Then, what is inviting the attacks now? Sure isn't Clinton. He hasn't been in office for a few years now.

 

You can't say Clinton's actions invites the attacks, without acknowledging the current attacks, and the fact that W's actions invite them.

 

Displaying weakness and unwillingness to act invites an attack from your opponents, overwhelming strength does not.

I wasn't trying to fire you up and I apologize if I did. I can appreciate your point of view. I just happen to be devoted to my political party ( Dem) and will continue.

 

No problem. We just dramatically disagree on the importance of party loyalty.

Displaying weakness and unwillingness to act invites an attack from your opponents, overwhelming strength does not.

 

 

IMO, you are incorrect. Overbearing attitudes toward those who oppose us cause them to be as obstinite as we are. A bully who isn't beaten up is no less hated.

IMO, you are incorrect. Overbearing attitudes toward those who oppose us cause them to be as obstinite as we are. A bully who isn't beaten up is no less hated.

 

You are confusing hate with fear. Being unwilling to act against these terrorist allows them to conduct their affairs. Also, the only way not to be hated by these people would be to stay out of world affairs, which is NOT in our best interest as a nation. Since we know we are going to be hated, we must be feared. We must also be proactive in destroying those threats who do not fear us.

You are confusing hate with fear. Being unwilling to act against these terrorist allows them to conduct their affairs. Also, the only way not to be hated by these people would be to stay out of world affairs, which is NOT in our best interest as a nation. Since we know we are going to be hated, we must be feared. We must also be proactive in destroying those threats who do not fear us.

 

 

No...I do not think the terrorists fear us.

No...I do not think the terrorists fear us.

 

Exactly. That is why we must be proactive in eliminating them. Clinton was weak on both of these issues. He didn't believe in policy that flexed our muscle, and he also didn't believe in expending the proper resources to eliminate our threats.

Exactly. That is why we must be proactive in eliminating them. Clinton was weak on both of these issues. He didn't believe in policy that flexed our muscle, and he also didn't believe in expending the proper resources to eliminate our threats.

 

 

And W, IMO, is a president who believes in policy that overextends our resoruces and shows no sign of compromise.

And W, IMO, is a president who believes in policy that overextends our resoruces and shows no sign of compromise.

 

Our resources have not been overextended in the least. Showing compromise is not the answer against radicals. This is the reason it has been our national policy not to negotiate with terrorist for decades. Negotiation only leads to more terrorism.

Our resources have not been overextended in the least. Showing compromise is not the answer against radicals. This is the reason it has been our national policy not to negotiate with terrorist for decades. Negotiation only leads to more terrorism.

 

 

I don't have time to go into this right now, but in a nutshell:

 

Our debt is spiraling-over-extension of resources.

 

Compromise can work.

I don't have time to go into this right now, but in a nutshell:

 

Our debt is spiraling-over-extension of resources.

 

Compromise can work.

 

Our debt in no way is spiraling any worse than it ever has in time of war. Compromise has never worked with radicals. Murder is in the heart of man. We are not going to change their position, so the only compromise that could occur would be on our end. Look at how well compromise has worked for Israel in dealing with these fanatics.

Actually, the Christian has to do no more to twist the Bible's literal words, than the Muslim does to have to twist the Koran's. It clearly states in the Bible, "An eye for an eye". I don't think it's different at all. If you are a person who takes the Bible to the literal extremes, then you will kill in the name of God. The difference is actually socio-political. We live in a Christian country, but not a theocracy.

 

I don't classify people living by the Mosaic law as Christians...

Our resources have not been overextended in the least.

Let's just say that I strongly disagre with you about this statement.

Exactly. That is why we must be proactive in eliminating them. Clinton was weak on both of these issues. He didn't believe in policy that flexed our muscle, and he also didn't believe in expending the proper resources to eliminate our threats.

 

You cannot extinquish the muslim faith and as long as there is a muslim faith there will be extremists. That is a silly thought.

 

As long as America "flexes her muscles" there will be people who hate us and are therefore our enemies - you cannot eliminate all of them.

 

You statement sounds very 3rd Reichish if I can say that without invoking too much venom from others. Hitlers goal was to eliminate all of the Jews because HE BELIEVED they were the enemy of Germany.

 

President Lincoln was chided for not destroying the south and "eliminating the Union's enemies" - he said, and I paraphrase, Do I not destroy my enemy when I make him my friend?

 

If we only had more Lincolns around today . . .

I don't classify people living by the Mosaic law as Christians...

 

How about the people who believe that Christ will ride in a big white horse in front of a sea of blood and kill/destroy/punish for eternity all of the infidels - or rather "the people who do not convert."

 

Sounds like another convert or die scenario doesn't it. hmmmmmmm

How about the people who believe that Christ will ride in a big white horse in front of a sea of blood and kill/destroy/punish for eternity all of the infidels - or rather "the people who do not convert."

 

Sounds like another convert or die scenario doesn't it. hmmmmmmm

 

There is a significant difference between Christ executing judgement himself and a misguided person doing it.

 

To compare someone's belief that Christ will return, in the flesh, to execute judgment on the world, to someone who claims they're executing God's will by killing someone is ridiculous.

 

Romans 12:19 says, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"

 

Now, I choose to believe this and that Jesus will return to judge the world. So, by believing the things I do, am I on the same level as an Islamic suicide bomber in your mind?

 

The difference is that a Christian is commanded by the Bible to love everyone, friends and enemies, and leave punishment and judgment to God. A Muslim is commanded to try to convert non-believers or kill them.

 

Again, there are Christians who distort the words and meanings of the Bible and do horrible things. My point is the fundamental difference between the two books that guide these religions. A muslim can find numerous verses where they're commanded to kill infidels. Can you show me where Jesus commands His followers to convert the world to Christianity or kill them? Therein lies the difference, and if you can't see it, then you just don't want to.