Real World Event Discussions

Generals say Iraqi civil war is on it's way.

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, August 6, 2006 23:00
VIEWED: 1828
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:18 AM

The idea of destiny as it pertains to religion makes no sense. If we have a destiny, then doesn't that take the choice out of our hands? If that's the case, it means that no matter what we're doing, we're doing the "correct" thing, as per our destiny. It also means that whether or not we believe in Jesus isn't our decision, it's His. Which means if those who don't believe are sentenced to eternal Hellfire, isn't that His fault for not changing our minds?

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:49 AM

No..not neccessarily. we can argue the semantics of it all day, but ill try to be quick and concise

we have free will, and we choose our own destiny. God, being beyond time, has seen our decisions already. if God intercedes in any form in our lives, it is with the knowledge that history has already been decided, and certain individuals were destined to have a personal relationship with him; Not by Gods choice, but by our future choices. since God is present now in our lives... God, in the beginning of time, foreknew us already, since he was present when we were in our linear reality. so by predistined, i mean more accurately foreknown

does that make sense? tell me if its contradictive...its definately a nearly incomprehensible subject, to concieve beyond space and time...but i believe their is a force, or entity, all knowing, which exists beyong this dimension

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RiveR6213:


See, river does love me, that's why she put my picture next to hers like some bizarre wedding photo. At least she hasn' put herself in a wedding dress like last time, that was just too creepy.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
See, river does love me, that's why she put my picture next to hers like some bizarre wedding photo. At least she hasn' put herself in a wedding dress like last time, that was just too creepy.




ChrisisallOTF

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, August 6, 2006 5:59 AM

Quote:

They confirmed that Iraq was close to civil war, but they also said that they couldn't foresee it.

Excuse me but I along with others on this board and elsewhere have been talking about sectarian violence and civil war since 2003, why the hell is it coming as such a surprise to Generals who are paid to foresee this stuff?



That was exactly my reaction when I saw the piece on ABC. "What? You couldn't foresee it? *NO ONE* could? What about all those 'weak-minded lefty tree-huggers' who foresaw it?" Shit, *I* saw it, and I'm a high school dropout! I've seen it since the first President Bush launched the first Gulf War - and then when his detractors derided him for "not finishing the job". What people didn't get, and still don't apparently, is that it was NOT Bush the First's aim to remove Saddam from power, simply to remove his occupying forces from Kuwait, and make him pay a heavy price for it. Bush Sr. made a half-hearted attempt at overthrowing Saddam by backing the Kurds for a bit, but then pulled Western support of them when he became convinced that although Saddam was indeed a Bad Guy, he was a bad guy who could keep many other bad guys under control, or at least under his thumb. The Kurds paid by far the heaviest price for trusting the US.

Much as I hate to admit it, "wimpy" George H.W. Bush looks to be the brains in that family.

Before any of you Dubya apologists ask, "So you think Iraq would be better with Saddam still in power?", let me state clearly and for the record that yes, I do think that. And the entire world would be better if we hadn't launched this stupid war against him. Saddam was effectively boxed in, contained. He wasn't even much of a threat to his own people any more; certainly he was less of a threat to them than what they face on a daily basis now.

Mike

Remember, Kiddies, you can't spell "QUAGMIRE" without "I", "R", "A", & "Q"!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sunday, August 6, 2006 11:00 PM

civil war
ha

civil

ha
==========================

I've been through the system.
It dont work.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME