Red Amor in gray

theres a heap a good Aussies got ya back overthere mate and the poms and the rest of the un guys
ask ya to give them a hand to mate please yeah

Everyone fighting Islam's terrorists is in my prayers.

I'll send a Thank You to the Aussies via Red. I've worked down south with the Australian Army Units and have been very impressed with the lot. No Poofta's here (Red Will Understand).

hoofnhound wrote:Alison,

It is actually fairly easy to understand. Any time you can generate a fanatical belief that your religion (dogma) is right and nobody else’s is valid you create a mindset that is ripe for the mental jump to killing. This is clothed in all kinds of mentally and emotionally acceptable terms, like faith, patriotism, race loyalty, etc... But it is much the same regardless. I mention this lest we fail to be vigilant against adoption a fanatic fervor in our own belief systems.

We program solders to kill the enemy and tell them it is ok just like the other folks. The big difference between us and them is we also program those same solders to not kill when no threat exists. There are some very interesting texts on moral war available. The deliberate killing innocent, by any means, is not acceptable morally in any cir***stance.

Onya Buckie Mate

Im sure that right Tom , thankyou Mate ay

The short answer to your question (which Ron answered well) is nihilism; when more value is placed on what lies beyond, be it Paradise, heaven, or in the case of the Nazi's a racially pure reich, it is very easy to negate the value of the here and know, even the value of human life. I would not even call it a short slippery slope, as the perpetrators of these atrocities do not value thier own lives, ergo can not be expected to value any other life. They should be handled like a vicious rabid dog with a record of biting children: killed quickly at the first sign of aggresion.
JMO,
Jason

Just found this thread.
I'll never forget just as I was getting out of range of the AM stations (six in the morning west coast), the sports station I had on said that ANOTHER air plane had just hit the WTC. I hadn't heard about the first one.
Switched to FM and the local alternitive rock station had the DJ's wife on the phone reporting what she saw on TV. She gasped, saying the building is falling. He asked if she meant the top had fallen off.
What a crazy political world we live in where Osama blasts the Dems for not getting out soon enough and Kerry replies that they can't because they don't have sixty votes yet.
Fortunatly there are still some grownups out there to run things and people like Guy and you others who serve.
Thank you all.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
Who's definition of "moral" should we use?..."moral war"...that's funny.

Jason Maki wrote:
When more value is place on any thing than on human life, it's easy to rationalize the taking or sacrifice of that human life. Whether it's in the "beyond " or the "here and now", makes no difference.

Just the other day, I heard President Bush say that the mission in Iraq is worth the cost...how many have we lost now? Worth it to who?

Mike,
with all due respect, the real question is "How many have been saved?"...
Jason

I understand that everyone has right to their opinion and I haven't been to Iraq. Here in Afghanistan I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of the population is thankful, people in the US have no perspective of the horrors that have faced the citizens here and Iraq. You cannot sit in your nice house, eat good food, have freedom to come and go as you wish and begin to understand what these people have been through. In 18 months here I have seen a noticable change in the population, less burkas, more smiles and an infrastructure that may support stability. How do you put a price on that?

...or downplay the sense of taking the fight to the enemy, and fighting the war on HIS lands, using the enemies resources to protect his interests, not attack our homeland. The War on Terror has many faces and many fronts, but if we can create an environment where people are permitted to be free, and be responsible for themselves in a place they can love, they will be far to busy living to attack us for doing the same. essentially brave men and women such as Mr. Buck are teaching these people to be selfsufficient while damaging the cause of those who benefit from their poverty and ignorance. A simple concept which has somehow alluded those in the media and most politicians. This will be a fifty year war; if it is not fought now on our terms it will be fought on their terms on our land.
Jason

Mike Ferrara wrote:Mike,

The concept of moral war has been and is debated amongst religious and military leaders in more depth than I could elaborate. The Jesuits seem to take the lead in the debate at times. Yews it seems oxy*****ic but it is actually quite practical. Perhaps you should expand your knowledge base and do a touch of research. The concepts of moral war are taught to US military personnel in the normal course of their training, even if it is not termed moral war, for two primary reasons. First, it teaches them how to comply with the Geneva Conventions. Second, it helps in some small way to deal with the emotional trauma of killing. The last debate I saw was on PBS about ten years ago and the US Army was represented by a bird Colonel from a Range Division.

Jason Maki wrote:
That is a good question.

Jason Maki wrote:
It's going to be a 50 year war anyway unless we just give up and leave. Most of the middle east has been nothing but a bunch of waring tribes for the last few thousand years.

Fight the enemy on his ground? Great idea, all we have to do is figure out who the enemy is.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
The Geneva Conventions make a war moral?
If you want some interesting reading, read this http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm