Got this in an email yesterday and was a tad shocked. Personally, I think she's gone a bit too far with this one. In my opinion Rosie is now right below President Bush on my list of "people that are becoming harder and harder for me to defend."

We're not killing people in the name of Jesus Christ. We aren't working in the name of God. We are working in the name of democracy...whether we are right or wrong, it's not for religious reasons that we are there.


O'Donnell on ABC: 'Radical Christians' no different than murderous radical Muslims


ABC's Rosie O'Donnell told a nationwide audience this week that "radical Christians" are the same as radical Muslims who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers, who chop off the heads of individuals and who bomb innocent children in suicide attacks. O'Donnell made her comments as host of ABC's "The View."

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state," O'Donnell said. She had been saying that America was attacked "not by a nation." She continued: "And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people." Even her liberal co-hosts were shocked by her comments.

Co-host Joy Behar protested that Christians are not trying to impose mass murder on America. "This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us." Replied O'Donnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"

O'Donnell was saying there is no difference between the radical Muslims who kill in the name of Allah and Bible-believing Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus.

Neither O'Donnell nor ABC apologized for the comments. Had she made similar comments about minorities or homosexuals, there would have been an apology, and she would have probably been fired.

The message from ABC is that bashing Christians is acceptable, even comparing them with murderers who kill in the name of Allah.

:no so distasteful to bite the hand that geeds you. :no

I liked her when she had her own show...I'm not that happy with her on The View though. She has stuck her foot in her mouth too many times IMO. :no

Do you think she's going for the "shock jock" type of appeal?? I just don't understand why she's said so many of the things she's already said, unless she's trying to turn it into "Let's watch the view and see what kind of garbage Rosie spews today..."

:dunno

I don't watch it anymore, haven't seen it since she came on. I just hear things like "Have puppies lick your baby's butt for diaper rash" and "Radical Christians are no different than Radical Muslims" through the grapevine.

she's disgusting. :no i can't believe ABC isn't apologizing.

"Have puppies lick your baby's butt for diaper rash"

WTF is that???? I think she has really turned into a piece of work since her show got cancelled and her magazine and stuff. It seems like ever since she "came out" she has been bitter and sour to the puclic.

I don't know why she's doing it, but she isn't making her apperance on TV look good. She was kind of out of the public eye for a few years, and now that she's back she's making herself look like an ass.

I can actually see where she should be coming from in making the statement of radical Christians. There are :quote Christians :quote who bomb abortion clinics, kill the doctors who work there, etc all in the name of God.
Did she actually mean it in that context, probably not. Any generalization on a religion should not be made, regardless if it is Christianty or the Muslim religion. There are excpetions to EVERY religion.
She has taken it way to far, her views of religion are incredibly skewed. :rolleyes
I've never been a fan. :no

WTF is that????

Um...yeah it was disturbing...I saw the footage on a news clip. Elizabeth's baby had a bad diaper rash. Rosie said "I have kids and the pediatrician told me to do this...it works!" and said to take your baby to somebody that has puppies, let the puppies lick their butt because apparently there's some sort of antiseptic in puppies mouths. And that's supposed to clear up the diaper rash. I couldn't believe it either. I'm not taking my baby over to a friends house so the puppy can lick her butt. That's what triple cream ointment is for. Or desinex. Or you know...cornstarch...baby powder...things that NORMAL people use. That was last week. Now this this week. Maybe next week she'll say that the Pope has 4 illegitimate children.

I reeeeally dont want to be jumped on for saying this, but I agree with her. :scared The US were attacked by a terrorist group, and the response was to invade 2 countries. Al Qeada was not in power at the time - it was a terrorist group. The US could have at least tried to find a way to cooperate with the leading powers of Afghanistan to find them but it didn't. Instead it invaded Iraq. And during the time, Bush did declare the war on terror in the name of God (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html).

Either way, O'Donnell, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion. :dunno

well dogs really do have antiseptic in their spit--that's why they lick their own wounds. but rosie is nuts

That's just crazy. We did not take innocent lives in the name of God. The hijackers took control of those airliners and crashed them in the name of Allah. The people on those planes and in those buildings were INNOCENT people. They were not in the military, they were not part of an illegal militia, and they were not part of a terrorist network.

I am not certain of what Rosie’s intention was or what she was equating it to but perhaps she was referring to the fact that there are extremist in both Christianity and Muslim religions. Christians have a long history of violence and battles brought about in the name of the Lord. It does not necessary reflect the religion itself but the extremist within that religion. How many people were murdered because they would not convert to Christianity in previous centuries? How many people were enslaved and/or murdered in the name of the Lord because they were not of “pure race” (i.e. extremist groups like KKK and individuals acting on their own…slave-owners, etc.) ? Another good point brought up …how many people were murdered in the name of the Lord outside of abortion clinics? They are killing in the name of the Lord because they believe that God has compelled them to rid the world of people who go against their God and his principals.. My point is….radical or extreme “Christians” have had a long history of murder and torture … all in the name of the Lord. Many battles have been waged and many men, women and children have be murdered and or died in the name of the Lord. It is certainly not specific to this generations bout with terrorism or any religion in particular. I would say, however, that her statement could be considered an accurate statement…depending on how you read into.

I would read up on the history of violence in Christianity. Its very interesting.

Radical Christians yes... Unfortunately I find it hard to actually name people who do things like that as Christian.

I for one DO NOT believe in a God who could condone killing innocent people or torturing them just because he felt like it. There was a good article in the newspaper about things like this yesterday.

And as for us killing people in the Middle East, it bothers me but they are killing just as many of their own people as we are.

I don't think that muslims condoned what occurred in 09-11, nor do I think it is part of their religion. I believe Rosie's main point may have been (and I could be wrong) is that the 9-11 event (and current war) was/are headed by extremist ... who claim a certain religion or movement. This can be equated to various other extremists who claim to be a part of religions or movements (such as Christianity). Some forms of relgious violence and terrorism are not as direct as apparent as say...a plane going into a building, however, no less significant (i.e. massive KKK killings/individual lynching in the name of the Lord, Hitlers crusaide and mass murder in the name of the Lord). There are extremists to any religion and we know that they do not represent the entire relgion so it would be accurate to say that you can compare christian and muslim extremists. You may not see today's Christians throw a plane into a building of another country but innocent lives have been lost to our own homegrown terrorism. Radicals exist everywhere...just because they don't all use "shock an awe" to get their point across, does not make them any less of a threat...to some extent. These are just some other viewpoints to think about with respect to why she may have made the comparison of extremists in each religion. I hope that made sense...lol.

As far as why we are at war...I won't even get into that because I am unclear myself.

Jesus believing Christians and Allah believing Muslims...what is the difference? Both are religions and both believe in a higher power. Neither official advocate violence yet extremist exist in both and many murders have occurred on a continual basis since the dawn of time...in their "higher power"'s name. Relgion has such a strong foundation in the lives of many...and for many...it means how they will live out the "afterlife". The fear of the unknown and/or the almighty...leads to extremists. Extremists will cloud/tarnish the perception of whatever religion they are behind. I hope I made sense...I know I did a lot of rambling and probably jumping from point to point. There are so many aspects of this topic and past events...that it is difficult to stay on point. It breaks down into SO MANY levels.

This is something very interesting and helps to explain the point I belive Rosie was trying to make.

Religious violence is a term whose use is generally very imprecise. It is commonly encountered in the media and popular discourse to cover a large variety of phenomena. Theoretically we could stipulate that any intersection of religion and violence may be termed religious violence. In practice an approach of this sort is rarely taken.

Generally, religious violence covers all phenomena where religion, in any of its forms, is either the subject or object of individual or collective violent behaviour. Concretely, it covers both violence by religious actors (religiously motivated individuals or religious institutions) against objects of any kind, be they of the same religion or not (including secular targets). The other case is of violence by actors of any kind (religious or not, individual or collective) against objects that are explicitly religious (religious institutions, the persecution of people on the basis of their religion, religious buildings or sites).

Religious violence, like all violence, is an inherently cultural process whose meanings are context-dependent. It may be worth noting that religious violence often tends to place great emphasis on the symbolic aspect of the act. If we emphasise religious violence as primarily the domain of the violent actor then we may distinguish individual and collective forms of violence.

[edit]
Individual religious violence
Individual religious violence deals primarily with actions perpetrated by individuals acting on their own, often outside the context of wider society. Examples would include self-mutilatory behavior such as stigmata, whipping, flagellation, wearing thigh straps with nails and so forth. These kinds of acts may sometimes be characterised as deviant when they are radically different from prevailing social norms. When they are not radically different from prevailing norms, they are generally characterised not as religious violence but as a variety of ascetic religious practice.

[edit]
Collective religious violence
Collective religious violence is what we more commonly picture when we think of religious violence. The term "collective" refers, in effect, to any violent activity that is perpetrated within the context of society, is legitimated by at least a subset of society or religion and always has a political dimension. Note that the term "collective" does not mean that a single individual cannot undertake collective religious violence - a single suicide bomber's attack is collective just as much as the mass suicide in Jonestown.

In most instances, serious religious violence is perpetrated by individuals belonging to social groups whose religious zeal and conviction exceed that of an average member of the wider society, although milder forms, such as verbal abuse or ostracism, can be habitually practiced by larger communities. The range of religious violence is varied, and in its more serious forms it often involves illegal means (although in some instances, the use of religious violence can be sanctioned and even undertaken by the government), such as physical abuse and vandalism, and in more extreme cases, torture or murder. Religious terrorism is one form of religious violence; the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center are thus an extreme example of religious violence. In 1986, science fiction author Tom Ligon wrote [The Devil and the Deep Black Void"] about a Muslim terrorist attempting to crash a spaceship into the earth. Human sacrifice and perhaps animal sacrifice are also forms of collective religious violence.

It's worth noting that even though in many instances religion is used to justify violent behavior, the immediate motivations of the individuals involved may not be religious as such and the overall goals of such behavior may be cultural, personal or even economical. An example of this is the organized violence directed against black people during the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) - the Ku Klux Klan made a strong point of being a Christian organization and often used this to justify its active stance against desegregation and racial integration, but despite this, the Klan's actions were motivated more by racism and intolerance than religious beliefs[citation needed].

Some contrast religious with sectarian violence, which is conflict between different sects of one religion. This contrast, however, is difficult to maintain, as there is no way to empirically distinguish between "sects" and "religions" in a non-arbitrary way.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence"

I can actually see where she should be coming from in making the statement of radical Christians. There are :quote Christians :quote who bomb abortion clinics, kill the doctors who work there, etc all in the name of God.
Did she actually mean it in that context, probably not. Any generalization on a religion should not be made, regardless if it is Christianty or the Muslim religion. There are excpetions to EVERY religion.
She has taken it way to far, her views of religion are incredibly skewed. :rolleyes
I've never been a fan. :no


ITA!!:thumbsup

Um...yeah it was disturbing...I saw the footage on a news clip. Elizabeth's baby had a bad diaper rash. Rosie said "I have kids and the pediatrician told me to do this...it works!" and said to take your baby to somebody that has puppies, let the puppies lick their butt because apparently there's some sort of antiseptic in puppies mouths. And that's supposed to clear up the diaper rash. I couldn't believe it either. I'm not taking my baby over to a friends house so the puppy can lick her butt. That's what triple cream ointment is for. Or desinex. Or you know...cornstarch...baby powder...things that NORMAL people use. That was last week. Now this this week. Maybe next week she'll say that the Pope has 4 illegitimate children.


Ummmm, in my opinion that is sick and to think that she even suggested that someone do this is wrong on so many levels. :no I would never subject my future children to this...I mean isn't that what diaper rash ointment is for? It makes me wonder what Rosie does with diaper rash ointment?

Historically speaking, Rosie's right. Christians have waged genocide campaigns against every other belief system for CENTURIES. Racism has it's roots in Christianity just as much as ignorance. Hitler even hid behind Christianity and racial superiority to justify the extermination of the Jews. Ed Gein was a fanatical christian.

Christians are by no means, peaceful. As stated before, they still openly attack those who don't share their views. While a HUGE majority of people wouldn't dare send a letter bomb to an abortion clinic or assault a gay couple, many agree with the core principle behind the attack.

Something about relegion brings out a little bit of fanatic in all of us. This can probably be linked to man's eternal search for meaning, and the fear associated with uncertainty. As we know, fear is a prerequisite for anger, hatred and aggression - all of which have been expressed with terms such as "Crusades", "ethnic cleansing" and "Greater Moral Good".

Just the observations of an unbiased hethen.

I only have one thing to say...

My ex boyfriend was in the Army on a tank in Iraq when the war started and ended, and he is Jewish. I don't think he would have been there if we were fighting for Jesus.

:D

I only have one thing to say...

My ex boyfriend was in the Army on a tank in Iraq when the war started and ended, and he is Jewish. I don't think he would have been there if we were fighting for Jesus.

:D

Bush said in a speech that he was on a mission from God. I'm pretty sure the Jewish community believe in God.

I don't think that muslims condoned what occurred in 09-11, nor do I think it is part of their religion. I believe Rosie's main point may have been (and I could be wrong) is that the 9-11 event (and current war) was/are headed by extremist ... who claim a certain religion or movement. This can be equated to various other extremists who claim to be a part of religions or movements (such as Christianity). Some forms of relgious violence and terrorism are not as direct as apparent as say...a plane going into a building, however, no less significant (i.e. massive KKK killings/individual lynching in the name of the Lord, Hitlers crusaide and mass murder in the name of the Lord). There are extremists to any religion and we know that they do not represent the entire relgion so it would be accurate to say that you can compare christian and muslim extremists. You may not see today's Christians throw a plane into a building of another country but innocent lives have been lost to our own homegrown terrorism. Radicals exist everywhere...just because they don't all use "shock an awe" to get their point across, does not make them any less of a threat...to some extent. These are just some other viewpoints to think about with respect to why she may have made the comparison of extremists in each religion. I hope that made sense...lol.

As far as why we are at war...I won't even get into that because I am unclear myself.

Jesus believing Christians and Allah believing Muslims...what is the difference? Both are religions and both believe in a higher power. Neither official advocate violence yet extremist exist in both and many murders have occurred on a continual basis since the dawn of time...in their "higher power"'s name. Relgion has such a strong foundation in the lives of many...and for many...it means how they will live out the "afterlife". The fear of the unknown and/or the almighty...leads to extremists. Extremists will cloud/tarnish the perception of whatever religion they are behind. I hope I made sense...I know I did a lot of rambling and probably jumping from point to point. There are so many aspects of this topic and past events...that it is difficult to stay on point. It breaks down into SO MANY levels.

This is something very interesting and helps to explain the point I belive Rosie was trying to make.

Religious violence is a term whose use is generally very imprecise. It is commonly encountered in the media and popular discourse to cover a large variety of phenomena. Theoretically we could stipulate that any intersection of religion and violence may be termed religious violence. In practice an approach of this sort is rarely taken.

Generally, religious violence covers all phenomena where religion, in any of its forms, is either the subject or object of individual or collective violent behaviour. Concretely, it covers both violence by religious actors (religiously motivated individuals or religious institutions) against objects of any kind, be they of the same religion or not (including secular targets). The other case is of violence by actors of any kind (religious or not, individual or collective) against objects that are explicitly religious (religious institutions, the persecution of people on the basis of their religion, religious buildings or sites).

Religious violence, like all violence, is an inherently cultural process whose meanings are context-dependent. It may be worth noting that religious violence often tends to place great emphasis on the symbolic aspect of the act. If we emphasise religious violence as primarily the domain of the violent actor then we may distinguish individual and collective forms of violence.

[edit]
Individual religious violence
Individual religious violence deals primarily with actions perpetrated by individuals acting on their own, often outside the context of wider society. Examples would include self-mutilatory behavior such as stigmata, whipping, flagellation, wearing thigh straps with nails and so forth. These kinds of acts may sometimes be characterised as deviant when they are radically different from prevailing social norms. When they are not radically different from prevailing norms, they are generally characterised not as religious violence but as a variety of ascetic religious practice.

[edit]
Collective religious violence
Collective religious violence is what we more commonly picture when we think of religious violence. The term "collective" refers, in effect, to any violent activity that is perpetrated within the context of society, is legitimated by at least a subset of society or religion and always has a political dimension. Note that the term "collective" does not mean that a single individual cannot undertake collective religious violence - a single suicide bomber's attack is collective just as much as the mass suicide in Jonestown.

In most instances, serious religious violence is perpetrated by individuals belonging to social groups whose religious zeal and conviction exceed that of an average member of the wider society, although milder forms, such as verbal abuse or ostracism, can be habitually practiced by larger communities. The range of religious violence is varied, and in its more serious forms it often involves illegal means (although in some instances, the use of religious violence can be sanctioned and even undertaken by the government), such as physical abuse and vandalism, and in more extreme cases, torture or murder. Religious terrorism is one form of religious violence; the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center are thus an extreme example of religious violence. In 1986, science fiction author Tom Ligon wrote [The Devil and the Deep Black Void"] about a Muslim terrorist attempting to crash a spaceship into the earth. Human sacrifice and perhaps animal sacrifice are also forms of collective religious violence.

It's worth noting that even though in many instances religion is used to justify violent behavior, the immediate motivations of the individuals involved may not be religious as such and the overall goals of such behavior may be cultural, personal or even economical. An example of this is the organized violence directed against black people during the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) - the Ku Klux Klan made a strong point of being a Christian organization and often used this to justify its active stance against desegregation and racial integration, but despite this, the Klan's actions were motivated more by racism and intolerance than religious beliefs[citation needed].

Some contrast religious with sectarian violence, which is conflict between different sects of one religion. This contrast, however, is difficult to maintain, as there is no way to empirically distinguish between "sects" and "religions" in a non-arbitrary way.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence"

That was very well put!

Jewish people believe in god. They don't believe that the son of god has come yet. Jesus is more like a prophet to the Jews.

Honestly- i think religion is a pile of bullshit. I am agnostic, so i see everything in an analytical point of view. So this is my share of thoughts.

Religion- its bitter sweet. It can bring out the best in people, it can bring out the worst in people. And that is in every single religon.

I don't think Rosie was right to say what she said- atleast not infront of millions of people... but she did have a point. Radical Christians ARE just as bad as radical Muslims. There is a line and its crossed every single day. I dont care if its in the name of Allah, in the name of Jesus or in the name of Bob...people are taking it too far and its killing others.

Wars have been started just for the sole purpose of conflicting religions. Millions of innocent men, women & children killed- because of one religion disagreeing with another. Its all too much. What happened to just loving your god and living in harmony? I spose that never existed huh..

I liked her when she had her own show...I'm not that happy with her on The View though. She has stuck her foot in her mouth too many times IMO. :no

:agree...she just doesn't fit in there, she needs to keep her yap shut.

Bush said in a speech that he was on a mission from God. I'm pretty sure the Jewish community believe in God.

They believe in God, but what I got from what Rosie was saying was that this was a Christian mission. If it's a Christian mission, then I would think that Jesus would be tied in there somewhere. What I basically meant is that there are more than just Christians fighting on "our side" so to basically classify them all as Christian radicals is a bit ridiculous.

I don't think she was really classifying ALL that were fighting as radicals. The enlisted men she has ENORMOUS respect for. It's "RADICALS" she's talking about. Go to her website and read what she has to say. It's very enlightening, actually. That's what I did when I heard what she said. I needed clarification and she provides it. :D

So everyone who is saying "we" are you refering yourselves to "Radical" Christians? B/c there is a difference in christianity and Radical christians, fundamentalists, etc...

In my ever so humble opinion I would think everyone would agree radical ANYTHING is bad. Radical Christians, radical muslims, radical jehovah witnesses, I mean isn't radical implyiong they are taking their religion and making it RADICAL????? Yeah hello Hitler???

I think Rosie wants to come out say she hates Bush and thinks he is a radical Christian who went and killed a bunch of people but she's too chicken sh*& to do it. She keeps it within reason to keep her cushy little job AND doesn't come out and say what she really feels cause she can say with a cryptic comment " Well gee that isn't what I meant" but she can try and *explain* to all us morons what she really meant.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Lindbergh (sp?) who said in the 30's that basically Hitler was a "non-threat" and had every right to do and live how he was living? Just think how many lives would have been saved if Hitler had been taken out in 37? Wasn't it in the weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbor that a Gallup poll ( or which poll it was back then) that came out showing only like 5% of Americans WANTED to take Hitler out and the rest said leave it alone?

Anyhow, sounds like y'all are having a tasteful talk about this, which is awesome!! :D

She did say radicals and I have to agree in that sense. One thing that is wrong on both sides is extremism.

In my ever so humble opinion I would think everyone would agree radical ANYTHING is bad. Radical Christians, radical muslims, radical jehovah witnesses, I mean isn't radical implyiong they are taking their religion and making it RADICAL????? Yeah hello Hitler???

I think Rosie wants to come out say she hates Bush and thinks he is a radical Christian who went and killed a bunch of people but she's too chicken sh*& to do it. She keeps it within reason to keep her cushy little job AND doesn't come out and say what she really feels cause she can say with a cryptic comment " Well gee that isn't what I meant" but she can try and *explain* to all us morons what she really meant.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Lindbergh (sp?) who said in the 30's that basically Hitler was a "non-threat" and had every right to do and live how he was living? Just think how many lives would have been saved if Hitler had been taken out in 37? Wasn't it in the weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbor that a Gallup poll ( or which poll it was back then) that came out showing only like 5% of Americans WANTED to take Hitler out and the rest said leave it alone?

Anyhow, sounds like y'all are having a tasteful talk about this, which is awesome!! :D

I really don't think you can quate this to Hitler and WWII. It was WWII because basically the entire world was involved (there were some 60 countries in the Allied Forces alone) - it wasn't just a couple of countries going in and invading a country without the backing of the world. Also, Hitler was on the attack. He actually invaded other countries. Saddam wasn't invading anoyone when the US/UK attacked Iraq.

I really don't think you can quate this to Hitler and WWII. It was WWII because basically the entire world was involved (there were some 60 countries in the Allied Forces alone) - it wasn't just a couple of countries going in and invading a country without the backing of the world. Also, Hitler was on the attack. He actually invaded other countries. Saddam wasn't invading anoyone when the US/UK attacked Iraq.

My point wasn't that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war on terror is just like WWII, my point was people tend to underestimate those who would have goals of world domination or wiping out an entire society. Obviously things were different back then socially, culturally AND in terms of technological advancements, like they had tomahawk missiles hee hee. :D
It depends on definitions of *threat* I think. People say Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S. Yeah he was such a good friend of ours, but on 9/11/2002 he comes out to Iraq on tv and in numerous articles from his own newspaper promising bounty for the heads of Americans, military or civilian. He had his whole ninja posse for the sole purpose of killing Americans, to me that's a threat.

My point is while history is destined to repeat itself, it will not repeat itself in the exact same forms. We have to ask ourselves if we are willing to wait and see what happens or be on the offensive. We have the Iran President and other leaders with major influenece telling their people "Hey death to Americans, now let's go eat some cake".

I understand the argument that we have killed so many innocent people and taken away human rights from all these Iraqi's, and their death's should be comprehended, but I do think in the end this all comes down to it's us or them.

All in all I can respect other people's view. To be honest I was against the war when it began for about 6 months until I started looking into it and trying to find for myself what I believed in. We all have to be educated in what's going on and draw from them what we think! :P

My point wasn't that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war on terror is just like WWII, my point was people tend to underestimate those who would have goals of world domination or wiping out an entire society. Obviously things were different back then socially, culturally AND in terms of technological advancements, like they had tomahawk missiles hee hee. :D
It depends on definitions of *threat* I think. People say Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S. Yeah he was such a good friend of ours, but on 9/11/2002 he comes out to Iraq on tv and in numerous articles from his own newspaper promising bounty for the heads of Americans, military or civilian. He had his whole ninja posse for the sole purpose of killing Americans, to me that's a threat.

My point is while history is destined to repeat itself, it will not repeat itself in the exact same forms. We have to ask ourselves if we are willing to wait and see what happens or be on the offensive. We have the Iran President and other leaders with major influenece telling their people "Hey death to Americans, now let's go eat some cake".

I understand the argument that we have killed so many innocent people and taken away human rights from all these Iraqi's, and their death's should be comprehended, but I do think in the end this all comes down to it's us or them.

All in all I can respect other people's view. To be honest I was against the war when it began for about 6 months until I started looking into it and trying to find for myself what I believed in. We all have to be educated in what's going on and draw from them what we think! :P

I get your point. My point was that in WWII Germany had actually invaded a country, whereas before the war on terror, Iraq hadn't. I mean, if a bully in school threatens to hit you, would you take them down first or walk away?

I do agree with your last point though, it's best to gather information and make your own opinion based on it, rather than to blindly agree with others.

Saddam wasn't invading anoyone when the US/UK attacked Iraq.

Please don't forget Australia! We were there! And we still are!

Sorry hun!!

Lol its ok.. we always get forgotten.

I get your point. My point was that in WWII Germany had actually invaded a country, whereas before the war on terror, Iraq hadn't. I mean, if a bully in school threatens to hit you, would you take them down first or walk away?

I do agree with your last point though, it's best to gather information and make your own opinion based on it, rather than to blindly agree with others.

Actually Iraq invaded Kuwait, not at the time we went to Iraq in 2003, but back in the 90's thus the Gulf War. I still don't buy the weapons of mass detruction and while I think we could have waited a bit longer with Iraq, we are there now and we sure better finish it rather than still debating whether or not we should have gone.

For me the threat isn't one bully talking trash, it's the mob threatening to kill my entire family BASED on my way of life. That to me is more like the threat than a bully. And if the mob threatened my family's life, hell yes I would take them down if it was them or me. Now that I have 2 little girls there is no question I would do anything to ensure their safety. :D

Actually Iraq invaded Kuwait, not at the time we went to Iraq in 2003, but back in the 90's thus the Gulf War. I still don't buy the weapons of mass detruction and while I think we could have waited a bit longer with Iraq, we are there now and we sure better finish it rather than still debating whether or not we should have gone.

For me the threat isn't one bully talking trash, it's the mob threatening to kill my entire family BASED on my way of life. That to me is more like the threat than a bully. And if the mob threatened my family's life, hell yes I would take them down if it was them or me. Now that I have 2 little girls there is no question I would do anything to ensure their safety. :D

Yes, and Germany invaded Poland, but we're not attacking then now :dunno

I'm going to agree to disagree at this point. You're right, we're there now and have to finish the job, it's down to the powers that be to decide whether it was right or wrong to invade in the first place. I'm out :)

Yes, and Germany invaded Poland, but we're not attacking then now :dunno

I'm going to agree to disagree at this point. You're right, we're there now and have to finish the job, it's down to the powers that be to decide whether it was right or wrong to invade in the first place. I'm out :)

I wasn't saying we went to Iraq in 2003 because they had invaded Kuwait, just saying they HAD invaded another country at one point in time! ;)

Trust me, I have been exactly where you have and I understand pretty well these issues why we are against the war, it's a very fine line for me, but for me I went with my gut!

Too bad you want to back out now, I always love a spicy debate with intelligent people! :D

I wasn't saying we went to Iraq in 2003 because they had invaded Kuwait, just saying they HAD invaded another country at one point in time! ;)

Trust me, I have been exactly where you have and I understand pretty well these issues why we are against the war, it's a very fine line for me, but for me I went with my gut!

Too bad you want to back out now, I always love a spicy debate with intelligent people! :D

Thanks :) I just think it's something we could be discussing for the next decade! :nutts I have a lot of points to make but I'm sure this topic will come up in debates again soon ;)

Thanks :) I just think it's something we could be discussing for the next decade! :nutts I have a lot of points to make but I'm sure this topic will come up in debates again soon ;)

Yeah, I think I am one of the weird ones becaue I love debating things to death, mainly because I learn more and more and sometimes someone brings up a hardcore main point I hadn't thought of and that could completely rock my stance so I have to go back and reasess(sp) the situation! Sadly, I find many people are too quick to start name calling or something or taking it personal, which you didn't which is nice! :D

Yeah, I think I am one of the weird ones becaue I love debating things to death, mainly because I learn more and more and sometimes someone brings up a hardcore main point I hadn't thought of and that could completely rock my stance so I have to go back and reasess(sp) the situation! Sadly, I find many people are too quick to start name calling or something or taking it personal, which you didn't which is nice! :D

Me too!! But I try not to push my point across too much on here because it's so easy to misinterpret the tone of a message via the internet, and emotions run high when certain topics are being debated. I have enjoyed debating with you though, I hope it happens again soon :D

I just started a christian debate with dh. lol christian vs agnostic! i loveee debates. this is fun

I never really liked her but that just really shocked me and disgusted me!