Does Nazi Germany though? The point is eliminating state sponsors of terror and disrupting the terror network, not policing thought. Yeah, we have commies in our universities, but they aren't immediate threats like the Soviets were. Yes there are skinheads, but they're not sinking our ships with U-boats. I think a little context is needed here.
The UN can deem whatever it wants. It's a body of dictatorships, socialists, terrorist states, and anti-semitic leadership. Yeah, it's illegal if you believe Kofi Annan, the most corrupt Secretary-General in history. Otherwise it's completely justifiable taking into account United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 671, 674, 677, 678, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 692, 699, 700, 705, 706, 707, 712, 715, 773, 778, 806, 833, 899, 986, 1111, 1115, 1129, 1134, 1137, 1143, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1194, 1205, 1210, 1241, 1243, 1266, 1275, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1302, 1330, 1352, 1360, 1382, 1409, 1441, 1443, 1447, 1454, 1476, 1483, and so on.
We really don't get that much support. The leading nine countries combined only have 29,860 troops in, well under even half what the US has there. Those nine BTW are the only ones that have sent at least 1,000 troops in. You know how many troops Austria has in Afghanistan to "support" us? Four. Not four hundred, not four thousand, just four. You know who we get the most support from? Afghanistan itself, which has over 90,000 troops protecting its country and fighting alongside us. Of our biggest allies, France is refusing to send more, Canada is going to pull out, the British want a pullout date, and only the Australians and Poles are reliably sticking around.
It amazes me how people ask "what are we fighting for in Afghanistan" like an open-ended question, like it's just as unanswerable as "why are we here?" How can anyone not possibly know why we're in Afghanistan?
...What do you think we're doing? We're not fighting the Chinese over there.
No, just historicity. We were able to invade Afghanistan, connect with the Northern Alliance (the opposition of the Taliban), overthrow the Taliban, secure Afghanistan's gas pipelines and resources, rebuild a stable government, introduce democracy, and put the terrorists on the run and into hiding. The Soviets faced constant struggles through their nine years of war and left with their tails between their legs, demoralized, embarrassed, and with tens of thousands of casualties. We gave them their own little Vietnam. We on the other hand haven't even reached nine hundred casualties in eight years and have made many advances.
Uhh, I know I don't want to live under a one world government, and I'm sure most people don't. Global trade, good. Global governance, not at all. It's understandable that Pakistan wants to defend its borders; think of how many Americans are pissed about our open borders. The problem is that we're not the invaders, the terrorists are; we're allies and still Pakistan is resistant to allowing us to be more involved in the mountains. That's the problem. They're allies and yet not the most cooperative. Granted most of their people literally support al-Qaeda over the US and the government faces a lot of internal opposition to taking on Islamists. It's complicated.
War will always exist, and honestly, while it's not pretty it's often a necessary tool of nations and people to settle disputes. As a Christian I can't in good conscience support the abolition of war. Rather, it is the just war we should advocate and the unjust war we should oppose.
The hostility probably goes back to the Reformation era. Honestly that's a cultural difference that those people can choose to reconcile on their own; it really isn't my concern. I really can't say much about the Irish other than I dig them not having a high corporate tax.
No, we're just soldiers doing our job, and that job happens to be executing war and killing our enemies. We're not being taken advantage of; we're doing our job and following our contractual obligations to our country, Constitution, and people.
Unpleasant an answer as it might be, the answer is obvious- justice doesn't always prevail and the weak will die. As for America's enemies? They're going to die too, and hopefully as quickly as possible. There's a right and a wrong, and while someone with a different world view might disagree on what right and wrong are, that's not going to stop an M16 from blowing holes in their chest cavities after they tried attacking a convoy. I'm not a moral relativist. Evil is evil, regardless of what some seventh century barbarians in the mountains of Pakistan think. Either murder is wrong everywhere, or it's not wrong at all.
War isn't about fairness, and neither is life. Fairness is a relative concept, and justice and morality aren't relative.
Yes. You and many others, myself included, were blessed by God and should thank Him every dang chance available for being born free men. And God bless those souls not as lucky.
Nobody is innocent. Perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time. And yes, death comes to the terrorist even if he's only pointing an AK-47 because his parents didn't hug him enough.
Yes you would, it's the human condition.
Ah, Deism. I used to be a Deist as well. However I soon drifted from it realizing a fallacy in my thinking. What kind of God creates yet cares not for his creations? I then saw that it was obvious that any god would care about the condition of his creations and became more open to the interventionist god. Regardless, my God is a law giver, and just as the stars and heavens follow laws so too must mankind. And those morals are universal and trump all tribal instincts. God's law above the law of the jungle. And if morals here are different than in Communist China, that doesn't make both equal, it makes one right and the other wrong.
That's what we call the state of nature. It's where natural rights, or God-given rights, originate. Man was created free and thus should live as such.
Never said God willed people poor or wants them so.
It's actually more about Americans and Afghans fighting Islamists.
Usually as a show of allegiance, or a symbol of national service.
Well if a child is wrong upon birth, then yeah I'm guessing jungle pagans are too. <=/
That has to seriously be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. Is your view of the world really that black and white? Just because you believe that your views are better than another's, doesn't make yours right and theirs wrong. There are probably ideals in both parties that are just as good, and surely a mixture of the two can at least possibly lead to a better quality of life, which is what morals are about are they not?
Oh please. Do you even know what ignorant means? Everyone and their mother uses that word to describe anything and everything they don't like or agree with. "If you don't agree with X, Y, or Z then you're ignorant!" "You think ___? You're ignorant!" I'm lacking very little in understanding that part of the world, especially considering I'm a soldier and historian. Seriously, take that elsewhere.
Yes. There's a right and a wrong, and no in between. There's no gray. I know that's hard for supporters of moral ambiguity to support, but not me.
Ugh, so what you're saying is, my opinion is my opinion. I'll never understand the need for people to point the obvious out to people (that their position is an opinion) in an effort to validate every other opinion. As if I'm speaking for everybody else.
This is called moral relativism, and it's a meaningless attempt to validate backwards societies and cultures and put them on the same level as civilized society. All cultures are not equal, the mere idea is ludicrous.
No. Morals are principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. That's it. Right and wrong are the criteria for morals, not relative ideals.
If by confession you mean that stuff with priests? No, that's not biblical at all, it's just something made up and passed down by Catholic tradition; I'm a Protestant and stick to what the Bible teaches, so faith alone is the path to salvation.
Well, since we're born into sin because of man's transgressions, I'd hardly call it unfair. It's a consequence really.
Well if by extremists you mean murders or something, I guess. Fundamentalist though? All that means is that you believe what the Bible says, so really every Christian should be a fundamentalist. To not be one is to deny major doctrines of the faith, thus not really being a part of it.
Suppose you've been convicted of treason, and the punishment is the death of one of your children (you have multiple children). Which child's life should be taken? If the world was as black and white as the moral absolutists claim, there would be a clear-cut solution. I certainly can't think of one, though.
There are so many logical fallacies present here it's overwhelming. I'm not sure if this qualifies as an Argumentum Ad Speculum, a Straw Man, Misleading Vividness, Many Questions, or Argumentum Ad Temperantiam. Regardless, you've created a ridiculous hypothetic situation in which you've presupposed that the black and white is choosing Child A or Child B. That presupposition is the imploding factor of your hypothetical, because no Christian is ever to sacrifice a life, especially a child. Assuming this was me, which you've suggested, I'd make a plea to the established authority to take my life instead. This whole situation is also rediculous because it's pressuming I'd commit treason. It assumes that I'm willing to commit treason against my country but also care about my children.
Politicians
XDI meant extremism in more in terms of the extent to the belief, because even though they are two different denominations, there are some similarities.
Gah! I had a good question I was going to ask (an open one), but now I forget it... It has something to do to some extent about Original Sin (and the first quote).
And yet, with today's judicial system being completely strict to the letter of the law, the authority would probably turn down your plea and reassert the question: which child dies?
Or that someone is willing to have you falsely convicted. That part was mostly irrelevant; the point was what choice do you make in a no-win situation, not whether the situation would arise in your particular case.
