Honey

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by pgh69

It's more complex than that. The USA wasn't experiencing an oil shortage. IMHO the real reason was b/c those in power at the time - the Neo-Conservatives like Bush and, too a much greater extent, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld - believed that democracy was a commodity that could be exported. They believed that establishing a stable democracy in that volatile part of the world would stablize the region. Their approach failed to adequately consider the complex ethnic, cultural, and religious dynamics of the country. It was a very bad decision for many reasons - but it wasn't about seizing Iraqi oil.

I don't see why those people would be concerned with 'democracy' pg, at least not in the way you described. True, America doesn't have an oil shortage; YET! Now if you had said that America wanted to bring 'democracy' to Iraq by installing a government that would be sympathetic to the USA in the future (to safeguard oil supplies), I might have bought it.

Don't you think there was any 'hidden agenda' at all? I mean, the people you mentioned above or at least the companies they were/are involved in seemed to come out of it fairly well, financially.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

...and a small point that carry's a lot of weight. Bush Jr said once on national TV but never said again, that is..... he almost killed my father.

Junior wanted to take out the guy trying to kill has father.

That was rather expensive for America!!

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

It does not justify the violent responses to the wrongdoing.

OK. So assuming that YOU are a Palestinian and:
-you have had your only means of feeding your family (your land) stolen from you and it now has an illegal Israeli settlement on it.

- assuming you have been forced into situation of poverty and destitution by people who are acting illegally.

- given that your 'enemy' has ignored more than 200 UN Resolutions to give you your land back.

- given that you have seen countries like the USA and the UK invade another country (Iraq) on the grounds that it did not comply with about 2 UN Resolutions, but do nothing to help you.

- given that most of the world says that you are right and the Israelis are wrong, but do nothing to help you other than 'talk'

-given that the 'talk' has done nothing to solve the problem over the past 50 years.

- given that you have no army to fight your cause for you... what would you do to get the rights that you deserve?

P.S. If your reply is yet another 10,000 word edict on 'restorative justice' I will ignore it.

[Sapphire]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Sapphire: Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS for they shall be called the Children of God. (The Bible does NOT say the WARMONGERS!)

Emily, if King David and his army did not go after the Philistines their enemies and kill them...they would have been disobedient to God and their heritage would have been cut off.

If Queen Esther allowed evil Haman to wipe out the Jews...they would have been cut off.

Israel has the RIGHT to defend themselves...and GOD is on their side!!!

The LORD rebuke you for accusing me of being a warmonger.

-

[pgh69]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Don't you think there was any 'hidden agenda' at all? I mean, the people you mentioned above or at least the companies they were/are involved in seemed to come out of it fairly well, financially.

Absolutely there was a hidden agenda. But, it was what I described - establishing a stable democracy in a volatile region. It was hidden b/c if that was the reason we went to war, there wouldn't have been sufficient support from the American public. That's why the Bush administration concocted the notion that Hussein was sitting on a massive arsenal of "weapons of massive destruction." That was the justification for war and it was used to hide the true agenda.

I honestly don't know if anyone in the Bush administration personally profitted from the war.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I don't see why those people would be concerned with 'democracy' pg, at least not in the way you described. True, America doesn't have an oil shortage; YET! Now if you had said that America wanted to bring 'democracy' to Iraq by installing a government that would be sympathetic to the USA in the future (to safeguard oil supplies), I might have bought it.

I think there were a wide variety of reasons that they wanted peace and stability in the middle east. And you're right - I'm sure that one of those reasons was to insure that, in the future, instability wouldn't threaten the flow of oil out of the region. But, that was far from the only reason.

Just as an aside - and I'm sure this is a discussion better suited for the political forum - here's my take on American diplomacy: I feel very, very strongly that America has no business choosing to depose a leader of sovereign nation, even when that leader is a repressive dictator, when the people of that nation aren't actively rebelling. IMHO, it was up to the Iraqi people to do the math and determine whether it was worth it to them, in terms of human life and suffering, to rebel. We shouldn't have done that math for them. I'm not sure how many 100's of thousands of Iraqis died to insure their freedom, but they, not we, should have decided whether that freedom was worth the cost. On the other hand, when citizens of a country are rebelling against a repressive dictator - particularly one who is better armed and willing to massacre his own people, as in Libya and Syria - I believe that America has a moral duty to aid those people in some way. The form of that aid may very depending on the specifics of the circumstances. In some instances, aid may take the form of air support or even ground troops. In other cases, perhaps it's guns or humanitarian aid. I believe that the Obama administration handled the Libyan situation perfectly. I believe it hasn't done nearly enough to help the people of Syria.

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sapphire: Thank you for explaining that you and I are talking about two totally different contexts. Yes, in the OT that was one thing.
The point of the NT is to restore relations so that we eventually don't go to war, we practice scriptures in Matthew to make peace after transgressions so they never escalate as far as they have in the Middle East etc.

What makes you "warmongering" is if you address Plad out of unforgiveness for what you think he stands for instead of forgiveness. So it comes across
as negative when I know your intentions are for the highest ideals and truth.

Sorry if I contribute to that in ANY way when that is NOT my intent either!

I hope this is clear, that by living by the NT then we avoid the wars in the OT. So we don't have to go there. Death and destruction shall be no more.

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Emily, if King David and his army did not go after the Philistines their enemies and kill them...they would have been disobedient to God and their heritage would have been cut off.

If Queen Esther allowed evil Haman to wipe out the Jews...they would have been cut off.

Israel has the RIGHT to defend themselves...and GOD is on their side!!!

The LORD rebuke you for accusing me of being a warmonger.

-

It is the tone in which you seek rebuke that sounds like warmongering,
Sapphire. If you rebuke out of love for wisdom not hate for wrong
then it comes across more receptive and inspires peace not war in return.

You and Plad both go to extremes, but you are both kind to FORGIVE
others in the meantime. You just don't always see how forgiving each other is to tolerate the things you can't stand on here. Hope it gets better and not so negative all the time. Sorry again, I certainly don't mean anything negative! Yours truly, Emily

[emilynghiem]

Hi Plad: for every person who responds to relentless injustice by trying to make peace across barriers to reduce the hostility,
YES there are those who go to war in order to fight for freedom.

But you don't go to war against "all Jews that are bad" or "all Palestinians" that are bad. You ACKNOWLEDGE the peaceful Jews and Palestinians who are not part of the conflict, and you defend that. Not just one side, but both.
And you equally condemn or go to war against the hostile forces on BOTH sides, not just one side. So that way you are attacking the people causing the problem, not just taking sides based on cultural or national affiliation.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

OK. So assuming that YOU are a Palestinian and:
-you have had your only means of feeding your family (your land) stolen from you and it now has an illegal Israeli settlement on it.

- assuming you have been forced into situation of poverty and destitution by people who are acting illegally.

- given that your 'enemy' has ignored more than 200 UN Resolutions to give you your land back.

- given that you have seen countries like the USA and the UK invade another country (Iraq) on the grounds that it did not comply with about 2 UN Resolutions, but do nothing to help you.

- given that most of the world says that you are right and the Israelis are wrong, but do nothing to help you other than 'talk'

-given that the 'talk' has done nothing to solve the problem over the past 50 years.

- given that you have no army to fight your cause for you... what would you do to get the rights that you deserve?

P.S. If your reply is yet another 10,000 word edict on 'restorative justice' I will ignore it.

You fight against the oppressors on BOTH the Jewish and Palestinian sides, and you defend the right to peace for civil citizens on BOTH sides as well.

[Sapphire]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Dear Sapphire: Thank you for explaining that you and I are talking about two totally different contexts. Yes, in the OT that was one thing.
The point of the NT is to restore relations so that we eventually don't go to war, we practice scriptures in Matthew to make peace after transgressions so they never escalate as far as they have in the Middle East etc.

Think again Emily.


Jesus speaking.....
Matthew 10:34-36

New King James Version

Christ Brings Division

34. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36. and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’


Matthew 24:3-14

New King James Version

The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age

3. Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
4. And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9. “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."




-

[santana3]

Why all this
Corrupt governments and policies

the truth here
I hope to benefit all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEN1vuCrJHw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMVknISzTg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBwhN0JBoHc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjIe0RxXmAs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se3f8W2XLjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFehB-Rp8sY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMG-oZoOzI

[Sapphire]

Originally Posted by santana3

Why all this
Corrupt governments and policies

the truth here
I hope to benefit all

You're nothing but a liar.