ChristiansUnite Forums

The War In Iraq  - What do you think?

 
    The catastrophic plight in Iraq has placed us in the arena of ruination.  We should never have invaded that satanic part of the devil’s domain by sending our troops there.  If Saddam and his murderous sons warranted removal, that feat could have been consummated by missiles and air strikes without sending one American soldier abroad.  We have lost 800 young Americans and spent 200 billion dollars on a war that could have been handled with finer tuning, less expense, and very few lives lost.  And there’s no end in sight.  You and I will be paying for this war for decades.
 
    No one is any more opposed to terrorists and terrorism than I am.  We did the right thing by going after the terrorists and their leaders in Afghanistan after 9/11.  They attacked us!  We were 100% correct by counterattacking.  But Iraq did not attack us.  We attacked them on mere assumptions, the central one being that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and intended to employ them.  Up to this point, that assumption has proved fatal.  Even if he had had such weapons, we should not have invaded him until there were clear-cut evidence that he was in the process of using them.  
 
    Because of the poor judgment of our country's leaders, we have enraged the Islamic world and they are more intent now than ever to rid the civilized world of “infidels.”  As we have noted previously, Islamism is the world's greatest threat.  There’s no controversy here.  Even before 9/11, their ultimate goal was to either convert the civilized world to Islamism or to wipe it clean of all “infidels.”  And they must be stopped.  But our job description is not to police the whole world.  Wherever Islamics are headquartered, we invade them when they invade us.  We go after them when they capture and hold as hostages American citizens.  We assail them when they confiscate American property and interests in foreign lands.
 
    Was Iraq guilty of any of the above?  No.  It seems the people who plunged us into this sordid mess in Iraq are now beginning to see the handwriting on the wall and trying to find a way out of their self-imposed dilemma by insisting that complete sovereignty will be given the Interim Government on June 30.  Will it work?  I pray it will.  My prediction is that members of the Interim Government will be assassinated or ran out of office by demonic terrorists.  That places us back into the same predicament we were in prior to installing the Interim Government.  
 
    To me, the solution to this hopeless quagmire is to get out of Iraq—get out before more American lives are lost;  get out before the National debt becomes so bloated it explodes in our faces;  get out before most of the Muslim countries pool their military resources and come upon us with all fours;  get out and come home to protect our own borders;  get out as we did in Vietnam.  Let those demonic forces in Iraq and other Muslim countries slaughter each other, as they have always done and always will do.  Their sectarian tribal families will continue feuding and killing each other long after we're gone—even while their main thrust is to cleanse the world of “infidels.”  
 
    We have made a mistake.  It has, and will, cost us dearly.  Those responsible will have to pay the price by very possibly losing whatever political clout they had initially.  And you hard-core politicians, listen up:  My stance would be identical if our country’s chief leaders were of the Democratic party.  If you write me about my position, and I invite you to do just that, please leave politics out of it, for I’ve already noted that my position would not change, regardless of the party in office.          
 

 With all due respect, I must disagree with you my friend.
They tried several times to get Saddam & sons with missile attacks, remote bombs and sniper fire. It's very difficult to put those type of attacks together. You can't simply lob a missile at a target where you "hope" they are. First, you must have people on the ground who can stake out possible locations, several possible sights must be observed at the same time. Then, if a sighting is made, you have to make sure you're not dealing with a body double, as Saddam had several. Once a positive I.D. is made, the information is relayed through a series of different channels. By the time the information gets to the relevant people, and the planning, as well as weapons deployment are complete, it is at best several hours after the sighting. Saddam moved frequently, and never stayed in one place for very long.

 There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that is an undisputable fact. When they were moved out is, in my opinion, the real question. Who has them now? No doubt in my mind that Syria has them, and some possibly went through Iran.

 The real danger was the fact that Saddam would, and with all probability, did sell some deadly weapons to terrorists. If the U.S. hadn't have gone in when they did, you may not be here posting your opinion on this forum right now.

 War is never clean, and I think as a society, we have all become all too politically correct about such matters. We expect that we can have sanitized wars where no one gets killed, and we still remain free and safe. There are elements in this world who hate the democratic system and the U.S. in general. These people will stop at nothing less than our total destruction. They can not be negotiated with, they are evil fanatics killing in the name of their god.

 We could have stayed out of WWII also, and we darn near did! If the Japanese hadn't made their fatal mistake attacking Pearl Harbor the world may have become a very different place my friend.

 Freedom and democracy are precious, but not free. We have in the past, are at present, and will in the future be called to a greater service for our fellow man in order to protect it.

The thirst for war hasn't been quenched yet.
The whore of Babylon seeks to destroy more of the
enemies of its 'religion' of commercialized democracy.

I have to disagree with you my friend. The war had to happen, certian things must happen for the coming of tribulation and Christ. This war is just one of many that will be coming. Brother as the song goes, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Matthew 24:6 - And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mark 13:7 - And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

 A war of defense and protection. A war that removes some kind of malignancy from human culture that threatens its very existence. But beyond that, beyond reason, let's go to Revelation. I want to pick up that second point for a moment, this morning, and say, from the standpoint of the Scripture, "Does God in the Bible give governments the right to make war? Or, is the use of military force, in restraining, resisting, and even punishing violence entrusted to human government? Does government have the right to move in and restrain and resist and punish violence?" And the answer to that leads us to a very simple, direct, Biblical theology of war.

Let me give you several points. Point number one. The Lord forbids murder; the Lord allows war. That's true in Scripture. All throughout Scripture, from that old Hebrew command, "You shall not kill," God forbids murder; the Hebrew word "Rascot" [spelling?], God forbids that. But the Lord does allow war. "Milcomah" [spelling?] is the Hebrew word. God does not forbid war. God even said, Proverbs 20:18, "Prepare plans by consultation, and make war by wise guidance." God never says that about murder. He never says, "Plan your murders well." But He does say, "Plan your wars well." In Proverbs 24:6 He says, "For by wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory." Again God says, "If you are going to go to war, make sure that you carefully assess it."

In the New Testament, Jesus followed up by saying, "A man doesn't go to war unless he counts the cost." The assumption being there that there are times and seasons when war is a fitting thing. As Ecclesiastes 3:8 says, "There is a time for war, and a time for peace."
Hebrews 11:32, here we have the Heroes of Faith; here we have the Hall of Fame of the Old Testament. The people who were the most decorated; the most spiritually heroic, are given us in Hebrews 11. And I want you to notice verse 32. As the writer of Hebrews exalts the Heroes of the Faith, he says, "Time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David." And you will note that those individuals were engaged in wars and battles. And also of Samuel and the prophets. And then he says this about them, "Who by faith conquered kingdoms." That indicates war. "Performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shuts the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight." Here you have a list of warriors, a list of soldiers, who are the great Heroes of the Faith. God identified those who fought in wars as heroes. So, God while forbidding murder and forbidding personal vengeance does not forbid war.

I can go on and on, but I hope you understand my point, His Messenger.

Go in peace with God
DW

"The War In Iraq  - What do you think?"

Shifting drifting like sands in the hourglass. The last grain is soon to fall through and then the turnover which starts the shifting drifting like sands in the hourglass.

Ollie said:Turn. Turn. Turn.
 :)

Now, to counter His Messenger: We were already there.  Have been since Adam was invited to leave the garden.

Those who enraged the Islamic world (of late) are the exporters of American smut (liberals who believe pornography, sodomy and abortion are a 'right' for all citizens of the world).  Islam began attacking us first, remember????  In fact - so many liberals want to take history all the way back to the Crusades (then stop there) - the Crusades were a direct result of muslims attacking first.

So you would rather they have a wholesale invasion of America, and only when your personal property and immediate family is in direct, imminent danger, then you'll call 911.  I’ll let you in on a little secret – by that time there won’t be anyone left to answer the 911 call.  Also, please consider - closing our borders goes both ways; might it mean that Christianity (and even dumb, blind liberal goodwill) may no longer be exportable?

You make a wholesale political statement and don't expect one in return?   Now you sound exactly like the fascist left - "you listen to me and keep your mouth shut unless you agree with me".  Humphfff!

In closing: What DreamWeaver & Bronzesnake said pretty much covers it for me.  ;)

HM - I'm not trying to make anyone mad, here, and I certainly am not seeking to make an enemy of a brother in the Lord, but I just figured my opinion is as important, and as relevant as yours is.   ;D

God bless all,
JN

Here I was waiting for you to counter me, JudgeNot. :eek:

I think your right :)

Brother Love :)

   <:)))><

War: Then and now
Thomas Sowell
June 3, 2004


 It was refreshing recently to see a front page of the New York Times that was not full of editorials disguised as "news" stories, undermining the war and the president. However, it was a souvenir front page, reprinted from the New York Times of June 6, 1944 -- reporting on the invasion of Normandy that day.
 
Things went wrong with that invasion, as things have gone wrong with wars as far back as there are any records of wars. Yet no one called it a quagmire when American forces were pinned down by German fire on Omaha beach and taking heavy casualties. No one called the generals or the president incompetent or stupid.

 One of the many reasons war is hell is that there is seldom adequate time or adequate information to forestall disasters.

 In a desperate attempt to help U.S. troops unable to break out of the Normandy beachhead, Allied bombers launched massive air raids on the area -- accidentally killing more than a hundred American soldiers. But no one called it a quagmire.

 No one demanded a timetable showing how much longer the war was going to last or an accounting table showing how much it would cost in dollars and cents. People of that era have been called the greatest generation. They were, at the very least, an adult generation -- which certainly cannot always be said for our present generation or its media representatives.

 The Iraq war was not a month old before the word "quagmire" began appearing in the media, when a sandstorm stalled the drive toward Baghdad. Before the year was out, there were stories of our "war-weary" troops.

 When Allied troops landed at Normandy, Americans had already been fighting for two and a half years of bitter defeats and costly victories -- and the British even longer. Yet no one called them "war-weary" and the news stories were about what was being accomplished, even as they told of the cost of those accomplishments in blood and lives.

 To follow the news out of Iraq from the headlines and photographs on the front page of today's New York Times, you would have a hard time finding out what has been accomplished. There was a time when the electricity was out in Iraq, when schools and hospitals were closed, when there was no oil flowing.

 Did all those things fix themselves, like self-sealing tires, or did the Americans have to do some things, at considerable cost and risks, and despite organized sabotage and terror?

 It has been hard to know from the Times' front-page coverage of unhappy reservists being called up for duty and all the photographs they could find of coffins or of terrorists gleefully holding up the boots of ambushed Americans they had killed.

 These two wars were of course different, as all wars are different. But the biggest difference was not between the wars themselves, but between the media of that day and today.

 The negativism and carping of today's New York Times has even been applied in retrospect to the general in charge of the invasion of Normandy, Dwight D. Eisenhower. The television drama "Ike," has been denounced in the New York Times as "macho swagger."

 Anyone who has actually seen the depiction of General Eisenhower by Tom Selleck as a thoughtful, troubled man, having to make painful decisions under impossible conditions, will know that this was no Patton swagger. The television drama ends, in fact, just before the invasion of Normandy itself.

 It ends with Eisenhower, coming back in a car from having spoken to the troops before their embarkation and writing the famous note in which he takes all the blame for the failure of the invasion -- a note to be made public if in fact the landing at Normandy had ended in disaster, as many feared it would.

 This is "macho swagger"? Or is anything that says we sometimes have to fight going to be given whatever label the New York Times thinks will discredit it?

 The ideological agenda becomes painfully clear when the New York Times' reviewer criticized Eisenhower for his later policies as president, which is not what the TV drama was about.

 Even after the Normandy invasion was successful, the Germans later caught the Allies by surprise with a massive counter-attack that led to the bloody "battle of the bulge." But no one called it a quagmire. They called it war. They were adults.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040603.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040603.shtml)

Desert Rose?.....

Two US Marines are listening to the radio in Iraq. "American
soldiers," coos a soft female voice, "your so-called national
leaders have lied to you. You are needlessly risking your lives
to wage a useless, unjust, illegal, and unwinnable war. Now
is the time to return home to your loved ones, while you are
still alive.

If you foolishly insist on remaining where you are not wanted,
the brave resistance fighters will have no choice but to kill you
and add your name to the long ever-increasing casualty list
of this insane war.

So why risk never seeing your loved ones again for a so-called
president who has repeatedly lied and deceived you at every
opportunity?

Why should you be sacrificed so that US corporations can
enjoy fatter profits?

The only wise thing to do is return home now, while you are
still drawing breath, before you return zippered into a bodybag."

"What's this?" sneers one Marine. "An Islamo-terrorist version
of Tokyo Rose?"

"No," answers the other. "It's just CNN!

CLOSING THE TRAP: THE DRAFT
[Catching Those Christians Who
Think Prophecy Is Just A Game]

June 10, 2004
By: S.R. Shearer

Eric Rosenberg of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reports that there is pending legislation reinstating the draft in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) in order "to provide for the common defense by requiring that ALL young persons in the United States ... perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."  These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Though the draft (i.e., conscription) is an unpopular election year topic, the reality is that there simply are not enough Americans in uniform - either in our active duty or our reserve components - to handle a "long, hard slog" (Rumsfield's words) in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone carry on a permanent state of war against "terrorism" all over the world. Charles Pena, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, a libertarian group, says:

"When  you crunch the numbers, you understand why you hear talk about a draft.  You only have to look at troop levels to realize we don't have the numbers to do the job."

To Continue:
Read article - http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/oldnews/thedraft.html OR
Go to our homepage - http://www.endtimesnetwork.com