Each takes responsibility for their own actions. Evil is measured only in relation to past actions and development.

For someone inclined to beating his wife, stopping himself and just screaming at her instead may be an improvement.

Yet for someone else such screaming appears very negative and excessive.

Again, evil is a relative property and interpretation of any expression.

The company who orders the plant may have good intentions but a few accountants and managers decide to cut costs. They know there may be risks but they proceed. They are evil only to the extent they know they are going against there better judgement.

A simpleton is not evil. Incompetence is not evil.

Doing something and knowing it will harm others is evil. Yet even this "evil" is moderated and put into varying degrees of context by its circumstances.

A war against Saddam which kills civilians is evil. But when put into context against the threat of someone who has developed chemical weapons and is trying to develop nuclear weaponry - it becomes much less evil.

Each action has a context. Each action has relative progressive and destructive ramifications as it regenerates.

Ordering people to die and fight is not an order one makes lightly or nonchalantly.

The repercussions of engaging in violent action without justification or to offset some other violent act are grave indeed.

Evil is relative. Good is relative.

Ignorance is not evil - though its actions and outcomes appears as such to many of greater development.

The ignorant who protest going after Saddam before he becomes a nuclear power - lack the foresight and collective ability to foresee the ramifactions of such inaction.

They unknowingly are sacrificing millions upon millions of men, women and children needlessly on the altar of their ignorance.

The lack of ability to see this does not make them evil, much as the Jehovah's Witnesses who often keep their children away from proper medication make them evil. If their child dies, they may learn a great lesson for the future wherein they less blindly accept any given doctrine.

Inspections will give saddam enough time to complete his bomb. Then he can use it against us or Israel, Kuwait, or the oil fields and his own people.

For all we know he may already have one awaiting testing and be working on number two and three.

As such the "war to disarm" is not as evil as the supposed "war for oil".

The war for oil rhetoric has been passed around by folks who clearly have their own agenda and who want enough willing sheep to bleat it endlessly.

The same rhetoric was waged in 1991 and it was shown to be false. We claimed no oil then and we received no discount oil prices. If we truly went to war for oil we simply would've continued on to Baghdad, and conducted regime change. We did not. Because it was not a war for oil.

Neither will this be a war for oil - the whole world will be watching. We will expend far more to protect the world - and will not be paid in oil.

Loosen up those molecules my friend, get those neurons firing!

SDAI-Tech1