Wow, with the "telling it as it is" outing of the real reason for the Iraq war was the OIL, by Alan Greenspan, it has placed many of the fundamentalist conservative voting Christians and right wing thinkers on this page in a moral dilemma.

If it wasn't for the WMD's that didn't exist then have we all been lied to? Now of course the free thinkers here know the answer to that already... But what will the Christian thinkers do now?

Which part of Christian teaching allows politicians to lie? Which part of Christian teachings allow the killing of 100's of innocent Iraqi's and soldiers of our forces in an illegal war? Which part of Christian thinking allows lies to be told in a parliament as justification for a war? Does Christ say anything on these matters??

Right wing Christians who have continually justified this war have now been placed in a horrible position... they can either follow Christ and Christ's teachings OR they can follow the Bush, Blair, Howard consortium.

It's fine Christians wanting to ask our politicians questions but will they ask the right ones - or will there political biases get in the way of honesty?

I'm sorry right wingers.. the jig is up... Christ is watching... be sure that your name hasn't been added to the alleged book along with those you decry here. Your day of judgment is now at hand... Good luck with that...Ha!

The road is narrow... I hope you make the right choice!...Ha!

Dear Pericles

You pointed out:

"The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large."

Fair enough, but the point which should not be overlooked is... the degree of coincidenc between the ideals/doctrines/fundamentals of the faith in question and the words being uttered in its name. If they match...then .. it should be clear. 'Tree--> Fruit'.... if they don't match.. such as Coulters rant.. the case is also clear.

OPINIONATED.... aaagh.. I think you need about 6 months of solid intellectual detoxification :)

Mate.. Greenspan said "was partly about oil" .. but you JUMMMPED from that to make it the whole reason for the invasion. You did not seek to understand 'how' it might have been related to 'oil' as a resource and or.. oil as a WEAPON to use against the USA.. by withholding it.
Did you by any chance have a look at the strategic location of Sadaams troop concentrations after he invaded Kuwait? err.. swarming on the border with Saudi Arabia! No prizes for guessing what he might have had in mind.

While ur in re-hab.. tell them you have been infected with an almost terminal dose of 'leftoiditus' :) and that you only see things in a very narrow manner. (no Pericles.. or CJ..wipe off that drool :)

Does your Religious zeal extend to good manners David? Was your leader a bad mannered person? Did your Christ use sarcasm? Back to the books big fella!

Well a Republican saying "partly" is a bigger statement than you care to envisage.

America has made enemies all over the world... it financed Bin Laden and Hussein... when it suited them ... An alleged Christian country can't have it both ways David.

Instead of justifying illegal wars you should perhaps understand motive and how power corrupts. Whilst the majority of Americans are wonderful decent people their Government has caused them havoc by doing deals with the devil.

The truth will set you FREE David but first you have to be able to recognise it... Good luck with that!

See David if you don't ask the right questions in the end your politics will always clash with your faith. Please tell me where in Christianity it allows a country to kill 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Please tell me in your book where it allows politicians to lie? Please tell me in your book where it gives you the right to justify illegal acts?

Maybe you are a perfect example why Christians get it wrong so often... they choose the history they wish to quote selectively ... and why wouldn't they? - they also do that with their Bible.

Dear Opinionated...

you asked me a specific question so I'll try to respond.

"Please tell me where in Christianity it allows a country to kill 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's?"

That statement/question is quite loaded.

"Innocent" means you have decided the answer before answering.
My take would be this.
1/ Sadaam, was not innocent (of inhumanity to others) and neither were those who supported his regime.
2/ The Americans invaded.. took Sadaam out, and have since then been seeking to install a friendly (elected) government.
3/ Now..those who have a vested interest in the Americans NOT being there are as follows:

a) Former Baathists who have lost power and privilege.
b) Al Qaeda operatives who want power in any case.
c) Iranian operatives who don't want a Sunni return of power.
d) Sunni Muslims generally who know how the Shia they previously oppressed are likely to treat them if the Shia hold power now.
e) Shia Muslims who remember how the Sunni's treated them, and don't want that ever again.

So... bottom line, pretty much all of the above are killing Americans and fellow Muslims, but the Americans are only killing those who attack them.
Thus far I don't see the Americans as the bad guys... apart from any motive they might have to actually 'take power' themselves.. which I don't see..

Even mohammad restored some existing rulers to their thrones after they embraced Islam.. so its a common thing to do, the Muslims did it throughout history, the Americans have done it.. The Brits have and to be honest every other country has done it.. Its life. We don't want to have 'enemies' controlling our access to important resources and trade opportunities. Our lives depend on these things.

The BIBLE.. only speaks about 'Authority being appointed by God' in the end..and that in principle..peace, stability are the goals of government. See Romans 13:1-5

Illegal/legal war ? I'm pretty cynical about the UN and "International law" -I see little or no value in them.

Dear David... nice try but you answers are a little naive...

Innocent doesn't mean I have decided the answer before answering - it means innocent. Parable - A family of Iraqis are having dinner ... a USA bomb falls the house - all die? Are they innocent?

Suddam was a despot... but David you conveniently forget that the war was based on WMD's and falsifications represented as truth presented to the UN by Collin Powell and subsequently repeated by our PM in our Parliament. Is that lying and where does your Christianity sit with lies and falsified evidence? Regime change was never a reasonable reason for invasion - Ask Howard!

The Coalition of the willing invaded .... and did exactly what Howard said was unreasonable ... Regime change with none of the evidence for the war found! In Christianity is such an invasion immoral? Have 4 permanent USA bases been built in Iraq? A hidden agenda perhaps?

The USA invasion was based on securing another (thought of as easily achieved) supply of oil other than from the Saudi's. The USA know how hated the Saudi Royals are. From this supply, easily destabilized, USA imports oil. It's foreign policy and starting a war for such purposes is not only illegal but unChristian.

Whilst I agree that those you listed have a vested interest in the USA not being there... they actually play into the American hands with their actions. The USA can't leave so guess what they CAN stay... Oil is their goal! The weakness in their plan is that too many innocent USA soldiers have been killed bringing political pressure back home. God bless these poor young Americans who have been used as such a tool.

The Yanks don't want FREE oil they want to buy Iraqi oil and keep oil prices down... again whilst understandable not really a moral reason to invade for a Christian country.

Though shalt not murder (Is killing innocents murder? Yes!) Thou shalt not bear false witness (Is fibbing to the UN bearing false witness?) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house (or oil)

You are so adept at side-stepping, Boaz, that I just know that I'd recognize you if I met you coming out of Southern Cross station - you'd be the one crossing Spencer Street sideways.

You, as usual, missed out the important part of my argument, and only quoted the conclusion, standing out there like a shag on a rock.

Here's what I said:

>>"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16

...So whenever we come across a Christian who vomits such hatred into the world, let's remember this, shall we? That it doesn't matter a hoot whether or not they follow the "Boaz Guide to Evangelism" (or even "Christianity for Dummies", come to that), they a) are self-professed Christians and b) should be understood as such.

The alternative to this, my friend, is to treat each side of the discussion with stringent impartiality. That means that when you come across a Christian or a Muslim that spouts vitriol in the name of their religion, bear in mind that they represent only themselves, and not the religion at large.<<

In the light of my first two paragraphs above, your protestation that:

>>...the point which should not be overlooked is... the degree of coincidenc between the ideals/doctrines/fundamentals of the faith in question and the words being uttered in its name<<

...sounds a little expedient. That is exactly the point that should be considered, in that they present their religion as the underlying justification for whatever bile they happen to be spitting.

On the subject of bile, can you explain this little snippet for me?

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Sounds a touch extreme. What can it possibly mean?