My sources tell me to anticipate Israel taking out Iran's 130 some uranium enrichment plants by end of May of this year, with or without US approval.

The rational to preemptively strike Iran because links of them arming Shia insurgents that have killed American soldiers doesn't hold much water. The U.S. sells arms to countries all over the world, Iraq, Iran, Taiwan, Israel. We sold weapons to Israel that were used against the Lebanese this past summer in which thousands of innocent women and children were killed and hundreds of thousands were displaced. Does that give Lebanon the justification to attack or declare war on the U.S.? My intentions would be no, I'm not saying Iran's actions are right, I'm saying their not justification for America to attack.

Its not going to matter what stance we take, or how many "policymakers" we send letters to, the horse is already out of the barn. There is little doubt Israel is going to strike.

Our forces are already positioned to provide support, its going to happen, just a matter of when. Anyone interested should read history of Israel bombing Iraq's nuclear facilities, and the "Begin doctrine"

Real question will be how we, the US population, will respond. There will be international outrage & condemnation which,if history is any indicator, will be ignored by Israel. And if/when the UN tries to get involved the US will use its veto power-

I guess the administration might want to manage these international matters in a more clandestine manner instead of having 1 embarrassing fiasco after another for all the world to see.

jromano, what would you do if you represented Israel?

I don't know if Israel hitting Iran's nuclear facility is a good thing or not, but I do know that Bush has stretch our forces so thin that any attempt by us to hit them right now would be a major disaster.

That is, an even bigger disaster than our Iraqi misadventure has been.

The Bible says that all the nations will unite against Israel, and will be defeated in the final battle when Jesus comes down from Heaven. Even the U.S. will abandon Israel and join the Anti-Christ. My guess is that Israel will do something that not even the U.S. can stand by and they, along with the international community, will send in troops to restore order. Does anyone think this is a possible scenario?

No.

But then, I don't believe we should be using the Book of Revelations as a how-to guide for foreign policy.

Yes, Richard. You and I concur. But we have some differences in interpretation. Check out Ezekiel chapters 37 and 38. The armies of Gog and Magog will march against Israel, and this attack will fail. These are the forefathers of the modern day Russians. Russia today has an allegience with Iran.

I expect all of this to occur right before the rapture of the church and the beginning of the 7-year tribulation period.

I anticipate a failed Russian attack on Israel after Israel takes out Iran's nuclear enrichment plants. There are approximately 130 of them. I anticipate that the attack on Iran will be conventional, not nuclear, and the US will not turn it's back on Israel at this time. The Russian attack on Israel may fail because the US will defend Israel. Or it may fail because God will micro manage.

I anticipate Israel will take out these 130 something plants by the end of May of this year. I also expect they will attack Syria as well. But I am NOT a prophet.

I do not anticipate the US turning it's back on Israel at least until the current president is out of office. The final battle that you speak of will not happen until the very end of the 7-year tribulation period. By this time, the US will have turned it's back on Israel and will no longer be a world superpower. The antichrist will have taken the US out. I expect the remaining armies of the world to gather in the valley of armagedon (sp?) beneath mount carmal, take out Jerusalem, and then march on Petra in Jordan where the remnant of the tribulation saints will be camped out and under God's direct protection and provisions. When this new world order force marches on Petra, that is when I expect Jesus to return.

Did I explain this clearly Richard?

Be prepared. He will come as a thief in the night.

YBiC,
Todd

Good morning Dennis.

You and I concur too. I do not believe that we should be using the Book of Revelation (singular) as a Guide for foreign policy either. Throw into that the Books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, which were written 2600 years before John's final vision and concur with the Book of Revelation to the very last detail.

Where we disagree is in prophecy and biblical study. I see that all biblical prophecies before this final prophecy have come true. One who has studied extensively can see that the bible, which some choose to call a collection of myths, is the only book in the history of mankind that both dares to predict the future and never misses. That is why I expect this final prophecy to also come true, just as is written, no matter what foreign policy the United States chooses.

We also may disagree in how we determine foreign policy. I believe that everything that we do should be consistent with God's instructions, and I also believe that the bible is God's written instructions.

Todd, people have been studying biblical prophecy for the past 2000 years and there has always been someone who says he can see the signs that the end is near. I seem to recall many people like Pat Robertson claiming that Judgment Day was coming on January 1, 2000. Funny thing is, every prediction about the end times so far as turned out to be a false alarm, yet you never see a retraction.

Mathew 7:15-20: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Jeremiah 23:16b
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the LORD.

Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.
***********************

So, anyone who claims to know that the end of times is coming is most likely a false prophet and should be ignored.

And just for added measure:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul, producing holy witness,
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

Wm. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene III

Not a biblical source, sure, but the sentiment is there. Anyone can pull verses out of the Bible to support any interpretation they want.

Even me. :)

Again, we concur. Good biblical research by the way.

And yes, anyone who claims to know the end of times is a false prophet. In OT days right through apostolic times, they would have been stoned.

Beyond that, my expectations stand. I know the rapture and the 7-year tribulation period will occur, and I have reasons to expect that they will occur soon. However, to state to you that I know when something will occur after God already stated that no man knows when this will occur would make me a false prophet. And I should be stoned.

You people are all nuts.

Actually, Todd, the only thing that stands is the record of everyone who has claimed that the end of times is close at hand.

I believe it's something on the order of 0-10,000.

Even if, like the proverbial broken clock, they were right just this one time, it wouldn't change anything for me. I would still live each day as morally and ethically as I could. I would still love my wife and family and I would still advocate peace over war whenever possible, because I don't recall Jesus ever saying, "Blessed are the warmongers and the profiteers, for they kick ass."

Now, jromano, that's not called for. I may not share Todd's religious beliefs, but he is trying to discuss the issue in a respectful manner.

From the beginnig:

"...take action by letting U.S. policymakers know that you feel we should work with our allies around the world to use every political, diplomatic, and economic option available in dealing with Iran."

Quoting scripture and conducting religious arguments is a rather passive act - rather than being involved in what will have a direct impact on our children's lives.

The world is what we make of it; simply waiting for the anti-Christ is not a rational act. One makes a better world by working for it - now.

I do not think whatever God (or version thereof) one believes in would readily accept one to simply waste their options - and their lives - away by arguing religious points of interpretation of a rather venerated - and long argued - book, simply waiting for mass death just to prove a point.

War in any measure is not readily justifiable - and most especially if one supposedly believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Madness and irrationality on a global scale is never acceptable and it's time to remind others of this fact.

Well said, Wildman.

jromano, you think I'm nuts? I get that alot. I think I am the only literalist on this blog so I don't see why you would call anyone else here nuts. Just me.

Let's get back to secular basics here. What would you do about Iran if you represented Israel?

I know you are a good dude Dennis. I often meet non-believers who are just as good, better even, then those in my Christian family.

I still expect Israel to strike Iran and Syria by the end of May. And I expect Russia to respond. Whether we will see prophecy of Ezekiel 37 and 38 unfold, let's all hope that I am wrong.

Wildman. I like your blog name.

We still pray for the peace of Israel, even though we believe it can never be so before Jesus returns. I'm not sure why we do that which is such a futile thing to us, but I believe that we do it because we all agree with the words of your eloquent post.

I am not waiting for the antichrist to proove a point. I am anxiously waiting for Jesus to return. Not because I want to proove a point. But because I want to be with Him. Until then, my final purpose on earth is to teach as many people as possible about Him. If that makes me irrational, then so be it. I know you did not suggest that.

Now, if war in any measure is not justifiable, the the US should have had zero military response to 9/11. On a much smaller scale, if someone is hurting my wife, I should not hurt them, even to protect her. I do not believe, however, that this is what you would suggest. Please enlighten me.

You might be interested in some of the Cato Institute’s work on Iran:

" The Bottom Line on Iran: The Costs and Benefits of Preventive War versus Deterrence," Policy Analysis no. 583, December 4, 2006.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6790

"Iran's Nuclear Program: America's Policy Options," Policy Analysis no. 578, September 18, 2006. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6690

How do you all sleep at night? After reading your threads I am thoroughly depressed and feel doom is imminent.

Not to worry my friend. Tonight, before you go to sleep, try John Chapter 3. It gives me all the security I ever needed for a good night's sleep.

It is equally effective for the unbelievers. It bores them to sleep.

Keep the faith.

Todd,

You ask a fair question, it would take me much more than a quick answer on this thread to do it justice.

Israel could start by declaring its borders and really working toward resolving the Palestinian conflict. The whole world knows what it would take, an independant Palestinian state, and Israel has blocked this resolution (with US help) at every turn since Kissinger. This fact is not subject to interpretation, or political viewpoint, it is well established history.

In my view, Israel holds way too much sway over US public opinion and policy, but thats just the way it is. They spend untold millions and billions on PR in this country, Iran cannot do the same unfortunately for them.

If any other nation, just pick one the US doesn't like, Cuba, Venezuala, etc, committed even a fraction of the human rights abuses, had half as much blood on its hands as Israel there would be a constant drumbeat of "news" about it.

Anyone who does stand up to Israel, or say these things in the US press is branded anti-semitic.

Such a powerful tool, and well used.

With regard to the Iran "threat", who have they threatened? Show me where in recent history Iran has attacked anyone. Iran has much more to fear from the US (and Israel) than vice-versa. Lets just take a quick peek at the last 50 years: 1950-something:US overthrows Iranian government (democratically elected moderate secular government) installs US friendly brutal dictator, the Shah. 1979: Iran has Islamic revolution and overthrows the Shah. 1980's- Iraq, with US backing and support, attacks Iran for 7 or 8 years. US supplies Saddam Hussien regime with chemical and conventional weapons, satellite imagery, etc. Iran fights Saddam to stalemate. 1990's: US invades the Gulf. 2003: US invades again, this time toppling Iraqi government.

Present day: 120,000+ US soldiers still parked in the nation next door, warships in the Gulf.

Any fair, rational person would understand why Iran seeks a deterrant to US/Israeli aggression. This is not to say I hope they aquire a nuclear weapon, I don't, but all this demonization of Iran is just building up to the preordained military action that is part of the larger picture, one more aggression in the list of 50 years worth of aggression on OUR part, not Iran.

They have more to fear from us than we have of them. Asking me what I would do if I were Israel sort of presupposes I believe they are actually threatened by Iran, and I do not think they are.

Didn't Iran say it wanted to wipe Israel off the map? That sounds like a threat to me.

Julie

Much has been made of these and other comments by Ahmadinejad, do you think they constitute a basis for war? He is a politician playing to his base, which is hard-line anti-Israeli. In Iran they teach school children to chant "death to America". Do you feel threatened? They are no match for the US military, and they know it. Iran is not trying to take over the world! Ahmadinejad is basically a figurehead with little real power, even if he wanted to attack another nation, which they have never done.

Ahmadinejad became president in a crowded election with roughly 30% of the vote in Iran. His election was due, according to many, in large part as a reaction to US aggression in the gulf region. He appeals to his people's fear and hatred of the US. He is like the Iranian George Bush except maybe more qualified to be a president!

You are reacting exactly how you are supposed to react. Much effort is being spent right now for you to believe Iran is the new big threat to the world, just like Saddam was after 9/11. Turns out Saddam wsnt much of a threat to anyone, but will we learn our lesson? Americans need to apply the same skepticism in consuming news that we use when while viewing or reading product advertisements. They are both prepared by the same interests.

Fear is the most useful emotion in molding public opinion. The idea that Iran must be stopped from aquiring nuclear technology at all or any cost is debatable, it is not however being debated as it should.

Once again truth, or at least reasoned and informed debate, is being drowned out by spin.

One more thing; this editorial talks about US plans to possibly use NUCLEAR weapons against Iran, preemptively.

So, according to the author, we may drop a nuclear bomb on a nation we are not even at war with, over the idea that they may someday aquire thier own nuclear weaponry, and this is regarded as a bad idea only because it would probably cause more US casualties?

Shame on you Daily News!

Any use of a nuclear weapon in that volatile region would be a disaster and should never be considered as a first strike.

Of course, given this administration's record, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it.

Thanks jromano. A straight answer to a straight question.

Actually you answered a few questions as well besides the one I asked, what would you do if you were an Israeli representative? That is the one I want to focus on. Not what the US should or might do. Just Israel.

If I understand you correctly, you think that Israel should declare their boundaries, make part of Israel Palistine, and NOT take out Iran's uranium enrichment plants. Fair enough.

I spend time in Israel occassionally. Most of the Palistinians and Israelis live together outside of the West Bank and the Gaza strip and share equal rights as Israeli citizens. The kids go to school together, sometimes college as well, and live equally progressive lives. I would never know who was Jewish and who was Arabian if they did not tell me.

Some Palistinians do not want to live amongst Jews. Because of this, there is the West Bank and the Gaza strip. As you may recall, all Israelis left their homes in these two regions to accomodate Palistinians who want to live in segregation. Where there was resistance from the Jewish residents, the Israeli government forced the issue.

The West Bank is as nice a region as any area in Israel and the Gaza Strip, located on the Meditteranean Sea in beautiful. Still these areas are slums. Not because the people are oppressed. But because a large percentage of the residents do choose not to get up in the morning and go to work.

You propose that Israel call a certain part of Israel Israel and a cetrain part Palistine. How would you divide this up and where would Jerusalem lie? In other words, where would you draw the boundaries. Keep in mind that Israel is geographically as big as our state of Delaware.

Finally, the uranium enrichment going on in Iran. Only fission could require this degree of enrichment; not fusion. Perhaps Iran is doing this only to provoke Israel and has no intentions of actually producing nuclear warheads. Or perhaps not.

Now, keep in mind that your country is the size of Delaware and cannot take the first nuclear hit. Are you sure that you should allow the enrichment to continue? That is what you have proposed and that's fine if that is what you believe. I just want to ask you if you are certain.

Arn

I know it makes it easier for you to categorize and classify people, but put away your liberal "blame america first crowd" bashing stick for a minute.

I'm not a liberal, and I dont hate America. For every greviance on your list there is an equally evil act committed by our side, sorry to tell you.

It is human nature, I think, to remember when someone has wronged us, but we downplay our own transgressions or ignore them. Pointing out that America can't always claim the high road, that we don't always wear the white hats, that we too are guilty of killing innocents and that we have provoked, yes I am saying it, we have provoked much of the animosity the arab world feels toward the US is not "hating America"

Example: the hostages. Everyone in America remembers the hostage crisis. It is routinely cited as an example of Iranian hatred toward the US, just like your article. But I say lets look at both sides, shouldn't we do that? Shouldn't we try to understand our enemy? Wouldn't the fact that we interfered with thier country 25 years prior to the hostage crisis naturally come up in that conversation? A CIA backed coup overthrew an independant, democratic government and installed a murderous thug friendly to US business interests. Was Iran supposed to thank us for that?

How about 1988 when the USS Vincentes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all on board? Was that in your American legion article? We may have forgotten that "accident" but I promise Iran did not. I can give you many many more examples if you like. Its time for you to consider that maybe they dont hate us for our freedoms, or just because you and I have a different religion than they do. Maybe the FACT that the US has been actively involved in trying to control Iran, a sovereign nation, by first overthrowing the government and then backing our ally, the murderous Saddam Hussein, in a war of aggression against them when they threw out the Shah. Maybe just maybe, that has something to do with how they view America? Maybe?

The topic in the thread is Iran/US/Israel and impending war with Iran, but you are throwing it all together like they want you to. Al Queada is not going to be defeated if we nuke Iran. Start thinking for yourself and shed the labels my friend. One definition of madness is to keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

From Wikipedia: (good thing I'm not writing a college paper)

"From 1952-53, Iran's democratically elected nationalist Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began a period of rapid power consolidation, which led the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to a brief exile and then into power again. Much of the events of 1952 were started by Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum. Established by the British in the early 20th century, an agreement had been made to share profits (85% British-15% Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Due to alleged profit monopolization by the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, the Iranian Parliament had unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company.

The United States and Britain, through a now-admitted covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran, helped organize protests to overthrow Moussadeq and return the Shah to Iran. The operation failed and the Shah fled to Italy. After a second successful operation he returned from his brief exile. Iran's fledgling attempts at democracy quickly descended into dictatorship, as the Shah dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch.

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American Presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his bold agenda of rapidly Westernizing Iran soon began to infuriate certain segments of the Iranian population, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives."

Just like Iraq, Iran was a leftover piece of the world the british once controlled and the US stepped into the power vacuum after WW2. The Shah was our man. We install someone by giving them financial and military support, basicaly give them money and guns. Examples like Suharto in Indonesia was our guy, Marcos in the Phillipines, Pinochet in Chile, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, etc, etc. Im sorry I cant give you more accurate information how the US installed the Shah, but its generally conceded he came to and maintained power through US influence. Today there are many other arab nations with citizens who,right or wrong, feel the US keeps corrupt governments in power over the wishes of its citizens. Saudi Arabia probably the best example there, a monarchy for gosh sakes, supported and kept in power by the US since Roosevelt I think?

I'm sorry I dont have time to do my research and give you your twelve terrorist acts commited by the US or by US supported terrorists, like Posada Carriles being protected in Miami right now, an international terrorist who admits to blowing up hotels and killing civilian tourists in Havana, but I am getting off point here-

The biggest difference between US terrorism and fanatical Islamic terrorism is we have a real military. We dont need to send in suicide bombers with cars rigged up to explode, we have airplanes that drop bombs, ships that launch missiles, etc. To date we are the only nation convicted in the world court, and ordered to pay reparations, for internation terrorism or unlawful use of force. (re Nicaragua)

to your other question the Vincetes was in Iranian coastal waters, engaging in hostile conflict with Iranian navy at time of incident. The ship believed the airplane was providing air support. At the time of the incident we refused to apologize, maybe we did later, I dont know. Much came out about the incident years later when nightline or 60 minutes interviewed the captian and the official version of what happened proved to be a cover up. Thats just one thing, there are many more, but we are going too in depth for me, I quit you win- Believe whatever you want.
To be honest I'm not interested in doing this anymore, its too time consuming and exhausting.

There are countless books and articles about US "counter-terrorism" which is what we call terrorism on our side. Pick one up someday with an open mind

Peace

Arn, I love the USA, but don't be naive my friend. Power is never conferred, it is taken, and we have taken our share.

I could give Arn his 12 examples with a little bit of research, but its not the point. The topic was impending US attack on Iran, possibly even a nuclear strike. Todd and I both feel the US will sit back while Israel does the job instead. I believe this has been the goal all along, and that Israel who lobbied hard for the US invasion of Iraq will use this opportunity. I do not question they may legitamtely feel threatened and Todd raises valid point regarding Israel's vulnerablilty. I do not profess to know all the answers to these complex issues, but do think I can recognize bullcrap when i see it, and much of the case for was in Iran is propoganda.

Arn's post is typical of a large segment of America population viewpoint, that attacking anything Islamic is OK since they are all terrorists bent on our destruction. (sorry to paraphrase or put words in your mouth Arn) Arn is supposed to feel this way because thats all he sees and hears about the conflict. There are however two sides, and its not all black and white, good vs evil as we would like to believe.

The idea that I grew up with, America as policeman of the world championing democracy and freedom is a myth created for our consumption.

War is something that should be discussed based on merit of real threat, what we stand to lose and what we stand to gain. And let us not forget that there is a huge industry in America, tied up very snuggly with our elected officials, that PROFITs when the bombs start falling.

No Arn, I don't believe our men and women serving in the armed forces are terrorists. I come from a military family and have much respect for those who serve and have served. (I think John Kerry probably does too)

I have been down this road before, and it will inevitably lead to an discussion/argument over the definition of terrorism. I think, as many others do, that bombing Libya in time for the evening news broadcast was an act of terrorism. I think bombing the Sudan and destroying a pharmaceutical factory was terrorism. Clinton bombing Iraq was terrorism. We blew up a mosque in Iran in the 80's, we have supported covert military action and bloodshed in Nicaragua, Cuba, Honduras, Chile, Indonesia, all over the world. There are many examples I dont have in front of me, and thats not the point of the thread. The point was not to debate item for item what constitutes terrorism.

Let me concede the point for a moment, not becuase I dont think i defend my position, but because its not central to the discussion.

My point was that Iran has reason to feel threatened by the US and Israel that have nothing at all to do with Islam, and that people in the US should view the regional conflict over the past 50 years and recognize Iran has not been the aggressor, is not now being the aggressor, we are the agressor.

You could make a case for US aggression, one could build a good case for trying to control the region strategically. That is not the debate going on, instead its about Iraqi insurgents having weapons made in Iran, and about whether on not Iran is trying to nuke Israel. We have created our enemies here through our own actions. without recognizing this we are bound to keep doing it.

Also, overthrowing governments in order to have US interests appeased is not diplomacy, it is empire building. Alliances with people like Stalin, you are correct is diplomacy but we did not put him in power or keep him there.

Jay Ro. You speak wisely. Arn has valid points too.

Iran has to turn their 10,000 or so centrifuges off and make sure that Israel knows that they have done so if they no longer want Israel to feel threatened by them. If their president is truly a blow-hard with limited political power, then Iran's clerical leaders should have muzzled him B4 he publically stated his intentions. Now Israel sees a country with a spokesman, if not a leader, who lobbies for their extinction while the country enriches uranium well beyond nuclear power plant quality to nuclear warhead quality. What choice is Iran leaving for them?

Israeli leaders do not feel that they have the flexibility to allow Iran, Lebanon, or Syria to have one nuclear warhead in their arsenal. One warhead can wipe their little country out. I believe that it would be irresponsible for them to allow fission quality uranium enrichment to continue. And when the stakes are this high, they have to err on the side of caution.

I believe that making Israel feel threatened is as much an objective of Iran's as actually having a nuclear arsenal threat. Israel will take out all 130 plants, Iran will show all the innocent people who were killed when Israel bombed their "baby-milk" factories, the world will also see that Iran has no WMDs, additional sediment will turn against Israel, and jihad will get another shot in the arm. If I am correct, then Iranian leaders are purposely putting their own people in harm's way to make Israel look like an aggressor. If I am incorrect, then I woe a big apology to Iranian leaders.

C'mon. Can anyone honestly suggest to me that when Iran began enriching uranium, Iran did not believe that Israel would not feel threatened? Of course Iran knew this would make Israel feel threatened. They and they alone should feel very threatened.

Iran's uranium enrichment dwafts concerns about Iran supplying arsenal to Iraqi insurgents.

I also believe that man will ultimately destroy mankind. Even leaders that start out with the most noble intentions eventually become drawn into the battle. In this world, it seems our choices are to become a predator or be a victim. No boundaries for middle ground. The fence is rasor thin. One slip and you are cut in half.

Hello Arn. I too have thought about your question, believing that there is no guarantee that the US will continue to support Israel once the current president's final term expires.

By now you know that I use the bible to predict the future. So, let's see what scripture says.

God promises to bless evey nation that blesses Israel and curse every nation that curses Israel. He makes this promise repeatedly in the old testament. Search back into history and we find that every nation that has ever moved against Israel has met their demise. Don't see any Assyrians or Babylonians or Chaldeans anymore.

Interesting that the actions of the last country that sought to extinguish all Jews were the springboard for the reformation of Israel 2500 years after it's annihilation.

God's promise is the number 1 reason why I support Israel. And then I have a handful of smaller secular reasons as well, like they are 15 million surrounded by 800 million enemies, and if left alone, they would bother no one. Attack them though and they will counter attack 10-fold. Any country that attacks Israel today has to be crazy.

Now, in end of times prophecy, Israel is still in existence but the US is not. This tells me that when the US ceases to support Israel, it is the US that will cease, not Israel. I dare say that it is our continued support for Israel that keeps America in God's good graces. Other than this, Americans have come to behave no better than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and you know what happened to them. That land is today known as the Dead Sea.

So, what this all boils down to is this. Should the US cease to be big-brother to Israel, I believe Israel will be fine. It is the US that I believe will be doomed.

Keep the Faith.

I understand Arn. If I didn't believe in scripture, I would say the same.

But then there was 1948. Israel was 3 years removed from the holocaust with little for an organized military and artillary when Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egpyt invaded with tanks to push them into the Meditteranean Sea. No Nixon. No rescue from anyone. How could this attack have failed?

Then there is the battle for the Golan Heights in 1980 (I believe). Again, no assistance from anyone. This time Israel was the aggressor. Thousands of Syrian soldiers well entrenched in bunkers (I visited one of those bunkers) on ground so steep that it was treacherous to climb even without bullets raining down on you. Thousands of Syrian soldiers panicked and fled when they somehow came to falsely believe that Israel had reached Damascus and they were about to be surrounded. Sounds eerily like an old testament battle.

The Israelis took that ground with absolutely zero casualties. That defies secular logic.

I see God's hand in both conflicts.

And even the battle of which you speak. Were they not badly outnumbered? By twenty to one?Should not combined Islamic forces have been able to defeat them, even with US supplies? I mean the country today is only the size of Delaware and then it was even smaller. At one point, only nine miles separated them from the Meditteranean. Since Nixon did not send in US marines, I always felt that his US aid was a token gift. Islam should have easily won by attrition alone.

The bible is the only book in the history of mankind that dares to predict the future and never misses. You do not believe in scripture. I hold dear to it.

If you are right and I am wrong, then I respectfully submit to you that life is a cruel joke, nothing really matters, and when we are gone, we will have never been.

OK. I trust you on this. And I know that they now have a fleet of US WF22's jet fighters; the most sophisticated in the world, I suspect so that the anticipated attack on Iran will be conventional and not a nuclear strike. They have had nukes for some time now.

Still, even with US support and weapondary, it was their outnumbered soldiers that have fought their own battles since 1948 to keep their little sliver of land. How many Islamic soldiers can one Israeli soldier be worth?

US support explains part of their survival. But, without US or British marines fighting by their side, their seems to be more to explain.

Have a good weekend.

Todd, I agree, Israel will survive with or without our help. Providence and the Bible says it to be so.

What does the bible to you about US survival?

Considering the US didn't exist at the Bible was being compiled, it's no surprise that the Bible is silent on that issue.

Not that it won't stop people from saying that we will prevail because God is on our side. The funny thing is, Al Qaida believes the same thing.

No one said that Dennis. God is on everyone's side. Not everyone is on God's side.

You still do not get the bible. I told you before, if it was not written by God himself, through the hands of man, it is as useless as the paper that it is written on. Throw it away.

God exists in all moments in time, in all points in space, in infinite dimensions. He does not have to wait until something is in existence to know everything there is to know about it. He was well aware of the rise of the US and it's existence today at all moments in time.

Russia and Europe were not in existence when the bible was being created (over 4100 years). And the bible is not silent on those countries.

The one who hung on that cross in your 33 AD was focused on your face in your 2007 AD. He has carried your picture in His wallet since the beginning of time.

Don't believe this? You will.

The geographic areas that encompass Europe and Russia did exist and the Bible does mention them, but it does not mention the political/cultural entities like England, France, etc, because they did not exist.

I understand the Bible very well. I just realize that it was written by people and is therefore colored by by their interpretations. I find that Jesus of Nazareth was a brilliant philosopher and moralist. His messages about peace and love still resonate with us in the 21st century. I just don't need to attribute supernatural powers to him in order to understand his message.

And that's the difference between myself and the fundamentalist crows, as I see it. Many of them are too obsessed with tearing down science and rationalism in order to drag us back into the dark ages of superstitional. Whereas I believe that God created a world based on empirical laws and gave us the intellect to understand those laws. If you need to believe that the universe requires God to constantly break his own laws in order keep things in line, then, to me, you are insulting God. Because that means he's not only a blind watchmaker, he's an incompetent one. God doesn't need to constantly adjust the mainspring in order to keep things going.

Excellent points. And no, God does not need us to deny science and rationalism to justify Him.

Everyone should understand this. One cannot suggest that Jesus was a wonderful human being, but not God. Jesus said He was God. He is either a liar, a lunatic, a liar and a lunatic, or God. If He is not God, then I submit to everyone that His life on earth was the worst tradgedy in the history of mankind, and He was the worst human being to ever walk the planet.

Where we mostly agree is that I do not see God as tweeking order to keep things together either. I would not be impressed with Him if He needed to do that. But since He exists in all dimensions, in all points of space and time, is omnicient and all-knowing, He already knows what is going to occur from the beginning of time as we understand it right through the end of time.

Where we may differ is in the amount of credit we give to our understanding of the laws of the universe. I believe that they are far beyond our comprehension and He only allows us to witness that which will not overwhelm and frighten us. That is also to say that that which we may ever discover can never be as much as even a negligible percentage of all there is to know. He promised to never give us more of a burden than we can handle. That not only includes trauma and strife But also wisdom, knowledge, and everything else that we would call a blessing.

Actually, the one time he was asked point blank if he was truly the messiah, his response was "you say that I am". And that's just assuming that the accounts, like those of his supposed divine powers, weren't embellished in the decades between the crucifixion and when they were actually written down.

It's true that our understanding of the universe has grown over the centuries, but I don't think it's because of what God allows us to view. Only that, as our knowledge base has expanded, it has allowed us to peer further behind the curtain. Some people find it harder to give up ancient beliefs even though the reality of it becomes apparent once the evidence is viewed. Just as there were people who once insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe because some ancient texts said it was, today there are those who cannot accept the reality that scientific evidence continues to uncover. The account in Genesis, like the vision of a flat Earth, made sense at one point because of the limited knowledge base of ancient peoples. Now that we've had more time to make better observations and have more tools to help us gain better perspectives, it's time to just accept that such things were allegoris and morality tales. Useful as parables (just as Jesus found many parables useful in making his points), but the fact that there aren't literal accounts doesn't diminish their messages of morality.

God may be infinite and all-knowing. In which case, it hardly matters what we do in response to his commands, since he already knows what our actions are going to be. What I do know is that if there is a creator-being behind the universe and if he his infinite and all-knowing, anyone who claims to understand his mind is a liar, a fool, or a lunatic.

And yet, strangely, claiming to understand the mind of God remains a lucrative career choice for conmen like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Try Mark 14:62. If that is not good enough, ask yourself if 10 men would have allowed themselves to be killed in the most painful ways imagineable over a lie. And what happened to the body. Mosaic Jews would have overturned every stone to find it and proove He was not God. Rome knew better to allow all of the comotion as well.

All historical evidence points to a grissly execution beyond His recognition on Friday followed by Him roaming and spoofing on His friends on Sunday. Lord, liar or lunatic. Very important to me that you know that he undisputably stated that He is God. Maybe not as important to you, but I have come to care about you.

You give more credit to mankind and our scientific discoveries that do I. Not that that is a bad thing, or that my being less than impressed is a good thing.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson really claim to understand the mind of God. That would be arrogant. I have my hands full just knowing what he wants me alone to do.

Todd, I don't claim to know exactly what happened 2000 years ago. None of us were there. We have only the accounts written decades after the events allegedly took place to go on.

I am skeptical by nature of any claims of supernatural. The desert is a big place and there are lots of places to hide a body if his followers wanted to. Just look at how many people go "missing" all the time in Las Vegas. Or he could have been cremated by the Romans or simply left hanging until the carrion birds picked his bones clean (not an uncommon practice in crucifixions) and then buried in an anonymous grave. We actually don't have any records of their side of the story of his execution.* I'm not saying that's what happened. Only that it's a possibility.

To be fair, I'm equally skeptical about the recent claims by James Cameron that Jesus' ossuary was found in a tomb. Even if the inscriptions were authentic, and many experts have expressed doubts, the names were far too common for the time period for any conclusion to have been drawn by it.

I guess that puts me in the category of a Doubting Thomas.

As for Falwell and Robertson, the real question is, when haven't they claimed to understand the mind of God.

*Which isn't all that surprising. From the Romans POV, he would have been just another of hundreds of Jewish dissidents executed. The historical significance of Jesus' death wouldn't become apparent to them until decades later.

Good points Dennis. I would just like to add that the accounts were all written within 30 years after the events and all by eye-witnesses.

Pilate seemed troubled by this particular execution. And yes there were hundreds, probably thousands.

How could this one event have changes the lives of so many over so long a period of time? It started effecting the original apostles in 14 days. One day they were hunkered down in fear of their lives and from the next day on they were brazenly singing about Jesus under threat of inevitable excruciating death. Actually some of the more fortunate ones were merely beheaded.

We seem to get these James Cameron claims every year between what the catholics celebrate as lent and Easter. Each one is sillier than the last. New gospels. DaVinci code. As a believer, I would suggest that this is a busy time of year for satan as well.

How could this one event have changed the lives of many over so long a period of time? Well, that's a testament to the power of faith. If people believe in something, they will hold fast to it and even fight and die for it. The fact that many of the apostles were executed is proof that they had every reason to fear for their lives. Probably most of them believed in their cause. Certainly, people have been lead to their deaths over less (the names Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind).

There's no arguing that the life of Jesus has greatly influenced the course of human history. Then again, so has the life of Mohammed and I'm sure his followers could make the exact same point. For that matter, Buddha's life has had a profound effect, as much as even transforming Tibet from a militant culture to a passive one.

Hell, one could even look at more modern examples like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Although latter example seems to mainly be about turning people into idiots like Tom Cruise.

Pilate's reaction to Jesus is somewhat troublesome. As one of the few people in the Gospels that we have independent accounts for, he had a reputation for being a hard-nosed and brutal governor. But in the Gospels, he's almost wishy-washy and very reluctant to execute this one dissident. Mel Gibson tried to reconcile the two by portraying Pilate on his last straw, with the emperor already warning him that one more Jewish uprising and he'd be recalled. But that's quite speculative.

I'm not sure if there have been any "new" gospels found. Some forgotten versions have been unearthed. While I don't think things like the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, or Judas will shake the foundations of western civilization, they do point to the fact that the early Christians had a variety of interpretations at least until the Council of Nicea.

As for the DaVinci Code, hah. Anyone who buys into that hooey deserves to get taken. Google the name Pierre Plantard for the origins of that fraud.

KWtZ3q comment3

tyI7Am comment1