Democrats are ready to spend more.

I would rather we spend it here than send a billion a week to fund an unjust war.

 

Well you probably won't be getting your wish on not spending a billion a week to fund war.

Obama is ramping up the war in Afghanistan and has his eye on other countries.

He wants to make his own mark as a Commander in Chief too.

He doesn't want to left feeling short changed in that area like Bill Clinton does.

 

He said an "unjust" war.

 

Good thing we haven't been involved in one of those.

 

Just like dems, spend, spend, spend.

how do you know, do you have the mind of God, are you privy to His plans and purposes, does He share His plans for the world and individuals with you?
If you aren't God you can't know anything like this for sure. When it comes to God, never assume. Dangerous territory.

 

Try not to leave out the fact that the Republican's added about 40% of the earmarks that are in this bill and there are close to 10K of them.

 

If you don't see Iraq as an unjust war you are either blind or out of touch with reality.

 

No I refuse to make up history. Unlike those who make such false claims.

 

Let's see you prove it.

 

Do you means statements like we went in unilaterally? Or how about we went in to take over the oil? Or even we went in without UN consent? Or that the current situation in Iraq is different than the 1991 conflict.

 

Try answering the question that I asked, Pastor Mitchell.

Prove that invading Iraq was not an unjust war.

 

You did not use those words. Try being specific so other can understand.

Sigh.......In 1991 Saddam went into a neighboring country and tried to take it over. The UN and all America's allies went in and stopped him. At this point we were under a cease fire for more than 12 years. Saddam broke that cease fire for all those years and yet we waited patiently. Finally since the cease fire continued to be broke we went back in and remove Saddam. Nothing unjust about that.

 

Let me remind you of the facts, Pastor Mitchell. President Bush and his administration gave as the primary reason to invade Iraq the idea that Iraq had WMDs, even though inspections never turned up any evidence of such and after invading Iraq there has never been any evidence of such.

 

No it is not fact. It was not the primary reason. However, you want to ignore all of the rest of the world thought wmd's were their. And we do not know that they were not moved since we gave them so much prior warning.

Either way Saddam broke the cease fire and never complied with it refusing to provide evidence and firing at our planes. Failure to comply justifies going in under a cease fire. When you invade another sovereign country unprovoked like Saddam did you do not get to set the terms.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00315.html

And let me add there was several findings in Iraq that there was a WMD program. Just it was to be sure.

 

Yes, it is fact.

 

No it is not.

 

Prove that it was unjust. Prove we were over there just for the oil, prove the main reason we were there was WMDs, prove Iraq NEVER had them.

You cannot prove your side of this argument either.

What has Afghanistan done to us or Pakistan for that matter? Why is it ok to go there but not Iraq? Why is bombing their "innocents" better than what President Bush did? Why is that just but Iraq unjust? PLEASE say it is because of Al-Qada. They were all over Iraq when we went the first time. Do not tell me they were not in country unless you were there, I was, I know.

 

Dems want to trash President Bush for spending money, yet obama has spent more in a month than President Bush did in seven years!

 

Are those the earmarks that our President still insists are not there?