Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Oct 31 2006, 08:42 AM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15490609/

At times I wonder why these crackpot self-proclaimed Christian Politicans like Katherine Harris run. She claimed that, "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin." Because of comments like that and her other crackpot things like firing staff members for 'conspiring to work for the opponent', I wonder why 30% are stupid enough to vote for her. Guess there are still Christians in Florida who follow her blindly.

 

That's not it at all. Seriously, where are you from that you do not understand how voting works? Even if a candidate does some stupid things, if they are still better than the other choice (There are only 2 major parties. Independants have a decent chance but Green Tree and all the other parties are too radical and don't stand a chance.) then you vote for the one you think is the better of the two. If 30% still thought it was her then that's why they voted for her. I could go through a whole slew of candidates that did ultra stupid things and GOT elected or got around half the vote. It's democracy. Like it or not that's how it works.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Oct 31 2006, 10:46 AM)

What do you mean by having an ally in the middle east, the US is already pals with SA and Israel.


Anyway you can't kick the door in and expect democracy to flourish in Iraq. Democracy is only achieved through negotiation and trade, not by forcing a nations arm and pointing a gun in there back.

Iran provides moral and financial aid to Hezbollah but I strongly doubt they support or have supported Al Queda. If you disagree with Iran supporting Hezbollah why was it ok for the US to support (example) the IRA, Osama or other rogue militent groups and claim the moral high ground?

Being allies with Israel is as bad as it is good. Saudi Arabia isn't enough obviously. You can doubt that Iran funds Al Queda all you want but it has been suspected if not proven for quite a while. It is well-known that Iran fights proxy wars through these groups and being an extremely wealthy nation does so very effectively.
Nobody has a gun to Iraq's back. The people there embraced us. They just don't want us to occupy their country any longer. The people attacking are insurgents.

Why was it ok for the U.S. to support the rogue militant groups? It's not. It is a cowardly thing to fight a proxy war because you're afraid of the repurcusions.

QUOTE

Iran developing a nuclear weapon is no concern to us, the weapon would not be used to attack us or anyone else for that matter. The leaders of Iran want what we have, security and unfortunately that means building a nuclear weapon.

ANYONE developing a nuclear weapon is a concern to us no matter where on the globe we live. If it is a nation who openly hates you, that is pretty bad. When it is a nation that is known to provide rogue militant groups with money and weaponry, that is even worse. Keep living in your fantasy land. I would too if I had a choice. I'm sure it's much more enjoyable than the real world.

QUOTE

Not at all, I did not want to turn this topic into a US vs Iran, Iraq etc etc. But thankyou for your reasoning and moralistic view on current affairs.

 

Ok understood and I realize there is a certain level of sarcasm there. I realise I'm not perfect and please don't think that my statements are intended to be holier-than-thou. If they were I would take the same stance as miggidy. (no offense there)

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 1 2006, 01:10 PM)

Right....Shiites run the Iranian government, Al Qaeda's Sunni leadership issued a statement condemning the Iranian Shiites as infidels. The Al Qaeda leadership denounced Saddam as a infidel "quite a while" ago. We are infidels. Please humor me more......

It should not be humorous with all of the sources that elude to it.

QUOTE

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

In regards to the 9/11 commission's report.

Link

I mean I can keep going but sometimes I wonder why people make things up for their own cause. I just don't get it.

[Arvarden]

All these sources said the same about Iraq, yet they are worng and over time have been proven wrong.  The 9/11 commission's report covered up more evidence than they made up.  
For example the 9/11 commission was asked to investigate ties between the CIA and Al Qaeda.  The commission rufused to answer and investigate specfic questions relating to events before 9/11.  

You can harp on about all these sources you have but at the end of the day they mean nothing.  Like the link you provided, it offers an opinion not hard facts.  The article states some of the hijackers passed through Iran, so what?  How many other countries did they pass through?

The 9/11 commission said it would not leave a stone unturned in there quest for truth yet they choose what to and what not to investigate.  

Please keep going....

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 1 2006, 04:08 PM)

I mean I can keep going but sometimes I wonder why people make things up for their own cause. I just don't get it.

What is the point of this sentence? This is why people don't like you and this whole section is you with 3 other people popping in from time to time.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 2 2006, 04:25 AM)

All these sources said the same about Iraq, yet they are worng and over time have been proven wrong. The 9/11 commission's report covered up more evidence than they made up.
For example the 9/11 commission was asked to investigate ties between the CIA and Al Qaeda. The commission rufused to answer and investigate specfic questions relating to events before 9/11.

You can harp on about all these sources you have but at the end of the day they mean nothing. Like the link you provided, it offers an opinion not hard facts. The article states some of the hijackers passed through Iran, so what? How many other countries did they pass through?

The 9/11 commission said it would not leave a stone unturned in there quest for truth yet they choose what to and what not to investigate.

Please keep going....

 

It takes a source to disprove a source wrong unless it is opinion. There was no opinion in that source. Where's your sources? I can lie all day about your post. It means nothing until I provide some evidence to the contrary. So your remarks mean nothing. This is not creative writing class.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 2 2006, 05:51 AM)

What is the point of this sentence? This is why people don't like you and this whole section is you with 3 other people popping in from time to time.

 

Do you think I care if you don't like me or not? I'm not in an internet forum popularity contest. I've been involved in maybe 4 or 5 threads... that's hardly the "whole section". The point was, he didn't actually say anything. He came in and decided to simply contradict me but with no evidence. Basically turning it to a lie fest because I could turn around and do the same thing.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 2 2006, 09:45 AM)

Do you think I care if you don't like me or not? I'm not in an internet forum popularity contest. I've been involved in maybe 4 or 5 threads... that's hardly the "whole section". The point was, he didn't actually say anything. He came in and decided to simply contradict me but with no evidence. Basically turning it to a lie fest because I could turn around and do the same thing.

You established already that you thought he was lying. You end every post derogatory towards whichever person you are debating with. Even if you have good points you turn people off.

And, yes, 4 or 5 threads is this whole section.

[pug_ster]

The reason why I brought up this topic was because I had went to a couple Church meetings a few years back because at that time, 'I was lost.'  Although the people whom I went to Church with are good people at heart, I don't understand why is there's Evangelist Christians like Pat Robertson spewing his garbage yet some Christians are dumb enough to believe him.  The more and more I thought about it, the Evangelist Christian's priority seems to be issues that is important to their faith (themselves) than issues that affect non-Christians alike.

BCfosheezy, your example of self-righteousness, and caring about your ideals rather than ideals of the non-believers, is an example why non-Christians shunned your ideals and give Christianity a bad name.  Our forefathers whom have made the Constitution believe in the separation of Church and State for this very reason.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 2 2006, 09:22 AM)

You established already that you thought he was lying. You end every post derogatory towards whichever person you are debating with. Even if you have good points you turn people off.

I know I established that. You asked me for an explanation so I explained. I don't really need your opinion on how you took my statements. Some were less than complimentary, but were in direct response to the comments beforehand with no immediate putdowns. I feel if proves to be a certain way you can call it that. It's not wrong. If someone is going slow you tell them they are going slow for example. There is nothing wrong with that. If you feel I have earned the title of derogatory then so be it. Your opinion of me doesn't matter to anyone but you.

QUOTE

And, yes, 4 or 5 threads is this whole section.

....yeah

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 2 2006, 11:51 AM)

The reason why I brought up this topic was because I had went to a couple Church meetings a few years back because at that time, 'I was lost.' Although the people whom I went to Church with are good people at heart, I don't understand why is there's Evangelist Christians like Pat Robertson spewing his garbage yet some Christians are dumb enough to believe him. The more and more I thought about it, the Evangelist Christian's priority seems to be issues that is important to their faith (themselves) than issues that affect non-Christians alike.

BCfosheezy, your example of self-righteousness, and caring about your ideals rather than ideals of the non-believers, is an example why non-Christians shunned your ideals and give Christianity a bad name. Our forefathers whom have made the Constitution believe in the separation of Church and State for this very reason.

 

I'm going to have to say that you made an excellent point with that remark. Don't take offense when I say this but I still think you've missed my point. I DO NOT encourage faith to be a part of our government. I am implying that people that try to adhere to non-selfish beliefs and morals would be more fitting to be our political leaders than people that do not have morals. They are more likely to be corrupt. That is all I'm saying with my comments and I do not believe it should be taken any further than that.

[throwingks]

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 2 2006, 01:01 PM)

Man I just spent my entire previous post talking about humanity's selfish nature.
And now you turn around with another rhetorical post.
First off, defending your family isn't covered in the bible. (personally I believe every man has the right to defend his family)
And as you can see from chapter 5 in the book of Matthew,
Jesus really tightened up the "Thou shall not kill" commandment.
My personal take is, enter at your own risk. If I kill a man in self defense it means that I am fully aware that I will have to answer to God for what I've done.
But I'm not going to whine if God was to close the pearly gates on me.

I guess I don't know what you want from me. We agreed on the selfish nature. We agree on accepting our sentence.

QUOTE

Second, your example of self defense is different from what Bush is doing, and what many renown "Christians" are preaching.
I asked you to read Sodom and Gomorra from the book of Genesis and yet you didn't..
Here's the passage I want you to specifically read:

I feel pretty silly saying this, but I actually DID read the passage as soon as I read your post instructing me to. I gathered exactly what you intended me to gather from it as well.

QUOTE

Would you willingly kill innocent women and children in the process of killing someone who might kill you or your children? This is a tougher scenario than the one you proposed is it not?

To answer the question as given in the scenario, NO I would not kill them. Since it is not the same in any respect it does not matter. The scenario is, if a boat is over it's capacity, do you sacrifice a few to save the rest or do you let all parish? So that begs the question. What IF the U.S. had never gone into Iraq? Would their leader still be testing chemical weapons on them? Would he still be living in palaces while his people still lived in a third world country? Would a greater number of people be at risk because of Saddam and his agendas? The answer by our government at the time was an overwhelming yes. I do not mean the Republicans. I mean anyone with access to any of this intelligence at all. It was too late. We had already dismantled the government by the time we realized our intelligence was faulty. We couldn't have left those people to fend for themselves. Even if we leave now, the government will be dismantled by the "freedom fighters" and they will be left with chaos. None of it is right once the deed is done and we get to see the outcomes. We all agree, but this is the way it happened and everyone is at fault, not just the president. Not just the conservatives.

QUOTE

But even this scenario is different from Bush's war.
In the process of taking out what he "alleged" was an imminent threat, he decided that American lives with were more important than the thousands of civilians he was going to kill in the process of ousting Saddam.
There is nothing in the bible or in Christ's teachings that can justify the autrosity that Bush committed. Heck, even Pope John Paul II apposed Bush's war. Yet a large portion of America's Christian community supported what Bush did. Not only that, but many "Christians" like Pat Robertson and Sean Hannity pimped his war campaign.

This is exactly the argument you get when you take preventative action. I know this from law enforcement. Once you prevent, people call your actions unnecessary.... Since nothing ever happened. Since nothing ever happened after 9/11 I can't really back this argument up.... because nothing happened

QUOTE

It's ridiculous and border line evil;
but more importantly, it's ignorant of biblical teachings….

Yes you're right. We invaded a country to mass-murder a lot of people for no apparent reason....

QUOTE

?
In the mind of one consumed with selfishness perhaps.
Violence is a result of selfishness, don't ever forget that!

I won't forget that. So next time I am aware of a girl being raped, I will simply ignore it because stopping it would be selfish. Thanks.

QUOTE

It is much harder to swallow your pride and walk away with your tail between your legs than it is to resort to violence.
Heck, violence happens when you don't have the vocabulary and self discipline to talk things out.
It's much easier beat down someone who you can't agree with….

Fine so let's say your belief in killing murderers isn't an act of vengeance (but it is to most that support it. In fact it's the reason why it was put into law in the first place), but it is an act of fear.
We all know fear's biological purpose is for the benefit of man's self preservation.
If you are looking for a way to protect people, then you would be preaching to criminals right now. That's what you would do if you really wanted to find a solution, by attacking the problem at its core. And not just bandaging the issue with prison and executions.
Criminals are in darkness, as a Christian your duty is to shine Christ's light unto those in Darkness….

Who are these criminals so I can preach to them? What will I say so that they know not to kill since they obviously don't already know that? Oh wait... nobody knows who they are until they commit the cime and everyone already knows they shouldn't kill..... good point.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE

Remember the 6th Commandment!
And remember Matthew chapter 5, verses 38 through 48
Don't let your fears draw you away from your God's Word….

Even Muslims know that Bin Laden is out of line, what Muslims, non-Christians, and atheists (basically anyone ignorant of Christ's teachings) don't know is that George Bush is out of line in terms of Christianity. When you look at the big picture, this is far more damaging in a world where we are trying to shed Light on those who dwell in darkness. Bush is obstructing the Light.

Maybe so. You should realize though, that anyone with the job of a political leader of any country that had the same situation before it, would have made a similar choice and DO make similar choices. This is not just Bush. You cannot honestly say that at the time and given the intelligence he was given that you would not have done the same thing. You can say it.... but not honestly.

QUOTE

Like I said above, my personal take is that you have the right to defend your family.
But this scenario has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Where are the thousands of children that you must kill in order to kill this man who is about to kill your family?

This is the first analogy you have given that was actually slanderous and biased. Do you think that American soldiers have really killed very many innocents? Or is it the "freedom fighters" blowing the hell out of things with homemade bombs? The answer is simple. We're not over there killing innocents. Even when we were bombing from the air and sea it was noted how accurate our ordinance was and how few civillian casualties were taken. Now that you have Al Qaeda cells and "freedom fighters" over there blowing the hell out of things you have civillian deaths but yet you blame it on Bush. You may not agree with him but don't blame him for things erroneously.

QUOTE

No matter how bad things got for Job, he didn't lose faith in God.
He remained dedicated to him.
Remember the passages I gave you, if you're going to kill even in self defense, you're playing with fire.
It's very important to keep this in mind or else you'll find yourself in Bush's situation, killing innocents in order for his own survival (at least that's what he claims).
Or lets go old school, you'll find yourself in the same position the church was during the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, and the conquering of the Americas where killing savages (the church's version of infidels) was justified in their own little heads.

Well ok. We're dealing with people who believe their religion told them to do eliminate us. They cannot be negotiated with. We cannot take action against them according to OUR religion. Where is our out?

QUOTE

Jesus warned that His followers were going to be persecuted because of Him.
He said that His path is a very difficult one.
Unlike every other faith in this world, we are not promised any rewards in this life.
Our reward is in the after life.
What you're struggling with is the same thing the apostle Peter was struggling with, remember when he denied affiliation to Jesus?
It was only after Jesus' resurrection that he and the other apostles had the courage to continue to spread the Word. All but John of the apostles died a horrible death.
My faith is so strong that I wouldn't pull a Peter and deny Jesus with Bin Laden's sword at my throat. Life is only temporary, he'd be sending me away to finally reunite me with my Maker.
There's nothing frightening about that….

With a choice so simple I would too not deny Jesus. I do not know if I would be blessed to see him due to all of the other evil and selfish acts I've committed during my lifetime. In the case we're talking about though, Bush is supposed to protect us. If he knowingly allows us to die he will be charged with our death and he feels that he is doing right. We are debating that fact. You raise good points. I think I have.... but we are not the judge and we may see one day.

QUOTE

I already addressed this above as you already know.
And you already know that your scenario is in compatible with what's going on in politics and religion today.

As was yours.

QUOTE

Perhaps you aren't searching for excuses to justify your actions.
I'm now getting the impression that you just weren't well informed of the scriptures.

Well I have never claimed to know everything, but everything you've put before me I have been well-aware of.

QUOTE

Well I've given you the scriptures, the rest is up to you.
I pray that you can exercise your demons.

Peace,
Migg

Will you please release these demons from me oh righteous one?

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 2 2006, 08:31 PM)

I'm going to have to say that you made an excellent point with that remark. Don't take offense when I say this but I still think you've missed my point. I DO NOT encourage faith to be a part of our government. I am implying that people that try to adhere to non-selfish beliefs and morals would be more fitting to be our political leaders than people that do not have morals. They are more likely to be corrupt. That is all I'm saying with my comments and I do not believe it should be taken any further than that.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Oct 25 2006, 06:58 PM)

Religion does have a place in politics because it brings morality. PERIOD. How is morality not by the people for the people? God is somehow against the people? We're "One nation, Under GOD, with liberty and justice for all".

You do not encourge faith in government yet you say religion has a place in politics.  I see a conflict of interest here.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 3 2006, 09:57 AM)

You do not encourge faith in government yet you say religion has a place in politics. I see a conflict of interest here.

Ok I'll explain it a little more in-depth so you can hopefully understand me because the quoted statement above this does not reflect my intent of the statements you quoted.



The United States was partially formed to allow religious freedom. In this way the government should not dictate religions. (This does not mean that it should limit someone's ability to practice their religion in school, work, or wherever so long as it does not infringe upon other's rights in the process.) That is the seperation of Church and state in the Constitution. It is clear.

That does not include however, that a person of religion should not be a political leader. People with the power to effect many should have MANY in mind when he makes his decisions rather than a few or simply himself or herself. In this I say that a person of morality (and morality is implicit of most religions) is more adequate to be a political leader because if their faith is not corrupt their decisions will not be corrupt.



So in short, I DO encourage faith in politicians(by saying I don't encourage it in government clearly means the laws that govern the land.) but I do not encourage the politician with faith to push his faith on others as that is what the seperation of church and state was designed to prevent.



Hopefully now you understand where I am coming from and can at least see my point of view.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(miggidy @ Nov 7 2006, 12:37 AM)

You're pulling excuses again.
You're saying that it's ok to kill 3 thousand innocent civilians to "potentially" save the lives of hundreds or thousands of Americans.
You're also implying that Saddam was killing people left and right anyways and that by ousting Saddam, you'd be liberating the Iraqi people.

I get it now. Any time I make a point that you can't refute because it makes too much sense you're going to say I'm making excuses. Thereby making your own excuse. Hypocrite. Maybe you didn't pay attention to the part where I was asking who you thought killed the civilians. You claim it's Bush. You're not only wrong but slanderous. Our troops are not over there killing civilians. The insurgents that you're defending are. Nobody is implying that Saddam was killing people left and right. Slander is lying. Lying is a sin so stop speaking holier than thou out of one side of your mouth and lying out of the other. It's irritating. We liberated the iraqi people by removing an oppressive leader and allowing democracy to take place.

QUOTE

As you know, that turned out to be a very naïve view of Iraq, Muslims, and Arabs.
We now found out that Saddam was never the threat Bush and his "intelligence" made him to be. And we also know now that even more people are dying in Iraq WITHOUT Saddam in power.

HA! Don't use the word naive in this argument because you are suggesting that no action is better than action when you're being attacked. THAT is naive. You also, used your slanderous arguments again. It is not "Bush's intelligence". It was supported across the board and bi-partisan by all U.S. politicians that had access to it.

QUOTE

There's NOTHING in the scriptures to support any of this.
And you can't simply sweep it under the rug and say "oh my bad".
No…. Not when there are children's lives at stake. And especially when you were forewarned about it in the scriptures.

There are children's lives at stake no matter which side you're on You're going to have to stop being so naive, slanderous, and hypocritical.

QUOTE

Look at the big picture man.
Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for oil pipelines to go across Iraq and through Afghanistan. It's no secret that our government was whining and dining with Saddam and the Taliban a few years ago.
And it's no coincidence that we went after them after our relationship with them went sour. Our government doesn't give a shit about liberating those people and most importantly you.
We did not go after Saddam because he was an imminent threat. Iran has always been the bigger threat, yet we went after Saddam instead. Bill Clinton was trying to do this when he was in office but he never had a 911 to use to his advantage.

That whole quote is false and slanderous. It doesn't warrant a reply. If you bring it up again I will bring the blatant lies to light. Don't do that again. I thought from someone attempting to speak from the scriptures you'd be better than that.

QUOTE

These people are evil….
And yet you throw your support behind them and you turn around and call yourself Christian?

Who is evil? Since you are determining these things are they going to heaven or hell? Come on you hypocrite. Stop the charade.

QUOTE

Where in the scriptures does it say that you can kill thousands of people for ANY reason?

Slander again, The U.S. hasn't killed the number of people you're claiming. Where does the bible say you can lie for your own argument?

QUOTE

When did I say that you shouldn't prevent a rape from taking place?

Read the quoted statement and you'll understand. Nobody is stupid enough to miss that point.

QUOTE

Your duty as a Christian is to spread the Word.
The apostles said that you are to lead by example.
You spread the Word through works.
If people are going around killing people then it's because we are not fulfilling our duty as Christians.
We're only declining instead of growing.
Thus violence is spreading.
Yet you think the solution is to counter this violence with violence of your own. Read the scriptures and do what Christ asks of you and not what the flesh asks you to do….

It is to spread the word, not manipulate it for your argument. Lead by example then and don't lie and be slanderous.

QUOTE

That is the whole point to what I'm saying here!
You're just going "but…. Ummm but…. But…."
Enough!
You cannot serve two masters!
Jesus said it very clearly….
If you want to serve politics then you're turning your back on God.
As Christian you know that God comes first, and not politics.

You're the one saying that when I make good points. You are using the bible to serve your political agenda. You are clearly torn between two masters. Hypocrite.

QUOTE

Tell me, what are you going to tell God after killing so many innocent children? Will you tell him that it's not your fault, that you were fulfilling your role as a representative for mankind?
God's going to tell you that you are supposed to be his representative. You put man's wishes ahead of his.
How will you argue against God?

I wouldn't argue with God. I have nothing to argue about. I accept all that i have done and am willing to take responsibility for it. How are you going to argue your slanderous arguments and misguiding people with your comments?

QUOTE

Oh no no no…. You cannot pull a Pontius Pilate and attempt to wash off the blood of the innocent in your hands.
You know damn well that you are going to kill innocent children with your bombardment. You understand that very well.
Picture yourself trying to make this point to God, do you actually think he will fall for it?

No he will understand it. You are going to kill innocent children if you take no action as well. You fail to accept facts because they don't support your slanderous argument.

QUOTE

No man, we're dealing with people who think their religion, their people, and their land is under attack.
Remember that we bluffed at Bin Laden's demands for peace because "we don't negotiate with terrorists".
They CAN be negotiated with, it's just that they're asking for something in return that we'll never give up. It's the reason why we're there in the first place. They want us to pull out of their land, they want us to stop raping it.

You have just crossed the line with your slander. We are dealing with people who think their religion is to cleanse the world of non-believers of their religion. Land is not their concern. They cannot be negotiated with. You know this. Everyone knows this. You are not actually stupid enough to believe these comments.

QUOTE

Remember that we helped the Mujhadeen fight the Soviets.
Remember that the same old tyrant Saddam was a buddy of ours until he found out that we were also helping his enemy.
We made enemies out of friends. Crazy friends, but we didn't care.
And now our government's irresponsible actions cost the lives of thousands of our citizens.

That was Bin Laden. Not saddam. No matter what, you cannot blame our government for Bin Laden killing innocents in the wtc. You are slanderous beyond belief. You have lied to blatantly so far that anyone reading this with any sense knows that you cannot support your holier than thou argument anymore. Hypocrite.

QUOTE

The apostle Paul persecuted Christians.
Yet he made it.
We aren't judged by our mistakes, no one is perfect.
Remember that the ticket to the after life is accepting that you are a sinner and that only the blood of Christ can wash away your sins.
Anyone can make it as long as they accept the fact that Jesus died for them.

Bush like any politician is supposed to serve and protect his citizens.
Perhaps he did what a politician is supposed to, but he didn't do what a Christian is supposed to.

You have judged wrongly. Neither God nor Jesus ever said that you cannot defend your family. It would be different if we went over there and wiped out everyone in the country. Instead we have prevented our homeland from being attacked and also gave a country a democratic state. Yet you preach against it. I'm not sure why you want us to keep being attacked and take no action. I'm not sure why you don't want the Iraqi people to have a better country. At any rate, we're on the road to that. I think you will be suprised by God's judgement.

QUOTE

We all have our demons.
I'm too busy with mine.
Only you can exercise your own.

Well you spoke with so much authority I thought sure you could help me out.... too bad you're too busy with yourself to help me

QUOTE

Look bro, I've said what I needed to say.
I just found out someone very close to me died, someone who is like a little brother to me. So I won't have that much time to carry this convo any further.
We're just going back and forth here.
But I hope that you can meditate on this conversation.
I'd like to know that I didn't spend so much time for nothing.
Politicians serve money.... They are driven by money.
Be very careful....

I'm sorry for your loss. In the end, you have proven nothing to me and your time indeed was a waste. I have thought it over heavily and talked to several people about it. Nobody thinks it's smarter to let your own people die than to protect them. Sorry man, I think you're misguided.