quote:

---

Faith in Christ, however, is incompatible with torture and wars of aggression.

---

And yet the war of northern aggression was fought in the name of Christ. How pathetic. The south will rise again though. The war is not over.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sorry, in my rush to respond, I failed to see who had posted it. I'm just so disgusted by the fact that this is even a debate among Christians, that I failed to take a breath before responding. It's so entirely incompatible w/ what Christ said, and to see Christians support this just does not reflect God's love to the world.

---

Chicken hawk political "Christians" chased me away from church long before I was delivered from religion. Though they are, of course, blood thirsty and murderers in their hearts, the real problem is that they despise truth. The truth would set many of them free from their warmongering (though usually their warmongering comes in the form of cowardly cheering wanton destruction from a safe distance).

---

I agree. Honestly the most convincing argument to me against Christianity is watching Christians live their lives. Very few of them live their lives as if this stuff is actually true. They basically want to agree it's true so they can enjoy the good parts, but rarely let these beliefs inconvenience their actions. There are, of course, those who really do live as though they really thought there was a heaven and a hell and salvation is attainable... but they are so few and far between it's hardly representative of Christians as a whole.

Marco,

quote:

---

Your argument presumes that the Spanish and anyone else had the right to move there at all in the first place, which is classic exceptionalism.

---

The ironic thing is that those that tend to buy into exceptionalism, seem to be the ones that scream "send them back to where they came from" when it comes to "illegal" immigrants. Not trying to derail into an immigration debate. Just found it odd.

booboo - The Catholic argument against torture is one in the same as it is against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, ect., all of us are created in the likeness of God. If you can rationalize for torture, one can rationalize for the rest.

No Excuses for Torture: Torture degrades both the victim and the perpetrator
By Stephen M. Colecchi - America Magazine

quote:

---

Catholic teaching on torture is both simple and richly complex. On the one hand, the church's teaching seems straightforward: Torture is fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person, and its practice is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances. On the other hand, both historically and existentially, the Catholic Church has more than a passing acquaintance with torture.

Leaders and members of the church have been both victims and perpetrators. The church looks to the cross of Christ and to the witness of Christian martyrs throughout the centuries in whose torturous sufferings it finds meaning and inspiration. At the time of the Inquisition and in many other historical circumstances in the past, however, the leaders of the church have tolerated and even supported the use of torture to achieve so-called higher purposes.

One of the great strengths of the Catholic tradition is the church's ability, under the inspiration of God, to repent of past errors and to seek the fullness of God's truth-a truth fully revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ but grasped only partially in each age by the sons and daughters of the church. Ours is a church of both saints and sinners, a dualism that offers insight into a complex ethical problem like the use of torture.

Torture is an issue of particular concern in the United States today because of ethically questionable practices tolerated under the exigencies of the "global war on terror." These practices include the waterboarding, or simulated drowning, of Al Qaeda detainees and "extreme rendition," the capture, detention and deportation of terror suspects, often to nations where the use of torture is common.

The Tortured Body

The church's contemporary prohibition of torture reflects a deep understanding of the human person and a profound vision of human society. In 1998 Pope John Paul II offered a reflection on the Shroud of Turin in which he connected the suffering of Christ to the inhumanity of torture. Pope John Paul said: "The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age: of the countless tragedies that have marked past history and the dramas that continue to unfold in the world." The pope went on to ask: "How can we not recall with dismay and pity those who do not enjoy basic civil rights, the victims of torture and terrorism, the slaves of criminal organizations?

"Pope Benedict XVI made a similar association of the tragedy of torture with the suffering of Christ when he visited Lourdes in 2008. In a homily, the pope made a connection between the cross of Christ and those who suffer torture in his name:

By his cross we are saved. The instrument of torture which, on Good Friday, manifested God's judgment on the world, has become a source of life, pardon, mercy, a sign of reconciliation and peace. For on this cross, Jesus took upon himself the weight of all the sufferings and injustices of our humanity. He bore the humiliation and the discrimination, the torture suffered in many parts of the world by so many of our brothers and sisters for love of Christ.

In the teaching of the church, the suffering of Christ and of the saints, especially that imposed by torture, testifies to the reality of evil in the world. This testimony is not an acceptance of evil, but rather a call to overcome it. Catholics believe the cross leads to resurrection. Death does not have the final word. The victim on the cross was ultimately the victor. Life triumphed over death, good over evil.

Yet the followers of Christ have not consistently applied the lessons of the cross throughout the centuries. In a remarkably candid passage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges: "In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture" (No. 2298). The catechism includes a compelling critique of the practice: "In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading."

A Threat to Human Dignity

The basis for the church's current total rejection of torture is its teaching on the life and dignity of the human person. The human person is created in the image of God. In Christ all are offered redemption without exception. In Catholic teaching, human dignity does not come from any human quality or accomplishment; it comes from God. For this reason, the catechism teaches, "It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death" (No. 2148).

The catechism later declares: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity" (No. 2298). The use of torture dishonors the Creator in whose image every human person is created and disfigures the human person who is worthy of respect.

In Catholic teaching, there is more than one victim of an act of torture. First there is, of course, a profound concern for the immediate victim of torture, whose body and mind suffer assault. But the church is also concerned for the human dignity of the perpetrator of torture, who is debased by the act itself. This is why the catechism, as it calls for the abolition of torture, also asks Catholics to "pray for the victims and their tormentors."

Catholic teaching on torture sits within a broader body of teaching on a wide range of threats to human life and dignity. The Second Vatican Council taught in the "Pastoral Constitution on theChurch in the Modern World" (No. 27):

Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit...all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator.

Torture attacks the human dignity of its direct victims, but it also victimizes the perpetrators and any society that tolerates its practice. Torture contaminates society and debases it. This is true because the human person is not only sacred but also social. What we do to one another we ultimately do to ourselves, because as social beings our fates are bound together. A society that tolerates torture threatens the common good of all persons because it undermines respect for human dignity and basic human rights. These rights should find expression in laws that protect human dignity and prohibit torture and other actions that assault this dignity. For these and other reasons, the Catholic Church supports international humanitarian law that prohibits torture.

No Justification Under Any Circumstances

The church views torture as an "intrinsic evil" that can never be justified. The inevitable harm it does to individuals and to society as a whole allows no exceptions. To those who would advance arguments for the exceptional use of torture to protect public safety, the Catholic Church argues that we cannot do something intrinsically evil and expect good to come of it. In 2007 Pope Benedict reiterated the teaching found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church "that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances.'"

In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the statement on political responsibility that the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued in November 2007 in preparation for the 2008 national elections, the bishops referred to the issue of torture five times. Echoing the catechism, they declared plainly that torture is "intrinsically evil" and "can never be justified" and stated categorically: "The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism." It is counterproductive not only because experts tell us that it does not work, but also because it undermines the very good it hopes to achieve: the common good of all.

In his encyclical letter "The Splendor of Truth" ("Veritatis Splendor"), Pope John Paul II indicated that we cannot make moral exceptions and perform "intrinsically evil" acts, even when our intentions may be good. He noted the Second Vatican Council's absolute rejection of intrinsically evil acts that "infect human civilization and contaminate those who inflict them." U.S. culture sometimes fails to grasp the insidious nature of intrinsic evil. It has not understood the corrosive effect of the acceptance of torture, abortion and other such acts on U.S. society.

For example, in the television series "24," the character Jack Bauer, whom some U.S. military personnel have stated they took as a role model, is presented as an entertaining hero, but his character is no social or moral hero. Jack Bauer's use of torture undermines what he seeks to preserve and protect-the lives and dignity of ordinary people.

In a church of both saints and sinners, victims and perpetrators, Catholic social teaching on torture has special authenticity and credibility. In its service to the human family as it seeks the full truth of the human person, the church has come to understand and teach with honesty and clarity that the prohibition against torture is absolute. The act of torture is utterly incompatible with the dignity of the human person, and the practice of torture wounds the victim, the perpetrator and the common good of all.

---

quote:

---

Honestly the most convincing argument to me against Christianity is watching Christians live their lives.

---

This saddens me because it's true. To paraphrase Gandhi, you like our Christ, but not our Christians.

So now my faith is being questioned? Which basically means you agree with the author in his original wording.

quote:

---

So now my faith is being questioned? Which basically means you agree with the author in his original wording.

---

Where did I question your faith? I don't know you, nor do I know your relationship with Christ. I do know that the use of torture is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. I do know that your position, at the very least, is not Christ-like. But, I don't offer guesses as to another person's individual relationship with Christ. There are sins I struggle with, but I never try to rationalize it so I don't have to address the sin in my life.

You don't trust that human government is subject to God and he ordains it for our benefit. That's a sin that you try to rationalize.

And you don't believe God when he says don't spare the rod from your kids. That's a sin you rationalize.

quote:

---

You don't trust that human government is subject to God and he ordains it for our benefit. That's a sin that you try to rationalize.

---

I don't share your interpretation of Romans 13. Now, would you like to actually discuss the topic of the thread, or do you plan on fixating on me today?

quote:

---

And you don't believe God when he says don't spare the rod from your kids. That's a sin you rationalize.

---

Ah, I see you are choosing the fixation route. I absolutely believe God when He says not to spare the rod. I disagree with your view on what it means. When you actually look at the original language, it reads much differently. Here, for your education: http://www.littleheartsbooks.com/2014/05/10/spare-the-rod-the-heart-of-the-matter-2/

Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

If "difference of interpretation" = "try to rationalize it", fine. But judge others by the same standard you judge yourself. Or else add that to the list of sins you try to rationalize.

quote:

---

Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

If "difference of interpretation" = "try to rationalize it", fine. But judge others by the same standard you judge yourself. Or else add that to the list of sins you try to rationalize.

---

Not rationalizing at all. There are more than one interpretation of Romans 13. Using your "logic", if someone holds an interpretation that is different than yours, then they are simply rationalizing it. But, then again, you are not clearly not here for an honest discussion on the subject at hand. When you are ready to discuss torture as it relates to Christians, please feel free to do so. Until then, I'm not going to get sucked in by your usual nonsense.

I'm here to point out your obvious hypocrisy. When someone doesn't agree with you, you pull out the same card. "Can't say if your a Christian or not." "You may be a Christian, but not Christian."

When you "rationalize" the obvious language of the Bible because you are stuck on an anti-Biblical polemic like pacifism, and write it off as "difference of interpretation", then turn around and continue the narrative that others who are not pacifists aren't "being Christian", hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe you. You can take off the garb, but you're still a Pharisee.

and torture is wrong to keep from derailing further than the Christian v. Christian attacks.

quote:

---

Obviously the different tribes were different. But do you honestly think that the outcome of murdering them all until they gave up and forcing them onto reservations was a just, peaceable outcome? Your argument presumes that the Spanish and anyone else had the right to move there at all in the first place, which is classic exceptionalism.

Europeans intervening in pre-existing tribal conflicts....does that sound familiar at all??

Anyway, we are digressing and distracting on a tangent here. The relevance to the point of the thread, which is about evangelicals and torture, is that it is clear that exceptionalism DOES play a role of some kind in being able rationalize torture by the U.S. government. This has already been pointed out by others, I just wanted to point out that it seems a worthy argument to me

---

Marco,

1) I think Shermans actions during wartime made a horrible situation better for the long term. Similar to Truman dropping the bomb- saved lives.

2) Solution to the problem is not going to war. Solution is what RetiredAg was saying- Jesus calling us to Love. His model was nonviolence, as are most of the saints.

Martin,
Your schtick is tiresome. This will be my last post to you, because you have shown yourself to be nothing more than an internet troll.

quote:

---

I'm here to point out your obvious hypocrisy. When someone doesn't agree with you, you pull out the same card. "Can't say if your a Christian or not." "You may be a Christian, but not Christian."

---

It's not that they disagree with me. It's that they cannot reconcile their position with Christ's teachings.

quote:

---

When you "rationalize" the obvious language of the Bible because you are stuck on an anti-Biblical polemic like pacifism, and write it off as "difference of interpretation", then turn around and continue the narrative that others who are not pacifists aren't "being Christian", hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe you. You can take off the garb, but you're still a Pharisee.

---

So, you think there are no passages in the Bible that have differing interpretations? Because the way I read Romans 13 has been the way it's been read by many for over a thousand years. I can reconcile my views with the Scripture. That's all I've asked them to do with this issue. You can call me all the names that you want, but I can reconcile my beliefs with the Scripture.

Then again, you stated that you are here for me, and not the discussion at hand, so there is no point in going down your nonsensical trail anymore. As stated above, your whole fixation with me is tiresome, and I'm done responding to you unless it is on the subject of torture. If you want to talk about me, which you stated you are here to do, then just start another thread.

After thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I agree that torture and wars of aggression are not Christlike.

My biggest sin is pride and makes me lash back even when confronted with truth.

Please forgive me for anything I wrote that was antagonistic.

Now I am truly gone.

Peace

booboo,

quote:

---

1) I think Shermans actions during wartime made a horrible situation better for the long term. Similar to Truman dropping the bomb- saved lives.

---

Can you please show me how the "ends justify the means" is reconcilable with Christ's teachings? I've asked this a million times, and not one single answer. How is torture reconcilable with what Christ said?

quote:

---

2) Solution to the problem is not going to war. Solution is what RetiredAg was saying- Jesus calling us to Love. His model was nonviolence, as are most of the saints.

---

Yes! His model was nonviolence, which we are to be imitators of. Let the world resort to violence to solve their problems. As Christians, we are to imitate Christ, which torture does not do.

quote:

---

After thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I agree that torture and wars of aggression are not Christlike.

My biggest sin is pride and makes me lash back even when confronted with truth.

Please forgive me for anything I wrote that was antagonistic.

Now I am truly gone.

Peace

---

I get this, and I do apologize if I offended with any of my comments. I was not calling into question your relationship with Christ, as we are all sinners. I too got overly-emotional in this discussion, and my apologies if I crossed the line.

quote:

---

booboo - The Catholic argument against torture is one in the same as it is against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, ect., all of us are created in the likeness of God. If you can rationalize for torture, one can rationalize for the rest.

---

Thanks Jkag89, I got sucked down a slippery slope.. I appreciate your posting of the Catholic church's black and white stances and staying out of the specific details (grey areas- weeds.) I got into trouble when I did not clearly define my definition of torture and intelligence gathering.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Honestly the most convincing argument to me against Christianity is watching Christians live their lives.

---

This saddens me because it's true. To paraphrase Gandhi, you like our Christ, but not our Christians.

---

I like Christians just fine. I just don't think their actions line up with what they purport to believe in many cases. This is true for everybody, so don't take this as me passing judgement. It simply dawned on me over a period of time that if all these people really truly believed the bible were the inerrant word of God, they would behave much differently than they do. For the most part Christians are good people -- but they are only people. You'd think if they were new creations due to the Holy Spirit residing within them that there would be more outward evidence of this transformation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Obviously the different tribes were different. But do you honestly think that the outcome of murdering them all until they gave up and forcing them onto reservations was a just, peaceable outcome? Your argument presumes that the Spanish and anyone else had the right to move there at all in the first place, which is classic exceptionalism.

Europeans intervening in pre-existing tribal conflicts....does that sound familiar at all??

Anyway, we are digressing and distracting on a tangent here. The relevance to the point of the thread, which is about evangelicals and torture, is that it is clear that exceptionalism DOES play a role of some kind in being able rationalize torture by the U.S. government. This has already been pointed out by others, I just wanted to point out that it seems a worthy argument to me

---

Marco,

1) I think Shermans actions during wartime made a horrible situation better for the long term. Similar to Truman dropping the bomb- saved lives.

2) Solution to the problem is not going to war. Solution is what RetiredAg was saying- Jesus calling us to Love. His model was nonviolence, as are most of the saints.

---

Agree with (2). But the fact that you believe the myth of (1) further demonstrates judgment of justice is clouded by American myths (the necessity of the bomb being one of America's favorite lies - in my personal opinion, of course). And again, you are only able to see the situation's outcome as "better for the long term" from the perspective of a male in 2000's America. The outcome is obviously better for you and me, because we got to live here and have cushy lives and never had to worry about meeting any kind of justice for the imperialist sins of our forefathers who eradicated entire nations of people. Of course that's a better outcome for us. Perhaps not so much from the point of view of the ancestors of the tribes, no?

quote:

---

Martin,
Your schtick is tiresome.

---

Retired,
You are a broken record. Your posts are all the same. Something on pacifism, some Christians are doing something anti-pacifist, throw in a "Christ-like" statement, a cup of "I can't comment on their relationship with God", a dash of "can't reconcile with the teachings of Christ", and then exit the conversation with a "have a nice day."

quote:

---

Can you please show me how the "ends justify the means" is reconcilable with Christ's teachings? I've asked this a million times, and not one single answer. How is torture reconcilable with what Christ said?

---

RetiredAg,

1) The closest bible verse is Jesus setting things right in the temple area, him being physical in nature- turing over table in Gospel of John.

2) See details on Catholic teaching on Wars - Catchechism - On War

3) Torture as we typically define it- inhuman treatment of others is not allowed by Christians. I should of done better job of defining my position- gather the intelligence as humanely as possible.

I am very much enjoying this thread. Lots of great posts!

Like RetiredAg, I am sorta surprised the morality of torture is even being debated among Christians. It reminds me of a satirical article from the onion where Jesus is being arrested for bombing an abortion clinic.

I do not know how to read these posts and come to any conclusion other than to say that a very large number of Christians's develop a morality outside of their faith and bend their interpretations of scripture to fit their views. This thread is an excellent demonstration of Christ's teaching to support either pacifism or torture and war. Booboo, who regurgitates "God calls us to love, love love" 20 times a day in this forum has taken the stance that war is hell and you do what you gotta do to kill those enemy *******s!!!

As 7th repeatedly points out, American Exceptionalism plays a huge role in how we determine who is right and who is wrong in foreign conflicts. The position of Christians on just about every social issue has changed or outright flip flopped with with dominant culture of western Christians. I believe that explanation for the 60% of evangelics that support torture is extremely simple: The dominant understanding of morality among Christians at any time period has more to do with cultural, social, political, and economic influences than anything written in the Bible.

quote:

---

The outcome is obviously better for you and me, because we got to live here and have cushy lives and never had to worry about meeting any kind of justice for the imperialist sins of our forefathers who eradicated entire nations of people. Of course that's a better outcome for us. Perhaps not so much from the point of view of the ancestors of the tribes, no?

---

You are correct- thousands of Plains Indians suffered, just as thousands of Japanesed suffered when the A- bomb was dropped. But yet lives in China were made better (Japan was terrorizing) Lives in Japan (US would of continued bombing for years as Japan would of most likely gone to a slow defeat- after the USA invaded with ground forces)- it saved Lives in the USA (no ground forces in Japan). and then looking at the fact that the USA and Japan live in Peace today.

Note: I am Not saying War is good and this is something we should strive for. I am saying certain actions during wartime can make a bad outcome better.

quote:

---

I am saying certain actions during wartime can make a bad outcome better.

---

And the implication here and from other things you've posted is that those actions are justified, regardless of how cruel they may appear to be at the time because they lead to what some would consider a "better" outcome. In fact, it is impossible to know if an even better outcome could have occurred without those actions.

quote:

---

1) I think Shermans actions during wartime made a horrible situation better for the long term. Similar to Truman dropping the bomb- saved lives.

---

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

Couldnt help myself...

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can you please show me how the "ends justify the means" is reconcilable with Christ's teachings? I've asked this a million times, and not one single answer. How is torture reconcilable with what Christ said?

---

RetiredAg,

1) The closest bible verse is Jesus setting things right in the temple area, him being physical in nature- turing over table in Gospel of John.

2) See details on Catholic teaching on Wars - Catchechism - On War

3) Torture as we typically define it- inhuman treatment of others is not allowed by Christians. I should of done better job of defining my position- gather the intelligence as humanely as possible.

---

1) I don't believe Christ got physical with any person. I know I've posted this before, but here is an excellent paper on the subject. Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident. It delves into the original Greek text, as well as early church views on this incident.

2) I don't agree with 'just' war theory, so I clearly do not agree with the catholics on this issue.

3) Fair enough. Might I ask, where do you draw the line with "humanely as possible"?

quote:

---

I am very much enjoying this thread. Lots of great posts!

Like RetiredAg, I am sorta surprised the morality of torture is even being debated among Christians. It reminds me of a satirical article from the onion where Jesus is being arrested for bombing an abortion clinic.

I do not know how to read these posts and come to any conclusion other than to say that a very large number of Christians's develop a morality outside of their faith and bend their interpretations of scripture to fit their views. This thread is an excellent demonstration of Christ's teaching to support either pacifism or torture and war. Booboo, who regurgitates "God calls us to love, love love" 20 times a day in this forum has taken the stance that war is hell and you do what you gotta do to kill those enemy *******s!!!

As 7th repeatedly points out, American Exceptionalism plays a huge role in how we determine who is right and who is wrong in foreign conflicts. The position of Christians on just about every social issue has changed or outright flip flopped with with dominant culture of western Christians. I believe that explanation for the 60% of evangelics that support torture is extremely simple: The dominant understanding of morality among Christians at any time period has more to do with cultural, social, political, and economic influences than anything written in the Bible.

---

This is where I come down as well. I don't think affirming that position is any indictment of Christianity itself. What it says to me is to be skeptical of those (typically fundamentalists) who claim that their particular ethical system is somehow untainted by history and culture.

quote:

---

Fair enough. Might I ask, where do you draw the line with "humanely as possible"?

---

Retired, As I stated before I am Not an expert on Torture/ Intelligence Gathering Techniques. My answer is something that works that does not cause long term harm.

quote:

---

And the implication here and from other things you've posted is that those actions are justified, regardless of how cruel they may appear to be at the time because they lead to what some would consider a "better" outcome. In fact, it is impossible to know if an even better outcome could have occurred without those actions

---

Boney that is how it is with almost every decison we make, we do not know what the other outcome would of lead too long term. What would of happened if Manziel had stayed 2 years longer? what if Obama was not president? What if Bush had not invaded Iraq? What if we would of used force much sooner on Hitler- right after he first acted out? The truth is you make the best decision you can with the information you have and you will probably never will know what would of happened if another decision was made.

Dirt- that quote does somewhat echo what I am saying. During war there is no nice way to kill people. Was there a kind gentle way we could of dropped the bomb on Japan?

RetiredAg is correct- Jesus shows us the way of not going to war in the first place- Love and nonviolence.

Funny how the sheeple blindly accept the left wing report on torture

I have no problem extracting information from terrorists who are committed to our destruction by whatever means necessary, especially if they are known to have information that could kill innocent Americans