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 present? --- 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 aggressor. 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, WORDS OF JOSEPH SMITH, p. 413) ******************************************************************** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
