I think you will find that it is also emotion that makes you take the path you have taken instead of the "let's go get'em" path. It is the emotion of sympathy for the innocent citizens that might become collateral damage during a War that makes you support the view of not going to War at all. It is not logic. People from your school of thought are not logical and the Pro-War school of thought "emotional". Both sections are guided by emotions. Conflicting emotions.

Trying to portray your anti-war stance as logical(I don't know how)and pro-war stance as emotional because of the grief of 9/11 means you are patronising the silent majority that supported the war. Let me assure you that many are emotional about it but think it is damn logical to go there(Afghanistan/Iraq) and get rid of these terrorists and of a man(Sadaam) who has been a menace to his own people and the world for decades. Who we have by in-action, allowed to kill millions of his own people. Where was the Anti-War "logic" then? There is nothing illogical about the war. Quite frankly, nothing has made more sense in years. What IS illogical is the views of the Anti-War people. Where is the alternative you suggest? There is no need to start a whole pro/anti Iraq debate again.

My opinion is that pro/anti are emotional and logical and one does not necessarily eliminate the other.

Sandra loves the smell of napalm in the morning. Sandra, did you say, "There is nothing illogical about the war. Quite frankly, nothing has made more sense in years"? Yikes. That has to be basically what every warmonger has said before you.

Compassion must be at the root of all of our decisions. Behind every theory there are assumptions. In order for "1 + 1 = 2" to be true, we have to assume some things about one and two. An essential assumption behind the workings of this world is that we operate compassionately. If this were not the case, if it were true that we did not have compassion as a common assumption among the majority, then chaos would break out all over the world. Things don't seem to be working so well as is, but without an intent by most of the people of the world to be compassionate, it would be much worse.

You seem to ignore the concept of being blinded by emotion--be it anger, love, sorrow, whatever. Surely you have seen this before. I guess you don't find Darryl Worley's lyrics to be an attempt to stir up people's emotions so that they don't think logically. You should study Aristotle: ethos, pathos and logos. In attempting to persuade an individual, appeals to pathos (emotion) have long been acknowledged as effective--and potentially misleading. To be sure, a person could be good and just and use appeals to emotion to win people to his or her side. Evil people can do the same. The only way to avoid falling into the trap is to rely on logic--with the assumption of compassion. Emotion all too often overpowers logic. Please don't be so ignorant as to deny this, else I will start listing off a ton of examples.

That you can't see an anti-war stance as logical brings your capacity to think critically into question--or your ability to be compassionate. I don't want to assume too much by going into the converse of your statement, but are you saying that war is logical? Did you not see the movie, War Games? The only logical thing to do is not to play the game--that is, when you assume a mindset that we should be compassionate towards each other, that we should help each other, that we should try to ensure the survival of the human race. If killing and violence are a happy way of life for you, then clearly a love of war would be logical. If self-preservation is not a priority for you, then clearly a love of war would be logical. I don't know what to tell you if you don't value human life or if you don't care about the injustice of punishing, torturing and killing the innocent. Logic can operate for evil just as well as for good. Do you want to be good? You haven't made this clear.

Logic insists that you cannot fight for peace. You should read my earlier post, Fight for Peace.

Invading Iraq when almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia was not logical. We were given our two-minute hate with Saddam's image in the place of Emmanuel Goldstein. I assume that many supported an attack on a country that was clearly not linked to 9/11 because they were blinded by appeals to emotion and by other manipulative tactics.

Saving the Iraqis from themselves was not a logical goal. We really need to let people determine for themselves how they want to be ruled. They should have gotten rid of Saddam when they were good and ready. Having another country intervene, go against the UN, invade Iraq, impose it's idea of how these people should live, and expect that it will all work out nicely is not logical. Many people foresaw the mess that Iraq would be because they used logic. A simple study of similar type interventions from the past would make it obvious. As for your comment about "Anti-war logic," I simply say that you don't save people by killing them.

We haven't gotten rid of the terrorists. We have created more. People aren't born terrorists. They become terrorists in reaction to perceived injustices (regardless of whether or not they are right). We clearly have created so many more perceived injustices. If you don't think that more terrorists are coming, well, then please explain yourself.

Please don't bring up "the silent majority that supported the war" when you know that Bush lied--or at least based his call to war on things that were not true.

Sandra: I think you will find that it is also emotion that makes you take the path you have taken

And back to you, keed.

Logic told a lot of people that Iraqis would not welcome an invasion by Christians, that there would be no rose water and dancing, that the people of the occupied lands would rise up, that more terrorists would be created, that the invasion would require an occupation that might extend to decades, that the unilateral invasion policy would cost a great deal in American lives and lucre, etc.

Looks like logic was right.

"My opinion is that pro/anti are emotional and logical and one does not necessarily eliminate the other"

Though I think the above comment in my initial post answers every point raised in your recent comment, I have a reputation to protect;) Therefore, I am going to attempt to write something really long but you bet I'm going to end up slam bang at the same conclusion.

The Iraq War was a logical step to take in my opinion, DG. Sadaam had been flouting international rules for 12 years. For all those 12 years, the consequence of not conforming to International Law was military action. Why did people like you not raise the point of how illogical you found such a consequence in the UN resolutions then? Or were you relying on the cowardice of the International community to do anything about Sadaam? Therefore, the inclusion of the clause that carried a consequence of Military action did not affect your views? It's simple really. He was given 12 years to conform. Diplomatic steps were taken to ensure conformity. He played the inspectors like puppets on a string. The UN has become a laughing stock in the International community. Absolutely, I think it was a logical step to finally go into Iraq and put into action what no less than 14 resolutions had threatened as a consequence of non-conformity by Sadaam. What is illogical about that? If you discount compassion/sentiment. This very "emotion" that I am trying to get across to you that anti-war people are not immune to. I mean, you seem to imply that were we to be logical, the view would be anti-war. THAT is what I dispute. You CAN BE logical but still be pro-war. If my post above did not make that clear, that is what I meant and mean. I can not see why you would have an argument with that basic point.

I think I may have misunderstood your post. Either that or you are contradicting yourself. You say "compassion must be at the root of all of our decisions". Going to war does not eliminate compassion. It may be compassion for the hundreds of women that were raped and killed by qusay and Ude, compassion for the remaining women in Iraq that led to this most grave of decisons. It could be compassion for what innocent Iraqis will have to go through for the rest of their lives if something was not done about that brute.

I am not ignoring the concept of being blinded by emotion at all. It has happened to me and I bet it has happened to everybody. The fact that I am saying to you that war supporters..oh, before I forget..please refrain from the use of warmongers. To support military action in a particular circumstance does not automatically make anyone a war monger. This is where the anti-war are truly blinded by emotion they refuse to see or understand where those that support the war might be coming from. If you are not with us, you are a war monger. How narrow minded is that?! Now, the fact that I am saying war supporters can be logical in no way means I am discounting the fact that they are emotional about it. My comment from previous post at the top of this post clearly concedes that emotion plays a part.

I don't know who darryl Worley is and whatever his lyrics stir up, he won't be the first to stir up emotions that he feels strongly about. John Lennon sang "Imagine" BEP sang "Where is the Love". We have "War, what is it good for" and so on and so forth. There is a song for whatever you support:) I'm afraid I haven't studied Aristotle but I don't think you need to study him to realise that a play on emotions is a tactic that can be effective. So what?

I really do not know what you mean by this "assumption of compassion"? Ofcourse, emotion can overpower logic. You will argue that the emotion of anger and grief have overpowered war supporters. War supporters will argue that the emotions of compassion(misplaced in their view) and anger have overpowered anti-war supporters. No one with a view on this matter is operating without emotion. Emotions have affected our logic one way or the other. However, it is completely wrong to arrogantly assume that while YOUR logic has prevailed over emotion or the "assumption of compassion" as you call it, emotions have prevailed over the logic of war supporters. Blatantly untrue.

I hate to break it to you DG but I truly do see the anti-war stance with regards to the Iraq War, as illogical. I understand it, therefore I think my ability to think critically is safe, but I find it illogical. Now, my ability to feel compassion, that is another thing altogether. You say I've lost it or don't have it. You are not the first to have said so and strangely I have no response to that. If that is how I come across then perhaps that is how I am. I refuse to bother my pretty little head with things I have no answer to:) No, I am not saying WAR is logical. It depends on the circumstances. I am saying, the IRAQ war was logical to me. No, I did not see the movie war games. I do not watch war movies:) Killing and violence are not a happy way of life and I do hope and wish we were all compassionate towards one another and loved our neighbours as ourselves, helped each other out, etc etc, all that jazz. I am all for it. So what?

Self-preservation is of utmost importance to me which is exactly why in some cases I am in full support of war lest the Osamas and the Hitlers elimintae human kind before we get a chance to ensure the survival of the human race. To sit and bite our nails while feeling compassion in no way ensures the survival of the human race and if warriors before us had done what you suggest, we would not be here today to have this discussion.

Again, you exhibit the narrow mindedness of the anti-war party. What makes you think I don't value human life? What makes you think I enjoy the killing of innocent people? The fact that a person supports military action does not mean they devalue human life or could not care less about the killing of innocent people. If YOU can't understand that then I don't know what to tell you. Do I want to be good? LOL..LOL. Do YOU want to be good? What makes you good since you have assumed this pedestal because you oppose a war? I am good, DG. I am trying to be better. Life just sometimes gets in the way of my efforts. You should try to be better too. You have not been crowned "good" because you opposed the war. Afterall, how good were you when Sadaam was killing many of the innocents you seem to be worried about now. Or do you think it is only American bombs that kill innocents?

Logic can insist what it bloody well wants to insist. History shows that you can fight for peace and freedom. Who gives a damn about logic when reality stares us in the face?!

You say Invading Iraq when almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia was not logical. Not to you. However, invading Iraq was logical when you look at the context of iraq in the broader picture. It's not about nationality. The hijackers might have been from saudi Arabia but as we know they had been spending their planning time in Afghanistan and America. Iraq ia a rogue state. We knew that due to Sadaam's hatred for the West, he not only turned a blind eye to letting parts of Iraq become terrorist camps but actively encouraged terrorist acts and offered monetary rewards to suicide bombers and other terrorist organisations. Yup. Invading iraq made absolute sense to me. We can't sort everything out in one full swoop but if there's an opportunity to sort this Sadaam out once and for all, I suggest we take it. Even Al Quaeda will tell you the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have definitely disorganised them a fair bit. Onward Christian Soldiers, I say.

Did you support invading Afghanistan? Since it was linked to 9/11? I don't think the argument for going into Iraq was ever 9/11. The points I have raised above regarding the danger of leaving Sadaam in place for the terrorists to make use of was made but you know we went to Iraq to get Sadaam first, and then whatever WMD we could discover. Mostly, everyone deep down knew it was about getting rid of the nuisance Sadaam was.

Speak for yourself, DG. Nobody was blinded by anything.

People were overcome with emotion and so on but not EVERYBODY lost sight of logic and what military action would entail. I think many of the anti-war party have become high with compassion they have lost their relationship with reality.

We should let people determine for themselves how they want to be ruled? We should not have gone in to save the Iraqis?..Unbelievable! Where is your compassion, I ask? Where is your love for human life and innocents? THE IRAQIS WERE DYING BY THE MILLIONS. They were an oppressed people. They had no power or ability to determine anything. Should we not have gone into Rwanda? Bosnia? What exactly are you saying? You say they should have gotten rid of Sadaam when they were good and ready? That is such a naive comment based on either complete ignorance of the circumstances in Iraq or a refusal to understand anything except you own view that war is not the answer. The Iraqi people were crying out for help. They want to rule themselves. They did not want sadaam. The international world stood by as this man systematically destroyed his own people and you boldly talk to me about compassion when stnading doing nothing is what you advocate, meanwhile I supported the removal of Sadaam? One of us has misplaced compassion and it's not me.

Many peiple saw the mess that Iraq would be because history has shown that after war there is often the period of reconstruction. It was not logic. It was common sense that even the "emotional" knew and understood. You don't save people by killing them but you dont save people by causing public disorder in town centres the world over, while living in relative freedom and safety chanting anti-war sentiments and sitting like cowards while many are slaughtered. In your compassionate way, atleast we can say "we did not kill them" their own people did. How that shows value for human life baffles me.

I am not going to bother arguing this terrorist point again. People can't get it out of their heads that wehether we have created more terrorists or not is not the point. These terrorists were many and were coming up. America has suddenly become aaware of what the rest of the world knew that is why you are all in a panic. Ofcourse people are not born terrorists. People are not born dictators or killers or tyrants. What exactly was the perceived injustice Hitler suffered to decide to fry the Jews? What should we have done with Hitler? We should have waited till the Jews were good and ready to fight their way out of the concentration camps? What should we have done with Milosevic? Stalin et al? We should have waited till the oppressed were good and ready to fight their way out? France gave you the Statue of Liberty as a gift because you waited for them to fight for their freedom? Or did America go in there to help?

I think you need a calm moment to reflect on what you have posted. What you have revealed is that it is you who is overcome with the emotion of compassion are completely oblivious of any logic at all.

More terrorists are coming. The difference b/w you and I is that I knew this way before the Iraq war and way before 9/11. Nothing has changed.

Why on earth should I not bring up the silent majority? The truth is that support for the war is in the majority. It's just human nature that the nay sayers are often the loudest.

Sandra,

I agree!

After reading #5, color me terrified.

After reading #7, colour me unsurprised.

Debbie..Damn, I wish I could be as brief as you.