WMDS found?

July 14, 2004

You look at that exactly backwards. We were attacked and we are defending ourselves.

Iraq did not attack us. It was the Al-Qaeda. Iraq is not the Al-Qaeda

July 14, 2004

He's taking the battle to the enemy without being a cowardly wimp in the face of evil.

My God is Jesus Christ - he died on the cross. When they came to take him away, he did not fight back. Do you consider him to have been a coward?

July 14, 2004

He's taking the battle to the enemy without being a cowardly wimp in the face of evil.

Who is more the coward? The one who kills inocent lives because he is afraid that he and his will die, or the one who refuses to fight, because it is the way of Christ, knowing that refusing to fight can lead to death? The second one serves God, the first himself.

July 14, 2004

yod -

I am sorry if something I said in a post got us into an argument about cowardice. I certainly do not think you are a coward. My comments about cowardice were not really about you, but rather about my ideals. I understand your perspective, I just disagree with it. I am sure you are very brave, Christian brother!

July 14, 2004

Who is more the coward? The one who kills inocent lives because he is afraid that he and his will die, or the one who refuses to fight, because it is the way of Christ, knowing that refusing to fight can lead to death? The second one serves God, the first himself.

that is an opinion which can not be reconciled with the whole Bible.

I do see it quite a bit differently. It is not selfish to confront evil when innocent people are being murdered. This was Saddam's biggest national export as ruler of Iraq. He was paying $25,000 per suicide bomber in Israel. That has stopped.

I don't think we went to war strictly for self preservation as you seem to. The war on terrorism is going to be fought whether we want it or not. It started long ago and we are just now engaging because the era of WMDs is upon us.

Bush didn't start this war but he is first President who is willing to address what most politicians have ignored going back to the 1950s.

Do you really think that he could do this without the support of the State Department, the Congress, and the American people?

Those who are opposing him in Congress ALL voted to support this from the beginning....going all the way back to the Clinton Administration.

But now it's election time so they are trying anything to lower Bush's popularity and feeding folks like you some dung about him lying. It didn't happen.

Do a search and find his exact words from the days leading up to the launching of this war and you will find that he has done EXACTLY what he said he would do and for the same EXACT reasons he stated even up to this week.

When the election is over you will see all of Congress lining up with him again....mark my words. They all know what is at stake.

July 14, 2004

Iraq did not attack us. It was the Al-Qaeda. Iraq is not the Al-Qaeda

Terrorism is a million-headed monster.

You don't defeat it by cutting off a foot or even an arm. You kill it at the heart.

The biggest bully on the block has been eliminated. The rest of the bullies are hiding like cockroaches.

That is a good thing in case you didn't know it....

2bba · July 14, 2004

delete

July 15, 2004

I want to clarify my position - of course the US getting nuked is something terrible that I am totally against, like everyone else. All I am saying is there are limits to what we can do to prevent it - there is no human way to guarantee 100% chance of safety from it. Because there are limits, I say we should stay within the limits of what is right. For example, there is a danger now in this country with new powers of Homeland security and FEMA that they might take prisoner an innocent person without a trial. This is the sort of thing I am against. I am also against attacking Iraq. Instead we should increase the mercy missions that we already do. The need is great - there is a lot of good we could be doing