Baptist Backs War on Sadam

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bugman, Sep 20, 2002.

  1. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    US Baptist group backs ousting Saddam by force

    Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
    Friday September 20, 2002
    The Guardian

    After months of critical comment from church leaders across the world and in the US, the Bush administration has at last won the support of one religious group for its Iraq policy.
    The 16 million-strong Southern Baptist Convention, the fundamentalist Bible Christians of the southern states, has backed the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by force.

    Richard Land, president of the convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, said: "It would be a strategic and sizable blow to terrorism to remove [Saddam's] Hitleresque administration from power. It would suggest to Iranians, Saudis and Syrians that they too could have such a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

    He added: "The US should not sit idly by waiting for her allies in Europe to indicate their support ... no offence intended but we have had to extricate the Europeans from conflagrations of their own making twice in the last century."

    However, the Rev David Coffey, general secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, told the Baptist Times: "A pre-emptive strike against the sovereign territory of another country is an appallingly dangerous course of action to take."

    Bryan
     
  2. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    And who thinks Land speaks for the entire convention? Pretty presumptuous.

    [ September 20, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  3. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    A democratic government is the best form of government one can have, even given its many weaknesses and flaws.
    But, to infringe on another country's sovereignty
    and remove its ruler to replace it with one which is friendlier to the invading country is wrong, very wrong.
    If those people really want a democratic form of government then they ought to shed their own blood for it with no help from the US or any country, for that matter.
    That way, the freedom they acquire is truly theirs, free from any strings attached to it, with a leader they truly installed and who is no puppet to any world power.
    That being said, I have a son whom I love dearly in the US Air Force, and if Mr. Bush gets his way and my son gets sent along with other American boys, then I will fiercely support that war, regardless of how I feel towards it.
     
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Addendum (with apologies):

    How much will it cost the American taxpayers for one bomb dropped in Iraq ? Cost of salaries and combat pays and flight pays for the soldiers, pilots and sailors who will be utilized ? What about overhead and administrative expenses, operational expenses for jet fuel, ship fuel, etc., etc. ?

    I think the costs could be pretty less expensive if the US just rebuilds its old "cold war" capabilities and maintain action agents in the field, gather intelligence, do "wet operations" when necessary, and most of all, strengthen internal defense and intelligence capabilities.

    After all, it is surfacing that 09/11 became possible because our intelligence muscles have almost atrophied.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    To go after Saddam is not infringing upon one's sovereignty.

    Am I the only one who remembers that the Gulf War ended only after Saddam Hussein agreed to certain stipulations (ie, agree not to develope weapons of massed destruction, allow the free movement of UN inspectors, etc)?

    For twelve years, we have stood by and watched Saddam Hussein disregard one UN warning after another. We have had twelve years of telling Saddam Hussein "your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more", and he consinuously goes and sins again.

    We have 12 years worth of smoking gun. How much longer are we going to wait to do something? After the smoking gun has been fired?
     
  6. Jamal5000

    Jamal5000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christians supporting war causes me to fidget because it reminds me too much of Thc Church's violent past.

    Let's please pray that we leave Saddam alone and that he wises up in whatever way he needs in order to turn to Christ.
     
  7. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, John, you're not. In any surrender agreement, a certain amount of sovereignty is waived.

    Sodom (yes, I know) signed an agreement promising that he would obey certain rules.

    He hasn't and must be held accountable.

    The U.N. has a legal right to enforce the agreement and the U.S. has a legal right and a moral obligation to see that our people and our interests are not threatened.

    I agree. Sodom knew what the condiditions of peace were and thumbed his nose at them. The ball was placed squarely in his court and he alone bears resonsibility for this mess and the coming destruction of his country.

    Not much longer. Probably late October or early November.

    Let's roll.

    Mike
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, a cold war cannot exist in the political climate of Saddam Hussein's regime the way it worked with the Soviet Union. Saddam fully intends to destroy Israel and as soon as he has the weapons of mass destruction and the capability of delivery you can expect a major middle eastern war to break out. This situation is different from anything we have had before because of the "mental state" of the leader along with the weapons of mass destruction which used to be under control of reasonable governments who did not wish to be destroyed by starting a first strike when the nations were on equal terms.

    Saddam has and will continue to use his weapons against innocent people and he supports terrorism. If we are going to stop a future disaster, we must do it now before he obtains the capability to utilize the weapons beyond our control.

    Israel has nuclear weapons, but has shown restraint and will not use them unless their very homeland is threatened with emminent destruction. Saddam on the other hand will use them as a first strike in order to be the "big dog" on the Arab block.

    We have the military capability to prevent this now and if we do not use it we 9/11 will be a small even compared to the future.

    Israel always struck its enemies even in the old testament in order to maintain its military advantage. God helped Israel claim the promised land by offensive battles.

    As far as weapons are concerned, even Peter, who followed Jesus everywhere cut a soldiers ear off with a sword--the equivalent during the time period of us carrying a pistol strapped to our belt today.

    We are to love our enemies, but we are also to provide justice to those who are under the hand of Saddam -- who will gas them or kill them in anyway possible. Don't think for one minute that most of the population of Iraq would like to see that thug taken out of power and replaced with a Democratic government.

    As far as other Islam countries go---we have had the first strike delivered to us. Why not clean out the war-mongers who kill the innocent? If you think Islam is peaceful, then you have not read the Koran. It is the fastest growing religion in America today and we need to remember what happened to Israel and Judah when they allowed false religions to infiltrate their land.
     
  9. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Americans have short memories, or convenient ones. When Batista was a problem in Cuba, a young Fidel Castro was financed, armed and sent off to battle Batista to free Cuba..When Castro said no to the USA, he became the enemy, and a poor people have suffered ever since.
    When Iran was a threat to Americans, a young leader in Iraq was there to do battle against Iral and keep them in check. The US of A came to his aid with weapons, technology and financial aid.....then he became the enemy.
    When Russia took on Afghanistan, the USA backed the lords of Afghanistan...these same lords which raised the Taliban.....is history mandated to repeat itself in every situation/
    In history, only one country deployed an atomic bomb,,yea, two of them.

    On another vein...so, you take out Saddam Hussein......Who will then keep the rest of the Arab and Muslim countries in check? Beware the sleeping enemy lurking in the folds.

    Sincerely, in Him,

    Jim

    PS..Not to be taken as a USA bash. I am NOT anti-American, and would say the same about my own countires of the UK and Canada

    [ September 22, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]
     
  10. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    War and the choice of war must ALWAYS come down to one thing...

    Will we spare more lives by fighting now, than letting the current situation continue and fester until a greater number must die.

    If our leaders think more innocent lives can be saved by attacking the enemy now, then that is the right thing to do. While the Bosnian war was not directly with our people, we had to back it since many innocent people were being killed and more would die if we weren't willing to give up a few lives for many more that would be saved.

    History is reapeating itself with Saddam, Hitler made the same lies to the Leage of Nations and they fell for his guile. He promised not to attack, not to use his war machine that he had been building up for years. We knew he attacked those near and around him. He lied then attacked and millions died. We now have a chance to prevent the same event from getting out of hand like WWII did.

    Saddam had his opportunity to stop his defeat just as we have the Taliban Government before we changed that Regime. They chose to continue their support of Terrorism. It appears that Saddam is has made the same decision.

    This is not a choice we have. Either Saddam dictates to us and the UN Council or we dictate to him. That is not a choice, it is called "defeat" or "victory". What we do, what the UN does within a short time determines who wins the current war we are in with Iraq.

    And while most Americans have been shielded from the fact we have been at a simi-war with Iraq, the Iraqis have not. They have been building up their army in anticipation of war with the UN or the US for years now. They feel they are ready for that war and made this known by not caving on the UN Resolutions when presured last week.

    This means the line is being drawn for war. He has telegraphed his move on us. I only hope he doesn't strike first that kills thousands more.

    History says he will! His Bible of war tactics tell him to make the first strike and make it hurt the enemy.
     
  11. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hear talk or replacing Iraq's present form of government with a democratic form of government. Is there anyone on this board who thinks that the Islamic religion is conducive to a democracy. Look at all the other countries, especially Africa, where we tried to set up a free government . They always end up with a ruthless dictator .
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ps you are right about Islamic governments, but in the respect that I don't think we could be worse than what it is, plus no matter what we do--we must destroy his capability to build and store the weapons of mass destruction.

    Post_It, for once we are in total agreement. I think this boils down to --- "when will the least amount of collateral damage (and loss of life) occur -- now or after three atomic bombs are assembled. I think this is the botton line, regardless of what government replaces Saddam.

    If there is at least a little bit of truth in Dr. Hamza's story, and I have no reason to doubt him, unless you guys know something I don't---then we must act now before we see Tel Aviv go up in smoke or even a major portion of Manhattan when a shipping container delivers one of the three warheads the man has the capability of building.

    Hmmm, I'm currently watching Geraldo on Fox News trying to convince America that the Israelis have totally destroyed our chances in Iraq and have broken down any coalition that we had. Any comments?
     
  13. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do believe each time we get rid of one there is one ten times worse.

    We have to do something. I just am not sure of what it is.

    Sherrie
     
  14. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is, in reality, a false report. Richard Land supports Pres. Bush on this issue, but that is far from saying that the SBC does. Land has not spoken for the SBC, nor does he have the right to do so.

    Land also thought Clinton was justified in bombing the tar out of parts of Europe. What is sad is that there were many, many Christians who lost their lives, loved ones, homes, etc.

    The American form of government, contrary to what some may think, is not to be equated with "God's perfect plan" for every nation.

    Why do our Cooperative Program dollars go to the SBC ERLC? They are supposed to be going to the work of God's Kingdom in advancing the Gospel.

    Rev. G

    [ September 23, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]
     
  15. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fear the USA as a great nation in the world is slowly coming to its end. It has played "big brother" long enough, and does not seem to see the danger of stepping on too many toes here and there. The present president Bush seems to me to be a power hungry man, one who loves to take all the credit when the USA "restores order" in some far away country. The USA never goes to war unless the leading men sees it can gain something by thus doing. Much of the agitation against Saddam in the Middle east I fear is just a show. Both your president Bush and Iraq's president Saddam Hussein belong to the same infamous brotherhood of Freemasonry, and unless wrongly informed both are 33 degree masons, so there is secret fellowship between the two leaders behind the scenes. Much of top politics today is just a show for the gullible people and citizens, and the big decisions are made behind the scenes and far in advance in many instances. Bush loves to make great speeches for world media, and I bet he congratulates himself in the secret for giving out to be one thing and being another in reality. Most of the Americans do not even know or suspect the rottennes of your political top men, gullibility reigns among the citizenry. And what about the alert of many that Osama Bin Laden has received backing from the Central Intelligence Agency for many years? This speaks of a plot against the Americans in which your high leaders are themselves involved. CIA is also famous for controlling much of the drug traffic from the golden triangle area, and Afganistan is a crucial spot in this respect. And look at the men in leading positions in the CIA and other US state bound organizations, they are high ranking Freemasons bond to a mutual cause by blood oaths. What country in the world has more corruption in high level politics than the USA? I fear hardly none other. It sits on many waters and delights itself in its delicacies, but I fear not for long anymore.

    Harald
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    I have no idea whether Saddam is a Mason (which I sincerely doubt) but George W. is not.

    [ September 30, 2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe GW Bush has denied being a mason. BTW - before anyone says "of course they'll deny it", the Order of Freemasonery tells its members that hiding or denying their membership is completely inappropriate.

    I'm not sure where you got your info about these men (well, at least one is a man, the other just happens to be male), but you'll find that the internet is full of sites that accuse everyone from Bill Barty to Jerry Falwell of being freemasons. It's become the 21st century of McCarthyism.
     
  18. Graceforever

    Graceforever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sure sounds like a USA bash to me…….
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    How is that bashing?

    Is there anything incorrect there?
     
  20. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea, where's the "bashing"?? If the USA has made some political mistakes or wrong maneuvres during the years, some would perhaps use even stronger language, then it should be prepared to take some criticism. It is really pathetic of some americans to accuse some non-americans of USA-hatred just because we non-americans do not applaude USA and pat her on the back for her political decisions and moves which involves other countries. Not that I mean the above writer says so. I am no anti-american, nor am I pro-american. I find no warrant for me being anti-american, I have many relatives and friends in the USA. Nor does my conscience allow me to applaud what Mr. Bush & co. are about doing here and there in the world, playing big brother and what else I do not know. Nor can I commend the USA for all the wine of immoral fornication she has spewed out to the rest of the world through the Hollywood machinery and the rest of her luxurious delicacies machinery, including the porn magazines which seem to reach even the remotest shops in our far away country, not to speak of all the devilish pop and rock music and things attached to it. Much more filth has she spewed out and intoxicated large masses with her venom. About the best that has come out of USA are the few great Bible teachers (Wilson Thompson, Gilbert Beebe, W J Berry, Samuel Trott et.al.) and their blessed works with which God the Lord has blessed and enriched His people in many places. I just wonder how far the saying of John applies to USA of today, "I sit a queen..." (Rev. 18:7). Many of the marks fit in on the USA, in my opinion.

    Harald
     

Share This Page

Loading...