Tuesday, April 18, 2006

On the brink of another...

Believe it or not, history is actually a hobby for me, and after reading these articles on Drudge it’s almost like reading a history book from the 1930s. A crazed dictator is building his military strength with intentions of reclaiming land (ie, Israel) that was once lost. He is supported by a minority, while most of his people suffer. Neighboring nations are expressing concern about the buildup. Europe and the UN is intent on appeasement.
Doesn’t this sound familiar?

The problem is: we, as Americans, don’t have the luxury to sit this one out while waiting for Europe to realize that appeasement is a failed policy. If Iran gets nukes, our military troops and bases are in imminent danger…not to mention Israel who, along with Britain, may be our only true ally. Couple that with the fact that we import 60% of our oil from that region and suddenly the United States is facing a potential catastrophe. After all, you can’t field an army without oil, and believe me the Iranian leaders know this.

While I would like to sit back and say to the Middle East "this is your problem, deal with it", I know that is not an option. Iran and Syria are very much the world’s problem. Could they be pushing us to the brink of World War III? I say it’s VERY possible.

I’m not afraid to admit, we NEED the Middle East to be stable because we need that oil. Without it, we’re crippled. Our economy plunges and our military stalls. If America is crippled, who will stop the Islamo-fascists? Especially if the Russians, Chinese and many of our own are basically apathetic towards the whole situation and completely oblivious to the building threat. Thank God Hussein and the Taliban are no longer in power or they could very well be playing the part of Mussolini to Iran’s Nazi-like buildup.

My prayers are with President Bush and his Cabinet as they face this crisis. Once again he's going into a very difficult task. May God give him strength and wisdom.


Dan Trabue said...

"Doesn’t this sound familiar?"

Would it surprise you if I found it doubly familiar? It sounds a bit like a couple of leaders I know.

I'd ask again: How will we pay for it? If Iraq has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, how many trillions of dollars will Iran take? Home many hundreds of thousands of lives?

I hear what you fear the repercussions of our current actions will be, but are you considering the repercussions of your proposed actions?

WRBishop said...

How do we pay for it?? WAR BONDS! I say bring em back.

The repercussions of the actions described would bring about a more stable Middle East. I can handle 40k suicide bombers...I bet the number is more like 5k. What I cannot handle is that lunatic having weapons grade uranium.

We have a God fearing President at the helm and a lunatic in Iran. I think WWIII is coming soon and to be honest it is about time. The sleeping giant needs to be awoke once more and this time flatten those fanatics over there in the middle east.

No worries about fuel either. We have the technology available to run our equipment on other types of diesel rather than the oil based kind. Plus you know Saudis will have our back.

Anyway, this is shaping up to be an epic battle and I for one would jump at the opportunity to volunteer if they were to reinstitute the draft.

TexasFred said...

WRBishop said...Plus you know Saudis will have our back.

LMAO... UhHuh, sure they do...

Put the bong down and take a break man...

Dan Trabue said...

"We have a God fearing President at the helm and a lunatic in Iran."

Well, you're probably at least half right, anyway.

WRBishop said...

texasfred... when have the Saudis not had our back when things get tough? The one thing we can count on is when the Saudi family is threatened to loose their rule they support our efforts with a direct line to fuel for our troops. This does not mean they are our friend but hostory has shown that when they get scared they support us in one way or the other.

WRBishop said...

dan... not that your opinion matters to me at the least but are you saying the Iranian leader is not a lunatic? I would figure this sort of stand from a liberal. After all I am sure you would rather have a President in the white house getting a blowjob than a President that has morals and conviction.

Dan Trabue said...

Mr. Bishop,

You don't know me so well as you'd thought. I agree with the half of your statement that the fella in Iran appears to be lunatical.

I disagree with the half of your statement where you suggest Mr. Bush is a god-fearing man. Although, to be fair, it may well be true that Bush fears his gods - industry, militarism, consumerism, whichever gods he may have. I just reject the suggestion that Bush fears, listens to or otherwise is concerned with the God I serve.

And who says I'm a liberal? I'm a church-going loving husband and father; a tea-totalling, pro-life fiscally responsible believer in smaller gov't who thought Clinton should have stepped down from office in shame for his behavior.

Color that liberal if you wish, but it sure sounds just like a regular guy to me.

Bush's only morals are those of expediency and power and his only conviction is that his might makes right and the ends justify the means, or so says the evidence. Is HE what you consider a model conservative? If that's the case, I'll gladly be a liberal.

WRBishop said...

Dan, I apologize if I unfairly painted you as a Liberal. In recent posts I took some of your comments as far left leaning. Who knows maybe I am just use to every Liberal speaking of Bush the same way you do. Anyway, I hope everything you say about yourself is true but I can hardly believe you would be so anti Bush if it were.

Dan Trabue said...


You need not apologize for painting me as a liberal. I am probably pretty far Left by some standards.

My point is that labels are rather tricky devices.

Our church has gay deacons and members and we believe - based upon God's Word - that loving committed gay relationships are not what the Bible is condemning in the handful of places where it seems to be talking about homosexuality.

My friends and I are opposed to this war - and many of us are pacifists opposed to practically any war.

I ride a bike most places instead of driving because I'm convinced of the unsustainable nature of the personal auto.

Based upon these facts about me, some would want to call me a liberal. Which is fine.

But I am all those things I said - a deacon at my church, the faithful husband of one woman, etc, etc.

I am opposed to Bush - as are many - because we believe many of his policies are immoral - some downright evil, and we reach this conclusion because of our Christian faith: Does that make us conservative or liberal?

We think his spending policies are fiscally irresponsible: Does that make us liberal or conservative?

Labels are sometimes helpful in discussions, but I'm not so sure if they're not more harmful than helpful.

WRBishop said...


I will be honest that you and I are both Christians but very different in our beliefs and how we practice. However, we will all be judged when our time comes.

I do not think Bush is as unpopular as you think. I think that people are unhappy with the way things are going in Iraq and I believe that is mainly because the media paints a far left version of what is going on (except Fox News). I do think the plan of action was ill conceived but hindsight is always 20/20. Shoot there were many mistakes when we dove into WWII but everything turned out for the better. Time will tell us all if this was a good decision.

In my view I cannot complain about his fiscal policies. Bush has overcome so much and the economy is still humming right along. His tax cuts have benefited me and my family. His housing policy has placed millions in homes when they probably never could afford one. He has given more money to help African Americans and has never received one bit of credit. Now he has made decisions which I do not agree as well but he has done a great job as far as I am concerned. 9/11...War in Afghanistan/Iraq/Terror...Katrina...and we are still experiencing a thriving economy. Can the man have a little credit?? Bush inherited a ticking time bomb for an economy and did what he could to right the ship. Many of those decisions are characterized as fiscaly irresponsible but where would we be if he were any different?

All this said my faith tells me that what he is doing is right and of just cause. I also feel he is a fine Christian brother. How really people feel about him and the policies he has put forward will be hashed out in the voting booth.

Dan Trabue said...

wr, lightly off topic, let me address your point:

"Bush has overcome so much and the economy is still humming right along. His tax cuts have benefited me and my family."

But, as I'm sure you'll agree, we ought to be concerned about more than just how we're doing personally. We ought to be concerned with everyone, yes?

Are you aware that the poverty rate decreased during every year of President Clinton's tenure -- indeed, the rate was even lower in 2000 than it was in 1999 -- and has increased every year since President Bush took office? (And I'm definitely no fan of Clinton, I'm just using his tenure as a reference point).

Further, between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of children under the age of 18 living in poverty dropped from 22.7 percent to 16.2 percent. Since 2001, that share has increased to 17.8 percent.

[my source for those numbers is the census bureau:

But, I think we mostly can only agree that we see God's teachings differently and I reckon that's just the way it is.

Thanks for chatting respectfully with me.


WRBishop said...

I believe that there are mitigating factors outside of Prseident Bush's control which helped the poverty level grow. You cannot just take numbers and asign blame to the highest office. You have to look at the root cause.

On to the next topic...