Re: Why are we at war?
Snow
I find it intresting that again, you divide into your many pre-
programmed clans and start to argue over petty issues when this
reality still stands, nothing you or other people have stated is worth
killing a man over.
randy
"Snow"
We have no right to determine when a man should die, except in reference to
exlicit revelation from God. God has set forth principles by which men can
be killed in war, or executed for crimes. We should take these seriously.
Otherwise, a little leaven will indeed leaven the whole lump.
randy
Snow
And still, I can see no reason to be at war in these other countries..
No divine voice from the sky told men to kill for the sake of oil or
poppies.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
WHY?
Because there *IS* profit
to be made in WAR, but ONLY at a distance.
LIBS know this.
Follow the money and
witness emminent monsterdom incarnate.
Monsterdom like this:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/03/clinton-vanityfair.html
The New York Times reported earlier this year that Clinton flew to
Kazakhstan on Giustra's company jet. Two days later, the Times said,
Giustra's company bought into uranium projects controlled by the Kazakh
government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1970747,00.html
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060104211350.ll54g5t0.html
The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration
in early 2000, ... may have been one of the most reckless
operations in the modern history...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml
Clinton Scheme Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints
If it is peace that you want,
it is dictatorship you must oppose.
If it is war you wish to prevent it is
the expropriation of private capital you must oppose.
A free and productive people have nothing to gain from war,
and, in fact, a great deal to lose. War is only possible when
the wealth of the nation is held by its leaders rather than rightly
utilized by its citizens. OBAMA's single largest expropriation in the
history of the planet guarentees a conflict to dwarf all historical
precident, and 'that' would be just the beginning.
WHY?
Because the Truely Evil are abetted by the Venal and the WEAK.
Because Good Men continue to do absolutely nothing
as LIB strategic insanity guns them down
and sets fire to their children.
LIBs, what price their vision?
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/14028.JPG
---
LIB's plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as it's standard of
Value,
making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of Values
which one is willing to Betray.
Snow
> The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration
> in early 2000, ... may have been one of the most reckless
> operations in the modern history...
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml
> Clinton Scheme Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints
>
> If it is peace that you want,
> it is dictatorship you must oppose.
> If it is war you wish to prevent it is
> the expropriation of private capital you must oppose.
>
> A free and productive people have nothing to gain from war,
> and, in fact, a great deal to lose. War is only possible when
> the wealth of the nation is held by its leaders rather than rightly
> utilized by its citizens. OBAMA's single largest expropriation in the
> history of the planet guarentees a conflict to dwarf all historical
> precident, and 'that' would be just the beginning.
>
> WHY?
> Because the Truely Evil are abetted by the Venal and the WEAK.
> Because Good Men continue to do absolutely nothing
> as LIB strategic insanity guns them down
> and sets fire to their children.
>
> ---
> LIB's plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as it's standard of
> Value,
> making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of Values
> which one is willing to Betray.
I agree with what you saying but how come nobody seems to care?
Christians are busy being pacified by Jesus, meanwhile doing nothing,
saying little except arguing over Obama or Bush, not realizing their
is no difference.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>> > And still, I can see no reason to be at war ...
>
>>
>> WHY?
>> Because there *IS* profit
>> to be made in WAR, but ONLY at a distance.
>>
>> LIBS know this.
>> Follow the money and
>> witness emminent monsterdom incarnate.
>>
>> Monsterdom like this:http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/03/clinton-
vanityfair.html
>> � Kazakhstan on Giustra's company jet. Two days later, the Times said,
>> � Giustra's company bought into uranium projects controlled by the
>> Kazakh government.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml
>> � � � � Clinton Scheme Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints
>>
>> If it is peace that you want,
>> it is dictatorship you must oppose.
>> If it is war you wish to prevent it is
>> the expropriation of private capital you must oppose.
>>
>> A free and productive people have nothing to gain from war,
>> and, in fact, a great deal to lose. War is only possible when
>> the wealth of the nation is held by its leaders rather than rightly
>> utilized by its citizens. OBAMA's single largest expropriation in the
>> history of the planet guarentees a conflict to dwarf all historical
>> precident, and 'that' would be just the beginning.
>>
>> WHY?
>> Because the Truely Evil are abetted by the Venal and the WEAK.
>> Because Good Men continue to do absolutely nothing
>> as LIB strategic insanity guns them down
>> and sets fire to their children.
>
> I agree with what you saying but how come nobody seems to care?
> Christians are busy being pacified by Jesus, meanwhile doing nothing,
> saying little except arguing over Obama or Bush, not realizing their
> is no difference.
Why does nobody seem to care?
A: They live in Fear for having abandoned their only means
of survival, their mind, and GUILT for knowing that they have
done so willingly.
It is the 'need' for a leader to follow
should be considered a weakness to overcome.
To save the world, requires first, that you save yourself.
Not to create anything new, but rather,
to discover that which was dismissed.
There factually is ONE POWER that shapes History,
just as it shapes the course of each individual's lives:
The Power of Ideas.
That your life *IS* your own.
That your Rights *ARE* inalienable.
That the will of the people IS NOT pre-emminent over your own.
That gov't CAN NOT do anything it pleases
while you act only with its permission.
BE HEARD.
While you still can.
Evil has NO POWER when the Good remain Unafraid.
If Evil wins, it is only because Good Men do Absolutely Nothing.
The PROBLEM with doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is that
you NEVER KNOW when you are DONE.
LIBS: Give them Convenience or give them Death.
Guess what! They've found a way to get both!
randy
"Snow"
randy
> We have no right to determine when a man should die, except in reference
> to
> exlicit revelation from God. God has set forth principles by which men can
> be killed in war, or executed for crimes. We should take these seriously.
> Otherwise, a little leaven will indeed leaven the whole lump.
> randy
"And still, I can see no reason to be at war in these other countries..
No divine voice from the sky told men to kill for the sake of oil or
poppies."
God does speak to man. Now, if we would only listen! That voice can be
identified as the voice of divine morality coupled together with human
reason. We need to think before we act.
randy
..Matt B...
wrote:
Yes Randy we should have thought before we acted. I did agree with
the attack on Afghanistan as that government was protecting those
behind 9/11 I did not agree with Iraq though. I thought if we
looked at history and the soviet attempt at that country we needed to
concentrate on Afghanistan. We also have been proven to not have been
prepared for 2 wars at the same time.
I have never thought of Bush as a Christian President if Bush was
listening to anyone it was Cheney.
I do know I would not want to be in Obama's shoes in this. Nothing he
does is going to be considered right. He can't withdraw and he can't
leave things the way they are. because we overstretched ourselves it
is a no win situation.
Just my 2 cents again
God bless
Matt
randy
"..Matt B..."
randy
> Yes Randy we should have thought before we acted. I did agree with
> the attack on Afghanistan as that government was protecting those
> behind 9/11 I did not agree with Iraq though. I thought if we
> looked at history and the soviet attempt at that country we needed to
> concentrate on Afghanistan. We also have been proven to not have been
> prepared for 2 wars at the same time.
As much as I respect that view, I disagree with it. We had to look at our
foreign policy with each country separately. George Bush tended to blur the
distinctions, calling them both "the war on terror." That was, I think, the
major mistake.
Afghanistan was, as you indicated, clearly in the wrong. Al Qaeda had
attacked us without provocation, and the Taliban defended al Qaeda. So our
war in Afghanistan has been justified. How far we can prosecute such a war
is questionable, however, in view of the fact al Qaeda does not have to be
based in any one country. How long can we fight the Taliban when al Qaeda is
located *anywhere* in the world it finds support?
The issues governing Iraq are completel distinct from this war on terror.
Iraq did not comply with the truce following the first Gulf War. Bush simply
used the new "war on terror" to justify punishing Saddam Hussein for not
complying with this truce. He felt there was no other way to build
sentiment, internationally, for dealing with Saddam.
The truth is, George Bush Sr. should've prosecuted the war with Iraq to its
bitter end, until Saddam Hussein was forced out of power. Then there
would've been no need for a 2nd Gulf War. So George Bush Jr. tried to finish
what we began, and I believe he had every right to do so (without using the
"war on terror" as justification).
We did not need international backing. The only reason we might've used
international backing would be if we wanted to "nation build" in Iraq, which
is what Bush actually wanted. This is another of his errors, I believe. We
should not have been "nation building" in Iraq, but only finishing off
Saddam Hussein. It was a *punishment* operation--and not an opportunity to
assume control over Iraqis ourselves. So having lost international support,
and going at Iraq independently, we *still* tried to nation build in Iraq.
And that was so costly that it cost the Republican Party support in the
United States. And it has seriously hurt our economy, and our support
abroad. Even more, terrorists remain emboldened, at the prospect of a
weakened US economy, as well as a divided international coalition against
terrorism.
> Just my 2 cents again
I'm still listening! :)
I believe in *preaching* the gospel of Christ--not in *democratizing* the
world. The war should be one of ideas--not bullets.
randy
VFW
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
and;
In article
<1e22d805-fe52-4007...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
M�bius Pretzel <M0bius_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> US forces in Afghanistan �should expect up to 500 casualties a month�
>
>
> US forces in Afghanistan should brace themselves for up to 500
> casualties a month this year, a senior retired American general has
> warned.
>
> The forecast comes from General Barry McCaffrey, formerly the most
> decorated general in the US Army, who has conducted field assessments
> of the US military performance in Afghanistan at the request of the US
> military since 2003.
>
>
> Webmaster's Commentary:
>
> Please remember: the potential loss of even one more of our military
> or contract personnel in Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with
> the safety and security of the American people.
>
> It has everything to do with both present, and potential, corporate
> profit.
>
> The present profit is coming from the control of drug production here,
> from which so many profit so handsomely.
>
> The future profit is expected to come from the installation of
> pipelines with which to control Eurasian oil, after the Afghans have
> been "pacified" to the point where this can happen.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6978441.ece
yes, you have it exactly right!
and, we can't forget the slew of other reasons for wars.
Protect Israel and;
Keep a "presence" to "protect" the Nukes in Pakistan, maybe grab them./
the Neo-Cons have not sleepless nites over the 3000 they killed on 9/11.
And they apparently no nothing about Karma.
For he who gains the World , but loses their soul shall not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
..Matt B...
wrote:
I agree with this we should not have stopped. We seem to be turning
war into a game or sport. It is supposed to be bad so we remember it
is something to be avoided. Now we have the UN human rights people
that seem to be pro terrorist.
>
>We did not need international backing. The only reason we might've used
>international backing would be if we wanted to "nation build" in Iraq, which
>is what Bush actually wanted. This is another of his errors, I believe. We
>should not have been "nation building" in Iraq, but only finishing off
>Saddam Hussein. It was a *punishment* operation--and not an opportunity to
>assume control over Iraqis ourselves. So having lost international support,
>and going at Iraq independently, we *still* tried to nation build in Iraq.
>And that was so costly that it cost the Republican Party support in the
>United States. And it has seriously hurt our economy, and our support
>abroad. Even more, terrorists remain emboldened, at the prospect of a
>weakened US economy, as well as a divided international coalition against
>terrorism.
Well a man at church said something the other day.. Buy from China
and support terrorism. As for our economy sending all our factories
to other countries what did people think would happen in the long run.
I think part of what destroyed the Republican party was arrogance.
They played so many mind games on the American people it became
apparent even to their most steadfast followers. It got so bad that
anytime I heard of a terror alert I looked at what congress was doing.
When Fox started talking 24 hour a day scandal that was a alarm bell
all by itself.
>
>> Just my 2 cents again
>
>I'm still listening! :)
>I believe in *preaching* the gospel of Christ--not in *democratizing* the
>world. The war should be one of ideas--not bullets.
Hate to bust your bubble but Christianity would not be as wide spread
as it is today without the use of the sword and intimidation. That is
a fact of history. Fanatics talk a good game, but can only win with
the gun.
God Bless
Matt
>randy
randy
"..Matt B..."
randy
>>The truth is, George Bush Sr. should've prosecuted the war with Iraq to
>>its
>>bitter end, until Saddam Hussein was forced out of power. Then there
>>would've been no need for a 2nd Gulf War. So George Bush Jr. tried to
>>finish
>>what we began, and I believe he had every right to do so (without using
>>the
>>"war on terror" as justification).
> I agree with this we should not have stopped. We seem to be turning
> war into a game or sport. It is supposed to be bad so we remember it
> is something to be avoided. Now we have the UN human rights people
> that seem to be pro terrorist.
For me, the attempt to "democratize" the world, by either Republicans or
Democrats, is indeed a "game." It is a cruel game that could easily be
avoided. Evangelization, in any sense, should be pursued as a war of
*ideas,* and not as a war fought with *bullets!*
> Well a man at church said something the other day.. Buy from China
> and support terrorism. As for our economy sending all our factories
> to other countries what did people think would happen in the long run.
Well said! I have no problem with trading with foreign countries. I don't
even have a problem with helping them build up their technologies and
defense capabilities. What I have a *serious* problem with is in turning our
wealth and our resources over to them, and giving them contracts that could
better be given to our own country, to employ our own people.
> I think part of what destroyed the Republican party was arrogance.
> They played so many mind games on the American people it became
> apparent even to their most steadfast followers. It got so bad that
> anytime I heard of a terror alert I looked at what congress was doing.
> When Fox started talking 24 hour a day scandal that was a alarm bell
> all by itself.
Yes, the Republican "ship" has not yet been "righted." However, the
Democratic Party is, all by itself, imploding by pursuing the extremities of
irresponsible spending, thinking that they're involved in a historic new
evolutionary step towards public welfare. In the meantime they're affording
terrorists civilian rights. This may ultimately be their undoing, because as
much as Americans are against war, they are *not* against safety!
>>I believe in *preaching* the gospel of Christ--not in *democratizing* the
>>world. The war should be one of ideas--not bullets.
> Hate to bust your bubble but Christianity would not be as wide spread
> as it is today without the use of the sword and intimidation. That is
> a fact of history. Fanatics talk a good game, but can only win with
> the gun.
I'm not against the use of swords and guns. I'm against using them to
*democratize* the world! Big difference. "Swords" are for defense only--not
for expansion into the territory of others. (I will deliberately exclude
from this the American idea of manifest destiny, since mildly-populated
territories should still be subject to political pressures until a firm
political order can be established there, with all of the necessary natural
resources to constitute a viable State.)
randy
..Matt B...
wrote:
Well until the Republicans get there noses out of the top .5% of the
country they will never recover. Christian party they are not. Think
about it they had absolute power for years and could have passed a
partial birth abortion bill that would have survived the courts. Why
didn't they? I think because it was just to good a subject to bring
up at election time. How many children died just so they could get a
few votes.
I admit I was not paying enough attention to what was happening until
Bush and Cheney got elected. Then the corruption was enough to get
through to even my thick head. Dems have in my view always been
corrupt. The thing is our elected officials need to pay to much
attention to what the "Party" says if they want to get elected and are
paying less attention to thier constituents
>
>>>I believe in *preaching* the gospel of Christ--not in *democratizing* the
>>>world. The war should be one of ideas--not bullets.
>
>> Hate to bust your bubble but Christianity would not be as wide spread
>> as it is today without the use of the sword and intimidation. That is
>> a fact of history. Fanatics talk a good game, but can only win with
>> the gun.
>
>I'm not against the use of swords and guns. I'm against using them to
>*democratize* the world! Big difference. "Swords" are for defense only--not
>for expansion into the territory of others. (I will deliberately exclude
>from this the American idea of manifest destiny, since mildly-populated
>territories should still be subject to political pressures until a firm
>political order can be established there, with all of the necessary natural
>resources to constitute a viable State.)
I do believe we need to look more in house so to say. Our
infrastructure is falling apart and has been for some time. The USA
has bridges falling down though lack of repair that is really sad.
God Bless
Matt
>randy
randy
"..Matt B..."
randy
>>Yes, the Republican "ship" has not yet been "righted." However, the
>>Democratic Party is, all by itself, imploding by pursuing the extremities
>>of
>>irresponsible spending, thinking that they're involved in a historic new
>>evolutionary step towards public welfare. In the meantime they're
>>affording
>>terrorists civilian rights. This may ultimately be their undoing, because
>>as
>>much as Americans are against war, they are *not* against safety!
> Well until the Republicans get there noses out of the top .5% of the
> country they will never recover. Christian party they are not. Think
> about it they had absolute power for years and could have passed a
> partial birth abortion bill that would have survived the courts. Why
> didn't they? I think because it was just to good a subject to bring
> up at election time. How many children died just so they could get a
> few votes.
No, bills based on dogmatic convictions are always difficult to get through
Congress. The Republican Party, after all, is *not* a Christian party, as
you say. It merely includes many of the Christian platforms. Democrats are
finding out how hard it is to pass legislation even with a 60 percent
majority in the Senate. Do you really think it would've been easier for a
Republican majority to pass Christian bills with *less* than a 60 percent
majority?
> I admit I was not paying enough attention to what was happening until
> Bush and Cheney got elected. Then the corruption was enough to get
> through to even my thick head. Dems have in my view always been
> corrupt. The thing is our elected officials need to pay to much
> attention to what the "Party" says if they want to get elected and are
> paying less attention to thier constituents
That's just the way the system works. That is why I'm really a
*theocrat*--not a democrat. I don't believe the majority of the people are
right most of the time. I believe truth is narrow, and normally held by only
a few representative leaders. Good and responsible leadership will, however,
convince the majority of the people to follow the right path.
> I do believe we need to look more in house so to say. Our
> infrastructure is falling apart and has been for some time. The USA
> has bridges falling down though lack of repair that is really sad.
Agreed.
randy
..Matt B...
wrote:
Both parties have found it is hard to pass good bills even when they
are the majority. Special interest control to much in the government.
>
>> I admit I was not paying enough attention to what was happening until
>> Bush and Cheney got elected. Then the corruption was enough to get
>> through to even my thick head. Dems have in my view always been
>> corrupt. The thing is our elected officials need to pay to much
>> attention to what the "Party" says if they want to get elected and are
>> paying less attention to thier constituents
>
>That's just the way the system works. That is why I'm really a
>*theocrat*--not a democrat. I don't believe the majority of the people are
>right most of the time. I believe truth is narrow, and normally held by only
>a few representative leaders. Good and responsible leadership will, however,
>convince the majority of the people to follow the right path.
Well that could happen if he also has control of the media. It seems
to me many Americans believe whatever the media says.
>
>> I do believe we need to look more in house so to say. Our
>> infrastructure is falling apart and has been for some time. The USA
>> has bridges falling down though lack of repair that is really sad.
>
>Agreed.
is Hell getting cold ;-)))) We agree on something.
Our politics seem to mostly agree.
God Bless
Matt
>randy
randy
"..Matt B..."
randy
>>Agreed.
> is Hell getting cold ;-)))) We agree on something.
> Our politics seem to mostly agree.
> God Bless
;) Thanks!
randy