Members phkrause Posted March 29, 2008 Members Share Posted March 29, 2008 I'm not so sure that I would use the work "evil". For me I would use the word "unexceptable". I agree with you that we should not have gone into Iraq. The problem I see is how to leave and not leave Iraq in shambles. I look at the british in times past. Where they went into so many other lands, the middle east, country's in africa, China, etc., and when they left they left those places in shambles. I'm not sure that there are any answers that we can all agree on. The only thing I can pray for is that our Lord Jesus comes soon and end all this. pkrause Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 29, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2008 I guess I was just using 'evil' in the sense it's used in the saying 'lesser of two evils': to my mind there are no really good outcomes for Iraq, just bad ones and worse ones. Agreed on praying for the Lord to come and drag us out of the messes we've made (in our own lives as well as internationally). Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 The invasion was brought on the nation by Saddam. He is the one that didn't comply with a cease-fire. He is the one that wasn't forthcoming with weapons inspectors. He is the one that sent out "defectors" claiming he had WMDs. He is the one that supported and trained terrorists. He is the one that gave safe harbor to Al Quaida. He is the one that refused to leave when President Bush gave him 48 hours to do so. Ok, fine...we took out Saddam and hung him, killed his sons, and destroyed his organization.... Question: Why are we still there, sacrificing our best boys? I am sorry, but let the Iraqis figure out thier own problems...I will admit that I wouldn't mind seeing a few thugs removed along the way....I am thinking of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi specifically... There are times when I think that the 00 section of British Intelligence should be opened up again... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Quote: Question: Why are we still there, sacrificing our best boys? Iran has been funding an insurgency that we didn't anticipate and the Republican leadership in the White House lacks the "ultra conservative" principles to take care of Iran. (Of course, that is probably a good thing) Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 Well then, let's destroy Iran...bomb thier necular power plants, destroy thier oil wells, and let the Kurds move into the area..... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kountzer Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Iran is close to Russia, both geographically, and politically. Russia still has the ability to strike the U.S. with nuclear missiles. That's probably the main thing keeping this country out of Iran. DB Quote I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted March 30, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 30, 2008 If the US decides we have to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities, the fact that Russia is across the border won't have any deterant effect on it at all. I believe that if Bush is convinced that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons, they will be gone before he leaves office. If we don't do it, Israel will, and it would be better for us to do it than for Israel to do it. I don't see any way that the US, Israel, and the West can let Iran have nuclear weapons. I seriously doubt the US will put many troop on the ground there or that any kind of "invasion" will take place. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 30, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 30, 2008 Iran is *nowhere near* getting nuclear weapons, as I've explained here in detail several times before. Nope, it's the other way around: the nuclear threat is a manufactured one, like the WMD threat, despite the evidence rather than because of it. It's a fake cassus belli, fabricated in order to threaten Iran, that the government's own NIE has shown is based in lies. What was Dubya's famous quote about not getting fooled again? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted March 30, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 30, 2008 In your judgment, how long would it be before Iran could produce the first nuclear weapon? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 Minimum 5 years, but (a) they would have to pour heaps more resources into it than they are now and ( it would be clear and obvious to the IAEA inspection teams that they were doing so and © your question assumes that they want to and are trying to. They have repeatedly said they have a nuclear program for peaceful energy uses, and the US's own NIE has said that they do not have an active nuclear weapons program and have not had for years. They have recently trumpeted the fact that they have enriched uranium to a few % purity, which is still not enough even for nuclear power plants. They would need to produce 80-90% pure U-235 for weapons use, and they are years from that - if they were even trying for it. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 Cheney is lying to us, again: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.nat26mar26,0,6743571.story Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What doesn't make sense is why nuclear energy is so important to Iran when it is rich in fossil fuels. Here in Texas, for example, we generate a lot of our power with natural gas. I understand why nuclear energy is so important to nations like Brazil and France but Iran is sitting on all the energy they will ever need. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 But (a) why burn it at home when you can sell it abroad and ( they of all people know the supply is huge but finite and © is it beyond the realms of possibility that they might have an environmental concern? And besides, since when does America get to decide who in the world can and cannot develop which industries? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 *Perhaps* if there was clear energy of a nuclear weapons program, America might have some sort of cause to act: even that is very debatable. But when there is clear evidence that Iran *does not* have such a program, and Cheney is going around lying about it, America's moral standing to take any kind of pre-emptive action anywhere takes a huge hit. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 wow Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I have always favored diplomacy with Iran. They are supporting the insurgency. If they were to stop supporting it, Iraq would become much more manageable. Talking with the enemy is a known means to bringing a war to an end. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 ... since when does America get to decide who in the world can and cannot develop which industries? Do you think Iran should be allowed to develop and have nuclear weapons? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 No, I don't. But (a) they are not trying to!!! and ( I don't think America, or Russia, or France, or (probably) Israel or India or Pakistan or Britain... should have nuclear weapons either. What I was talking about in the sentence you quoted is the peaceful nuclear power industry. It is extreme arrogance for America to try to dictate to other sovereign countries whether they can or cannot develop an industry. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 Olger: I'm hesitant to go off into a rant by reading too much into your 'wow', but I have to assume it expresses some incredulity at what I said about Cheney. Did you read the newspaper report I linked? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olger Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Guilty as charged my 2-wheel friend. Quote "Please don't feed the drama queens.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted March 31, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 31, 2008 Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted April 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted April 1, 2008 No, I don't. But (a) they are not trying to!!! and ( I don't think America, or Russia, or France, or (probably) Israel or India or Pakistan or Britain... should have nuclear weapons either. I doubt they are trying to now, but we can't verify that to be a fact. I don't think there is any doubt that in the past they were trying to, and they are likely to try to again. I also would like it very much if none of the countries you named, including my own, had nuclear weapons, but that is simply dreaming. Certain nations have them, and of course there is no going back to a pre-1940s situation, unfortunately. Quote: What I was talking about in the sentence you quoted is the peaceful nuclear power industry. It is extreme arrogance for America to try to dictate to other sovereign countries whether they can or cannot develop an industry. Considering the danger of nuclear weapons, I am glad that the US and UN have some say over which nations have nuclear power and possibility of having the ability to make nuclear bombs. It may be considered arrogant but it involves our survival and the survival of Israel. I would much rather the US have the weapons and the technology than see such weapons in the hands of North Korea or Iran, etc. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.