No. I would be more afraid of others trying to talk people to death while allowing them to do whatever.

 

Bush was physically wrong on Iraq. But he got it 100% correct with what Saddam wanted people to believe. Saddam was defiant of diplomacy and UN sanctions for what 10 years. How long does a person get to thumb his nose at the rest of the world and pull down his pants and moon the guidelines that he needs to live by?

 

Who made us the world police? If I'm not wrong, the UNITED NATIONS did not support our efforts but we gave them the finger & went in anyways. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but there are a BUNCH of those bad guy leaders so do we overthrow them all???

 

So, I assume you support his WWIII comments?? Don't you think at some point we need to be a "uniter" & stop being "dividers". He has single handedly divided the world b/c of his If you dont do what we want or what we like, wo be unto you!!!

Since he's not trigger happy I'm not afraid at all. I'm curious, what would YOUR response be to someone shooting or attempting to shoot a nuke?

 

no trigger happy? We have invaded 2 countries & are fighting 2 wars as we speak. He has also talked about the possibility of invading Iran. Please define, not trigger happy?

 

Lets see, if someone attempts to shoot a nuke or does. we shoot several at whoever shot it. then, they shoot a bunch, then others do. Lets just say ONE BIG BOOM!! I prefer a happier ending. People would be less likely to shoot a nuke, if we didnt invade other countries & talk down to other countries.

 

We are a country just as other countries. Our president is the presidnet of the UNITED STATES and IS NOT PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD!!!

Who made us the world police? If I'm not wrong, the UNITED NATIONS did not support our efforts but we gave them the finger & went in anyways. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but there are a BUNCH of those bad guy leaders so do we overthrow them all???

 

So, I assume you support his WWIII comments?? Don't you think at some point we need to be a "uniter" & stop being "dividers". He has single handedly divided the world b/c of his If you dont do what we want or what we like, wo be unto you!!!

 

It was tried for 10 years to bring Saddam into the fold of what the rest of the world, through UN actions, felt he needed to be doing. He thumbed his nose at the UN. How long, in your world, do you let a leader who wants to wipe Israel, this country's friend, off the face of the map, wanting people to believe he has WMD of which he DID HAVE and USED on his own people, not respond to diplomacy?

 

So, let's see, Bush bad for disregarding the UN on this one action.

Saddam not a problem after 10 years of disregarding the UN on several issues.

 

I think the world was divided before Bush when the Islamic terrorists were bombing for no reason around the world and this country had a leader that was more concerned about his interns than standing up to Americans dying through cowardly attacks.

 

I hope that we never have to get into a WWIII situation. But I remember from Tora!, Tora!, Tora! that this country was deep in the midst of diplomacy with Japan when we were attacked.

 

And if I understand my history right, we almost lost the war because we entered too late and was unprepared because certain factions in this country did not want us to be a part of it.

no trigger happy? We have invaded 2 countries & are fighting 2 wars as we speak. He has also talked about the possibility of invading Iran. Please define, not trigger happy?

 

Lets see, if someone attempts to shoot a nuke or does. we shoot several at whoever shot it. then, they shoot a bunch, then others do. Lets just say ONE BIG BOOM!! I prefer a happier ending. People would be less likely to shoot a nuke, if we didnt invade other countries & talk down to other countries.

 

We are a country just as other countries. Our president is the presidnet of the UNITED STATES and IS NOT PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD!!!

 

In neither case were we the school yard bully picking on the nerdy kid.

 

In both cases, the country had done things that to probably warrant such actions.

 

Afghanstan obviously the Talibans protection of Bin Laden needed to be addressed. Or do you blame this on Bush and feel we don't need to be there?

 

Iraq, Saddam himself indicated he was trying to get people to believe he had WMD. He WANTED people, especially Iran, to know that he had the weapons that we went in looking for. He had already shown that he would push the button on WMD with the chemical attacks on the Khurds. He had indicated that it was his goal to wipe Israel from the map.

It was tried for 10 years to bring Saddam into the fold of what the rest of the world, through UN actions, felt he needed to be doing. He thumbed his nose at the UN. How long, in your world, do you let a leader who wants to wipe Israel, this country's friend, off the face of the map, wanting people to believe he has WMD of which he DID HAVE and USED on his own people, not respond to diplomacy?

 

So, let's see, Bush bad for disregarding the UN on this one action.

Saddam not a problem after 10 years of disregarding the UN on several issues.

 

I think the world was divided before Bush when the Islamic terrorists were bombing for no reason around the world and this country had a leader that was more concerned about his interns than standing up to Americans dying through cowardly attacks.

 

I hope that we never have to get into a WWIII situation. But I remember from Tora!, Tora!, Tora! that this country was deep in the midst of diplomacy with Japan when we were attacked.

 

And if I understand my history right, we almost lost the war because we entered too late and was unprepared because certain factions in this country did not want us to be a part of it.

 

Do you think that we need to work with the United Nations or not?? I do not think that we as a country should be the vocal and military solutions to all world problems. We have the United Nations for that. Diplomacy may be a slow process but it may also be more effective than hastily going to war. But it wouldnt be too hard to be more effective than a war that has lasted 5 years, caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and cost our country over 1 trillion dollars.

In neither case were we the school yard bully picking on the nerdy kid.

 

In both cases, the country had done things that to probably warrant such actions.

 

Afghanstan obviously the Talibans protection of Bin Laden needed to be addressed. Or do you blame this on Bush and feel we don't need to be there?

 

Iraq, Saddam himself indicated he was trying to get people to believe he had WMD. He WANTED people, especially Iran, to know that he had the weapons that we went in looking for. He had already shown that he would push the button on WMD with the chemical attacks on the Khurds. He had indicated that it was his goal to wipe Israel from the map.

 

Who decides if they did enough to warrant an invasion? This is my point, we can come up with any excuse to go to war (e.g. WMD's or Saddam was a bad guy) but at some point, we can't take on every problem in the world.

Do you think that we need to work with the United Nations or not?? I do not think that we as a country should be the vocal and military solutions to all world problems. We have the United Nations for that. Diplomacy may be a slow process but it may also be more effective than hastily going to war. But it wouldnt be too hard to be more effective than a war that has lasted 5 years, caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and cost our country over 1 trillion dollars.

 

Again, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN guidelines put on him for 10 years. How long would you give a person to continually NOT doing what he was told he needed to do AFTER HE INVADED HIS NEIGHBORING COUNTRY?

 

I think we should work with the UN but not be tied with the UN. The UN does not have our treaties with other countries and not bound by those treaties. Thus, how they view things cannot always be in line with how we have to view things.

 

Diplomacy had failed with Saddam for 10 years. He admittingly was putting information out there to convince everyone, specially Iran, that he had WMD and based upon HIS STATEMENTS and HIS ACTIONS he would use them.

 

So, he is not doing what he was supposed to.

So, he was putting the image out there that he had WMD.

So, he had already used WMD at one point in his reign.

So, he had stated that his goal is to remove Israel, this country's friend, from the map.

 

And just for curiousity sake are you equally offended by the Democrats position abortion which kills 3,500 unborn children EVERY SINGLE DAY. In one day and about 6 hours, this country's position on abortion AND SUPPORTED BY MOST DEMOCRATS kills an equal number of Americans that has been killed in the Iraq War.

 

Does it offend you equally, that the Democrat chosen stance on abortion does in 30 hours regarding the loss of American lives what you are attacking Bush for doing in 5 years?

Who decides if they did enough to warrant an invasion? This is my point, we can come up with any excuse to go to war (e.g. WMD's or Saddam was a bad guy) but at some point, we can't take on every problem in the world.

 

Absolutely, we cannot. The elected leaders do and did.

 

The view of Saddam was directly what he wanted the view of him to be. He got his wish. And I bet that was a real kick in the pants to him.

 

He wanted to come across as a crazy leader with WMD and he did. He just never thought that we would be the ones coming in to throw him out and possibly help stabilize the region. Whether it does or not, is a long-term question/answer.

Honestly, I am not happy about other countries having this capability but I truly do not lose sleep over it. God is in control. He is not wringing his hands and wondering what is going to happen about it all ... He knows it already. And, since the creator of the Universe is my heavenly father, and I am blood bought and forgiven, I know where I will spend eternity if this devasting event should occur. In my opinion it would be a promotion out of this wicked, sinful world. I would no longer have to battle with my own wicked flesh and I would be spending an eternity in Heaven. However, I am concerned for those who do not know Christ . . . they should be afraid, very afraid.

no trigger happy? We have invaded 2 countries & are fighting 2 wars as we speak. He has also talked about the possibility of invading Iran. Please define, not trigger happy?

 

Lets see, if someone attempts to shoot a nuke or does. we shoot several at whoever shot it. then, they shoot a bunch, then others do. Lets just say ONE BIG BOOM!! I prefer a happier ending. People would be less likely to shoot a nuke, if we didnt invade other countries & talk down to other countries.

 

We are a country just as other countries. Our president is the presidnet of the UNITED STATES and IS NOT PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD!!!

 

Nope, not trigger happy at all but responding to events as they happened. You still havent' explained how you would respond. A happier ending? How would you make that come about if someone shot or attempted to shoot a nuke? BTW, the people we are talking about have been at war with us long before any of the actions you mention took place.

Again, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN guidelines put on him for 10 years. How long would you give a person to continually NOT doing what he was told he needed to do AFTER HE INVADED HIS NEIGHBORING COUNTRY?

 

I think we should work with the UN but not be tied with the UN. The UN does not have our treaties with other countries and not bound by those treaties. Thus, how they view things cannot always be in line with how we have to view things.

 

Diplomacy had failed with Saddam for 10 years. He admittingly was putting information out there to convince everyone, specially Iran, that he had WMD and based upon HIS STATEMENTS and HIS ACTIONS he would use them.

 

So, he is not doing what he was supposed to.

So, he was putting the image out there that he had WMD.

So, he had already used WMD at one point in his reign.

So, he had stated that his goal is to remove Israel, this country's friend, from the map.

 

And just for curiousity sake are you equally offended by the Democrats position abortion which kills 3,500 unborn children EVERY SINGLE DAY. In one day and about 6 hours, this country's position on abortion AND SUPPORTED BY MOST DEMOCRATS kills an equal number of Americans that has been killed in the Iraq War.

 

Does it offend you equally, that the Democrat chosen stance on abortion does in 30 hours regarding the loss of American lives what you are attacking Bush for doing in 5 years?

 

 

I am interested to see the response you will get from this.

Again, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN guidelines put on him for 10 years. How long would you give a person to continually NOT doing what he was told he needed to do AFTER HE INVADED HIS NEIGHBORING COUNTRY?

 

I think we should work with the UN but not be tied with the UN. The UN does not have our treaties with other countries and not bound by those treaties. Thus, how they view things cannot always be in line with how we have to view things.

 

Diplomacy had failed with Saddam for 10 years. He admittingly was putting information out there to convince everyone, specially Iran, that he had WMD and based upon HIS STATEMENTS and HIS ACTIONS he would use them.

 

So, he is not doing what he was supposed to.

So, he was putting the image out there that he had WMD.

So, he had already used WMD at one point in his reign.

So, he had stated that his goal is to remove Israel, this country's friend, from the map.

 

And just for curiousity sake are you equally offended by the Democrats position abortion which kills 3,500 unborn children EVERY SINGLE DAY. In one day and about 6 hours, this country's position on abortion AND SUPPORTED BY MOST DEMOCRATS kills an equal number of Americans that has been killed in the Iraq War.

 

Does it offend you equally, that the Democrat chosen stance on abortion does in 30 hours regarding the loss of American lives what you are attacking Bush for doing in 5 years?

 

first, he thumbed his nose at UN sanction so we invade. If they were UN sanctions the something needed to be done by them or at least more countries than just us.

 

regarding abortion (even though it is apples & oranges)

Abortion is not something that I agree personally about but I dont make decisions for anyone else. I think people can run their lives better than me trying to rule them. If someone gets raped, I feel that they should be able to get an abortion. Since, I support that part, how can I completely be opposed to all abortions.

 

Roe vs. Wade determined that a citizen has right @ birth so unborn children don't have the same rights. If this was overturned it would also cause many other problems. Hence, if a mother falls, takes drugs, drink alchohol, take prescription medication, etc and it kills the unborn baby & the unborn baby is considered a living being with the same rights as you or me, the mother will be punished. Do you really think we're ready to address that can of worms?

 

here is my word of life: TOLERANCE!! I have my views and others have their own. Mine are no more important than anyone elses. While my God is important to me & Christians; I am not willing to send anyone to hell that follows Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, etc. They will be judged the same way that I will. I am Judge nor juror!!!

first, he thumbed his nose at UN sanction so we invade. If they were UN sanctions the something needed to be done by them or at least more countries than just us.

 

It was not like he thumbed his nose at UN sanctions one time and that was it. He had a 10 year history of thumbing his nose at UN sanctions that came about BECAUSE OF HIS ACTION OF INVADING KUWAIT.

 

regarding abortion (even though it is apples & oranges)

 

It is not apples and oranges. Both are American policy that takes American lives. One has taken slightly under 4,000 in a 5-year period that you disagree with. The other is an American policy that takes 4,000 lives in about 30 hours. Which should be more abhorable to this country?

 

Abortion is not something that I agree personally about but I dont make decisions for anyone else. I think people can run their lives better than me trying to rule them. If someone gets raped, I feel that they should be able to get an abortion. Since, I support that part, how can I completely be opposed to all abortions.

 

Roe vs. Wade determined that a citizen has right @ birth so unborn children don't have the same rights. If this was overturned it would also cause many other problems. Hence, if a mother falls, takes drugs, drink alchohol, take prescription medication, etc and it kills the unborn baby & the unborn baby is considered a living being with the same rights as you or me, the mother will be punished. Do you really think we're ready to address that can of worms?

On the bolded, each of those military people who have sadly lost their lives VOLUNTEERED for military service and chose what to do with their lives FULLY KNOWING that it might result in them being involved in military action and their life being endanger.

 

From my understanding, Roe v Wade did not do that. Simply stated that the states did not have the right to outlaw abortion.

 

Also, if another person kills a pregnant mom, they can be charged with two murders in several states. So, there are some rights that an unborn baby has. And to say that a mother who falls will face charges if Roe v Wade is overturned, is so ridiculous of a statement, I don't even know what to say about it.

 

 

here is my word of life: TOLERANCE!! I have my views and others have their own. Mine are no more important than anyone elses. While my God is important to me & Christians; I am not willing to Word Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter Violation anyone to hell that follows Yahweh, Buddha, Allah, etc. They will be judged the same way that I will. I am Judge nor juror!!!

 

I cannot darn someone. I cannot judge someone in the manner that truly counts. I can simply point out to them what Scripture indicates.

 

As far as the "no more important than anyone else," if Scripture is wrong than all make it to heaven. If Scripture is right and Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY to heaven, than yeah it was more important than anyone else.

It was not like he thumbed his nose at UN sanctions one time and that was it. He had a 10 year history of thumbing his nose at UN sanctions that came about BECAUSE OF HIS ACTION OF INVADING KUWAIT.

 

 

 

It is not apples and oranges. Both are American policy that takes American lives. One has taken slightly under 4,000 in a 5-year period that you disagree with. The other is an American policy that takes 4,000 lives in about 30 hours. Which should be more abhorable to this country?

 

 

On the bolded, each of those military people who have sadly lost their lives VOLUNTEERED for military service and chose what to do with their lives FULLY KNOWING that it might result in them being involved in military action and their life being endanger.

 

From my understanding, Roe v Wade did not do that. Simply stated that the states did not have the right to outlaw abortion.

 

Also, if another person kills a pregnant mom, they can be charged with two murders in several states. So, there are some rights that an unborn baby has. And to say that a mother who falls will face charges if Roe v Wade is overturned, is so ridiculous of a statement, I don't even know what to say about it.

 

 

 

 

I cannot darn someone. I cannot judge someone in the manner that truly counts. I can simply point out to them what Scripture indicates.

 

As far as the "no more important than anyone else," if Scripture is wrong than all make it to heaven. If Scripture is right and Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY to heaven, than yeah it was more important than anyone else.

 

What if a woman who is pregnant, gets drunk & falls. Is that murder?

 

here's another hypothetical...

Scenario 1 - A man kills 10,000 people in cold blood, goes to jail & is sentenced to murder. 1 minute before he is put to death, he is baptized.

Scenario 2 - A man lives a full and fruitful life. He is a great man. He gives to charities. He gives to the poor. He helps out his neighbors. He is as close to perfect as anyone can be BUT he is never baptized.

 

You will say that the guy in scenario 2 goes to hades. While I find it morally difficult to be so sure.

come on LBBC, I'm waiting for your reply to my scenario.