-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
'United States planning a military strike against Iran'
- Thread starter JGrubbs
- Start date
Amen.
Jamie, people on this board have told me they elected President Bush to be president, not their pastor. So perhaps maybe one of the people who voted for him will care to answer your questions. (I voted for CP candidate, the 2nd time around, not Kerry, BTW.)
Jamie, people on this board have told me they elected President Bush to be president, not their pastor. So perhaps maybe one of the people who voted for him will care to answer your questions. (I voted for CP candidate, the 2nd time around, not Kerry, BTW.)
Yep, He sure did. AND He also said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Which is what has already happened in Gaza as the missles into Israel from terrorists continue to fly.
Easily predictable by those of us who opposed the Road Map, believing the Land belongs to Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not some Pali state, and reasonable people can't expect anything substantial from negotiating with homicide bombers and terrorists and land for peace will never work.
To get back on topic:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48142
The JP picked the story up from the German press, it seems. I find that odd. Quite odd, indeed.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Which is what has already happened in Gaza as the missles into Israel from terrorists continue to fly.
Easily predictable by those of us who opposed the Road Map, believing the Land belongs to Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not some Pali state, and reasonable people can't expect anything substantial from negotiating with homicide bombers and terrorists and land for peace will never work.
To get back on topic:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48142
The JP picked the story up from the German press, it seems. I find that odd. Quite odd, indeed.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I am in support of the aim of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and I support the eventual establishment of a Palestinian State alongside the Israeli State. I would like to see Jerusalem become an "international city" under U.N. auspices. Jerusalem is important to three of the world's major religions and I think it is best if it is not under the control of any of the three so that it can always be accessed by adherents to all three of these religions.
Ken, I find it hard to see someone that normally seem very sensible (don't always agree, but--) making an argument for the UN to control anything.
UN auspices = "Israel, you're screwed!"
Scripture also says;
Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Bold mine
KenH
Well-Known Member
I do not have a knee jerk negative reaction any time the U.N. is mentioned. I am not thoroughly anti-U.N. and I am in favor of the nations of the world talking instead of fighting. As the old hymn says, "Cure Thy children’s warring madness". If God uses the U.N. to restrain war, then I am certainly not going to complain about it.
Like I said,
Ken, the UN will probably move to Baghdad/Babylon. That has been my prediction for awhile and the reason will be to bring peace and harmony to the ME. Which they will get when they all sign the big treaty for 3-1/2 years. Don't expect it to happen until Hillary is Prez and Bill is the new Secretary General of the UN, though, after Kofi resigns/retires.
There are no hard concrete facts there, only conjectures. Why would the German press do this? Am highly suspect of the motive behind this story and find it odd.
Ken, the UN will probably move to Baghdad/Babylon. That has been my prediction for awhile and the reason will be to bring peace and harmony to the ME. Which they will get when they all sign the big treaty for 3-1/2 years. Don't expect it to happen until Hillary is Prez and Bill is the new Secretary General of the UN, though, after Kofi resigns/retires.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Well, if such a move would bring peace and harmony to the Middle East then I would certainly support it.
But I seriously doubt that the U.N. will be moving its headquarters for the forseeable future.
Those of us who care about peace and harmony in the Middle East will have to hope and pray that these come about without the U.N. moving its headquarters.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
I'm sure the terrorists also oppose NSA wiretaps. How does it feel being "on their side"? Ken, you know that's a poor "argument".
You are missing something here, and that is the historical disproportional retribution that the US renders when attacked directly. Regardless of right, wrong, or anything else, if any nation, Arab, Iranian, whoever, attacks the US using any kind of WMD, that nation will probably not be safe for human occupation for around 100,000 years. I don't think there is a president or potential president on the scene who would hesitate to carry out what JFK referred to as a "full retaliatory response." I remember watching him say that, or words to that effect on national TV in 1962.
If either Iran or North Korea were to actually use a nuke their nation would simply cease to exist--permanently.
If either Iran or North Korea were to actually use a nuke their nation would simply cease to exist--permanently.