Peaseniks make a PUBLIC SHOW of being against WAR, but not a word
against the the wicked ruler we fight against. Nor do they demonstrate
against the greater number of purpusful killing that this brutal ruler
commits.  Would Peaceniks have demonstrated against God for making war
against the Philistines or the Amalekites.  God is the King of Peace
but He made the very first war on record.  In heaven of all places. 
If it is true that all that is required for wickedness to prevail is
for good men to do nothing, then Peaceniks are worse than evil,
because they are acolites to the wickedness of Saddam.

What is evil? 

For most of us, who believe our beliefs to be pure, anything that is
the opposite must be evil. But we get confused - most who we consider
to be evil have the same general beliefs as ourselves. But there are
some side issues in which we have different opinions, and from those
we find the easy label of evil.

If history had turned out slightly different, we may have seen Russia
invading the USA to free the Americans from the oppression of
democracy. At least (unlike the never found "proof' of weapons of mass
destruction) they could point out that nearly 2% of adult Americans
are in prison, and America executes more prisoners each year than the
rest of the world put together.

There is no evil. Just a few screwed up men (who happen to be
politicians) trying to redeem or validate themselves, because
something was lacking in their upbringing. For example;

George Bush Jr. (Shrub)
-----------------------

1) Daddy gave me an oil company to run, and it was the only one to go
broke in all of Texas

2) Daddy has always told me I'm useless

3) Daddy went to war with Iraq and called it a draw with an evil
dictator

4) Iraq has oil, and I can show folk that I know all about the oil
industry

5) If I defeat Iraq this is my big chance to show Dad that I am a son
to be proud of...

-----------------

Saddam is most likely just a product of his upbringing, with a touch
of chemical imbalance... Assigning a Biblical title of "evil" to him
is a touch simplistic.

The day the USA government liberates Burma, I'll cheer for them.

You deserve top rating for exposing your reputation for a lousy two dollars.

To whom do you refer when you write "God is the King of Peace but He
made the very first war on record"?

I don't recall where Jesus made a war so I am curious to which God you
are referring.

In my bible, it very clearly and without ambiguity states that "thou
shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods"
amongst a whole lot of other things including "do unto others as you
would have them do unto you". I saw a terrific cartoon recently that
showed an image of God with His head in His hands saying, "What part
of 'Thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?!"

If you can possibly interpret these fundamental beliefs to say that
you *can* kill and you *can* acquire others' property, then, honey,
you're trying too hard and, quite possibly, deluding yourself that you
must be "good" and everyone else must be "evil". This is not a
Hollywood movie and we (Western society) aren't always the good guys
and they (everyone else) are not necessarily the bad guys in this.

The millions of people throughout the world who participated in the
peace marches did NOT do *nothing*. They conveyed their message of a
preference for peace rather than condone a war against the citizens of
Iraq. They were cynical of the reasons for this war. They were also
quite clear in their contempt of Saddam and his vile regime.

So what has happened? Well, no weapons of mass destruction have been
found, but, as we have seen, many innocents have been killed and
maimed. Saddam? Where is he? Did we *show him* or did we use our
weapons of destruction against the citizens who had already suffered
under his regime -- and from our economic sanctions. This was not a
smart war. Saddam could have been taken out at any time in the last
decade if that was what was required. Leaders of Christian religions
(eg The Pope) have been very clear in their views that this war was
wrong.

Me? I don't feel like a Pharisee, although it must be said that self
righteousness and hypocrisy are pretty thick on the ground at present,
no matter where you stand. I don't believe that, to quote you, I am
"worse than evil". I believe that to seek a peaceful resolution to a
problem proves that we are an intelligent society, ergo I feel
despairing of our democratic and Christian society while gullible
people with little knowledge and bellicose agendas take certain parts
of the bible and the Christian belief system and use them to justify a
war for oil -- and to hate others in the name of, for heaven's sake,
God.

Finally, when the brave men and women who were sent to fight this war
come home again (safely, please God)I shall cheer them because they
did a job they were beholden to do. It is up to our leaders to make
wise and learned decisions when it comes to waging war. That is why, I
believe, that these particular leaders have let us all down so badly.
Can anyone accuse George Dubbya of being wise and learned? I don't
think so!

Remember, peace is a good thing.

Um...a deceptively simple but important correction. The Bible (looking
at the more accurate translations, not the washed-down, politically
correct ones) says that we shouldn't "murder." "Killing" is often
something quite different from "murder." In fact, in that same Old
Testament, God told the Hebrews to wage war rather frequently, and
made no bones that they should kill their enemies.

Just something to chew on.

kriswrite

Dear Journaist, am I reading you correctly, intaht if I could only
answer this question, you would be accepting of the rest of my
observation?

Dear KrisWrite, you are wright, deserning folk do know the difference
between killing and murder.  If the Bush and America haters could only
let go of the venom, they would see that, at its worst America cannot
be compared to the regime of Saddam. If some are having dificulty with
the word evil, how about "wicked", or maybe these are just what I call
cantankerous contrarians.
Why don't I just spoon feed them with what the "great" Saddam is known
to have done, and let them find the expression to define him.  My
friend Barry Farber says that, intelegent people don't let manner
SPOIL MEANING.  Quibbling over what to call Jack the Ripper while he
continues to do his deeds, is exactly what pharasees do. Make a show
of the letter of the law, or in this case the language, while avoiding
the crux of the matter, as in man building 100 palaces while babies
die from hunger, man gassing; torturing; raping...

Dear StressedMum,

It is said that "even reasonable men can dissagree" and I say but
"FANATICS dissagree without reasoning". It is written "studdy to show
thyself approved"

Now, I do understand that you did not originate the rampant idiocy,
that we are sacrificing "lives for oil".  One should not follow others
like sheep going over a cliff.

If we did covet their oil as the idiots say, then how come we don't
take the oil that is much closer to us.  The Venezualan oil for
instance would be easier to take and than Saddam's oil, not to mention
easier to transport.
We could have kept the oil after the Gulf War couldn't we?

If AMERICA-HATERS don't have the horse-sence to use the immediate past
behavor of America in Gulf, to predict our current intent, then it is
clear that our HOUSE-ENIMIES are militating against us from the
inside.  I believe they call that  PLAYING POLITICS.
 
Even though I am a poor, black registered (JFK inspired) Democrat, I
take particuar pride in employing TOUGH LOVE in my evaluation of the
platform and character of the candidates to whom I give my vote and
confidence.  I said the above as a spring-board to say: it seems clear
that folk are taking leave of their sense of fair-play under the
euphemism known as "playing politics".  There is no such thing as
"PLAYING POLITICS".  If we failed to DEMONSTRATE in the streets when
our party (DEMOCRATS) drop the bombs, then we are either DISHONEST or
STUPID, if we demonstrate against the same actions by the opposition,
not "PLAYING POLITICS".  When Dashiell, comes out for certain actions
against Saddam under Clinton then does a complete 180 degree under
Bush, this is not POLITICS, this is either STUPIDITY or VENALITY.

As a TOUGHlover, I sincerely hope those who make the false "BLOOD FOR
OILL" contention, wiil follow the Japanese model and commit mass
harikari in shame, when they are proven wrong.  Less you hasten to
declear me blood-thirsty or arrogate to yourself the protection of the
first amendment, may I point out that the first amendment does not
afford absolute right to say anything we want.  It does not allow us
to reveal state-secrets nor shout fire in a crowded theatre.  If our
speaking-out falsly or stupidly, cause more people to die, than
otherwise would have, as with the Vietnam war "MORATORIUM", then the
parties responsible for these outcome should remove themselves from
being in a possition to repeat such wicked or stupid deeds.  I hope
all those Vietnam war moratorium demonstrators never have a decent
night's sleep on account of the millions of people that were
slaughtered because we pulled out of that war.

It puzzels me how otherwise well-thinking-people who have no dificulty
 deciding between good and evil, fails miserably when they are called
upon to decide between two evils.  By the way don't wax philosophical
about the true "Biblical definition of evil", that's the trademark of
the Pharasees, splitting hairs regarding precise word meaning, while
people are slaughtered.

Ponder the following two situation where many people fall flat on
their faces: 1. you are in the World Trade, on 9-11. You have to
decide between the  evil of burning to death or the evil of
splattering 90 stories on the ground below by jumping.  One evil is
clearly less than the other.  2 In the case of the evil of killing
some inocent Iraqis in cluding some of our own, versus the evil of
letting Saddam continue to slaughter his own people, it is also clear
that even if we killed more than he killed, stopping him, it would
still be the lesser evil.  Why? because that would stop him from
killing any more in the future.  Not to mention the fact that he would
always be gunning for us if he remained in power.

America has to remember that, "IT IS WRITTEN" that when ever it become
necessary to stop evil, it must be thourow, we cannot leave any
remnant to come back and reak revenge in the future.  If I recall
correctly, the passage reads: "if you harm a man, you must do it so
completely that you no longer fear his revenge".

It is a confounded FANATIC who sticks his head in the sand and calls
for peace, when all around him, there are "wars and rumors of wars"
brewing.  It is "blasphemy" for the PIECENIKS to try to counteract
God's prophecy.  If God says there SHALL be wars, then who are they to
change his plan?

Incidentally the first war was in heaven, against satan and his host,
and ever since the place have been peaceful.  Just goes to show, that
nothing keeps the peace like a "good" war.  We have herd the
expression "war to end all wars"?  This is only true if the good guys
win.  Good by the way, does not mean perfect, less America Haters like
RobertSkelton-ga, find a skeleton in our closet.  Incidentally, if I
read RobertSkelton-ga correctly he is saying that American Democracy
needs to be rescued by Russia? He is also not able to call putting
people in meat grinders, creating official rape-shops, cutting peoples
toungs out and the numerous tortures that Saddam engage in, evil. 
Well Mr. Skelton would you countenance the label: wicked?  You could
only conclude that a man like Sadam is not EVIL if you yourself are
evil.  When it comes to pass that we have left Iraq without the oil, I
hope you do the honerable thing, the Japanese solution.