'United States planning a military strike against Iran'

No nerve hit here, unless you want to talk about the nerve of some people saying they are Christians and yet don't practice what the Bible tells them. Love, Peace, and Hope.

I didn't make an arguement from it, I just asked for one verse where Jesus got involved in Polictics to the degree we do on this board.

The point of that question was to help show you that we worry, argue and talk about things like really shouldn't matter. The Great Commision is what should matter to us.


I see you simply skipped over the Bush comment, is that to say that you slipped up on that?

Me, Narrowed minded? No. You don't know me at all if you think I am... Oh, that's right. You DON'T know me.

As far as dancing around answering a question.. You have to start answering, before you can say you're dancing..

Ok, let me simplify it for you... The Great Commission is:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Now, doesn't it say all Nations? Even though in that sense of the word Nations, Jesus was talking about Jews and Gentiles, it still means we are to spread his Word in EVERY part of the world.

Now I ask you, how do we as Christians spread his word while dropping bombs on them? Are there verses written on the tips on the bombs that they can read before they hit?

Also, you need to understand that I know that Government doesn't equal Pastor, but as Christian's we are to go along with our government unless it interferes with our beliefs.

Since making War interferes with the Great Commission, which is what God commanded us do, I believe it's wrong.

You believe in what you want to believe in, and I will believe in what I want to believe in. It's the Great thing about the Good Ole' US of A!

Jamie

 

Back to the original thread, let me say a few things about "plans."

Based on my professional experience:

1. We have a plan (a detailed one) for just about every conceivable contingency. There are officers whose regular job is to keep them updated.

2. If circumstances move a situation from the theoretical to a possible implementation, the plan is dusted off, modified as needed, and even "gamed."

3. In our fast moving age, nations that do not do 1 and 2 above are looking to be caught with their proverbial pants down.

4. Sometimes plans don't work because of short-sightedness. Admiral Husband Kimmell, a battleship man, could not conceive of the Japanese attacking from the air by surprise, nor could his Army commander, General Short, who was more concerned with sabotage than air attack.

5. Good plans followed halfway can look successful when they are not--Admiral Nagumo should have hung around for the rest of the 7th and 8th, destroyed the oil facilities on Oahu, and flushed out Bill Halsey's carrier forces.

6. Bad plans won't work--Yamamoto's plan for Midway was full of holes, and his four main carriers ended up full of holes, and sunk.

 

And we are only fooling ourselves if we think our enemies don't have plans already, too, and aren't working to perfect them. Including playing double dare you with MAD (mutually assured destruction).

 

Jamie,

OK, Mods/Admins! Jamie says this is all a waste of time. Time to shut down the Politics Forum.

I see you simply skipped over the Bush comment, is that to say that you slipped up on that?

No, I just don't plan to waste my time with someone whose argument is simply that I'm narrow minded. Especially since, as you said when saying that I was wrong if I thought you narrow minded (though I never said you were), "You don't know me." In other words, you're pretty free to throw such a label around, but woe if you think someone has done it to you.

I'm beyond wasting my time with a hyper-sensitive, free-to-judge-someone-else's-Christianity, Christianity-on-your-sleeve type.

 

Correct sir, at least to the point where we take it as a board. Have you seen a true, informative debate go on here in the Politics forum yet? No, Everyone takes sides, and then holds on for the ten page limit...

It's not a matter of wasting time, You threw Bush's name out like I was tearing his name/decisions apart. When in fact I NEVER mentioned Bush, I would have the same opinion on attaching Iran if Clinton was still in the WH.

Hyper-Sensitive, free to judge? Hum... I don't believe that fits me and who I am in life, or in this forum. I didn't judge you, only called it as I saw it. You throw out remarks that you can't back up, and then want to call me names.

Well, at least this topic can get back to it's orginal use...


Jamie

 

Iran must be viewed from the angle of Ezkiel which foretells us that Iran(Persia) will attack Israel. Some interprets Israel as the Religious Free Nation or Christian world which may include USA too. But I would stay with the literal interpretation even though we may consider Iran may be harlmful to the freedom of our faith.

Another point is that State is different from Individual. Individual must love enemy and must forgive the sins of others. Individual must endure and tolerate the evil against himself or herself, leaving the vengeance to the hands of God. God will take care of the revenge for the individuals.

However, in case of States, they are the shadows of Judging God and they have to govern the people and nations with righteousness and justice. If one country cannot do so, it should be decomposed or dismantled or attacked by other nation. For example, if Sudanese government cannot control Janjweed militia and cannot protect the citizens in Darfur, it disqualifies Sudanese gov't and therefore such government must be decomposed ( I may sound too much radical, but this is true)
This is why Israelites so much wanted to have a State in the promised land. Maccabe's revolt tells us that when people can do, they should stand up in defense of Truth.
State must punish the criminals. If anyone say that the government should love the enemies and criminals, then it is nonsense.

Therefore we must separate between Government or State and Individual.

Now Iran has been developing Nuke and is the most dangerous among several nations like Syria, NK. North Korea will remain as local problem in the region of Far East. Iran is not so and it is mentioned in the Bible clearly.

When Russia attack Israel, where will be USA?
I have some idea about it, but would refrain from talking about it now.
In any case, Iran may survive any attacks from other countries. If you read Ezkiel carefully, Iran looks like Acting member of multi-national forces in attacking Israel.

The fact that Iran is preparing Nuke or almost has made Nukes, means that they broke the peace seriously already. Then shall we surrender to them?

If US or UN don't take any action against Iran now, there will be a big regret later on among the Christianity. However, the history will be driven in the direction where Bible prophesy come true any way.

Problem is that US have been wasting too much power in Iraq. From the beginning, remembering Ezkiel, I predicted US war against Iraq is not worthwhile, because Iraq is not the main traget in ME, Iran should be the main target.

Unfortunately, the history is running in the wrong direction, which is, however, exactly the same as prophesied in Ezkiel, and Iran will eventually successful in WMD. Then it will continue until Lord comes.

 

Excellent, Eliyahu, and a critically important distinction.

 

I would agree that there must be a distinction between individuals and states. As Christians, we must obey the law of God and live our lives as closely as we can to our perfect model, Jesus.

The U.S., on the other hand, must act in its own national self-interest. The U.S. is not a Christian nation. It is a nation composed largely of professing Christians. There is a critical difference here and I think this statement is in line with what you said Eliyahu.

The tricky part is that the nation's military and decision makers are made up of individuals. Each of us must decide whether the action of the state is consistent with our Christian beliefs and act accordingly. Sometimes that might mean leaving the secular state or going to jail as many of the early Christians did.

 

A good read here

 

I am sure US should have spared her power by not participating in the war with Iraq so that she could take the proper and sufficient action against bigger enemy, Iran.

Just before the War, how much Sadam Hossein humbled himself to US? Right at that time, US should have made him as a humble subordinate, then US could have saved the power and do much stronger action against Iran.

Now Past is Passed.

Even now, if US don't take action against Iran, US and the righteous people will regret and lament in the future, about their not having taken action.

 

LE, that is an excellent article. I think it would serve those well here who have questioned such plans to read it. If they don't agree, they must certainly gain a greater understanding of the issue.

 

For the the U.S.(or Israel) to attack Iran would be very, very, very foolish - and disastrous for us.

 

Ken,

Did you read the article posted by LE? Thoughts?

 

It is necessary, FTR, not only to attack Iran but also to attack Syria.

 

The later, the worse, the more regret !

 

CMG,

This is where I might start to sound like some other critics here: I don't like Syria and I think they should be diplomatically isolated by the West (well, those in the west who still have any guts and judgement as to right and wrong, which I suppose leaves France and perhaps some others out) but in terms of deploying finite military capability I don't think that they present the threat that Iran will eventually pose so we simply have to be wise where we devote those resources.

BTW, I will also interject here that I also believe that Israel's military trade should be closely examined by the State and Defense Departments. They have sold military technology to China. Any guesses as to one of China's major clients? Iran. If Israel expects us to bail them out in the future (and I think it is usually in our best interest to do so) we should make very clear to them that they are not to be arming a country that poses such a strategic threat intermediate term threat to us and who is arming such a threat to Israel. It is very short-sighted for the sake of their defense industry making a buck.

 

Steve Watson | January 9 2006

We are being constantly bombarded with propaganda over Iran and its intention to build a nuclear arsenal. We are told (contrary to intelligence reports) that they are just months away from doing so. And we have been told that they must be stopped.

What we are not being told is that both the US and the UK have supplied Iran with the materials and the know how in order that they may build the bomb.

With the news at the weekend of Iranian intentions to resume nuclear fuel research, despite international appeals not to do so, why is the EU surprised that Iran is forging ahead?

The history of how Iran's path to nuclear proliferation began is a familiar story.

The 1953 CIA ouster of President Mossadegh, a leader who was conforming to westernized policy but made the mistake of asking to keep a small portion of his country's oil revenue, was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup.

After installing the Shah Globalists like Henry Kissinger opened the door for Iran to develop sophisticated nuclear energy programs which laid the foundation for today's crisis. Twenty three reactors were built with the help of American corporations like General Electric and Westinghouse.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford even authorized the Shah to buy and operate a plutonium-extracting and processing facility - a big step toward converting energy processing to weapons making.

After the revolution of 1979 the fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeni reversed westernized policy but maintained Iran's nuclear interest albeit staggeringly before the end of the war with Iraq. After the war ended Iran was again free to pursue its ends leading us to the impending crisis we face today.

SOURCE

 

Hindsight is 20/20 Poncho. In this explanation, you failed to mention that the biggest threat to the US in that era wasn't Islamic fundamentalism- it was the USSR. The unfortunate thing was that the west often took the view that the most important thing we could accomplish is keeping nations out of the Soviet realm of influence.

We made "friends" who weren't friends at all... and now there is an unforeseen price to pay for that type of pragmatism.

 

If hindsight was really 20/20 then our government should have stopped overthrowing and installing "regimes" long ago.

 

and wait for the world to be destroyed. Russia may be down but I don't believe that they are completely powerless wrt a nuclear attack.