>That is a pretty broad statement Jim. Taken literally, then WWII should never have happened and Hitler should be ruling the world. Saddam would be ruling Kuwait, the Black Freedom Fighters in our Civil War would have been sent home...
>
>Wars are not typically fought solely to free people, but it is almost always one of the main goals and the driving force of the support behind it.

No that's exactly why I said START a war.
Civil war = revolution = people doing for THEMSELVES what they believe they need.
Hitler and Saddam started those other wars and so had to be dealt with.
I might not have a problem with STARTING a war on some other basis (can't think of one right now, but I guess there could be) but definitely not under the pretense, or even "fact" of "giving those people their freedom". That could be a fine byproduct of some other reason to START a war.



>
>>SNIP>
>>>In answer to your question. Yes. I am on the correct side of the arguement. What is so objectionable about the pursuit of freedom for all?
>>
>>It's simply that your fervent belief that freedom is good for all seems to have an even more fervent "Islam is good for all". Both of you beliee yours is the correct stand.
>>
>>I personally agree that freedom is good for all. I cannot abide EVER starting a war with the goal of giving someone "freedom". That price is simply too high.