Yes we should replace the JWs and the GB with another "representative of god"= who is the next "blessed people"? We are on a mission from god! (blues brothers IV)
kelsey007
JoinedPosts by kelsey007
-
3
Encouragement For The March
by Zechariah inwill god join our march?.
the following is encouragement for tomorrows march.
we all are soldiers of righteousness and for god.
-
-
-
21
Dateline/Panorama/Silent Lambs, Whats Changed?
by conoroberst inso now in the space of a few short months television programmes on national networks in the us, uk, canada and australia.
we see regular newspaper articles and radio phone ins on the subject.
but is anything changing?
-
-
kelsey007
What can be done to provide support, therapy, counseling and the like to victims- that should be the focus. That is a good thing that has and can be done. Forcing changes? That is another issue all together. My mother is a JW who attends the KH near to where Barbara Anderson went to the Hall. In Mom's congregation the rank and file know little if nothing of her, Bowen or silent lambs. As to the general public? They are focused on Iraq, Bush and other issues that are more personal to them.
Personally I believe that a good focus of positive support for victims will have a much better effect than any number of negative actions delivered in hopes of changing or destroying an organization. Putting someone or some organization on the defensive only slows change. A good negotiator seeks a positive dialoge with the one he seeks to change in order to gain the response he wants.
When a fugitive holes himself up in a room, armed with hostages the police negotiator seeks to calm and reason the dangerous person so that he can be reasoned with. Putting an individual on the defensive through personal attacks closes doors.
Fighting fire with fire? Just don't sound right to me.
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
It sounds like to me that protecting our borders is the concern. Is Iraq the only ONE out there that has or coud have the capability of NUKES? Never did I indicate that we should not be concerned.
9-11 happened, not because of what Iraq is capable of, but because of HOMELAND security issues. I am not aware of any instance, for a fact, where Sadam has attacked the US. In no way do I defend this nut, but, what is he really capable of and what is it beleivable that he would or could do?
To my knowledge his invasion of Kuwait is the only time he has attacked another nation. Has he supplied support to al queda? Suggestions have been made that he has. Will attacking Iraq and disposing of Sadam being great relief from threats to the US? By the admission of the Bush administration the US has no plan and has not identified WHO will replace Sadam. Experts closer to Iraq say that some that the US has looked at in replacing him are actually WORSE than Sadam.
The sentiment of the present administration is shoot now and sort it out later. Is that a good plan? Are we caught up in the heat of the moment or is this really a valid, urgent action that is needed? Why has the Bish administration had such a hard time rallying our allies support in this action? If the urgency is so clear then why are the nations closer to and nearer to the threat hesitant to join in this action?
Iraq's ability to attack the US is much less now, since 9-11, than in the years previous.
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
Awesome stuff drinker. Thanks for the link. Making such things affordable is the question. My first computer was a Radio Shack Model I. It had voice recognition capabilities. Most of the technology that we are using today was created 50 and 60 years ago. Took that long to make it affordable and available.
Eventually we may see a lessoned need for oil. The oil companies pump so much into politics that there is a lot to overcome yet. With so much oil money in the White House it will even take longer. I did not realize until last night that even Condeleeza Rice was an oil person. She left to work for Bush Sr.
Anyway- we are not isolated from the world. But we do have international law and the UN. We should not empower our president to move ahead in spite of what the world needs and wants. The very fact that we are not isolated should make us not forge ahead with a war on Iraq. Other means of dealing with the problem are available.
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
Country Girl-
Well said!
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
Drinker,
I don't know how old you are but as a kid back in the 60's the world of oil was changing. 40 years later our need for oil is more than ever. Also in the early 60's the US feelings toward Castro were exactly the same. Fear of communism was great and fear of Castro allowing Russia to mount an attack against the US was so great that we wanted to oust Castro. Castro has outlived all his old US enemies. All the economic sanctions the US brought against Cuba has not brought him to his knees.
One always plays the "the world is diferent now" song. History shows that though technology has changed man is the same. I agree that Sadam is no good. I also feel that it should be more of a UN, international concern and the US should be better tuned in to our domestic needs at this point. If Sadam did have nuclear weapons would he attack the US or could he attack the US with them? If I lived in Europe I would be a lot more concerned. For some reason Bush is making this a US priority when the neighboring nations that could be most affected by Sadam want the UN to deal with it. What Bush proposes is unprecidented in the history of this country. I tend to agree with the Germans: War provides for a good distraction from domestic problems.
It was the senior Bush that raided Panama and kidnapped the wicked Noriego (sp?) The US under Bush has shown clearly that it wants a one-way street for them when it comes to international affairs. The US wants controls on other nations that will not control them. They sought exemption from international courts for US soldiers. Remember that one? Bush is seeking congressional support for full authority to use military action against Iraq. This is being debated on the floor as I type. Any minor infraction by Sadam would allow Bush to send in the troops.
Communism was defeated. The Soviet Union fell without the US mounting a military attack against Russia. Communism fell in Poland. This was also accomplished without great military action by the US. When military action is mounted in such a way the fallout is great and the cost is endless. 7,000 american troops are still wondering the mountains of afganastan- still fighting an unfinished battle. The puppet government in afganastan that replaced the taliban is without power over their people. Afganastan is only a remaining concern today due to the oil industry and an oil pipeline. The US needs an enemy and there will always be one available.
If it was the TRUE intent to bring Sadam down it would have already been accomplished. The US has people in Iraq- our spys are in place, our capabilities have been there for a decade.
Bush is intent to make his strike against Iraq next January. As the elctions of this year proceed and the 2004 election come close he needs this war. He needs this enemy and this distraction. HIs father, the elder Bush, was interviewed and shown in headlines last week- The headline: "I hate Sadam!" The picture of Bush showed him wiping a tear from his eye as he looked away from the camera. GIVE ME A BREAK!
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
Crazydrinker you should propose that - then we could gain control over the oil, put another puppet government in place and let the US deal with that 20 years from now when it comes back to bite them in the ass. Why dont we just kick them all add two more states to the US and call them ours?
Sadam has been working on nukes for over a decade. We have known that. The question I have is "why are we, the US, more concerned about Sadam than those that he is the greatest threat against? Why are we not staying focused on our "war on terror"? (Even though I feel I already know the answers)
-
73
The long awaited Dossier on Iraq UK Position
by Celtic infull copies of the evidence for the case against iraq only published today for the first time are available from number 10 downing street http://www.pm.gov.uk.
http://www.fco.gov.uk.
the ministry of defence http://www.mod.uk.
-
-
kelsey007
Facts:
1. Iraq could attack neighboring countries with a 45 preprare time.
2. Iraq's attack capability is about 200 miles.
3. Iraq poses no clear and present danger to the US turf.
4. The root of terrorism is in Saudi Arabia
5. Oil hinders the US ability to effectviely fight the war on terror.
6. Sadam is and should be a UN concern- he is a personal concern of the Bush family.
7. Ousting Sadam will not make any great headway in our war on terror.
8. The terrorist cells are established worldwide and US authorities still believe that such cells exist in the US.
9. The 9-11 attacks came from within the US by men that were allowed legally into the US.
10. None of the monies that funded the 9-11 attacks are traceable to Iraq.
11. bin Laden and his money came from Saudi arabia
-
20
ANY PREDICTION ON SILENTLAMBS DEMONSTRATION?
by minimus inother than bad press, do you think there will be a good result of the picketing?
-
-
kelsey007
Little by little we chip away at the society? I thought the intent was to force changes in WT policy regarding pedaphiles and treatment of the innocent?
-
12
Silent Lambs/Negative Reactions?
by pettygrudger ini just finished listening to "what does our future hold" speech on randy's site, and it brought this thought to mind..... i don't feel the r/f jw's will see this as anything but satan's "deviously scheming" to bring an end to their organization.
after all, most who will attend the march are either "apostates" (or will be) or df'd.
i wonder if most will see it as a "sign" that the end is really near, and send them running back to the halls?.
-
-
kelsey007
I agree Larry. The very things this organization is built on makes such events a fullfilment of bible prophecy and they think that their deliverance is getting near. Some things going on now may only being weak ones closer to the org- the fear factor. When you are trained to let the GB do all your thinking and things start getting rough they will run to WT and seek shelter from the world. Then when the big A does not happen people leave. That has been the history of the org so far.