Your Stand on the Present Crisis

[Luke Robinson]

I really agree with Brent in most of his points about this whole war.  

Just wanted to add something.  As we ponder Islam, let us relate it to history.  And let us relate it to their Koran.  

We must first convince ourselves that Islam is not "just another world religion."  But it is a dangerous one that teaches its followers that the only way to be totally sure of your entrance into heaven is to be a "martyr."  The kind that takes others with him or her.  We must know that Muslims hate us with a vengeance.  Not just us as Americans, or as the top world power, but as Christians, ladies and gentlemen.  They are commanded to eliminate us.

Think of these Muslim countries.  They treat their women dispicably as Brent said.  They have brutal ways of punishment for crossing the law.  And they kill Christians.  They blow up churches.  They mow down simple believers with guns and machetes.  They stop them from meeting.

But the American, liberal media says little about these horendous acts.  There might be a little blip now and then, but there is never any public outcry.  And just like the catastrophe of 9/11 became muddled and confused, so does each death at Muslim hands.

Subscribe to Voice of the Martyrs.  That will open your eyes.

When this war was falling into place, I joked that they should just make a nice lake out of Iraq.

I think they should send in a group of snipers and top notch commandoes.  But maybe that might become "Black Hawk Down."

I don't know all the details, but I do know this much.  That Islam is an evil and corrupt religion, full of hatred and malice.  Remember, Christians(and Americans), that you are in their scope, and I think this war will help lessen that.  

Peace will never come to the Middle East until Christ returns and starts His heavenly government.

A Brother in Christ,

Luke Robinson  

[editor]

Peace will never come to the Middle East until Christ returns and starts His heavenly government.


Luke Robinson  

How true that statement is Luke.  The only thing I might add is that a false peace will come, right before sudden destruction.  For all my ranting about the right thing to do in the Middle East, we both know how it will end.  My hope is that by acting correctly now, we can put off the horrible day of God's wrath.  Nevertheless, come quickly Lord Jesus!

Retread, as for your question about Iraq,  I think it will be great if we take over the country and then let some Texans, who know how to pump oil, get in there and help us out of our recession.  Iraq owes us about 10 years worth of oil, in my book.  The fact that America controlled major oil fields in the Mid-east would take the wind out of the Saudi's sails big time.  Giving our allies oil at a cheaper price, where we get the profit would also be good.  It would generate goowill with everyone, even the French.

However, if we do an Afghanistan in Iraq, and blow a few things up, get rid of Sadaam, and then pump billions of Amercan tax dollars into their pathetic economy, and spend billions on some Buddhist/Muslim/Rastafarian U.N. Humanitarian mission, this whole thing will be a disaster.  All we will have accomplished is to allow fundamentalist Islam to gain a strong foothold in a heretofore secualr Mid-East nation.  Sadaam may be a horrible man, but he is not nearly as bad as the Ayatollah's of Iran, or the Imam's of Saudi Arabia.  

Removing Sadaam, and then giving them a bunch of my money will only serve to allow a more radical version of Islam to take root in Iraq.  Sadly, this is what I think is going to happen.  I know many Christians are really high on George W. Bush.  I understand this, but I do not share their admiration of the man.  I know he is a nice man, and NOTHING like Bill Clinton, but I really worry that he listens to the UN, and our European "allies" way too much.

Its time the USA again took a leadership role in the world, instead of pretending we are on the same level as Bahrain, Senegal and Camaroon.  If we lead, by visiting the type of destruction on our enemies, that only a super-power can achieve, we will put the rest of these idiots on notice.  I promise revolutions in many of these countries, and a quick disposal of terrorists.  Dictators, who realize that they be blamed for allowing the likes of Al Qaida in their countries will quickly decide that it is better to put their handcuffed Muslim "brothers" on a plane to New York, than to be on the business end of a minuteman missile armed with an MRV warhead.

Again, we all know that this will not happen.  The era of great men, and bold action based on moral principles is long over.  

Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Brent

[retread]

...
Removing Sadaam, and then giving them a bunch of my money will only serve to allow a more radical version of Islam to take root in Iraq.  Sadly, this is what I think is going to happen.
...

Ah yes, no good deed goes unpunished.  So if this looks like what the result will be, why should we support this war?

[retread]

I don't necessarily agree with it all, but there are some interesting perspectives at:

   http://www.iraqwar.org

The more I read, the more cautious I am becoming.

[Luke Robinson]

Well, I don't have a problem with just taking over Iraq for a little while at least.  It can be the 51st state.  And we can put in McDonald's and Nike and I'll bet those poor women would like some Levi's.  

And I like the Texan Oil idea, Brent.  Let us use the oil!  Our economy is hurting, and this would be an awesome opportunity to bring it up again.  

Why can't Iraq be a democracy?  I mean, instead of an abusive, tyrannical government.  Why can't we own the darn place?  The U.N. is full of ninnies that are too frightened and weak-kneed.  We need some guts in a day and age where fear is king.  

Winston Churchill once said:"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest."  Democracy isn't the greatest as someone said earlier, but it is a heck of a lot better than what 98% of the countries have out there right now.  

But in all of this, God is sepreme over all.  God Bless you.

A Brother in Christ,

Luke Robinson    

[4Him]

Congressman Ron Paul's speech at the Ludwig von Mises Institute on October 19, 2002:
   http://www.mises.org/mp3/20th/RonPaul.mp3
His view on preemptive war with Iraq, starts at about 40 minutes into the mp3.

This guy is great! Too bad I'm in Illinois.

[Sebastian Andrew]

The more I read, the more cautious I am becoming.

Glad to hear someone say that! The testosterone level needs to be lowered a little. Glands have their place but they need to stay where they belong and not displace our brains. Shall I invite my Muslim friends over for a Christian BBQ? Maybe we could show them some luv.

[editor]

Hi Sebastian

I don't think that war=testosterone.  In this case, to stop at "war" indicates more of a Qualude problem, than a testosterone problem.

As for Muslim friends and BBQ's,  I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem with Islamic  "friends" who pray daily that Americans will die and go to hell.  I would take the same stance if the enemy were Catholic, or Mormon.

If you have any Muslim friends in Iran, encourage them to throw off the corrupt government, a la Boston Tea Party, and the American revolution.  That is what decent people used to do in the face of far less tyranny than these people put up with.

Many decent Muslims have fled to the US to escape all of this.  They are welcome, as is anyone else, as long as they obey the law and contribute to society.

Brent

[Arthur]

Hi Sebastian

I don't think that war=testosterone.  In this case, to stop at "war" indicates more of a Qualude problem, than a testosterone problem.

"Qualude" - remarkable use of vocabulary, Brent.  I had to look that one up:


"Qualude" - not in the dictionary


"Quaalude" -

A trademark used for the drug methaqualone.

Word History: The trademark Quaalude for the sedative and hypnotic agent methaqualone is an example of how a product name is carefully chosen for a positive public response. Methaqualone was developed in the 1960s by William H. Rorer, Inc. At that time, the company's best-known product was Maalox, a digestive aid that derived its name from its ingredients, magnesium and aluminum hydroxides. To enhance the product recognition of their new sedative drug, the company incorporated the aa of Maalox into the name Quaalude. The other elements of the name are presumed to be a contraction of the phrase quiet interlude, a soothing, even poetic description of the drug's effect.

"Quaalude" - a sedative-hypnotic drug (trade name Quaalude) that is a drug of abuse.


Ok, so you're saying that, almost as an antonymn of testosterone, someone who is under the effect of the drug Quaalude is sedated and/or hypnotized
into a state of ineffectuality to the point where such an individual would not want a war or be engaged in a conflict of any kind.
So...do you read the dictionary all day long, pick words up out of your medical journals, or know this particular word by experience?

 

[Arthur]

Why can't Iraq be a democracy?  I mean, instead of an abusive, tyrannical government.  Why can't we own the darn place?  The U.N. is full of ninnies that are too frightened and weak-kneed.  We need some guts in a day and age where fear is king.  

Winston Churchill once said:"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest."  Democracy isn't the greatest as someone said earlier, but it is a heck of a lot better than what 98% of the countries have out there right now.  

Democracy, wha?  I've heard that ours is a republican form of government (elected representatives and all) and not a true democracy.  
But aren't the banks and the mafia the ones who call the shots?

I mean think of the term "Federal Reserve" - which is neither federal nor a reserve, rather a privately-owned banking cartel.  A cartel to which Congress gave the right to moderate America's economy.  

Anyone else think it strange that the economy can be so easily effected by what Sir Greenspan decides will be the interest rate today.  
Anyone else think it strange that you have to take out a loan to buy a house?
Back in the 50's, my grandpa bought a house and five acres of land off of seven-years wages.  So now most people get in debt just to have a home.  So now the economy is greatly affected by interest rates?!  Anyone else see the fantasyland this has become?  
Um..shouldn't the economy be based on what people actually produce and not how much in debt they are?
I suppose it could be said that we have social tinkerers like Roosevelt to thank for that--creating this fake, government (read cartel)-controlled monetary system.  
What exactly is a dollar?  What is that green stuff you have in your wallet?  What backs it?  What backs the points in the index you see for the stock market?  Real good and services?  That would be nice, but if that were the case, the index would be a lot lower than even what it has declined to to this day.
Anyways, just some thoughts.

[retread]

...
Winston Churchill once said:"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the rest."  Democracy isn't the greatest as someone said earlier, but it is a heck of a lot better than what 98% of the countries have out there right now.
...

Ah, Winston Churchill, the man who admitted that he was willing to conclude an alliance with the Devil himself if only Germany might be destroyed.  Winston Churchill may not have been a man who was really committed to freedom.  There is a good article on this in the June 15, 1992 issue of "The New American" magazine.  Just because democracy is better than what 98% of the countries have out there doesn't mean that democracy is what we should have.  Democracy can often be the precursor to tyranny.  Remember the UN started off under the guise of a world democracy for peace, but the real result of this is that it aims to be a tyrannical world government.  Lord Acton had a few interesting things to say about democracy:

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather if that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."

"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority."

Majorities can lead to some of the worst tyrannies.  Democracy does nothing to preserve individual liberty.  It is not based on morals or truths, but rather who has the most people on their side.  Votes can't change what is moral, and numbers can't change what is true.

For example, just because more people may disagree with you on this bulletin board than agree with you doesn't make you wrong (nor does it make you right ).  But this is what democracy seeks to do.  We must stand up for what is right, not what the majority says is right.  Remember, the majority in Iraq may think that "Death to Americans" is a good thing, this doesn't make it right. Also remember that Saddam Hussein claims to have 99% of the vote in his country.  Democracy does not equate to a free society.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)" - Mark Twain

[editor]

Arthur and Retread

You guys, of course, are correct.  What we are supposed to have here in America is a Democratic Republic.  It is quite different from a pure Democracy.

In a 100 member democracy, if 51 members decide that everyone with red hair should be tortured and killed, then they shall be.

In a 100 member democratic republic, where each group of 10 people elect one representative, so there are 10 rep's in all, AND where a simple 6/10 majority is required to pass a law,  the 10 read haired people only need persuade 3 other reps to save their lives.  It allows for much more sanity, and checks and balances.  Even more so when a 7/10 majority is called for.  Of course, it becomes increasingly harder to pass any law at that point.

Did you know that Congress passes over 40,000 NEW laws every year?  Most likely, each of us breaks several laws every day, simply because we aren't aware of them.  Fortunately, the police aren't aware of them either.

All this legislation only serves to make people despise the law and authority.  I think it would be great if Congress spent an entire term ERASING laws, while not writing one new law.  That would be usefull.

Arthur, with regard to the Quaalude comment, it just flowed out at about 80 wpm, while I was typing the post.  I have never taken a Quaalude in my life,  but I knew of a couple people who did, although they were not my friends.  In my freshmen year in college, we had certain sayings that we would use to insult and riducule each other.  One of the better ones, which we would use if our friend did something dumb, was:  "You're on a 'lude!"  Another application would be, "That teacher is on 'Ludes!  Did you ever see any of that stuff on the test?"

You get the picture.  

Brent

[retread]

...
Of course, it becomes increasingly harder to pass any law at that point.
...

Bonus!

[Arthur]

The U.S. tax code is eight times longer than the Bible--consisting of about 7 million words.  In 1913 it was 14 pages of law.
 
Back in 1913, tax was only one percent (1%) on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a six percent (6%) surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

(Back then, they were still on the gold standard.  Seeing as how gold goes for about $350/oz today, whereas it was fixed at $20/oz then, an income of $3,000 would be equivalent to about $52,000 today.  So a %1 tax would mean that you'd have to pay $520 in federal tax.  If you made less than $52,000, you wouldn't have to pay anything at all.  Wouldn't that be swell?  Better yet, before 1913 there was no legislated, fixed income tax.  You'd have to pay nothing.   Wouldn't THAT be swell?)

For the 2003 fiscal year, the IRS will have almost 100,000 employees (full-time equivalent) and a budget of $9.9 billion.

-from www.irs.gov

We've come a long way baby!  Talk about being on ludes--perhaps it is a common government staple?!

[retread]

The U.S. tax code is eight times longer than the Bible--consisting of about 7 million words.  In 1913 it was 14 pages of law.
 
Back in 1913, tax was only one percent (1%) on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a six percent (6%) surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

(Back then, they were still on the gold standard.  Seeing as how gold goes for about $350/oz today, whereas it was fixed at $20/oz then, an income of $3,000 would be equivalent to about $52,000 today.  So a %1 tax would mean that you'd have to pay $520 in federal tax.  If you made less than $52,000, you wouldn't have to pay anything at all.  Wouldn't that be swell?  Better yet, before 1913 there was no legislated, fixed income tax.  You'd have to pay nothing.   Wouldn't THAT be swell?)

For the 2003 fiscal year, the IRS will have almost 100,000 employees (full-time equivalent) and a budget of $9.9 billion.

-from www.irs.gov

We've come a long way baby!  Talk about being on ludes--perhaps it is a common government staple?!

"How fortunate for those in power that the people never think." - Adolf Hitler