I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
You are on to something. Liberals who call themselves Christians scream that Jesus would be against all wars. However, they tend to forget how God was with the Israelites in many wars throughout The Old Testament. In fact, The Old Testament is full of stories of how God sheltered the Israelites and went with them through several wars. The question is, do you believe that Jesus and God are one in the same? Do you believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever? I would submit that God hates war, but has been known to work through it for the good. In those Old Testament stories, I guarantee that innocent bystanders were killed as well. The evidence is all over the place. Just read The Book (Bible for those who may not understand the reference). Now, some liberal is going to ask, “What good can God bring out of this war?” Here are a few things I think may happen.
1. A people that were under a tyrannical dictatorship are now free.
2. A free and democratic Iraq will be more open to the spread of the Gospel in an area of the world tormented by Islam.
3. A free and stable Iraq will be a great ally and base in the event of military action with Iran.
Those are just a few ideas that pop into my head. Now, what good can be found in abortion? I can’t think of the first positive. Some liberal may say population control, but is that a positive thing?
Finally, I have said time and time again, it does not matter why we went to war now that we are in it. If you disagree with the war, that is fine and you have the right to disagree with the reasons we entered it. However, now we have to be responsible in how we exit. We should not dare leave until there is stability. The surge has been working and liberals hate that fact. Now that progress is being made, we should continue on to the goal of having a stable country consisting of a free people. When that day arrives, we will be better off for it. The people of Iraq will be better off for it. Maybe there will be a new mission field for the church and the gospel will spread.
So, the question to Big Fred and other liberals that may be reading is, How can God use this war for good? How can God use abortion for good? I think you’ll find a much longer list under the first question.
I surely thought that someone jump on this and tell me how wrong I was.
I was wondering the other day what the libs would do if someone attacked their neighbor. Would they just stand by and watch, or would they grab a bat and stop the attack even though the attacker had not attacked them personally? If they were concerned enough to help their neighbor, and they trampled on the neighbors wife or kids trying to save his neighbors life, would he be wrong for trying to help?
Suppose this bad guy had attacked your neighbor before and had used a gun and actually shot your neighbor. You knew that this guy owned a gun, because he had used it before. You went to help your neighbor thinking this guy had his gun, in fact neighbors on both sides had seen him use his gun before. You tackle this guy to get him off your neighbor with all your force because you think he still has his gun with him. You get rid of him for good, but you find that he didn’t bring his gun this time. Are you wrong for using the force that you did?
That’s exactly what we did, only on a larger scale. I would certainly hope that my neighbor would come to my rescue. According to EVERY soldier I’ve talked to coming home from Iraq, to a man, they say that the people over there are grateful for us getting rid of Sadam Hussein.
There’s never any shortage of rhetoric for why American loves to play the role of “The World’s Policeman”.
Are we sometimes justified in jumping into another country to fight a war? Of course. To borrow Deon’s analogy, no good neighbor will stand by and do nothing while an innocent person is attacked.
But it’s interesting to me that so many people who LOVE to use this argument to justify the war in Iraq.......have a complete disregard about situations like Darfur.
Seriously. Read it again.
If you’re going to use the “protecting your neighbor” argument to justify this multi-billion dollar war....why on earth are you not screaming for blood over what’s going on in Darfur?
Tony, Tony, Tony… Now you don’t belive that this is all about oil, do you? Of course, if it is about oil… I hope we hurry up and get some!!! I think we have been in Irag long enough to have squatters rights to some of that oil, don’t ya think?
There’s never any shortage of rhetoric for why American loves to play the role of “The World’s Policeman”.
Are we sometimes justified in jumping into another country to fight a war? Of course. To borrow Deon’s analogy, no good neighbor will stand by and do nothing while an innocent person is attacked.
But it’s interesting to me that so many people who LOVE to use this argument to justify the war in Iraq.......have a complete disregard about situations like Darfur.
Seriously. Read it again.
If you’re going to use the “protecting your neighbor” argument to justify this multi-billion dollar war....why on earth are you not screaming for blood over what’s going on in Darfur?
Oh. Wait. That’s right.
They don’t have any oil in Darfur.
Never mind.
Tony Rush
I don’t think anyone is not concerned about the things in Darfur. Unfortunately we can’t be all things to all people. Remember when we started this, things were just as bad in Iraq, as they are in Darfar with ethnic cleansing going on. The anti-war people seem to forget that little fact.
I know that Tony is smart enough to know that this war is not about oil, but if he can get somebody’s goat by saying it, he will.
I’m still glad that with Bush’s leadership, we are fighting the terrorists over there, and NOT over here.
Deon, you’re carefully sidestepped my point so I’ll repeat it just in case you missed it on accident. Your recent post stated that the U.S. presence in Iraq was about being a “good neighbor” and not letting another country be bullied. And that seems to be your justification for a war in Iraq that has cost billions of dollars and many lives despite the fact that we don’t QUITE seem capable of defining exactly who the enemy is and what would constitute “victory” by any definition of the word.
But, okay. Fine. Let’s say you’re right and that it’s the U.S.’ responsibility to go protect a society from tyrannical leaders.
Then my question stands: where was the U.S. involvement in Darfur? The genocide in Darfur has claimed 400,000 lives. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced. More than a hundred people continue to die each day...to the tune of about five thousand every month. Organized starvation. Rape. Displacement. GENOCIDE.
Genocide. Read that word again.
So...if we follow Deon’s logic that our heavy and costly involvement in Iraq is primarly because of our role of protector.......
....then it seems to me that the U.S. owes an apology to the people of Darfur.
And that’s the basis of my point when I said, “Oh, wait...Darfur doesn’t have any oil”. Obviously there must be SOME difference between why we’ve been in Iraq for years while we ignore the people of Darfur. And the most logical answer is oil.
I’m not naive enough to think I can change someone’s mind about the war on this forum. But, it is INARGUABLE that there is a very large disparity between how we’ve “protected” (snicker) the people of Iraq as opposed to how we have protected the people of Darfur or any other country where people are being abused en masse.
We’re not in Iraq because we’re a “protector”. We’re in Iraq because war is big business and the U.S. has a vested interest in terms of power and money to be there. Nothing more.
Deon, you’re carefully sidestepped my point so I’ll repeat it just in case you missed it on accident. Your recent post stated that the U.S. presence in Iraq was about being a “good neighbor” and not letting another country be bullied. And that seems to be your justification for a war in Iraq that has cost billions of dollars and many lives despite the fact that we don’t QUITE seem capable of defining exactly who the enemy is and what would constitute “victory” by any definition of the word.
But, okay. Fine. Let’s say you’re right and that it’s the U.S.’ responsibility to go protect a society from tyrannical leaders.
Then my question stands: where was the U.S. involvement in Darfur? The genocide in Darfur has claimed 400,000 lives. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced. More than a hundred people continue to die each day...to the tune of about five thousand every month. Organized starvation. Rape. Displacement. GENOCIDE.
Genocide. Read that word again.
So...if we follow Deon’s logic that our heavy and costly involvement in Iraq is primarly because of our role of protector.......
....then it seems to me that the U.S. owes an apology to the people of Darfur.
And that’s the basis of my point when I said, “Oh, wait...Darfur doesn’t have any oil”. Obviously there must be SOME difference between why we’ve been in Iraq for years while we ignore the people of Darfur. And the most logical answer is oil.
I’m not naive enough to think I can change someone’s mind about the war on this forum. But, it is INARGUABLE that there is a very large disparity between how we’ve “protected” (snicker) the people of Iraq as opposed to how we have protected the people of Darfur or any other country where people are being abused en masse.
We’re not in Iraq because we’re a “protector”. We’re in Iraq because war is big business and the U.S. has a vested interest in terms of power and money to be there. Nothing more.
Tony Rush
Sometimes I wish I could see what’s actually going on inside that head. We have been in Afghanistan longer than we have been in Iraq and last I checked, they were not a big oil country. Yes, our presence in Iraq has opened the door for a people to become free and experience the benefits thereof, but that is not the main reason we invaded. Iraq was seen as a threat to our own country. Evidence was agreed upon by nearly all who saw it, then as soon as it looked as if this was not going to be an overnight success, Democrats and even some Republicans ran with their tales tucked between their legs yelling “Bush got us into this.” Here are some of the things that we do know about Iraq.
Sadam was sympathetic to the cause of Al Quieda.
Al Quieda did some training in Iraq.
Sadam was a threat to our allies in the Middle East and was thought to be working on developing weapons of mass destruction.
There are many others, but these are just a few.
Now on your whole point about oil, I think it would be great that as a repayment, the U.S. start receiving oil from Iraq. We have spent billions of dollars on this war that the people of Iraq will benefit from. It would be nice to get some kind of payment in return.
The situation in Darfur is a sad one. I pray that things change there. Darfur has not had any perceivable threat directly to the U.S. so it is up to that lovely little organization called the United Nations to lead on that front. Oh, did you forget about them? What have they done in this situation? What good have they done in any situation? Have they ever done anything more than gather around a table and belly-ache about everything?
Deon, you’re carefully sidestepped my point so I’ll repeat it just in case you missed it on accident. Your recent post stated that the U.S. presence in Iraq was about being a “good neighbor” and not letting another country be bullied. And that seems to be your justification for a war in Iraq that has cost billions of dollars and many lives despite the fact that we don’t QUITE seem capable of defining exactly who the enemy is and what would constitute “victory” by any definition of the word.
But, okay. Fine. Let’s say you’re right and that it’s the U.S.’ responsibility to go protect a society from tyrannical leaders.
Then my question stands: where was the U.S. involvement in Darfur? The genocide in Darfur has claimed 400,000 lives. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced. More than a hundred people continue to die each day...to the tune of about five thousand every month. Organized starvation. Rape. Displacement. GENOCIDE.
Genocide. Read that word again.
So...if we follow Deon’s logic that our heavy and costly involvement in Iraq is primarly because of our role of protector.......
....then it seems to me that the U.S. owes an apology to the people of Darfur.
And that’s the basis of my point when I said, “Oh, wait...Darfur doesn’t have any oil”. Obviously there must be SOME difference between why we’ve been in Iraq for years while we ignore the people of Darfur. And the most logical answer is oil.
I’m not naive enough to think I can change someone’s mind about the war on this forum. But, it is INARGUABLE that there is a very large disparity between how we’ve “protected” (snicker) the people of Iraq as opposed to how we have protected the people of Darfur or any other country where people are being abused en masse.
We’re not in Iraq because we’re a “protector”. We’re in Iraq because war is big business and the U.S. has a vested interest in terms of power and money to be there. Nothing more.
Tony Rush
Tony, I believe I used the words “ethnic cleansing”. The last time I checked ethnic cleansing and genocide are just about the same thing. Maybe I gave you too much credit, if you really think that the Iraq War is about oil. SGmusician stated our reasons well, and I said in other posts that Sadam had WMDs. We know that he used them on his own people. We would have been idiots to have stood by and done nothing. Where would we be now if we had ignored Sadam and he nuked Israel or Iran, or Turkey, or a number of other countries. Oil is the least of the reasons of why we would have even thought about going to war with Iraq.
I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
I have more ideas, but what do you think so far?
So you are for the mass killing innocent people and are pro-war, but only when it serves your agenda...thanks for clearing that up for us…
I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
I have more ideas, but what do you think so far?
So you are for the mass killing innocent people and are pro-war, but only when it serves your agenda...thanks for clearing that up for us…
Everyone get out the boots. He’s back. Welcome back Big Fred.
I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
I have more ideas, but what do you think so far?
So you are for the mass killing innocent people and are pro-war, but only when it serves your agenda...thanks for clearing that up for us…
Everyone get out the boots. He’s back. Welcome back Big Fred.
Still avoiding the issues and resorting to personal attacks, I see. why am I not surprised?
I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
I have more ideas, but what do you think so far?
So you are for the mass killing innocent people and are pro-war, but only when it serves your agenda...thanks for clearing that up for us…
Everyone get out the boots. He’s back. Welcome back Big Fred.
Still avoiding the issues and resorting to personal attacks, I see. why am I not surprised?
No issue avoided and no personal attack made. You tried to make what Deon said into something entirely different then what it is. You tried to redefine his words in just 1 sentence avoiding any semblance or truth or accuracy. I just pointed that out by saying your words would be better used as fertilizer. Why am I not surprised?
I often hear Liberals try to make the argument that Conservatives are big on abortion, but are blinded to the innocent lives that are lost in war. Some say that Jesus would be against all wars. Of course the Liberal argument is that the Iraq War is not a justified war because they never attacked us.
What do you think? Would Jesus be in favor of defending someone or some nation because a tyrant butchering and murdering people? Would Jesus be against removing a tyrant and his system of government who was an enemy of Israel? Remember, Sadam bombed Israel every chance he got.
Can we really look at the Bible and say that God is against war? What about the innocent women and children? Unfortunately, innocent people die in the cost of freedom. We lost innocent people when we fought the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I do not understand why, but God often required that Israel take no survivors. No women, no children, not even any livestock were allowed to be spared.
The sad thing is that there are some truly evil people in this world, and as a result of their actions, innocent people lose their lives. These evil people persuade others to follow them. Their loyalty often remains even after the death of the evil leader. These evil followers cause the death of many innocent people even after the evil leader is dead. So do you simply remove the evil leader? If we do that and leave, then the evil followers simply pick another leader and continue their terror in the country. No we must continue to fight the evil followers or insurgents even if more innocent lives are lost. It is the cost of freedom. Well, why are we still there? Why don’t we just leave those people to fight against the remaining evil followers? That’s simple, because it would be suicide to just leave the people fight against the evil remaining terrorists.
I have more ideas, but what do you think so far?
So you are for the mass killing innocent people and are pro-war, but only when it serves your agenda...thanks for clearing that up for us…
Not quite sure how you got that out of what I said, but I’m not surprized.
Of course, if it is about oil… I hope we hurry up and get some!!! I think we have been in Irag long enough to have squatters rights to some of that oil, don’t ya think?
