It could play out to be an interesting scenario.
Incredibly safe conditional ground you set yourself on. So safe as to possibly render some of your arguments impossible to refute.
Bush has gotten a lot of slack for concentrating most resources to the fight in Iraq instead of helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
True. But then, Bush got a lot of flak for starting a war against a subjective concept in the first place. He got a lot of flak for sending large numbers of National Guardsmen into a foreign country on the premise that we were thus protecting our border. He got a lot of flak for his stated views on incentive programs to promote U.S. business movement into China. He got a lot of flak for his views on protecting our nations borders from invasion by foreign nationals, Arabian or otherwise.
In other words, what is your point? Flak hasn't caused this President to rethink one iota of policy, as far as I can see.
So it would be in the U.S. best interest for the U.N. to take over the terror fight. Less criticism to face for Bush.
If Bush facing less criticism is even an objective during a last term year. Popularity polls don't seem to matter that much to him this time around. Also, your assumption is that what is good for U.S. interests automatically coincides with what is good for Bush interests. These can be at cross odds.
I believe the destruction of Babylon the Great is fast coming.
You also believe that Babylon the Great is the World Empire of False Religion. You would have believed the destruction was fast coming in 1914, too. But you would have been wrong. Even in prophetic terms, 70 years is a long time. 90 years is an additional span equivalent to fully half the Israelites punishment in the Wilderness. 40 years was a long time.
How long is "soon", "fast", "near"? All of these terms are subjective, but whenever that is pointed out the defense is invariably "We don't know the day or the hour!" I add, you apparently don't know the year, or the decade, or the century, either. Couldn't even hit the right millenium, in point of fact. So what reason does anyone who hears you have to place confidence in "the thing heard?"
People have no respect for religion, and understandably so.
I wonder if that has something to do with unsubstantiable beliefs being droned in a mantra-esque manner into the ears of people who don't recognize the failure of the promises that went before. What do you think?
Politicians such as Bush only use it for their advantage in their political careers.
I disagree. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think Bush is a purely political animal. He is a true believer! Delusional believer, in my opinion.
It's true that the U.N. has less influence, but this could change from one day to the other.
Okay. It could change, or it could stay the same. Again, a completely safe 100% conditional statement that cannot be successfully argued against. You didn't say anything, so I can't argue against what you don't say. You imply, I caught the implication, but you can deny that you implied it later. Keep this up and you will be on the WTS writing staff in no time at all.
If the U.S. allows it to have more influence, then it will.
Duh! That is obvious. A moot point, for the purpose of your argument, because the U.S. shows no inclination toward doing that.
The book of Revelations has that part right.
Which part? That the U.S. will give the U.N. more influence? I wasn't aware that the succession of Kings as described by the JWs involved one King granting authority to the successive King. Your understanding is interesting, please elaborate on that point.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
