"Nothing today justifies a war. This region really does not need another war.

[tamtam92]

mmmh...
Well, I must admit I'm a little fed up with american policy.
I'm ready to agree with them, of course, if i think they're right !

I'm able to appreciate american acts.

But accumulate unfair acts doesn't help me loving your country.

What unnerves me is that you seem not to care about others. You can't understand how that's stressful.

 

[YouthPastor]

Why, if the French hadn't sent us 7,000 soldiers to Yorktown, we wouldn't be the United States today, we'd be a British colony.

Yes the french did send troops - Not so much as because they wanted to help us as much as they did not like britian and were at war with britian anyway.

In fact, when we met with Britian about the terms of the end of the war - France wanted to be involved in the talks.  However, Ben Franklin knew not to do that because France did not have our best interest in mind - met with Britian and worked out the final cease fire without france.

If any other country had 3,000 citizens killed - they would be all for it. 

 

[Gunny]

Today at 09:58 AM TheBear I sense that I am dealing with a person who, for whatever the issue, relishes in anti-American sentiment. And that is truly sad.

Bear, It's very fashionable to be anti-American these days, PC at it's finest.

 

[Auntie]

Today at 05:25 AM tamtam92 said this in Post #32 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646137#post646137)

I hope one day we will get out of american oppression...

You have NO clue, the meaning of the word "oppression".

 

[Kiwi]

I guess the issue here is really about soverignity. France, Germany etc are sovereign countries. If they don't believe there is a good enough reason for war then other countries should respect their decision, whether it may seem right or wrong to them. The sad thing is all the retoric that goes along with it, blaming the other side for being 'ignorant' or 'imperialistic' (this is coming from both sides). I think France is trying to make the point that they will not be badgered into doing something by the US. Considering that France has had two major wars fought on it's soil in the last 100 years you can understand why they are cagey about war. Sadam is in no way comparable to Hitler. Even the president of North Korea is a bigger threat than him. If the aim is to get rid of Al Queda bombing Iraq won't help that, better go for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco. Iraq is one of the only secular countries in the region. The hatred for America there is not based on 'jihad' or anything like that, it is based on hatred of the sanctions and the Gulf war. While it is deplorable what he did to the Kurds he is not alone in this practise of killing off ethnic minorities. If this is the reason for bombing, better also go for Brazil (deliberate killing off of Amazonian Indian tribes), China (the tibet situation), Somalia (killing of the Chrisitan minorities), etc etc. And if the reason for bombing is because he has nuclear weapons better bomb much of the world's countries for having them as well. Biological weapons can be concern but he doesn't have the capiticity to get them anywhere near the US. What about 'agent orange' and napalm gas (used in the Vietnam war), would they be considered biological weapons? If they aren't, are not the effects the same? Why single out Iraq when they are tons of other countries met the same criteria for bombing?

 

[Starscream]

Yesterday at 11:47 PM Soldier_of _God said this in Post #9
we did win it single handedly um where was canada i didnt see them there oh i know they all dont have much of a military so they all depend on The americans to bail them all out, and yet they sit here and trash on America and wonder what they could get out America for free

You need to get off your high horse, SOG.  Canada was there, and Canada was also there recently in Afghanistan as well.

On that subject:  I remember reading a story once where it was the Canadian sharp shooters that saved the hide of many American soldiers in Afghanistan (which was of course very welcomed and appreciated).

Let's not also forget that in Afghanistan it was American pilots who killed Canadian soldiers who were there to help what was primarily an American interest.

Save you speech.

 

[Starscream]

Today at 12:36 PM gunnysgt said this in Post #43

Bear, It's very fashionable to be anti-American these days, PC at it's finest.

Anti-war does not mean anti-American.  It's about time we stopped these childish word games.

I love America, and I old her up to high standards.  I don't know why followers of the so-called "Prince of Peace" would have such a hard time grasping this.

If you want a war, go after those Al Quaida pricks, you know, the guys that actually caused 9/11.  I was promised that we would not rest until Osama was brought to justice.

 

[Evangelion]

Well said that man. If it's "anti-American" to disagree with American policy, then consider me "anti-American."

There's too much McCarthyism on this board.

 

[Evangelion]

I'm also waiting for an American to explain how the war on Iraq will "protect our freedom" and "preserve democracy", as they insist on telling me ad nauseum.

Is Iraq a rogue state? Yes. Does Iraq possess WMD? Probably. Has Iraq lied to inspectors? I believe so. Should Iraq be disarmed? Absolutely. Does she need a regime change? Of course! (But it's easier said than done, as the dismal history of America's previous puppet states clearly demonstrates. Remember Afghanistan...?) Is Iraq a threat to the USA? No. The first Gulf War proved this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

BTW, if the USA is the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, why is everybody being asked to support her anti-Iraq offensive? Where's that mighty American war machine we keep hearing about? Isn't she big enough to do her own work? If other nations aren't interested in (a) pushing up the price of oil, and (b) stealing Iraq's oilfields, why should they be criticised for refusing to take part in this grubby little war? That's their prerogative.

Seems to me that this is the time for America to put her money where her mouth is, and go it alone. So come on - let's see you go it alone, baby. We'll give you a golf clap when you're done.

 

[Blindfaith]

::shrug::  So France, Germany and Belgium don't wanna play?  So?  Let 'em stay home.  I predict they'll come on board at the 11th hour.

Any takers on that one?  Should we set up a pool?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Is Iraq a rogue state?

What does "rogue state" mean?

Good post Evang... I'm American, & I can't explain that to you. I've been reading the various posts from the hawks and doves on this board for a couple of weeks, and I'm beginning to be swayed by the anti-war sentiments.

Those who oppose the war have done a pretty good job of explaining why. The ones who favor a war seem to feel it is America's God given right to blast the hell out of whoever we please for any reason or for none.

 

[Ryder]

America has about as much reason to attack Iraq as anyone could want, save fer the war BEING on. But the rest of the world seems ready to overlook, discredit, and disregard americas evidence in some kind-of strange tiff over america behaving like a soveriegn nation. I guess we forgot to be a state of the UN, quiet-like and sluggish, Pffft. I really dislike(insert stronger word) the UN. The history of Iraq (under it's current leader) is there, and speaks volumes. The weapons are there. These are the guys that reward terrorism in Isreal. Are people really mad because we don't have the evidence? or just upset about the bootlicking order and the US should go sit in the corner for pointing out the UNs' inspecters aren't worth squat.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Today at 07:22 PM Ryder said this in Post #52

America has about as much reason to attack Iraq as anyone could want, save fer the war BEING on.

What reason? In all the talk, the only reasons I've heard are lame BS about Iraq having violated UN "resolutions" saying they can't have WMD's. If posession of WMD's is reason to invade another country, then Iraq should be #128 on our list. Shoot, we better be building up our defenses for when Asia and Europe decide to "disarm" us!

Historically, America has not been the agressor in a war since, when? The Spanish American war? We have yet to pull a Hitler style unprovoked invasion. Why are we so eager to change that? What is the reason that we are going to war with a nation that has not attacked us?

But the rest of the world seems ready to overlook, discredit, and disregard americas evidence

I've seen that America has some evidence that Iraq is trying to have & keep WMD's. I've seen a little bit of evidence that one or two terrorists allied with Al Qaeda have passed through Iraq, and may even live in parts of Iraq that are not under control of Hussein's government. I'm sure if we wanted it, we could compile much more evidence (of this kind of "wrongdoing") against Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, France, England or Germany. Shouldn't we attack them first??

in some kind-of strange tiff over america behaving like a soveriegn nation.

What do you mean by this? Australia is a sovereign nation... when did they last invade a developing country on the opposite side of the globe from them without provocation? As a matter of fact, don't we get bent out of shape when sovereign nations behave this way? Isn't that why we fought WWII? Did we endorse China's "liberation" of Tibet?

I guess we forgot to be a state of the UN, quiet-like and sluggish, Pffft. I really dislike(insert stronger word) the UN.

I'm not a big fan of the UN either, but I can say that at least they have slowed down the US war machine while some of us get our heads together and think about whether we are letting the tail wag the dog on this one...

The history of Iraq (under it's current leader) is there, and speaks volumes.

Could you be more specific? Was it the American financed war they fought against Iran that makes them so clear an enemy? Or was it their invasion of Kuwait in a feud over oil a decade ago that makes them a clear and present danger to the security of the United States?

The weapons are there.

And here. And in North Korea. And in China. Pakistan, India. Coming soon to Iran. All over Europe and Asia.

These are the guys that reward terrorism in Isreal.

Are we invading them because they have ties to Palestinian terror groups? Shouldn't we be going after Lybia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and all the rest too?

Are people really mad because we don't have the evidence?

I'm really mad because we are about to go attack them - not because we have no evidence, but because we have had no provocation!

or just upset about the bootlicking order and the US should go sit in the corner for pointing out the UNs' inspecters aren't worth squat.

I'm an American and a patriotic one. I have no qualms with us pointing out failures on the part of Blix & his crew. And there are plenty. The U2's should have been flying the first day of this mess. They should have employed all available intelligence from day one, and should not have advertised the fact that they were using it (it would have helped if we had been quicker to ante up our own!).

I'm proud of America's culture and history, and I don't want to see our history stained by an unjustifiable war of agression against a nation that has not provoked us and gives no indication of planning to.

 

[Evangelion]

Jerry Smith -

What does "rogue state" mean?

A rogue state is one which endangers the global community by virtue of (a) its military hardware and (b) its decision to use such hardware without due cause. IOW, a crazy nation which is ready to lash out with nukes (or other WMD) at the slightest provocation. Korea (the country that Bush is desperately trying to ignore) is a rogue state. Korea is known to possess WMD, including nukes. For some strange reason, Bush thinks that this is all fine and dandy.

Good post Evang...

Thanks mate. You're a breath of fresh air yourself.

I'm American, & I can't explain that to you. I've been reading the various posts from the hawks and doves on this board for a couple of weeks, and I'm beginning to be swayed by the anti-war sentiments.

Those who oppose the war have done a pretty good job of explaining why. The ones who favor a war seem to feel it is America's God given right to blast the hell out of whoever we please for any reason or for none.

...and curiously enough, those people who "seem to feel it is America's God given right to blast the hell out of whoever we please for any reason or for none" profess to be Christians.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

[Blindfaith]

...and curiously enough, those people who "seem to feel it is America's God given right to blast the hell out of whoever we please for any reason or for none" profess to be Christians.  Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

**tsk tsk**.  Remember what board you're posting at.  If you'd like a list (if you're even interested) in accounts of God's righteous anger and condoning war against evil, just let me know, and I'll post some scripture for you. 

 

[Evangelion]

Straw man. I'm not arguing that it's wrong to wage war. What I am waiting to see, is some God-given justification for this war on Iraq.

The kings of Israel and Judah had direct communication with God. They ruled over God's chosen people, with His authority. They received divine instructions from God Himself.

That was then. This is now.

No ruler on the face of this planet can claim for him/herself the unique privileges of the kings of Israel.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yesterday at 12:47 AM Soldier_of _God said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=645810#post645810)
we did win it single handedly um where was canada i didnt see them there oh i know they all dont have much of a military so they all depend on The americans to bail them all out, and yet they sit here and trash on America and wonder what they could get out America for free

I'm not trashing America. In fact, I appreciate what they did in WW2.

However, suggesting that America "won" WW2, is painfully, painfully naive.

For the record, Canada had the world's third largest navy, and fourth largest air force at the end of WW2. Over 1 million Canadians fought in that war. Over 40,000 were killed. That you arbitrarily dismiss their efforts and sacrifices does little for your representation of your own country.

 

[Blindfaith]

Evangelion,

How can God's Word be a straw man?  I disagree with you very strongly.  I could get into an aplogetics type of discussion on this, but that would be taking away from the original OP, and the fact that it's in the News forum.

To think that the OT/NT is not valid, or relates to current day "happenings", is just plain wrong.

You're wanting a God-given reason to go to war.  Okay, lets try this; has God ever condoned evil to run a country, and not condone evil being abolished?  Ever?

 

[Evangelion]

blindfaith -

How can God's Word be a straw man?

That's another straw man. I'm not saying that God's Word is a straw man - I'm saying that your argument is.

I disagree with you very strongly.

Like I care?

I could get into an aplogetics type of discussion on this, but that would be taking away from the original OP, and the fact that it's in the News forum.

Let's see that apologetics type discussion, then.

To think that the OT/NT is not valid, or relates to current day "happenings", is just plain wrong.

That's another straw man. I never claimed any such thing. Go back and read what I wrote.

You're wanting a God-given reason to go to war. Okay, lets try this; has God ever condoned evil to run a country, and not condone evil being abolished? Ever?

Of course He has! I already agreed with this, remember?

You're still missing my point. This has nothing to do with "condoning evil" and everything to do with the fact that the US is not an Old Testament kingdom, does not have a direct, regular line of divine communication with God, and does not possess any God-given mandate to attack Iraq. All you've got is a personal reason that you believe to be sufficient. But you haven't shown that God has personally granted His approval.

Go back and read what I wrote.