I would also enter into peace talks with south Korea and work towards a non aggression pact where both sides withdraw forces from the DMZ so that no nation including the Unites states feels that they have to have a military force there.
What would you do?
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would you do?
- ajax
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8002
- Location: Pf, Texas
Re: What would you do?
So the death of hundreds of thousand of innocent men, women and children make it all worth it?markharr wrote: What benefit has there been from the US presence in South Korea?
What possible good has come out of that expense?
And no, that wouldn't exist if the US wasn't there to shore up the border.
I guess in your calculations dead human beings are the eggs that make your omelette?
Perhaps it's time to put the RISK board back in the closet for a while.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: What would you do?
Yours is an unfortunate false dichotomy or understanding, mark. There was a temple built in East Germany. President Monson guided that blessing to reality before the Berlin Wall fell. A spirit of humility and kindness and generosity made it happen. Not troops in West Germany.
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would you do?
Yes, The entire peninsula would have been under North Korean rule for the past half century.ajax wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 10:49 amSo the death of hundreds of thousand of innocent men, women and children make it all worth it?markharr wrote: What benefit has there been from the US presence in South Korea?
What possible good has come out of that expense?
And no, that wouldn't exist if the US wasn't there to shore up the border.
I guess in your calculations dead human beings are the eggs that make your omelette?
Perhaps it's time to put the RISK board back in the closet for a while.
There would have been millions more deaths. who knows what else would have happened with North Korea having access to twice as many resources and twice as much labor.
You asked for my opinion. In my opinion it was worth the cost.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: What would you do?
Well, it's time to mix it up a bit and ask: WWJD?
Yep, what would Jesus do... I'd bet my life, my testimony, and my family that it wouldn't involve any more deaths or threats.
Everyone here agrees, I'm sure.
I win. I always do.
Yep, what would Jesus do... I'd bet my life, my testimony, and my family that it wouldn't involve any more deaths or threats.
Everyone here agrees, I'm sure.
I win. I always do.
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would you do?
Great question. What would Jesus do?
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng
- Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 9058
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: What would you do?
What does the law say?
At what point has the law been broken. Nuclear non-proliferation restrictions may not apply to launching missiles?
At what point has the law been broken. Nuclear non-proliferation restrictions may not apply to launching missiles?
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
Re: What would you do?
You're both asking the wrong question. It's:markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:08 amGreat question. What would Jesus do?
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: What would you do?
Uhm, nobody?iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:43 amYou're both asking the wrong question. It's:markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:08 amGreat question. What would Jesus do?
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng
jesusnuke.jpg
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: What would you do?
What would I do?markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 8:07 am This isn't a thread to bash on Trump or any other president. This is a discussion about what would you do if you were president.
The scenario is North Korea just launched an ICBM toward Guam which is a US territory and has US military bases. . There is no way to tell whether it is nuclear tipped or not while it's in the air.
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street.
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
What would Jesus do?
Wait, what? Trump held completely different views on nearly everything last year? *gasp* and he was even against foreign wars? Golly, how soon we forget.Silver wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 12:30 pmWhat would I do?markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 8:07 am This isn't a thread to bash on Trump or any other president. This is a discussion about what would you do if you were president.
The scenario is North Korea just launched an ICBM toward Guam which is a US territory and has US military bases. . There is no way to tell whether it is nuclear tipped or not while it's in the air.
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street.
How about this precious gem:
orWhat will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
Yes, yes, I know. You, much like me, would prefer he go back to the good old days before he was running for President.If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013
“Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again – just watch. He can do much better!”
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would iwritestuff do
And yet you still don't have a solution that hasn't already been tried and failed. You just criticize those that are trying to solve the problem.iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 12:51 pmWait, what? Trump held completely different views on nearly everything last year? *gasp* and he was even against foreign wars? Golly, how soon we forget.Silver wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 12:30 pmWhat would I do?markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 8:07 am This isn't a thread to bash on Trump or any other president. This is a discussion about what would you do if you were president.
The scenario is North Korea just launched an ICBM toward Guam which is a US territory and has US military bases. . There is no way to tell whether it is nuclear tipped or not while it's in the air.
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street.
How about this precious gem:
orWhat will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
Yes, yes, I know. You, much like me, would prefer he go back to the good old days before he was running for President.If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013
“Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again – just watch. He can do much better!”
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: What would iwritestuff do
Now you're getting it, buddy! All the solutions put forth by the Gadiantons have failed so we'd be insane to continue relying on their ideas. That's why we need to do what Jesus would do. Jesus would not attack or even threaten North Korea. His servants sent food there. That's the grand key for understanding what Jesus would do. Bless them that curse us. Feed them. Help them.markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:01 pmAnd yet you still don't have a solution that hasn't already been tried and failed. You just criticize those that are trying to solve the problem.iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 12:51 pmWait, what? Trump held completely different views on nearly everything last year? *gasp* and he was even against foreign wars? Golly, how soon we forget.Silver wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 12:30 pmWhat would I do?markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 8:07 am This isn't a thread to bash on Trump or any other president. This is a discussion about what would you do if you were president.
The scenario is North Korea just launched an ICBM toward Guam which is a US territory and has US military bases. . There is no way to tell whether it is nuclear tipped or not while it's in the air.
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street.
How about this precious gem:
orWhat will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
Yes, yes, I know. You, much like me, would prefer he go back to the good old days before he was running for President.If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013
“Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again – just watch. He can do much better!”
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
Re: What would iwritestuff do
We tried deploying the THAAD missile system to our military bases in S. Korea and Japan and it failed to shoot down a missile headed for Guam? Oh, my apologies. I thought that would work like the 14 other times it succeeded in intercepting missiles during practice.
Or are you referring to failed diplomacy? Because threatening nuclear annihilation isn't really my kind of diplomacy. In fact threatening to turn them into a smoking crater doesn't even fit the definition of diplomacy.
How about you? Can you think of anything that might work besides "finishing the job we started in the 1950s"? Or is that the only "correct" answer you're willing to accept?Definition of diplomacy
1 the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would iwritestuff do
iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:15 pmWe tried deploying the THAAD missile system to our military bases in S. Korea and Japan and it failed to shoot down a missile headed for Guam? Oh, my apologies. I thought that would work like the 14 other times it succeeded in intercepting missiles during practice.
Or are you referring to failed diplomacy? Because threatening nuclear annihilation isn't really my kind of diplomacy. In fact threatening to turn them into a smoking crater doesn't even fit the definition of diplomacy.
How about you? Can you think of anything that might work besides "finishing the job we started in the 1950s"? Or is that the only "correct" answer you're willing to accept?Definition of diplomacy
1 the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy
It wouldn't matter what is done. You would smugly criticize the end result when it was over.
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
What would iwritestuff do (really)
Actually, if we achieved peace without nuking or killing anyone, I would applaud loudly and sincerely. Heck, I might even develop a smidge of respect for Trump (or whoever pulled it off). If we could somehow then bridge the gap in culture and politics that seems to be driving a wedge between us, that would be even better. I hope you want the same.markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:20 pmiWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:15 pmWe tried deploying the THAAD missile system to our military bases in S. Korea and Japan and it failed to shoot down a missile headed for Guam? Oh, my apologies. I thought that would work like the 14 other times it succeeded in intercepting missiles during practice.
Or are you referring to failed diplomacy? Because threatening nuclear annihilation isn't really my kind of diplomacy. In fact threatening to turn them into a smoking crater doesn't even fit the definition of diplomacy.
How about you? Can you think of anything that might work besides "finishing the job we started in the 1950s"? Or is that the only "correct" answer you're willing to accept?Definition of diplomacy
1 the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy
It wouldn't matter what is done. You would smugly criticize the end result when it was over.
Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off. Can Trump?
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would iwritestuff do (really)
iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:24 pmActually, if we achieved peace without nuking or killing anyone, I would applaud loudly and sincerely. Heck, I might even develop a smidge of respect for Trump (or whoever pulled it off). If we could somehow then bridge the gap in culture and politics that seems to be driving a wedge between us, that would be even better. I hope you want the same.markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:20 pmiWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:15 pmWe tried deploying the THAAD missile system to our military bases in S. Korea and Japan and it failed to shoot down a missile headed for Guam? Oh, my apologies. I thought that would work like the 14 other times it succeeded in intercepting missiles during practice.
Or are you referring to failed diplomacy? Because threatening nuclear annihilation isn't really my kind of diplomacy. In fact threatening to turn them into a smoking crater doesn't even fit the definition of diplomacy.
How about you? Can you think of anything that might work besides "finishing the job we started in the 1950s"? Or is that the only "correct" answer you're willing to accept?Definition of diplomacy
1 the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy
It wouldn't matter what is done. You would smugly criticize the end result when it was over.
Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off. Can Trump?
And then we could go on looking the other way while hundreds of thousands more starve, suffer and die in work camps over the next decade. Pretending it isn't happening because all is well in zion.
- iWriteStuff
- blithering blabbermouth
- Posts: 5523
- Location: Sinope
- Contact:
Re: What would iwritestuff do (really)
Mao starved more people to death than currently live in North Korea. Yet Nixon made peace with them, opened up their country for trade, and brought them into the civilized world. We killed no one. Stalin killed between 15 and 20 million of his own people, nearly the amount of the current population of North Korea. And yet we are allies with them today, and we didn't drop any bombs on them or assassinate any leaders. Reagan accomplished that.markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:36 pmiWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:24 pm
Actually, if we achieved peace without nuking or killing anyone, I would applaud loudly and sincerely. Heck, I might even develop a smidge of respect for Trump (or whoever pulled it off). If we could somehow then bridge the gap in culture and politics that seems to be driving a wedge between us, that would be even better. I hope you want the same.
Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off. Can Trump?
And then we could go on looking the other way while hundreds of thousands more starve, suffer and die in work camps over the next decade. Pretending it isn't happening because all is well in zion.
The only solution Trump seems open to right now is the one policy neither Reagan nor Nixon thought necessary when dealing with nations 100x bigger. No one is pretending "all is well in Zion". I'm saying there are alternatives to death and destruction.
- markharr
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6523
Re: What would iwritestuff do (really)
iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:44 pmMao starved more people to death than currently live in North Korea. Yet Nixon made peace with them, opened up their country for trade, and brought them into the civilized world. We killed no one. Stalin killed between 15 and 20 million of his own people, nearly the amount of the current population of North Korea. And yet we are allies with them today, and we didn't drop any bombs on them or assassinate any leaders. Reagan accomplished that.markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:36 pmiWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 1:24 pm
Actually, if we achieved peace without nuking or killing anyone, I would applaud loudly and sincerely. Heck, I might even develop a smidge of respect for Trump (or whoever pulled it off). If we could somehow then bridge the gap in culture and politics that seems to be driving a wedge between us, that would be even better. I hope you want the same.
Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off. Can Trump?
And then we could go on looking the other way while hundreds of thousands more starve, suffer and die in work camps over the next decade. Pretending it isn't happening because all is well in zion.
The only solution Trump seems open to right now is the one policy neither Reagan nor Nixon thought necessary when dealing with nations 100x bigger. No one is pretending "all is well in Zion". I'm saying there are alternatives to death and destruction.
You have no idea what Trump is doing, but I'm sure that whatever it is, you Silver, and Ajax will have plenty of armchair criticism for those that are trying to do something.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1690
Re: What would you do?
"...Wait, what? Trump held completely different views on nearly everything last year? *gasp* and he was even against foreign wars? Golly, how soon we forget..."
You can be against a war and still be dragged into one, especially when they say in mid August they will hit your territory (which has citizens) with 4 nukes and that's days away.
"...Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off...."
That was a lie, or rather we were lied to as a country. They were undermining us by making us think the war had ended while all the way up they were advancing and building arms as fast as they could still. This was even alluded to by something George Albert Smith said in the past...(it was either him or Joseph F Smith in the 1940s). He described how since there wasn't really two world wars but just one with brief periods where they weren't shooting each other but still all along intended to resume the war as soon as they had the edge, and had rebuilt their arms. (I promise its there and he's right.)
"...skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy..." --> This is also incorrect. Both parties have to really want permanent peace. We get lied to as a country under the idea that the other side promises and wants peace but actually they just want us to lower our guard. Consider the story of Zerahemnah and Captain Moroni and their fight. This is also why that story is in the Book of Mormon too; so we won't be deceived.
Recall Moroni and his band of merry men were spanking the Lamanites, badly. This is why indians are red because they were spanked so hard by Nephites. Then the Lamanites are forced to surrendur because Captain Moroni was good at spanking bad kids, but while doing so Zerahemnah never had any intention from the beginning of honoring the peace (Alma Chapter 44). He had in his mind two options; the first was that he'd wait for Moroni and the Nephites to lower their guard. Then he would sneak in and do a second invasion later after and cut them down after they'd disarmed...(OK, so Russia and China wanted us to disarm. Guess why? Same concept.) The other concept option was that he would assassinate Moroni on the spot under the same basic ploy of pretending peace while retaining his arms. (This is in fact what many countries are doing to us now, not just Russia, North Korea, and China.)
Laman and Lemuel had this same mentality with Nephi. Their mindset; we will kill Nephi. But we can't do it while dad is watching and we don't want to get caught. Even with angelic intervention they never truly gave up this mentality. We also see that some of the interventions weren't that they felt bad, but just they didn't want their wives to think they were scumbags. ( a certain verse reads that some of the daughters of Ishmael did plead for Nephi's life...) (There are other verses of the beautiful Nephite women pleading to the Lamanites to spare the people of Limhi, "for they were charmed with the beauty of our women", but the Lamanites never had intentions of honoring it. They planned to come back later, after the women were out of the way. Heck nobody wants to be hated by beautiful women right?
So you can't argue that we have any skill in diplomacy. This is going to be our downfall. None of those countries intends to honor those commitments. They want us to believe that lie. But they've been building up this whole time. Did you know China now has aircraft carriers? How screwed up is that. They never had those before, but pretended to be our buddy this whole time while stealing the tech from us. Their aircraft carrier is also a stolen design just like a certain CV carrier of ours but with modern tech. You can even compare the blueprints of it with the other one and see how close it resembles it.
So basically if you look at it from the scriptural point of view they are waiting for us to turn our backs on them.
Another way of looking at this; consider the Quran. It teaches a lot about how evil works and this isn't just about how Islam works but also how a lot of our enemies work while we are sleeping on the job. It's practically the manual on how to murder. One of the concepts it teaches is that when you can't jihad by the sword, you are still jihading. The jihad never ends, just that it has different gears in its transmission. Gear one of jihad is cut things down by the sword, and then after that the other gears are jihad of the tongue by deception through sweet words, lies, and talking one into lowering their guard and being 'asleep', jihad by economic war, and jihad by preaching or winning men's hearts and loyalty through other lies. But see what's interesting is there's never any end to the war. It's going non-stop until the end of time! It's just switching modes to dupe the enemy.
"...What would I do?
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street...."
Liked this comment.
You can be against a war and still be dragged into one, especially when they say in mid August they will hit your territory (which has citizens) with 4 nukes and that's days away.
"...Do you remember how we ceased to be enemies with Russia? How the wall came down? How we made peace with China? We have made peace with nuclear armed enemies in the past, and we have done so without killing millions of them. I want that again. Reagan pulled it off. Nixon pulled it off...."
That was a lie, or rather we were lied to as a country. They were undermining us by making us think the war had ended while all the way up they were advancing and building arms as fast as they could still. This was even alluded to by something George Albert Smith said in the past...(it was either him or Joseph F Smith in the 1940s). He described how since there wasn't really two world wars but just one with brief periods where they weren't shooting each other but still all along intended to resume the war as soon as they had the edge, and had rebuilt their arms. (I promise its there and he's right.)
"...skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact handled the awkward situation with diplomacy..." --> This is also incorrect. Both parties have to really want permanent peace. We get lied to as a country under the idea that the other side promises and wants peace but actually they just want us to lower our guard. Consider the story of Zerahemnah and Captain Moroni and their fight. This is also why that story is in the Book of Mormon too; so we won't be deceived.
Recall Moroni and his band of merry men were spanking the Lamanites, badly. This is why indians are red because they were spanked so hard by Nephites. Then the Lamanites are forced to surrendur because Captain Moroni was good at spanking bad kids, but while doing so Zerahemnah never had any intention from the beginning of honoring the peace (Alma Chapter 44). He had in his mind two options; the first was that he'd wait for Moroni and the Nephites to lower their guard. Then he would sneak in and do a second invasion later after and cut them down after they'd disarmed...(OK, so Russia and China wanted us to disarm. Guess why? Same concept.) The other concept option was that he would assassinate Moroni on the spot under the same basic ploy of pretending peace while retaining his arms. (This is in fact what many countries are doing to us now, not just Russia, North Korea, and China.)
Laman and Lemuel had this same mentality with Nephi. Their mindset; we will kill Nephi. But we can't do it while dad is watching and we don't want to get caught. Even with angelic intervention they never truly gave up this mentality. We also see that some of the interventions weren't that they felt bad, but just they didn't want their wives to think they were scumbags. ( a certain verse reads that some of the daughters of Ishmael did plead for Nephi's life...) (There are other verses of the beautiful Nephite women pleading to the Lamanites to spare the people of Limhi, "for they were charmed with the beauty of our women", but the Lamanites never had intentions of honoring it. They planned to come back later, after the women were out of the way. Heck nobody wants to be hated by beautiful women right?
So you can't argue that we have any skill in diplomacy. This is going to be our downfall. None of those countries intends to honor those commitments. They want us to believe that lie. But they've been building up this whole time. Did you know China now has aircraft carriers? How screwed up is that. They never had those before, but pretended to be our buddy this whole time while stealing the tech from us. Their aircraft carrier is also a stolen design just like a certain CV carrier of ours but with modern tech. You can even compare the blueprints of it with the other one and see how close it resembles it.
So basically if you look at it from the scriptural point of view they are waiting for us to turn our backs on them.
Another way of looking at this; consider the Quran. It teaches a lot about how evil works and this isn't just about how Islam works but also how a lot of our enemies work while we are sleeping on the job. It's practically the manual on how to murder. One of the concepts it teaches is that when you can't jihad by the sword, you are still jihading. The jihad never ends, just that it has different gears in its transmission. Gear one of jihad is cut things down by the sword, and then after that the other gears are jihad of the tongue by deception through sweet words, lies, and talking one into lowering their guard and being 'asleep', jihad by economic war, and jihad by preaching or winning men's hearts and loyalty through other lies. But see what's interesting is there's never any end to the war. It's going non-stop until the end of time! It's just switching modes to dupe the enemy.
"...What would I do?
I would keep my promise and repeal Obamacare, on Day 1.
I would "Lock her up!"
I would turn all the Federal Reserve bankers out on the street...."
Liked this comment.
- skmo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4495
Re: What would you do?
Simple. I would resign.
As a result of my association with a Colorado Senator when I was considering going into politics, I have come to believe with all of my heart that if you go into politics, you will almost certainly be one of only two things:
1) Corrupt.
-OR-
2) Ineffective.
I do not believe there is an option 3. I am fully aware of my great susceptibility to corruption, and I don't need any additional opportunities to screw my life up.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4066
- Location: Vineyard, Utah
Re: What would you do?
Correct. Jesus has much more powerful weapons. He caused a flood to cover the entire planet. He caused mountains to be placed on top of cities, other cities to be burned down, other cities to be sunk in the ocean, other cities to be destroyed in earthquakes and sink into the ocean, and one day He will cause a burning all over the planet to destroy the wicked and purify everything and everybody able to abide the Second Coming.Silver wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:46 amUhm, nobody?iWriteStuff wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:43 amYou're both asking the wrong question. It's:markharr wrote: ↑August 11th, 2017, 11:08 amGreat question. What would Jesus do?
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... n?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-morm ... s?lang=eng
jesusnuke.jpg
I have seen many people claim that Jesus would never kill, destroy, or condemn, and these days ever time I hear such a nonsensical claim I think of Elder Holland's talk in the April 2014 General Conference.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 9058
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: What would you do?
Jesus would do the best thing under the law; whether He would follow man's law or His Own Higher Law is the question. :ymhug:
Last edited by BeNotDeceived on August 11th, 2017, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- BeNotDeceived
- Agent38
- Posts: 9058
- Location: Tralfamadore
- Contact:
Re: What would you do?
... Iran has long maintained that its missile tests don't violate Security Council resolutions because there are no nuclear warheads involved and Iran's conventional defenses are its own business. ... http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... resolution
All kinds of experts on Fox News talking, but never discuss if conventional missile testing breaks any laws.
All kinds of experts on Fox News talking, but never discuss if conventional missile testing breaks any laws.