As President Bush said only a few days ago: I guess it will take a mushroom cloud over 
some U.S. city to really realize what kind of terrorist Sadam is.


--- "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Vic wrote:
>September 11th was a defining moment in history, it showed that America 
>could be attacked within her own borders; it didn't need an ICBM as has 
>been the thinking.
>It would be tragic that when (not if) it happens again; and what could be 
>the outcome (will cities not buildings lay waste)?
>Lastely, could it have been prevented? Will the thinking of no war still be 
>I have nothing against going to war against an invading enemy as long as we 
>let him get in the first blow.  And if I were certain that Saddam Hussein 
>had ordered the 9-11 attack, then I would be the first to shout hurray when 
>the USA strikes back.  But I am not certain, nor have I heard of anyone who 
>is certain.  And I am opposed to going to war because of what someone might 
>do.  Let Saddam hit us with his best shot, up front where we can all see 
>that he is the one who did it, and then take him out with all we've got.
>I am not opposed to war.  I am opposed to unrighteous war.  It is better 
>for a few thousands or even hundreds of thousands of us to die, than for 
>the whole nation to become dishonorable and defile the memory of our 
>righteous forefathers.  Let the other guy take his best shot, then tear his 
>meat house down.  But the nation that attacks first is the aggressor.  And 
>the Lord will not justify us or fight our battles for us if we are the 
>I am not a pacifist.  I just want sufficient provocation first.  And 
>sufficient provocation is needed when a war will undoubted cost hundreds of 
>thousands and perhaps even hundreds of millions of lives.  Ever since July 
>16, 1945 the world has been a powder keg waiting to explode.  And I don't 
>want my country to be the one to set it off.  Once the fight starts there 
>is not telling who else might get involved.  And what starts as a regional 
>skirmish can escalate into a global war of mass destruction.  I believe 
>that something like that is inevitable by and by.  But I don't want to be 
>responsible for lighting the fuse.  I don't want my country to be 
>responsible for it either.
>How many might die here in the USA if Saddam gets his weapons of mass 
>destruction?  Compare that with how many might die if we get into an all 
>out, rather than terrorist, war.  We nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 
>tens of thousands of women and children; and we justify this be pointing 
>out how many of our troops would have been killed if we had ended the war 
>with a conventional invasion.  Well, by the same logic, we gain nothing by 
>saving a few lives that might be killed by terrorists if we get into a war 
>that kills more Americans than WWII.
>Maybe I'm wrong.  But I was filled with blood lust during the Vietnam 
>War.  And I have lived to be ashamed of myself and my country.  I don't 
>want to make the same mistake twice.
>John W. Redelfs                          [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all
>Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others,
>finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the
>way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that
>that man is in the high road to apostacy...."  (Ehat & Cook,
>All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
>///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>///      ///

Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. ---> ---> A 
Washington Online Community Member --->

Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, 
POP & more!

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to