Basic reason is that they didn't agree with him.

Iraq in particular was a strong secular Moslem country.  A great threat to having the Moslem world the way Osama wanted it.  Now the strong secular government is gone, and those who want to see a radical Islamic government in its place are there fighting.  It would appear that they have a good chance of winning.  It is similar to how the long Russian occupation of Afghanistan resulted in the Taliban takeover of the country, the same thing is very likely here.  

At the same time, the invasion by the US has pushed the Moslem world towards radicallism.  Strengthening Osama's position, and will result in recruits and resources to his cause.  Islam is very fragmented, but thanks to the current situation.  Many followers are coming more into agreement with Osama.

No wonder he kept hitting the US until we went to war, that was exactly what he wanted.

Marv

See:  http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1025.html

For a reprinted New York Times article about the 380 tons of high explosives which would have fit into the category mentioned earlier.  It also mentions the machine tooling is gone.

We failed to secure the site in the article and some considered even more important after the invasion.

So are we safer?

Marv

Hi,

I agree that the neocons are a great peril, their worldview of the imperial US standing over all the world is quite scary.  For instance, you hear all the time that the US is the world's only superpower.  Well Communist China could potentially put an army of about 350,000,000 fighting men in the field.  In addition, they have WMD.  The neocon view of China would say that we must dominate them militarily, not through negotiation or capitulation.  

This is of great concern to me, because there is no way to bring about the neocon world view without taking my children.

Far from being Christian, the neocons seem to take their worldview from Herbert W. Armstrong.  The US is God's chosen (Armstrong said the US and Britain were lost tribes of Israel) country, that our government is so good, so universal, it is our mission to take over the world.

As God's chosen, they don't think they can loose.  That's part of what makes Bush's supposed statement that we could go into Iraq without casualties believable.

Marv

[I think this:"Unlike certain past presidents they could name but won't--ahem, cough, Bill Clinton--Bush doesn't feel the need to prove his religiosity." was funny!]

You said this:

I think this:
"Unlike certain past presidents they could name but won't--ahem, cough, Bill Clinton--Bush doesn't feel the need to prove his religiosity." was funny!


Which sounded like you were agreeing that attending church was just done to "prove" religiosity.

And this:
And this:
"It shouldn't really matter. A president's religious habits often reveal far less about his faith than the decisions he makes."
makes sense.

Seems to say that you don't think it really matters.

What did I misread?

And what do you mean by What is church?
I would think that we shouldn't have to define that.  It's pretty generally known where the President goes so his attendance or nonattendance is known.

Marv

Is that what you are saying?  That a Christian doesn't really need to attend services.

I run into people all the time who say they are Christian but they just don't feel a need to worship God at church services.  

Are you saying they are correct?

Marv

Hi,

A recent article in the New Republic talked about Presidential habits concerning church attendance.

The gist of the article was current President is not regular, Reagan was not regular, Clinton was regular, Carter was regular (even taught Sunday School).

Link is:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=vKO1twmWG2Uvnyi2qoWQfW%3D%3D

So what do you think?  

Marv

If Syria and Iran have the tools and materials, then I would say we are less safe, particularly since we no longer can follow what they are used for or inspect them.

Marv

So what would people say is the correct Christian position on launching preemptive strikes against other countries?

Any scripture?

Saddam Hussein would have been gone a long time ago without the aid of the US.  People heavily involved in keeping him in power included George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Was it proper from a Christian perspective to supply Saddam with arms and keep him in power when he was using poisonous gas almost daily on Iranians and Kurds?  Or is the current problems the US having due to past behavior by these men?

Any scripture?

Is it proper from a Christian perspective for the US to be running up debt at the rate it is?

Any scripture?

Is it proper for either candidate to belong to Skull and Bones?

Any scripture?

I'm not asking for your opinions, because frankly as a Christian, I don't rely on your opinions, I rely on Scripture.  So could you help explain these things presently happening based on scripture.

Thank you,

Marv

All sin results in separation from God, but there is at least some differences in sin.

For instance blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:31, Mark 3:29.

Also, 1 John 5 16-17 talks about sin leading to death and sin not leading to death.  

Some argue that means there are different levels of sin, some argue different results from sin.

I think the danger in thinking there are really bad sins and not so bad sins is the danger of thinking the not so bad are really okay.  But, as the not so bad sins separate the person from God, sinning that maybe started out little tends to abound.

Some ask questions such as this because they are afraid or feel that they have already committed unpardonable sins and so their  situation is hopeless.   I take comfort in what a  pastor told me years ago, that if you are still capable of being worried about whether you had committed unpardonable sins, it is almost certain that you have not.

Go in peace,
Marv

Oh, I forgot to answer whether these things were more of a threat when Saddam was in power.

You tell me who has them now, and I can answer.

Marv

I believe what you are seeing is an attempt by the UN to exert itself and get back into Iraq.  They are pointing out that things which they are responsible to inspect under the UN resolutions are missing and they should be allowed to enter Iraq and attempt to trace the products.  They aren't talking nuclear materials like people think enriched uranium or plutonium they are talking machinery and materials that could be used but are not necessarily used for nuclear weapons.  For all we know, they went in the scrap metal heap that Iraq has been selling since the war.  There have been rocket engines sold for scrap which have been discovered.  Good heavy cast iron milling machine might bring $20 down at the junk yard.  Then again, it is possible that the buildings and inventory have been disassembled under US orders.  We just don't know.

Here in North Dakota, we just found a 110 lbs of sodium cyanide which fell off a truck last week.  Two other barrels fell off on the same trip but were found right away.  Turns out it was going to beekeepers to kill the bees in their colonies before moving south for the winter.  When the state started checking, turns out other beekeepers had cyanide too.  Problem is, it's not registered for that use.  It used in mining, electroplating and the like, but it turns out since those uses aren't pesticide that pretty much anyone (probably going to change now) could buy however much cyanide they wanted.  All you needed was to find a distributor that would take your money.  No registration, no liscencing, nothing.  Makes you feel safe doesn't it.  I remember when the postman used to deliver cyanide to our farm a few years ago, so it's not that big a deal to me.  But 110 lbs of sodium cyanide is enough to kill a lot of people.  If you could get them to ingest it.

Now if we had found that barrel in the ditch by Baghdad instead of Lakota, ND, USA, that would be trotted out as proof that Saddam had a real WMD program going, when maybe he just had a couple of beekeepers.

It is pretty certain that Saddam Hussein had the fewest WMD's at the time of our invasion since well back into the 80's.  That's when the chemical companies started really selling him the chemicals for making chemical weapons, and there's pretty good evidence that we provided him with some anthrax and botulism.

I'm sure Saddam would have loved to have more WMD's but the embargo and inspections have been proven to have been pretty effective.  He was stupid not to be more cooperative.

Marv

I think you maybe misread the article a little.  We aren't talking about bombs here.  They are talking about dual-use things, milling machines,  turning lathes, and high strength aluminum are specifically mentioned.   They aren't talking about weapons as such, but things that potentially could be used to make weapons.  They are followed because they could be used for nuclear weapons, but not usually banned because of their other uses.

It appears that someone has been systematically taking the facilities apart.  Since this has been happening since the invasion, we can only hope that it is some CIA program or the like.  They clearly have value and many industrial uses other than nuclear bomb making.  Many of the machines would be quite heavy and not just something you would throw in the back of a Toyota and take off.  Some was probably lost to looting during or immediately after the war, but you would think securing these known sites would have been pretty high on the list of objectives for the invasion in order to minimize looting wouldn't you think?

For some reason, the administration will not allow UN inspector into Iraq or report to UN inspectors, even though the UN resolutions calling for the inspectors are part of the justification the administration points to for the invasion.

We sold many of the dual use items to Iraq during the Reagan administration.  They even decided at that time that it was okay to sell dual use items to nuclear programs in Iraq.  During that time when we were aiding Iraq, Iraq was known to be using poisonous gas on almost a daily basis.  The US even helped Iraq equip helicopters so the pilots would be safer when applying "insecticides".

The whole thing doesn't give the US much credibility in fighting against terrorism and WMD's.  Especially since people so high up like Cheney and Rumsfeld were insturmental in arming Saddam and keeping him in power.

A real good, complete history of the whole mess can be found at the National Security archive.  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

I warn you, it will be very difficult to think highly of the people in power today, especially as suppossed Christians after you read the material.  If you would prefer to live happy and ignorant, just avoid the site.

Marv

Getting those emails full of errors and spreading them around I see.

Here's a link to an urban legend page with pretty much word for word your posting:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp

A similar one from the FactCheck people Vice-President Chenney referred to in his debate:  http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=224.html

What the Tides Foundation has to say about it is at  http://www.tidesfoundation.org/press_rel_05.cfm

A lot of pretty complete explanations including where some of these things started are at  http://www.heinz.org/index.asp?loc=K

Maybe you will forward them to those to whom you have sent the incorrect "facts".

Marv

Do you believe it is okay for Christians to belong to secret societies.  I do not.  In my own little town, I have been asked to join the Masons, much of the local power clearly revolves around the Masons, but I do not believe a Christian should belong or participate in such organizations.  Maybe you disagree, I would be interested in why you disagree.

So what do people here think, would you join Skull and Bones given a chance?  How about the Masons?  

If you joined before becoming a Christian, would you continue after your conversion?

What would you tell someone who was a member of such an organization who desired to become a Christian?

As a parent, if I run around giving my support to Bush as a Christian, what could I tell my children if they got the chance to join a secret society?  Some want to just call Skull and Bones a fraternity, but this goes beyond that.

While this is really not a partisan question, since both current candidates for President belong, it is very difficult for people not to think of things in partisan terms; however, I ask that people try.  The Bush family has much more history in the Skull and Bones and as such there is more to talk about, but Kerry belongs too.  Interestingly Teresa Heinz-Kerry's first husband also belonged to Skull and Bones, so there are pretty strong ties there too.  The original post starting this was attacking Kerry so it immediately turned partisan, but I'm not saying support Kerry, I'm not saying support Bush either.  

This summer and fall I have been bombarded with forwarded emails attacking Kerry, many of which are just clearly not true, many of these are forwarded by well meaning Christians.  There are many others attacking Bush, but I haven't received many of those.  For instance, I received the one where Kerry is said to have named John 16:3 as his favorite verse in the Bible when he would have meant John 3:16.  This has also been circulated about Bush and Gore.  Evidence is that if it is true of anyone, it is George H. W. Bush.  That is listed on one of the urban myth pages.  Anyone here receive and forwarded it this year?  If so, you are participating in a lie.  That hurts your Christian witness.  That is why I recommended reading the urban myth pages.  You will recognize these stories for what they are.

Marv

Here's and article that references both candidates admitting their memberships in Skull and Bones.  The references are good enough so if you want to look up and read the original transcripts it's pretty easy to get:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-08-2004/bonesmen.htm

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/skullbones.htm
Is pretty complete background, it gives references.

 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
is a trascript with the author of "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power"  with a link to the book

http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm
Gives a lot of links and info.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/3/skullroster.htm
Gives a list of members in Skull and Bones

http://www.antonysutton.com/
He has two books available:  "America's Secret Establishment an Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones"
and "Fleshing out Skull and Bones Investigations into America's Most Powerful Secret Society."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5244.htm
You can watch the "60 minutes" segment on Skull and Bones

The list goes on and on, I suppose all these sources can be attacked at some level or the other, but I think they do a pretty complete job of backing what I have posted.

Marv