The Liberals fall with Saddam!

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The pace at which events are occuring are very questionable. There are several separate controversies that have occured in American politics contiguously:

1) The 2000 presidential election controversy. VP Al Gore leads the election polls by a hair for the entire process until the state of Florida supposedly seals the election for George Bush.
2) The 9-11 tragedy. Media attention is led away from the president's economic policy to his militaric policy. Bush's good status in the opinion of the public skyrockets.
3) The 2002 congressional election controversy. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota), a vocal antagonist of the Bush administration is killed in a plane crash. The republican party sweeps the congressional seats.
4) The war on terrorism. The United States begins bombing Afghanistan citizens, in hopes that one (?) will land on Osama bin-Laden. No updates on whether this objective was met. "Terrorism" is transposed onto Iraq as a possible hiding place for bin-Laden in January of 2002. By March of 2002, "terrorism" is weapons of mass destruction. By April of 2002, "terrorism" is a secondary issue and liberating Iraqis takes primacy.


5) The coincidence that all militaric turning points which "lead to" the Middle East -- including the fall of the Towers -- coincides with the Bush presidencies.

 

Wow.  Im going back to reality now.
 
Upvote 0

jseek21

Radical Biblicalist
Jan 30, 2003
205
1
39
Arizona
Visit site
✟340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Crazyfingers, I am not talking about your particular views on the war. If I was, you would have to explain to me what they were, and then I could respond to them. I was responding to the sentiments and views set forth by many liberal leaders, including Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and a myriad of other politicians. If these are not their viewpoints, and not the running viewpoints set forth by left wing politicians and leaders, then why are these reasons the only ones coming out of their mouths? As for false witness, how can I bear false witness when I am quoting? I am not going to point fingers, but I believe that which for I have been accused I have been accused in kind.

As for the two reasons you set forth:
1: That the US should not thumb it's nose against the rest of the world because it will hurt the US in the long run to bahave as a rogue superpower.

Reasonable. Always good to guard against that. but this is not what seems to be happening. We have given these people freedom, not oppressed them.

2: That the extra hate against the US in the rest of the middle east will generate more terrorism in the long run.

And yet there is already a large level of hate against Americans. It comes to a point where you will be hated for doing what is right. And thankfully at this point in the war those who hate us are diminishing because they see the freedom their brothers are being granted, and now understand what this was for (until now they had the Iraqi propoganda minister telling them lies. Now they are watching the truth before their very eyes).

Which brings another point. Now that these other arbian countries with dictatorships see that the Iraqi's have freedom, will that not give them renewed courage to fight against their oppressors?

As for if I trust George Bush, yes I do. He is a Christian man (saved by grace through faith alone!) and to date I have not recorded a lie he has set forth. Now on the other hand I believe our last president stood before a federal court and told the American people, "No I did not have sex with Monica Lewinski." Which is the bigger liar?

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan
 
Upvote 0

jseek21

Radical Biblicalist
Jan 30, 2003
205
1
39
Arizona
Visit site
✟340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Today at 04:03 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #40

Hi Magnum,

The pace at which events are occuring are very questionable. There are several separate controversies that have occured in American politics contiguously:

1) The 2000 presidential election controversy. VP Al Gore leads the election polls by a hair for the entire process until the state of Florida supposedly seals the election for George Bush.
2) The 9-11 tragedy. Media attention is led away from the president's economic policy to his militaric policy. Bush's good status in the opinion of the public skyrockets.
3) The 2002 congressional election controversy. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota), a vocal antagonist of the Bush administration is killed in a plane crash. The republican party sweeps the congressional seats.
4) The war on terrorism. The United States begins bombing Afghanistan citizens, in hopes that one (?) will land on Osama bin-Laden. No updates on whether this objective was met. "Terrorism" is transposed onto Iraq as a possible hiding place for bin-Laden in January of 2002. By March of 2002, "terrorism" is weapons of mass destruction. By April of 2002, "terrorism" is a secondary issue and liberating Iraqis takes primacy.

5) The coincidence that all militaric turning points which "lead to" the Middle East -- including the fall of the Towers -- coincides with the Bush presidencies.

This is not all hunky-dory. As Christians, we know that fighting and bloodshed are not options to us. Our sword is our Bible, our tools for survival are faith, hope, and love. Honestly Christians, where is your love? The only way we will keep our lands secure and our freedoms in tact is by confronting the perversities in our global policy which enrage world citizens.

Wow! And stereotypically, right wing radicals are the only conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes I wonder if people many times think there is much more to our world than there really is.
 
Upvote 0

crazyfingers

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2002
8,733
329
Massachusetts
Visit site
✟18,923.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 08:00 PM jseek21 said this in Post #43

Crazyfingers, I am not talking about your particular views on the war. If I was, you would have to explain to me what they were, and then I could respond to them. I was responding to the sentiments and views set forth by many liberal leaders, including Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and a myriad of other politicians.



It's odd though that the reasons that you gave for being against the war do not seem to be the reasons that I recall anyone who is against the war using. Except for the Iraqs.

Inaddition to my reasons, people who have been agaist the war largely mention the following:

1 A lot of civilians would be killed

2 No real evidence provided for WMD

3 Saddam couldn't really do anything with inspectors running arouond. No rush

The reason that you gave are all reasons that I have never heard anyone use.

"Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction." - I have only seen Iraq use that argument.  Others have only correctly pointed out that Bush's claim that Saddam had them was lacking.

"The people want Saddam in power." I have never heard anyone use this argument.

"We cannot win this war." - I have never heard anyone use this argument. I have never heard anyone say that the US military could not wipe out the Iraq military and topple Saddam.

 "Saddam does not support terrorists." I have not heard anyone use this argument.  I have only seem popple correctly point out that Bush has not shown convincing evidence that Saddam does support terrorists.

 If these are not their viewpoints, and not the running viewpoints set forth by left wing politicians and leaders, then why are these reasons the only ones coming out of their mouths?

I have yet to hear anyone use those arguments.

As for false witness, how can I bear false witness when I am quoting?

I believe that you have misrepresented the arguments of those who are against this war.  You have not actually quoted anyone.  You have simpoly made a claim and put arguments in quotes.

I am not going to point fingers, but I believe that which for I have been accused I have been accused in kind.

I think that if you wish to stand by your claim that the arguments that you supplied above are actually the main arguments in use by those who are against the war, that you need to present the evidence that those are the main arguments.

2: That the extra hate against the US in the rest of the middle east will generate more terrorism in the long run.

And yet there is already a large level of hate against Americans.

There will be terrorists regardless.  But there will be much more with this war than without a war or if this war had wider global support.

 It comes to a point where you will be hated for doing what is right.

I doubt it.  Rather the US is hated for doing what many think is wrong.

And thankfully at this point in the war those who hate us are diminishing because they see the freedom their brothers are being granted, and now understand what this was for (until now they had the Iraqi propoganda minister telling them lies. Now they are watching the truth before their very eyes).

I am unconvinced.  I think that the US media has largely been giving a one sided picture, the one the Bush admin wants them to give.


Which brings another point. Now that these other arbian countries with dictatorships see that the Iraqi's have freedom, will that not give them renewed courage to fight against their oppressors?

Difficult to know.  However I suspect that many of those who would fight against their oppressors would be fundamentalistrs who would set up oppressive governments of their own.

As for if I trust George Bush, yes I do.

I generally trush Bush to exactly the morally wrong thing.   That is mostly what he as done all the time that he has been president - mostly very immoral things.

He is a Christian man (saved by grace through faith alone!) and to date I have not recorded a lie he has set forth.

How about his lying about his national guard service?  How about his lying about his support for the Kyoto agreement? He is a huge liar. He is not trustworthy.

Now on the other hand I believe our last president stood before a federal court and told the American people, "No I did not have sex with Monica Lewinski." Which is the bigger liar?

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan


Clinton hardly did any damage to this country.  Bush on the other hand has made the US a rogue superpower. The enture Bush presidency has been one huge moral catastrophy on a large number of issues.  The man can only be trusted to do wrong.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 05:03 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #40

Hi Magnum,

The pace at which events are occuring are very questionable. There are several separate controversies that have occured in American politics contiguously:



OH!, I see, the Bush Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Bush somehow rigged the 2000 election. He hired the folks in Florida to hang those poor chads, and the chads were innocent.

Let's see, he hired the terrorists to crash into the World Trade Center to get the public's mind off of a recession that was caused and started by Clinton.

NAW!, I can't seem to get past here. I can't stretch it any further. This one won't fly: it won't even get off the ground. 

You need to spread this one quickly before all the facts are in. It will sound worse as the days and weeks roll on. UM?, I wonder if there were any mighty warriors among the children of God in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 07:01 PM jseek21 said this in Post #44

Wow! And stereotypically, right wing radicals are the only conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes I wonder if people many times think there is much more to our world than there really is.

It was so bad that I thought it was a joke at first. Then, I realized she tried to tune her TV in the Outer Limits. For the young folks, the happy meal went AWOL. :help:
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,007
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
Yesterday at 08:52 PM jseek21 said this in Post #33


Did we give Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction? Yes, we did. We did that because it was the right thing to do then. He was our ally, he was a good guy. He was helping us against Iran. So we supported him.



You are my example 'A' from my last post, this is what I said:

"As long as this mindset exists, if our leaders do wrong, then in support, it means that *we* are wrong, and they are defended by their supporters no matter what, because after all no one whats to be wrong."  

And sure enough, in your very next post you justify our Government, and in this particular case the party you feel does no wrong, in their giving a known mass murdering, crazed, psychopath the very same chemicals he uses to kill millions of his own people.

And your comparing Saddam with Britian in regards to our support? Ouch. 

 
He was our ally, he was a good guy.

He wasn't our ally, he was our harlot and we his pimp, and by no means was he anything more than evil from day one, we knew that. He was once again our tool of short cited policy that usually once again, comes around to bite us in the *** You know kind of like Bin Laden, when we supported him (guess what party again).


 
There are good lefties and bad lefties. I call them as I see them.

I see a more obvious common denominator here, do you?

 
Let us not be prideful about the left being proved wrong (or anyone being proved wrong) but let us remember these things that have happened and think twice when we hear the next piece of liberal propoganda.

Any rational persons should be leary, cautious, and twice thinking no matter who the propoganda is from shouldn't we? After all they have the same job titles, a title that's usually interchangable in reagards to jokes about lawyers and used cars salesmen. What side of the aisle they're from means nothing. Don't believe the hype.

D1st

 
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 10:11 PM jseek21 said this in Post #48

The US is a rogue superpower when a Republican sends American troops to war... But when Clinton sent troops to Haiti, Albania, Iraq, Mogadishu he's a hero. I see how it goes. Good game, let's play again!

I agree with you completely. It's like two different sets of rules. However, 80% of the public believes what President Bush did was right, so the people didn't buy the old game.

I looked at your signature area and wondered if you work with the Navigators or Campus Crusade for Christ. My cousin has worked with the Navigators his entire life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 12:42 AM Doctrine1st said this in Post #49 

"As long as this mindset exists, if our leaders do wrong, then in support, it means that *we* are wrong, and they are defended by their supporters no matter what, because after all no one whats to be wrong."  

I don't think it is nearly this simple. As an example, police departments use bad guys (little fish) to catch big fish or to achieve a larger goal. There are times that the little fish turn into big fish and must be dealt with. This works to law enforcement advantage the vast majority of the time. The same could be said of the rogues gallery in the Middle-East. The action may not have been wrong at the time. The whole area has been a powder keg for 50 years. You must first decide what your goal is.

All of the best police departments must do business with bad guys to win. The same is true with the Middle-East. You either do business with bad guys or you find a way to wipe them all out. This is political reality.
 
Upvote 0

jseek21

Radical Biblicalist
Jan 30, 2003
205
1
39
Arizona
Visit site
✟340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Couldn't have said it better magnum. And I never said I think all righties are right either. I don't like Rush Limbaugh that much, for example.

It seems to me that America has supported many people and nations in the past, only to have situations change on them and have to stop supporting them. Did you know that the United States supported Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution against Batista? The United States supported Ho Chi Minh during his revolution against the Japanese. Why? Because Minh was helping us at that time. And eventually we had to part our ways when he started turning Vietnam into a communist regieme. It's called history. That's how it works. Will I chastise the republicans for giving Saddam support? No. Will I chastise the democrats for supporting Minh? In like, no.

And by trhe way, he was not a known psychopathic mass murderer then. Remember when his genocides took place, and study history.

And my comparason of Britain was a viable one. To us, during the revolution, Britain were savages who had oppressed us for years. And yet things changed. I have nothing against Britain, in fact I have a British flag hanging in my house.

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 09:04 AM jseek21 said this in Post #52

And my comparason of Britain was a viable one. To us, during the revolution, Britain were savages who had oppressed us for years. And yet things changed. I have nothing against Britain, in fact I have a British flag hanging in my house.

-Dr. Jonathan Morgan

I too am proud to be allied with Britain. It's interesting how history changes. 1776 would really be just a short time in recorded history. One must put everything into the context of the time to understand the motives and actions of various nations.

I believe that history will record the War in Iraq as a part of the war against terrorism and liberating the people of Iraq. The coalition will stabilize Iraq, assist the Iraqi people in setting up a government, and leave Iraq in freedom. 
 
Upvote 0

Mother Vashti

Veteran
Feb 14, 2002
1,063
68
43
State College, PA
Visit site
✟16,583.00
Faith
Anabaptist
[]11th April 2003 at 01:01 AM jseek21 said this in Post #44
Wow! And stereotypically, right wing radicals are the only conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes I wonder if people many times think there is much more to our world than there really is. [/B]

I am NOT a right-wing radical. Nor am I liberal. I am a plain Christian woman who stands five-foot seven.

..Besides, I have a hunch that the democratic party killed Senator Wellstone. During his eulogy at University of Minnesota, the speaker said something very inappropriate: "Let's continue Paul's [Wellstone's] vision and vote for [the democratic candidate for Minnesota]." Furthermore, the story swept the nation and sympathy for the democrats ensued.

The party, I think, clearly knew that the tide of public opinion was in the republican favor, and they assassinated their own Goliath in some twisted sort of "he-who-lays-down-his-life-for-his-friends" greater cause. The sympathy was not enough, but it made for one dramatic race for congressional seats.
 
Upvote 0

Mother Vashti

Veteran
Feb 14, 2002
1,063
68
43
State College, PA
Visit site
✟16,583.00
Faith
Anabaptist
[]11th April 2003 at 02:55 AM 357magnum said this in Post #47

It was so bad that I thought it was a joke at first. Then, I realized she tried to tune her TV in the Outer Limits. For the young folks, the happy meal went AWOL. :help: [/B]
Hi Magnum,
Goodness, do you kiss the cross with that mouth?

Resorting to ad hominem remarks reduces your credibility and argues my points further.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mother Vashti

Veteran
Feb 14, 2002
1,063
68
43
State College, PA
Visit site
✟16,583.00
Faith
Anabaptist
[]11th April 2003 at 02:43 AM 357magnum said this in Post #46



OH!, I see, the Bush Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Bush somehow rigged the 2000 election. He hired the folks in Florida to hang those poor chads, and the chads were innocent.

Let's see, he hired the terrorists to crash into the World Trade Center to get the public's mind off of a recession that was caused and started by Clinton.

NAW!, I can't seem to get past here. I can't stretch it any further. This one won't fly: it won't even get off the ground. 

You need to spread this one quickly before all the facts are in. It will sound worse as the days and weeks roll on. UM?, I wonder if there were any mighty warriors among the children of God in the Bible.

The US is a rogue superpower when a Republican sends American troops to war... But when Clinton sent troops to Haiti, Albania, Iraq, Mogadishu he's a hero. I see how it goes. Good game, let's play again!
[/B]

I can see partisan politics is a very emotional topic for you. In the interest of your own credibility, I would suggest you figure out a more intelligent reply to those who disagree with you. Your rolling eyes are not particularly persuasive.

First of all, the U.S. is a rogue superpower in this situation for two reasons:

1) War was declared on the nation of Iraq. War was not declared on Haiti, Albania, Iraq, or Somalia in your examples. Our troops were on peace-keeping missions, not a war effort.

2) The United States declared this war without the consent of the United Nations. It was declared without its consent, because the US would not have received its consent. This event has rendered the real authority of the United Nations non-existent.


I would have agreed with you that "democrats tend to reap where republicans sow", but you are forgetting that Clinton served two presidential terms, and we were able to see the full scope of his policies during his presidencies, not Bush's. From 1992 - 1996, the United States considered itself "in recovery" from the Gulf War. Welfare and healthcare were hot issues, because rumors were circulating that national benefits in these areas would be cut. Clinton slaughtered the American welfare system and enhanced healthcare. This method -- kill one wolf instead of maiming them both -- did, admittedly, lead to an economy boost.
My point is, I don't understand what you mean by "a recession that Clinton started". The economy during that era was excellent.

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "hang those poor chads".
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 10:08 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #54

I am NOT a right-wing radical. Nor am I liberal. I am a plain Christian woman who stands five-foot seven.

..Besides, I have a hunch that the democratic party killed Senator Wellstone. During his eulogy at University of Minnesota, the speaker said something very inappropriate: "Let's continue Paul's [Wellstone's] vision and vote for [the democratic candidate for Minnesota]." Furthermore, the story swept the nation and sympathy for the democrats ensued.

The party, I think, clearly knew that the tide of public opinion was in the republican favor, and they assassinated their own Goliath in some twisted sort of "he-who-lays-down-his-life-for-his-friends" greater cause. The sympathy was not enough, but it made for one dramatic race for congressional seats.

I think that you should call the Minnesota State Police immediately and inform them of your suspicions. They might not have thought about the possibility of an assassination. In fact, you may be the only one who thought of this possibility. If you don't trust Minnesota, you might call the FBI. If you don't trust the FBI, I wouldn't know what to tell you. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 10:13 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #55

Hi Magnum,
Goodness, do you kiss the cross with that mouth?

Resorting to ad hominem remarks reduces your credibility and argues my points further.

I'm a Protestant and don't own a cross. All of this talk of conspiracy and assassination plots is scary. It's times like these that everyone needs to wear their meteor helmets. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 10:38 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #56

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "hang those poor chads".
[/B]

You were talking about the Bush Conspiracy and the election results. The voting forms in Florida were punch-out types. If you didn't get all of the paper punched out, it was said to be a "hanging chad". It was a joke. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jseek21

Radical Biblicalist
Jan 30, 2003
205
1
39
Arizona
Visit site
✟340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yesterday at 09:38 PM Mother Vashti said this in Post #56



I can see partisan politics is a very emotional topic for you. In the interest of your own credibility, I would suggest you figure out a more intelligent reply to those who disagree with you. Your rolling eyes are not particularly persuasive.

First of all, the U.S. is a rogue superpower in this situation for two reasons:

1) War was declared on the nation of Iraq. War was not declared on Haiti, Albania, Iraq, or Somalia in your examples. Our troops were on peace-keeping missions, not a war effort.

2) The United States declared this war without the consent of the United Nations. It was declared without its consent, because the US would not have received its consent. This event has rendered the real authority of the United Nations non-existent.


I would have agreed with you that "democrats tend to reap where republicans sow", but you are forgetting that Clinton served two presidential terms, and we were able to see the full scope of his policies during his presidencies, not Bush's. From 1992 - 1996, the United States considered itself "in recovery" from the Gulf War. Welfare and healthcare were hot issues, because rumors were circulating that national benefits in these areas would be cut. Clinton slaughtered the American welfare system and enhanced healthcare. This method -- kill one wolf instead of maiming them both -- did, admittedly, lead to an economy boost.
My point is, I don't understand what you mean by "a recession that Clinton started". The economy during that era was excellent.

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "hang those poor chads".


There's many problems with this theory. First off, when the shooting starts, it's a war. No matter what the political theorists call it, what the media says. When another nation is shooting at you, it is war. Just like Korea was a war, just like Desert Storm was a war. Declaration does not matter. Death does.

Next, if the United Nations worked in the best interests of all nations they would have disarmed Saddam. Let this be known, many people do not get this: THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE WAR. Remember whose military the UN always uses: Ours. If they had the authority to make war not only would they have a military but they would also have a system of checks and balances. So when you say, "This event has rendered the real authority of the United Nations non-existent." it is untrue because the only real authority the UN has is in political and economic authority and the authority it has is rendered by the United States. Without the United States, the UN does not live.

I completely agree that we were able to see the full scope of Clinton's presidency in two terms. We saw a dereliction of cuty. We saw him let Osama be a free man when we had a strike force within range to take him out in 1998, because Clinton was, "Unavailable", after Osama had commited 10 separate terrorist attacks on US interests at home and abroad. We saw a moral degenerate.
 
Upvote 0