Tom

In 1990, Iraq accused the UAE (United Arab Emirates)and Kuwait of overproduction of oil. The U.S. participated with international coalition forces ("international coalition forces" - a familiar phrase? Anybody remember the names of many involved in the coalition other than the U.S.?) against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War (1991). Daddy Bush went to war with Iraq in behalf his family's long standing business associates, the Saudi Arabian leadership oil interests. This present war is just an extension and repetition of the Persian Gulf War. Why else would we attack a country with almost zero ties to terrorism on behalf of a country from which most of the 9/11 terorists came? It's not enough to say that Bush is stupid and made a mistake. There are REAL reasons why Bush has American kids killed and has put your children's children into great debt and dangerously weakened our military position - other than all the now obviously phoney reasons. Since the Gulf War the UAE has expanded its international contacts and diplomatic relations. A dispute erupted with Saudi Arabia in 1999 over relations with Iran, a traditional enemy. Why do I get the feeling that Iran is next on Chief Little Bush's list? Well, at least there is supposedly a legitimate concern over WMDs there - but again - in behalf of Saudi Arabia? Tom

Indeed, Radar, the two party system is a myth.

Well, Bush said he respected Kerry for his many years of service in the Senate :)--> I have to agree with you there, dmil; that is my one big concern about Kerry. It is minimized by the fact that although Bush talks about not allocating judicial matters to the international community, the practice of his party under his leadership hasn't been a whole lot different. Wonder no longer "Introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on June 9 was S. 2514, The Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative Act, allowing for “the transfer of funds for foreign countries to participate in international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations.” Both parties are party to our dissolution into one world government.

My dad joined the Marines to fight in WWII. He faulted neither me nor my brother's objections to Vietnam. He thought it was stupid as he thinks this war is. And if Bush goes along with another "cease fire" arrangement or allows the enemy to kill more Americans by granting them safe haven to do so from another mosque, I think I'll go apoplectic from a severe case of Vietnam Deja Vu.

I think that with U.S. elections nearing we'll see Bush taking a stronger stance as Commander-in-Chief. I read that Friday, "backed by warplanes and tanks, some 5,000 troops swept in to seize the city hall, the main mosque and other important sites in Samarra, leaving only pockets of resistance after more than 12 hours of combat, according to the U.S. military and Iraqi authorities." No more Mr. Niceguy when it comes to mosques." The article went on to say "the city appeared calm late Friday except for American snipers on rooftops firing at anybody appearing in the streets below." Snipers sniping anybody showing their nose in public!!! Now there's a solution to insurgency. My question is what took the Commander-in-Chief so long? And why now? Mister P-Mosh, I love the quotation, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

I was impressed with Kerry. Bush kept accusing him of changing his mind regarding Iraq. In response to that accusation, Kerry seemed to reply with a well thought out point of view that accomodated a variety of changing details in a complex situation. Kerry's response seemed beyond Bush's ability to comprehend or reply to intelligently; instead, Bush just kept accusing him of changing his mind. Bush, as he always has, scared me with his lack of ability to comprehend intelligent responses to the Iraq situation. On the other hand, I came away from viewing the debate a lot more impressed with Kerry than I was before the debate. Before the debate, I was concerned that Kerry might be weak as Commander-in-Chief in the face of battle, but my impression is now that he would be stronger than Bush. I'm sort of a hybrid party-wise - 1/2 liberal/1/2 constitution (ultra-conservative?). I think, & thought before the debate, that attacking Iraq was a stupid, stupid move because there are many, many more countries around with a known Al Queda presence and because there are countries around with more obvious nuclear capabilities than Iraq. Because of that, I do feel like Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror. Okay, but having gone in there, you don't handicap our troops with tripe about not attacking Mosques, cease fires, etc. I go crazy with Vietnam de javu when that happens. Okay, this is not about my war strategy, but about the debate. My point is that I understand Kerry's point of view about thinking that the war was a mistake, yet doubling the special forces & letting the intelligence community do its job with regard to Al Queda leaders. Bush didn't just put our troops in harms way; in addition, he is letting them get killed there. That is a mistake I can't live with. Get the job done. I came away from the debate with the impression that Kerry will do exactly that. I pretty much had thought before the debate that the pickins were so slim that I wouldn't even vote - or I would vote constitution party. As it stands now, I'll vote for Kerry as a result of the debate. The only thing that bothered me was the business of Kerry voting to give the Hague the ability to try our troops. One world government is coming, but I'd rather not speed it on its way. That's a big no no to Kerry in my mind; although, I don't think the Republicans are musch better on that account. Tom

"CHRISTIANS SHOULD PREPOSTEROUS ! This doctrine of convienience emerged from the cornfield preacher at about the same time that they incorporated and decided to make a living by running a cult." That would make sense. Wasn't the time that they incorporated about the time that the ABS stopped being handled on a grassroots level & all started being funnelled directly to HQ to then be sent back out to the areas as we had need, err, that is never to be seen again? You all gave up too soon. Fifty is the number of times that you have to take the class to really start to understand it & become spiritual. Proverbs 30:15a ¶The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give.

In my last post on this thread, I said Chuck's advice to leave this site & go to Raf's was a good idea. I haven't been here for a while & was unaware of the extent of the crossfire going on here concerning the quality of gs. I just wanted to say that I was posting my remarks about what was happening on this thread at the time I posted. I can see where my remarks could easily have been taken as another volley in the war of dissent concerning gs. That's not what I meant & I apologize to anyone who took it that way & to Paw. Tom

The original by Oral Roberts was powerful.

"If you don't like me speaking brashly about your sacred book, then go to Rafi's webpage, you won't see me there." What excellent advice, Chuck! Brash, but excellent. Brash, hmm, bbrraasshh!!! Bubbabrash. Brrrrraaasshhh! B-R-A-S-H! No, I don't like brash. Anybody like "brash?" Brash: Offensively bold, Presumptuously daring. Anybody like someone who is offensive and presumptuous? And defends their right to be so as "constitutional" regarding freedom? I didn't think being offensive and presumptuous was an essential characteristic of an American. But, I like your advice. Rafi's webpage. I was wondering where to surf tonight. If your advice didn't do it, your offensive presumption did. Of course that didn't commend your point of view to anyone or earn you "no stinkin' crown," but obviously you don't care about the impact of your words on people or any benefit to yourself for the expense of your air. So, I guess there is really no further purpose for talking to you, but I suppose there is some value in publicly endorsing your advice to go where people's words can be received for their value rather than with offensive presumption.

See the movie, Hope; I think you will be impressed. MM doesn't pretend to be presenting an objective overall documentary about Bush. He makes no bones about being out to reveal Bush as XXX, but that doesn't make his reasoning any less valid.

Loved the movie. Saw it opening day. The theatre was pretty packed. People were talking quietly for the most part through the previews. There was no warning that the movie was going to start after the previews; it just started. It was gratifying to hear the people all go shhhh when the movie started - serious Spidey fans here. Oak, "I would have liked to have seen them not portray Peter as temporarily losing his spider powers, I think it would have made his decision to stop being Spider-Man more real." Okay, a matter of preference I suppose. I figured that he started losing his spider powers because he was losing his focus because he was wavering in his decision and desire to BE Spider-Man - a bit of well done foreshadowing of the inner doubt that he had - building ambiguity and suspense. He didn't determine not to be be Spider-Man because he was losing his powers; he was losing his powers because he was wavering in his committment to be Spider-Man. I don't know; maybe you realized that, & just didn't like it. When the truth of why he was losing his spider powers - he really wasn't persuaded that he wanted to go that route anymore - was revealed, it made the synch between his decision and his powers all the more dynamic - a big theme in what Spidey is all about.

I dont know, Watered - I loaded up some photos online, so I could copy them here, but they took so long to load here, & were too tiny to be worth the effort. I deleted the post - sorry.

Griz, I will not return to normal. I don't have to ever be the same again. The Hawk told me so. Watered, Hmm, pix. I've never posted pictures here - I suppose it is fairly easy. Isn't there someplace around here to try stuff like that out? Soon, Tom

Can I play more? Yes, definitely. That is why I'm here. I've never been "totally" on vacation - without a summer job - and yet had my plate so full. Hey, I just got back from Glacier Nat'l Park (Northern Montana) & Waterton Nat'l Park (Canada). It was awesome - top of the Rockies, hiking, horseback riding, white water rafting (well, the water wasn't so white, but it was okay for a beginner), buffalo, long-horn sheep, mountain goats, deer, elk, bears, wolf, hawks (all very up close - well, the elk, long-horn sheep, & mountain goats were not too close), sunshine, rain, fog, hail, snow (all within an hour), mountains, mountains, mountains, lakes (right outside my door), great people, great beer, great food, great wife, great God. No vision quest, but visions nonetheless [deep breath]. Hi

Just kidding - good to "see" you again also.

Absolutely - what do you have in mind

More is the pity that all the wonderful truths that TWI equated with its perverse "household" teaching like: "given to hospitality" "bless them which persecute you" "live peaceably with all men" "in the Lord" and so many more ARE LOST to the "Way" follower.

Appositives appear so only to those who have a place to posit such a proposition - you're welcome. I know this sounds really out there, but I can't find the thread it was meant for. I've checked my own "recent messages" here at gs and done a similar check on another email list that I was posting on at the time. Either it's a total fabrication that seemed more real to me at the time than reality or... Wait, wait, here it is, fresh off the neural net - possibly questionable, but it's the best I have at the moment. I just got back from vacation & have over 200 messages that I've moved into my "Temporary" folder. Many of them come from an email list where I believe the homosexual discussion was a subthread to another discussion about abusive leadership - hence my inability to find it. Why did I post it here? Did I mention the dentist? Too many pain pills? Mixed with too much alcohol? Jet lag? If I come across it - it was probably on the Onelist or Oddlist or whatever it is called these days; it's an exway email list - in the dark files of my Temp folder, or someone brings it up againi, I'll let you know. Tom

I wish you could have seen it in the originals. Walter, find a text; it's got to be there.

RE: "People go into prison straight and come out homosexual. Doesn't that say something about choice?" Hmm, up too late? One too many? Jet lag? Wrong thread! Sorry. Damn, wrong restaurant. Thanks for your input, Trefor. Nice, the way you addressed my post and applied your answer to this thread at the same time. Tom

People go into prison straight and come out homosexual. Doesn't that say something about choice?

Right, Unc, about the bait & switch. "But God commendeth [favorably introduced]his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Having favorably introduced his love for as a God who loves sinners to the extent of sending his son to die for us, is God now going to change the nature of his love? Nah

I think the phrase "In the Lord" is amazing in the way it is used in the Word. It is definitely different from "In Christ," and well worth understanding. A simple run through in a concordance astounded me with the significance associated with the phrase years ago. The problem came in when VPW started associating the TWI household with those who are designated as in the Lord in the Word. In the Lord people come from all parts of the family, so in the equating of TWI household with those who are in the Lord, not only did the TWI household morph into a non-existent, bizarre thing, but the truths concerning in the Lord were lost; thereby, cutting TWI off from musch of the help that comes to households in the family from those who are in the Lord.

Hi Tom - thanks for the welcome. It's good to be back.