If no-fly was working , then why were American aircraft being shoot at?

Um, you realize that 'no-fly zone' means 'no Iraqi aircraft can fly here', right? Right?

No Iraqi aircraft flying in no-fly zone = success

Bonus question: Do you even know WHY the UN made no-fly zones? I do.

Repeat: Sanctions, inspections & no fly zones worked. And at a much lower cost than occupation. Deal with it.

ccording to what? The teachings of Christ or the teachings of Wolfowitz? ! And BTW, the WWII analogy for Iraq -- and even AQ -- is laughable.

According to everybody here who believes that it is wrong to kill no matter the circumstances.
Do you honestly think that American soldiers KILLED NOBODY in WW2? You do realize that Iraq wasn't the only war ever to happen, right?
I'm sure greggbert doesn't think so on both of those questions, so I want to know, does he think it was wrong for Americans to kill Nazis in WW2? And if you think that there is never justification for killing either, do you think it was wrong for Americans to kill Germans and Japanese combatants?

According to everybody here who believes that it is wrong to kill no matter the circumstances.

Sorry dude, you've got it backwards. The Ten Commandments (old testament) specifically ruled out killing. Christ (new testament) is the one who specifically ruled out vengeance, and instead radically recommended loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, etc.

So go ask the holy red state rollers why they support mass state-sponsored killing -- in direct violation of their supposed beliefs.

Do you honestly think that American soldiers KILLED NOBODY in WW2?

No, and I never said that. Typically for right wingers, you've misinformed yourself.

Sorry dude, you've got it backwards. The Ten Commandments (old testament) specifically ruled out killing. Christ (new testament) is the one who specifically ruled out vengeance, and instead radically recommended loving your enemy, turning the other cheek, etc.

So I take it you haven't read the article or the responses by its defenders? You know, where they say that there's no exception to "Thou shalt not kill" and criticize Bush for making some?

No, and I never said that. Typically for right wingers, you've misinformed yourself.

Then don't be stupid and pretend that Iraq is the only issue here. Remember, there were other wars besides Iraq, such as WW2, and in that war, people died too.

Still waiting to see if it was wrong for American soldiers to kill Nazis and Japanese soldiers in World War II.

Are you really surprised? I'm still waiting for some decent alternatives to the war in Iraq. Looks like greggbert finds it easier to criticize than to proposer solid alternatives. Who's the real coward here?

So I take it you haven't read the article or the responses by its defenders? You know, where they say that there's no exception to "Thou shalt not kill" and criticize Bush for making some?

Um, could you be more cryptic, please? You response makes no sense whatsoever. I stand by my post.

don't be stupid and pretend that Iraq is the only issue here.

As stated in post #69: Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is laughable at best. I suggest you turn off Fox News & read a history book to understand the difference.

But hey, nice try at avoiding the subject: the hypocrisy of so-called 'Christians' in waging 'preemptive' war on Iraq

Um, could you be more cryptic, please? You response makes no sense whatsoever. I stand by my post.

You're serious? You honestly don't have a freaking clue as to what I just said?

As stated in post #69: Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is laughable at best. I suggest you turn off Fox News & read a history book to understand the difference.

Read the article. The issue with the war in Iraq is that American soldiers are killing others, and the argument is that there is never justification to kill another, which is why the logical conclusion is that World War II was wrong, because American solders were killing others then.

But hey, nice try at avoiding the subject: the hypocrisy of so-called 'Christians' in waging 'preemptive' war on Iraq

Where does it say in the Bible that it's unChristian to wage a preemptive war? Maybe you're right, and this discussion is not about Christians sending soldiers to kill others, which, as you know, happened in World War II.
If you don't understand that, then that shows more about you than it does about me.

Are you really surprised? I'm still waiting for some decent alternatives to the war in Iraq. Looks like greggbert finds it easier to criticize than to proposer solid alternatives. Who's the real coward here?

I have too much faith in people, even when it's clear that they don't understand what they read.

You're serious? You honestly don't have a freaking clue as to what I just said?

Juxta, this thread began with a link to a transcript -- not an article. If you're asking me to defend somebody else's comments in this 'article,' that's not my job. I will not scrounge around in 80 responses for some unspecified 'article' that you claim proves your non-statement.

So deal with ME based on MY comments or go away.

Where does it say in the Bible that it's unChristian to wage a preemptive war?

Already told you: Turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, do unto others, etc etc, such as Matthew 5:39:

Jesus says "But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other too! If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles, Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who borrow."

Maybe you're right, and this discussion is not about Christians sending soldiers to kill others, which, as you know, happened in World War II.

Yeah, and the Nazis, who caused all that trouble, had the support of the Pope & considered themselves good Christians too. The Nazi army all wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns". God with us.

Had enough, junior?

Juxta, this thread began with a link to a transcript -- not an article. If you're asking me to defend somebody else's comments in this 'article,' that's not my job. I will not scrounge around in 80 responses for some unspecified 'article' that you claim proves your non-statement.

He also posted a snippet of the article, and if you actually read it, you'd notice that the issue is with "Thou shalt not kill," and you should know that people were killed in WW2 too. Now if you're not going to read that or the responses, and if you're going to ignore that "Thou shalt not kill" was a commandment not just for the Iraqi war, but for everyday, then don't act like you know what's going on in this discussion, all right?

Already told you: Turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, do unto others, etc etc, such as Matthew 5:39:

And this can't apply to WW2?

Yeah, and the Nazis, who caused all that trouble, had the support of the Pope & considered themselves good Christians too. The Nazi army all wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns". God with us.

This is either a red herring, or simple trolling, which is it?

If you're going to keep insisting that "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to WW2 as much as it does to Iraq, then that have fun with those double standards. Anything to undermine Bush, eh?

greggbert,

I notice with some disappointment that you insist on making your responses to me a war on your opinions of me as a person and not discussing the facts at hand. Too bad, your article was an interesting springboard for discussion, even as I disagree with your position.

Unfortunately, I took the bait. I'll plead mea culpa on that one and apologize. But I would encourage you to try to find more constructive ways to advance your arguments rather than just engage in spitfights.

Juxta, this thread began with a link to a transcript -- not an article. If you're asking me to defend somebody else's comments in this 'article,' that's not my job. I will not scrounge around in 80 responses for some unspecified 'article' that you claim proves your non-statement. He also posted a snippet of the article, and if you actually read it, you'd notice that the issue is with "Thou shalt not kill," and you should know that people were killed in WW2 too. Now if you're not going to read that or the responses, and if you're going to ignore that "Thou shalt not kill" was a commandment not just for the Iraqi war, but for everyday, then don't act like you know what's going on in this discussion, all right? Already told you: Turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, do unto others, etc etc, such as Matthew 5:39: And this can't apply to WW2? Yeah, and the Nazis, who caused all that trouble, had the support of the Pope & considered themselves good Christians too. The Nazi army all wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns". God with us. This is either a red herring, or simple trolling, which is it? If you're going to keep insisting that "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to WW2 as much as it does to Iraq, then that have fun with those double standards. Anything to undermine Bush, eh?

Here's one that I know was forgotten. Where would this country be without the revolutionary war.

He also posted a snippet of the article, and if you actually read it, you'd notice that the issue is with "Thou shalt not kill," and you should know that people were killed in WW2 too.

It was a press conference transcript from whitehouse.gov, not an article. Words mean things. Buy a dictionary.

Earth to Juxta: Team Bush did not launch WWII. The reporter was not asking their opinion about WWII. The poster of this thread & I are talking about the here & now -- not WWII.

Only YOU are insisting on bringing WWII into the picture -- which is the red herring in this thread.

Face it: Holy red state rollers supported mass state-sponsored killing -- in direct violation of their supposed beliefs.

This is either a red herring, or simple trolling, which is it?

Neither. It's a statement of fact. So-called 'Christians' are human -- and therefore perfectly capable of performing acts that vioilate their own supposed beliefs.

If you're going to keep insisting that "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to WW2 as much as it does to Iraq...blah blah blah

You've misinformed yourself again. But that's not the topic at hand. It's just a weak diversion (& an even weaker comparison) from the issue at hand -- and you know it.

It's funny how people who admit not to even reading responses act as if they know what's going on in a thread. Maybe, I should start just posting willy nilly without reading anything.

And it's funny how people who misuse words and repeatedly misread other's statements, blame others for not understanding what's being discussed.