What kind of Christian [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

View Full Version : What kind of Christian

BigD75

11-09-2005, 11:26 PM

From those you who believe in George bush, I ask: What kind of Christian would cold-bloodedly attack an innocent country, using lies as a pretext?

What kind of Christian would do anything & everything possible to make life more difficult for Americans? *exception to that-- those George calls his base, you know the top 1%...those who already have everything a man could want ..10 times over?

What kind of Christian would invoke God and or Jesus name merely to further benefit himself and his lust for power?

My "God" is about giving, kindness, love, compassion, goodness, charity, caring, help, and love thy neighbor!

My faith says; help those who are down-trodden, the meek, the elderly, the tired, those down on their luck, the weary, the handicapped, the sick, the starving, the dying, and the poor!

My god sees no nationality; my god does not place the importance of an American life as superior in importance to the lives of other peoples from other Nations.

My God includes all the Worlds peoples as his children, not just those people who are in the top 1% tax bracket.

The god George bush worships can't be the same god I know...Why you ask? George bush actions speak volumes about who this man really is; his actions say greed is good; life is expendable-- as long as it's in the pursuit of material objects and or political advantage; lying is justified and excused as long as the lying and dying is for self-centered selfishness and or corporate gain!

President George bush and his actions SCREAM--the rich should be given advantage; the poor should be keep at a disadvantage!!

Scaryclouds

11-09-2005, 11:40 PM

BigD75

11-09-2005, 11:49 PM

I agree with everything you say except implying that Saddam Hussein Iraq was an "innocent country." Yes I believe we where lied to get into the war and no I do not agree with how it has been handeled since then. But saying SH Iraq is innocent is like saying a pedifile is innocent victim if the police strech the law to capture him.

saddam had nothing to do with 911, regardless it ant about SADDAM its about the slaughtered of 10's of thousands INNOCENT IRAQI Women and Children.

Void Image

11-09-2005, 11:50 PM

GW is the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time. I agree completely. He is a contradictive, hypocritical a**hole. Of course he has to have some qualities, I'm sure his father had nothing to do with his political ties.

How could you say Iraq wasn't innocent? We weren't at war with iraq. We were at war with Hussein, Iraq had little to do with it. Unless you're saying Iraq is evil because many of it's citizens hated the U.S.? I think they've been given more than enough reasons to come to that conclusion. Even so, despite whatever Hussein did, I don't believe we had any right to go in there and 'fix' things. Hussein was not responsible for 9/11. Really, all he did was get lippy when we tried to force U.S. policy on him. I was unsure about it at first..but when I learned that they never found the weapons that GW used as his 'free pass' into undeclared war I was pretty ticked.

I'm glad the media is finally really starting to put the heat on the republican administration. The democrats in office seem to have had enough of it as well. I know one thing, if the conservative right maintains the majority much longer, we can say good bye to the country as we know it.

Scaryclouds

11-09-2005, 11:53 PM

saddam had nothing to do with 911......regardless it ant about SADDAM its about the slaughtered of 10's of thousands INNOCENT IRAQI Women and Children

I said we where lied to reaqd my post!

How could you say Iraq wasn't innocent? We weren't at war with iraq. We were at war with Hussein, Iraq had little to do with it. Unless you're saying Iraq is evil because many of it's citizens hated the U.S.?

I specifally said Saddam Hussein Iraq implying Saddam and his regime not the Iraqi people.

Read my post!

BigD75

11-09-2005, 11:57 PM

I said we where lied to reaqd my post!

I specifally said Saddam Hussein Iraq implying Saddam and his regime not the Iraqi people.

Read my post!

SADDAM is living 10's of thousands of Innocent IRAQI are dead.....how do you square that?

Scaryclouds

11-09-2005, 11:59 PM

SADDAM is living 10's of thousands of Innocent IRAQI are dead.....how do you square that?

Goog God man I'm just saying SH Iraq wasn't innocent I wasn't justifing the invasion READ MY POST!

Void Image

11-10-2005, 12:16 AM

I'm sorry scaryclouds! I did read your post..but it was more like skimming :) Plus I'm tired. There are people out there however who think Iraq as a nation is evil. Ridiculous

Hussein murdered many people yes. What did America do in response? We bombed, we missile-ed, and machine gunned the turban right off Iraq's collective head. Innocent people were killed by U.S. soldiers. Many innocent people. Bush did this without approval from Congress. Does anyone really know what that means? The Congress..that's us. Yeah, those are the guys we elect to represent us, remember? Those guys have war powers. WE have the power to say "bombs away". The President basically gave us the finger,and told us he had to go over here for a while and find some weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, just hang out a while, I'll be back.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 12:22 AM

I agree with everything you say except implying that Saddam Hussein Iraq was an "innocent country." Yes I believe we where lied to get into the war and no I do not agree with how it has been handeled since then. But saying SH Iraq is innocent is like saying a pedifile is innocent victim if the police strech the law to capture him.

If you are going to use that Analogy then the pedaphile would be aquitted because the police stretched the law to capture him, and then set free.
Not saying it is right,, it is the way it is.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 12:35 AM

If you are going to use that Analogy then the pedaphile would be aquitted because the police stretched the law to capture him, and then set free.
Not saying it is right,, it is the way it is.

Thats why I used the qualifier "innocent victim." In other words meaning he was totally undeserving (morally) of what happened to him. But yes I know the police would have to set him free.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:52 AM

Thats why I used the qualifier "innocent victim." In other words meaning he was totally undeserving (morally) of what happened to him. But yes I know the police would have to set him free.

Ok but I ask you this.... should we apply the standards of what would happen to the officers to the architects of the war. From Bush on down. I think that we should but that is me.

rjamortega

11-10-2005, 01:59 AM

eugene40

11-10-2005, 02:20 AM

BigD75

11-10-2005, 04:24 PM

:rolleyes: ...(sooo tiring)...except for you personal opinion, he didn't lie to go to war. Multiple investgations couldn't prove it. ...< dragging from the fatigue of this inane assertion > ...he... didn't...lie.

hahahahahahah........Bio, Chemical, Nucccccccclear weapons, Imminent Threat, Saddam can reach us in 45 minutes with his missles, Saddam connnected to 911.....Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president.".hahahahaha Earth to Mars :D

heel31ok

11-10-2005, 05:24 PM

saddam had nothing to do with 911, regardless it ant about SADDAM its about the slaughtered of 10's of thousands INNOCENT IRAQI Women and Children.
I do see 9/11 as a prerequisite to taking out Saddam. To be technical he broke the UN resolution at the very least. Invading Iraq was absolutely right .Even if everyone agreed it would make no difference. This is not about Iraq, it is about GW.It always has been Iraq or no Iraq it would always be something. It is the hate and disdain the Bush's enemies have for him. So if we never went do you think all these people would be saying how they like or approve. I do not think so. Iraq in this argument is really a red herring.

heel31ok

11-10-2005, 05:27 PM

hahahahahahah........Bio, Chemical, Nucccccccclear weapons, Imminent Threat, Saddam can reach us in 45 minutes with his missles, Saddam connnected to 911.....Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president.".hahahahaha Earth to Mars :D
Yeah big D , Bush invaded to get re- elected. :lol: :rolleyes:
He will be gone next election but the question is can the repub get voted out?

meloakey

11-10-2005, 06:35 PM

Whether people want to admit it or not, Saddam was stock piling weapons. Evidence is the insergency has been able to attack the Iraqi citizens and soldiers. And the weapons weren't just guns but bombs and rocket launchers. With the amount of weapons they have, it is near impossible to get them from somewhere else besides inside Iraq. The reason I say it is near impossible because the borders are being watched on land, in the air and in space.

Everyone is saying the Bush outright lied about the weapons. The intelligence Bush had, said Iraq was a threat. Well then I lied when I was in 10th grade when a fellow classmate told me the test was on Wednesday, then I told my friend it was on Wednesday but later I found out it was Thursday. To me I always thought I was misinformed and that I didn't lie.

If you want to attack Bush because of the intelligence he had, then you have to attack Clinton as well because he said the same thing, as well as all the politicians that have thought the same thing as Bush. Each one also had more evidence then you and I do at the time. The difference is Bush did something about it instead of waiting around for something to happen.

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps would be emboldened tomorrow”
ーPresident Clinton 1998

”Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not, and will not let him succeed.”
ーMadeline Albright, Secretary of State 1998

”The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability。“
ーRobert Byrd (D-VA) Oct. 2002

”Iraq is not the only nation to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader that has used them against his own people."
ーTom Dashle (D-SD) 1998

”I SHARE the administration's goal of dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”
ーDick Gephardt (D-MO) Sept. 2002

”Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proved impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
―Al Gore, 2002

”We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout the country”
―Al Gore, 23Sept. 2002

”I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to out security.”
ーJohn Kerry 9 Oct. 2002

”Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
ーJohn Kerry 23 Jan 2003

meloakey

11-10-2005, 06:41 PM

"If efforts to resolve this problem using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the U.S. should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO alllies and the North Atlantic council if possible, to bring force to bear." - Wesley Clark (26 Sept 2002)

"Since it is no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action." - Howard Dean (19 July 1995) urges Clinton to take action in the Balkans

"A nation always preserves the right to take pre-emptive action." - Joe Lieberman (3 May 2003)

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the security council fails to act." - John F. Kerry (6 Sept 2002 NY Times)

"He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." - Hillary Clinton (10 Oct 2002)

"There are extensive connections between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda and other groups." - Joe Lieberman (Dec 2003)

The only thing Bush is guilty of when going to War, is that he did something people wanted him to do. And instead of sitting on his butt and just say things, he did something about it. Iraq has been listed on the U.S. State sponsors of terrorism since 1982, with a small break for a year or two.

"Iraq remains a serious threat to regional peace and stability." - Bill Clinton (8 July 1996)

"We are convinced that as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he will continue to threaten the well being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world." - Bill Clinton (19 May 1999)

"The community of nations may see more and more, the very kind of threat Iraq poses now." - Bill Clinton (1998)

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf." - Al Gore (2002)

"We want to diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." - Bill Clinton (17 Feb 1998)

towski

11-10-2005, 06:45 PM

God, how many times can people find this list on the internet and post it on here? This is like the 7th time I've seen this list. Maybe we ought to just give it a sticky so we don't have to scroll through it every 11 posts...

meloakey

11-10-2005, 06:48 PM

Not only Bush believed there were weapons of mass destruction. The people who had access to far more complex information then we the public receive, they believed Saddam was a threat and should be taken care of. So why aren't they being called a liar? Why isn't their popularity going down? Is it because they just stated something instead of doing what they said? Bush did what he thought was the truth at the time as well as doing what the majority at the time wanted him to do.

towski

11-10-2005, 06:51 PM

And as far as I can tell, everyone you listed supported the war then and supports the war now. So what's the big issue?

The reason Bush is paying the price is very simple. He's the president. The buck stops with him. Oh, that, and the fact that he tied 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq, of course...

meloakey

11-11-2005, 08:26 AM

"Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively."
-John Kerry 2004

Kerry plainly states that Congress gave the President the authority to use force. If in the military you learn exactly how much power the President has over the military. In a time of crisis the President can allow the use of military but for a few months, after that Congress the authority. It is called checks and balances, it prevents any one branch of government from gaining too much power. If congress wanted the soldiers out of Iraq, they have the power to do so. So why isn't anyone asking themselves why congress isn't doing that?

Oct. 11, 2002: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

I know advice doesn't go over to well but my suggestion is to look at anothers view point on why they support the war. I am not asking anyone to change their minds just be alittle bit more respectful to those who support the war and the leaders who have to deal with it each day. And I certainly am not asking to not question the government.

'Asking questions of the government is the patriotic thing that can be done. People need to speak up." -Madeline Albright

Joe Lieberman states reasons why he supports the war and he doesn't even factor in Weapon of Mass Destruction.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=228970&attrib_id=7377

There are ties to Al Quida in Iraq. Soldiers are fighting them in Iraq. Oh that is something you won't find in the news or by the government, it is something you have to find out if you fight in Iraq.

A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.
Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.
A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.

BigD75

11-11-2005, 06:15 PM

I do see 9/11 as a prerequisite to taking out Saddam. To be technical he broke the UN resolution at the very least. Invading Iraq was absolutely right .Even if everyone agreed it would make no difference. This is not about Iraq, it is about GW.It always has been Iraq or no Iraq it would always be something. It is the hate and disdain the Bush's enemies have for him. So if we never went do you think all these people would be saying how they like or approve. I do not think so. Iraq in this argument is really a red herring.

:sorry: :sorry: :sorry: I'M SORRY ..YOU HAVE SUCH A DESTORTED VIEW OF REALTTY.

RobinD69

11-12-2005, 10:54 PM

From those you who believe in George bush, I ask: What kind of Christian would cold-bloodedly attack an innocent country, using lies as a pretext?[QUOTE]

Wheather Christian or not,he is the leader of a nation and it is his duty to stop terrorism just as it was all his predicesors duty and they did it in the way they saw fit and yes,they made mistakes in the way they handled it and yes he has and will make mistakes,but he never lied.

[QUOTE]What kind of Christian would do anything & everything possible to make life more difficult for Americans? *exception to that-- those George calls his base, you know the top 1%...those who already have everything a man could want ..10 times over?[QUOTE]

He is doing his best with what he has and has been left with from the previous administration and what he has to deal with with disaster after disaster happening from 911 to present.

[QUOTE]What kind of Christian would invoke God and or Jesus name merely to further benefit himself and his lust for power?[QUOTE]

All Christians who are seeking Gods guidance.

[QUOTE]My "God" is about giving, kindness, love, compassion, goodness, charity, caring, help, and love thy neighbor![QUOTE]

And lets not forget Gods judgement.

[QUOTE]My faith says; help those who are down-trodden, the meek, the elderly, the tired, those down on their luck, the weary, the handicapped, the sick, the starving, the dying, and the poor![QUOTE]

And that is what he is doing with Iraq.

[QUOTE]My god sees no nationality; my god does not place the importance of an American life as superior in importance to the lives of other peoples from other Nations.[QUOTE]

True.

[QUOTE]My God includes all the Worlds peoples as his children, not just those people who are in the top 1% tax bracket.[QUOTE]

True.

[QUOTE]The god George bush worships can't be the same god I know...Why you ask? George bush actions speak volumes about who this man really is; his actions say greed is good; life is expendable-- as long as it's in the pursuit of material objects and or political advantage; lying is justified and excused as long as the lying and dying is for self-centered selfishness and or corporate gain!

President George bush and his actions SCREAM--the rich should be given advantage; the poor should be keep at a disadvantage!!

You really must investigate what he has done for the rest of the populace before you "judge"any further.For judgement is Gods not ours.

DRMIZER

11-18-2005, 11:34 AM

From those you who believe in George bush, I ask: What kind of Christian would cold-bloodedly attack an innocent country, using lies as a pretext?NONE
What kind of Christian would do anything & everything possible to make life more difficult for Americans? *exception to that-- those George calls his base, you know the top 1%...those who already have everything a man could want ..10 times over?NONE

What kind of Christian would invoke God and or Jesus name merely to further benefit himself and his lust for power?NONE

My "God" is about giving, kindness, love, compassion, goodness, charity, caring, help, and love thy neighbor!SOUNDS LIKE WHAT JESUS SAID

My faith says; help those who are down-trodden, the meek, the elderly, the tired, those down on their luck, the weary, the handicapped, the sick, the starving, the dying, and the poor!SOUNDS LIKE WHAT JESUS SAID

My god sees no nationality; my god does not place the importance of an American life as superior in importance to the lives of other peoples from other Nations.

My God includes all the Worlds peoples as his children, not just those people who are in the top 1% tax bracket.SOUNDS LIKE WHAT JESUS SAID

The god George bush worships can't be the same god I know...Why you ask? George bush actions speak volumes about who this man really is; his actions say greed is good; life is expendable-- as long as it's in the pursuit of material objects and or political advantage; lying is justified and excused as long as the lying and dying is for self-centered selfishness and or corporate gain!

President George bush and his actions SCREAM--the rich should be given advantage; the poor should be keep at a disadvantage!!THIS IS WHY JESUS WAS A LIBERAL, NOT A COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE!