Well, the unwritten rule for women in downtown KL was: Cover your head and arms.
But the muslims in Malaysia were racier. Women could show their face and moved about like they did in any western city.
My hotel was just downt the street from a mosque, I could hear the call to prayers, which was drowned out by the rock music coming from the Hagaan Dasz shop outside the mall.
Timmers said from the other thread: well if the question was rhetorical, you will burn in hell, duh.
That's interesting, but I meant as far as your beliefs in war.
If I don't believe in God, or specifically the Christian God & Jesus, you’re argument is irrelevant to me and billions of other people on this earth.
If you don't believe in God then it comes down to a military decision I guess, with no morals or belief system to go on, it is purely tactical. That gives us nothing to discuss, at least I don't think anyone in here truely knows what type of power Sadam has...
I don't think that he has any power, I guess I am trusting the U.N. weapons inspectors, but I don't know who else to trust. And again, let's do a hypothetical. If the U.S. were to attack Iraq, lose American lives, and almost definetely kill innocent Iraqi people, and by chance Sadam DOESN'T slip away, and we kill him, then who will control Iraq? The Kurds? Who has a good solution? Everyone hates America, for numerous reasons, some of which I agree with...
So anyone that considers themselves pro-war: can you please explain a solution to who would run the country, and tell us if they love Americans, and tell us if they will have MORE power than Sadam especially if they start getting oil .money straight from America when the embargo is lifted...
I am against War, but I am FOR ousting Saddman, and the solution to "who should run the country" is: The People of Iraq.
Which people would that be? Would not Sadam fall under that catergory? Or are you talking about the peasants, the ones without any power at all? Who? Who? Who? And how are we going to ensure that they stay in power? Occupation? I hope not...
War is cool. What better way to boost profits, ensure re-election, and decrease the excess population all at the same time. It's necessary too, if we don't occupy Iraq, build McDonalds and Holiday Inns in Bahgdad within the next five years, commerce and free trade as we know it is going to collapse. Look what happened to Russia. And what about those weapons of destruction? Remember the havoc that those SCUD missles caused when they almost hit their target back in 1991. he could be building more rockets that might almost hit other targets in Washington, North Dakota, or even (God forbid) Texas! How will you feel then?
I personally am feeling threatened by Sadaam. I can't leave my house without wondering if he's going to walk up behind me and hit me over the head at the Old Navy store. Or if one of his trained assassins is following me in rush hour traffic on my way to the Christian Book Outlet Store.
We need to overthrow and remove him right now and set up a new, efficient government like we did in Afghanistan, and Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and even here in America. Just use Afghanistan for a model. They'll all be buying Big Macs and sporting satellite dishes on their lawns, flying the stars and stripes on their picket fences, and going to church on Sundays in no time. God Bless America and the way we solve problems.
Anyway, I'm sick and tired of paying through the nose every day at the pump when I gas up my F350, my boat and my four-wheelers.
I was answering it from my perspective actually, if I ignore my Christianity, then I would have no belief system that is aside from my religioud beliefs.
This hypothetical sucks anyways because what political leaders don't claim to be Christian?
If you wan't to consider the prospect of War from some un-named non-Christian, that's great, do it. But anyone anywhere that isn't Christian will have a different belief system.
If hypothetically you were a member of the Michigan Militia, what would your view be on the war? What about if you are an inbred redneck that only cares about trucks? What about a Haitian refuge that is in prison right now?(thats a different issue entirely)... answers THX, I wan't answers!
Why should the rest of us be forced to abide by your morals?
You deffinetely do not have to abide by my morals, and I sure bet that you don't, and probably haven't in the past, and more than likely never will. That is fine, I am not the type to condemn others for their beliefs as long as it isn't affecting me. The majority of moral decisions come in each and every persons private life. However when people come together and form a country they are sort of forced to live by a somewhat common morality. This translates to law, and government. So we elect officials to decide for us what to do, and ultimately what is the best for us. Dubbya for example, is apparently a Christian, I don't think he stand up for Christian morals, but that is only my opion.
These officials vote on different things based on their morals, at least for the most part. We are really forced to abide by their morals, not mine. I am just another person explaining to others why from my perspective and background War with Iraq is wrong.
The majority of America considers themselves Christian, so I would say that the majority of Americans should be anti-war, for it is pretty clear in the Bible that peace is the answer. However Americans do not want to be Christians full time, that would be ridiculous. In a Capitalist country where the goal is to become "succesful" by accumulating as much material wealth as possible, leading a Christian life is very very difficult because American societal values and Christian values are in many cases opposites. If you are Catholic, you possible believe you can go to church every Sunday and give 15%, so that you will be "saved" and get into heaven. This is not Christianity, this is American Christianity, were you only have to lead a Christian life for 2 hours a week, as long as you fork out the dough into the collection plate. So say they are pro-war based on fear, that would be my reasoning. No matter the people of Iraq, if there is a minute possibility that we get bombed, we should attack first. Attack, attack, attack. Never is this message taught in the Bible.
So if someone is not Christian, and they don't agree with my values, they should move to a country where there values are commonly held, but I quite frankly am sick and tired of the Hypocracy of American religion...
What me2 said affects me personally. I was very offended by her idiocy, and that is all it can be called. So yes I am gonna "condemn" the belief that Jesus would go to war. It is unbelievably un-justified, and it goes against my entire belief system(no I am not forcing you to also condemn me2).
Peace is the opposite of war, and quite frankly I don't feel like looking up anymore Bible verses, because even if I do you will come up with another lame way to avaid the actual topic.
That's ok, you don't have to defend your position because, the fact of the matter is, most Americans, including "Christians", don't agree with your contention.
Besides, you preach Jesus teachings on one hand, the comdemn people to hell and call them idiots on the other. I can't take you seriously.
btw: I don't think we should go into Iraq right now either.
Let the Liberals have their way for a bit. Let the UN inspectors play cat and mouse with Saddam for a while longer. Heck it's been going on for over 10 years now, what's a few more months going to matter?
Saddam's in violation of over a dozen UN sanctions now. Eventually the international community will admit that Saddam is dicking around, isn't going to change, and they'll back us in this endeavor.
btw: I don't think we should go into Iraq right now either.
ditto! I could only wish we didn't have people on this earth to feel so threatened of our life. I would rather not have our country or any other in a war either.
I know someone who claims to be an atheist but believes the importance of morals (teaches his children strong values but unfortunately without church and God).
and Tim - you took 'Jesus going to war' out of context. Not like he was gonna put on a helmet and uniform and grab a gun and go take Iraq out.
"Take this man to prison," the man heard Herod say, And then four squads of soldiers came and carried him away. Chained up between two watchmen, Peter tried to sleep, But beyond the walls an endless prayer was lifting for his keep. Then a light cut through the darkness of a lonely prison cell, And the chains that bound the man of God just opened up and fell, And running to his people before the break of day, There was only one thing on his mind, only one thing to say:
Angels watching over me, every move I make, Angels watching over me! Angels watching over me, every step I take, Angels watching over me!
God only knows the times my life was threatened just today.
A reckless car ran out of gas before it ran my way. Near misses all around me, accidents unknown, Though I never see with human eyes the hands that lead me home. But I know they're all around me all day and through the night. When the enemy is closing in, I know sometimes they fight To keep my feet from falling, I'll never turn away. If you're asking what's protecting me then you're gonna hear me say:
Got His angels watching over me, every move I make, Angles watching over me! Angels watching over me, every step I take, Angels watching over me....
Though I never see with human eyes the hands that lead me home....
..."I quite frankly am sick and tired of the Hypocrisy of American religion"...
I gotta agree with ya on that statement anyway Tim. I think that just going to church doesn't make one any more religious than standing in a garage makes you a car.
fold wrote: The possible "Occupation" of Iraq and the LACK of a plan of action for after we relieve Saddman of his power and weapons is THE most important reason why I am against invading that country... NOT because it isn't the right thing to do.
The most important reason you are agianst it, fold, is because Bush wants to do it.
was answering it from my perspective actually, if I ignore my Christianity, then I would have no belief system that is aside from my religioud beliefs.
this hypothetical sucks anyways because what political leaders don't claim to be Christian?
Umm, Jews ? Muslims ?
If you wan't to consider the prospect of War from some un-named non-Christian, that's great, do it. But anyone anywhere that isn't Christian will have a different belief system.
So should we only listen to policy from Christians or those who claim to be ? Is a Christian's opinion more valid than a non Christian ?
So one of your reasons for not taking action is that we shouldn't because of whom will run Iraq when victory is achieved. I think that it should of course be a concern, it's not however a large enough reason for many to be a determining factor. Should we have not fought against japan or Germany because we really didn't have a plan who was going to rule when we were done. Should we not be going after Alquieda and Binny because we don't have a plan in place for who will rule ? We haven't left Afghanistan yet, In fact look at any other country in recent history we have had conflict with. With the exception of Vietnam we have rebuilt the nations we were previously enemies with. It's pretty amazing to think that today we are allies with Japan when 60 years ago they attacked us.
Let the U.N do it's job you say. I agree, wholehertedly, the problem is that in many cases they aren't doing thier job. It was not their fault however that Iraq kicked inspectors out. I have heard you say that the U.N didn't find any weapons of mass distruction. What ? where do you get that from. They did find them, also at the end of the Gulf War they found that Sadamn was possibly as little as 6 months away from having Nukes. In the following inspections, they found chemical weapons etc. He used them on his own people, it's been estimated by human rights groups that he has kiled over 1,000,000 of his own people. The inspectors were forbidden from going certain places, then they simply kicked them out in violation of the agreement reached to end the war he started.
So are we to believe that he quit making or developing these weapons after the inspectors were kicked out ?
On the other thread you said
Sadam has been rendered powerless for 5 years now, he may want to attack America, but he can't. No he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, he let the UN in recently and they discovered nothing.
You want to fight the war, then GO. I dare you to enlist (and the fact is that if you are under 40, you CAN enlist...and you have said that you are) and fight for your truly anal "values and ideals".
billfold---I can agree with you on this one---little shits like Andy need to grow some hair on what they call their balls and go fight for what they are told by their party that they believe in. So far Dumbshit Bush didn't, Too-smart-to-fight Cheney chickened out---Storman Norman Coleman has no service record---yet they all get a big hard-on at the thought of spilling blood---I wonder if Normy and Dubya ever played "tent" together?
YAH. You're a damn liar. You never even AGREED on where to meet me, because you said..."I don't trust you", in spite of the fact that I asked anyone at all from the boards to come along, "For your protection". I am certain that JT remembers...?
Frankly, you don't have the stones, nor the ability.
I don't remember agreeing to meet you, fold. I invited you but you were not in the state, if I remember correctly. I did have sort of a meeting with Mallinder (whatever happened to that boy anyway?).
and Tim - you took 'Jesus going to war' out of context. Not like he was gonna put on a helmet and uniform and grab a gun and go take Iraq out.
I have to ask how I am the one taking it out of context when you are the one quoting Zacherious as your only evidence as to why Jesus WOULD go to war. It is obviously a pure hypthetical, but when you say he WOULD go to war, I would have to believe that you are implying that Jesus believes in war. Can you just answer me why you take your biblical context out of the old testament, and don't read the new testament, which is much more clearcut in meaning(much of it is actual accounts of events that happened)?
What about Matthew Chapter 24? 1-14 words in red are right out of the mouth of Jesus...
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them,
See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the begining of sorrows.
then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall enndure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then the end shall come.
Jesus spoke in a matter of factly way saying these things will happen.
In my opinion War and soldiers happened for a reason.
There is much talk about spiritual warfare and putting on the armor of God.
If a just war was not an admirable thing, and if soldiers were not considered brave and heroes than God would have spoke of it in negative ways.
2Timothy 2:3,4
3-"Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." 4-"No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier."
explaination from full life study bible, king james version -(Endure hardness. A minister of the gospel who remains loyal to Christ and the gospel will be called upon to endure hardship (cf. 1:8;2:9; 2 Cor.11:23-29). Like a soldier, he must be willing to undergo difficulties and suffering and to wage spiritual warfare in wholehearted devotion to his Lord (Eph. 6:10-18); like an athlete, he must be willing to sacrifice and live a life of strict discipline (v.5); like a farmer, he must be committed to hard work and long hours (v.6)
Shrub's made his case for overthrowing the government of Iraq.
It's truly bogus and pathetic.
Here are ten reasons why Dubya's argument fails, with an eleventh thrown in for extra measure:
1) When Mussolini attacked Ethiopia, it was aggression. When Hitler's forces poured into Poland, it was aggression. When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, it was aggression. If the U.S. launches preemptive war against Iraq, it'll be aggression. What sort of "patriotism" is it that would put America in such wicked, historical company?
2) Bush claims Saddam poses a threat to innocents everywhere. But how many innocents would perish if Iraq were simply left alone to live in peace? How many more would violently die if our military massively bombed and assaulted Iraq, and set the Middle East ablaze? Who is really the far greater, much deadlier danger to countless everyday people?
3) Iraq is an oil-rich country that two men made rich by oil -- Bush and Cheney -- want to conquer to get richer still. Not just themselves, but the obscene special interest they so slavishly serve. The one with no qualms about putting our kids into body bags so it may enjoy unfettered superprofits. And Saddam is supposed to be the evil one?!
4) Our society is already awash in corruption and hypocrisy. Enronitis permeates our entire culture. How do we enhance our long-term security -- and build confidence in our system in young people's eyes -- by engaging in immoral and illegal assaults on other nations, for misrepresented, sleazy reasons?
5) Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. We're told we must "rid the world" of this "maniacal" Iraqi leader. But when the bombs, shells and missiles of the only remaining superpower fall on poor Iraq, will those ripped by searing shrapnel and burned to grotesque cinders be named Saddam? No. They'll be toddlers at play, women hanging clothes, old men remembering a tender past. Do we understand the terrible un-Godliness of what Bush proposes?
6) In a world in which our country is already hated enough to trigger spreading terrorism against us, attacking Iraq would exponentially add to global anti-American rage. Bush's policy is so counterproductively destructive that he's Osama's chief, unwitting recruiting agent.
7) America's role is to supposedly make the world safe for democracy. But George II wants to preemptively attack any "threatening" nation that uses its freedom to vary from our political and economic "model". Be like us, or be invaded and occupied. Make the world's human and natural resources cheaply and readily available to U.S. corporate interests, or we'll brutally take them!
8) When's the last time you saw an Iraqi flag burned in an international street protest? It's always Old Glory, and effigies of our president. It's safe to say far more people around the world desire a "regime change" in the USA than in Iraq. Should they organize to attack us? Wait... Some already did -- on 9/11.
9) If "insane" Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, he hasn't used them during the decade of our murderous embargo and no-fly-zone bombings. That testifies to a judicious restraint that would likely evaporate if he were faced with extinction and had nothing left to lose. Remember, if such weapons do exist, they could conceivably be used not in Iraq but within the U.S., against us all. How can we allow Bush's recklessness to put us at such risk?
10) War with Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion. That's not an abstraction, but a subtraction, meaning lost revenue for people's needs. Education, health care, housing, transportation and infrastructure would all suffer. It took a generation to recover from the guns-before-butter bad priorities of Vietnam. Could our fragile economy take such a hit today?
11) Look at your children across the supper table tonight. Did you raise them to be cannon fodder in rich men's dirty wars? If we don't stand up to stop America's escalating militarism now, there'll be a succession of high school reunions across the country, for decades to come, where special, bitter tribute will have to be paid for those who won't be there -- because unconscionable war hawks and bloody imperialism prevailed.
MASSIVE ITALIAN ANTI-WAR PROTEST WILL SET PATTERN FOR MANY OTHERS IN EUROPE
FLORENCE, Italy, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Peace activists pledged on Sunday to stage protests across Europe against any war in Iraq, fired by the success of a weekend rally that brought half a million protesters onto the streets of Florence.
They said they were planning to hold a wave of demonstrations in three months' time, but would mobilise supporters sooner if a U.S. attack on Iraq looked imminent.
"We have fixed a date of February 15," said Italian militant Piero Maestri at the end of the Florence meeting of European anti-globalisation groups, adding that the rallies would be staged simultaneously in all major European capitals.
"Some people wanted to hold it sooner, but the English said they needed more time to organise things. However, if war breaks out beforehand, we will hit the streets immediately," he said.
United in anti-Americanism and riled by a tough new U.N. resolution to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, activists from across the Continent joined forces for a carnival-like peace rally that flooded this Renaissance art city on Saturday.
Some militants indicated that they would not wait until next February before taking to the streets again, saying they were convinced the United States had already decided to wage war on Iraq.
"This war, when it comes, will be one of the most unpopular in history and we have to do something to try to stop it," said Alain Krivine, a far-left French member of the European parliament who took part in Saturday's protest.
"Florence has shown that there is radical opposition, from young and old people, and from all different countries."
quoting Zacherius as your only evidence as to why Jesus WOULD go to war.
I wasn't trying to get 'into' it with you in the first place-But, I do appoligize that I haven't had the time, or made the time, to continue our discussion leading us from the Old Testament into the New (first off though... the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament). But I guess, since you want New Testament proof -If you are in ministry than you should know everything Paula I has said (I appreciate your time Paula to type all that out)I am not much for writing novels and just because I posted once on the Old Testament doesn't mean thats the only evidence.
Wow -cool- 11:00 11/10/2002 post 44! ;) inside joke JOE
What happened on election day can be explained, in part, by a split in the Democratic Party. The split resembles the fractious 1968 Democratic Convention, when Democrats were divided over the Vietnam War, while Republicans uniformly supported it. Instead of uniting with a constituency that largely opposed a war in Southeast Asia, Democrats allowed the United States to wage an unnecessary war, which resulted in millions of Vietnamese and more than 58,000 dead U.S. soldiers.
Winners Voted No
Today, the leadership of the Democratic Party is similarly out of step with its rank and file membership and a majority of Americans. According to an October 30 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans oppose a unilateral, unprovoked, first-strike war and occupation of Iraq by a 3 to 1 margin. The pro-war faction of the Democratic leadership led candidates in close races around the nation to electoral ruin. When he realized this, Democratic strategist James Carville put a garbage can over his head live on CNN during the election-night coverage.
So who was right among the Democrats? The late Senator Wellstone. Members of Congress who shared his courage and backbone by voting "No" to war on Iraq were rewarded at the ballot box. Contrary to what James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt believed, every Democrat up for reelection who stood up against the President and voted "No" won their races - with only one exception. Rep. Jim Maloney in Connecticut lost, but redistricting and a strong opponent had already sealed his fate. Meanwhile, the "No" votes cast by Julia Carson, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jay Inslee, and even Republican Jim Leach in Iowa contributed to electoral victory. In the Senate, Paul Wellstone's numbers had risen from 6 percent behind before the war vote to 6 percent ahead at the time of his death.
--Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the Gulf War and the executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq. He is also a co-founder of the newly-formed Veterans for Common Sense
According to an October 30 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans oppose a unilateral, unprovoked, first-strike war and occupation of Iraq by a 3 to 1 margin.
After Bush attacks Iraq, Saddam launches as many as 30 carefully hidden Scuds and secretly-built, improved missiles at Israel.
They'll be tipped with bio-chem warheads.
Israel will respond with rockets of its own, some bearing nukes.
But this sequence doesn't commence immediately.
Saddam chooses to wait until tens of thousands of U.S. troops are inside Iraq, assuring that they'll be killed by the retaliatory ISRAELI strike, either directly or by ensuing radiation.
Anti-war demonstrations sweep the planet.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi leadership thoroughly sabotages their country's entire oil apparatus.
Everything from wells to pipelines are blown up, on such a comprehensive scale that their restoration would take decades.
By then, the petroleum-dependent developed world will have experienced economic collapse.
We get a small percentage of our oil from Arab lands, correct?
If all else fails, I do know how to ride a horse and there are plenty of horse farms where I live. If I need to, I will travel by horse and buggy. That is, until we get our Alaska pipeline up.
Meanwhile the land of the free and home of the brave is still making a wise decision to eradicate biological and nuclear weapons facilities from mad men who plot to attack us. The unanimous support of the UN shows that Sadaam's lack of compliance is serious business.
If Sadaam would just comply, the embargo would lift and he could go about his business.... what business is that again?.... oh yeah, killing his own people and plotting evil against other nations instead of making himself and it's nation their personal best.
Before the "evil Bushes" Sadaam was a just, giving, caring, and forthright man wasn't he?
The first story that you posted was an interesting one, Jesus teaching in Mount Olive. However I fail to see how this shows that Jesus is in favor of war, or supports war in any way.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them,
See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Jesus tells the disciples that the temple will be destroyed. It was destroyed 40 years later by the Romans.
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the begining of sorrows.
At the beginning of this section Jesus is warning against looking for signs, because there are many false prophets. Focus on Christ instead of looking for signs.
then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall enndure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Stay true to Christ, keep faith and live a Christian life, even when it is very difficult. This, to me is the key message in this passage. Jesus is telling the disciples that there will be tough times, but not to worry and to stay strong in their Christian beleifs and way fo life. This pertains to the current situation because times in which we are threatened are hard times to be a Christian. It is easy to be peaceful in times of peace, but as Christians we are called to be peaceful ALL of the time. Now, it doesn't list what it means to be Christian in this particular passage, but I believe "he who shall endure until the end" refers to faith, and to standing up for Christianity.
In the second two verses written by Paul in the second book of Timothy, this is further supported. He knows that Timothy will have to endure times that are very difficult, and he makes a refrence to a soldier because he must give up his security. Today, we are at a time in which we may have to be willing to give up security in order to promote peace, and promote the word of God.
Paula I- If you don't believe that Jesus is the prince of peace, and you don't believe that God is peaceful and forgiving I can post verses until the cows come home and I doubt it will help. Peace is something that you must feel in your heart, and I understand peace through the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Looking forward to a response so that I have the oppurtunity to grow in my interpretation and study of the Holy Bible and Christianity as a whole.
As I said, 55% want something to be done. By breaking it down and implying that a 3-1 margin is against doing anything and then tieing that to the past election is misleading at best.
Even President Bush (who you guys keep telling us is dumb) sees this and was not only able to get historic gains in an off year elections, but has also got U.N. aproval which makes this entire arguement irrelevant. Makes you wonder what a "smart" person would have been able to accomplish.
Perhaps we should break the the opposing group down to those that oppose simply because Bush is the current president and compare that to those that want something done. Then we can say that 3 or 4 times more support the president than disagree. This would be the same mentallity. However, the fact remains that more than 1 1/2 times as many people think that something should be done.
It's immediately met by a flotilla of diverse local vessels, which "welcome" the liberating Americans by flying Old Glory and loudly playing Western popular music.
Above, a dozen or more small, circling aircraft join in the "celebration".
Suddenly, some of those boats, and all of the planes, begin crashing into our ships, on explosive suicide missions.
Other boats produce Chinese Silkworm missiles, which are fired at deadly close range.
Most of our fleet is sunk.
Ludicrous?
Well, something very similar actually happened, in our own war game...which we lost.
In recent months, Webb has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, calling it, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, a distraction from the fight against al Qaeda.
"We should not occupy territory in Iraq," he said. "Do you really want the United States on the ground in that region for a generation?
"I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat,"
Webb recalled proudly that as Navy secretary in 1987, "I was the only one in the Reagan administration who opposed the tilt toward Iraq in the war with Iran," referring to the U.S. sharing of intelligence and arms with Saddam Hussein's forces
"His reputation may be controversial, but a lot of things he said we tend to agree with," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Paul Tanks, a graduate student in space systems operations.
"Iraq is a terrible detour from what we ought to be doing," Arquilla said. "The real threat is from the al Qaeda network. Saddam is a minimal threat to us.
Arquilla, like Webb, is one of the military's critical thinkers, an oft- quoted expert on what he calls "network theory" -- studying decentralized organizations like al Qaeda.
Well, the unwritten rule for women in downtown KL was: Cover your head and arms.
But the muslims in Malaysia were racier. Women could show their face and moved about like they did in any western city.
My hotel was just downt the street from a mosque, I could hear the call to prayers, which was drowned out by the rock music coming from the Hagaan Dasz shop outside the mall.
Timmers said from the other thread:
well if the question was rhetorical, you will burn in hell, duh.
That's interesting, but I meant as far as your beliefs in war.
If I don't believe in God, or specifically the Christian God & Jesus, you’re argument is irrelevant to me and billions of other people on this earth.
Why should we listen to France? France is taking the same position it did in the late 1930's that led to the invasion of France by Germany.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20021101.shtml
What if I don't believe in God?
If you don't believe in God then it comes down to a military decision I guess, with no morals or belief system to go on, it is purely tactical. That gives us nothing to discuss, at least I don't think anyone in here truely knows what type of power Sadam has...
I don't think that he has any power, I guess I am trusting the U.N. weapons inspectors, but I don't know who else to trust. And again, let's do a hypothetical. If the U.S. were to attack Iraq, lose American lives, and almost definetely kill innocent Iraqi people, and by chance Sadam DOESN'T slip away, and we kill him, then who will control Iraq? The Kurds? Who has a good solution? Everyone hates America, for numerous reasons, some of which I agree with...
So anyone that considers themselves pro-war: can you please explain a solution to who would run the country, and tell us if they love Americans, and tell us if they will have MORE power than Sadam especially if they start getting oil .money straight from America when the embargo is lifted...
I am against War, but I am FOR ousting Saddman, and the solution to "who should run the country" is: The People of Iraq.
Which people would that be? Would not Sadam fall under that catergory? Or are you talking about the peasants, the ones without any power at all? Who? Who? Who? And how are we going to ensure that they stay in power? Occupation? I hope not...
........with no morals or belief system to go on, it is purely tactical.
People who don't believe in God don't have morals or a belief system?
War is cool. What better way to boost profits, ensure re-election, and decrease the excess population all at the same time. It's necessary too, if we don't occupy Iraq, build McDonalds and Holiday Inns in Bahgdad within the next five years, commerce and free trade as we know it is going to collapse. Look what happened to Russia. And what about those weapons of destruction? Remember the havoc that those SCUD missles caused when they almost hit their target back in 1991. he could be building more rockets that might almost hit other targets in Washington, North Dakota, or even (God forbid) Texas! How will you feel then?
I personally am feeling threatened by Sadaam. I can't leave my house without wondering if he's going to walk up behind me and hit me over the head at the Old Navy store. Or if one of his trained assassins is following me in rush hour traffic on my way to the Christian Book Outlet Store.
We need to overthrow and remove him right now and set up a new, efficient government like we did in Afghanistan, and Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and even here in America. Just use Afghanistan for a model. They'll all be buying Big Macs and sporting satellite dishes on their lawns, flying the stars and stripes on their picket fences, and going to church on Sundays in no time. God Bless America and the way we solve problems.
Anyway, I'm sick and tired of paying through the nose every day at the pump when I gas up my F350, my boat and my four-wheelers.
DuaneBarry---over and out.
I was answering it from my perspective actually, if I ignore my Christianity, then I would have no belief system that is aside from my religioud beliefs.
This hypothetical sucks anyways because what political leaders don't claim to be Christian?
If you wan't to consider the prospect of War from some un-named non-Christian, that's great, do it. But anyone anywhere that isn't Christian will have a different belief system.
If hypothetically you were a member of the Michigan Militia, what would your view be on the war? What about if you are an inbred redneck that only cares about trucks? What about a Haitian refuge that is in prison right now?(thats a different issue entirely)... answers THX, I wan't answers!
My point, Tim, is that most people don't share your belief whether Christian or not.
Why should the rest of us be forced to abide by your morals?
Ahhh the question of truth...
Why should the rest of us be forced to abide by your morals?
You deffinetely do not have to abide by my morals, and I sure bet that you don't, and probably haven't in the past, and more than likely never will. That is fine, I am not the type to condemn others for their beliefs as long as it isn't affecting me. The majority of moral decisions come in each and every persons private life. However when people come together and form a country they are sort of forced to live by a somewhat common morality. This translates to law, and government. So we elect officials to decide for us what to do, and ultimately what is the best for us. Dubbya for example, is apparently a Christian, I don't think he stand up for Christian morals, but that is only my opion.
These officials vote on different things based on their morals, at least for the most part. We are really forced to abide by their morals, not mine. I am just another person explaining to others why from my perspective and background War with Iraq is wrong.
The majority of America considers themselves Christian, so I would say that the majority of Americans should be anti-war, for it is pretty clear in the Bible that peace is the answer. However Americans do not want to be Christians full time, that would be ridiculous. In a Capitalist country where the goal is to become "succesful" by accumulating as much material wealth as possible, leading a Christian life is very very difficult because American societal values and Christian values are in many cases opposites. If you are Catholic, you possible believe you can go to church every Sunday and give 15%, so that you will be "saved" and get into heaven. This is not Christianity, this is American Christianity, were you only have to lead a Christian life for 2 hours a week, as long as you fork out the dough into the collection plate. So say they are pro-war based on fear, that would be my reasoning. No matter the people of Iraq, if there is a minute possibility that we get bombed, we should attack first. Attack, attack, attack. Never is this message taught in the Bible.
So if someone is not Christian, and they don't agree with my values, they should move to a country where there values are commonly held, but I quite frankly am sick and tired of the Hypocracy of American religion...
I am not the type to condemn others for their beliefs as long as it isn't affecting me.
Really? Then what is this?
well if the question was rhetorical, you will burn in hell, duh.
tim_the_hunter "Shoot the breeze with the Cooler Crew" 10/31/02 7:45pm
Reread your post and tell me it isn't judgemental and condeming. I'm not even sure how to respond and I don't think I will really.
tim_the_hunter 11/2/02 3:45pm
Also, reread your post to me2 and tell me it wasn't judgemental or condeming.
tim_the_hunter "Shoot the breeze with the Cooler Crew" 10/31/02 3:29pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for it is pretty clear in the Bible that peace is the answer.
Tell me in the Bible where it is clear that war is never the answer? Tell me where it says a nation isn't to defend itself?
What me2 said affects me personally. I was very offended by her idiocy, and that is all it can be called. So yes I am gonna "condemn" the belief that Jesus would go to war. It is unbelievably un-justified, and it goes against my entire belief system(no I am not forcing you to also condemn me2).
Peace is the opposite of war, and quite frankly I don't feel like looking up anymore Bible verses, because even if I do you will come up with another lame way to avaid the actual topic.
That's ok, you don't have to defend your position because, the fact of the matter is, most Americans, including "Christians", don't agree with your contention.
Besides, you preach Jesus teachings on one hand, the comdemn people to hell and call them idiots on the other. I can't take you seriously.
btw: I don't think we should go into Iraq right now either.
Let the Liberals have their way for a bit. Let the UN inspectors play cat and mouse with Saddam for a while longer. Heck it's been going on for over 10 years now, what's a few more months going to matter?
Saddam's in violation of over a dozen UN sanctions now. Eventually the international community will admit that Saddam is dicking around, isn't going to change, and they'll back us in this endeavor.
btw: I don't think we should go into Iraq right now either.
ditto! I could only wish we didn't have people on this earth to feel so threatened of our life. I would rather not have our country or any other in a war either.
I know someone who claims to be an atheist but believes the importance of morals (teaches his children strong values but unfortunately without church and God).
and Tim - you took 'Jesus going to war' out of context. Not like he was gonna put on a helmet and uniform and grab a gun and go take Iraq out.
Not like he was gonna put on a helmet and uniform and grab a gun and go take Iraq out.
I dunno, I could have seen Jesus storming the beach at Normandy.
:-)
"Take this man to prison," the man heard Herod say,
And then four squads of soldiers came and carried him away.
Chained up between two watchmen, Peter tried to sleep,
But beyond the walls an endless prayer was lifting for his keep.
Then a light cut through the darkness of a lonely prison cell,
And the chains that bound the man of God just opened up and fell,
And running to his people before the break of day,
There was only one thing on his mind, only one thing to say:
Angels watching over me, every move I make,
Angels watching over me!
Angels watching over me, every step I take,
Angels watching over me!
God only knows the times my life was threatened just today.
A reckless car ran out of gas before it ran my way.
Near misses all around me, accidents unknown,
Though I never see with human eyes the hands that lead me home.
But I know they're all around me all day and through the night.
When the enemy is closing in, I know sometimes they fight
To keep my feet from falling, I'll never turn away.
If you're asking what's protecting me then you're gonna hear me say:
Got His angels watching over me, every move I make,
Angles watching over me!
Angels watching over me, every step I take,
Angels watching over me....
Though I never see with human eyes the hands that lead me home....
..."I quite frankly am sick and tired of the Hypocrisy of American religion"...
I gotta agree with ya on that statement anyway Tim. I think that just going to church doesn't make one any more religious than standing in a garage makes you a car.
I don't think we should go into Iraq right now either.
We need to go get it done. The sooner the better. There really is no reason to wait any longer. It has been 10 years already.
fold wrote: The possible "Occupation" of Iraq and the LACK of a plan of action for after we relieve Saddman of his power and weapons is THE most important reason why I am against invading that country... NOT because it isn't the right thing to do.
The most important reason you are agianst it, fold, is because Bush wants to do it.
Tim,
Umm, Jews ? Muslims ?
So should we only listen to policy from Christians or those who claim to be ? Is a Christian's opinion more valid than a non Christian ?
Tim,
So one of your reasons for not taking action is that we shouldn't because of whom will run Iraq when victory is achieved. I think that it should of course be a concern, it's not however a large enough reason for many to be a determining factor. Should we have not fought against japan or Germany because we really didn't have a plan who was going to rule when we were done. Should we not be going after Alquieda and Binny because we don't have a plan in place for who will rule ? We haven't left Afghanistan yet, In fact look at any other country in recent history we have had conflict with. With the exception of Vietnam we have rebuilt the nations we were previously enemies with. It's pretty amazing to think that today we are allies with Japan when 60 years ago they attacked us.
Let the U.N do it's job you say. I agree, wholehertedly, the problem is that in many cases they aren't doing thier job. It was not their fault however that Iraq kicked inspectors out. I have heard you say that the U.N didn't find any weapons of mass distruction. What ? where do you get that from. They did find them, also at the end of the Gulf War they found that Sadamn was possibly as little as 6 months away from having Nukes. In the following inspections, they found chemical weapons etc. He used them on his own people, it's been estimated by human rights groups that he has kiled over 1,000,000 of his own people. The inspectors were forbidden from going certain places, then they simply kicked them out in violation of the agreement reached to end the war he started.
So are we to believe that he quit making or developing these weapons after the inspectors were kicked out ?
On the other thread you said
tim_the_hunter "Shoot the breeze with the Cooler Crew" 10/31/02 3:29pm
Where did you get that from ? It's not correct.
billfold---I can agree with you on this one---little shits like Andy need to grow some hair on what they call their balls and go fight for what they are told by their party that they believe in. So far Dumbshit Bush didn't, Too-smart-to-fight Cheney chickened out---Storman Norman Coleman has no service record---yet they all get a big hard-on at the thought of spilling blood---I wonder if Normy and Dubya ever played "tent" together?
The truth is, you wouldn't make it out of bootcamp without at least 3 good ass-kickings by your fellow "Boots".
Maybe so I don't know. But I know I could kick your butt from here to kingdom come.
But I know I could kick your butt from here to kingdom come.
So Jethro believes in Heaven? Awesome! :)
C'mon Jethro...we been down that road before. YOU, refused to show up...
I was there, fold.
Holiday Inn or Motel 6?
Has George P Bush enlisted for this upcoming war yet? Or will he be just another COM-CON chickenshit chicken-hawk?
Thank you THX 1138 for showing me how to post these pictures.
DuaneBarry over and out
<--;)
Duane, regarding you're pic. Do you even know what percent of oil we get from Arab countries?
Do you know where we get a majority of our oil?
". I am certain that JT remembers...?
I honestly don't remember. I remember Jethro showing up at a bar that Mallinder was at but that's about it.
YAH. You're a damn liar. You never even AGREED on where to meet me, because you said..."I don't trust you", in spite of the fact that I asked anyone at all from the boards to come along, "For your protection". I am certain that JT remembers...?
Frankly, you don't have the stones, nor the ability.
I don't remember agreeing to meet you, fold. I invited you but you were not in the state, if I remember correctly. I did have sort of a meeting with Mallinder (whatever happened to that boy anyway?).
whatever happened to that boy anyway?
I don't know. I used to have his e-mail address but lost it so I never got to invite him to this place.
and Tim - you took 'Jesus going to war' out of context. Not like he was gonna put on a helmet and uniform and grab a gun and go take Iraq out.
I have to ask how I am the one taking it out of context when you are the one quoting Zacherious as your only evidence as to why Jesus WOULD go to war. It is obviously a pure hypthetical, but when you say he WOULD go to war, I would have to believe that you are implying that Jesus believes in war. Can you just answer me why you take your biblical context out of the old testament, and don't read the new testament, which is much more clearcut in meaning(much of it is actual accounts of events that happened)?
What about Matthew Chapter 24? 1-14 words in red are right out of the mouth of Jesus...
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them,
See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the begining of sorrows.
then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall enndure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then the end shall come.
2Timothy 2:3,4
3-"Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." 4-"No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier."
explaination from full life study bible, king james version -(Endure hardness. A minister of the gospel who remains loyal to Christ and the gospel will be called upon to endure hardship (cf. 1:8;2:9; 2 Cor.11:23-29). Like a soldier, he must be willing to undergo difficulties and suffering and to wage spiritual warfare in wholehearted devotion to his Lord (Eph. 6:10-18); like an athlete, he must be willing to sacrifice and live a life of strict discipline (v.5); like a farmer, he must be committed to hard work and long hours (v.6)
ELEVEN GOOD REASONS FOR RESISTING ONE BAD WAR
Shrub's made his case for overthrowing the government of Iraq.
It's truly bogus and pathetic.
Here are ten reasons why Dubya's argument fails, with an eleventh thrown in for extra measure:
1) When Mussolini attacked Ethiopia, it was aggression. When Hitler's forces poured into Poland, it was aggression. When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, it was aggression. If the U.S. launches preemptive war against Iraq, it'll be aggression. What sort of "patriotism" is it that would put America in such wicked, historical company?
2) Bush claims Saddam poses a threat to innocents everywhere. But how many innocents would perish if Iraq were simply left alone to live in peace? How many more would violently die if our military massively bombed and assaulted Iraq, and set the Middle East ablaze? Who is really the far greater, much deadlier danger to countless everyday people?
3) Iraq is an oil-rich country that two men made rich by oil -- Bush and Cheney -- want to conquer to get richer still. Not just themselves, but the obscene special interest they so slavishly serve. The one with no qualms about putting our kids into body bags so it may enjoy unfettered superprofits. And Saddam is supposed to be the evil one?!
4) Our society is already awash in corruption and hypocrisy. Enronitis permeates our entire culture. How do we enhance our long-term security -- and build confidence in our system in young people's eyes -- by engaging in immoral and illegal assaults on other nations, for misrepresented, sleazy reasons?
5) Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. We're told we must "rid the world" of this "maniacal" Iraqi leader. But when the bombs, shells and missiles of the only remaining superpower fall on poor Iraq, will those ripped by searing shrapnel and burned to grotesque cinders be named Saddam? No. They'll be toddlers at play, women hanging clothes, old men remembering a tender past. Do we understand the terrible un-Godliness of what Bush proposes?
6) In a world in which our country is already hated enough to trigger spreading terrorism against us, attacking Iraq would exponentially add to global anti-American rage. Bush's policy is so counterproductively destructive that he's Osama's
chief, unwitting recruiting agent.
7) America's role is to supposedly make the world safe for democracy. But George II wants to preemptively attack any "threatening" nation that uses its freedom to vary from our political and economic "model". Be like us, or be invaded and occupied. Make the world's human and natural resources cheaply and readily available to U.S. corporate interests, or we'll brutally take them!
8) When's the last time you saw an Iraqi flag burned in an international street protest? It's always Old Glory, and effigies of our president. It's safe to say far more people around the world desire a "regime change" in the USA than in Iraq. Should they organize to attack us? Wait... Some already did -- on 9/11.
9) If "insane" Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, he hasn't used them during the decade of our murderous embargo and no-fly-zone bombings. That testifies to a judicious restraint that would likely evaporate if he were faced with extinction and had nothing left to lose. Remember, if such weapons do exist, they could conceivably be used not in Iraq but within the U.S., against us all. How can we allow Bush's recklessness to put us at such risk?
10) War with Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion. That's not an abstraction, but a subtraction, meaning lost revenue for people's needs. Education, health care, housing, transportation and infrastructure would all suffer. It took a generation to recover from the guns-before-butter bad priorities of Vietnam. Could our fragile economy take such a hit today?
11) Look at your children across the supper table tonight. Did you raise them to be cannon fodder in rich men's dirty wars? If we don't stand up to stop America's escalating militarism now, there'll be a succession of high school reunions across the country, for decades to come, where special, bitter tribute will have to be
paid for those who won't be there -- because unconscionable war hawks and bloody imperialism prevailed.
Did Liberal Slant give you permission to reprint that?
MASSIVE ITALIAN ANTI-WAR PROTEST WILL SET PATTERN FOR MANY OTHERS IN EUROPE
FLORENCE, Italy, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Peace activists pledged on Sunday to stage protests across Europe against any war in Iraq, fired by the success of a weekend rally that brought half a million protesters onto the streets of Florence.
They said they were planning to hold a wave of demonstrations in three months' time, but would mobilise supporters sooner if a U.S. attack on Iraq looked imminent.
"We have fixed a date of February 15," said Italian militant Piero Maestri at the end of the Florence meeting of European anti-globalisation groups, adding that the rallies would be staged simultaneously in all major European capitals.
"Some people wanted to hold it sooner, but the English said they needed more time to organise things. However, if war breaks out beforehand, we will hit the streets immediately," he said.
United in anti-Americanism and riled by a tough new U.N. resolution to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, activists from across the Continent joined forces for a carnival-like peace rally that flooded this Renaissance art city on Saturday.
Some militants indicated that they would not wait until next February before taking to the streets again, saying they were convinced the United States had already decided to wage war on Iraq.
"This war, when it comes, will be one of the most unpopular in history and we have to do something to try to stop it," said Alain Krivine, a far-left French member of the European parliament who took part in Saturday's protest.
"Florence has shown that there is radical opposition, from young and old people, and from all different countries."
quoting Zacherius as your only evidence as to why Jesus WOULD go to war.
I wasn't trying to get 'into' it with you in the first place-But, I do appoligize that I haven't had the time, or made the time, to continue our discussion leading us from the Old Testament into the New (first off though... the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament). But I guess, since you want New Testament proof -If you are in ministry than you should know everything Paula I has said (I appreciate your time Paula to type all that out)I am not much for writing novels and just because I posted once on the Old Testament doesn't mean thats the only evidence.
Wow -cool- 11:00 11/10/2002 post 44! ;) inside joke JOE
A POLITICAL REALITY TO PONDER ON VETERANS DAY
What happened on election day can be explained, in part, by a split in the Democratic Party. The split resembles the fractious 1968 Democratic Convention, when Democrats were divided over the Vietnam War, while Republicans uniformly supported it. Instead of uniting with a constituency that largely opposed a war in Southeast Asia, Democrats allowed the United States to wage an unnecessary war, which resulted in millions of Vietnamese and more than 58,000 dead U.S. soldiers.
Winners Voted No
Today, the leadership of the Democratic Party is similarly out of step with its rank and file membership and a majority of Americans. According to an October 30 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans oppose a unilateral, unprovoked, first-strike war and occupation of Iraq by a 3 to 1 margin. The pro-war faction of the Democratic leadership led candidates in close races around the nation to electoral ruin. When he realized this, Democratic strategist James Carville put a garbage can over his head live on CNN during the election-night coverage.
So who was right among the Democrats? The late Senator Wellstone. Members of Congress who shared his courage and backbone by voting "No" to war on Iraq were rewarded at the ballot box. Contrary to what James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt believed, every Democrat up for reelection who stood up against the President and voted "No" won their races - with only one exception. Rep. Jim Maloney in Connecticut lost, but redistricting and a strong opponent had already sealed his fate. Meanwhile, the "No" votes cast by Julia Carson, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jay Inslee, and even Republican Jim Leach in Iowa contributed to electoral victory. In the Senate, Paul Wellstone's numbers had risen from 6 percent behind before the war vote to 6 percent ahead at the time of his death.
--Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the Gulf War and the executive director of the Education for Peace in Iraq. He is also a co-founder of the newly-formed Veterans for Common Sense
According to an October 30 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans oppose a unilateral, unprovoked, first-strike war and occupation of Iraq by a 3 to 1 margin.
This is misleading. This is from their site: link
Favor=55%(without allies=27%, with allies=23%, don't know=5%), oppose=34% don't know=11%
More than 1 1/2 times as many people favor some kind of action against Iraq. Among those that favor, there is almost an even split on how to do it.
But one thing we have learned in past elections is that polls are a waste of time.
me2- I also lack the time to respond promtly. However I hope to respond to Paula's post soon, maybe tonight.
Scenario:
After Bush attacks Iraq, Saddam launches as many as 30 carefully hidden Scuds and secretly-built, improved missiles at Israel.
They'll be tipped with bio-chem warheads.
Israel will respond with rockets of its own, some bearing nukes.
But this sequence doesn't commence immediately.
Saddam chooses to wait until tens of thousands of U.S. troops are inside Iraq, assuring that they'll be killed by the retaliatory ISRAELI strike, either directly or by ensuing radiation.
Anti-war demonstrations sweep the planet.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi leadership thoroughly sabotages their country's entire oil apparatus.
Everything from wells to pipelines are blown up, on such a comprehensive scale that their restoration would take decades.
By then, the petroleum-dependent developed world will have experienced economic collapse.
Dennis Rahkonen 11/12/02 4:35pm
We get a small percentage of our oil from Arab lands, correct?
If all else fails, I do know how to ride a horse and there are plenty of horse farms where I live. If I need to, I will travel by horse and buggy. That is, until we get our Alaska pipeline up.
Meanwhile the land of the free and home of the brave is still making a wise decision to eradicate biological and nuclear weapons facilities from mad men who plot to attack us. The unanimous support of the UN shows that Sadaam's lack of compliance is serious business.
If Sadaam would just comply, the embargo would lift and he could go about his business.... what business is that again?.... oh yeah, killing his own people and plotting evil against other nations instead of making himself and it's nation their personal best.
Before the "evil Bushes" Sadaam was a just, giving, caring, and forthright man wasn't he?
plotting evil against other nations instead of making himself and it's nation their personal best.
Paula I- sorry it took me awhile to respond...
The first story that you posted was an interesting one, Jesus teaching in Mount Olive. However I fail to see how this shows that Jesus is in favor of war, or supports war in any way.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them,
See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Jesus tells the disciples that the temple will be destroyed. It was destroyed 40 years later by the Romans.
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the begining of sorrows.
At the beginning of this section Jesus is warning against looking for signs, because there are many false prophets. Focus on Christ instead of looking for signs.
then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall enndure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Stay true to Christ, keep faith and live a Christian life, even when it is very difficult. This, to me is the key message in this passage. Jesus is telling the disciples that there will be tough times, but not to worry and to stay strong in their Christian beleifs and way fo life. This pertains to the current situation because times in which we are threatened are hard times to be a Christian. It is easy to be peaceful in times of peace, but as Christians we are called to be peaceful ALL of the time. Now, it doesn't list what it means to be Christian in this particular passage, but I believe "he who shall endure until the end" refers to faith, and to standing up for Christianity.
In the second two verses written by Paul in the second book of Timothy, this is further supported. He knows that Timothy will have to endure times that are very difficult, and he makes a refrence to a soldier because he must give up his security. Today, we are at a time in which we may have to be willing to give up security in order to promote peace, and promote the word of God.
Paula I- If you don't believe that Jesus is the prince of peace, and you don't believe that God is peaceful and forgiving I can post verses until the cows come home and I doubt it will help. Peace is something that you must feel in your heart, and I understand peace through the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Looking forward to a response so that I have the oppurtunity to grow in my interpretation and study of the Holy Bible and Christianity as a whole.
God Bless
What's misleading about that?
As I said, 55% want something to be done. By breaking it down and implying that a 3-1 margin is against doing anything and then tieing that to the past election is misleading at best.
Even President Bush (who you guys keep telling us is dumb) sees this and was not only able to get historic gains in an off year elections, but has also got U.N. aproval which makes this entire arguement irrelevant. Makes you wonder what a "smart" person would have been able to accomplish.
Perhaps we should break the the opposing group down to those that oppose simply because Bush is the current president and compare that to those that want something done. Then we can say that 3 or 4 times more support the president than disagree. This would be the same mentallity. However, the fact remains that more than 1 1/2 times as many people think that something should be done.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html
Scenario:
The U.S fleet enters the Persian Gulf.
It's immediately met by a flotilla of diverse local vessels, which "welcome" the liberating Americans by flying Old Glory and loudly playing Western popular music.
Above, a dozen or more small, circling aircraft join in the "celebration".
Suddenly, some of those boats, and all of the planes,
begin crashing into our ships, on explosive suicide missions.
Other boats produce Chinese Silkworm missiles, which are fired at deadly close range.
Most of our fleet is sunk.
Ludicrous?
Well, something very similar actually happened, in our own war game...which we lost.
James Webb, Former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, voices his opposition to the war in Iraq. And he's not alone.
In recent months, Webb has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, calling it, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, a distraction from the fight against al Qaeda.
"We should not occupy territory in Iraq," he said. "Do you really want the United States on the ground in that region for a generation?
"I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat,"
Webb recalled proudly that as Navy secretary in 1987, "I was the only one in the Reagan administration who opposed the tilt toward Iraq in the war with Iran," referring to the U.S. sharing of intelligence and arms with Saddam Hussein's forces
"His reputation may be controversial, but a lot of things he said we tend to agree with," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Paul Tanks, a graduate student in space systems operations.
"Iraq is a terrible detour from what we ought to be doing," Arquilla said. "The real threat is from the al Qaeda network. Saddam is a minimal threat to us.
Arquilla, like Webb, is one of the military's critical thinkers, an oft- quoted expert on what he calls "network theory" -- studying decentralized organizations like al Qaeda.