• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Ok, so let me get this straight.

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by miamited, Jun 20, 2019.

  1. Gigimo

    Gigimo Well-Known Member

    +1,110
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    There definitely weren't any adults in the room when that agreement was made. Instead of the Mullahs being spanked they were given billions and told "I know you will behave won't you", and the Mullahs replied by saying Death to America. :doh:
     
  2. Gigimo

    Gigimo Well-Known Member

    +1,110
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You know you could have some fun with this and start another rumor about who Trump is sleeping with, the popular one is Putin but you could insinuate it is now the Mullahs ^_^
     
  3. David Cabrera

    David Cabrera Catechumen

    +2,763
    Ecuador
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    Neoconservatives are more in favor of war, the far right usually dislikes it.
     
  4. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +27,707
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    It’s interesting many Democrats in Congress agree with Putin on Iran being the victim. Sounds like collusion to me. We should investigate to see if this is true.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    +2,071
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Putin didn't say that Iran was the victim he said that an attack on Iran would be catastrophe. He is undoubtedly right.
     
  6. Gigimo

    Gigimo Well-Known Member

    +1,110
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Not surprising considering how many decades they've been sleeping with the Russians and other authoritarian governments around the globe. (And they want the "average" voter to think their policies/intentions for the US are benign) :doh:
     
  7. Newtheran

    Newtheran Well-Known Member

    737
    +492
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Republican
    Avoiding unnecessary wars is as big an accomplishment for the leader of a nation as winning unavoidable ones. Every president between Reagan and Trump has been a failure to one degree or another in this respect.
     
  8. Newtheran

    Newtheran Well-Known Member

    737
    +492
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Republican
    Solid national leadership:

    1. Not giving you lunch money to Iran.
    2. Not going to war against them needlessly.

    A line that Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama failed to walk successfully.
     
  9. christine40

    christine40 Well-Known Member

    +5,659
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    showed on news last night Trump saying he asked "how many lives would be lost?"
    about 10 min before attacking back he called it off because there were no lives lost in downing of our drone

    thank God this is the first thing he's done right by not striking back, killing unnecessarily, and starting a war
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  10. Matt5

    Matt5 New Member

    48
    +19
    Switzerland
    Christian
    Married
    Hi ted,

    Couldn't you have waited until at least the second sentence before name calling? Anyway, do you even understand the logic for why Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal? Not saying you agree with it but you at least understand it. That should include something other than orange man bad.

    Here's an article that came out a few days ago:

    The One Percent Have Gotten $21 Trillion Richer Since 1989. The Bottom 50% Have Gotten Poorer.

    This didn't happen for no reason. One reason the bottom 50% of Americans have gotten poorer is bad agreements with other countries, like China. Fixing these problems means breaking things first. Of course there are other reasons too.
     
  11. DanishLutheran

    DanishLutheran Active Member

    406
    +180
    Denmark
    Lutheran
    Single
    You actually can. Attacking another country's military forces in international airspace/waters is an act of war. Well, come to think of it, in that case it is the attacker that starts the war, but that wasn't the point you were making.

    The point I (!) am making, is that Trump would have been completely within his rights to reduce Iran's air defences to a couple of guys throwing rocks, by bombing everything else into a billion tiny pieces.
    He didn't, and he was right not to, since it was an unmanned drone. But he could have, and would have been within his legal rights to do so.
     
  12. DanishLutheran

    DanishLutheran Active Member

    406
    +180
    Denmark
    Lutheran
    Single
    Again: It would not have been Trump starting a war. It would have been Iran.
    Just as the West actually committed an act of war when it bombed China's embassy in Belgrade. China would have been well within its rights to retaliate with everything it had. Thankfully, the Chinese had more sense than the West back then.
     
  13. christine40

    christine40 Well-Known Member

    +5,659
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    no one killed when drone went down
    killing people would have started a war
     
  14. DanishLutheran

    DanishLutheran Active Member

    406
    +180
    Denmark
    Lutheran
    Single
    That's not how that works, no.
    Attacking another country's assets (or embassy in the case of China in Belgrade, but that's another matter) is an act of war. That is what Iran did.
     
  15. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,322
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi matt,

    Yes, I think I explained fairly clearly why President Trump backed out of the Iran deal, and most all of the other deals and agreements that he's backed us out of.

    You wrote: The One Percent Have Gotten $21 Trillion Richer Since 1989. The Bottom 50% Have Gotten Poorer.

    I have absolutely no idea what that statement has to do with this issue between Iran and the U.S. You seem to now want to bring into question all the deals that President Trump has backed out of or positions that he's put us in. Look you believe what you believe. Trade deficits are to be expected, no, are to be an economic given, when the country with the deficit is the country with the most people and the most money and the most materialistic people on the face of the earth. Deficit trade with China has been absolutely no danger to the U.S. economic engine. We are plowing along spending and spending and spending to sate our materialistic thirst. Any nation that doesn't want a piece of that delicious pie, that has the ability to provide something to that nation, is just foolish.

    We buy billions of dollars worth of goods from Mexico. We buy millions, billions or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods from China, Canada, Japan, Germany, South Korea, UK, France, India, Taiwan, Italy, Vietnam Brazil and even little old Ireland. For all but 3-4 of those nations our imports from them, exceed our exports to them. Personally, I believe this noise about trade deficits somehow destroying our economy is nonsense. These countries have been 'eating our lunch' according to President Trump for many years and yet...

    Here we are with the lowest unemployment in decades and a strong economy. Exactly how is it that these deficits are destroying us?

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  16. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +27,707
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  17. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,322
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi rlh,

    Well, I'm not sure that the agreement was ever about Iran not having nuclear fuel. Lots of countries use nuclear fuel. It's how we produce electricity from nuclear reactors. I'm pretty sure that the agreement was about 'weapons grade' nuclear material.

    Iran does have a nuclear power reactor and is wanting to develop more of them. There's nothing wrong with that as nuclear power is one of the cheapest and cleanest ways of producing electrical power. There are 60 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. and they all use nuclear fuel.

    Now, I wasn't there, but I can see the possibility that when Argentina asked to get the request in writing, it may have been decided that people such as yourself wouldn't accept that the U.S. government might be trying to ensure some control over the nuclear fuel that Iran was using.

    I remember all the scuttle butt that President Obama had given Iran $150B. It never happened, but then, there are some who still believe that President Obama was not a natural U.S. citizen either.

    So, when Argentina asked for confirmation that the U.S. wanted them to sell nuclear fuel to Iran in writing, it's certainly possible that it was decided that such a move would be seen just like President Obama's birth and his giving $150B to Iran. There was going to be some faction of the country that was going to paint such an action as somehow treasonous and onerous to the U.S.

    However, suffice to say that nuclear fuel was never what the JCPA agreement was about.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted
     
  18. Matt5

    Matt5 New Member

    48
    +19
    Switzerland
    Christian
    Married
    You think of Trump as a kind of wrecking ball. I wanted to go into that. A lot of problems have built up over 74 years since the end of World War II.

    What about your original question:

    "He goes and gets the fur flying in a urinating contest and then when there are signs of retaliation, he just blows it all off. Really, that's what most Republicans think is solid national leadership?"

    The attack on, attack off scenario wasn't great. The bigger picture is more important - confronting Iran.

    Why confront Iran?

    Iran was working on all the non-nuclear components of a nuclear arsenal. That violates the spirit of the nuclear deal.

    Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons?

    Asking this question is a little like a Jew in Germany in 1933 saying Hitler doesn't mean it when he says there is Jew problem. How many times does Iran have to say "death to America" before people believe it? In the age of nuclear missiles, waiting too long to confront a problem means you get to die.

    But Iran only says death to America because of America's behavior.

    If you believe that people are basically good, like Obama does, then so are countries. This idea flows from "equality." They only misbehave when somebody else (read US or Israel) pushes them too far. Hence, the blame for Iran lies elsewhere.

    What if people and countries are NOT basically good?

    Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

    Jesus doesn't think people are good.

    Look who thought people ARE good:

    Anne Frank: "Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
     
  19. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    +3,322
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi matt,

    Thanks for your response. I would say that if the deal was intended to include non-nuclear components, then surely the nations that signed off on the agreement would have written that in. What is or isn't the 'spirit' of an agreement, just like in many of these threads, is always subject to interpretation. You say it violates the spirit of the agreement and someone in Iran says there's nothing written in the agreement to specifically prevent us from going this far. I don't think we should hold people responsible for what one might understand as some 'intent' that isn't made clear in an international agreement between nations.

    Personally, I didn't see the analogy between this situation and something Hitler said to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Then you go on to support your claim with the fact that the Scriptures say that none of are good. You do realize, don't you, that 'none of us' includes the government and people of the U.S. also, right? We are a globe of people all stemming from the creative work of God. We are divided into different nations, apparently also all stemming from the work of God. I've often considered that when the Scriptures speak of a beast rising out of the sea, that beast is us. The United States of America. You see, we rose up out of the sea. We came to be from an amalgam of people out of the sea of nations. There is literally no other nation on the face of the earth that can make the claim of being a melting pot of so many nations like the U.S. The United States literally rose up out of the 'sea'. This is from the understanding that when the Scriptures speak of the 'sea' it is talking of the people on the earth. There is no doubt that we are a beast and there is no doubt that the whole world follows after the beast. So, when you speak of anyone not being 'good', we are, in God's eyes, as a nation, the worst of the 'not good'. That's just my personal understanding and I fully understand that not everyone is going to agree with me.

    However, consider that we involve ourselves in the operations of more nations upon the earth than any other nation. We are the nation that lays down more of the rules for all of the other nations to follow than any other nation upon the earth. We are the nation whose monetary system, most of the other nations use to value many commodities of the world. We may well be the 'beast' which the whole world follows after. We start more wars and rumors of war than any other nation. We use money to buy influence in many of the nations. We may well be the beast.

    Why should Iran have nuclear weapons? Because they are a free and sovereign nation and have just as much right to the technology of the world today as surely anyone else upon the face of the earth. The real and true effort to stop other nations from acquiring nuclear weaponry is for all the other nations to get rid of theirs. You see, you look at the world through American eyes and think that we have some 'special' right to the things of the earth. But the people of Iran are people created by God who deserve to have the same rights, as people, as anyone else. That right includes their choice of how their government is to be run; what kind of technology they choose to develop. So far as I know, no one has died and left a will that says the U.S. is in charge of all the peoples and nations of the world.

    The Scriptures implore us to be fair in our weights and measures. How fair is it to have one nation of 'not good' people, telling another nation of 'not good' people that they can't have what the other has? Sure, I'd like that Iran doesn't have nuclear weaponry, but then I'd also like that the U.S. doesn't have nuclear weaponry. Or Russia or China or Pakistan. That's rather the very definition of 'hypocrisy' isn't it. That you can't do what I do.

    It will likely be decades before any other nation kills as many non-combatant civilians during a time of war than the U.S. did in just two attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We did that all on our own. No 'coalition' of forces. Then you wonder why other nations, still today, would be wanting similar weapons to protect themselves from a nation that seems to have had no qualms whatsoever in wiping entire cities of people off the map. Then you have a national leader who has now twice threatened to wipe nations off the face of the earth, likely in similar fashion, if they don't tow some U.S. policy line. North Korea sits squeezed between Russian and China and they both have nuclear weapons. If you were the leadership in North Korea, you'd likely want to have protection from and similar weaponry that can be used against you as some deterrent. So, I'm sorry and I'm sure that many don't agree with me, but I find it the height of pride, haughtiness and hypocrisy to tell other sovereign nations that they can't have what we have because we're afraid of what they'll do with such capabilities. That coming from the only nation that has actually used such weapons to destroy its enemies just seems a bit to hypocritical to me.

    God bless,
    In Christ, ted

    God bless.
     
  20. Magillacuddy

    Magillacuddy From the dark, to the light...

    192
    +81
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This is terrible. Iran should start many many protests, with many many calls for DEATH TO AMERICA.

    Surely this will get the Great Satan right where it hurts, in the media.

    The true problem is the Swift Boat dude. I think I heard he joined the revolutionary guard, and is calling for others to join in in his holy quest against the United States of Trump.

    Just call 1-800-Kill-The-Great-Satan, Ted. Join the fight, make a difference.
     
Loading...