SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Dr. Ron Paul, Next Christian President?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 )


This war was completely approved by a vast majority in Congress (including Democrats) -- and continues to receive funding by the new members of Congress.

No, the Act was passed authorizing the United States to go to war with Iraq [i]if[/i] certain criteria were met. These criteria included the Executive proving to Congress that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq was in cahoots with terrorists.

They proved neither and Bush, in fact, lied about both.

If this war is "illegal" and President Bush has "broken the law" as you allege, then why do the Democrats in Congress refuse to stop it?

Probably because since Bush has doubled the public debt of 4 trillion to a debt of over 8.7 trillion since taking office (kind of amusing that a republican, who believes in "conservative" government, should double the nation debt in, what, six years?)... they probably believe "staying the course" and instituting "regime change" in Iraq will be more profitable (oil, anyone?)than pulling out - since they're there already anyway.

Besides, two parties does not a democracy make. But I digress...

I'm afraid that you have crossed the line from "truth" and have ventured into a vocal assumption based upon misleading "information." Please understand that I am not making any personal attacks on you, but simply reacting mordantly (and without malice) to the statements that you've already made. If you are to make such a slanderous remark against the President of the United States, you should be ready, willing and able to "back up" such a statement.

Take a deep, deep breath... ahhhh... that's it...

Now for the lies:

“The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

No WMDs were found.

“[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”

Hussein was a modernist, Bin Laden a fundamentalist. The Bush Administration never found a link.

“America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.”

The United States formed the "coalition of the willing" and unilaterally decided to invade Iraq without the consent of the vast majority of the world's nations.

“If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”

650,000 Iraqis have died in this war, many of them innocent women and children. And during the nineties an estimated one million children starved to death because of U.S. led sanctions.

“We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

He should have said, "we'll hire Halliburton to reconstruct everything for you". No work for the Iraqis, but lots of money for Americans in the way of weapons and reconstruction industry.

“Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.”

Saddam posed no threat to America. America posed a threat to Iraq's oil.

“The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”

For every Iraqi kid killed by an American depleted uranium shell, ten more pop up. They're learning guerrila tactics. And they want revenge.

The toppling of Hussein increased the threat of terrorism.

“Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”

The single biggest thing Iraqis miss about Saddam is "at least there was order". Rape, theft, kidnapping, murder, and terrorism are rampent under the U.S. puppet government (divide and conquer... makes it easy to git' their oil [insert Bush laugh here])

 2007/7/25 17:49

Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7497


Where do you get your knowledge about the "Sound of Music'? Have you watched it? Did you turn in your membership card to the manhood club?

Hey, man! I love to hear those children sing! Opps, I am a female.... :-)


Sandra Miller

 2007/7/25 18:33Profile


Where do you get your knowledge about the "Sound of Music'? Have you watched it? Did you turn in your membership card to the manhood club?

I always imagined Krispy as a "West Side Story" kind of Marine. Like tough, but in a sensitive way...


 2007/7/25 18:43

Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924

 er bro Paul...

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved. AMEN.

bro Paul you said:

Donald Sutherland, on the other hand, who is also Canadian, is one of the finest actors in all of history. I know this because my wife made me watch "Pride and Predjudice" the other day (all of you guys who are yet to be married, get ready to have to do stuff like this). She also made me watch "Gone with the Wind" a few months ago. Pray for me.

well maybe at your house... :-P ...that's not how i roll! 8-)

praise God for our wives. AMEN.

Grace and Peace be ours in Jesus' Name. AMEN.

Farai Bamu

 2007/7/25 19:02Profile

Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


Hello Corey...

They proved neither and Bush, in fact, lied about both.

I am openly asking you to stop publicly "assassinating" the character of President Bush by making such a wild and biased assertion. There are many of us that are fully aware of the issues at hand who do not agree with or believe the multiple conspiracy theories that are laid against the President in regards to the conflict. It is difficult to sit by and listen to you spew forth such supposedly "expert" rhetoric while only offering assumption rather than proof. This sort of rhetoric should not be reflective of the character of a believer, and certainly has no place on this forum. Have you ever sat with President Bush, members of his cabinet or members of Congress? Is the information that you provide in your accusation first hand, second hand or simply gathered from the internet?

I truly believe that this sort of rhetoric is extremely dangerous. First of all, it is dangerous to assert such reasoning as fact without making a distinction between the two. It seems that such subtle assertions are actually an attempt to convert opinion rather than present fact within the forum. Additionaly, many of the statements that you present as "fact" are actually unsubstantiated or undocumented declarations. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but is it right to introduce those beliefs in such a manner here?

In regards to the rules of this forum community, the Moderators and Administrators ask us to refrain from introducing such biased political rhetoric. Not only do your statements appear to be politically motivated, but your words actually seem to border on mockery and hatred (as in "[i]insert Bush laugh here[/i]").

Again, please don't think that I simply desire to point out your posts because of political disagreement. However, it just seems like there hasn't been a proper defense to your accusations. What should I do? I could go through your threads line-by-line and point out many areas of disagreement while also including source material to counter your claims. Remember, even in regards to Iraqi deaths, there are many different organizations that make completely different claims. As is true with all statistics, the conclusion can be changed according to the information that is presented or that which is not presented. As such, I could also go through all of your claims and question the validity of the statistics that you provided. However, I really don't have the time to do this. In fact, no one should have to do that on a forum such as this. Opinionated accusations, without evidence, should not exist here UNLESS you plainly distinguish between what it is fact, what is deduction, and what is merely opinion.

There are a multitude of opinions about the Iraq War, including perspectives concerning its rationality. As a student of PhD candidate in Policy, I've heard a multitude of information and opinion in the matter. Which is correct? There are compelling points on all sides. While we all realize that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq (thankfully -- even though Saddam Hussein claimed that they existed and the intelligence of many major powers believed such), that was only a part (although, major) of the rationale behind the war. There were several other points introduced by then Secretary of State Colin Powell. We should also be quick to remember that President Bush and his Administration relied on the information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. President Bush, Powell, Cheney, Ashcroft and the like presented an argument that was based upon that intelligence. You are accusing President Bush of "lies" -- all of which were based upon domestic and foreign intelligence. Wouldn't that be as disingenerous as claiming to actually know the inner MOTIVES of the man?

I'm not certain that anyone knows the "correct" perspective about Iraq -- including the millions of armchair generals who search the internet and reach conclusions after a limited amount of limited research. The only safe option is to make a distinction as such. Regardless, we should never make an accusation that we cannot know the certainty of. So the next time that you claim that President Bush lied, please remember the scope of the claim that you are making and be prepared to introduce firsthand knowledge (including firsthand personal conversation) in the matter.


By the way, I am NOT trying to say that President Bush didn't lie. I am only trying to say that there is no way for [u]you[/u] to truly know this. If you can't honestly know the certainly of such a statement, then how can you publicly slander him? We should be much slower to judge, in my opinion.


 2007/7/25 22:44Profile


I am openly asking you to stop publicly "assassinating" the character of President Bush by making such a wild and biased assertion. There are many of us that are fully aware of the issues at hand who do not agree with or believe the multiple conspiracy theories that are laid against the President in regards to the conflict.

Are these links conspiracy theories?

[url=]According to the CIA's Charles Duelfer, Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. (Original Link - CNN)[/url]

[url=]And experts across the globe highly doubt Bush's alleged link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (Original Link - CBC)[/url]

By the way, I am NOT trying to say that President Bush didn't lie.

Good. Because he lied a ton of lies to get you kind folks into an illegal war. A lot of young American men, and far more Iraqis, have died because of his lies.

You must work for some kind of Homeland Security or government-type job to be this loyal. I appreaciate your loyalty, but I'm after the truth.

 2007/7/25 23:16


I believe it is a the known fact is we don't know all matters or the confidential facts in which to agree or disagree with the President. We have not briefed on any matters. I am encouraged by a sitting President or any President who will stand for the God, the Word of God and be dependent upon HIM. We have had many Presidents since the birth of the USA who have did just that. In a Presidential debate in 2000 when the President was asked," what person has had the most influence on your life", and His answer was " Christ". The follow up question was would you explain how? He said if you have never experience it,it would hard for me would be hard to explain and then he said," he changed my life". They thought they had just killed his chances to win. But what the devil meant for harm God turned into good.

Our first allegiance as a citizen of heaven is to the Lamb. Our second is to our brother and sisters on earth. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I have heard many negative and positive comments about the President. Our system of government gives each citizen the right to either negative or positive. I won't try to justify or defend his actions and that is not my purpose but whether as a citizen I agree or disagree, he has been given the authority to execute the office as he sees fit. God's Word says I am to pray for those in authority and I must admit I find it easier to pray for him than some of the Presidents in the past and possible in the future. Some of the past Presidents I thought were right on target at the time, but since I was saved I disagree with them. However, whether they have the, "what's God got to do with it" attitude or not, we are to pray for those who God has put in authority. My prayer is we will always have a person that it is a joy to pray for and that you have heard from his mouth and seen from his vetoes, and from his speeches he is dependent upon who we all are dependent upon and stand for righteousness. Stands for The God of Abraham, Isiaac and Jacob, the ONE that sent HIS SON Jesus, to die on a cross for you and I. He has overcome death, hell and the grave, paid for our sins, so we can live too. This post is not meant to be political. God Bless the USA and God Bless the President and may both the President and the USA always bless God. When we no longer consider ourselves one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.

 2007/7/26 13:47


I always imagined Krispy as a "West Side Story" kind of Marine. Like tough, but in a sensitive way...

Funny you should mention that... I like West Side Story. First time I made my kids watch it they were like, "Uhhh... why are they dancing??"


Check it out, I like Phantom Of The Opera too. The musical version. The movie they made of A.L. Webber's musical is great.

I'm a multi-facetted kinda redneck.


 2007/7/26 13:57


I like West Side Story...

I like Phantom Of The Opera too...

I'm a multi-facetted kinda redneck.

Well, I'm a Canuck who enjoys a Guiness or wine over normal beer... and the only time I care about hockey is when the Edmonton Oilers make the playoffs (I still haven't forgiven you Carolinians about 2006)...

So nobody's perfect.

 2007/7/26 15:16


I still haven't forgiven you Carolinians about 2006

Get over it, loser. lol

Well, I'm a Canuck who enjoys a Guiness

I'm a patriot. I dont drink beer hardly at all. Maybe twice a year over a nice steak dinner... and then it's Samuel Adams.

(This is [b]really[/b] gonna upset some folks here! We need to stop being so transparent!)


 2007/7/26 15:24

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy