Replies

I don't know Hank that well, but perhaps he is a pacifist/conscientious objector.

I am not a pacifist. I am totally opposed to war, but believe, if one feels their country is directly threatened by another, and their participation militaily will actually defend it, they are obligated by their own moral code to fight.

My post was with regard to military action against Iraq, and against those rabid warmongers that cannot see that sending American boys (and that is all most of them are) to die in such a war is immoral, because Iraq is no threat to this or any other country at this time. My point was, I do not want to see any die for this absurd purpose, especially those who think this is a good way of ending "terrorism."

Hank

So, then, your statement can be seen in the context of "If they're so anxious to fight a war, let their children be first to die." If that's the case, I have no trouble with your right to say the same.

I do disagree. I think Iraq is a deadly threat. It is primarily so because its leadership is insane and highly capable of possessing the most dangerous of weapons of mass destruction.

In my ideal world, we would find a way to take out the leadership of Iraq and leave the people uninjured.

My point was, I do not want to see any die for this absurd purpose, especially those who think this is a good way of ending "terrorism."

You sure picked one heck of a way to prove your "point." Openly wishing for others' children to die in defense of this nation? That's really amazing.