"Unprovoked?" you say?
Yes, unprovoked, you read it correctly. Let me paint a very clear timeline of major events since September 11th, 2001. Originally, we were primed to invade Afghanistan to go after the Taliban. Most people were for this, as the hunt was on for Osama bin Laden, who was the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, according to a statement made by Condoleeza Rice on 9-23-01. Even Ron Paul was for invading Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. Everyone was waving their flags, a deep feeling of patriotism and unity was in the air, pictures were painted and songs were written during this time.
Slowly but surely there was a paradigm shift in perspective as we went from 2002 into 2003, the mood wasn't the only thing that had changed. The battle we were now fighting was in...IRAQ? Ok...but we were going after Osama right? No, now the mission was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and we were pursuing Saddam Hussein, whilst looking for WMDs. Osama was still on the loose hiding in a cave somewhere, and most Americans didn't know the difference. "Taliban" was out of style, and the new catch phrase was "al Qaeda". In the meantime, while we were in the neighborhood, we also seized their oil fields. All of this without an official declaration of war.
So what had happened between 2002 and 2003? According to the 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004, there had been a scuffle between some of President Bush's cabinet about whether or not Iraq was a threat. Ultimately, it was decided that they harbored a few al Qaeda terrorists, and possibly had WMDs. So on suspiscion and rumors amongst fragmented intelligence gathering, Iraq became a top priority.
Nevermind the fact that 16 of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, NOT Iraqi, and nevermind the fact that Iraq had not committed any acts of aggression against us.
The threat of al Qaeda cell groups was dismissed by several top ranking officials, yet within a few months we faced enormous opposition as their numbers skyrocketed. Why? How was this happening? To answer that question, I quote Paul Wolfowitz, in Vanity Fair, May 2003. "U.S. troop presence been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda." Very prophetic words.
On September 8th, 2006 the U.S. Senate released a report showing that al Qaeda was in fact NOT linked to Saddam Hussein. After alot of debate and scuffle, this was finally conclusively proven on March 11th 2008. The Pentagon revealed the final declassification of a study by the Institute for Defence Analyses, under contract to the US Joint Forces Command. It was titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents" which after reviewing 600,000 documents captured since 2003 that there was no operational connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Folks, the Bush administration was wrong, it's time to pack up and come home.
Here we are now at present day, and the people who said it was going to be quick were wrong, it's 2008 and we're still there doing the same thing. The people who said it was going to be easy were wrong, it's cost the lives of over 3,000 American troops. The people who said it was going to be cheap were wrong, it's cost us over a trillion dollars. The people who said the oil was going to be worth it were wrong, gas prices continue to rise, well over $3.00 per gallon. The people who said there were WMDs were also wrong, none were ever found. Lastly, the people who said Saddam was connected to al Qaeda were finally proven wrong as well.
Don't you think it's time to stop being wrong?
The rationale of these war whores has been consistently wrong for the past 5 years, and in doing so have duped so many people into believing that we need to "kill all the arabs", with no sanity behind their judgements. Patriotism has been pushed to the brink of blind servitude, to the point where if you don't agree with Bush's decisions, then you're not only anti-American, but you're anti-Christian too! Thomas Jefferson once said that dissent was one of the truest forms of patriotism.
Tell me, were our founding fathers 'terrorists' for disagreeing with the Monarchy? 'Terrorists' for throwing the Boston Tea Party? Were the Pilgrims 'terrorists' for sailing over and leaving the Church of England? Humorist Will Rogers once referred to the politicians as "our hired help" on Capitol Hill. Is he un-American for not calling them all kings? Our country was set up in a manner that elected officials are there to SERVE the people, not rule over us like dictators. The President is not a King, not a Czar, not an Emperor, and not a Pontiff. Understand this and you will be ahead of almost half of your fellow Americans.
The costs of all of this are 3 billion dollars per week. Our economy cannot keep paying for this perpetual conflict/policing action with no end in sight. The ramifications of this are dreadful and in the coming years, Ron Paul supporters will be saying "I told you so".
If you're a Christian, your primary allegiance is to God, through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible says in Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God, but in their works deny Him." We all know that Bush and many politicians profess to be "born again" but what do their works show? In Micah 6:8, the Bible commands us "to love mercy, and do justly", and Jesus tells us that Christians shall be known by their fruits, the biggest of which is love in John 13:34, and in Luke 6:35 we are commanded to love our enemies, in order to be the children of God. In Romans 12:18 Paul says "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
Is it really Christ-like to be acting in such a manner like a war whore, especially after being presented with the official facts regarding al Qaeda, Saddam, WMDs, and Iraq?
Remember, in 1st Chronicles 28:3, King David was denied the honor of building a house for God, because "he was a man of war, and had shed blood."
Lastly, there's a disgusting doctrine working it's way into the church to convince congregations that every politician who gets elected, automatically gets God's A-OK stamp of approval, and this is so unscriptural it's ridiculous. If you are of the religious type who adamantly want to hold onto the perception of Bush as depicted below, then see this to help fix your doctrinal misunderstanding.