posted on November 1, 2002 10:30:58 AM new
The Arab nations state that they won't be taking a US-led attack on Iraq lying down this time, especially if it is unilateral. While Arab states weren't ready to deal with the attack on Afghanistan, time has gone by and they have prepared for a long and bloody conflict with the West. With America going it alone, that means that they can focus their war efforts on just one or two countries, like Britain.
With the urging of the Fundamentalist Christians for a worldwide holocaust (Armageddon) and pressures from the Oil and Gas concerns, President Bush is likely to give in and attack Iraq. In the event that the Arab world this time retaliates on US soil, will this be a sufficient price to pay for getting rid of Saddam Hussein? Will it be worth, say, the loss of St. Louis to chemical or biological retaliation? Would it be worth the loss of Los Angeles to a so-called "Dirty-Bomb"? Will the ends justify the reason for this unprovoked attack on Iraq?
To attack or not to attack, that is the question on the minds of many Americans. Whether it is nobler to commit an unprovoked attack against a foreign nation or to use diplomacy is not on the minds of those in the White House. And the question of just how prepared is the Arab world in organizing and retaliating against America?
While many people are all for an unprovoked attack on Iraq, how many of them have sat back to visualize retaliation? It's been 61 years since an enemy has dared to attack Americans on American soil (not counting 9-11, of course). And should the world rise up into a full world war, as it could turn out say the talking heads on TV, are we prepared to go the full distance and in the end, would it all have been worth it?
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Nov 1, 2002 10:31 AM ]
posted on November 1, 2002 10:39:00 AM newWith the urging of the Fundamentalist Christians for a worldwide holocaust (Armageddon)
Ahem...I've seen no "urging" by Fundamentalist Christians for a holocaust. I have seen such urging by Fundamentalist Islamics, though. Perhaps you would like to post a link...?
Oh, I forgot...LindaK has pointed out that you don't do links.
posted on November 1, 2002 11:25:34 AM new
While SOME Arab nations are likely stand against the U.S. in attacking the terrorists, Russia has taken a stand with the U.S. & Brittan by allowing arms & ammunition to be freely transported by rail across its borders enroute to the war in Afghanistan.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/828715.asp
Spare the Rod, Spoil the Dictator
“President Clinton’s decision to let Saddam Hussein ‘off lightly’ after
Iraq’s 1993 attempt on the life of former President George Bush may
have emboldened the Iraqi leader, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz said Monday. Saddam ‘was a little surprised he could be
caught trying to murder a U.S. president and get off as lightly as he did,’
Mr. Wolfowitz told reporters at an electronic warfare conference (in
Nashville, Tenn.).”
posted on November 1, 2002 11:38:40 AM new
Hi Katy! The fundamentalists are hoping for a world war because that will be the end fight between God and satan, with God winning. All the evil will be cast out and Jerry (not Lewis) and Pat will be the chosen ones to run the world because of all the good work they've done in God's name so far.
posted on November 1, 2002 12:08:38 PM new
>Ahem...I've seen no "urging" by Fundamentalist Christians for a holocaust.
It was on Sunday 60 Minutes a few weeks back. Several posters on here saw the segment as well. Basically, it was about the support that Christian Fundamentlaists are throwing behind Israel and their motives and the influence put upon the White House. In a nutshell, Katy, the long-term goal of the Christian Fundamenalists is to bring about the End Times, which is the fullfillment of biblical phrophesy. Their concerted efforts focus on each item that needs to be fulfilled and to fulfill it. That includes the "necessity" of a world-wide holoocaust aka Armageddon. This is why they support Israel - not the Jews, so strongly. Without Israel, the End Times can not come about.
Jerry Falwell was interviewed where he cheerfully explained to the camera just how much influence that he and the Christian Fundamenalists put upon Bush and the White House. He frothed with pleasure describing how he pressured Bush's foreign policy decisions concerning Israel.
It's too bad that technology and copyright laws can't simply provide a link to a video of the segment. It was a real eye-opener for me and from the mail that CBS received, it was quite an eye-opener for many Americans.
posted on November 1, 2002 12:14:48 PM new
>Spare the Rod, Spoil the Dictator
>
>“President Clinton’s decision to let Saddam Hussein ‘off lightly’ after
>Iraq’s 1993 attempt on the life of former President George Bush may
>have emboldened the Iraqi leader, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
>Wolfowitz said Monday. Saddam ‘was a little surprised he could be
>caught trying to murder a U.S. president and get off as lightly as he did,’
>Mr. Wolfowitz told reporters at an electronic warfare conference (in
>Nashville, Tenn.).”
>
>- United Press International, 10/30/02
So true. And if only Bush, Sr. had gone after Saddam in the first place instead of whimping out like he did, "waffling", he later never would have to blame Clinton for the asassination attempt.
This goes to prove what every millitary saying has said concerning finishing the job - leave no one in the opposing leadership alive!
posted on November 1, 2002 12:16:39 PM new
What do you mean, "Baloney" Katy? It was on 60 Minutes just a few weeks ago. I can call up 60 minutes and have them rush-deliver the segment on tape to you for $250.00 however.
posted on November 1, 2002 12:26:41 PM new
Here's some Lynx for Katy. Question is, will she read them and if not, was it worth my time to post these links here for her as "proof"? I'm betting NOT!
Does everyone see how easy it is for someone who has a doubt to just go type in a few words at Google.com and find out everything that they need, instead of simply dropping in here and placing demands on everyone for "proof"?
It's sheer laziness on the part of those demanding proof not to go out there and do their own research. You see the effect that it has? It has made Katy look like a <insert appropriate nasty>. Don't let this happen to you!
Instead, in the future, go get evidence to the contrary and then present it HERE to refute! That's the only way to save face!
Enough already!
ed.UBB
[ edited by Borillar on Nov 1, 2002 12:28 PM ]
posted on November 1, 2002 12:27:05 PM new
The christian fundementalists are urging Bush to support Israel and not allow a Palestinian state. The reason they are doing it has nothing to do with geo-politics, but rather for biblical prophecy reasons. The Fundementalists want the Mosque at the site of the Temple Mount destroyed and a new Temple built in order to fullfil biblical prophecy, as well as othe rprophecies that demand that Jews take back the Holy Land including all of Jerusalem.
Some Israelis take the support any way they can get it, others are somewhat disturbed by this support.
In any event, regarding the original question, I would lean towards it not being the end of the world, and the US and its allies will roll over any resistence in the middle east conflicts.
posted on November 1, 2002 12:34:20 PM new
An attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam. Not my words, but the sentiments expressed by a LOT of muslims around the world. Are we prepared for retaliation? I mean, you personally - you who support us going after Saddam in an unprovoked attack. 9-11 should have brought home the message that we can be got to!
posted on November 1, 2002 12:55:25 PM new
LOL! Borillar, not ALL Christians are fundamentalists, not ALL Christian fundamentalists are nuts. SOME Christians are nuts, SOME fundamentalists are Christians. Do ya get it yet? Nah, I didn't think so.
I say again, Borillar. Baloney. Nuts to you.
Reamond, I am not a fundamentalist, but I support Israel. I do not support a "palestinian" state.
An attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam.
Not true. Fundamentalist Muslims desperately want it to be so, because they think it validates their self-image as martyrs. Only when these Islamic countries quit embracing themselves as "victims" and realize that they alone are responsible for their sorry plight, will they see progress. They are masters at scapegoating. Saddam could give a rats azz about "Islam".
posted on November 1, 2002 01:23:31 PM new
I want to see links that all christian fundies are not nuts. Let's see them.....
Without proof, they are nuts.....(Your logic)
Actually I do not believe they are all nuts(but I still want to see those links). However, the ones that control the man with his finger on the button are nuts. That is all that counts.
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 1, 2002 01:38:33 PM new
It would really really be easy for the US and Russia to take on the whole of the Arab world and win with little effort or casualties. They simply have to agree to reduce their nuclear stockpile by say 1,000 warheads each by delivery to middle eastern targets. Take out the 2,000 largest population centers, military targets, and religeous centers such as Mecca in the region and the culture and religion would cease to exist in any meaningful way. Half of the population and 90% of the wealth is in the cities - so with fallout and starvation you'd probably have 5 to 10% of the population left most of whom would be nomads and goat herders.
I can't see them having the WILL to do it, but they do have the MEANS.
posted on November 1, 2002 01:42:32 PM new
LoL mlecher!! That's part of the problem. They shouldn't call themselves Christian fundamentalists because that gives real Christians a bad name. They're a cult unto themselves, simple.
posted on November 1, 2002 02:52:09 PM new
Who believes in the certainty of the Biblically prophesied Armegeddon more strongly, Borillar or the Christian Fundamentalists? Hard to say.
posted on November 1, 2002 03:43:02 PM new
It's the Fundies, of course. I don't believe that the Bible is "Contract" by which God MUST follow it or else. God has shown us that She/He/It can and does change His/Her/Its Mind. Further arguements in Matthew show us that God will NOT be bound by any contract as to how to get Him to come to Earth or WHEN. What I do believe in is the amount of undue influence that these Fundies do have over Bush and our foreign policy. When Fundies want the World to End for their private religious beliefs, it affects you and me -- and WE weren't consulted! Even IF TRUE, would you want a world wide conflageration and/or nuclear holocaust? They do. So they shift our foreign policy towards their goals as unrealistic as it is AND IT STINKS!
posted on November 1, 2002 03:47:49 PM new"LOL! Borillar, not ALL Christians are fundamentalists, not ALL Christian fundamentalists are nuts. SOME Christians are nuts, SOME fundamentalists are Christians."
Another insult to me.
Immediately after that, Katy goes on to lump all Muslim Fundamenalists inthe world together: "Fundamentalist Muslims desperately want it to be so, because they think it validates their self-image as martyrs."
posted on November 1, 2002 03:57:47 PM newImmediately after that, Katy goes on to lump all Muslim Fundamenalists inthe world together:
Well yeah, Borillar. I AM lumping Islamic Fundamentalists together. They have the same message. Kill Jews and infidels. Can you think of any Islamic "fundamentalist" that says otherwise? Duh.
posted on November 1, 2002 06:58:28 PM new
Borillar,
No offense, but this is a classic post. ABSOLUTELY, you will see interviews with Christain groups declaring support for Israel. Them and the Boy Scouts, YMCA, Knight of Columbus and sixty thousand other groups. It's you, though, that declares the reason why and the ultimate goal. This then becomes the "facts" of the matter. This is similiar to listening to Falwell give a speech wherein he says Mohammed was evil, blah, blah, and tranforming this to "Falwell says kill a Muslim today!" because it is your opinion this is his message.
You anticipate that the US acting unilaterally will drive the Arabs to band together for a long and bloody conflict. I was looking at the map and scratching my head trying to think of who the members of such a union might be. Who do you forsee doing this?
posted on November 1, 2002 08:10:09 PM new
NO offense taken, DeSquirrel. Since you ask it so nicely and you've mentioned where your confusion lies, I'll do my very best to make the fuzziness focus for you.
First of all, I started up a topic. Next, I picked a current subject that is of concern for everyone. Third, because the regular RT'ers have haggled over nearly every faucet of the coming engagement, in order to promote discussion, I took some comments made by Walter Cronkite today, as well as what the talking heads on TV were yakking about, and that is the very real possibility that this could easily (their words) expand into a world-wide conflagration.
Now, since that 60 Minute piece (I thought) was so well established for the RT'ers, I decided to place an "angle of interest" to the topic by raising the possibility that the Arab Nations might rise up against us - a real possibility if you recall the 9-11 attack. How realistic is the possibility that the Arabic/Islamic nations would fight us, either together or through mass acts of terrorism I left up to posters. I didn't expect to have someone think that *I'M* supposed to give all of the discussion as well as the topic!
You'll note that the Christian Fundamentalists who are pushing for Armageddon and the Oil and Gas concerns get the same amount of attention in the thread post? It has been the ebb and flow of conversation, DeSquirrel, that has placed such emphasis on the role that the Fundies play, not my ministrations or observations or conclusions. We could go on about the Oil and Gas concerns just as readily, but Katy badgered me for "proof". Otherwise, I would have let someone else answer it.
It is unfortunate that you did not see the 60 Minutes segment on TV. "Them and the Boy Scouts, YMCA, Knight of Columbus and sixty thousand other groups" did not actually alter US policy in the Middle-East. However, pressure from the Fundies did. That's a significant difference in my book - an important difference, in fact. I see those who are clearly effective at dictating US Foreign Policy as being an important factor and those groups who have no significant clout to do anything but piss in the wind as insignificant. Therefore, the stated agenda of the Fundies who are dictating US Policy in the region becomes important, and that agenda is to, in so many words, create a worldwide conflagration.
