Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (585541)	6/26/2004 12:14:26 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Is that kinda like how we "liberated" all those Iraqi kids from from their arms and legs? Uh, this is remarkably stupid, friend; and it has nothing to do with arms and legs of Iraqi children. You were implying that by his extending the deployment of troops in two families close to you who subsequent to the extension dissolved, Bush was somehow culpable for the dissolution. It was a foolish shift of blame when there are families that endure far worse and that remain intact nevertheless. I have a dear friend who has been suffering from cancer for years whose poor wife has had to endure a far worse separation from him than the wives of most troops in Iraq; and yet they are still rock solid. Extended tours, cancer, economic disaster and death are all part of life. If you suffer one or more of these, you simply have no excuse for blaming them or anyone for the breakup of your marriage. If you abandon your family, your family pal, for something as relatively trivial as an extended deployment, you were a creep to begin with. You answer this question for me. If Jesus said, "blesses are the peacemakers," then how can a war-monger be a "Christian.?" Well, far too many heathens and heathens who falsely think of themselves as Christians nurse the idea that Jesus was a limpwristed sodomite Who taught that no one should defend themselves under any circumstance. It is just not true. Remember, in response to the pharisaical money-changers who were abusing the House of Jesus' Father, Jesus did not in the least take a passive stance. As John 2:15 tells us "he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area...." He was a peacemaker indeed. Undoubtedly after He had applied this force against wrongdoers, the temple became more peaceful than it had ever been. How is it that Jesus Himself can apply force to His enemies and yet declare "blessed are the peacemakers?" The answer is simple and most obvious: God is a Just God, and so sometimes His meting out justice is a requirement for peace. If a man murders another man, imprisoning him or putting him to death in response is not necessarily an act of vengeance, but one of justice. It is to recognize that the wrongdoer has value and that when he falsely removes the value of one who is like him, he must replace the removed value with some or all of his own in order to restore balance to the moral scale. Without justice, there can be no peace. What most heathens really claim by implication is that in the face of evil, Christians are bound to simply spit flowers and give hugs. They call this showing "Love" to one's enemies. It is nothing like love. It is a perverted longing for peace without justice. Believers are to go out of their way to get along with others. There is no need to retaliate when people wrong us. In fact, we might even extend help to such people, "turn the other cheek" so to speak. But if it is the aim of the person to destroy us, then preserving our lives with force sufficient to restrain them is not prohibited. Neither is it prohibited to support the right of the state to defend itself (Rom. 13:4). Iraq may look like "war-mongering" to you. That is because you are apparently not powerful enough in thought to drop your leftist consideration of the personalities involved in the conflict to instead view the matter from a larger frame of reference. But when viewing Iraq on a larger scale, we see that America is merely attempting to protect herself against an enemy that threatened to destroy her by repeatedly refusing to prove, contrary to its obligations, that it was incapable of carrying out its threat.