Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by TheOliveBranch, Jan 24, 2003.
If war in Iraq is not the answer, what should be done?
I just have a hard time believing one man cannot be exterminated with all the technology we have today. Why can't intelligence pinpoint his location and let one missile do the job?
Actually the problem is not with our intelligence capabilities. The problem is with our liberal "let's all get along and form our one world government" leaders. Any time that we have had the chance in recent years to take out some evil leader (hussein, UBL) our leaders in their infinite wisdom have not given the go ahead.
In 1991, Bush Sr's war destroyed some weapons of mass destruction (and a bunch of Iraqi soldiers and equipment).
But from 1991-1997, inspectors found and had destroyed ten times MORE such weapons.
So now in 2003, Bush Jr wants another war to destroy weapons of mass destruction . . . while if we simply let the inspectors do their work (not that they're back in and actively inspecting) it will be ten times more effective.
What you are saying is true. Yet, the UN cannot seem to keep up with the locations of these weapons. Isn't Bush's purpose also twofold, to distroy the weapons and to overthrow Hussein? The UN will take out the weapons, but continue to allow those in power to stay in power, therefore allowing them to build them.
Nothing the UN does is good. All they are doing is progressing closer and closer to the one world government the Bible talks about. Has anyone noticed how many Americans there are that think we have to have UN approval to go to war? It's sickening!
As far as UN approval goes, is the UN free of Corruption?
We can pray for peace, and that our leaders will make the right choices when they have to be made.
So, if so and so country decides that the US president is evil and makes attempts to take him out it is quite acceptable?????? Isn't this the same logic used against another sovereign country???
Besides, it seems a shame that so many innocent children, women and men must die and suffer for the ills of one man!
The US president is evil. But not as bad as Gore would have been, and he is certainly better than Hillary would be.
I did not say anyone was evil. I was stating an applied principle. There is a difference. As a foreigner, I have no say in US politics.
Forever free in Canada, a sovereign nation
Hardly not. Not when they gave the US the boot off the UN Human Rights Commission, and get this, give seats to terrorist countries of Libya, Syria and Sudan (who has slaughtered 100s of thousands):
Not to mention Arafat getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
The U.N. is a big joke.
[ January 25, 2003, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle9/11 ]
Jim, how many evil rulers were killed by the Israelites with God's blessing? What did the Canaanites in the promised land do to the Israelites to deserve having their land taken by them?
I say it would be wonderful if Sadam were taken out while the lives of his people were spared. It's not exactly fair to equate taking out a dictator with the leader of a free land, regardless of how evil someone might think he is.
We are supposed to be subject to those in the government because God ordained the governments. Where in this plan does the UN come into play? They are not a government, even though they seem to have power over so many countries. They are having the last say in government issues. They are, in a sense, playing God.
Unfortunately, in the real world things are not a simple as stated above. Very few, if any, things are all bad or all good. I have never been a big fan of the United Nations, but the reason Bush is threatening to invade Iraq is because they have failed to comply with a UN resolution. This would make it logical to get UN approval to launch an invasion.