The world has never been without wars and conflicts - not for a minute.

The world had never been without kings, either, until one society decided to try government without one. According to your logic, because the world has never been without wars, we ought not to be upset that wars continue, and need not strive to make them fewer.

The newly appointed planetary peace patrols are composed of folks who have little grasp of history, philosophy or even human nature.

Or maybe they're Christians.

It has been perfectly fine when other nations war and wipe each other out or even when a thousand year war is waged on a particular group of people

Want some mustard with that baloney?

- but as soon as the most advanced, civilized and intelligent nation on Earth starts to defend it's interests - war suddenly becomes a great evil.

First, war has been a great evil since long before modern times, and has been recognized as a great evil.

Second, I'm going to assume that you mean the United States when you applied all those superlative adjectives, although other nations have higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, and have found ways to deal with their criminal element that didn't involve executing people who may or may not be guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted.

Nevertheless, I will agree that the United States, for all its shortcomings, is pretty swell. Not swell enough to give perfection lessons to anyone though. The important thing to remember about America is that it's an experiment. The instant that it becomes a deity, the experiment is all over.

This quote you cited is full of that uneducated, moral relativism and small minded outlook wrapped up in pretentious, yet fallacious notions of global equality:

Funny how veterans, especially decorated veterans, are held up and revered by the Right until they make statements, such as the one below, that are out of line with the Right's talking points. Then said veteran becomes uneducated, morally relativistic, small-minded, and wrapped up in pretensious, yet fallacious notions of global equality.

Your judgment of him is full of that ignorant, ideologically rigid and narrow-minded outlook wrapped up in intense, yet shallow notions of parochial nationalism.

"We as a nation must stop thinking of ourselves as exceptional and worthy of special privileges above other nations and peoples. We must stop glorifying war. We must stop praising institutional murder." "Only when our nation behaves honorably and honestly with all other nations, giving respect as we wish to be respected, seeking only peace and justice for all nations and peoples, will we be worthy of the rigors our military veterans have endured in our name."

Let's take a good look at the fallacies and misconcepts - shall we?

Quit playing Professor Newtonium before I barf.

"We as a nation must stop thinking of ourselves as exceptional and worthy of special privileges above other nations and peoples.

Sorry. We are exceptional, worthy not only of special privileges but make our own lives superior daily in thousands of ways. A man need not live like a savage or obey a savages religious tenets so as to support some fools notion of global equality. America has a superior Constitution, set of moral values, business infrastructure and the best medicine, foods, material goods and homes.

You have restructured his statement almost to the point of the unrecognizable. He is saying we need to remember that we are as mortal and as fallible as any other nation, as we are human. He did not say we must live in ways we find substandard or repulsive. He said we are only entitled to our own piece of the pie, not a slice of everyone else's too.

This is no accident. This is the byproduct of countless men and women's efforts to bring about this cornucopia of plenty we collectively partake of to varying degrees.

"To varying degrees". Verily, thou sayest a mouthful.

Besides, a very important reason that the United States is as powerful as it is is that we are sitting on an enormous chunk of very rich and valuable real estate. It takes skill and talent to make that work for us, yes -- I mean, if material resources were all, Brazil ought to be giving us a real run for our money. But we have a lot because we have a lot to work with.

When you have saved much of the world from becoming a fascist empire, a communist cesspool or a socialist nightmare you also earn certain privileges in terms of global affairs. The UN is not a concept conceived in the middle east or China. The UN was a western idea that thrived under the moral values held by twentieth century westerners.

Whoa.

First, unless we wish to state that these achievements were in fact conquests, no, we don't have "certain privileges" in foreign affairs. What the achievements have won for us is the opportunity to lead. If we lead someplace that the world doesn't wish to follow, then (unless we wish to act like an imperial power) they are under no constraints to follow. So pfft! to your "privileges".

Second, suddenly the UN is a good thing, a flower of the West! I will mark this day on my calendar.

Now, I'm going to have a little fun with your next paragraph:

Civilization was not meant to stand still. When it does, as is exhibited in regions such as the Black Hills of South Dakota, it is obvious that it is largely dysfunctional. When one region races ahead and becomes technocratic while others squander away their lives in the dark ages with dark ages morals and thinking processes - the superior region need not pretend there is equality or kowtow to barbaric outmoded concepts so as to appease some misguided, basically unintelligent individuals who have no ability to perceive the history and future of this world in any sort of totality.

Straight out of the 19th century.

"Only when our nation behaves honorably and honestly with all other nations, giving respect as we wish to be respected, seeking only peace and justice for all nations and peoples, will we be worthy of the rigors our military veterans have endured in our name."

Our nation behaves honorably all the time.

Oh, pull the other one: it hath bells on.

Our nation is the role model for other nations governments and moral values. We don't seek or need the respect of inferior cultures and barbaric minds and in no way are we obligated to respect that which is obviously inferior and barbaric.

Thank you, General Custer.

Do we respect a murderer on death row? Do we seek his/her respect? Of course not! Such a notion is preposterous!

Especially when we might have to re-examine the evidence of his or her guilt. So much easier to demonize the other than to examine one's self.

Why should we respect or seek respect from folks whose values are three thousand years out of date? Indeed, any intelligent individual should realize that any new respect from an inferior culture, complete with bloodthirsty customs, violent underpinnings and a complete lack of moral development could only mean your society was in serious retrogression.

No, when one has achieved a level of civilization, one is no longer subject to pander to retrogressive nations or cultures. One need not pretend there is equality where there is not. One does not pretend a deaf person can hear, not only because it is dishonest, but it is harmful. Pretending these nations are not retrograde does not help them advance and if your position is that they do not need to advance then YOU are in a state of retrogression and will soon find yourself among others who are also in a moral and cultural free fall.

Thank you, Reginald Dyer. Indeed, if an entire culture and all the people who adhere to its tenets and live according to its customs can be identified as dangerously inferior in all ways, one can justify all kinds of help to cleanse them of their filth and sterilize them of their infection.

Indeed, one does not pretend the deaf can hear. Nor does one pretend the deaf cannot understand. And especially, one does not base an assessment of the deaf's value and intelligence upon whether they appear to be paying attention, and incarcerate them in mental institutions. Yet this too has been done, and by people who also thought of themselves as the very pinnacle of civilized behavior.

The US is the world's planetary leader - like it or not - and will continue to be as long as we hold to the advanced nature of our Constitution and our highly developed western morals. Human dignity and human rights as concepts were born elsewhere in the world but fluorished in America.

We will be the leader as long as we continue to lead. Leading is not the same as claiming the right to make all the rules because we own the ball.

Notice you use the word "human", not "American", nor even "Western". This implies a certain equity among humans as humans, not just humans born into a particular nation or culture. The effective way to lead in a moral and cultural struggle is by example, not by ridicule and contempt.

Our military veterans do what they do and our armies are volunteers who wanted to join and presumably understood the risks. This is not Vietnam. There are no draft call ups or people who did not volunteer for the jobs and difficulties and possible deadly conditions they face.

Agreed.

Our military is the best in the world and we have conducted the Iraq conflict in a manner meant to preserve the most lives.

"They", not "we", as they are the ones on the ground in Iraq, but otherwise agreed.

This is not good enough for many. Ironically many of these folks are enjoying any casualties in Iraq and have become exactly what they are emotional about - death revelers. This was documented on the Democratic Underground website and is demonstrated here by our own Don, whose denials are as meaningless as his reasons for posting any and all casualties in Iraq, indeed to the point of obsessive fixation.

This is absolutely uncalled-for! It is also another example of attempting to tar those who dissent from the Administration's approach to diplomacy with the brush of psychiatric illness, a tactic that is as odious as it is inaccurate. Where did you get your license to practice, Doctor?

Yes, the endless war is not desired by Bush or Rumsfeld or used as a method to increase personal power- but rather the left seeks it, craves it and revels in death and "quagmire" in the hopes that it will lead to their increased power.

The Left is not waging this war, so to say that the Left seeks to wage it is just dopey.

If you are trying to set the stage for supporting premature withdrawal from a region that we have further destabilized by our military incursions as an expression of American patriotism, guess again. We will have to clean up this mess.

Tom documented the activities of A.N.S.W.E.R and the other antiwar groups and how they use the Iraq war to bring the young and misguided under their Marxist umbrella.

Heaven knows that no one could possibly be opposed to war out of principle! Are you suggesting that all opponents to this war are either young, misguided, or Marxist ciphers?

I documented the WMD which were in Iraq after the gulf war and how Iraq DID have a WMD program capable of killing billions. All of this is brushed off by the left in their blind pursuit of power.

All this is brushed off by people who are still waiting for the existence of the PRESENT threat to be demonstrated.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden do not deserve our respect nor should we lament the passing of the Taliban or the bloody Baathist regime. Anyone who believes we were not justified in removing these individuals from their powerbases is completely wrong and their thinking is seriously flawed. Each posed a serious threat to our nation and the world, each demonstrated a hostility towards the US and a flagrant disrespect for human life, human rights and progress.

Even if I grant you (without evidence) that Saddam may have been a danger to this country, and posit the rest, you have no justification to trash an entire group of cultures based on the failure to develop representative government, especially when we, the great democratic savior of the world, have overthrown representative government in this region and supported tyrants and dictators whom we liked.

The war on terrorism is nothing new it is now just a larger operation which is funded by more money and is much more public. It is really just a war on ignorance and it will continue as long as mankind exists. When folks spoke out against the inquisition - they were waging a war on terror. When the US landed in Normandy - it was waging the war against terror. When our helicopters drop agents behind the lines in Kasmir or an agent infiltrates the North Korean gun running trade - we are fighting the war on terrorism and ignorance.

War on ignorance is not won at gunpoint. Fear is good at conditioning behavior, but has little value in communicating ideas. If you are equating education with Pavlovian training, well then, yes. But these are not dogs.

Equality doesn't exist. No two things are ever equal or identical. No snowflakes, sandgrains, atoms or waves are identical.

No, but we are not talking about things. We are talking about concepts: humans are all inherently equal in dignity, for example, and self-determination is part of that dignity. Not determination by the dominant power who knows what's better for everybody than they know themselves.

When one realizes this and uses this advanced knowledge in societal development, one no longer need to suffer under false precepts that keep people living in darkness, dying unnecessarily because of the propagation of ignorance over intelligence.

Gee, social engineering?

Intelligence must prevail.

Ignorance must be abolished.

It's not an institution. It doesn't respond to force. Ignorance can only be suppressed by force; it cannot be defeated that way.

That is the BIG picture and what everyone must eventually realize when discussing mankind.

[rolling eyes] Mr. DeMille! He's ready for his close-up!

Go reread A Christmas Carol and get a little better perspective on Ignorance and its sibling Poverty before you attempt to conquer Terror. It helps to understand that the roots of these things lay in man's inhumanity to man. Dehumanizing other humans only compounds the problem.

Get off your high horse.