ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Iraq War A Mistake

Was the Iraq war a mistake?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The War Bible Quiz
 ---Don on 11/26/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Post a New Blog



Mark V says "Frank, thank you so much for standing on behalf of God's right to rule"
I know Mark will not respond to me, but let me ask everyone else here: "Who have you seen on CN who has ever denied God's right to rule?"
The true answer to this is that no-one here (except anti-Christians) has ever denied God's right to rule
The fact that some of us disagree with Mark's view of HOW God rules, does not mean we deny that He does rule, and has the right to do so.
---alan_of_UK on 1/3/08


pt 1 - the reason for the war in iraq has been chased around. 911 (no connection with iraq/saddam), wmd(no evidence), freedom(other nations have dictatorship), alqueda in iraq(was created by invasion & osama is in afghanistan), saddam had connection with osama(no link).
---mike on 1/3/08


fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here(as if osama has tanks, planes, ships, & he plans to invade US).bush will be the one who will cut & run bec. he is the one dumping the mess onto the next president.
---mike on 1/3/08


Matthew,
Believe what you wish.
I have already given a scriptural response and not just what appears good.
Have a good day.
Frank
---Frank on 12/24/07


Frank, thank you so much for standing on behalf of God's right to rule. I hear all kinds of answers that speak for men everday, but few who speak for God. If the acts of free men are in themselves uncertain, God must be waiting until the event happens before He makes His plan. In trying to convert a soul, He would be conceived as working like Napoleon is said to have gone into battle, with many plans just in case one failed, he would switch to the other.
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07




#2. Only a foolish man would even think of God in that way. God determines when, where, and under what circumstances each individual of our race shall be born, live, and die. Whether it shall be male or female, white or black, wise or foolish. God is no less sovereign in the distributions of His favors. He does what He will's with His plan. To some He gives riches, to others honor, to other health, to others certain talents for music, art, finance.
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07


#3. Others are poor, unknown, born in dishonor, some victims of desease. Some are placed in Christian homes or nation's where they receive all the benefits of the Gospel. Others live and die in the darkness of heathenism. Through pure grace God controls nation's as well as individuals. They are all under the hands of God. He controls them abosulutely as a man controls a rod or a staff. God is not a mere speactator of the Universe He has made, but is everywhere present and active,
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07


#4. the all sustaining ground, and all governing power of all that is. Even the flight of a sparrow seems meaningless, yet it does not fall to the ground unless by the will of God. Every raindrop and snowflake which falls from the clouds, every insect which moves every plant which grows, every grain of dust which floats in the air, "has had certain definite causes and will have certain definite effects." Each in a link in the chain of events and many
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07


#5 of the events of history tell us these apparently insignificant things have an effect. People are responsible for what they do, for they do out of their hearts. But God turns that for good. The events in Iraq have their own place in the chain of events just as when Hitler time. He died when God ordered him to. He permitted what he did but did not cause him to do it. Out of that war things went on just as God had will it, for the next chain of events.
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07


#6. We vote and make decisions all the time, but whatever results are known by God already. Iraq has it failures and has it's good points, because we see them with our own eyes that cannot see the future. To God they are all certain already. Nothing escapes the One who hold's all things. You don't have to be a prophet to know this, all you have to do is believe in a Sovereign God. The One from Scripture.
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07




#7. You did a great job Frank, and again thanks for standing on behalf of Almighty God. Keep the great work Frank, and a blessed Christmas to you and family. Also to everyone who continues to write for the glory of God.
---Mark_V. on 12/24/07


The general idea is that it was a big set up, Who knows. The real facts stands that out of it, terrorism is now under tight security howbeit not completely fool proof. The ring leaders will be bought to justice and we have to remember they havn't started their real focus yet which will be christians/Jews as we break down in evangelism we'll be fighting a battle of our lives individually so don't sit back and critise open your EYES/EARS to prophecy!
---Carla5754 on 12/23/07


I answered this question once.But i don't see my reply.
You have material war-fare,and you have spiritual war-fare.
To win in war-fare you need more than
a sword and sheield.
It is a mistake because they did'nt consult
GOD FIRST.
---Jack_8773 on 12/22/07


Not Okay Frank,

Believing such things will give your life no moral relevence. If these terrible things are to come, then why bother with anything. Are not hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, disease, hunger, just part of the beginning of the prophesies to come? Should we just sit by and not help those in distress? Should we not care about the environment, because soon it will not matter? Do we ignore all wars because they are just part of the ramp-up to the great conflagration ahead?
---matthew on 12/21/07


Another thing Jack,
It was an angel that delivered Peter from prison through prayer. It was the Lord that fought all of the battles for Israel when they believed.
It was the Lord who stood by Paul during his darkest moments and the Lord allowed Israel to go into captivity many times for their rebellion. They said "his blood be on our heads and of our children."
Maybe God was just fulfilling that!
Frank
---Frank on 12/21/07


Okay Frank,

For you to believe what you believe, you must believe the following:

1) Whatever version of the Bible you are reading is correctly translated, not being corrupted for political reasons or misunderstood because of semantic changes through the centuries.
2) You have a particularly acute ability to interprete the Bible phophesy.
3) You know these prophecies are coming soon not sometime 1000 years from now, or on the second Tuesday of next week.
---matthew on 12/21/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Matthew,
Maybe you might want to read about how many of God's saints were put to the test and had to watch as their families were heartlessly destroyed. Hebrews tells us how they were beaten, stoned, sawn asunder and walked in skins to be devoured.
Christains have had it too easy and grown too loving of this world.
They think they can change that which was written. And that is the spirit of anti-christ.
I stand fast knowing him in whom I beieve (Christ) in the good times and the bad.
Frank
---Frank on 12/21/07


Frank,

We should have just sat by and prayed that God would guide Hitler to not murder Jews and invade other countries? Or prayed that those officials, also members of the KKK, in the south would be guided to change their evil ways?

I need that hole, not because of the truth that you believe, but because there are some, like yourself, who believe such nonsense, and lead lives of justified moral complancency and inaction.

If we don't take moral action, these things will come to pass.
---matthew on 12/21/07


Matthew,
I believe that all tings written in the word of God will come to pass and that Christians should do just as the word says and pray for those in a position of power and accept whatever the Lord deals us. When Paul was to be imprisoned they finally said "let the will of God be done."
Man cannot change the word. He can only fight God in unawares.
Fell free to find that hole.
Frank
---Frank on 12/21/07


Frank,

So you interprete prophecy in you life to mean that when bad things happen they are just bad things prophecized and therefore they are to be accepted and you should be complacent. And that the government is the authority and we should not rebel no matter what those in leadership do or how they got there?

I think I need a hole to get sick in. And wait fo the Second Coming.
---matthew on 12/21/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Not the the ones who started it, they knew exactly what they were doing. The leaders of this nation have broen every bibllical priciple that they claim to hold. Want proof? look up Alex Jones or the Bohemian Grove. You will find enough info to leave you breathless. PRAY PRAY PRAY!!!!!!!!
---jody5986 on 12/20/07


It doesn't matter if the Iraq war was a mistake.
The prophecies are that nation shall rise against nation anyway.
The main thing is that as Christians we are to pray for those in a position of authority.
The wicked are listed as those who rail out against governing authorities.
It is sad that so many die but it was fortold.
Let not your heart fail for fear, or "looking on those things that happen on earth."
Frank
---Frank on 12/20/07


If bush is a man of god, then you will know by the fruits of the spirit. for once, he acts & behaves that he is above the constitution that he swore to uphold, preserve, & defend. it seems otherwise. this great nation is ruled by laws not men.
---bill on 12/20/07


We must decide what it really means to be a child of the Most High God.

It means that no current event has the power to limit your future. It means that this age of crisis which cripples the lost, is the launching pad for those in Christ.
---Michelle on 12/20/07


Shop For Insurance


Catherine,

If today you can convince me that President Bush is a man of God, then tomorrow I will be an atheist.
---matthew on 12/20/07


I am concerned for Christians in the middle east. Pray for the Christians in Bethlehem, they need our prayers. Their numbers are decreasing by the day, they need our support.

I am also praying about the next two weeks, before the year ends. I'm praying for those in high positions. God is knocking on the doors of hearts.
---Michelle on 12/20/07


Nature itself will convulse at evil choices.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, and fires.
Backdoor deals and lies fuel bonfires.

The thunder is rolling.

Luke 21:26
Men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming.
---Michelle on 12/20/07


We did not finish the job the first time back in 1991. If we went over there for oil this time, common Americans are not getting rich with current gasoline prices. The politicians and hidden groups with invested interests are. We should not lose our priviacy or Constitution over this War. My prayers are for our leaders, serviceman, and the world. There is alot more going on behind the scenes. Read Matthew 24 chapter for yourself and correlate it with complete OT/NT. Decptions are rampant. Think about it.
---Yochanon on 12/20/07


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


I believe President Bush is a man of God. No other President could have with stood all that President Bush has put up with less he has the living God living in him. Not to say he has not made some mistakes. I say some. No one knows this better than President Bush and God ofcourse. We are to always pray for our leaders. Understand who you are electing and when he or she makes a mistake don't say, "Oh, we have to get rid of you and bring some one else in."
---catherine on 12/20/07


I am not against the US. when I was growing up I have a lot of respect for the US bec. of the aid it gave other nations, even former enemies after WW2 & also it's a nation ruled by laws not men. it seems that it has lost it's direction.
---mike on 12/19/07


Hi Mike, great points! :) You hit the nail on the head exactly!
---Mary on 12/19/07


I have an interesting question - Does Bush have the authority to end the war? In other words, if we bring the troops home right now, will that end the war?
---Greyrider on 12/19/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


It wasn't a mistake, but just handled in the wrong manner. This war would have come about sooner or later because it is the intent of radical muslims to take over. There are cases where the USA has intervined in situations that were of a local dispute, but in general, "no", it wasn't a mistake. The mistake is in thinking we can "talk" our way out of it.
---wivv on 12/19/07


correct the situation? why not invade north korea, myanmar, & other nation ruled by dictators who trample on human rights? or they do not have any strategic value like oil, bases or canals.
---mike on 12/19/07


If you realize you've made a mistake, whether as an individual or as a nation, the obvious thing to do is correct the situation. Abortion has been legal for decades now. Do we use that as an excuse to allow millions more to die? Past US policy on dictators who trample human rights was wrong.
---Greyrider on 12/19/07


what about other dictators that are still in power? in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's the US supported dictators & the people suffered & the effects are still ongoing. why were those dictators supported & left in power?
---mike on 12/18/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


I think we all agree the war was fought wrong. There were some strategic disasters. The lack of contingency planning is embarassing, but let's reword the original question. Should we have left Saddam in power?
---Greyrider on 12/17/07


Kitso, The war was about OIL. 1# Kuwait's oill is limited. As to Alaskas Anwar the soccialist democrats, in the majority will not allow drilling, in addition, the corperate monsters control most of congress, and drilling will occur when it pleases them.

As for weapons of mass destruction 'probably' hid in Syria,-or Oz, or Narnia is not something a credible administration bases political policy on. The war was about oil.
---MikeM on 12/17/07


NurseRobert, head of the "Bring Back Saddam" society, spruiketh: ---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07

Typical right wing response... when you don't like the message, insult the messenger..
---NurseRobert on 12/17/07


That war had more American casualties in one battle than during the entire Iraq war.

And you're point is??

They now oppose the war because it is politically expedient to do so.

No, we oppose the war because it was started for the wrong reason, it was implemented wrong and it continues to be wrong now.
---NurseRobert on 12/17/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


MikeMocker:
"The war was about OIL. To deny that is to deny reality."
What nonsense. If the US wanted oil, it could have taken Kuwait's, or just drill in a tiny section of the bleak Alaskan wilderness.

"No weapons of mass destruction found, period."
But many Democrats agreed that the evidence was very strong. And Saddam was happy to act as if there was something to hide (and in reality he probably hid them in Syria).
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


Matthew:

"Saddam was bad. He was bad 20 years ago when we aided and supported him, but 5 years ago was he suddenly so much."

Blame the weakling Jimmy Carter for betraying the Shah of Iran, and allowing the Ayatollahs to take over. Saddam, a former Soviet client, was supported to stop the Ayatollah's Islamofascism from spreading. Similarly, the West supported mass-murderer Stalin against Hitler.
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


Saddam is known to have used WMDs against his own people. Most of the Democrats, including the Klintons, agreed at the time. They now oppose the war because it is politically expedient to do so.
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


NurseRobert, head of the "Bring Back Saddam" society, spruiketh:

"A lot of people accuse those of us who have never supported this war of being traitors."

No, only those whose actions lead to the deaths of the US soldiers and comfort to the enemy. If the LEftmedia were as treasonous during WW2 as they were in Vietnam and are about the Iraq war, we would have lost WW2. That war had more American casualties in one battle than during the entire Iraq war.
---Ktisophilos on 12/16/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


The US has huge oil finds in Alaska, off the coast of California, and off the coast of Florida. If Bush wanted to use his position as President to "help his oil buddies" why would he not just sign an executive order allowing them to drill here? That way, he would enrage the environmentalists, but there would be no war. This war is extremely unpopular. Drilling here makes so much more sense, that the "Oil War" theory is too outrageous of a conspiracy to believe.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Matthew, I agree with you, except that Bush I leaving Saddam in power was a mistake. The father-son issue is irrelevant. Even President Bill Clinton bombed Iraq. I keep bringing this up and everyone conveniently ignores it: Ultra-left wing anti-Bush NBC News reported in 1999 about the new alliance between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They now want to forget they ever broadcast it, and no one here wants to comment on it.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


My mistake. Someone just pointed out to me that the news report about Bin Laden and Saddam was on ABC, not NBC. They're not exactly friends of Bush's either. Also, remember we're talking 1999, two years BEFORE 9/11.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


I am not saying the war was not needed, but the prosecution of it was rubbish.
alan, I agree. I'm not sure if you know this but Rommel told Hitler that the Allied forces were going to invade at Normandy and Hitler ignored him. It may be a coincidence but the War in Iraq was overwhelmingly succesful until General Tommy Franks retired. Having the right people in charge, the right people making the decisions, can make all the difference.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


"This was not a country vs country attack. The damage done in Iraq was minor compared to what we could have done."

You're right, we didn't carpet bomb them back to the stone age. But that has more to do with better, more accurate weapons. That doesn't change the fact that we should not have been there in the first place.
---NurseRobert on 12/14/07


The war was about OIL. To deny that is to deny reality. No weapons of mass destruction found, period. Dictators abound in the world, some we support, some we do not. Saddam threatened our oil supply, thats it. The socialist (Democrats) voted for it, the semi-socialist republicans did, each for different Party reasons. Today Islamic fundamentalist kill us and each other. Now the party is over.
---MikeM on 12/14/07


"Would you have opposed the Normandy Invasion?"

Now who is comparing apples to oranges? We didn't get into WWII until after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. After we declared war on Japan, Hitler declared war on us. War was thrust upon us, not the other way around.
---NurseRobert on 12/14/07


Greyrider,

The US is using the savage depostism of dictators to take action as an excuse to prosecute wars we want for other reasons.

Saddam was bad. He was bad 20 years ago when we aided and supported him, but 5 years ago was he suddenly so much worse that we had to take him out? Bush1 contained the evil, and that worked.

There are and have been dictators the US has supported for political convenience that are and were no less bad. Should we now invade them all unilaterally?
---matthew on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


"Murtha is being a traitor by lying about the numbers."

Hogwash...

Spend some time looking at the thousands of web sites that cover the casualties of the war, including information obtained from the DOD.

A lot of people accuse those of us who have never supported this war of being traitors.
---NurseRobert on 12/14/07


Not critiquing is not practical. If I am paying for a service, I AM the correct person to do so. You are equating critiquing with anger..

I critique with my wallet and my feet. If I don't like the service, the food, whatever, I find somewhere else. I don't equate your "critiquing" with anger, but with arrogance.
---NurseRobert on 12/13/07


OPPS... wrong blog.. sorry..
---NurseRobert on 12/14/07


Greyrider: Nurse Robert - I apologize for not realizing something. I was in the US Air Force. To a civilian, I guess all military action seems the same.

Grey, I spent over 30 years in the military, 9 years in the Army, the rest as a Naval Reserve Officer. You not only NOT realized, but you made assumptions.
---NurseRobert on 12/14/07


Greyrider ... "England and Russia could've defeated him without the US. It just would've taken longer"
I would like as a Briton to think that you are right. But I think not! We were on our last legs, bearing in mind we were also fighting for our friends in the Pacific.
But US interests were at stake, since Japan & Germany posed a closely connected threat
---alan_of_UK on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


Greyrider .... "We did those things you mentioned"
So there was the equilavent of the Brelin Airlift?
I don't recal any flights from here of equipment to mend what we had (necassarily)destroyed.
Greyrider ... I am not saying the war was not needed, but the prosecution of it was rubbish.
---alan_of_UK on 12/14/07


Iraq will only be a mistake if we do not finish the job. Like most of our recent wars we pull out too soon. Premature retreat. If we are really the only superpower, we suck. Finish the job. Accomplish the stated goals. Bin-laden would not have turned on us, exept we turned on him.
---dan on 12/14/07


kai - Thank you. The issue of whether or not people are "against the troops" is in regards to people like Murtha throwing out accusations of war crimes against our soldiers in order to further a political agenda. Some "news" agencies are reporting outrageous civilian death tolls and other agencies report 1st hand testimony that these numbers were PURPOSELY increased TEN-FOLD. Civilians, unfortunately, are going to die in any war. Murtha is being a traitor by lying about the numbers.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


And did you know that the US sold and facilitated the sale of chemicals to Saddam, that he subsequently used against the Iranians and then his own Iraqi Kurds.

And that Bush I refused to enter Bagdhad because he forsaw the very civil strife we are now witnessing.

Matthew, I'm not denying any of this. But you cannot use the RESULTS of the war, nor past bad decisions by the US to determine whether or not we should've removed Saddam.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


to greyrider - thank you for your services. it is not we are against the troops or military service people, but against the people who send people like you to a war that raises more questions than answers.
---kai on 12/14/07


Greyrider,

And did you know that the US sold and facilitated the sale of chemicals to Saddam, that he subsequently used against the Iranians and then his own Iraqi Kurds.

And that Bush I refused to enter Bagdhad because he forsaw the very civil strife we are now witnessing.

And did you know...

Selective remembering and forgetting is the first step in rewriting history. Which seems to be you occupation on this blog.
---matthew on 12/14/07


There's an accusation that's been directed at the anti-Iraq war crowd. I'll be fair and let those of you respond. Would you have opposed the Normandy Invasion? Hitler was absolutely no threat to the US. England and Russia could've defeated him without the US. It just would've taken longer. Were we wrong to get involved considering there were no American interests? (BTW, I say we did the right thing)
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Something else to remember, the United States originally funded Bin-Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

Be careful what you sow....

Nurse Robert, I agree with you. But what about this? We also funded 9-11 by refusing to drill in Alaska and off the coasts of Florida and California. I'd love to see a President with the guts to sign an executive order banning the import of Middle East oil and force us to drill for our own.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


alan - This is what I mean by news sources. We did those things you mentioned. Some "news" agencies refused to report it. One story came out of some marines who found an old abandoned amusement park with rides that had to be hand-cranked. These marines found some neighborhood kids and let them ride as long as they wanted. A "news" cameraman was asked to film it. He refused and became enraged stating that this was not the kind of thing he wanted to admit to anybody was going on.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Nurse Robert - I apologize for not realizing something. I was in the US Air Force. To a civilian, I guess all military action seems the same. All I can tell you is that for anyone who's been in the military, this was a radically different type of attacks. This was not a country vs country attack. It's too hard to explain in 85 word posts, but there is a difference. Trust me, the damage done in Iraq was minor compared to what we could have done.
---Greyrider on 12/14/07


Who can say that it was or wasn't.
---catherine on 12/14/07


Greyrider ... You think we should have gone in furtheer, and heavily ... that would have killed more people and made them hate us even more.
Neither Bush nor Blair had any notion of what to do once Saddam was toppled.
We should have gone in with food, new hospitals, water plants and pipes, rebuilt the elec network and got the schools going again. We should have given something to the people, not just tried to grab for ourselves the lucrative rebuild contracts
---alan_of_UK on 12/13/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Greyrider ... You think we should have gone in furtheer, and heavily ... that would have killed more people and made them hate us even more.
Neither Bush nor Blair had any notion of what to do once Saddam was toppled.
We should have gone in with food, new hospitals, water plants and pipes, rebuilt the elec network and got the schools going again. We should have given something to the people, not just tried to grab for ourselves the lucrative rebuild contracts
---alan_of_UK on 12/13/07


I think we may be arguing apples and oranges. Here's a scenario. You are President, you're about to send the troops into Iraq because Saddam has WMDs. At the last minute, you receive absolute proof that he DOES have WMDs, but they are in Syria (or anywhere else). In your opinion, does Saddam STILL have WMDs? Or do they now "not count" because they're not in Iraq? Also, does the fact that they are in another country make him any less of a threat?
---Greyrider on 12/13/07


"We never attacked Iraq. We attacked Al Queda."

You're kidding, right?? We attacked Iraq, with the intention of removing Hussein from power.
---NurseRobert on 12/13/07


Despite what traitor Murtha says

Why is it when the right doesn't agree with you they call you a traitor?

American firepower has resulted in the fewest civilian deaths of any war in history.

Spend some time researching the body count in Iraq. Estimates for CIVILIAN casualties runs anywere from 50,000 to 100,000. These these numbers come from a lot of sources, including the DOD.
---NurseRobert on 12/13/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Something else to remember, the United States originally funded Bin-Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

Be careful what you sow....
---NurseRobert on 12/13/07


Not critiquing is not practical. If I am paying for a service, I AM the correct person to do so. You are equating critiquing with anger..

I critique with my wallet and my feet. If I don't like the service, the food, whatever, I find somewhere else. I don't equate your "critiquing" with anger, but with arrogance.
---NurseRobert on 12/13/07


#4) As far as the civilian death toll, I guess we have to establish what qualifies. For those who consider America the villain in this war, if any civilian dies by any method, by anyone's hand, that is attributed to the US military somehow. That's morally wrong to look at it that way. If an American bullet or missile kills an innocent, unarmed civilian, THAT's our fault. From that standpoint, casualities have been amazingly low.
---Greyrider on 12/13/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.