This shows that we could in fact discuss matters of contention if we would take our time and make an effort to state our positions in such a way as to not include insults or personal rants.

I disagree with much of the post but I confess my feelings are based on whether or not one believes there should be an attempt to control war. Craig's opinion that civilians are legitimate targets by reason of thought has to be followed up with the belief that if that ideal was good for that particular war it should be OK for all wars.

I don't think even those who wage modern warfare would agree with him. That is why we have things like the Geneva Convention. If waging war by inflicting as much hurt and damage to civilians & non-military targets is acceptable then we can do away with things like war crimes. We would have to say something like what the Japanese did at Nanking is just "total war".

War has to be controlled to some degree or we just become savages. I admit to not knowing how to do this effectively but I would want to have no part of a nation or army who behaved as savages.

P.S. to Jim Martin___ I probably should have kept myself out of this thread. I just think it is wrong to give anybody a free pass on something like war time atrocities.