Should We Be Anti-War or Pro-Peace?

It is something that has become more important to me in a "close to home" sort of way. McCain is on the record as saying he doesn't care if we are in Iraq for 10, 20, or 100 years. That makes my 3-year-old son potential draft-bait as well as every child alive now and even those not yet born.

The most effective way--perhaps the only way--to turn the situation around is to focus on what we want and TRUST the Universe to reciprocate our energy.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Well, my two year old son is in the same boat as your kid and I feel the same way. Something else we can do is vote and encourage others to vote as well. John McCain wasn't even born in the United States so as far as I'm concerned he should be out anyway..lol. I'm not a fan. Lord, help us if he gets in the white house.

Angel
RobinetteDesign.com
http://robinettedesign.blogspot.com

You do not even know what Peace is duhb nor what will cause it. We are still in Guantanamo Bay. In fact when we won that Spanish American war Cuba gave us Guantanamo for a hundred years for helping them. Do you see the comparison now?

The earths energy today was beautiful here in Colorado dhub. We had lightning and thunder and very strong looking clouds. I should of took a picture.

I did do one thing. I thanked God for creating it.

Your post here is a very spoiled child mentality. And very typically liberally democrat. If you can't win you want to take your balls and go home. A good comparison is your great do nothing speaker of the house Pelosi and her crew pushing the radio fairness act. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

You can raise your child to be a coward if you like. But you need to leave my kids out of it. Because they don't need to be drafted you breather of good air. They will join of their own volition before they ever have to get drafted. They are being taught to love this nation. Not hate it.

This freedom you enjoy and believe, is there because of the powers of the universe. Is actually there because of MEN who have gone where many MEN have gone before and have spilled blood whether theirs or their own.

Your welcome.

Instead of posting here and adding to his content. I posted a byte entitled "As many of you know" in lieu of a comment.

Please help support America's Paralyzed Veterans

So, peace is out of our realm?

Oh...and I wasn't "baiting" you into anything. I was just wondering 1) whether you were ever going to pursue your battle about the "illegal" war (I would think that you'd be against allowing a crime as blatant as that to go unpunished, especially considering your plethora of evidence), and 2) how you can maintain a "pro-peace" stance while there are other worldly nations/organizations that are not interested in peace.

I already know the answer to both - and I think you do too. But for the sake of appearances, it would be better for you to just dismiss both altogether.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

As long as humans have free will then, yes, peace is out of our realm. Otherwise, it would have happened already.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

So, if you admit that peace is out of our realm, then don't you think it's a bit futile to be "pro-peace"? Or perhaps I should ask you what your definition of "peace" is.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I meant something more along the lines of what we can directly control for everyone.

Thoughts are things. We as humans have the ability to influence events and physical things with our thoughts. (The movie What the Bleep Do We Know? best illustrates this.)

We don't have the ability to force others to believe in anything, even something as mutually beneficial as peace, since we are all born with free will. The Universe is neutral and will give us back what we put out through the Law of Attraction. If we are pro-war or anti-war, we get war. If we are pro-peace, we get peace.

Therefore, the key to getting what we want is to ask specifically want. If you want those persons of Middle Eastern extraction to stop wanting to kill us for our freedoms or whatever, you need to keep your focus on what you want (peace between all nations) and not what you don't want (rowdy Arabs who need to be kept in check through perpetual war to kill them all).

The only way we are going to find a peace solution in the Middle East and everywhere else is for each of us as individuals to make a personal decision to be peaceful. Once enough of us make that decision, the energy will be reciprocated until the very idea that we need to kill other human beings to prove our egos right is a silly and antiquated notion.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Oh, OK...now I see. That makes sense. All we have to do is think peace and be peaceful to ourselves and everyone else will eventually become peaceful too.

Or they'll just kill us. You can't get much more peaceful than being dead.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

You may respond facetiously, but you are ignoring simple Universal principles. You can also deny that gravity exists, but jumping off a tall building will kill you just the same.

The very fact that you are being passionately antagonistic toward certain persons in the Middle East actually empowers them to do more of the same. If that is what you really want, then you would do well to continue doing what you've been doing.

However, if you want to see an end to the war in Iraq and elsewhere, peace and prosperity return to the United States, and our troops return safely home, then it is YOU who must make the decision to put your energy there.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

... but they then slip too far into assault-overdrive to remember their original goal.

There ought to be a tot-board, Americans Killed on one side, Nazi/Radical/Terrorists on the other. And when the other side is as big or bigger than the Americans Killed side, time to pull out.

But that would mean going without oily silver-pocket-polish for another few decades, and our legislature's too self-centered for that!

P.S. Maybe Kucinich *is* a "nut-job" for wanting to punish the royal criminals; but a Buddhist precept preaches the unity of the environment (surroundings) and the people ... the people who have made the surroundings bad should be exiled with the badness ... and the toilet flushes ...

Plus, his wife is hot!

Uncle MythMan---His Mission? http://www.xomba.com/the_new_mythman_plan ----------P.S. Heavenly HotGirl33705 knows that YOU CAN'T MAKE MONEY HERE! but you can let people grant you great wealth! Search around to find out how! ---Write-in Elizabeth Kucinich!

Wouldn't it be great if punishing George Bush Inc. was just a matter of throwing the lot of them in the sh*thole to consort with maggots forevermore? We could get rid of all the accumulated toxins of eight years in one big dumpo and start over as virgins.

Would that we had a lot more nutjobs like Dennis to keep things real in the Beltway.

SK Coming to the earlier discussion on peace and further elaborating on it,I feel peace is now a term which is used more out of fashion.More than wars,terrrosism is now the biggest threat to peace.I feel if there is no mass movement for peace against terrrism in the times to come, our world will continue to be strife-torn.The politicians will contine to play their games for peace.The civil society has now to play a more pro-active role to promote peace by sensitising everyone against terrorism.May be we need another Gandhi-like figure to fight terrorism For my posts visit www.xomba.com/user/sanjay

He was even against taking military action against Hitler. So there's a difference between those who are against specific wars and those who are against war in general. And if you call yourself "pro-peace" it may mean either one of the above, depending on who you talk to.

SK You are right,but I was more talking about terrorism.Terrorism is a bigger than war in foreign affairs.Today we need a Gandhi-like figure to create awareness on the need to tackle terrorism,and make the political parties take a common stand on terrorism.Terrorism is a thereat to existence,and has more significance than the lip-talk we hear on anti-poverty measures more particularly n developing countries.For my posts visit www.xomba.com/user/sanjay

Sanjay, to my mind, terrorism is a type of war, except it's waged by frustrated individuals or interest groups who feel unempowered and believe that the only way they'll get attention and scare people into doing what they want is through overt terrorist acts. And in Bin Laden's case, that's exactly what's happened: the U.S. has steadily gone downhill, economically, politically and ethically, since 9/11, which has pleased him no end, I'm sure.

SK Terrrism is a small war,but has more lethal power of destruction than a conventional war.See what has happened on the eve of Beijing Olympics.You your self say about the case of US.I feel terrorism remains the biggest thereat to mankind in 2ist century.It is very sad that the world has yet to take a united stand on this issue.I think more such terrorist acts will wake us from our slumber. For my posts visit www.xomba.com/user/sanjay

I agree, terrorism is a big threat, but it was also a big threat in the 20th century, e.g., the 1972 Munich Olympics massacres. It's not a new thing, and Al Qaeda certainly didn't invent it. The problem with taking a stand against it is that security measures necessarily take basic freedoms away from citizens, and you have to strike a balance between safety and liberty. Life is risky by definition, and terrorist acts are unpredictable. No matter how many countries sign up to fight terrorism, it's going to happen anyway, especially when terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives to their cause. How do you fight suicide bombers?

I would eliminate suicide bombers as a threat by taking away their reasons for committing the act in the first place. If you address the underlying causes, you have your safety.

The problem with our government's actions in the Middle East is that it doesn't address the root of the problem and, instead, focuses on what it perceives to be the problem without bothering to study the situation objectively. If Bush says that Muslims are a bloodthirsty lot who hate us for our freedoms, those who don't bother to get the whole story are apt to believe him and allow him to get away with the worst atrocities.

That is part of the fear factor. The government realizes that a sane and grounded population is less likely to believe their lies, so they invent Bogeymen as a tool to keep us in a state of fear. A person in a perpetual state of fear, as psychologists agree, is more prone to malleability and gullibility.

Look at every Department of Fatherland Security directive post-9/11. Fear, fear, fear. I don't even bother reading a newspaper anymore. Fear, fear, fear. There's really no point to worrying about what might be and what might not be IMO.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

But how do you get rid of the real terrorists, i.e., the fascist governments, including our own, that breed individual terrorists, and then replace them with reasonable, peace-loving governments? That's a huge order, and the older I get, the more cynical I feel about it, idealistic liberal though I may be. President Obama may be able to ameliorate some of the bad stuff, but it's a lot bigger than him and it's been going on for so long and is so rampant, I think he'll be swallowed up by the enormity of it.

For example, the state of Israel has been around about as long as I have, and since my childhood, there's been virtually nothing but violence and strife between the Palestinians and Israel, with terrorists blowing themselves up regularly and being honored for it by friends and family. Yes, the Holocaust was a horror, but does that mean Jews then had the right to march into land mentioned in the Bible as their homeland, displace other people who'd been there forever, and just take over? Hey, I was madly in love with Paul Newman in "Exodus"--even read Uris's book--and for a while, I believed in Israel, but the reality is that it's not working after sixty years of trying and an awful lot of bloodshed. How much longer are they going to dig in their heels there?

No doubt I'll have some religious fundamentalists cum Israel-Firsters foaming at the mouth over this, but I believe it's time to cut Israel loose. Given the long, long historical animosity between the Houses of Ishmael and Isaac, it is no longer in our best interest (if it ever was) to subsidize Israel's shoot-first public policy against the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians.

The challenge for our country to make something like this happen, however, is daunting. AIPAC practically owns our Congress, so any politician who doesn't toe the Israel-First party line will find himself running against AIPAC next election cycle. The Democrats were given control of Congress to get us out of Iraq, but Israel paid for junkets for nearly every one of our representatives soon thereafter and Nancy Pelosi and the rest rolled over for Bush on the war budget.

The Christian Right and all of the churches in this country have been brainwashed to believe that we should nuke Iran to "defend" Israel so we can accelerate the Second Coming; it is man's hubris that allows him to believe that he can play God with the lives of innocent people to his own ends.

Lastly, let's not forget the military/industrial complex. The United States in one of the top weapons exporters in the world and Israel is one of the top destinations for our new toys. (I'll overlook for a moment that Israel has been given untold billions in US foreign aid and they use that aid to buy weapons from us, in effect we are giving them the weapons for free.)

For the record, I will also say that I love Jewish people, the culture, their resilience in the face of adversity, so I am not against them. In fact, there are many Jewish people in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world who don't approve of what Israel is doing.

Once we've removed Israel from the list of people who set our foreign policy, then we will stop fighting proxy wars for them in the Middle East.

That's the first step.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Put the 'educe' back into the nation's idea of "education."

See, there's 'learning how' and there's 'learning why.' Learning 'how,' you learn to read the instructions; you might think that also teaches you how to ~write~ the instructions, and it does ... just not the *right* instructions.

Learning 'why'--although it might exclude you from the actual "performance" of 'how' (if you learn it before you need to)--is how you learn to write the instructions *right*!

... signed, Uncle MythMan---Big Fan of Flat Belly Diet & stars like Vanessa Montagne & Lena Li--Xombie Plan

With the Rapture Right and the Old Testament-thumping Zionists and the U.S. government all tucked in nice and cozy under the Israel blanket, it's gotten downright stuffy. I have no enmity towards Jews either. I spent some time on a kibbutz back in the 70s and traveled around Israel and the Middle East. That was probably the first time I started questioning the wisdom of Israel as a Jewish state, because I came into contact with Israeli nationalists who seemed like total fanatics.

One of my Jewish friends has long been a critic of Israel and detests Zionism. Lots of Jews are uncomfortable with the existence of Israel. I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau, two of the creepiest places on the planet. There's no question in my mind that what happened in the concentration camps should never have taken place. But I have a problem with creating a Jewish state by displacing and ghettoizing scores of Palestinians who did nothing except to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That is one of those inconveniences that the Republicans would have us forget. The CIA trained Osama bin Laden and the Bush family even has business ties to the bin Laden family. Reagan sold Saddam Hussein the means to wage biological and chemical warfare, even after Halabja. Bush Sr. gave Saddam Hussein the go-ahead to invade Kuwait, saying that the U.S. had no interest in Iraq-Kuwait affairs. The Bush family still retains many business interests with the Saudi royal family, despite the fact that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers held Saudi citizenship and/or passports.

For all the evil that Republicans have assigned Muslims in the Middle East, the most egregious "monsters" were products of Republican Administrations.

I can also think of one more example. Eisenhower's Administration, notably the CIA, aided in the removal of the popular Iranian PM Mossadegh in 1952, which allowed the pro-American Shah to consolidate his power. The Shah's brutal regime and oppression of his own people led directly to his fleeing Iran in 1979 and the conversion of Iran from a largely secular nation to a fundamentalist state under the Ayatollah Khomeni.

The United States has no business nation-building or regime-changing or telling other countries how to handle their business. This policy has seriously backfired in the Middle East.

The so-called War on Terror is a thinly-veiled mask of genocide because you can't maintain a cycle of bombing civilians, which turn into your enemies, who attack your soldiers, which necessitates more bombing, which turns even more people into your enemies, and so on without having to wipe out every single last Muslim. There are many rabid nationalists in the United States and Israel for whom this is okay, but that desire betrays every single last principle on which this country was founded.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

The United States have a moral and humanitarian mission to fight wherever necessary and bring peace especially because it is the only power in the world that has the means to do it. Had Saddam been left alone, we would probably not have a nuclear Iraq, but most certainly a chemical and biological capable Iraq. And Saddam would have not kept his arsenal in storage.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that we have any moral or humanitarian mission to fight. The problem with the Republican view on this fact is that it ignores history. Read this article I wrote about the situation in the Middle East from 1952 to present and our country's role in fomenting the unrest amongst the Arab world.

http://www.xomba.com/the_republican_party_and_the_politics_of_genocide

The idea that our country (meaning the politicians who used to represent us) can pick and choose which "humanitarian" missions to fulfill based on partisan, arbitrary criteria is sheer hypocrisy. The United States hasn't intervened in Sub-Saharan Africa since Somalia and that was about oil. What about Darfur? What about Rwanda? For that matter, what about Tibet?

We attacked Iraq on the flimsiest of excuses--Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that presented a clear and present danger to the United States and that he was training the Al Qaeda fighters that caused 9/11. We've been there over five years now--no WMD and no Al Qaeda. Bush changed his tune and then claimed that we invaded Iraq to render aid to Iraqis who lived under a dictator. Except...our country has killed more people since 1990 than he has for the whole time he was in power. Except...international humanitarian law stipulates that the attacking power has an obligation--a primary obligation--to restore the basic necessities of human life in the occupied country. Over five years out, many Iraqis are still without clean drinking water and electricity. Oh, did I mention that attacking the civilian infrastructure is against international law?

Our government only intervenes when there is a corporate economic advantage for doing so. The only reason we haven't yet left Iraq is because Bush has been so far unable to rewrite Iraq's Petroleum Law to allow his crony oil corporations first fruits of the Iraqi oil fields. If we are to believe what Bush and Company have said about the Surge, bringing an additional 30,000 troops into metropolitan areas of a country of 14 million people seriously reduced the violence and stabilized the country. If it was successful, as the Republicans claim, then why haven't we left?

The rest of your comment is speculation at best because no one should accept what the government says about anything at face value.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I am amazed of how much hatred you have in your heart for the Bush Administration. So much so, that you forget that the Bush Administration is not the U.S.of A. We had an idiot democrat 8 years in power who has been fostering and ignoring the power and the danger of the islamo fascism that was slowly but surely growing and waiting for opportunities to strike us here, at home. we got the Twin Towers attacked and Clinton did nothing. We had the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed and Clinton did nothing. We had the Cole attack and Clinton did nothing. We had the Somalia fiasco and Clinton did nothing. Now you want to blame the criminal negligence of an incompetent Administration on the current one, which has done an excellent job in slowing down and controlling the spread of international terrorism. Perhaps we should have stayed home rather than going into Iraq, and then count the innocent civilians killed on our streets, malls, schools, stadiums, movie theaters, etc.

Amazingly, you have nothing to say about the tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed in suicide bombiongs in Iraq. Unless, of course, you suggest that we are responsible for the bombings. Perhaps if you put your political bias aside and look at things more objectively you might get a clearer picture of what is going on in the world today.

The fact that you take any criticism of the way Bush and the Republicans have prosecuted the phony war in the Middle East at the behest of Israel and Big Oil as "hatred in my heart" and "lack of objectivity" is funny.

You are looking at the symptoms and ignoring the cause of our problems over in Iraq. Let's see. If I break into your house, brutalize your wife, torch your car, and shoot your dog, but you fight back and hit me with a shovel and break my arm, do I get to sue you for physical harm and call you a terrorist because you fought back? If I left you alone in the first place, none of it would have happened, regardless if you were a world-class a-hole to your family and neighbors.

Unless Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the United States or had attacked the United States directly, then we had no business over there under international law. Bush and his whole cabinet said Iraq was teeming with WMDs. There were none. Bush said Iraq was building nukes and would attack the free world. There were no nukes. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was a world class a-hole. He was, but no part of international law allows for regime change.

The mainstream media for the past five plus years has been feeding us allegations and innuendo about what Iraq supposedly had without anything to back it up. Bush has no credibility with me. But, since no one else that is registered Republican (like me) seems to have an ounce of sympathy for the innocent Iraqis who were bombed and raped and pillaged and tortured, then it appears to be left for me to give them a voice.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Oh, please! There were no WMD in Iraq, period. End of story. Saddam was a bad guy, but only a tin pot dictator, a waste of our time and resources. George Jr. basically wanted to impress his daddy, who had decided not to continue the previous hostilities. He and his cohorts also wanted access to all that lovely oil. The illegal preemptive Iraq invasion and occupation should never have happened and should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Don't you care about all those soldiers and civilians who've been maimed and killed basically to satisfy Bush's psychological and political needs?

People take peoples life for saying they are against a war. Or to begin a war. It is not humorous that the one doing that awful deed is usually the one pushing a peace policy.

So, when the so-called leader of the free world says this, what are we to think?

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

"..the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

All of these things were said by George W. Bush after the United States invaded Iraq. If Bush was really about bringing peace to the Middle East, did he really mean he was talking about bringing more war to the Middle East?

Or how about what Condoleeza Rice said about the Iraq War?

"You cannot be on one hand dedicated to peace and on the other dedicated to violence. Those two things are irreconcilable."

Considering Bush decided to go take out Saddam Hussein in 2002, using the words "We're going to take him out," what does that tell you about the words of George Bush compared to his actions?

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I won't belabor the point, but fighting and killing people to plunder their natural resources is both against international law and a lousy way to bring peace to the world.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

The only natural resource we have brought home from Iraq is the sand in the boots or clothing of our military. Show me a single drop of oil or any other natural resource we got from there and perhaps I may agree with you. But, be honest.

"Show me a single drop of oil or any other natural resource we got from there and perhaps I may agree with you. But, be honest."

If we haven't gotten a drop of oil from Iraq, it sure hasn't been for a lack of effort. Don't you remember the idea going around in government circles before the invasion that the Iraq war would "pay for itself" because of the huge oil resources in Iraq?

In fact, the administration thought that Iraqi oil would be flowing to the U.S. long before now, except that the insurgents know how important that oil is so they've done everything the can to sabotage the oil infrastructure and scare off companies from putting their employees there.

By the way, the bipartisan Government Accountability Office announced the other day that Iraq may have a $79 BILLION surplus this year, partly due to oil revenue.

You can bet the U.S. will be asking for some of that, and rightly so... and it'll get more than a "single drip of oil," wouldn't you think?

In one breath you say that the Iraqi insurgents have been sabotaging the oil production and in the next, that Iraq may have $79 B surplus this year. If that is so, then let the sabotage continue and increase production.

On the other hand, 101 war tactic calls for the destruction of infrastructure as a first strike to weaken the enemy's ability to offer significant resistance. Only in the mind of a elementary school grader can the rebuilding of the infrastructure of a country be done in a couple of years. Europe needed about a couple of dozen years to get back on its feet after WW 2, and Japan even more. Vietnam is still in the stone age.

"In one breath you say that the Iraqi insurgents have been sabotaging the oil production and in the next, that Iraq may have $79 B surplus this year."

If you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see it wasn't one breath at all. I said that the U.S. expected that they would be receiving old and/or money from Iraq before now, 5 years into the war. Yes, the Iraqis have finally made progress... they do have the world's only superpower behind them, after all.

"Only in the mind of a elementary school grader can the rebuilding of the infrastructure of a country be done in a couple of years. Europe needed about a couple of dozen years to get back on its feet after WW 2, and Japan even more. Vietnam is still in the stone age."

Thanks for the compliment, Imo, but I'm actually older than you! Much of Europe was totally reduced to rubble after WWII, and so was Japan. Iraq was in bad repair but nowhere near the shape that Europe was in.

By the way, our own Administration disagrees with your assessment that it would take many years to get Iraq on its feet: pre-war assessments claimed that U.S. troop levels could be reduced to levels of 30,000 or so by 2004 or 2005.

But I don't expect a young person like yourself to remember that!

Vietnam is in the stone age because its government has chosen to proceed at that pace. It could be much more developed if it wanted to be.

If you are truly interested in what Bush is up to, then I suggest you start here:
Bush's Ace in the Hole in Iraq?

What Bush is doing in Iraq now with stealing the oil from Iraq is unheard of in international law. Bush invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses and now he is contravening established international law by parceling out Iraq's natural resources.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Wrong premise: Bush did not invade any sovereign country, the US Armed Forces did. And it was not a simple invasion, it was the continuation of a war that was started in 1991 in defense of a sovereign nation that was brutally invaded by Saddam forces. What we did was finish the job we started in 1991, since Clinton didn't have the balls to do it.

Stealing oil from Iraq? LOL. What are you reading?

Therefore, HE invaded Iraq just as if he carried a pack and rifle and went there himself. Don't try and use semantics to get around Bush's complicity.

I am done arguing this with you. You are clearly one of those Reich-Wingers who believe that war is good, murder is better, and the sooner we can get the Rapture here, the better for those of you in God's Club. Congratulations on destroying whatever credibility you had with regards to your "peaceful" religion.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Your disrespect for a member with a contrary point of view speaks more about your credibility than mine. But it is not a surprise; hidden behind an alias, you attack the messenger when you have no argument to attack the message. I know a name for such, but will refrain from saying it.

What is fairly comical about your opinion is that it is predictable and standard for those who only research (if that) half of the argument--the half that fits neatly into your personal biases. You are not willing to entertain even a fleeting thought that Bush was wrong and that murder is not okay, even while your avatar shows that you claim to believe in a doctrine of "loving your neighbor" and "thou shall not kill".

My problem with you members of God's Club (no problem with Christianity) is that you believe your get-out-of-jail-free card gives you an excuse not to make this world better while you are still living in it. So, you obediently toe the Republican Party line and nod your head when your Pastor George tells you to nod your head. That is not using your God-given gifts of discernment and critical thinking. Unless, of course, you actually believe George Bush when he claimed that God told him to invade Iraq.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Keep showing your colors :)

Now, you are not only attacking me, you are attacking my faith. What next? My family? Typical tools of losers.

What is your contribution to this thread? To blame the whole situation in the Middle East on Bill Clinton? That's all you've done. Your partisan bias toward the Republican Party and the Christian Right in particular is transparent. You have failed to address ANY of the underlying causes to the situation there and gleefully cheer on murders and thieves.

I've been called worse by better.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

I strongly disagree, but I respect and defend your right to express it. How about you?

Just wait and see if, and hopefully not, when we get that Arabic named guy in the White House. BTW, how's your Arabic?

I don't have a problem with you expressing an opinion that adds to the article that I have written. I am still waiting for that contribution.

What does your Bible say about hating other people? Did Jesus ever say, "I think we might become friends, but, verily I say unto you, you look different than me and your name is funny, so I hate you and wish you were dead"? No. Well, not the Bible that I know anyway. Everything you've written in this thread about the Middle East can be summed up in that made up verse.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Incidentally, the Bible was not written neither by Republicans nor Democrat. Besides, you have a very distorted view of what the Bible teaches when it talks about hatred and war. Show me where the Bible says anything about "thou shall not make war or go to war". Murder is indeed condemned in the Bible, but murder is the premeditated and intentional taking of an innocent life. Something that is totally different in a situation of war. I am totally puzzled by your complete indifference regarding the intentional taking of innocent lives at the rate of over 4,000 a day in the abortion mills, here at home.

The Bible teaches rightly about hating people, that is equivalent to murder, but where you get the idea that there is any hate against anyone in the Middle East or Iraq? How about your hatred against anyone who has a different opinion than your own, clearly displayed in your comments?