Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior

Ted Cruz disappoints

First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ted Cruz disappoints

    Ted Cruz said of the Iraq war, “No way we would have gone to war with Iraq… We now know that intelligence was false." That gave me faith that Ted Cruz was a decent man (even thought he fell short of telling the truth, that Bush lied). But, now he has gone and blown all the good faith I had in him with that bit of fear-mongering.

    Speaking to the “Raise my taxes” Tea Party, Cruz said, “If this Iran deal goes through, we know to an absolute certainty that people will die. Americans will die. Israelis will die. Europeans will die… The single most important issue in 2016 will be stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” But, International and American intelligence communities do not believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program. International and American intelligence communities, and other nuclear experts, agree that the Iran plan is sufficient to prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons.

    Opponents of this Iran deal want war with Iran. And, then it’s absolutely certain that Americans will die. Gas prices will sky rocket. Another trillion dollars will be added to the debt. Our economy will nose drive. More Christians in the middle-east will die. Hundreds of thousands more Muslim refugees will resettle in America and Europe. And, with Judases like Cruz, Huckabee, and other Zionists leading American Christians over an Iranian cliff, our domestic enemies will be free to continue to strip Americans of freedom and to continue transforming America into a place that persecutes Christians.

    The single most important issue of 2016 is protecting our freedom. And, Ted Cruz is on the wrong side.

    I still do not agree with you. However, IF weapons of mass destruction are defined only as nuclear weapons then I would agree. IF that was our sole reason for going into Iraq then I would agree.

    IF, you're a Conservative and wish to know more about each candidate, and track voting records: Conservative Review

    For example, Cruz's statement should come as no surprise:

    Ted Cruz 96% Rating

    Foreign Policy & Defense
    • Egypt:

    Introduced an amendment to the FY2014 budget to cut aid to Egypt and increase funding for an east coast missile defense shield.[1]Israel:

    Cruz has been one of the staunchest and most vocal supporters of Israel in the Senate, opposing Obama-Clinton-Kerry policy pressuring Israel to compromise security by conceding to Palestine. Cruz is a strong proponent of supporting Israel defending herself with measures such as the Iron Dome missile defense system and the security barrier.

    “Only when the Palestinians take it upon themselves to embrace their neighbors and eradicate terrorist violence from their society can a real and just peace be possible. Until then there should be no question of the United States’ firm solidarity with Israel in the mutual defense of our fundamental values and interests.” [2]

    Introduced legislation in June 2014, to offer a reward to individuals who could furnish information about the Hamas terrorists, who kidnapped and killed three Jewish teens, including an Israeli-U.S. citizen.[3] [

    “Hamas is, unequivocally, a terrorist organization with blood on its hands that must be condemned on the world stage. There should be no path forward for Hamas to have any role in any future government formed by the Palestinian Authority, and no nation should accommodate, legitimize, or negotiate with this group that engages in the killing of innocent civilians.” [4]
    • Iran:

    In July 2014, Cruz introduced the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014 (SISA). This bill would re-impose strong sanctions on Iran and call on Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Further, this bill includes an enforcement mechanism to ensure the sanctions are implemented.[5]
    • Benghazi:

    Cruz has led in the investigation of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. He has introduced a bill to offer a reward to catch the terrorists responsible.[6] He also introduced a resolution for Congress to establish a joint committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack.[7]
    • Gitmo:

    Introduced legislation to temporarily halt further transfer or release of Guantanamo Bay prisoners until the Obama Administration can explain how the controversial swap of the “Taliban 5” released in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was in the best interest of U.S. national security.[8],[9]
    • United Nations:

    In April 2014, Iran announced its intent to appoint Hamid Aboutalebi ambassador to the U.N.. Aboutalebi was responsible for the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and was never held accountable. Though other senators wagged their fingers, it was Cruz’s leadership to author a bill to prevent any terrorist from entering the U.S. as an UN ambassador—that gave it a vote.[10] This bi-partisan legislation passed the House and the Senate unanimously and was signed into law by the president. [11]

    [1] U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session
    [2] Sen. Ted Cruz: Obama-Clinton-Kerry Foreign Policy is Wreaking Havoc Across the Globe | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [3] S.2577 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to require the Secretary of State to offer rewards totaling up to $5,000,000 for information on the kidnapping and murder of Naftali Fraenkel, a dual United States-Israeli citizen, that began on June 12, 2014. | | Library of Congress
    [4] Hamas is a Terrorist Organization with Blood on its Hands | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [5] Sen. Cruz Files Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [6] S.1661 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to require the Secretary of State to offer rewards of up to $5,000,000 for information regarding the attacks on the United States diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya that began on September 11, 2012. | | Library of Congress
    [7] S.Res.225 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A resolution to express the sense of the Senate that Congress should establish a joint select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States diplomatic facility and American personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. | | Library of Congress
    [8] Sen. Cruz Plans to Introduce Legislation to Halt Guantanamo Bay Transfers | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [9] Sen. Cruz Files S. 2510 to Prohibit Guantanamo Transfers Until Administration Justifies Release of ‘Taliban 5’ | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [10] Sen. Ted Cruz on Legislation to Prevent Terrorists from Entering US as UN Ambassadors | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas
    [11] S.2195 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): A bill to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests. | | Library of Congress See more at: Page not found - Conservative Review

    God bless,


      William, thank you for correcting the spelling in the title. After I posted, I tried to go back and edit, but apparently we can't edit titles.

      Ted Cruz 96% Rating
      Rand Paul scored a 93%. By that website's measure, wanting to expand the US military, which is already more costly than nearly all of the rest of the world's militaries combined, is ironically counted as conservative. I wonder if Paul were as pro-military as Cruz, that he might have matched that 96%, while being more appealing to moderate voters.

      I'm disappointed by Cruz's rhetoric against Iran, but he is still easily one of the best candidates. Maybe as a Republican candidate, he can't come out in favor of the Iran deal, but he sure doesn't need to lead the charge against the deal.

      You can't be pro-war and pro-freedom at the same time. Unless the war is a direct fight for freedom (which hasn't applied since the Revolutionary war), every war diminishes our freedom.


        The website grades on consistency, keeping to a Conservative platform on key issues. The very last paragraph expresses why Paul is 3% behind Cruz. I might add, those issues pertaining to Social/and Sanctity of life has Paul not as clearly defined as Cruz, and therefore the gap between Paul and Cruz broadens with voters such as me:

        Rand Paul:

        Paul's desire to run for president coupled with his libertarian leanings, have prompted him to take some stances that are often at odds with full-spectrum conservatives. His views are often murky and inconsistent from day-to-day, but he has expressed strong support for amnesty and has echoed some of the Left’s premises about the immigration issue in general, although he has more recently called for border security first. Paul is currently a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

        Paul has expressed support for early voting, open primaries, and allowing some felons to vote. He has also expressed some opposition to pushing voter ID laws. Some of his views on reforming the criminal justice system might step too far outside of the “tough on crime” mentality of conservatives.

        During the 2013 battle to defund Obamacare, Paul declined to support the effort, and has recently shown tepidness about pursuing full repeal of Obamacare. However, he has always voted with conservatives on defunding Obamacare.

        On social issues, Paul has always voted with conservatives, however, he has shown a lukewarm commitment to fighting for them. He has expressed a need to pull back from fighting against the push for gay marriage in order to win the youth vote and even praised the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA. He has also called for a compromise on abortion, although he has sponsored a strong anti-abortion bill in the Senate.

        Taken broadly, Paul has been a consistent vote and voice for privacy issues, the Bill of Rights, federalism, and balanced budgets – the areas where conservatism overlaps with core libertarian values. On other issues, especially national defense, the War on Terror, immigration, criminal justice, and social issues, he appears to still be evolving, or is confused about his messaging, or is genuinely caught between his personal views and the natural libertarian base, mainstream conservatives, and establishment consultants, while attempting to navigate his way to the White House.
        I did catch Rand Paul sparring with Chris Christie in the Fox Republican debate:

        God bless,


          Chris Christie gets a very low score from Conservative Review. Mostly red ratings. Only on education does he get a green rating, and that's in spite of backing the Fed's Common Core standards.

          You know, I think conservatives are seriously sabotaging all their conservative positions by backing neoconservative hawkish foreign policy. I also think conservatives are harming themselves by avoiding libertarian rhetoric. You might have noticed, I speak frequently of freedom, and religious freedom (by freedom, I don't mean that empty flag-waving rhetoric used in defense of bullying countries that are no threat to our freedom). "Freedom" is an easier sell than inviting yourself to be painted as any kind of prohibitionist. Conservatives need turn things around and put Liberals on the defensive. Ted Cruz did very good in saying School Choice is the civil rights issue of the 21-st century -- and then he undoes that when he declares loudly that stopping Iran from getting nukes is the single most important issue of 2016.

          Freedom, not prohibitions, not bombs, not useless walls. Keep on target. School Choice. Religious freedom. Economic freedom. Free Speech for wedding photographers and cake bakers. Freedom of conscience for pharmacists. And, so on. Democrats want to ban School Choice, strip us of our religious freedom, take away free speech, and so on. I think this is where the conservative Paul family is trying to go.


            Christ Christie is a RINO (Republican in name only). No conservative should even give him the time of day. You have made clear your position, but I am for increased military spending and protection of our borders and foreign interests.

            Just read today that Russia is now FIGHTING on the side of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Which means Russia is essentially fighting on the same side as Iran, since, as reported in a House Armed Services Fact Sheet, as Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah provides military aid and advises the Assad regime. Iran also directly employs its IRGC forces in Syria. But how is this Obama administration going to complain about Russia’s involvement with the Syrians while they’re getting in bed with the Iranians? Can anyone tell me what’s really going on here? The Obama administration is lifting sanctions off a terrorist state and paving the way for it to get a nuclear weapon. All the while, the Russians are militarily supporting another terrorist state, Syria. So are the U.S. and Russia actually allies in sponsoring terrorism? It does make you wonder.

            This is getting serious.... much to Paul's credit he has been an advocate against supplying our enemy with arms. Although, with the Obama's administrations seemingly blurred line between friend and foe, I am unclear about our enemy and our own objective. It appears to a degree that we are attempting to destabilize the Mid East and Syria. Again, this entire mess began with Jimmy Carter and his liberal advisers that helped the Ayatollah Khomeini to come to power in Iran a quarter of a century ago. Thus they gave radical Islam control of its first major state.

            It is Obama's fault that Iraq has destabilized by withdrawing troops from Iraq too early, ignoring his predecessor and his military adviser's warnings. There was clear intelligence of Saddam using chemical weapons against civilians (WMD). Saddam had refused to allow nuclear inspectors in. Each time we deployed our military (costing billions) only to stand down after he folded from a bluff which made the U.S. rely on intelligence rather than hard observation. So I think the overall cost towards the outcome is nonsensical, we were spending billions before going to war on deployments, the argument is like criticizing or standing against police when they have a legitimate warrant or respond to a domestic crisis.

            In Syria it has been proven that chemical weapons are being used. And just so it is clear, and I could care less if someone considers me a warmonger, I would fully support escalating our involvement to the next level AFTER a clear enemy and objective has been established UNDER different leadership.

            I believe Obama and his administration are under-qualified to LEAD our Armed Forces, and to be honest, I wish there was someone with military history in the running. I think one of the worst things we have done as a country is to allow people or non-military personnel to be the Commander and Chief.

            My heart goes out to the Refugees fleeing persecution. But, this should make it easy targeting the remaining occupation sometime soon.

            God bless,


              Originally posted by William View Post
              Just read today that Russia is now FIGHTING on the side of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
              Russia is late to the sectarian party. We've been helping ISIS in Syria from the start.

              Originally posted by William View Post
              The Obama administration is lifting sanctions off a terrorist state and paving the way for it to get a nuclear weapon.
              A deal that limits Iran's nuclear program and has UN inspectors tracking all uranium and nuclear equipment is far from paving the road for a nuclear weapons program.

              Originally posted by William View Post
              It is Obama's fault that Iraq has destabilized by withdrawing troops from Iraq too early
              US troops were in Iraq for 8 years, dieing almost every day. How long do you think they should have stayed? Until Muslims decide to love occupation by the Great Satan? Until Shiit and and Suni start hugging each other? What's conservative about US taxpayers paying to police Iraq forever?

              Originally posted by William View Post
              There was clear intelligence of Saddam using chemical weapons against civilians (WMD). Saddam had refused to allow nuclear inspectors in.

              Saddam used US-supplied chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s (weapons with a short shelf-life). That's completely irrelevant to whether or not Saddam was hiding WMDs in the 1990s and in 2003. The advocates of the Iraq war have to use bull like that because they have no relevant and real evidence Saddam was hiding WMDs.

              Can you give an example of Saddam refusing to allow nuclear inspectors in?

              "Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance." -- Scott Ritter, UN Weapons Inspector until Bill Clinton kicked the inspectors out. Why would Saddam be blocking inspectors when all he possibly had was a negligible amount of WMDs? It's reasonable that even he wished to disarm, proving the destruction of the last 5% would be very difficult. When we invaded Iraq, we found no WMDs. Why would Saddam still be refusing to cooperate when no [significant] WMDs turned up when his cooperation was no longer relevant? Not only do the UN inspectors agree Saddam was disarmed, it makes no sense to accuse Saddam of hiding what we couldn't find after he was gone.

              Who's telling the truth?

              Colin Powell said, "First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so. Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it were a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?"

              But, the UN inspectors, in their report to the UN, "First, on aluminium tubes, the IAEA had conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq’s attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminium tubes. As previously reported, Iraq had maintained that those aluminium tubes were sought for rocket production. Extensive field investigation and document analysis had failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use those 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.... Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question."

              Choose, the bull from the Bush administration or the findings of the UN inspectors? Pick any example of evidence the Bush administration provided. Saddam's use of WMDs in the 1980s. His claims Saddam sought yellowcake from Africa. Ect. All lies and bull, to the detriment of America and the Christian community. Bush lied. And, now we're being lied to about Iran.


                Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                US troops were in Iraq for 8 years, dieing almost every day. How long do you think they should have stayed? Until Muslims decide to love occupation by the Great Satan? Until Shiit and and Suni start hugging each other? What's conservative about US taxpayers paying to police Iraq forever?
                However long it takes. Your points actually support a longer occupation.

                Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                "Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ...
                How can that be claimed if the totality of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was unknown?

                Click image for larger version

Name:	Chemical_weapon.gif
Views:	1
Size:	185.0 KB
ID:	6395

                In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

                Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

                The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

                Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

                A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”
                • UNSCOM supervised destruction of Iraq’s key biological weapons production facility at Al-Hakam and destroyed some 60 pieces of equipment from three other facilities.
                • UNSCOM destroyed some 22 tonnes of growth media for biological weapons.
                • UNSCOM reported that it could not confirm the number of biological weapons Iraq produced, but the inspectors asserted that evidence suggested that more than 200 R-400 aerial bombs had been available for germ weapons.
                • UNSCOM estimated that Iraq had understated its imports of growth media by at least 600 kilograms. UNSCOM assessed that at a total of at least 2,160 kilograms of key growth-media types had not been accounted for.
                • Iraq claimed to have produced four drop-tank weapons to be used with aircraft to deliver biological agents, but UNSCOM only accounted for three and no evidence was offered that only four had been manufactured.
                • UNSCOM could not account for 12 helicopter-borne aerosol generators that Iraq claimed to have made and then unilaterally destroyed.
                • Few documents related to the biological weapons program were recovered by UNSCOM, and noticeably absent were any documents on planning and production.
                • UNSCOM contended that the amount of biological agents produced by Iraq could be “far greater than those declared.”
                • In a final January 1999 report, UNSCOM concluded it had “no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not still exist in Iraq.”
                • UNSCOM further added, “[I]t needs to be recognised that Iraq possesses an industrial capability and knowledge base, through which biological warfare agents could be produced quickly and in volume, if the Government of Iraq decided to do so."

                Baghdad initially stated in April 1991 that it did not have biological weapons (BW) or related items. Over the next four years, Iraq held that its germ warfare research had been for defensive purposes only, not for an offensive capability.
                • On July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted for the first time that it had had an offensive biological weapons program, but it denied ever producing germ weapons.
                • After the August 1995 defection of Hussein Kamel, who directed Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, Iraq acknowledged for the first time that it had weaponized biological agents.
                • Iraqi officials gave conflicting accounts on how many and what types of biological weapons the country actually produced, although they say no more than 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and 157 R-400 aerial bombs were filled with biological agents.

                Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                Can you give an example of Saddam refusing to allow nuclear inspectors in?
                That would depend upon how we define "allowing inspectors in", because Saddam "for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors." If you read all the above your question should be answered. Read the below Cornelius, if you read closely, especially towards the end... you can see where we geared up and deployed multiple times in response to Saddam's "reluctance, resistance, obstructions, and deception".

                A Chronology of UN Inspections

                Pre-Persian Gulf War

                Despite signing treaties forbidding the development or use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, Iraq initiates programs to acquire such weapons. Iraq repeatedly violates the international norm against using chemical weapons during its eight-year war with Iran, which began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran in September 1980. Iraq also uses chemical weapons against some of its own villages, most notably against Halabja in a March 16, 1988, attack that kills an estimated 5,000 people. In addition to its chemical weapons program, Iraq is also suspected by some countries of pursuing nuclear weapons, prompting Israel in June 1981 to bomb and destroy Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear research reactor, which it acquired from France. The attack reportedly leads Iraq to intensify its illegal effort to acquire nuclear weapons.


                On August 2, Iraq invades Kuwait and is immediately condemned by the UN Security Council. The Security Council calls for Iraqi forces to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait and imposes an arms embargo and economic sanctions that cut off all trade with Iraq except for the import of foodstuffs in humanitarian circumstances and items with medical purposes. Within a week of the invasion, the United States begins deploying military forces to Saudi Arabia. Iraq continues to defy UN demands to withdraw its forces from Kuwait, and on November 29 the Security Council approves Resolution 678, authorizing countries to use “all necessary means” to force Iraqi compliance if its troops do not return to Iraq by January 15, 1991.


                The January 15 deadline for the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait passes without action by Baghdad. A U.S.-led coalition initiates an air offensive January 17 against Iraq and its forces in Kuwait, followed by a ground attack on February 24 that drives Iraqi forces out of Kuwait within four days. A cease-fire is declared February 28.

                On April 3, the Security Council adopts Resolution 687, mandating that Iraq eliminate all of its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs as well as all of its ballistic missiles capable of traveling more than 150 kilometers. The resolution requires that the United Nations establish a special commission, UNSCOM, to verify that Iraq’s biological, chemical, and proscribed missile programs are eliminated, and the IAEA is charged with doing the same for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. Pledging to review the situation every 60 days, the Security Council declares that the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait will remain in effect until the country complies with its disarmament obligations.

                Iraq accepts the terms of this resolution three days later and provides initial declarations on the extent of its proscribed programs April 18, although it will revise all the declarations several times when confronted with evidence discovered by inspectors disproving its claims. UNSCOM later finds that Iraqi officials initially decided to report only their least modern weapons and to keep indigenous production capabilities and documentation secret so they could resume the programs.

                Weapons inspections under the direction of Hans Blix, director-general of the IAEA, and Rolf Ekeus, executive chairman of UNSCOM, start in May and June and almost immediately face Iraqi obstructionism. Iraq is caught moving prohibited items away from inspection sites and denies access to other facilities. The Security Council responds August 15 with Resolution 707, the first of many resolutions condemning Iraqi noncooperation with weapons inspectors. In addition to describing Iraq as being in “material breach” of its commitments, the resolution further demands that Baghdad provide inspectors with “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” and supply new “full, final and complete disclosure” of all its weapons programs subject to elimination.

                Iraq ignores the demands, and in September it temporarily blocks UNSCOM’s use of helicopters in the inspection process. A four-day standoff also ensues over the Iraqi confiscation of documents seized by inspectors, which are returned only after the Security Council threatens military action. The next month, the Security Council passes Resolution 715 demanding again that Iraq unconditionally carry out its obligations and “cooperate fully” with weapons inspections. This resolution also formally approves IAEA and UNSCOM plans for ongoing monitoring and verification to determine that once Iraq disarms, it does not reconstitute its weapons programs. Baghdad rejects the plans and does not accept them until November 1993.

                Despite Iraq’s concerted efforts to thwart weapons inspectors, they succeed in starting destruction activities, and the IAEA begins shipping Iraq’s weapons-usable material out of the country.


                Weapons inspections and destruction activities continue without Iraq’s full cooperation, leading the Security Council in February to charge Iraq again with being in material breach of its obligations. This is the first of three such statements during the year. Iraq subsequently admits to having had more ballistic missiles and chemical weapons than it had previously acknowledged but claims that it unilaterally destroyed most of these items—a violation of the requirement that the destruction process be supervised by independent inspectors. Weapons inspectors later determine that Iraq unilaterally destroyed weapons to make it more difficult for inspectors to establish a comprehensive picture of its arms programs.

                While actively obstructing inspectors, Baghdad seeks to preserve a veneer of compliance between May and June by submitting separate “full, final and complete disclosures” on its relevant weapons programs. Each declaration is subsequently found to be incomplete, particularly the biological weapons disclosure, in which Baghdad claims to have had only a “defensive” program. Iraq will eventually revise all disclosures several times.

                Iraq refuses for three weeks in July to allow weapons inspectors inside the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, which is suspected of housing documents detailing Iraq’s ballistic missile programs. A deal is eventually brokered allowing inspectors into the building, but no British, French, or U.S. inspectors are permitted to participate in the inspection, creating what some consider a bad precedent that allows Iraq to dictate the composition of inspection teams. During the standoff, the United States threatens to use force to gain entry, but the Security Council does not, revealing growing differences among Security Council members about enforcing Iraq’s disarmament.

                Weapons inspectors make additional headway during the year, destroying key nuclear facilities, as well as chemical weapons and related production capabilities. The year, however, concludes with Iraqi officials verbally threatening the lives of the weapons inspectors.


                At the beginning of the year, Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM aircraft to fly into the country, an action the Security Council deems a material breach and threatens might result in “serious consequences” for Baghdad. Iraq also steps up military activities along the Kuwaiti border and in the two no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq that the United States and its allies imposed on Iraq after the Persian Gulf War.

                U.S.-led coalition forces carry out air strikes against Iraqi air defenses, radar and communication facilities, and nuclear-related sites in January, prompting Baghdad to temper its military activities and rescind its decision to block UNSCOM aircraft. Iraq soon resumes its belligerent behavior, however, aiming anti-aircraft weapons at UN helicopters and then initially rejecting inspectors’ efforts in June to install monitoring cameras at missile launch sites.

                Also in June, the United States launches a limited cruise missile attack against Iraq in response to an alleged plot to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.

                Near the end of the year, Iraq permits the monitoring cameras to be installed and makes additional conciliatory steps, naming previous foreign suppliers of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and formally agreeing to the IAEA and UNSCOM monitoring and verification plans originally approved in October 1991 by the Security Council.


                In February, the IAEA ships Iraq’s last quantities of highly enriched uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, to Russia. The first half of the year is marked by relative cooperation from Iraq and statements of progress by weapons inspectors. But in September, Iraq sets an October 10 deadline for sanctions to be lifted, warns that it will cease cooperation with weapons inspectors if the Security Council does not drop sanctions, and moves its military forces toward Kuwait. The Security Council deems Iraq’s ultimatum unacceptable and approves Resolution 949, demanding that all Iraqi forces return to their original positions and that Iraq fully cooperate with UNSCOM. Iraq withdraws its forces, and weapons inspections continue.


                Under increasing pressure from some countries, particularly China, France, and Russia, to ease the sanctions imposed on Iraq to address worsening humanitarian problems in the country, the Security Council on April 14 unanimously approves the so-called oil-for-food program, which permits Iraq to sell up to $1 billion of oil every 90 days to buy food, medicine, and other civilian goods. The revenue from the sale of oil is kept in an escrow account controlled by the United Nations to prevent Iraq from purchasing items with potential military uses. Despite its significant economic hardship Iraq does not embrace the plan for more than a year, accepting it only in November 1996.

                Confronted by evidence uncovered by weapons inspectors, Iraq admits for the first time on July 1 that it had an offensive biological weapons research and development program, but it denies having ever produced actual weapons. That same month, Baghdad issues another ultimatum, saying that it will end all cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions are not lifted by the close of August.

                Iraq changes its tack, however, after the August 8 defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, who directed Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. In the following weeks, Iraqi officials take inspectors to Kamel’s farm, revealing hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that detail Iraqi weapons efforts. Iraq claims Kamel was pursuing the weapons on his own initiative. Kamel returns to Iraq months later and is killed.

                Through a combination of Iraqi declarations and analysis of the recovered documents, weapons inspectors learn that Iraq had weaponized biological agents, had a more advanced indigenous ballistic missile program than previously believed, had produced more chemical weapons than disclosed earlier, and had initiated a crash program in 1990 to try to acquire a nuclear weapon in less than a year. In addition, an ongoing covert Iraqi operation to obtain banned missile gyroscopes is exposed in November.


                In March, Iraq delays weapons inspectors’ visits to five different sites, drawing condemnation from the Security Council. Three months later, Iraq again denies weapons inspectors access to sites they want to inspect. The Security Council responds June 12 by passing Resolution 1060, which demands yet again that Iraq provide inspectors unhindered access but which stops short of authorizing or threatening the use of force to support the inspectors. Iraq blocks another inspection the following day, leading the Security Council to criticize Iraqi cooperation again, even though some Security Council members are beginning to voice reservations about what they consider UNSCOM’s confrontational tactics.

                UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus travels to Baghdad June 19-22 to work out how inspections of “sensitive” Iraqi sites will be conducted, but within weeks Iraq prevents weapons inspectors from searching several such sites. The Security Council again tells Iraq in August that it is violating its obligations. Before the year closes, Iraq rejects efforts by weapons inspectors to remove remnants of destroyed missiles for outside, independent analysis, resulting in yet more Security Council criticism of Iraq’s behavior.


                After a three-month standoff, Iraq allows UNSCOM to remove destroyed missile parts from the country for outside analysis in March. The following month, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asserts that the United States opposes automatically lifting the sanctions on Iraq once it has been disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction. She clearly implies that the United States will work to keep sanctions in place until Saddam Hussein no longer rules Iraq, effectively removing the only inducement for Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspections. Albright’s declaration contradicts Resolution 687, which states that the sanctions will be reviewed every 60 days and lifted once Iraq disarms.

                Baghdad soon steps up its obstructionist activities. Iraqi officials in June jeopardize the safety of weapons inspectors by grabbing at the controls of UNSCOM helicopters while they are airborne, and Iraq blocks access to several sites. The Security Council responds June 21 by adopting Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraqi actions. In order to punish Iraq, the resolution also suspends the council’s usual 60-day review of sanctions. Australian Ambassador Richard Butler becomes UNSCOM executive chairman July 1, replacing Swedish Ambassador Rolf Ekeus.

                Another round of Iraqi noncooperation begins in September, highlighted by Iraq barring weapons inspections at locations it describes as “presidential sites.” The Security Council responds October 23 with Resolution 1134, which again demands that Iraq cooperate with weapons inspectors, but the message sent is significantly weakened by the fact that five Security Council members—most notably China, France, and Russia—abstain from the vote.

                Days later, Iraq, perhaps bolstered by the evident rift in the Security Council, announces it will not deal at all with U.S. weapons inspectors, orders them to leave the country, and then blocks inspection teams including US inspectors. UNSCOM and the IAEA withdraw most of their inspectors in response, and the Security Council calls on Iraq November 12 to rescind its decision and refrain from imposing any conditions on inspectors.

                The United States builds up its military forces in the region and threatens action, but its aggressive stance is not backed by the Security Council. Averting a possible US attack, Russia negotiates the return of all inspectors to Iraq November 20. In spite of its pledge to cooperate with inspectors, Baghdad informs UNSCOM in mid-December that the so-called “presidential sites” are still off-limits to inspections. The Security Council replies that Iraq’s declaration is unacceptable.


                Iraq continues to block inspections at the eight locations it labels as presidential sites and refuses another inspection elsewhere, charging that too many US and British inspectors are on the team. In February, as Iraq stands firm on barring visits to presidential sites and a U.S.-led military buildup continues in the region, both the United States and Britain release reports detailing what weapons and equipment they believe Iraq is still hiding. With the prospect of renewed hostilities looming, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan travels to Iraq and reaches an agreement February 23, which reiterates that weapons inspectors are to have unfettered access in Iraq but which also spells out special procedures for inspecting presidential sites. At the end of the same month, Security Council members agree to increase the amount of oil Iraq can export to a little more than $5.2 billion every six months.

                Inspectors visit the presidential sites in March and April without incident, and the Security Council issues a May statement expressing satisfaction with Iraq’s recent cooperation. Some Security Council members want to officially declare Iraq disarmed of its nuclear weapons and relax IAEA inspections, but the United States and Britain resist, claiming there are still unanswered questions. At the same time, UNSCOM holds that there has been little recent progress in resolving outstanding issues in the biological, chemical, and missile areas.

                To Iraq’s dissatisfaction—as well as to that of its supporters on the Security Council—the IAEA reports at the end of July that it cannot close Iraq’s nuclear file, and on July 29 the council rejects a Russian proposal to stop investigating Iraq’s nuclear program. A few days later, UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler tells a top Iraqi official that UNSCOM’s inspections also need to continue.

                On August 5, Iraq announces that it is suspending cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections. The Security Council condemns Iraq’s decision the next day and one month later passes Resolution 1194, calling for Iraq to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. The resolution does not brandish a stick but a carrot, holding out the possibility of a comprehensive review of Iraq’s disarmament progress—a condition Iraq had long demanded—after it readmitted inspectors. On October 30, the Security Council approves a plan to conduct the review, but Baghdad declares the next day that in addition to not allowing inspections, it would no longer permit UNSCOM and IAEA activities to conduct less intrusive monitoring activities intended to determine Iraq’s continued compliance with its disarmament obligations. The Security Council condemns the move November 5 amid US and British preparations to punish Iraq with military strikes.

                With a U.S.-British attack imminent, Iraq announces November 14 that it will cooperate with inspectors. Baghdad’s cooperation is short-lived, however, and the IAEA and UNSCOM withdraw their personnel from Iraq December 16, just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom begin three days of air strikes, during which Baghdad declares that weapons inspections are finished. The attacks surprise other Security Council members, some of whom condemn the action.


                Amid news reports and allegations that the United States used UNSCOM weapons inspections to collect intelligence for its own purposes, the Security Council authorizes a review of UN policy toward Iraq, including the status of Iraq’s disarmament. The panel charged with assessing Iraq’s disarmament reports at the end of March that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but it also notes that “important elements still have to be resolved.” The panel acknowledges that reaching absolute certainty that Iraq has completely disarmed is unattainable and recommends focusing on resolving a few key outstanding issues. To achieve this objective, the panel calls for a reinforced monitoring and verification system that should, “if anything,” be more intrusive than the previous system. The panel also cautions that the longer weapons inspectors are kept out of Iraq, the greater the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs.

                Months of debate ensue among Security Council members over how to resolve the Iraq situation. While the United States and the United Kingdom insist that Iraq fully disarm before sanctions are relaxed, China, France, and Russia contend that Iraq has already fulfilled the bulk of its disarmament commitments and that sanctions should be eased to induce Iraq to complete its final obligations. For its part, Iraq insists that sanctions must be lifted before inspectors can return.

                The Security Council passes Resolution 1284 on December 17, creating a successor to UNSCOM—the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). China, France, and Russia abstain from the vote, revealing that divisions between Security Council members on Iraq still exist. The resolution erases the limit on the amount of oil Iraq can sell under the oil-for-food program and holds out the possibility that sanctions could be suspended for 120-day increments if Iraq cooperates with the new UN team, which is to be given unconditional and unrestricted access. The resolution also demands that within 60 days of their entry into Iraq, UNMOVIC and the IAEA draw up a list of key remaining disarmament tasks so that Iraq knows exactly what it must do to comply fully. Iraq rejects Resolution 1284.


                An IAEA team returns to Iraq in January but only to conduct a regular inspection at a declared Iraqi nuclear site. As a state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iraq is obliged to allow IAEA inspectors to visit declared sites at least every 14 months. The IAEA makes clear, however, that the limited inspections under the NPT are no substitute for its intrusive inspections in years past and that it cannot give assurances that Baghdad is not covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

                The Security Council remains divided throughout the year on relaxing sanctions. Despite disagreements among Security Council members about the new inspection regime, Hans Blix, who previously served as head of the IAEA, is named to run UNMOVIC following a contentious appointment process. The council approves a UNMOVIC work plan, but no UNMOVIC inspector sets foot inside Iraq, which still opposes the return of weapons inspectors.


                Seeking to bolster the Iraq sanctions regime, which has been weakened as countries and companies illegally buy oil from Iraq and export prohibited goods to the country, the United States and the United Kingdom suggest overhauling the sanctions to focus more on military and dual-use goods and less on civilian trade. The aim of the “smart sanctions” is to help insulate the sanctions regime from the charges that it has caused widespread humanitarian suffering in Iraq. Other Security Council members, however, are skeptical and favor a more general easing or elimination of sanctions.

                A heated debate lasts until November 29 when all Security Council members approve Resolution 1382, which establishes a Goods Review List that is subsequently adopted in May 2002. The list includes items with potential military use that must receive UN approval before Iraq can import them; civilian goods are exempted. Under the new sanctions, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will review all proposed contracts with Iraq to search for items included on the Goods Review List. According to the plan, items not on the list with no military application will be approved, while items on the list will go to the sanctions committee for further review. Items that would likely be used for military purposes will be denied.


                In his January State of the Union address, President George W. Bush labels Iraq a member of an “axis of evil,” along with Iran and North Korea. The president’s speech is the first of many statements by top US officials on the dangers posed by Iraq, many of which question the ultimate worth of arms inspections and advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as the only way to guarantee that Iraq will not develop weapons of mass destruction in the future.

                Less than two months after Bush’s speech, Iraqi officials meet with Secretary-general Annan and UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July.

                On September 12, amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions for disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will—a message that US officials make more explicit the following week.

                Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.” Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.


                God bless,


                  Originally posted by William View Post
                  A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved.
                  Your post shows that UN experts in 1999 said the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs had been eliminated. That is, according to UN inspector Scott Ridder, 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated.

                  The chronology you posted is a half-truth. The inspectors essentially served as prosecutors. If they weren't pushing hard on Saddam, they'd have no credibility. Saddam, on the other hand, had real national security interests, unrelated to hiding WMDs. The rest of the truth is such details that prior to 1998, UN agreements didn't require Saddam to let presidential properties be inspected nor that Saddam had to allow no-fly zones. Those proscribed missiles, Saddam believed to be legal because with their guidance systems installed, they didn't exceed the allowed range.

                  What of the last 5 to 10%? No one should expect 100% proof. You can't 100% prove a negative, let alone prove a negative in a war-torn country over something that was hidden and scattered in the first place. The inspectors' assessment wasn't that any WMD programs remained, but that they couldn't confirm absolute elimination. The invasion did give us absolute proof that the remaining WMDs unaccounted for had nothing to do with Saddam hiding them because we was no longer in power to hide them.

                  The fact on the table is that before 1999, 90-95% of Iraq's WMDs had already been verifiably eliminated. So, we went to over the possibility of a remaining 5-10%, even though inspectors were back in Iraq and had none of the restrictions they had previously. We went to war in spite of Bush not offering any credible evidence Saddam was hiding WMDs.

                  The traditional Christian standard of justice is that the innocent don't have to prove they're innocent. The accusing party has the burden of proof. The US war on Iraq was done under false pretense and in violation of Christian standards of justice, in addition to just-war theory. And, whatever the truth about Saddam and WMDs, the war has had monstrously negative consequences for Christians around the world.

                  Now, the same people who brought us the disaster and injustice of the Iraq war want to repeat that with Iran.


                    As I sat here listening to your post, I imagined a man that was pulled over. A police officer searched and frisked 90-95% of his body. The man resists (obstruction) arrest at this point and broke away from the officer and would not allow him to continue. When the officer approached the man again, the man reached (threatening) .........

                    "Saddam's life matters". You should start a new movement and make memes Cornelius.

                    God bless,


                      Originally posted by William View Post
                      As I sat here listening to your post, I imagined a man that was pulled over. A police officer searched and frisked 90-95% of his body. The man resists (obstruction) arrest at this point and broke away from the officer and would not allow him to continue. When the officer approached the man again, the man reached (threatening) .........
                      Your analogy ignores the facts. A man is pulled over and a UN officer tells the man to disarm. The UN officer then searches the man for weapons, but finds nothing. The man pulled over does nothing to threaten, to force a fight. The UN officer says his able to do his job and wants a little more time to finish the search. But, before the UN officer can finish his search, a rogue police chief (Bush) from another jurisdiction orders his men to lethally assault the man pulled over. The body is searched and no weapon is found, proving Bush ordered a lethal assault on an unarmed man, who didn't force a fight.
                      Last edited by Cornelius; 09-13-2015, 02:28 PM. Reason: edited for clearer meaning


                        Let's try another tact:

                        GOP leaders, such as George Bush and Ted Cruz concede Saddam had no WMDs. Therefor, Saddam was not trying to hide WMDs because he had none to hide. Therefor, anything you think Saddam was doing to hide WMDs is an error in your judgement -- a logical fact.

                        GOP leaders claim the problem was faulty intelligence. If they really believe that, why haven't the called for an investigation into the cause of the intelligence failure, an intelligence failure many times greater than the intelligence failure they were screaming about concerning Benghazi. The UN inspectors deny it was an intelligence failure. They say the Bush administration ignored them.

                        Why do you defend the war? I'm sorry if I've pushed into a defensive posture, but the war is indefensible.


                          Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                          Let's try another tact:

                          GOP leaders, such as George Bush and Ted Cruz concede Saddam had no WMDs. Therefor, Saddam was not trying to hide WMDs because he had none to hide. Therefor, anything you think Saddam was doing to hide WMDs is an error in your judgement -- a logical fact.

                          GOP leaders claim the problem was faulty intelligence. If they really believe that, why haven't the called for an investigation into the cause of the intelligence failure, an intelligence failure many times greater than the intelligence failure they were screaming about concerning Benghazi. The UN inspectors deny it was an intelligence failure. They say the Bush administration ignored them.

                          Why do you defend the war? I'm sorry if I've pushed into a defensive posture, but the war is indefensible.
                          Your posture does not bother me so don't worry about mentioning it. I realize the U.N. inspectors deny it was an intelligence failure. I am actually interested in your view, and to be honest, I have given you more time and pause than any other leaning liberal anti-war protester in my personal history- :p I can say, if Paul represents your views then I will not vote for him at this very moment. However, I think it is important to learn as much as I can to see from other perspectives on this matter. I do recognize your parallel between Iraq and Iran and it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

                          My hesitation is just that. I compare it to a video I saw the other day of a guy on pcp that trashed a Mcdonalds. There were children in the establishment, and when the drugged out man resisted arrest and walked towards a baby carriage and children, if it was I he would of had a bullet in the head. But three officers later, tazed, stun gunned, maced, and hit - the man was finally brought down into submission. I view the officer's reluctance and hesitation as bothersome to a degree, in some ways it jeopardized the lives of others. And in other ways, I find their restraint, level headedness under these extreme unpredictable conditions rather commendable. My main criticism was the lack of control they demonstrated over the man and the environmental conditions surrounding them. They should of evacuated bystanders from off the premise while dealing with the man. Only after the incident was over did I find the police officer's actions commendable, but as they were unfolding I found it bothersome. That's the way I view these positions concerning Just War (pacifist, activist). I believe sometimes, it is a very good thing to have different perspectives, and at other times.... it saves more lives to have acted with more restraint, or one could say less lives are risked or taken if others showed less hesitation to act, sometimes that's the activist, and sometimes that's the pacifist.

                          My main caution or pause comes from paranoia. I do not doubt that the media is played, and events are released and narrated (talking points) in such a way as to cause emotional provocation to side with those with an ulterior motive in the grand scheme of things.... like Benghazi.

                          What I do not want is a political war after the war has begun. What do I think about Iraq? Lemme just express, I admire the way Bush allowed the Generals to fight it. A lot of candidates are too wishy washy. Too unpredictable in a time when we need predictability. That's why I gave you Conservative Review. The records speak for themselves. If Paul represents your views best, then vote for him.

                          God bless,


                            Hey Cornelius,

                            One of the things we talked about is Ted Cruz's Zionism. I remember he made the comment to a Christian University that if they did not stand with Israel then he would not stand with them. I'd like to know what Israel is doing for the Christians being persecuted? The statement just blows my mind the more I think about it and I wonder how he would address it?

                            What do you think about Paul being an isolationist? What do you think will happen if we continue to "disengage" under the "lead from behind" administration of Obama's leadership?

                            God bless,


                              All the Arab states surrounding Syria (Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon) are taking in refugees, even Iraq (which itself is producing refugees). Lebanon has taken a huge number relative to the size of their country. The US and the EU (especially Germany) are taking increasing numbers of refugees. But, Israel has taken zero refugees. As many as 40% of the refugees are Christian. I can't see anything Israel is doing for persecuted Christians. Israel has even started building a wall along the Syrian border specifically to keep refugees out. Israel is passing up this opportunity to build goodwill. There's a Zionist in my Sunday School class who insists Israel is taking Christian refugees.

                              I don't think Paul is an isolationist, at least as not as much so as his father. A reduction on international commitments would save the US a tremendous amount of money, which seems especially prudent now, given the dubious effectiveness of our activities.


                              Articles - News - SiteMap