Posted on 07/26/2006 9:31:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Pride is the cancer of Sin.
Your heavy use of bolding and shouting reeks of self-importance.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
We tried islolationism in the 30's.. Guess what it failed..
ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM!
You don't know OP very well. He is not a self-important person, but quite humble and open.
Good post you made with that observation. That is the very point I was going to make but you beat me to it. They knew to take a clue from Solomon - there is a time for war.
Augustine understood the fallen nature of man was a reality through dealing with people's troubled lives as a spiritual light. He eventually saw people as they really are and it took a toll as he saw that fallen nature played out in the inevitable conflicts that resulted.
That same fallen nature leads not just to everyday conflicts but to wars.
The thing is, OP indicates that the reason we're in Iraq is merely Bush's "good intentions." There were a variety of valid reasons we entered into war against the leadership of Iraq, and it wasn't on some whim or mere "good intentions." It's a difficult situation, and saying "Bush's fault" is just sloppy reasoning.
What do you know about James Dobson? Give me only one example of his being "nefarious" and I'll eat my PowerBook and never post another thing on FR. Your ridiculing him tells me a lot about you, Jude24.
It sure is easy to attack high-profile Christians....
That is not accurate.
First, there was no real fear that Saddam would use them against us. The issue was that he was not complying with UN resolutions to reveal the status of unreported WMDs. I don't think anyone claimed that Saddam would launch a war against the US. The fear was that his possession of any quantity would enable him to use terrorists to deliver small quantities of WMD for big effects in the western world.
Second, it has been demonstrated again and again that Saddam did still possess WMDs and that he had the recipe for making more of them extremely quickly. Again, this gave him the capacity to use clandestine terrorist delivery systems.
In such a case all it did was to give time to Hussein to regroup and rearm. That is what he did. Then he thumbed his nose at the cease fire agreement and pursued a campaign to obtain WMD's. We had a duty to go in. We could have bombed Iraq into the sand, but we chose to be merciful. Perhaps that was our mistake.
Regardless, the heart of the king is in the hand of God. If we chose to be merciful then it was God's will that we be merciful.
BTW I was against the Gulf War until we had troops on the sand. I was all for the latest Iraqi venture. Our survival may be at stake here. We must succeed.
Condoleeza Rice - "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." This war was sold as having been defensive against WMD.
It's an outgrowth of a Christian heresy.
He's either a tool or a whore for the Republican party. For example, the Harriet Miers pandering campaign (whisper, whisper, she's one of us, wink wink, nod nod).
That was a "to whom it may concern" mushroom cloud, and not necessarily one used against the US.
We had no fear that Saddam would mount an offensive to attack the US.
Everyone knew he had no capacity to do that. It had to do with his possession of WMDs in his geographic region, and his use of WMDs via terrorist activity.
There is no reputable military person I can think of who would have thought that Saddam had the capacity to launch a WMD offensive against the US.
"On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said.
Source: "Top Bush officials push case against Saddam - September 8, 2002.
Jude, how many suitcase sized nukes can you fit into one of these? And how many would it take to destroy Manhattan Island?
We cannot afford to err on the side of incaution. We must be agressive in the war on terror. It is our duty. It is our destiny.
Suitcase nukes are the stuff of yellow journalism and trashy spy novels. They would have to b manufactured by a sophisticated state, of which the US and the Soviet Union alone had the technology to build. The Soviet Union's security struggles in the mid-to-early 1990's would be the only opportunity to steal them. These things, however, would require extensive maintenance - which Al Queda and Iraq could not provide.
Suitcase nukes, therefore, are not a credible threat. (Source)
I repeat, there was no reputable military mind who thought that Saddam could mount an offensive against the US using WMDs.
The issue was use of WMDs in some kind of terrorist plot.
Even Cheney's statement is in that context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.