Well, if for the past 50 years you've immediately entered into discussions and begun hurling insults, then maybe you do need to learn the ropes.
Obama’s War Policies Worse than Bush’s, Anti-War Activists Say
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Mar 20, 2009.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
I don't see anywhere on this thread where I made rash judgments or insulted anyone. Would you please show me where I did these things?
-
I likewise agree that both parties are from hades which is why I belong to neither and find ground to support both. What surprises me is to see people so caught up in a political ideology that they sell to it their very soul and distort their own rational perspective (I am not saying there are many like this here but clearly there are some on both sides of these discussions). -
-
I do blame Bush for the faulty intelligence that got us there even though Clinton and Gore believed likewise. I think what bothered me most was when the war in Iraq changed for a search for WMD to somehow be part of the war on terror. I also didn't like how he declared victory while our young men and women were still loosing their lives. If we won, bring them out of harms way.
Two things of late I have admired, Bush' old press secretary admitted and here is Conde http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/rice-911-iraq/ admitting terror was in no way part of our decision to invade Iraq. -
-
He has always said so.
Anti war wackos were only hearing what they wanted to hear.
What's really good for the troops and our nation is that they were able to cobble a victory out of what had become a mess...
before Obama had a chance to cobble a defeat out of what had become a victory. -
First you give WC a backhanded compliment - It's so nice that you finally decided to be non-partisan for once, WC.
And then you demostrate your own lack of non-partisanship by acknowledging that both Bush and Clinton believed the same faulty intelligence - but you blame Bush. :laugh: -
BTW, I'm not anti-war, I'm anti unnecessary wars, like the one in Iraq. -
-
After all - it is the first time that WC has been non-partisan. :rolleyes:
-
Wow !!! Where to begin?
Whatever happened to reading comprehension and critical thinking skills?
He did not call you an anti-war wacko or hurl an insult at anyone.
[QOUTE] I'm sorry you seem to think being pro-war is part of fulfilling the Great Commission.[/QUOTE]
Exaclty which of his words implies that he thinks that being pro-war is part of fulfilling the Great Commission?
Which of his words state that he is "pro-war"?
How is it then that you were unable to weigh the alternative positions concerning one's beliefs about war before drawing your erroneous conclusions and posting such silly remarks?
Perhaps you would find your time here more productive if you were to slow down and think about what you are reading and think about your words before posting.
It is odd that in the short time that you have been here that you have put off so many members. Before you know it you may find yourself simply ignored by everyone - and what fun would that be? -
Was I talking to you? -
I don't recall is not the same as "it is the first time" unless you subscribe to the rights habit of twisting others words and feeling that is the "Christian" thing to do.
I would like my statement to WC to stand on its own merits without help from the peanut gallery... :laugh: -
Please don't pretend you're a "non-partisan observer." You seldom criticize Obama or the democrats.
Support who you want...but don't pretend to be completely non-partisan. You're not. -
-
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
J/C, you were challenged a few pages back. Are you going to respond ?
And if true Christians are against war, why aren't you against Obama expanding war into Pakistan ?
I don't think you have a pure position on this. It seems you would rather wave your bible in people's faces, instead of opening it.
Page 2 of 2