Election 2004!!! Make YOUR vote count....

[LionPride]

[quote="count2infinity";p="64365"]i'm not trying to make this into a religion thing, but i don't think God would want war anywhere, but i do think that Bush did the right thing in goin into iraq[/quote]

Count - youre right. God wouldn't want war. However, war is justified in the Bible if the purpose is to eliminate an evil government.

D-nice - great way to put it.

[once a runner]

OK LP, to officially answer your question....I would feel the same as I did on 9/11. That is was a tragedy and we must get the people responsible for the attack. As the president stated, it's a long, long war. I simply don't see where Iraq was more of a priority than trying to dispose the rest of the Al Qaeda cells in the world. Believe it or not, I would not hold the administration responsible if we were attacked by Iraq while we were fighting Al Qaeda. But I will hold him responsible if we are attacked by Al Qaeda while fighitng Iraq.

Now, on the topic of religion, I may get crucified by some of you myself for throwing this out there, but I'll give it a shot anyway....

http://www.birdhouse.org/blog/images/jesusbush.jpg

[LionPride]

Gee runner - that ad forgot the one about abortion. Geez, you guys will stop at nothing, will you? Amazing - and desparate.

I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't hold Bush accountable if Iraq would've attacked us before we got to them. But hey, at least your the first to try to answer the question.

As for the Saudi's, Dawg is right about them trying to clean up their house. I do doubt that they will fully succeed without a democratically elected government. Every situation calls for a different political position. With Iraq, there was 12 years of attempting, and something like 19 UN resolutions which they scoffed at (because the UN has no teeth and the world knows it). The intel pointed to Iraq as a STATE that funded terrorist groups, and in fact this is true (just ask the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine). In Saudi Arabia, the government does not fund the groups. Their problem is the culture in that nation has allowed these groups to fester, but it is not state funded. North Korea is the same. They are certainly dangerous, I won't deny that, but the government has not funded terrorist organizations.

[D-nice]

runner, bush is not running against jesus, he's running with him.

[fleaflicker]

I would not hold the administration responsible for being attacked by Iraq. They had weapons and they hated us. So what? How many other countries have weapons and hate us? However, due to Iraq, we haven't been trying as hard to round up al Queda, and that could come back to haunt us. So if al Queda attacks us again, then yes, this administration is responsible for that, because they didn't take them out.
By the way, as a sidenote, didn't the bin Laden family get a rather fond farewell from the United States? They were shipped out in the week following 9-11 for fear of persecution, and they weren't even asked any questions about where Osama might be. Doesn't that kind of make you wonder how serious this administration is/was about getting the man responsible for the attacks? It sure does that to me.
And southpaw, what I meant about a possible missile strike on Israel being their problem is about the same as the rest of the world viewed 9-11 as our problem. Sure, Israel is our ally, and it's not good for that to happen to them, but hey, it didn't happen to us. And we are not responsible for guarding every one of our allies against terrorists attacks. We are strictly responsible for our own shores. May sound hard to believe, but it is true.
Lion-line, I don't believe terrorists attacks are any more likely with Kerry than with Bush, so long as the security measures we have taken to protect our shores remain in place. In other words, so long as our country spends an active effort on protecting our shores, it doesn't matter who is president.
Those are my thoughts for the day, and now I'm sure everybody else will jump on them. Flame on!

[once a runner]

[quote="D-nice";p="64481"]runner, bush is not running against jesus, he's running with him.[/quote]

I'm sure Dick Cheney has been called a lot of things in his life, but I don't think God is one of them.

It would be interesting to hear how as a Christian one would reconcile the policies of the gov't with the teachings of Jesus.

[foghorn]

[web]http://www.drudgereport.com/bushgq.htm[/web]

[D-nice]

runner, check it out like van halen said " runnin with the devil" i said bush is running with jesus, not in the sense that you can vote for him(jesus) on november 2nd but rather that george W. bush chooses to spend quality time with e very real friend jesus of nazereth.

[LionPride]

[quote="once a runner";p="64509"][quote="D-nice";p="64481"]runner, bush is not running against jesus, he's running with him.[/quote]

I'm sure Dick Cheney has been called a lot of things in his life, but I don't think God is one of them.

It would be interesting to hear how as a Christian one would reconcile the policies of the gov't with the teachings of Jesus.[/quote]

How about how John Kerry supports the murder of innocent babies?

[southpaw]

Democrats use the "separation of church and state" for their Stalinist anti-religion stance. This is a total falsehood because it is in the constitution to prevent one religion from taking over a gov't or the country adopting a "national religion". It had nothing to do with the gov't divorcing itself totally from religion.

LP- you just lit a powder keg with the abortion debate.