carolaa Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Same thing with Saddam, Hitler, and North Korea. I could call them a lot of things, but I'm not sure stupid would be one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Oplinger Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 I hate to rain on your parade, there, but if you think there's no way Iran or North Korea will use nukes, you might need to rethink things. The rules that applied to the US/USSR standoff don't apply here. Both countries valued their people enough not to rush foolishly into a mutual assured destruction. North Korea is run by a truly insane man. He does have nukes now. Seismographs have verified the underground tests. Unless they exploded most of their war munitions underground, the other alternative is a nuclear blast. The second part of that equation is that the Korean war isn't over. The peace is brokered by an armistice, meaning that while there's no shooting currently happening, the war isn't considered over, and hostilities can resume at any time. Iran is run by a real Hitler-type: very intelligent, and very genocidal. He has close ties to North Korea, so if he doesn't have weopons-grade material yet, he soon will have. Neither man has a real love value for their own people, and would sacrifice them for their own glory. Kim Il Jung II - he has the same god-complex has his father, only worse. Ahmedinajad - has made serious claims about being the apocalyptic final Imam of Islam. There is a religious point here that overrides most sane values regarding war. Frankly, I don't trust either one, and want neither one to have nukes. Both would gladly sell to terrorist networks to make their attacks much less traceable. Perhaps it is my distrustfulness coming through; I'd rather be eating humble pie on this subject, yet time has borne out testimony to the contrary when it comes to things like this. People refuse to learn the lessons of the past. Quote "As iron sharpens iron, so also does one man sharpen another" - Proverbs 27:17 "The offense of the cross is that the cross is a confession of human frailty and sin and of inability to do any good thing. To take the cross of Christ means to depend solely on Him for everything, and this is the abasement of all human pride. Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended." Ellet J. Waggoner, The Glad Tidings "Courage is being scared to death - and saddling up anyway" - John Wayne "The person who pays an ounce of principle for a pound of popularity gets badly cheated" - Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 7, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted June 7, 2009 Am in complete agreement with you, and I do not see how anyone can come to any other conclusion. But maybe we could be wrong..... let's wait and listen.... 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 June 7, 2009 Moderators Share Posted June 7, 2009 I agree about Kim Jong Il - he's a deadly dangerous man and the sooner he passes away the better for the world. Ahmadinejad also is dangerous, though to be honest much more in terms of his rhetoric than anything else. But does anyone else find it interesting that Bush named three countries in the 'Axis of Evil', invaded one and the other two got a lot more scared and belligerent and keen to protect themselves? I doubt much would have changed Kim, but Iran is a democracy - would someone like Ahmadinejad have been elected in a less belligerent international environment? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonnie Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I agree about Kim Jong Il - he's a deadly dangerous man and the sooner he passes away the better for the world. Ahmadinejad also is dangerous, though to be honest much more in terms of his rhetoric than anything else. But does anyone else find it interesting that Bush named three countries in the 'Axis of Evil', invaded one and the other two got a lot more scared and belligerent and keen to protect themselves? I doubt much would have changed Kim, but Iran is a democracy - would someone like Ahmadinejad have been elected in a less belligerent international environment? Of course not. Bush as in all things is responsible. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the US had a democracy like Iran? The only reason that a country would elect someone like Ahmadinejad is because Bush was president. Wonder when and if the love affair with terrorists and governments like Iran will cease. Liberals have never seen a terrorist they don't understand,or thrill to a dictator "actually looking into our eyes" or an opportunity to blame Bush for the ills above. It must not have existed before Bush Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 8, 2009 Author Moderators Share Posted June 8, 2009 I thought it was we who used the bomb on Japan.....oh, I guess you're talking about Pearl Harbor.....ok. Have you studied WW II and and discovered how and why we dropped the bomb on Japan? Do you know how many Japanese and Americans would have been killed in an invasion of the Japanese islands? Over a million on each side could well have died in such an invasion. Harry Truman made the right decision. Two bombs were dropped and the Japanese refused to surrender after the first one. We waited two days to give them a chance to give up and when they refused we dropped the second bomb. At that point the Japanese finally stopped fighting. If you had been president, given the choices, would you have given the order for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland, the only alternative to dropping to the bombs? If you had, the war would have gone on several more months and have cost countless more lives than were lost in the bombings. 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...
fccool Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 John, What you are talking about is a compromise for the sake of "life gained". There is a saying - The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You are not God, and it's not up to you to judge whether Truman made right decision or not. As Christians we strive for the higher moral standards than our military does, at least I hope so. One of these revolves around all life being sacred and valuable, including the life of our perceived enemies. America claimed to be a Christian nation... the nation that ascribed to Christian principles, but I guess these principles just get lost during the time of war. And the idea that: Quote: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. is just dropped in time of war? The idea that "vengeance is mine", does it not apply and we are to assume the authority of God? But Christian ethics aside, and considering a "lesser of two evils" idea that you propose... that in fact less people would die if we did drop these bombs than during full scale ground invasion... Why not end all of wars that way? Wouldn't that be the case for say ... Iraq today? Why invade when you can drop a couple A or H bombs? John, I respect you, but I think that logic is flawed, especially if you consider the rules of war - a game to be played leaving civilian population out of it. Yet, the entire population was punished for actions of its government instantly with a death sentence. All for the "greater good". Sure, Japan is pretty well off today, but it's all depending on what you perceive as "well off"... good economy, or the lives of the individuals who drive it. But, going back to Christian perspective - this is not what a Christian nation would have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Oh my goodness, I've already explained this once. Quote 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.