No, but I might by accident shove him in front of a bus later. Of course not.

If somebody would've killed Hitler, chances are that none of us here on this forum would exist so we could have this conversation, because chances are that some of our ancestors would've had different marriages. History would be  quite different. Google might be called something such as Yahoo (Or is that an actual name?)

If George W. Bush would've read Howard Storm's book, since George says he is a Christian, he might have been inspired by the part of Howard's book where Jesus told him that God hates all war and that all war can be provided. He might have been inspired by the part where Jesus told Howard that the US is very fortunate and should share its fortunes with the rest of the world [Rather than go after Iraq's oil].

Imagine how different this world would be if the Iraq war didn't take place. No post traumatic stress syndrome for a lot people, ISIS wouldn't exist to the extent it does, etc.

Regarding Seth, this reminds me of the Many Worlds interpretation. Channeled sources such as Seth and Bashar say that parallel universes exist, and that elsewhere Hitler won the war, or didn't start the war, etc. Physicists, including Hugh Everett, the guy who started the Many Worlds interpretation, also speak of parallel universes.

Sometimes channeled sources do so in a contradictory way.  For example, Dolores Cannon hypnotized a client who ended up channeling a being that said that people from different universes can't interact with each other. Yet, Jane Roberts wrote that Seth arranged it so that Jane and her husband ended up seeing alternate versions of themselves in a bar. (It has been a while since I read the Seth book that speaks of this, so I don't remember the exact details, just the point that was made.)

When considering the parallel universe viewpoint, I don't consider what either channelers or physicists say.  I try to determine what makes sense to me.

Say Roger (Rondelle) gets mad at me for changing the subject of this thread a bit and calls me a jerk.

In one universe I decide to become angry and tell him that he's a bigger jerk. Some people might get upset at me for doing so but it is okay because in another universe I didn't take offense.

In one universe Seagull agreed with Roger.

In another she didn't and spoke up for me.

In another she was annoyed by this but didn't say anything.

In another universe she wasn't annoyed at all.

In each case an entire new universe had to be created that included additional versions of every conscious being that exists just simply because we couldn't make up our minds in a complete way.

Because of this, chances are that none of us is our original self. Rather, we are alternate selves.

Or perhaps when one of us chooses to act in a loving way, an alternate self doesn't need to be created where we don't act in a loving way. If we decide to act in a loving way this universe gets to experience the positive results, and other universes don't have to experience the result of "potential" negative results.

I wonder if a person who advocates the Many Worlds interpretation is okay with the thought that a little girl who is forced into prostitution not only has to experience such a horrendous life in this universe, but also many other universes which came into existence.

Back to Roger's question, I don't believe I have the wisdom and authority to decide what to do with the infant Hitler.

Albert, the question was one of morality as I understood it. The larger issue is would you intervene, and to what extent, if the motive was to save the lives of others. Actually had Hitler been killed, chances are that many more people would be alive today, not less, assuming that the rest of history unfolded the same. But the "butterfly" effect is unknown. One change can trigger a whole host of other changes.

I wasn't intending to bring politics into this, but since you did, let me educate you.

* We get the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Iraq represents a very small amount. In fact it's miniscule. Yes there was talk about taking its oil to pay for the war but that was just talk. Your animus against George Bush doesn't alter the facts.

* As to ISIS, Hillary's insistence on attacking Libya led directly to the rise of ISIS. Take a minute and read this. And it's from a left wing website so it must be true.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9571956

Strange that you would go off on a Seth-centered direction since you've previously said you did not consider Seth a credible source.

Forget Hitler (and politics). The same question could apply in a present day situation. Let's say a trained police sniper had his sights on a killer who is threatening to kill a large number of hostages. He's already killed one and is threatening to kill the others. You're the commanding officer on the scene. Would you give the order to shoot?

R

     

I don't know, Roger.  I truly don't think I'd have it in me to kill another human being.  Not because I think it would be wrong to do so because I can understand how there could be good intent in preventing all of his horrific acts.  I just don't think I'd be capable of actually doing it.  But you're right, things are never as straight forward as they may seem.

God allows what goes on here to take place.  It would be interesting to have Don's thoughts on this.

I deleted two of my posts. This subject really got me stirred up and I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone here. I think I will take a little break. That is usually best in such circumstances.

Fair enough. I only started the thread because I found the discussion on the radio show interesting. Lots of calls, lots of opinions.

Yes, I'd like to have Don's take on this.

R

Regarding the US's war against Iraq, it's true that it wasn't solely about oil as a resource in a direct sense. 

  There was a number of factors of why the US government made this decision.  Hussein was originally helped into power by the CIA--he was for awhile, a good little puppet dictator whom mostly did what he was told.

   But just before the US started waging war on him and his country a second time, Hussein was planning on selling oil in non US currency. 

  In the US government eye's, this was a MAJOR "sin" and couldn't be allowed. Attacking Iraq was a major message to the rest of the world and oil bearing countries that you better continue to only sell oil using US currency.  That oil backs the US currency, is one of the major reasons that keep it strong--certainly stronger than it would be otherwise. 

   Also, Iraq is in a sensitive area--near Iran.  Even before Bush Jr. got into office, people involved in his administration had come up with a plan to attack and conquer 7 countries within 5 years.   Such countries included Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. See General Wesley and his accounts.

   Some years ago (1997), Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well known globalist, neoconservative shill and intellectual, wrote a very interesting (and disturbing) book called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 

  In this book, Brzezinski argued that historically, the area known as Asia Minor (and nearby surrounding areas), was extremely important (crucial) to the quest for world power and domination on a global scale. Of course, as you may tell from the second part of the title, he argued that America needed to control this very crucial area. 

   As we know now, major plans have been in the works for awhile, to build massive infrastructure to transport natural resources relating to energy, such as oil, natural gas, between countries like China, Russia, and the Middle Eastern ons. The US believes that if it doesn't control this area either indirectly (by proxy aka puppet dictators etc) or directly, then it will lose out in the long run on the global power and resources game.  Particularly since it's become well known that some countries, like Russia are very rich in natural and largely yet untapped resources. 

   So yes, Iraq was not solely about the moderate amount of oil contained therein, but there were various pragmatic variables from selfish, materialistic viewpoint.

  Besides, war in general is highly, highly profitable to certain corporations (sometimes referred to the military industrial complex), and banks who loan out money on interest to these corporations. Halliburton alone made billions in profit from the 2nd Iraq war. 

   As long as psychopaths are allowed to rise to the top in the money and governmental powers of the world, then war will continue, because it's quite profitable and advantageous to these completely lacking in conscience and empathy types, whom only care about more money, more power, and more control. They don't care how how many people die, are maimed, and who generally suffer. 

  And who primarily funds these wars?  You and I, the commoner, peasant types that these despise and spit on.  Our taxes support the war machine, and not enough of us speak out to make a difference. 

  What the Angels told Howard Storm about the US--especially it's government, is very, very, very true.  And as they said, either the system will destroy itself, or God and the Creative Forces will intervene to stop it. 

   Some have been so long on the wrong side, that they can't, don't, and/or won't see the truths of the matter. They defend an illusionary belief of a supposedly "great" country and their own misguided notion of service to same. 

  What they serve and protect is largely the very definition and personification of evil. Beguiled by the sons of Belial come again.