Originally Posted by Joeiss

So, by sinning, you are creating good?

I thought you were a harcore Christian man....

Originally Posted by BigJustinW

Think about it, if Jesus Christ just got his head chopped off like he was a normal man instead of being nailed to the cross do you think his story would have had just as big of an effect on people?

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Let's try not to turn this into a religious debate. We've had too much of those in the past few months. Besides, its off topic anyway.

Anyway...

About in a war you have to use nukes and A-bombs, etc. to show the other country that they shouldn't "F" with us is just plain wrong. All that is is bullying only to an extent where millions of people would be killed.

War is not always just countries at each other's throats wanting to wipe each other out. This war in particular was not a war with Iraq as a whole but with Saddam's regime. Nuking the place not only would have made the war much larger than it would have to be (it would almost certainly draw other countries into the mix) but it would have also killed countless numbers of the people we were trying to save.

Thinking that war is just a school yard fight where the sole goal is to hurt the other guy as much as possible in any way possible is naive. Its people thinking things like that that will lead to nuclear war and holocaust.


*shrugs and walks away*

Originally Posted by Rndm_Perfection

Yaaay... religious remarks.

I'll try responding to this from a few viewpoints.


Christian:
Jesus is a very, very important part of our religion. It matters not how he died, but the fact that he did die for mankind's sake. He was the ultimate martyr.

Skeptic:
What makes you sure he was nailed to a cross? The bible wasn't written by the hand of God, but rather by humans. Humans definately listen to the will of God, but as you can see by the actions of some "Christians", they do not yield to the word of God entirely. There could've been some glorifying of Jesus' death.

Non-Christian:
How would that be possible? Man created Jesus as the ultimate martyr and role model. He could not "sin"... he was a flawless quasi-human. When designing Jesus, man made sure he could create the biggest impact possible. Fiction is created a way for a reason. Perhaps this should not be discussed in this forum.

Christian "Scientist" (aka: uncertain but wishes for "accuracy"):
There's a fairly good chance that being hung on a cross wasn't as obscure as you imagine at the time. Mayhaps regular "thieves" would be nailed to a cross... in fact, weren't there others with him nailed to a cross? Beheading, I imagine, wasn't a very common method of execution at the time.

Choose your pick =¬Þ, I really don't care which one you imagine I'd say. Based on my mood, I could've straight out said any of them and "meant" it.

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

We definately needed to do something in Japan, but dropping that bomb was a bad idea in my opinion.

In Hiroshima, there were 120,000 casualties. 60,000 of which were deaths. That was out of a population of slightly over 200,000. It was mass murder. It wasn't to get to a specific target, it was just to flex some muscle and get some revenge. We could have done that without killing so many innocents.

That was a good find ZeroCooler. I particularly liked the point this one brought up.

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

The major theme of argument I’m going to use here is, “why now”.

1) 1.5 million Iraqi’s dead? Where did you get this number? I’m not discrediting you, but the highest I could find from an official government source (or any) was here: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/
It clearly states 340,000; which is definitely a huge number. But that was from 1980-1988. Not anytime recently. There’s no arguing that this guy needed to be nailed, but why all of the sudden?

2) That’s absolutely true. But how has that changed anything recently? It hasn’t.

3) There’s a lot more than 1,000 tons missing (http://armedservices.house.gov/press.../IraqiWMDs.pdf). But again, it’s been a while. I understand that we needed to go after this guy, but what was the urgency? Osama Bin Laden attacked us much more recently, and he suddenly took a back-seat to Saddam.

4) I’ve actually already reviewed that article, and it’s a great find. But we didn’t find this memo 9 months ago. We found it now. If we had found it 9 months ago, this would be a damn valid reason for having dropped (or shifted) the matter at hand (Bin Laden). But we didn’t, and it’s not.

Who are you to judge what I know? You know what I hate? People who think they know what’s best for everybody else; people who shove their beliefs down other people’s throats. Ignorance is a sin, yes. It is up to us to educate ourselves, but beyond that there’s so much more. Just because you know what is going on doesn’t make your plan of action right. There are so many different ways to deal with every situation. That’s why we have a democracy. Not a dictatorship. Saddam was a dictator; what are you?

Look, it's obvious that we aren't going to agree on this topic. So let's just agree to disagree. Enough with the debating.

Originally Posted by ZEROCOOLER

We should not have even had to go in and take him out of power this time, the first Bush should've done it. Every American that is killed over there now is on Bush senior's hands.