'United States planning a military strike against Iran'

1. I am not being inane.

2. <personal attack deleted>

[ January 01, 2006, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

Sad that all the critics on this Form cannot understand this.

 

Sad that all the critics on this Form cannot understand this. </font>[/QUOTE]NO, what is sad is the fact that some people in this forum think that America is the World's babysitter.

When and Where did the Good Ole' USA become in charge? Where does it back this up in the Bible, since we are Christians here and we believe and live by the Bible.

Jamie

 

Not the world's babysitter but we are in the unique position historically to be able to take steps to protect our interests and to protect the security of the United States from thugs possessing and seeking the means to destroy us. Obviously, whether to take such steps should also be weighted against the attendant risks.

I'm not really sure which chapter in the Bible concentrates on geopolitics. If so, I'm also curious where it says that we should not "become the world's babysitter"?

Just curious, Jamie, do you think we even had the right to attack Afghanistan?

 

Sad that all the critics on this Form cannot understand this. </font>[/QUOTE]NO, what is sad is the fact that some people in this forum think that America is the World's babysitter.

When and Where did the Good Ole' USA become in charge? Where does it back this up in the Bible, since we are Christians here and we believe and live by the Bible.

Jamie </font>[/QUOTE]Jamie

You need to read what is written and not editorialize. Any country that does not have contingency plans for its defense will not remain a country very long.

By the way Jesus Christ said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

 

But we are the World's babysitter. Just because we're in the unique position to change the world doesn't make it right.

Jesus was in a position to change his modern day world, he could have overthrown the Rome empire and set up shop right then and there. But that wasn't the Bigger Picture. He looked at the Bigger picture, something we all should be very thankful for.

In our days and times now, we need to look at the bigger picture, the picture Jesus painted for us. Not this world, but the Next one is ours.

It doesn't say anything either way. Why? Because it's not and wasn't important to Jesus. Where he lived, where he stayed, what happened around him, do you think he made it his business to involve himself in the "little" details?

What do you think he did to stop the government from killing people when he was alive? Name one verse, ever so small, where he got involved in polictics.

That is debatable. I feel we have the right to capture Bin Laden and bring him to a court for justice. I however am not sure of the war we have going on in Afghanistan. With the Media giving a slant, and Washington not telling the truth, no one knows if we should have gone in or not, or wheather we could have caught Bin Laden without the War in Afghanistan.

So, on that question, I don't know.

Jamie

 

I did and do read the articles. My opinions are posted after reading them.

I have never said that we shouldn't have defensive plans, but offensive and defensive plans are two differnt things, but of course as a Republican, I am should you can skew the offsensive plans to make them look like defensive plans...

You have heard me state in other threads, that if we took care of our borders, and worried about what we going on in our country, then we would have less to worry about in other countries.

Now, did I ever say that we shouldn't go to war? no. But I don't think we should actively be drawing up plans to attach a country that at most has hated us for years, and will probably hate us forever.

If we attack countries based on hate, why aren't we capturing the capitol of Venezuela?

And we do this each year with our Taxes and other fees the govenment charges us. But how does this say that we can go to War? Does "Caesar" own the world? so that makes it right for us to go looking for war?

In this statement, they were at the time talking about taxes, however it does have an underlying meaning, that we are to respect and be obedent to our government, that doesn't mean that we like or respect everything they do.

Jamie

 

What some miss in these discussions was the mission and purpose of Jesus coming to earth the first time. The first time, His mission was not to overthrow governments. The next time He comes, it will be.

 

Jesus's mission has never been to overthrow a government, nor will it next time.

His first mission here was to save the world from it's sin. The second time will be bring home his people.

Let's not make Jesus's second coming such a trival matter as to "over throw" a government.

Jamie

 

Jesus's mission has never been to overthrow a government, nor will it next time.

His first mission here was to save the world from it's sin. The second time will be bring home his people.

Let's not make Jesus's second coming such a trival matter as to "over throw" a government.

Jamie </font>[/QUOTE]Just goes to show that there is something new under the sun: I agree with Lady Eagle. Consider the Scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

You people are mad... I am not going to have this fight.

Jesus came and will come again for MUCH MORE THAN a government. Unless you want to catergorize God in a class of Government.

Yes, I know he will end this world, which in turn will, in a mental kind of way, overthrow a government, but that is not the point of his coming.

Again, I am not having a debate on Jesus and his coming overthrowing a government. It's mad I tell you, mad.

Jamie

 

I agree, Jamie. The secularization by some misguided Christians of the second coming of our Lord is very sad.

 

Rev. 19:[11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
[15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
[16] And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

Jamie,

But we are the World's babysitter. Just because we're in the unique position to change the world doesn't make it right.

It makes it right if it protects this country.

When and Where did the Good Ole' USA become in charge? Where does it back this up in the Bible, since we are Christians here and we believe and live by the Bible.

It doesn't say anything either way.

Then the only reason I can see for your bringing up this ridiculous point is that no matter what Bush does the Bible condems him through its silence, because there's not a "foreign policy chapter" there. It was a ridiculous non-point to make.

 

Symbolic language.

 

The U.S. military "plans" attacks on every major power - for practice and for whatever. For 10 years Japan "planned" an attact on Pearl.

 

How is ramping up to go after Iran protecting our country? Other than a bunch of hot air talk, which they have been doing since to dawm of time, I am sure, what have they done against us?

I bring it up because the Bible is how I am supose to live by. As Christians we should be living and willing to die by what the Bible says. Since this is a Christian board, it's a revelent question to ask, how does this topic relate to and in the Bible.


Also, this is to show how closed minded you are. Never, in this discussion have I brought up George Bush. I don't give a hoot WHO is in office, MY stance against uncalled-for WAR in the SAME!

You see, you are so narrow minded, that you think just because I am against War, you think that I am talking about Bush.

Again, as it has been made known, I don't like the Bush, but that was never mentioned, or even referred to in THIS post.

I don't like War if Hillary were to do is herself. Can you understand that?

Jamie

 

Who likes war? No one in their right mind would like war. Liking war isn't the issue. Being for or against war isn't the issue.

I was really divided about going into Iraq. I'm still divided about being in Iraq. And I realize that the US will have a military presence in the Middle East in one form or another because the US has had a faulty foreign policy for decades.

While the cause of bringing democracy to the rest of the world might sound noble, in reality, it isn't practical, nor does everyone want democracy. Democracy can't be given to people like a pearl on a pillow. It must be fought for and yearned for to be willing to sacrifice all to achieve it, as our own forefathers did.

To complete my thought, our "faulty" intelligence before going into Iraq told us for years that the Iraqi people would welcome our troops as liberators (not occupiers) and the people wanted democracy and would throw flowers at our troops. Well, that didn't happen. They view us as occupiers.

I can almost guarantee you, there is intelligence being fed to the US right now, that the people of Iran will greet us as liberators (not occupiers) and that people in Iran want democracy and will throw flowers at our troops.

A long time ago on this Board, I said we would be in Iran and/or Syria next. Watch and see.

 

Jamie,

Wow, looks like I touched a nerve!

I bring it up because the Bible is how I am supose to live by. As Christians we should be living and willing to die by what the Bible says. Since this is a Christian board, it's a revelent question to ask, how does this topic relate to and in the Bible.

OK, and I asked where in the Bible it says we're not supposed to be "the world's babysitter" and you couldn't answer the question. Your tactic seems to be to make an argument, someone responds to a ridiculous point, you respond by running back and saying you're just following the Bible, and then not being able to find it in the Bible.

I'm glad you're not narrow-minded. It gives you more room to dance around answering a question.

Hey, let me try asking you another question and see if you can give a real answer: Earlier you asked,

The last time I looked, the Great Commission was directed directly to Christians, not to nations, and not the United States. Would you agree with that?

 

LadyEagle,

Over the last few days and several different threads I haven't seen your point, or even seen eye to eye with you, but on this I think you are spot on.

I also am with you, although I hope I am wrong, I believe we will run up into Iran, and then the bloodshed will start. We will be stretched so thin, I can't imagine us being able to fight a fight without major losses.

Jamie