there seems to be quite a few concerned people out the regarding this war in iraq and for good reason.
so what exaclty is bothering you about it, does it involve the very real fact that alot of innocent blood could/will be shed ?
are you fearing this could all be a part of bible/wts prophecy ?
just to further clarify what i meant with the taliban example...........
how do we know the taliban were behind 9/11? the media(govt) told us. so we attacked. now weve got all the critics saying the media(govt) lies left and right, and is lying about saddam, what he has, and what hes done. so we are attacking. whats the huge difference between the two? how are we the agressor now, but were only playing defense with afghanistan?
aa
there seems to be quite a few concerned people out the regarding this war in iraq and for good reason.
so what exaclty is bothering you about it, does it involve the very real fact that alot of innocent blood could/will be shed ?
are you fearing this could all be a part of bible/wts prophecy ?
hmnnn. so, to follow that "logic" (for want of a better word) ... you want it to be the other way around ... that just because one person denies involvement in something, that everyone else you accuse is guilty?"The bank robber denied doing it so even though you also deny it dubla, you must be guilty"
Yes ... that makes sense
nope, not my "logic" at all....nice try though. i was just pointing out that this wont be the first time weve been the agressor. i dont think saddams guilt has anything to do with the talibans guilt.....in fact, ive never said i believe saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks in any way. im not so sure hes tied to al qaeda, personally. id suspect he has terrorist ties, just from what the world knows of him as a person (if he can be called that), but i dont think its been proven to the extent that the u.s. government would like us to believe. contrary to your blanket opinion of everyone on the prowar side, i dont take everything washington says as 100% fact.
aa
we just got back from seeing the movie tears of the sun or tears from the sun, something like that.
war movie and a good one.
very unsettling as it should be.
havent seen the movie yet....cant wait. bruce willis is the biggest bad ass in hollywood, so its about time he played a navy seal.
ive heard rumors about britney spears starring in die hard 4 as john mcclanes daughter....please tell me this isnt true.....id hate to see a great trilogy ruined.
aa
i'm new here (not a baptized jw) and was just wondering about those in here who are against the jws.
does it mean you no longer wish to live in the kingdom that jesus christ preached about -- the paradise earth conditions before adam and eve sinned?.
... does it mean you all now believe what christendom teaches about the future -- heaven & hell?
It's because apparently everyone here has basically made-up their mind (mind-set) on what they choose to believe. And nothing the JWs can say (reasoning) will change your minds.
with a slight adjustment, we can label the average occupant at the kingdom hall with your observation:
...apparently everyone here has basically made-up their mind (mind-set) on what they choose to believe. And nothing anyone can say (reasoning) will change their minds.
yep, fits nicely.
aa
there seems to be quite a few concerned people out the regarding this war in iraq and for good reason.
so what exaclty is bothering you about it, does it involve the very real fact that alot of innocent blood could/will be shed ?
are you fearing this could all be a part of bible/wts prophecy ?
What bothers ME about this war is that it will be the first war in US history with the US as the agressor.
the taliban denied any connection to the 9/11 attacks, just as hussein does. therefore, we were the agressor in attacking afghanistan as well.
aa
whether a u.s. lead invasion of iraq is necessary or not the united states has that right and here is why.
in 1990 the u.n. security council authorized the use of military force to expel the iraqi army from kuwait.
british and u.s. forces were the dominant contributors to the coalition.
Hell, we might as well attach the French.......
hmmmm.....maybe food for thought actually.
aa
the last war with iraq started the night of the last chance to comply.
when do you predict this one will start?
my guess?
Remember to ask yourself, when the USA get's hit again by terrorists, why you think they are doing it ...
What they are doing will guarantee that Americans become targets around the world.
i keep seeing this argument, and i think its completely unfounded. the terrorists hatred for america is an allah-given mandate in their minds. they believe they are doing his will, and ridding the earth of the infidels. this mandate will not become any stronger if we attack iraq, nor will it subside if we do not attack iraq. "retaliation" is just another excuse for them....if they didnt have it to work with, theyd simply fall back on our occupation of the holy land. there will always be a valid reason for their jihad, regardless of what we do or dont do.
aa
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html.
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html.
http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html.
amac-
Now if you happen to have a synopsis of the WMD that were there and that have not been proven to have been dismanteled, I would be interested in seeing it.
i said id get back to you on this. this isnt a full reply, but i wanted to show you this one paragraph from an article dated today, as a start:
Saddam, in a statement read by an Iraqi television announcer, reiterated his stance that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction but has since destroyed them.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html
aa
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html.
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html.
http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html.
hs-
I cannot see on this thread where anybody has stated that Saddam has fully destroyed the huge cache of weapons of mass destruction that the US sold him some years ago. If you read my posts they focus on the lack of evidence as of todays date that they still exist.
yes, i realize that was your point, and really the only point i was making in return is that the evidence you wish to see is already there. imo (and the unanimous opinion of the u.n. security counsel), its up to saddam to prove he destroyed them.
. I have also stated in pervious posts that I have no doubt that Saddam does possess them
then you are not one of the naive people i speak of. there are posters on this forum who truly believe he no longer possesses them, which is the fact i find unfathomable. again, i believe the burden of proof lies with hussein, as if he in fact destroyed them, he would have no problem proving as much. it would be a very simple process......show the documentation. why should it be up to us to dig through the barn full of hay and prove those needles are in fact still there?
As to the carrying capability of the medium to long range Al-Samoud missiles I am no military expert, in fact quite the opposite, though I did hear a CNN report some weeks ago that stated that these missiles ( in fact any medium to long range missiles ) can be equipped with tipped chemical and nuclear warheads. Am I wrong about this? It does not strike me as a terribly important point anyway as the UN forced compliance in their destruction for obvious reason, but if their payload abilities are important perhaps you might provide a link to prove so….lol
honestly i was just curious, because i hadnt heard that. they may indeed have those capabilities, but no, its not important to the discussion really. i probably made it sound like a point of contention, but i didnt mean it that way.
. I somehow doubt it, and it seems that many millions of ‘intelligent’ but ‘naïve’ persons world-wide seem to have the same fears.
having fears about the consequences of war does not make you naive, and i certainly hope you dont think that was ever my stance. i wasnt trying to make blanket statements about the antiwar crowd......the only people my "naive" label fits are those that think saddam doesnt in fact have wmd......hopefully we are clear on that.
As I seem to be repeating myself ad nauseum in my posts it is obvious that my points are not being clearly made
well, dont feel bad, because i am doing the same, lol.
aa
subject: fw: "don't misunderestimate george bush".
"the vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.
"if we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
I suspected that many of those statements did not originate with Dubla.
you are correct.....in fact, none of them originated with me.
aa
