Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:07:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
398 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Are you saying the Pope was politically motivated,
|
I am not a Catholic so whatever the Pope says is inconsequential to me-- I
have no idea as to his motivations.
|
Pope aside, are saying that the statments made by many church leaders were
politically motivated?
|
I don’t know which leaders you are talking about and even if I did I
wouldn’t have any idea as to their motivations (unless they so indicated).
I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has
direct access to God without the need of intercessors. So any “Church
Leader” that “speaks out” in my mind is on his/her own and is taking
advantage of their free speech rights rather than as some spokesperson for
the Church as a whole.
|
That’s interesting, but it does not explain your “political” comment,
nor does it answer my question.
|
lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church
leaders’ comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of
mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders’
motivation-- I already answered that. I’ll put it another way: How the hell
should I know?? Ask them!
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
or that killing tens of
thousands in Iraq was a political decision?
|
Many died in Iraq because of SH’s refusal to abdicate his rule.
|
He was under no obligation to step down.
|
You are correct. We threatened him. He thought we were bluffing; turns out
we weren’t.
|
What right did Bush have to threaten him?
|
As leader of the US, he is sworn to defend the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. SH was an enemy and a threat to the security of
the US.
| |
| |
| |
| |
If he had
stepped down, there would have been no need to invade in order to force
him to leave. In the end it was a decision of national security (of the
US)
|
Come on John, that lie has been long exsposed. Your naivety must be
starting to wear by now?
|
This topic is pretty well beaten, Scott. If you want to consider the whole
WMD thing a “lie”, that is your right. To me lying implies deliberate
deception; everybody assumed SH still had WMDs (and that is not to say
that they could still turn up in Syria or something).
|
Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little
intelligence fiefdom?
|
Everyone, including Blix and the rest of the world.
| |
Having WMD was not the real problem; it was the threat they
supposedly represented.
|
All WMDs are a threat; the degree depends upon the person or persons in control
of them.
| |
What was the threat from a man who could not
even police his own borders and had no real links with “international
terrorism”?
|
If you can’t control your borders, then bad people can use your country for
terrorist training. What is a “real link”? The fact is that the guy supported
and sponsored terrorism.
| |
| |
Even in hindsight I believe that SH’s deposition was still a good thing
because he was a menace and a friend of terrorists. I believe it is totally
appropriate to threaten any and all leaders of any nation who aid and
abett terrorists. (Please shock me and refrain from mentioning Israel...;-)
|
I’m glad SH is gone, but what is now in his place looks 100 times
worse.
|
I’m astounded by that statement. You must be getting bogus information. Try
and obtain information directly from people who are there. Aside from a few
“hot spots”, Iraq is moving forward and making great progress.
| |
I’m not sure that the world is a safer place now that he is gone...
|
Well, I do. I don’t think Iraq will be sponsoring terrorism in the near future;
they will certainly be fighting against it, because the terrorists hate
freedom.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) I do. But you now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations" (...) It is you who said they were politically motivated, and now say "I wouldn't have any idea as to their motivations"! (...) I'm just not clear on what the threat was. (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) That's interesting, but it does not explain your "political" comment, nor does it answer my question. (...) What right did Bush have to threaten him? (...) Not everyone; was that not why Rumsfeld established is own little intelligence fiefdom? (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
