that supported the torture and degradation of Iraqi prisoners? The freedom that allows a country with only 250 million people (out of 6 billion worldwide) to contribute 29% of the gases responsible for global warming and to refuse to sign up to Kyoto? The freedom that still supports the death penalty?

I'd rather be a prisoner thanks very much.