Jump to content

Steve_S

Servant
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Steve_S

    WN: Sarkozy: If we don't act, Israeli will strike Iran - Ynet New

    in World News

    Posted

    None of them could help them if they wanted to really. Even with Obama being president, etc. Even if there were a massive coalition assembled from Islamic countries with the purpose of punitive retaliation against Israel, there are tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. Whether or not America would act to defend Israel is certainly in question, however, those countries probably wouldn't be willing to take that risk. Even if they did, the last three attempts at the invasion of Israel (and without Israel obtaining direct military help from outside countries) by Arab coalitions ended in catastrophe for the Arabs lol (1948 War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War).

    And the next one would as well....no one could possibly believe the Israelis could defeat a coalition of countries in 1948 without divine reinforcement. They didn't even have an army at the time! Whether the U.S. would intervene...I don't know. But, if this country fought against Israel....I would leave it.

    I agree. In 1948 they were fighting against tanks and artillery with rickety world war II surplus and hunting rifles. I believe that the swift and utter defeats of the Arab coalitions in 67 and 73 were at the very least extraordinarily impressive as well.

    WN: Sarkozy: If we don't act, Israeli will strike Iran - Ynet New

    in World News

    Posted

    I thought, "Wow, the French President is actually making some sense." when I saw the headline. I agree with Neb's comment on the article, though.

    I don't remember who said it, but:

    "Israel is under no obligation to commit national suicide in the name of peace than any other nation on the face of the planet."

    -- author unknown.

    Israel has a right to defend itself against aggression. I'm not so sure an Israeli strike on Iran would be a bad thing. After all, Israel is the country who is under immediate threat from them (Iran's missiles certainly can't reach the united states). Apart from all of the posturing and rhetoric, it would probably be fairly successful. Israel's air force is far more modern and adept. It would likely be reminiscent of their strike on the Osirik reactor in Iraq in 1982, surgical to remove a threat. Iran has no real recourse of retaliation aside from scud missile launches, which Israel can defend itself from and which would like invite far harsher punitive actions from Israel than Iran could ever threaten. I'm not advocating it one way or the other, simply saying that Israel has a right to defend itself and other countries don't have a right to tell them that they can't.

    Plenty of countries make noises about such a strike but few would really worry if it happens. It's all about oil but, when it comes right down to the wire, even Saudi Arabia wouldn't lift a finger to help Iran.

    None of them could help them if they wanted to really. Even with Obama being president, etc. Even if there were a massive coalition assembled from Islamic countries with the purpose of punitive retaliation against Israel, there are tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. Whether or not America would act to defend Israel is certainly in question, however, those countries probably wouldn't be willing to take that risk. Even if they did, the last three attempts at the invasion of Israel (and without Israel obtaining direct military help from outside countries) by Arab coalitions ended in catastrophe for the Arabs lol (1948 War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War).

    WN: Sarkozy: If we don't act, Israeli will strike Iran - Ynet New

    in World News

    Posted

    I thought, "Wow, the French President is actually making some sense." when I saw the headline. I agree with Neb's comment on the article, though.

    I don't remember who said it, but:

    "Israel is under no obligation to commit national suicide in the name of peace than any other nation on the face of the planet."

    -- author unknown.

    Israel has a right to defend itself against aggression. I'm not so sure an Israeli strike on Iran would be a bad thing. After all, Israel is the country who is under immediate threat from them (Iran's missiles certainly can't reach the united states). Apart from all of the posturing and rhetoric, it would probably be fairly successful. Israel's air force is far more modern and adept. It would likely be reminiscent of their strike on the Osirik reactor in Iraq in 1982, surgical to remove a threat. Iran has no real recourse of retaliation aside from scud missile launches, which Israel can defend itself from and which would like invite far harsher punitive actions from Israel than Iran could ever threaten. I'm not advocating it one way or the other, simply saying that Israel has a right to defend itself and other countries don't have a right to tell them that they can't.

    question ... jadey stirring the pot again

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Rom 5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

    Does this make us worthy?

    I have no clue how to answer this. So I'm just going to paste scripture :thumbsup:.

    Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

    Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

    Iranian Spy for CIA:

    in World News

    Posted

    Well, it sounds good on paper but....we are already engaged on two fronts. The military only stretches fo far. We attacked the wrong country in 2003....and I will always believe that.

    I had started writing a diatribe on this. However, I'll just leave it alone and state that I agree with you.

    More people are starting to believe this....what do they say about hindsight?

    Mine is more about a shift in political philosophy that I underwent a year or so ago. Though things like the Iraq war played a part in that shift lol.

    Tina Fey VS. Sarah Palin

    in U.S. News

    Posted

    UltraLibDem Tina Fey lives to "knock" Conservative Sarah Palin, right? Fey wears an American flag pin, pushes a "Tea Party Wheel of Fortune" with a puzzle about "Obama Is A Terrist"" and generally spends her few moments in limelight decrying a strong, God-fearing U.S.A. bent on security & safety for its citizens. Perhaps some one can now stand up and "play" the UltraLibDem Fey as a classical stooge for Barack Hussein Obama, the worst President America has ever experienced and the first President to attempt the bankrupting of the nation? "Who me, know Rev. Jeremiah Wright?" "Let me be clear with you, if I community-organized in South Chicago, I have full confidence in my ability to finalize the global nuclear challenge!" "Methinks all Muslim terrorists are now passe; what you are actually seeing today on a worldwide scale happens to be The Salvation Army on a mighty roll!" To be sure, Let's re-elect Prez Obama..............Prez indeed of Tristan De Cunha! :D

    God Bless The USA! :40:

    How long have you lived in the U.S.? What do you know about who is the worst (or best) President? I'd be willing to bet.....nothing. So what's your point? And what has Tina Fey to do with ANYTHING? She's a bit actor. :emot-hug:

    I did a quick search and evidently Saturday night live does have a fairly harsh Obama parody done by a guy named Fred Armisen.

    Iranian Spy for CIA:

    in World News

    Posted

    Well, it sounds good on paper but....we are already engaged on two fronts. The military only stretches fo far. We attacked the wrong country in 2003....and I will always believe that.

    I had started writing a diatribe on this. However, I'll just leave it alone and state that I agree with you.

    Evolution-A wolf in sheeps clothing

    in Science and Faith

    Posted · Edited by Steve_S

    I have concluded that the teaching of evolution is the biggest enemy of Christianity. Why? What else can be the reason for the increase of atheism? What else could have contributed to the hate of God in this country? What other teaching is there that causes more doublt about the truthfulness of scripture? Since our country has acceptrd this teaching as fact, look at the moral climate of our country today. I have not read any stats to support this claim, but this teaching of evolution has caused a lot of Christians to turn from Christ. When I use to work with the J-hi students at our church, there was more confusion about the truthfulness of scripture because of what they would learn at school. The greatest issue is that when it comes to science we are talking about truth, at lease thats what we expect. When we as Christians talk of scriptures, we think of it as truth. When these two conflict, confusion for the young mind.

    As a Christian I will continue to fight against this evil along with others with the truth of scripture to expose these wolves in sheeps clothing.

    I believe evolution was devised and has been perpetrated as nothing less than a complete assault on the Christian faith. Virtually everything it teaches is in outright defiance of God.

    Australopithecus sediba

    in Science and Faith

    Posted · Edited by Steve_S

    An international group of scientists once thought the earth was flat as well.... The point is that science is ever changing, lots of times based on the ideological whims of whomever happens to be in positions of authority at the time. God is absolute, trustworthy, reliable, and omniscient.

    Um. . .I know this is a little off-topic but when we say "God is absolute" we certainly aren't trying to say that Christianity is somehow immune to ever changing interpretations, lots of times based on the ideological whims of whomever happens to be in positions of authority at the time are we? We live in a universe of truths, both spiritual and physical, and our understanding of both can be flawed. . .however, past flaws do not invalidate present understandings in either realm. Certainly we can agree on this point.

    Lurker

    My point had nothing to do with that specifically. God is absolute and does not change. Man's interpretation of Him is irrelevant as far as His sovereign nature and omniscience.

    God's word is true:

    Pro 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

    Psa 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.

    The promise of the preservation of God's word is absolute:

    Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

    This tells me that regardless of man's interpretation over time, the truth is ALWAYS present. Science is a scholarly discipline, it cannot make promises to preserve itself. It cannot punish those those who twist it to deceive people. Science is not the truth, the way, and the life.

    Australopithecus sediba

    in Science and Faith

    Posted

    Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

    Fossil Skeletons May Be Human Ancestor

    A newfound ancient relative of humanity discovered in a cave in Africa is a strong candidate for the immediate ancestor to the human lineage, an international team of scientists said today.

    An international group of scientists once thought the earth was flat as well.... The point is that science is ever changing, lots of times based on the ideological whims of whomever happens to be in positions of authority at the time. God is absolute, trustworthy, reliable, and omniscient.

    Unemployment Statistics

    in U.S. News

    Posted

    This is a graphic denoting national unemployment between January 2007 and January 2010 (the latest we have available statistics for). Pay particular attention to the rapid rise in percentage points from November, 2008 to January 2010 (the current administration's tenure) and ask if we really ARE better off, as we are being told. I learned in the military that it's OK to blame your predecessor for your problems for the first six months after you take over; but after that, it's all on YOU. Obviously, this is a lesson the current administration is slow to learn...

    http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoy...mediafinal.html

    You'll never get Obama to openly admit blame in our unemployment situation lol. It's really a combination of policy for decades that's caused this though (certainly not excluding the first 15 months of the current presidency), and then there will almost assuredly be a lull, followed by another drop, and so on.

×
×
  • Create New...