anybody who is for WAR.... supports war... encourages war.. promotes war...
Its redundant cause all supporters of war are war mongers....
what a wonderful place the world inside your mind must be. i hate to break it to you, but here in the real world i guess we're all warmongers according to your narrow definition of the term. violence and warfare in the name of this ideology are that seems to be the preferred method of expanding any particular point of view. granted; it is a rather primitive method, but this is a rather primitive world.
the fact that g.w. bush decided to to take on ALL terrorists, on MANY fronts instead of decisively meting out justice to those responsible is what makes him a warmonger.
....and how, exactly, do you go about killing the hydra? if one head bites you do you cut it off, allowing it to grow two more it its place? this is the first instance of a war waged against an enemy which has no particular home and, as such, there are no precedents to follow. it's probably a war that should have taken place covertly, but that's a big no-no these days.
by the way, 'preventative war' is a term invented by warmongers. it is a result of not having the good moral will or the evolved intellect to find a diplomatic solution.
i'm not sure poland would agree with you. though inflammatory rhetoric and saber rattling are pretty much par for the course, there comes a time when it is rather obvious that war is in the offing.
there is this strange notion going 'round these days that everyone will respond to good intentions. i'm sorry, but it just ain't so. it would be nice if everyone was so
enlightened, but the truth of the matter seems to be that there are those who would rather force their ideology on others than discuss things rationally.
No you're wrong. We would still be at war if religion didn't exist. This is a war for money not religious beliefs.
wouldn't it be nice if it were all that simple?
there is almost always an odd mixture of money, power and ideology behind war. of course there is money to be made in war, but few are so callous that they would cause the deaths of thousands for what can be plundered by more nonviolent means. this war, like so many others, is a clash between ideological imperialisms. both sides seem to see the
truth and, when the future of the world is at stake, there can be no middle ground. both sides see this as a war for survival, as expansion is always equated with survival, and neither side is capable of realizing the falsities behind their own rhetoric. it is quite easy to paint the stronger of two combatants as the aggressor, but it would appear that in this case both sides are to blame. both sides and the underlying illusion of
truth.
but back to the question at hand:
if christianity can be considered an offshoot of judaism (which it quite obviously is), then jesus would have to be as pro-war as his warrior predecessors. the abrahamic creeds all share a peculiar lust for conquest and expansion and have seldom shied from bloodshed to attain their goals. though the gospels may pay lip service to the ideals of peace and forgiveness, there is always an underlying theme of intolerance toward unbelievers and an attitude of elitism that inevitably leads to considering those of other faiths to be slightly beneath the conventions of behavior followed within the society of the faithful.
