[CS-FSLUG] PD: Robertson and Falwell final denounced by religious leaders

[Don Parris]

Actually, the WMD issue plays a lesser role in my thinking.  I'm
thinking more about my difference of opinion regarding the whole War
on Terror.  The WMD issue is a symptom of failed diplomacy.  The
retaliatory approach is great up front.  We lost a great deal in terms
of life and economics with the 9/11 attacks.  We lost face.  So
retaliation makes sense on the surface.

I'd like to think I'd have taken a rather different approach, even if
that approach included going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I
believe we could have developed a more diplomatic approach that, in
the end, would have also had more teeth.  We had an opportunity to
demonstrate humility, but chose pride.  We had an opportunity to make
allies, but instead aggravated the prevailing anti-American sentiments
against us.

At the same time, I would be much more interested in the Saudi
government's ties to the terrorists than the Bush administration & FBI
have been.  Allegedly, they blocked congress' investigation into those
ties.  Whether there are some in their government who would like to
undermine the royal family, or even they are involved is a question
that deserves an answer.   And why wouldn't our leaders be interested
in dispelling any connections there.

Again, I see Bush failing in the area of diplomacy.  Reagan destroyed
the Soviet Union through diplomacy.  It takes longer to accomplish the
mission, but saves countless lives and has a far greater impact in the
long run.  The key to problem solving is to first seek to understand
the other person, then to be understood.

I personally lived in a predominantly poor, black neighborhood for
three years here in Charlotte.  (Note: Charlotte seeths with racial
animosity, although on the surface, we appear quite friendly and
genteel - it's just part of the Southern Facade.)  I survived because
I didn't act like I showed humility and friendliness.  Because of
those traits, I blew away - over time - the popular opinion that I was
a "police spy".  When people saw me involved in their community, when
they saw me walking up, handing out fruit baskets with the homeowners
association, when they saw me get involved in their local church, they
came to see me in a different light.

No one will ever be able to tell me that there is not a better way to
destroy our enemies.  Even Sun Tzu suggests that you keep your enemy
as your closest friend.  There's a reason for that, you know.  Paul
said that showing kindness is like heaping hot coals over your enemy's
head.  He would not have passed that onto us if he didn't experience
that first hand.  I have lived it myself.  Ghandi lived it.  King
Lived it.

Bush is a diplomatic failure - at best.  Yet, Christian media seem to
take sides, promoting him as "righteous" compared to the alternatives.
 All he has to do is keep opposing gay marriage, and he'll be
"America's man" for the oval office in the sight of the Christian
media.  I wonder what the Christian media would do if he backed down
on that?

Incidentally, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican.  I'm unaffiliated. 
I refuse to be associated with the likes of either of these two
parties.

Don


On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:23:04 -0400, Brian Derr <bderr at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:33:31PM -0400, Don Parris wrote:
> > What I hate about elections is that the local Christian radio stations
> > overwhelmingly support a man who has failed misrably as a diplomat.
> > Frankly, I care very little for either Bush or Kerry.  I'm not certain
> > which one scares me most.  On the hand, I can choose a man who went to
> > war on faulty "evidence" - thus escalating the animosity of other
> > nations toward us - and skewering whatever respect many other nations
> > did have for us.
> 
> Watched "Fahrenheit 9/11"?  This argument of "faulty 'evidence'" is
> getting rigor mortis.  Let the horse die in peace?  Despite the fact
> that the US media has yet to let go of the WMD issue and declaration by
> Pres. Bush that the major conflict of the war was over going to Iraq was
> a logic step in the "War on Terror".
> 
> Sure, we as American citizens, haven't heard from Ted Turner that there
> was a viable reason to go to war with Iraq, but does that make it truth.
> Lets all click the power button on our brains and think through some
> things for a moment, shall we?
> 
> America was attacked by Islamic terrorist on September 11, 2001.  A few
> days later we move into Afghanistan to decimate the Taliban and Al
> Qaeda.  Mission accomplished, Taliban is gone and Al Qaeda is on the
> run.  Where else might we turn to stop terrorism from hitting the
> streets of America en masse?
> 
> Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, N. Korea just to name a few.  Why not start
> with Saddam and Iraq?  He has posed a threat to the world for decades.
> (Set aside the "what about the WMDs?!" notion, it is stupid.)  Does it
> really matter if Saddam had WMDs?  DOES IT?  For moderates and liberals
> who tout themselves as protectors of women's rights and human rights in
> general I would think liberating millions of people would be a
> triumphant day.  No?  Why not?  Ask yourself that question.
> 
> Saddam Hussein who has committed genocide on his own people and the
> Turks up north or a chance at freedom and liberty for millions?  This is
> no longer an issue of WMDs but of freedom from terror and freedom in
> general.
> 
> The debate about Bush's faulty evidence isn't a debate but one way Bush
> bashing.  Think about this fact:  Everyone _knew_ Saddam _had_ WMDs and
> was a threat to the world.  John Kerry said it.  Tony Blair said it.
> Our beloved 42nd President William Jefferson Clinton said it.  But why
> did they change their tune?  Because of political expediency, that's
> why!  It makes sense from a political point of view to say that what
> Bush did was wrong because it cause American troops to be killed in
> Iraq.  No one in America likes that.
> 
> So, to play on the sorrow in people's lives the Democrats have changed
> their tune to Bush bashing in order to grab those that are saddened by
> the loss of American soldiers.  The average soldier knows what they are
> doing is good, they also know the risks and accept them, why haven't
> you?  (Yes, this statement is made with knowledge.  I have spoken to
> many soldiers past and present and they all feel the same way.  The
> words of one the 6 o'clock news doesn't show the feelings of the Army as
> a whole.)
> 
> I need to stop here before I write the novel that I feel needs to be
> written about the issue.  All I can say to those that hate Bush is this:
> why do you hate him?  Is it because of what you've seen on the news?  If
> this is the case you may want to think about the source of your
> education.
> 
> Brian
> 
> For those of us living in a state lucky enough to have the Constitution
> Party on the ballot perhaps you should have a look at their candidate,
> Mr. Peroutka.  http://www.constitutionparty.com and
> http://www.peroutka2004.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> The just man walketh in his integrity:
> his children are blessed after him.  -- Proverbs 20:7
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
Free software is like God's love - 
you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!