THE NEXT PETRA PROJECT ?

[separateunion]

In saying that I disagree with the "reasons" for the Iraq war does not mean that I support Hussein. A terrible person like that, a cruel dictator, should be taken out of power. In fact, I wish it had been done long ago.

I'm glad you agree. If Bush 41 had had any backbone, he would've taken Hussein out. Obviously, Clinton had even less of a backbone.

My frustration is with the reasons given for it. My frustration is with the blind eye to Rwanda and the massacre that happened there. My frustration is with Americans who think their country is the best in the world even though they charge for health care.

First of all, the reasons given for the campaign in Iraq were all good reasons and none of them lies. I know for you RJ, just like every liberal in this country, you are focusing on the WMD ONLY! Bush gave many more reasons for invading Iraq than that.

As far as the WMD go, can you prove they never existed? Can you prove they weren't shipped to Syria? If you cannot, then you cannot say that Bush has lied because you cannot prove it. Also a fact of small interest is that every friggin country in the world had intelligence that said that Iraq had WMD, so it's not like the US made up reasons to go into Iraq. There were plenty of reasons to go in there already.

Let us not forget that this campaign is part of the War On Terror. By flexing our military muscle against a country that housed terrorists, we lit a fire under Khadafi in Libya, who has now stood down, and we have put Korea on the hot seat.

Secondly, what happened in Rwanda did not happen under this administration, therefore GWB should not be blamed.

Thirdly, we have a right to think our country is the best in the world. It's called NATIONAL PRIDE. Besides, you can't deny that the US is the most prosperous country in the world. Yeah, we're not perfect, but what is? You seem to look at all of the negative things in this country and use those to say how "bad" we are. Typical liberal spin.

Shouldn't health care be a basic human right? As the great Larry Norman once said, "You said all men are equal, all men are brothers. Then why are the rich more equal than others?"

Health care a human right? As far as I know, the only rights humans have are God given, so unless you have scripture to back up this argument, I'd say it's bunk. It is not the government's job to interfere with health care. It should be privatized. Medicare is a socialistic enterpise which should be done away with in this country. Government handouts mean less freedom for me, and I would like to keep my freedom, thank you very much.

All men are equal, but obviously rich people are going to have more money to spend. Tough luck. Life isn't fair. From this statement and the statement about free national health care, I'm assuming you have some socialist tendencies. Do me a favor and don't bring your French infested ideas into MY country.

[p-freak]

Something that strikes me in this discussion is that some of you 'accuse' people who don't share your opinion of being misled and listening to erroneous people. And you don't want to face the option that perhaps you are the one who is blind... How can you ever be sure that the claims of Bush and his government are true? You are not in the CIA.
I think you should keep the option open that whatever is said by the government might not be entirely true.

[Michael]

Listen guys... this discussion REALLY belongs on another message board. I mean, it's in Off-Topic and all, but it's getting pretty close to completely irrelevant to anything this board is set up for. Can we take this into email, or some other venue? I'm afraid all we're going to do is get mad at each other for no reason. Nobody who posts on this board really knows what Bush and Blair saw come across their desks before the Iraq war, or what their true motives were and are, and I don't think anyone in the President's Cabinet reads this Zone so I doubt fist-fighting here will make one bit of difference. Let's examine the situation:

OPTION ONE: continue the discussion here, solve nothing, convince nobody, hurt people's feelings
OPTION TWO: take the discussion elsewhere or kill it now, solve nothing, convince nobody, hurt nobody, and enjoy talking about Petra-related topics again!

Think we can get on with option two here pretty quick? At the very least, take your argument into PMs and keep it off the board. I don't like to close threads; I prefer to let people be grown-up about things and allow threads to die on their own.

[separateunion]

James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows"

Widows and orphans are the oppressed & marginalized - THE POOR. A "Christian" nation would seek to ease their suffering.

James 2:16 says, "If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed ," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" - I admit this is a bigger stretch, but it's Scripture which talks about meeting the needs of the body. Health is a need of the body.

[Petra related? - Isn't James John's fav. book?]

Let's not forget the sin of Sodom: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom : She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." EZEKIEL 16:49

Do you think the same could be said about the USA?
"Now this was the sin of your sister America: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

All of these scriptures refer to helping the poor and needy, yes, but where does it say it's the government's job? The church is the one who should be taking care of the poor and the needy, not the government. I agree 100% that the church is not doing it's job to help those in need.

I won't respond to the accusations of being a liberal. Name calling and your poor logic don't impress me.

If you would care to take a glance at what I wrote a second time, you would realize that I never once called you a liberal, but that I merely compared your views to those of a fabian socialist liberal. On top of that, I did not call you any name. Poor logic? Oh, do tell.

[rlima]

I do agree with Michael. I�m tired of this never-ending discussion. It�s all started because I posted my opinion about Iraq�s war. I�ll not convince no one, and no one will convince me, about political issues. So, let�s finish it. If you�re a democrat, ok, God bless you. If you�re a republican, ok, God bless you. I�m not neither democrat or republican, because in Brazil the political scenary is a little bit different. So, I�m not a "liberal", as I was acused to be, because, to me, "liberal" is a theological issue, not a political issue. "Liberal", to me, is a person who denies the supernatural issues at the Bible, and live this relavivizated way. Ok, no more blames, no more accusations no more slurs, let�s keep in mind we are brothers and sisters IN CHRIST, not in politics. Let�s repent of our sin of breaking the harmony of the Body because of political opinions. We can live together despite our differences at the political ground. As a teacher of Haggai Institute said to me, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And the main thing is the Cross, not Bush�s administration.