How does the Principle of Respect for Human Life and the views of the chuch go with the war with Iraq? is the chucrh for or against war with Iraq? How does the war relate to Respect for humal Life?

-- Chris Kop (Steamboat6870@aol.com), February 05, 2003

Answers

The Pope has stated his strong opposition to the U.S. war with Iraq.

-- Christine L :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 05, 2003.

Most churches, including the Roman Catholic Church have been against war with Iraq. Less than 10% of Iraqis are members of the Catholic Church. That is why Pope John Paul II opposes the war.

I find myself at a crossroads. Yahweh approved of the War against Afghanistan in the same way I know he supported the war against Hitler. God usually doesn't take sides when people have forgotten him. Only when people ask him or when he sees the suffering is too much he does through the minds of people. Just as he hardened Pharo's heart, led Cyrus in his conquest of Babylon to free the Jews, and so on, God participates in human affairs.

Saddam is a man who has killed too many, tortured too many, .... that Yavé has had enough. God may use those whose conduct is suspect to get justice done. From Shalmanessar, to Nebuchadnezzar, the list goes on. George Bush is another one on a long list. He will get justice done.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 05, 2003.

Elpidio writes:

"Most churches, including the Roman Catholic Church have been against war with Iraq. Less than 10% of Iraqis are members of the Catholic Church. That is why Pope John Paul II opposes the war."

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to connect a demographic statistic (The Iraqi population is ~3% Christianity) with the Pope's decision to support or oppose a war?

I don't think that such a connection could be made; certainly not in this case.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 05, 2003.

According to MaryLu the war is about our right to fight for freedom. In Afghanistan we fought for the right of women there to have - their driving license! The war is still means of having right in the minds of many on this forum. I'm so sad from this. I just hope we get a real lesson from our opposition agains our Pope. If that is needed, then be it!

-- (judywool@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

For those who think that Bush is a Catholic Theologian developing the Just-War doctrine with his new "preemptive war" theory, it would be interesting to know that the Holy See is INDEED developing the Just- War tradition.

Problem is, Rome is going exactly to the opposite side: war is becoming considered like Death Penalty: something to be almost abolished.

See this interview with Archbishop Renato Martino, the new president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/021403/021403e.htm

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 06, 2003.

Err what's this about the Catholic church supporting the Nazi's in the second world war. What is this all about ???

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 06, 2003.

I am an infantryman of the Florida Nat'l Guard 53rd infantry Brigade, and a former seminarian. My unit is on their way to "Southwestern Asia, wherever that may be. I am a non-depoyble cadet, which is why I am not going. We soldiers are not warmongers. In fact, out of all the people who want peace, it is the soldier who wants it the most, since we are the ones who have to leave our families and risk our lives. However, I am ready to pay the price that our fathers did to give us freedom today. I will pay that price for others to have the same freedom that we have. I love the Pope, and listen to his message about avoiding war, and taking the peaceful path. I struggle with the issue, since war is so horrible, in which conscripted Iraqis will be annihalated with our superior technology, our soldiers that will die, the innocent civilians that will be killed in the crossfire. However, I see Saddam as another Hitler, slowly breaking the treaties and regulations. Nothing is done to stop him, and so by the time we choose to do something about it, he is out of control. The revolutionary war was fought because we wanted independence from Engla,d who was laying heavy taxes upon us. But yet, we are so reluctant to go to war with Saddam, a mad murderer, to say the least. I still am not sure, I leave it in God's hands to decide.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

I for one always pray for peace. But let's think a minute about what "peace" is....Geo-politically, it's the result of free moral choice on the part of world leaders. If Saddam wants peace he would not be spending so much time, effort, money, and lives in his pursuit of offensive weapons.

Andrew knows, as should we all, that Iraq has plenty of conventional firepower to defend its own territory - what possible purpose could it have in continued construction of ballistic missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?

Furthermore, we know from the UN inspections performed during the Clinton years that Iraq HAD an active Nuclear program as well as advanced bio-chemical weapons program throughout the 1990's... after the First Gulf War! The onus is on the Iraqis to PROVE they truly ceased and actually destroyed their stocks of bio-chem weapons. They have not done this. They claimed to cease production - but have given no proof of having destroyed their weapons. You can't just throw this stuff in the garbage you know!

So given this moral choice to re-arm from the Iraqi regime, what kind of "peace" can we expect? By ALL appearances they have been re-arming for offensive operations. Are we supposed to just wait - in the name of "peace" - until they strike us?

Now most people claim that they'd not hit us...but why must we presume they'd DECLARE WAR to hit us at all? Al-Qaida didn't declare war before hitting us. Neither did Japan. Plus, such weapons can be delievered by anonymous messenger...with no "finger prints".

So if you were president of the United States, and your primary job description was the safety of 287 million Americans, would you just have us do nothing?

I've always been amazed that those against "war" have no viable alternative, no concrete alternative idea or plan to offer!

We can't embargo Iraq - that's immoral as it only affects the people, not the rulers.

We can't continue to play keystone kops with "inspectors" - because even if they do find weapons...or some "smoking gun" - what then?

Eventually the situation will be resolved by one of two things: a complete miracle of God converting Saddam's heart or an American led invasion...

So sure, let's pray for peace...but we have to also prepare for war.

In His World Day for Peace, 2003 our Holy Father reminded us that the root cause of all troubles in the Middle East is the mind-set and belief of the rulers in these lands! And "[U]ntil those in positions of responsibility undergo a veritable revolution in the way they use their power and go about securing their peoples welfare, it is difficult to imagine how progress towards peace can be made".

So tell me, how do YOU propose we Peace-makers and sons of God go about helping this "revolution" take place?

No one is seriously talking about Christianizing ANYONE in the Middle East. Most of the "peace-niks" reserve all their energy with just scoring political points against Bush... as if he just arbitrarily decided one day to pick a fight with Iraq... Or the Muslim world in general (when in reality we've fought more wars FOR the Muslims than against them).

What real-life solution do any of you propose?

You can't just say "No" to War and leave it at that! War would and will topple the regime and liberate the Iraqi people. So would having Saddam go into exhile, so would an Iraqi coup... sure let's pray for peace and justice, but until you stand up to defend the defenseless (the Iraqi citizens currently enslaved by a tyrant), words in favor of some nebulous "Peace" are empty platitudes.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

"What real-life solution do any of you propose?"

There is none. There is no action that any man or group of men can make that will solve this.

There are many godless people and a handful of good ones, and whatever happens will happen, and the rain will fall on the good and the bad alike.

We are stuck with whatever happens and can by ourselves do absolutely nothing about it; in that sense, appealing to heaven is the only option. What other recourse have we ever had access to? Who in world ever thought it could be any other way?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2003.

"I've always been amazed that those against "war" have no viable alternative, no concrete alternative idea or plan to offer!"

One plan would be called the United Nations.
Another would be called diplomacy.
A study of those who have moved mountains(Christ, Gandhi, King) by non-violent practices would also offer up some concrete alternatives and plans.

Just for your information.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), February 06, 2003.

If President Bush wants to do a complete job of protecting America, he would put troops on our borders. It doesn't make much sense to have the military every else but here. It is a long time too late now, but the wisdom of President Washinton is more apparent than ever. Saddam is a menace and must go, but we should never have gotten involved in the middle east in the first place. The Jews and Arabs have been at it since the UN put the State of Israel there and we chose sides. Now we have to go and get it over with, till the next time , and place. God help us!.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

Chris, um, the United Nations has TRIED to peacefully disarm Iraq, after Iraq signed the treaty ending the first gulf war... what do you do with a country that refuses to obey its own part of a treaty because its ruled by a mad man?

Then you offer us "diplomacy". Splendid. Guess what we've been doing the past 12 years? Guess what we're doing right now? Diplomacy, asking the guy to cease and desist from his evil ways... encouraging him to shape up...offering alternatives to war: exile, giving up all offensive weapons... deadlines and more deadlines...

But what if he still refuses to give up his re-armament strategy? Should we just sing Kumbaya and wait for the gas or bio-bugs to hit us?

Finally, because you HAVE NO CONCRETE IDEAS TO OFFER... you suggest "we" study the great "non-violent" heroes... But Chris, even Proverbs tells us "there is a time for war, and a time for peace"...

No where did Jesus condemn soldiers, or war for that matter. In his parable he mentioned a King who must decide if he can wage a war with 10,000 if his opponent has 20,000...and that if he can't he should send an embassy (diplomacy) to sue for terms of peace...

He did bid us to love our enemies. Do we love them by encouraging them to do more evil or by removing them from power? Do we love our enemies by surrendering to them or by conquering them and liberating their slaves?

You have no concrete alternative so you offer platitudes. Non- violence is fine in interpersonal relationships. But when faced with barbarians who lie, cheat, steal, murder, and show evident signs of plotting more mayhem and destruction, "non-violence" on the part of a nation is the sin of omission.

Tell me Chris, since we stood by and DID NOTHING when the Hutus killed the Tutsis in Ruanda in 1995... did our pious Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton save any souls through "non-violence"?

Does the name "Srebrenica" mean anything to you? The UN DIPLOMATS created a "safe haven" for Muslim men there. Then they disarmed them, claiming "the International Community (a local French commander of a few lightly armed UN "soldiers") will provide your safety." Then they watched helplessly as the atheist Serbs massacred 7,000 unarmed muslim men and boys. No much for "non-violence" as a solution!

Tell me Chris, how many wars (as opposed to internal revolutions) have been won by one side becoming non-violent in the face of outside invasion?

You are confusing the respect for life owed to civilians with the right to self defense and at times armed aggression against despots.

The Church teaches war as a last resort - and then strictly restricts military action against only those who are "unjust aggressors" - all of which the USA has complied with.

Since you offer NO CONCRETE ALTERNATIVE TO WAR, I GUESS WE'VE REACHED THE "LAST RESORT".

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

I just learned that the Vatican diplomacy is not convinced by the "proofs" displayed by Powell. No, the majority of the world is not on the side of war. That should teach us something. Who'll be next? Korea? Much harder to swallow! Once our "freedom war" will be stopped - much to our own shame. Remember Vietnam!

-- (judywool@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

I believe this is an area in which Catholics are free to disagree, so long as they are relying on Catholic principles to do so. The main controversy seems to be whether or not this constitutes a "just war" - i.e., is this war *necessary* or are there ANY viable, reasonable alternatives?

Good Catholics, including the Holy Father, have and will continue to express very different opinions, probably till long after the war is over, as they still do over Vietnam.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

Yes. Korea is next. Then Iran. And after 100 million of these Korean and Iranian peoples are liberated, fed, clothed, and saved from their tyrants, finally having come home to the circle of civilized nations with rules of law and respect for human rights, maybe you'll pause and wonder why your love for "peace" some how always excludes those who live under a state of permanent warfare - locked behind tall gates of ruthless dictatorships.

If your desire for Peace meant anything it would include Justice. Do you consider the Iraqi, North Korean, and Iranian regimes to be the just rulers of their lands? How can we be merciful to those people if they are slaves to merciless overlords?

The Church teaches us to avoid bloodshed except as a last resort and then with strict rules of engagement. I agree. But short of a miracle of conversion what alternative course is open to us, the so- called "freedom loving peoples" of the world?

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

"Disarmament efforts cannot, therefore, concern only some countries or be centered on only one type of weapon. These efforts should aim at the elimination of all threats to security and peace, be they on a regional or a worldwide level."

"If law cannot defend the weaker countries, then it is up to the international community according to the Charter of your Organization, to take appropriate measures, to deter potential aggression." Letter to the United Nations 31 May 1988, John Paul II

"To pray for peace is to pray for justice, for a right-ordering of relations within and among nations and peoples. It is to pray for freedom, especially for the religious freedom that is a basic human and civil right of every individual. To pray for peace is to seek God's forgiveness, and to implore the courage to forgive those who have trespassed against us." Pope John Paul II. World Day of Peace, 8 December 2001

So... when we are dealing with reasonable people and governments who agree with basis human decency and rights, negotiated settlements are possible and thus, obligatory. However what happens when you are confronted with regimes or terrorist groups who not only enslave and murder their own people, but threaten their neighbors with awful, indescriminate offensive weapons?

There is no moral equivalency between the US Armed Forces and tyrants of the axis of evil... we have spent billions getting rid of our stocks of chemical and biological weapons, while reducing the numbers and types of our nuclear forces... and we have refined our conventional arms to be more precise and less likely to harm civilians... For the last 30 years America has gone to great lengths to not only spare civilians but also to feed, clothe, and shelter them as well as rebuild their homes after hostilities....

I think we have the moral high ground. I also think we're being very careful to follow the guidelines of the Church in both our ends (to liberate captive peoples and thereby reduce the risk of such WMD falling into the hands of criminals) as well as our means (diplomacy, measured and discriminate use of force).

To do "nothing" is actually to do something: to refuse to liberate captives, to refuse to bring criminals to justice, and to delay the establishment of a tranquil order of things.

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

"I think we have the moral high ground."

No; we have lost this long ago. If we act from this sense of it, we will incur condemnation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2003.

emerald, when I say "moral high ground" I'm not referring to American culture in general, or to the US Federal bureaucracy in general, or to all the NGO's propped up by various and sundry political/ideological interests...

The Lord knows only too well how many opportunities have been and are wasted by Americans...Abortion/Supreme Court, moral relativisim, hedonism/Congress, depravity/internet-pop culture...

When I use the term Moral Highground, it refers to the case at hand, the US Government insofar as this body is dealing with terrorism and threats to national security.

The Lord knows that there are vast sectors of public life and public service stauchly in the hands of "evil-doers" such as USAID, etc.

But the new administration is by and large composed of decent people - who genuinely hope to use what power the government gives them to productive and peaceful ends - but to have peace you need an order of justice...

No other government appears terribly concerned about safeguarding true human rights - certainly not the Europeans and certainly not the Arabs or Chinese. So compared to the others, we've "higher"...but not if compared with what Christ would want us to be.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

Strange thatthe majority of the world doesn't see that "we have morally the high ground". They are underdeveloped morally, I guess. We have to give them a lesson. And yes, we will liberate the whole world and give them the democracy we have. After all, it's already several decades that we ended with "white only" busses on our roads - higt time the world got the latestfrom our democracy teaching, isn't it?

-- (charly7moe@aol.com), February 06, 2003.

We can say to the Holly Father "give us a break with your desire of peace" as long as we rely on catholic principles to do so. It's as simple as that! If he doesn't speak with infallibility we are free to tell him - take a hike - and go to our war with our catholic principles. Everyone will be in awe!

-- (loewitz9n@wt.net), February 06, 2003.

Korea is next? We tried once and it wasn't our full victory. This time it could break our neck with much more than a "dirty bomb".

-- (Ericmoore@cool.net), February 06, 2003.

Loewitz/RoseB/Andy/ wrote: the Holly Father

Is he the one who lives in the Christmas Islands? ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

I see, Joe. I've been wearing myself out on another thread... I confess I've merely skimmed this one insufficiently.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2003.

I think the Holly Father is Father Christmas.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), February 06, 2003.

Merry Christmas, Emerald! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

Joe Strong, When you run for public office I will vote for you! Not only will I vote for you, I will volunteer for your campaign. St. Ignatius said, "Pray as though it all depended upon God, and Act as though it all depended upon you." President Bush, at the recent prayer breakfast, urged the American people to pray; pray for our country, pray for our President, for guidance and wisdom and prudence and courage. As previously stated by...Andrew? (I think) America's sons and daughters in the military don't WANT to go to war. They're not war- mongers. But they understand the gravity of the threat that Saddam is to us, to our allies, and to the world. Where is Saddam's respect for human life? While he stockpiles weapons and lies about having them, he deprives his own country's women and children of basic nutrition. His money is in military build up, not agriculture! He has exercised violence and complete disregard for his own peoples. Have you forgotten what he did to the Kurds? More recently, and a little closer to home: Have you forgotten September 11th? Iraq assists and harbors terrorists also. We must pray, pray, pray. Sadly, it appears that we also must take up arms. May Our Lord bless and protect our troops as they protect and defend the innocent. Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (FloweroftheHour@hotmail.com), February 06, 2003.

Comic relief.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 07, 2003.

Christine, you have great evil in you, your posts are full of it. I pray for you. Christ is not as you behave on this forum.

-- (Ericmoore@cool.net), February 07, 2003.

The Holly Father is perhaps just twice holy? Whoever you are please visit other forums and let this one in peace.

-- (charly7moe@aol.com), February 07, 2003.

Well Eric, I know I have a weird sense of humor *, but don't think I'm any more evil than anyone else on this board. *That might not be saying much though. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 07, 2003.

Christine, maybe we will all debate this in Hell, if the heat doesn't get to the computers.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 07, 2003.

Aw shucks, Ed, I'm looking forward to BOTH of us getting all our questions answered in Heaven! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 07, 2003.

Joe,
Your line up of countries to go after is Iraq, N. Korea and Iran, as I read it.
The president has upgraded the alert status today for a danger on our soil presented by a group that has no country and can clearly harm us.
If we are to shed combatant blood and kill innocent people don't you think your list is missing something - like at the top? If you insist that we have come to the last option, I'd hope that you'd be interested in the most immidiate threat.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), February 07, 2003.

Before I forget this other thought, He is also known as the Prince of Peace. I'm guessing His earthly representitive takes that holy nick-name very seriously. As we all should.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), February 07, 2003.

I hope so Christine;

Pope John Paul sincerely wants peace, but he is absolutely wrong in the methods. He is a supporter of the United Nations, who happen to be the worst abortionists on the planet. They are also the forefront of the New World Order, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States. America has to make it's own decisions, rightly or wrongly. It's our neck in the noose if the UN is wrong.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 07, 2003.

Anna,

Amen! I, too, will vote for Joe Strong if he runs for office.

Let us all pray for God's will to be done regarding this war...only He alone can bring about a miracle! Praise you, Jesus!

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 07, 2003.

Charly,

Do you believe in abortion? Just wondering because it seems like all of the anti-war peace-makers who are giving Saddam confidence, are the same people who have no problem killing babies.

And, I do have a question for you and yours. What do you think we should do with Saddam? How should we handle him? How do you think we should resolve this problem?

I really would like to know. If there really is a way not to have to go to war, I want to know what that is. Thank you.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 07, 2003.

I can just see it now, should we fold to the rallies held by the factions opposed to the idea of a military solution...after being attacked. Then the protesting will become flavored with rants that nothing was done to protect Americans, and we failed to keep our innocent citizens out of harm's way.

I am stunned. We have more than enough evidence that Iraq and Hussein are a valid threat. Are twelve years not enough leeway? How much more time do they need, either from UN inspections, or global encouragement, to come clean and comply?

I don't like the idea of a war. My baby brother is a Marine in Kuwait, and the love of my life is an officer in the Navy. I have quite a bit on the line, but I still believe Hussein will never change his deceptive methods. If he would have made ANY effort to abide by and comply with the resolutions set by the UN in the past twelve years, it might be another issue. The history speaks for itself.

Joe, I'm with you. Love your intelligent and well-cited information.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), February 08, 2003.

Darkness crept back into the forest of the world. Rumor grew of a shadow in the east, whispers of a nameless fear, and the Ring of Power perceived. Its time had now come.

Alright, alright... I'll quit it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 08, 2003.

Don't ever stop, Emerald! I've quoted you on another forum for your insightful comparisons of LOTR and everyday Catholic life...ie: ecumenism and the mines of Moria. Brilliant.

OK FOLKS THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN POST YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT THE IRAQ "WAR." Please don't use the Prayer thread to vent or to air your political views.

Thanks. Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flowerof the hour@youknow.com), February 08, 2003.

Mateo, your assumption that Iraq is only 3% is not true. The country has the highest population of Christians (Catholic & Orthodox) anywhere in the Arab world. In 1980 when I left as a young girl our community was nearer 2 million of a population of 20 million of which 500 thousand have left.

As an émigré to Australia I still remain in touch with members over there. Please don't voice what you are not entirely sure of. My father is French catholic and my mother converted when she married him. The members of my family who have joined my mother and who still live there are concerned after the fall of Saddam what will come of them as until now there has been a level of acceptance from government and the imams to our long surviving community.

Iraqi’s are not the ogre’s you apparently see of them, for all the evil that Saddam is, Iraqi Catholics now worry about their freedoms after him. The west cannot guarantee that we will see democracy and we know how fragmented sect and culturally our people are (Shia, Sunni, Kurds). We also know that it is also outside Arab influences who will want a say in our future.

Visit Baghdad sometime and see how Catholic’s and other Christians take their religion more seriously than most “Catholics” in the west. If anything you should be able to admire our churches that dot the sky line with pride.

Signy

-- signy (sdubroveir@hotmail.com), February 08, 2003.

MaryLu, listen, LISTEN to our Pope. He says what alternatives to war are, not only to this war. Your reasoning about "we have to go to war" is as wrong as it is simplistic. Suggesting I'm an abortionist is a very, very low punch. With the same immoral logic you could put this question to our Pope too! Why not, everything is good to the people like you! So now being a peacemaker, rallied with the Pope means for MaryLu being an abortionist! Thank you, sweet catholic MaryLu!

-- charly (charly7moe@aol.com), February 08, 2003.

Mary Lu,
Are you anti-abortion? Just wondering because it seems like all of the war makers who are looking to kill Saddam and his regime, are the same people who have no problem killing babies (and other innocent Iraqi people).


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), February 08, 2003.

This thread shows pretty clearly that dissent is not an exclusive trait of catholic “liberals”.

The dissent of SSPX people is well known to us, but now it seems that even so-called “orthodox” Catholics share with liberals and SSPX people the view that you can pick and choose whatever you want from what the pope says, according to your own fancy.

I speak for those who call themselves orthodox and loyal Catholics, but insist in opposing current papal teaching against this war.

Have you not read the brilliant explanations of Chris Butler about the need of Catholics to assent to ordinary Magisterium?

Do you really believe that the pope, the Vatican and virtually ALL THE BISHOPS AROUND THE WORLD are just airing their personal opinion and thence any catholic can superficially disagree? Especially when these Catholics are not experts in military, international relations and theological issues? When the bunch of their sources is presidential addresses aired by CNN?

Don’t you feel it awesome that the opposition to this war is probably one of the very few times after Council Vatican II when ALL bishops (including those in Rome) agree, and that, if the concept of “teaching from the universal bishops along with the pope” can be exemplified, then this is the case? That when “liberal” and “conservative” bishops together strongly agree about something, than this something must be very serious indeed?

Are you really naïve and arrogant enough to think that you know more of politics, international relations and theology than ALL THE UNIVERSAL CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, FROM THE POPE DOWN?

Why didn’t you read the link I posted here to the interview with Renato Martino, the Vatican top official on these issues, and until recently the Holy See ambassador to the UN?

Do you really believe that Bush is trustworthier in his views than the Pope?

Do you really think that the pope is naïve and does not know what is going on in the world? Is it not more probable that the naiveté is on your side, buying in Bush’s propaganda?

Are you aware that the pope and the Vatican know much more about Iraq than the CIA, because our Church is present in Iraq and the CIA is not? (The only information about Iraq that the US possesses is by means of satellite photos and, perhaps, by the inventory of weapons that THE UNITED STATES gave Saddam when he was a “friend” of the US? If the US has incontrovertible evidence that Iraq situation warrants this war, why hasn’t Bush been able till now to convince the pope and virtually all important world leaders in the West?

Did the US media aired that the “dossier about Iraq” Blair used, the day before yesterday, to convince British parliament to go to war is a plagiarism, a cut-and-paste from an American student’s doctoral thesis of 13 years ago, only augmenting figures? Is it THIS KIND OF PEOPLE that you prefer to trust, instead of the pope?

Do you really think that the pope does not care about the US people?

Come on, I thought this was a CATHOLIC forum.

It’s becoming pretty clear to me that this is a REPUBLICAN forum, one in which some people who call themselves Catholics happen to agree with those views of the pope that suit their political taste, and then feel free to discard as “not infallible” everything else. Well, this is exactly the kind of argument of both liberals and SSPXs.

Now, lets pretend for few minutes that the pope DOES NOT HAVE the Holy Ghost assistance. Let’s look at him from a secular, political science, point of view. That is, if you were a non-Christian but otherwise a sincerely well-meaning person, whom would trust more? The Pope or Bush?

A person who dedicated his life to the benefit of all mankind or the leader of a government who has all kind of strange relations with the oil and weapons industry, besides lots of other self-evident moral limitations?

Come on, you cannot be so naïve. It is just unbelievable.

You ignore the pope to believe in Bush at your own peril. It is THE POPE, not Bush nor we, who has the assistance of the Holy Ghost to interpret ALL catholic doctrine, and this surely includes the “just- war” theory. It seems extremely difficult to support the thesis that this is a “personal opinion” of the pope and open to wild dissent from Catholics. The pope has personal opinions about many things, and he is very well known to be scant in airing them. When he does, he always stresses unequivocally that it is the case, and he only does so in personal interviews, never in public. In his opposition of this war, he is wielding his Apostolic Teaching Authority, he is speaking as POPE, not as an old pole priest called Karol.

Some people he are quoting the pope in their efforts to support this war. It seems these people believe that they are better interpreter’s of the pope’s teaching that the pope himself. A real lesson in humility!

Please, do yourself (and the world) a favor and READ what the Vatican has to say about this war. Nobody commented this. Do you think you can select the Vatican’s positions you like? That you can skip the Holy See´s opinions when you don’t like them?

Here’s the link: [url] http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/021403/021403e.htm [/url]

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Why cannot I put a link here? I thought it was just necessary to enclose the link with [url] and [/url]. What went wrong?

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

If you forget the html codes for making links, the best way, Atila, is to go to the top of your browser and where it says "view" and look at the "source" on any page that already has a link in it to figure out what it is supposed to look like.

Or you could ask Mateo. Of course I wouldn't suggest doing this. Mateo once gave me the ring of html power... of course, I desired to use this html out of a desire to do good, but through me, it wielded a power too great and terrible to imagine. I had gone so far on one thread that I had the staypuff marshmellow man and war planes on the background, blinking things everywhere and all manner of hideous colors and whatnot. Tim the Baptist tried to fix it, but instead he black-holed it and started swallowing itself. I'm not sure if the thread even exists anymore.

None of us can wield it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 08, 2003.

Hi guys!

Here's the way to post links. Important note: replace the "[" with "<" and the "]" with ">".

[A HREF="http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/021403/021403e.htm"]Link to File.[/A]

Results:

Link to File.

For more info, you can look at the greenspun FAQ or just look at the web page's "source."

Atila,

Regarding fidelity to the Pope, the last place you will find orthodoxy is "www.natcath.org." They are totally anti-Catholic! They have an anti-Catholic agenda. They don't like the Catholic Church. Am I getting my point accross? They even have the audacity to write their own "Vatican III" proposal. What a joke!

God protect us from such evil influences.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 08, 2003.

Signy, I am truly sorry for the Christians in Iraq, {for that matter all innocent people}. Hopefully the threat of war will topple that vicious man, from internal revolt. Perhaps that is what Bush is hoping for.No one really wins any war. The first casualty in war is truth, and whatever we hear from anybody ,on all sides, are contrived in order to make their positions more tenable.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 08, 2003.

Atila, do you believe in abortion? ;-)... Thanks for your words! Some people are full of catholicism but to listen to the Pope it's another matter. What does he know, the old man. You made a good point with the confidence in Bush or the Pope...

-- (charly7moe@aol.com), February 08, 2003.

Mateo, I was expecting this kind of commentary, but I must say that it is very disappointing for me that it came from you, one of the most well balanced frequenters of this forum.

The issue in question is not the orthodoxy statute of NCR. I quoted an interview with soon-to-be-Cardinal Archbishop Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and former ambassador of the Holy See to the UN.

By the way, have you READ the interview, before blanketing everything that possibly comes from that site as unorthodox? This is called prejudice, mind you. I have not provided a link for their ridiculous Vatican III proposal, but for a very representative interview of Vatican mind about this war.

You can read exactly the same thing from him and from many other Vatican officials in EWTN, if you prefer.

Just because NCR is a stronghold of liberals, it does not follow that, if they say that the world is round, then the world must be flat. I quoted the interview with Archbishop Martino because it is the most recent news coming from the Vatican on the issue. It just happened to be on that site (perhaps it speaks volumes about how certain self-proclaimed orthodox Catholic news outlets select what they see as newsworthy).

By the way, you should read the columns by their Vatican columnist, John Allen, who did the interview. He is very moderate and honest, although generally liberal. Even George Weigel praised him for that, saying that he is “different” from the rest of the people at NCR. He even apologized for being too critical of Ratzinger in his biography of the Cardinal. I think that the years living in Rome, next to the heart of the Church, did him good. He even has been defending Opus Dei, for example. Have you ever heard a liberal defending Opus Dei? If there is a liberal with whom any dialogue is possible, this is the guy.

Anyway, this thing of calling NCR unorthodox (and it generally is) is for me a diversion strategy, trying to steer away from the discussion that I originally proposed. Nobody as yet has answered to any one of my questions.

So, I repeat: so-called orthodox Catholics in this forum still think that they know better than the pope, that Bush is trustworthier than the pope, that the pope is naïve and that ordinary Magisterium need not to be heeded if I don’t like it. I still can see no difference in this pick-and-choose attitude from that of liberals or SSPXs.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Thanks Charly for the kind words.

I am really disturbed indeed that self-righteous catholics think they know better than virtually every single catholic, be him pope, bishop, priest, deacon, religious and lay from outside US.

For me, US catholics have the responsability of making their government follow the pope´s social teaching. But, Allas, it seems that many of them see as their responsibility to protect the Republican party from the wrongful intrusion by the pope.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Hear! Hear!

-- Back-bencher (shhh@silenceisgolden.com), February 08, 2003.

Nice work Atila, unfortunately when political views are aired on this forum more often than not the banjo is playing in the background. The ignorance is incredible, a reminder of just how much our environment shapes our worldview and the dangers of propaganda. Scary.

-- A catholic ("""@""""".com), February 08, 2003.

Thak you, A Catholic. Scary, very scary indeed.

Emerald, thaks for your amusing LOTR view about html. I laughed to to ground! :-) kkkkkkkkkkkk

I am just returning from the cinema. We went to se The Two Towers. Awesome photography, some unwarranted departures from the book, but overall great film!

Mateo, thanks for the intructions about links.

God Bless you All!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Even our separated brethren, the orthodox, are against this war.

It seems that I was more corret than I intended, when I talked about "all bishops being against this war". Even bishops not in communion with Rome condemn this war.

----------------------

WAR WOULD BE A "DISGRACE FOR HUMANITY," SAYS SERBIAN ORTHODOX VATICAN CITY, FEB. 6, 2003 (Zenit.org).- A representative of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate told John Paul II that a war against Iraq would be a "disgrace for humanity."

The representative, Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro, is heading a delegation in Rome this week, to promote ecumenical rapprochement with the Catholic Church.

When the Orthodox metropolitan greeted the Holy Father today, he took advantage of the occasion to make an appeal for peace in Iraq.

"In the 20th century alone, our Church and our people were subjected to seven wars, and still today they suffer from profound wounds, especially in Kosovo," Metropolitan Amfilohije said.

This is why the Serbian Orthodox Church, "together with His Holiness, requests the powerful of the earth, especially the United States and its allies, not to get involved in a new war, on this occasion against Iraq," he added.

"This new war would be a new defeat for all of us and a new disgrace for the whole of humanity, and not just a humiliation and destruction of the honest Iraqi people," he stressed.

The Serbian Orthodox Church has 9 million faithful spread over 32 dioceses worldwide, including four in North America, two in Western Europe, and two in Australia and New Zealand.

------------------

Source:[A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=33658"] Link to File.[/A]

Now, this is EWTN. Is this orthoidox enough for you all?

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Link to File.[/A]

Trying again...

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

went right?

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Here´s another one from EWTN.

--------------------

VATICAN OFFICIALS NOT PERSUADED BY US CASE AGAINST IRAQ VATICAN, Feb 6, 03 (CWNews.com) -- Archbishop Renato Martino, the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has said that US Secretary of State Colin Powell was "unconvincing" in his argument to justify military action against Iraq.

After the American leader's presentation to the United Nations, Archbishop Martino told a Vatican Radio audience that the evidence supplied by the US was "less convincing that what was presented on October 25, 1962, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis."

The archbishop said that UN resolution 1441 remains "the most effective means of avoiding war." That resolution, he recalled, "gives inspectors the authority to destroy or disable any weapons that they find." He added that the resolution calls upon all UN members to furnish information to the inspectors, so he questioned why the US had not supplied those inspectors with the evidence that Powell presented to the UN.

The Vatican newspaper reported that Vatican officials at the Holy See were not swayed by Powell's presentation. The front-page story in L'Osservatore Romano reported that the American arguments "did not completely convince the members of the UN Security Council." The paper quoted senior Vatican officials, speaking anonymously, as saying that the US argument was based on "propaganda" rather than hard evidence.

Archbishop Martino told Vatican Radio that a visit to Rome by Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, scheduled for February 14, "could be a step" toward a peaceful resolution of the crisis. He said that "the Pope will do everything possible" to avoid open warfare.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Naw you see.

When I talk about Bush´s talking being "propaganda", I am not alone.

Plese pay attention to whar Martino is saying: if the US have evidence against Iraq, why not present it to UN inspectors?

I´ll say you why: because Bush is determined to have his war, whatever the reasons may be.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

Two more EWTN articles about this war: India and Switzerland Bishop´s Conferences slamming the war.

------------

INDIA'S BISHOPS OPPOSE WAR ON IRAQ NEW DELHI, Feb 04, 03 (CWNews.com) -- The Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) has cautioned that a military strike against Iraq "will result in a colossal human tragedy."

Expressing "serious concern about the war clouds that hover over West Asia," the CBCI statement argued that 'armed conflict' against Iraq would be "nothing less than a death blow," since Iraq has already been "ravished with malnutrition, poverty, and economic sanction' due to the decade-old economic embargo.

Acknowledging that the UN-approved arms inspection against Iraq has not yielded "satisfactory progress," the Indian bishops also said that "terrorism, under any circumstances, cannot be accepted as it does not uphold the basic human right to live a free and fearless life."

However, the CBCI insisted that the remedy to terrorism "should not be worse than the malady itself." The bishops pleaded that "every effort must be made by the international community to avert such a man-made tragedy" as a full-scale war.

------------------------

SWISS BISHOPS ALARMED AT LACK OF ETHICAL DEBATE ON IRAQ WAR Population Has Already Suffered Atrociously, Says Conference

GENEVA, FEB. 5, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The presidency of the Swiss Episcopal Conference warns that the debate on the ethics of an attack on Iraq has disappeared from the media.

"For several days now, in all the media, there is no longer a question about the advisability of a war against Iraq, but of the date of the start of hostilities," a statement from the conference says today. "Worse yet: some are already speaking about the postwar."

"We are alarmed by this kind of talk and we wish to recall with firmness our opposition to a war whose principal victims will be the civilian populations," the bishops add.

"For years, the Iraqi people, most especially the children, have suffered atrociously from the consequences of the international embargo against that country," they say. "Let us not martyr them still more, while all the ways of dialogue have not been exhausted and the danger that the Iraqi dictator poses has not been proved."

"Moreover, we must be aware that a war against Iraq would 'wound' many Muslims and would certainly produce the contrary of the hoped- for effect, namely, a strong rise of the terrorist menace on the part of Muslim fanatics," the bishops warn.

"We appeal to all believers of our country to redouble their prayers so that war will not break out and that common sense will triumph," the Swiss bishops conclude.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

And now, this week´s article of John Allen in NCR.

Strong opposition to war from Archbishop Martino and Cardinal Stafford (president of the Pontifical Council for Laity), an American (lest someone says that foreign bishops cannot understand the situation in US).

This sentence is worth stressing:

“I come at this as a Christian and religious leader who celebrates the Eucharist every day,” Stafford said. “It’s not possible for me to celebrate that Eucharist and at the same time to envision or encourage the prospect of war.”

Cardinal Stafford went all the way to say that catholics in the Military have a right to conscientious objection (that is, to refuse to fight).

Osservatore Romano, the Holy See´s official newspaper, stopped short of calling America policy in Iraq stupid.

As you can see, conservatives and progressives around the world agree that this war is morally unsustainable. Only Bush and certain misguided catholics think otherwise.

Here´s the article:

-----------------------------

Cardinal Stafford: Celebrating the Eucharist, envisioning war don’t go together Vatican Correspondent jallen@natcath.org “The concept of a ‘preventive’ war is ambiguous. 'Prevention’ does not have a limit; it is a relative term and is subject to self-serving interpretations. "

Cardinal Francis Stafford, president of the Pontifical Council for Laity

If Michael Novak is arriving in Rome today with the ambition of changing the Vatican’s mind on a “preventive war” in Iraq, it’s looking more and more like a fool’s errand. (For the record, the stated purpose of the visit is not to convert the Holy See, but to “stimulate some new thinking about today’s threats and the nature of a moral response.”) Novak, an American lay Catholic scholar best know for his defense of capitalism, is expected to meet on Feb. 8 with officials in the Vatican’s Secretariat for State and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. On Feb. 10 Novak will meet the press, then lecture to the public at Rome’s Center for American Studies. Novak’s visit has been arranged by the U.S. embassies to the Vatican and to Italy.

Archbishop Renato Martino, president of the Council for Justice and Peace, sat down for an interview with NCR on Feb. 4 just ahead of Novak’s visit, and he sounded like a hard man to persuade.

“We all know what the pope has said on so many occasions now. If Novak can reverse what the pope has said, well, good for him,” Martino said.

Martino, 65, has emerged in recent weeks as the pope’s answer to Donald Rumsfeld — a tough, outspoken, pull-no-punches senior aide, willing to speak his mind to the press. The difference is that Rumsfeld’s hard line is pro-war, Martino’s pro-peace.

A story based on my interview with Martino can be found here: http://www.natcath.org/

Meanwhile, a group of 60-some American Catholics, including prominent lay people and men and women religious, has written to U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See James Nicholson protesting the decision to bring Novak to Rome. An article on the controversy can be found here: http://www.natcath.org/

The bottom line is that Martino and the Vatican seem resolved to oppose a U.S.-led war. There were other indications this week of mounting opposition from the leadership of the Catholic Church.

American Cardinal Francis Stafford, president of the Pontifical Council for Laity, put out a strong statement Feb. 3, asserting that “the American government has not offered conclusive evidence of imminent danger to its national security.” Stafford had been contacted by Inside the Vatican magazine, and released a written statement to several press outlets.

“The concept of a ‘preventive’ war is ambiguous,” Stafford wrote. “‘Prevention’ does not have a limit; it is a relative term and is subject to self-serving interpretations. Objective criteria must be applied with intellectual rigor. The threat must be clear, active and present, not future. Nor has the American administration shown that all other options before going to war have proven ‘impractical or ineffective,” he wrote.

Stafford contrasted the call to arms coming from the political leadership of America, Britain and Iraq with John Paul II’s call to youth to be agents of peace and hope.

I spoke with Stafford Feb. 5, to ask if he could envision any circumstances under which a war in Iraq might pass moral muster.

“I come at this as a Christian and religious leader who celebrates the Eucharist every day,” Stafford said. “It’s not possible for me to celebrate that Eucharist and at the same time to envision or encourage the prospect of war.”

In my interview with Martino, he argued that Catholic just war teaching is evolving, like the church’s position on the death penalty, toward a much more restrictive stance. I asked Stafford if he agreed, and he said yes.

“The very existence of certain kinds of modern weapons, including biochemical and nuclear weapons, is a threat to the future of humanity,” Stafford said. “The environmental harm caused by weapons of mass destruction also creates an indirect threat to human welfare.” Hence, Stafford said, it’s almost impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which opening the door to the possible use of these weapons would be just.

I asked Stafford the same thing I asked Martino: If the church is so strongly against the war, what do we say to the thousands of Catholic men and women who might be called upon to fight?

“I can’t make the decision for them,” Stafford said. “As mature, baptized Christians, each lay person has to decide if their being in Christ Jesus, whose peace extends to all persons, allows them to proceed to the destruction of some persons. Each person has to weigh what is being said by the country’s leaders … and come to their own conclusion.”

Stafford added that the church has always supported a right to conscientious objection, and he hopes that such a right would be available this time as well if it comes to armed conflict.

Meanwhile, the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, walked up to the brink on Feb. 1 of calling American policy in Iraq stupid.

“To define a preventive war as a sensible act means not to have, or not to know how to exercise, the intelligence necessary at certain levels,” L’Osservatore stated in its Feb. 1 Italian edition.

In another article, the official Vatican newspaper wrote that “the international media, determined to understand in the nuances of diplomatic statements the possible development of the Iraqi situation, often forget to concentrate attention on the principal victim of the crisis: the civilian population.”

“Tested by a long embargo and vexed by a dictatorial regime, the Iraqi people [have] lived for months under the exhausting threat of a conflict.”

International Catholic opposition also continues to build. In the Feb. 2 edition of the popular German weekly Bild am Sonntag, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the president of the German bishops’ conference, wrote that a preventive war in Iraq would be “ethically impermissible.”

“The law of the church says that war is possible only in extreme situations and only as the very last resort,” Lehmann wrote. “An example would be the ending of massive human rights violations such as genocide.”

Meanwhile, in the Philippines Cardinal Jaime Sin urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Jan. 31 not to support the U.S. on a war against Iraq.

“Be a peacemaker!” Sin said. “Show the world that we Filipinos are promoters and defenders of peace.” He reminded Macapagal-Arroyo that a few days after her inauguration, she declared at the Manila Cathedral that she would be a faithful daughter of the church. With the present situation, it would be a good opportunity for her to follow the Holy Father, “rather than be aligned with the super powers of the world.”

One footnote: Despite the marked differences between the Vatican and the Bush administration on Iraq, Martino emphasized that the overall relationship remains strong.

“It’s excellent, excellent,” he said. “I was at the United Nations for 16 years, and I can see the difference. I know our relations and the difficulties we had to negotiate with other American administrations, and also the European Union, especially at the Cairo Conference. … We still have a lot of collaboration with this administration, especially on the problem of cloning. We acted together just weeks ago.

“It’s the issue, not the persons involved, that’s the problem,” Martino said. “The American people are the most generous people I have ever met in my life, not only during my 16 years in the United States, but in all my 41 years of diplomatic service. I can write books about the generosity of the Americans. This is absolutely not a closure.”

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

New Zealand’s Catholic Cardinal highly critical of military intervention in Iraq...

"Why in heaven’s name is the Bush Administration so hell-bent on attacking Iraq?

There is no justification on grounds of international law or sane morality.

Despite microscopic inspection from the air and on the ground for weapons of mass destruction, no credible proof has emerged of Iraq’s intention or capacity to bring harm to another nation, let alone to the United States.

Yet a blustering bellicose Bush persists in seeking a pretext, or even striving to fabricate a pretext, for unleashing the dogs of war.

I pretend to no economic or political expertise. I do not know whether and to what extent American political and oil interests are involved. What I do know is that the 1945 United Nations’ Charter rules out any member nation declaring a pre-emptive war. What I do know is that nothing the Bush Administration has advanced as its rationale for armed aggression against Iraq meets the moral criteria for a just war.

What I do know is so obvious to anyone who remembers the Gulf War or any war in which the aggressor has depended on bomber aircraft and CRUISE missiles: the concept of pinpoint accuracy or limitation of collateral damage is an illusion. One commentator put it succinctly: “Smart bombs do dumb things” . . . like reducing to rubble homes and hospitals, massacring and maiming the guiltless and the defenceless, obliterating essential services and food supplies.

God knows, the Iraqi have suffered enough. Ill-conceived United Nations-imposed sanctions continue to cause intense suffering. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and the overthrow of his regime would bring huge benefits both within and beyond Iraq. But the inevitable consequences of armed conflict are far too high a price to pay.

Even were President Bush to consider that US interests warrant the destruction and bloodshed, does he not realise that his war against Iraq could be the catalyst for a wider conflagration? Is an American victory any guarantee of lasting peace, or will it destabilise the Middle East and fuel enduring animosity between Arab and European nations?

Pray that other nations join France, Germany, China and Russia in saying “no” to war against Iraq. Pray, too, that our own Government will not allow New Zealanders’ hands to be stained with Iraqi blood."

Cardinal Thomas Williams Wellington, 4 February 2003

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 08, 2003.

Hi Kiwi, I was missing you in this thread.

God Bless you!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.

I have a question for you people.

What do you think of the following sentence?

"The Church does not understand modern science, so She should silence about things like abortion and cloning".

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 09, 2003.

I'm a good catholic. I don't understand the question...

-- (agood@one.here), February 09, 2003.

Hi Atila nice to hear from you again. I dont post here much anymore but thought you should get some support as you were OTM. Ive realised Ive broken the rules by posting as "a catholic" upthread and as "kiwi" on the same thread, whoops unintentional mistake moderators sorry.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 09, 2003.

Hi Aitla, I don't think that anyone should be silent about cloning or abortion. If one views these issues as purely scientific and not moral, then I believe they need to seriously consider the implications.

Abortion is the killing of an unborn human life. Why should we leave such matters to be judged by scientists ? Do they have God's interests at heart ? How about cloning ?

A desire for silence indicates a lack of openess and moral consideration.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 10, 2003.

Hey Anna <>< and Atila, glad someone actually liked it. I've got a website loaded with my insane musings on LOTR and Catholicism; when I get the other half of it uploaded, I might shoot you the link. I need time though; lots of distractions. Hey kiwi.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

Hey Emerald, :-), Im finding the time away from posting great starting to read up on books and getting an intro to philosophy(so I dont have to bug Chris B) "elements of moral philosophy" has been fascinating looking at the different moral systems, their weaknesses and strengths- also reading Jung and Hans Kung, intresting stuff, if you have any thoughts on either of these authors or moral philosophy and the different systems in general please email me.

Cheers and Blessing hope alls well God Bless... hope that truth is a bit closer!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 10, 2003.

Hey guys, what ever happened to staying on topic? Isn't this thread supposed to be about war with Iraq? :-)

Anyhow,I thought you might like to read what the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say about impending war with Iraq.

October 24, 2002

CCCB Letter to Prime Minister Jean Chréétien Concerning Iraq

[CCCB translation]

The Right Honourable Jean Chréétien Prime Minister of Canada Langevin Building 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

You recently received a letter from the Canadian Council of Churches signed by the major Church leaders in Canada, including myself, urging the Government of Canada to find a peaceful resolution to the present tensions and situation in Iraq. In this spirit, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, in their Plenary Assembly at Cornwall, 17-22 October 2002, considered this important question and unanimously accepted the following resolution:

That the Plenary Assembly of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, in solidarity with Canadian religious leaders, reaffirm with the Prime Minister of Canada that a non-military, peace-building approach on Iraq remains not only thinkable but possible. Furthermore, that the CCCB, following the action of the Canadian Council of Churches, urge the Government of Canada to continue to work toward a fruitful, peace-building approach to the problem of Iraq that is consistent with international law and takes the common good of the people of Iraq as its starting point.

Mr. Prime Minister, I wish to encourage you in renewing your efforts with the international community in order that peace be preserved and an effective way be found for a creative and fruitful dialogue leading to a peaceful solution.

Be assured, Mr. Prime Minister, of our prayers and solidarity.

+ Jacques Berthelet, C.S.V. Bishop of Saint-Jean-Longueuil President Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Further, I enclose a statement supported by Catholic Bishops in Canada which was jointly prepared by a variety of Canadian Church leaders from many denominations:

Statement on Iraq

Most Rev. Jacques Berthelet, C.S.V., President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and Bishop of Saint Jean- Longueuil, joins with other Canadian Church leaders in launching Prepare for Peace in Iraq , which challenges the international community ““to accompany the people of Iraq, not with more bombs and missiles, but with moral, political and material support.”” The sign- on process is described at the end of the statement.

The statement is the joint initiative of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Canadian Council of Churches, and Project Ploughshares. It emphasizes the urgent need for verifiable Iraqi rejection of weapons of mass destruction and argues that neither war nor the status quo is a means of assuring that important objective. Instead, it offers a positive, realistic, and transformative approach to the problem of Iraq.

National church leaders are commending this statement to congregations and parishes across Canada, and are calling on all Canadians to endorse this message for a peaceful and enduring resolution of the Iraq crisis. The statement is thus also being widely circulated to community groups, faith communities and individuals. Project Ploughshares has been asked by the statement sponsors to collect the responses and to forward them to the Prime Minister at regular intervals.

Prepare for Peace in Iraq

We believe that war is not the answer.

Twelve years ago a UN-mandated and US-led coalition went to war against Iraq. Tens of thousands of children, women, and men were killed. The destroyed infrastructure and subsequent economic sanctions together with continued bombing contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. Now, just when UN inspectors have begun to work effectively, we are on the brink of another war.

We believe that renewed war on Iraq will not deliver lasting disarmament. War is most likely to deliver more of what it always does –– lost lives, environmental destruction, physical and psychological damage for both victims and aggressors, wasted resources, threats of widened political instability and increased terrorism, more hatred, and re-energized extremism.

We believe that peace is more than the avoidance of war.

We also know that simply avoiding war will not solve the fundamental problems of Iraq –– an unrepresentative regime that violates human rights and may not be in compliance with its obligations related to weapons of mass destruction. Peace and justice require more than the absence of war. Outlaw regimes that still retain or aspire to the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction cannot be allowed to stand, in Iraq or anywhere else. Indeed, we believe that durable disarmament and accountable governance are closely linked. We believe that peace is linked to human rights and the will of the people.

Iraqi governments will be most likely to permanently forego the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction when the Iraqi people have the means to define and mandate alternative national priorities. If Iraqis were free to choose, it is unlikely that they would support a nuclear weapons program that wastes resources and brings them only crushing sanctions and ongoing pariah status. Government that honours the will and rights of the people, and that is built on an empowered civil society, is key to the reliable rejection of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. Responsible government of this kind cannot be installed by war. Iraqis must be authors of their own change.

Yet for many decades Western policy has undermined the pursuit of democracy and relentlessly disempowered the very people of Iraq on whom constructive change depends. The West’’s active military and political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein until 1990, as well as comprehensive economic sanctions since then, has left the tyrannical regime strengthened and enriched and the people demeaned and impoverished. We reject the increasing resort to military means to resolve entrenched conflicts.

We believe the arms race in the Middle East must be ended.

United Nations Security Council resolutions require that Iraq verifiably destroy and end its pursuit of all weapons of mass destruction and medium to long-range ballistic missiles. But these same demands are repeatedly placed in the context of the objective of establishing the Middle East as a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. As long as some states in the region retain or pursue such weapons, others can be expected to attempt to obtain them as well.

We believe we must put the people of Iraq first.

Iraq has become a place of extraordinary suffering, and war would only add to it. Even without war, these hardships will remain the primary reality for the people of Iraq for the foreseeable future. The tragedy of Iraq has been decades in the making, and the road to genuine transformation will be slow and troubled. The only reasonable certainty they face is that the costs of war would be even worse than the current situation and would delay, not hasten, the advent of sustainable change. We believe it is our collective responsibility to accompany the people of Iraq, not with more bombs and missiles, but with moral, political and material support.

We believe it is time to act for peace, not war.

b. Reject further war on Iraq –– the consequences of which are borne primarily by the people; d. Persist in a vigorous strategy of containment to prevent Iraq’’s acquisition and/or retention of weapons of mass destruction through internationally mandated inspections and ongoing monitoring; f. Pursue diplomacy toward establishing the entire Middle East as a region free of all weapons of mass destruction; h. End the comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq; j. Embark on diplomatic and political engagement, including material support for Iraqi civil society, to advance respect for human rights and accountable governance; l. Reinvigorate diplomatic efforts with states of the region to address outstanding issues, notably the Israel/Palestine conflict, in the context of region-wide talks on security and cooperation in the Middle East; and n. Explore legal/judicial and other measures to address accusations of crimes against humanity.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), February 10, 2003.

Thanks, Kiwi!

Hi, Emerald, I sure will like to see your LOTR site!

Thanks, Ed. Each day the opinion of the bishops around the world is being posted here, but some people who call themselves catholic insist in ignoring it and prefer to trust St. Bush the Crusader.

Oliver, I wholly agree with what you say about the Church having the right to speak in those matters.

My point (and now Ed will understand why I put that sentence there) is that sentences like that are very frequently heard from dissenters and anti-catholics.

Here’s the sentence again:

"The Church does not understand modern science, so She should silence about things like abortion and cloning".

Notice its structure: “The Church does not understand X, so She should silence about things like Y”

Now let us substitute some words.

Let X be “international politics” and Y be “the war on Iraq”.

Now we have:

"The Church does not understand international politics, so She should silence about things like the war on Iraq "

What have we come to? To the fact that so-called catholics who support this war are using exactly the same argument structure as CFC for example uses to try to silence the Church on issues like abortion.

There is only one word for this: dissent.

God Bless you all and cast His light upon the misguided catholics who have already enthroned Bush as the next pope.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 10, 2003.

I'm not following the thread closely. I apologize if I repeat something.

Atila writes:

"Mateo, I was expecting this kind of commentary, but I must say that it is very disappointing for me that it came from you, one of the most well balanced frequenters of this forum."

Atila, my advice was not to take a side on the issue. I simply emphasized that the NCR is not a reliable Catholic news source. Because of their deceiving name, one cannot simply assume everyone knows this.

Atila writes:

"The issue in question is not the orthodoxy statute of NCR."

Quoting NCR lends credibility to an immoral news source. My personal opinion.

As you have shown, it's not hard to avoid anti-Catholic sources (like NCR) and make the same point.

Why else does this matter? It matters because NCR's "news" are thinly veiled op/ed pieces! Look at the next article at the bottom of your article: "American Catholic leaders protest Novak visit to Vatican." Read the article and see if you can find who the supposed "leaders" are--it's not the USCCB. And what is the purpose of the article: to claim that "conservative [that means anti-abortion, etc] Catholics" like Michael Novak shouldn't even be allowed to talk with the Vatican to discuss a possible war! Oh, dear.

Atila writes:

"...the Republican party from the wrongful intrusion by the pope."

Many American Democratic politicians support the President on this issue. It's not a big party issue.

Atila writes:

"Plese pay attention to whar Martino is saying: if the US have evidence against Iraq, why not present it to UN inspectors?"

From George Bush (Sept 24,2002):

"The reason why it [note: he's talking about the Tony Blair report on Iraq] wasn't specific is because -- I understand why -- he's not going to reveal sources and methods of collection of sensitive information. Those sources and methods may be -- will be used later on, I'm confident, as we gather more information about how this man has deceived the world."

So we have "behind-the-scenes" proof against Iraq. We don't know what the proof is.

The Vatican's words (from what I've read on EWTN.com) are not scathing attacks on Bush. A couple of quotes are harsh, but they are anonymous, so we don't know who or what they really said. The Vatican simply asks for the US government to continue doing what it is doing--supporting the inspection process.

The anti-war articles rely on "behind-the-scenes" talk at the Vatican--anonymous people stating opinions that we aren't hearing direct quotes. If these scathing remarks are real, why don't those making the statements make themselves known? Why the hiding? I suspect the same answer for both the anonymous quotes as the secret proof against Iraq: making these things known puts people at risk (assassination, etc).

The Cold War was won because of a lot of secret behind-the-scenes stuff.

World War II was won because of a lot of secret behind-the-scenes stuff.

World War I was won because of a lot of secret behind-the-scenes stuff.

Cardinal Thomas Williams is quoted:

"Ill-conceived United Nations-imposed sanctions continue to cause intense suffering."

The UN's "solutions" often are ill-conceived...unless you share their obsession with population control. I suspect (conspiracy theory time) that the UN sanctions were not "ill-conceived" so much as they are intentional actions to reduce populations.

Cardinal Thomas Williams (Wellington) is quoted:

"Pray that other nations join France, Germany, China and Russia in saying “no” to war against Iraq."

While we're at it, pray that these four countries' leaders and people might convert to Christianity some day. Pray that they might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their societies. If Christians should join with anyone, we should pray that they join their hearts with our pope, not these atheistic countries.

Atila writes:

"God Bless you all and cast His light upon the misguided catholics who have already enthroned Bush as the next pope."

I don't think that the last part of this statement is either accurate or charitable.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 10, 2003.

>While we're at it, pray that these four countries' leaders and people might convert to Christianity some day. Pray that they might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their societies. If Christians should join with anyone, we should pray that they join their hearts with our pope, not these atheistic countries.

??????????????????????????? Secular states Mateo like America, only China is communist and atheiestic though you seem to be implying that somehow the society YOU live in is morally and religiously superior to Germany, France and Russia.Whatever.

You twist the Cardinals intentions as wanting us to join spritually with these "evil" countries although all he is saying is we should all be praying for more countries to join our Pope and Church and oppose war.

While we're at it, pray that Americas leaders and people might convert to Christianity some day. Pray that they might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their society. "God Bless America" errrr hang on If christians should join with anyone, we should pray that they join their hearts with our Pope, not this atheistic Republican country. ;-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 10, 2003.

Well Mateo, I think that a catholic with a sound doctrinal education may read NCR and not be contaminated, in anything because their dissent is very crude intellectually. If I may read The Boston Globe, even if it is for rebuking them, as I have already done, why should I not read NCR, even if it is to know first-hand what liberals are saying?

Everybody knows where NCR stands, I don’t think that my quotation of an interview published there might seem as lending credibility to that outlet. On the contrary, my point was that both liberal and conservative catholics agree in being against this war. You see, conservative and liberal catholics agreeing in something, for me, is REAL news.

As I have said, John Allen´s columns are generally fair, if you can filter out his liberal views. My theory is that, living in Rome, he has been able to get a fairer grasp of what the Vatican and the Church are all about. I have never seen him supporting anything against Catholic teaching (which, of course, is not the case with the rest of the people at NCR). His liberalism is one that thinks that the Church should be more decentralized, on the lines of the “subsidiarity” theory. But even in this position, he is honest enough to quote faithfully people opposing his view. I don’t agree with him in this subsidiarity thing, not at the present state of the Church al least. But this is not heresy. He, as a reporter, uses to be present at events promoted by dissenting catholics, and he seems to be on friendly terms with them. On the other side, he frequents and honestly reports events on the orthodox side as well, and is in friendly terms with very conservative catholics as well.

How I see it? He seems to be a decent guy, somewhat misguided in some of his views, but with a strong willing to dialogue. How can I slam a person who supports friendly dialogue? Is it not what we are doing here? Is it not what Ecumenism is all about?

I may add that he is many times more vocal in supporting papal social teaching in many themes than so-called “orthodox” catholics are. Things like the support for gun-control, the ending of death penalty, the case against this war, the welfare system, international relations concerning foreign debt, commercial practices and globalization, and the support for the Palestinian cause are all supported by him, things that many “orthodox” catholics usually silence about, as if these were not papal teaching, ordinary Magisterium requiring assent. To their credit, EWTN usually reports these kind of papal pronouncements (they could hardly ignore them, as they are public; not reporting them would seriously damage their credibility as a news outlet).

Anyway, I understand your concern. That’s why I am making clear that in no way I am trying to give credibility do NCR editorial policy.

As for the Democrats supporting this war as well… Well it only shows that divergence with the pope is not an exclusive trait of the Republican, which is hardly news. But you must agree with me that the militaristic approach to international relations is a distinct trait of Republicans, as is the defense of Death Penalty.

The Tony Blair report is fake, as was aired by worldwide TV news two days ago. A plagiarism from a US student’s doctoral thesis of 13 years ago. If Blair went all the way to fake a “report” on Iraq, why should anybody believe in anything else that he says? Archbishop Renato Martino and other Vatican top officials are well aware that some things go “behind the scene”. Even so, they called the “evidence” thus far presented by Bush et alli “unconvincing”. Why?

As for the Vatican’s (and other bishops for that matter) not being “harsh”, I suppose it is a subjective judgment. For me, they are harsh enough, and I am referring to the “signed” ones, quoted above and on the other thread.

To say that US government is supporting the inspection process is a far cry. Hans Blix, the chief inspector, has complained that the US claim having evidence of the existence of mass-destruction weapons but offer no information on that to the inspectors. My view is that Bush is sabotaging the inspection will all the means he can, so that he can wage his war unhindered.

Nobody said the UN is perfect. However, the pope clearly supports that institution, as he is supporting the European Union, notwithstanding his criticisms of both. There is a rumor that the Vatican intends to upgrade its status from “permanent observer” to “full member” of the UN. The US Supreme Court ruled abortion in “Roe vs Wde”. Should we close the Supreme Court? The Congress has failed so far to block partial-birth abortion. Should we close the Congress? The UN has problems and the pope is very well aware of that. Nevertheless, he is saying that any war against Iraq cannot be justified outside UN (this is a necessary condition, although not sufficient).

To quote Cardinal Williams comments on ill-conceived policies of the UN is a far cry. What the Cardinal is saying is even more against this war then anything else: he is saying that not only he does not support the war but even that he does not support the embargo! This is a view repeatedly supported by the Vatican also.

As for my line saying that some catholics are enthroning Bush as the next pope, it comes directly from their claim that they would rather follow Bush than the pope in moral issues. Frankly, I see no lack of charity here. It is indented to be an eye-opener.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 10, 2003.

Kiwi wrote:

“While we're at it, pray that Americas leaders and people might convert to Christianity some day. Pray that they might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their society. "God Bless America" errrr hang on If Christians should join with anyone, we should pray that they join their hearts with our Pope, not this atheistic Republican country. ;- )”

It is really scary how some American catholics see themselves as living in Shangri-lá.

Abortion, for example, is much more restricted in Germany than in the US. And I have been seeing no place in the “Free Western World” where Catholics are being more persecuted that in the US (just read EWTN).

Speaks volumes about the need for outside view to gain perspective.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 10, 2003.

Kiwi writes:

"Secular states Mateo like America, only China is communist and atheiestic though you seem to be implying that somehow the society YOU live in is morally and religiously superior to Germany, France and Russia.Whatever."

Let me state my own implications! :-)

I'm implying these four countries suppress Christianity more aggressively than the USA. I've been to all of these countries except Russia. This is based on my personal experiences, along with what others have told me. I don't think that my implication is far off.

Kiwi writes:

"You twist the Cardinals intentions as wanting us to join spritually with these "evil" countries although all he is saying is we should all be praying for more countries to join our Pope and Church and oppose war."

The cardinal asked us to join with these countries (not the pope). We shouldn't confuse what these countries' intentions are: it's certainly not because they are anti-war. For a couple good examples, ask the Taiwanese and the Tibetans if the Chinese are pacifists. Ask the Chechens if the Russians are pacifist. Etc, etc.

Their intentions are to try to compete with the US as a super-power. It's geopolitical.

I disagree with Sun Tsu on this one: sometimes you shouldn't view your enemy's enemy as a friend.

Atila writes:

"Everybody knows where NCR stands..."

I disagree. When I first heard of them years ago, I myself made the assumption that a periodical with the title "National Catholic Reporter" must be faithfully Catholic. The deceiving name makes me doubt that "everyone knows where NCR stands."

Atila writes:

"As I have said, John Allen´s columns are generally fair, if you can filter out his liberal views."

It's an op/ed piece.

Atila writes:

"Well Mateo, I think that a catholic with a sound doctrinal education may read NCR and not be contaminated, in anything because their dissent is very crude intellectually."

It's a little like those who claim that they subscribe to Playboy for the great articles. :-)

Atila writes:

"The Tony Blair report is fake..."

I think most Americans though that Clinton's hunt for Osama bin Laden was a "Wag-the-Dog" scenerio used to pump up his approval ratings and divert attention from Monica Lewinski. After 2001, maybe we should agree that the government knew something that we didn't.

Atila writes:

"To quote Cardinal Williams comments on ill-conceived policies of the UN is a far cry."

A far cry from what?

Anyway, as I already wrote, I don't think that the Vatican's statements ask anything more than what the US has constantly done: allow the inspectors to do their job. Lest anyone forget, the US has not invaded Iraq. The US can't be denounced for something it hasn't done!

I'm off to dinner!

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--Atila and Kiwi, don't hate me! I love you guys! :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 10, 2003.

Hi, Kiwi. Nice to hear from you again.

I am neither for war or against war. I am more for justice. I had friends from Iraq. It was nice to hear from someone from that nation in this forum to hear a different opinion. Mateo had chastised me for saying Christians were 10 % of the population. At least Signy clarified the matter. Many Christians in Iraq still speak a form of aramaic. There are Assyrians, those in union with Rome, those with the Syrian Orthodox, some with Orthodox, and so on. As Signy was saying, what will happen if there is a war. I have e-mailed the President Of the United States about this. The Kurds have suffered with Hussein, but they also have massacred Christians. The Shia's in the South may also pose a risk for Christians if Saddam falls. It will be a mess. We may even have infiltrations into the country by Turkey and Iran. May our God Yavé and the love of his son Jesus Christ help us in this terrible situation.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 10, 2003.

Elpedio writes:

"Mateo had chastised me for saying Christians were 10 % of the population. "

I didn't "chastise" you, Elpidio. I corrected you with a statistic from the US Government. I also asked you a question, though. Did you answer it?

Here's a number of random quotes off the Internet:

http://www.worthynews.com/news-features/compass-iraq.html

"Iraq's Christians represent less than three percent of the estimated 22 million population, although the Iraqi government sets the figure at five percent."

http://www.nationbynation.com/Iraq/Population.html

"Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%"

http://www.hri.ca/partners/forob/e/instruments/middleeast/iraq.htm

"Christian or other 3%"

http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/iraq.htm

"Religion: 45% Sunni Muslim, 50% Shi´ite Muslim, with Druze and Christian minorities."

So, statistics say that the total number of non-Muslims are ~5%. This assumes that we include Druze with non-Muslims. Signy's estimate is ~6%.

Could someone correct me with a website or hard-copy reference claiming 10% (or 6%)?

I didn't notice Signy's post until now (I haven't been following the thread too closely). She writes:

"Please don't voice what you are not entirely sure of."

I'm not sure what you are inferring. If you think I'm ignorant of the confessional situation in Iraq, you really shouldn't judge what you don't know.

Signy writes:

"Iraqi’s are not the ogre’s you apparently see of them..."

Weird assumptions. I suppose I'm just anti-Arab bigot? LOL!

Signy writes:

"If anything you should be able to admire our churches that dot the sky line with pride."

With this logic, we should have not invaded Italy to get rid of Mussolini (another fascist dictator).

Enjoy!

Mateo (aka Devil's Advocate) ;-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 10, 2003.

Let's try those links again!

Here's a number of random quotes off the Internet:

Quote 1:

"Iraq's Christians represent less than three percent of the estimated 22 million population, although the Iraqi government sets the figure at five percent."

Quote 2:

"Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%"

Quote 3:

"Christian or other 3%"

Quote 4:

"Religion: 45% Sunni Muslim, 50% Shi´ite Muslim, with Druze and Christian minorities."

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 10, 2003.

Alright, Anna and Atila, this should keep you busy for a while.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

I don’t wish to be needlessly pedantic but you’re really making some astounding leaps of logic when you interpret the good Cardinals words. I refuse to believe someone of your renowned intellect (please let me know if your were that El Cathero character) is being anything but disingenuous here and is merely playing games trying to hurt my poor over taxed brain! >The cardinal asked us to join with these countries (not the pope). We shouldn't confuse what these countries' intentions are: it's certainly not because they are anti-war. For a couple good examples, ask the Taiwanese and the Tibetans if the Chinese are pacifists. Ask the Chechens if the Russians are pacifist. Etc, etc. I kind of know what you’re doing and I aint got much time and Im not sure if I can explain what I think. Basically Mateo is taking the focus away from the specific moral issue at hand- a war in Iraq notice how above when he told us what the “Cardinal asked us to do” he missed out an important line” SAYING NO TO WAR IN IRAQ. He focuses on red herrings and twists the intentions of a very holy and learned man by very cleverly talking about: 1. The status of God in Germany/France/Russia/China 2. The intentions behind their No war stance

These issues are not what the Cardinal was focusing on at all. The countries could be Swaziland and Timbuktu for all anyone cares its not the point and Mateo knows this. The focus must not be dreaming up INTENTIONS for siding with the Pope, just be happy that these countries have AND PRAY FOR OTHERS TO DO THZE SAME. Who knows perhaps it was the prayers of loyal Catholics albeit probably outside AMerica who helped the leaders of these countries come to this decision!

The truth is Mat doesn’t know the real intentions behind these countries decisions, and do spend time debating such issues is as worthless as trying to discuss the REAL INTENTIONS AND MOTIVES OF THE PRO WAR, ANTI CATHOLIC STANCE.

This war is not a just war, whatever wrongs other countries may have committed in the past is irrelevant as is asking people to pray for more Catholic conversions in European countries to stop moral decay. I think there’s quite enough moral decay in your own country to worry about.

Stopping America attack Iraq without just cause and saving innocent lives is the goal. The Pope has said you do not have enough cause to go to war with Iraq, I feel that the Cardinals words are merely supporting the Popes decision.

Anyways Ive had enough sounding like a smelly hippy its not in my blood Ill leave the corner to the very capable Doctor Atila.

Hello Elpidio nice to hear from you also hey we are all limited by our environment . I don’t pretend to be any different, who knows where the truth lies eh, that’s the point- we should look to the Vatican when orthodox Catholics disagree so strongly on a moral issue! I hope you return to the Church soon my friend.

God Bless Mateo youre a little legend really and Im just a hot air troll as you know . Hope the married life is all its cracked up to be, Blessings to your wife. (I await a cynical humorous comment from Frank on marriage!)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

Howdy Kiwi!

Kiwi writes:

"I don’t wish to be needlessly pedantic but you’re really making some astounding leaps of logic when you interpret the good Cardinals words. He [Mateo el Feo] focuses on red herrings and twists the intentions of a very holy and learned man by very cleverly talking about: 1. The status of God in Germany/France/Russia/China 2. The intentions behind their No war stance."

I think we both know what he wanted to say. I just think that he chose an unfortunate way of saying it. :-)

I mention them because they prove my point: these countries are merely the "enemies of our enemies." I have no doubt that Cuba and North Korea stand with the anti-war side, but I wouldn't call on people to stand with them by name.

Kiwi: "The focus must not be dreaming up INTENTIONS for siding with the Pope, just be happy that these countries have AND PRAY FOR OTHERS TO DO THZE SAME."

I think of the US's support (in the 1980s) of Afghani rebels (including Arabs like bin Laden) when we were at war with the Soviet Union. We ignored the intentions of "allies" like bin Laden during the Cold War, and look where it got us. IMHO, we should consider intentions so we aren't caught off guard in the future. Ignorance is bliss...temporarily.

------------------

The Red Herring

For more information on the four countries we're supposed to "join" with, here's some recent news items:

From A recent meeting with the German Foreign Minister (Also see this page)

"Aside from their discussion of Iraq, the Pope and Fischer also spoke of the European community, and the Pope expressed his disquiet at the fact that the fundamental statutes of the European Union do not take into account the role of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in the history and culture of the continent."

From a recent article from Hong Kong

"Under the law being pushed by the Communist government in Beijing, people in Hong Kong found guilty of acts of treason, sedition, secession from, or subversion against the mainland government could be imprisoned for life. Critics of the plan fear the law could be used against anyone critical of the local government or Beijing and to suppress the Catholic Church, especially if local Catholics have any connections with mainland underground Catholics."

The Communist Chinese have completely suppressed the Catholic Church in China--it is illegal to belong to the Catholic Church. How could this irrelevant? They are the atheistic answer to the Taliban!

Last, but not least, the Russians:

Catholics in Russia.

This is why I consider these four countries strange bedfellows with Catholics.

"This war is not a just war, whatever wrongs other countries may have committed in the past is irrelevant..."

Their "wrongs" aren't in the past, they are in the present.

Atila writes:

"Supreme Court ruled abortion in “Roe vs Wade.” Should we close the Supreme Court? The Congress has failed so far to block partial-birth abortion. Should we close the Congress?"

Fair enough, when considering the EU [Boy, I hate it when someone schools me!]. But, there is no comparison when discussing the prohibition of the Catholic Church in China. That's apples and oranges.

------------------

Kiwi: "REAL INTENTIONS AND MOTIVES OF THE PRO WAR, ANTI CATHOLIC STANCE. This war is not a just war..."

Well, the problem is that liberal (anti-Catholic) publications like the NCR criticize the Vatican for even listening to people like Michael Novak. I've read some of the statements of the Vatican, and they aren't nearly as black-and-white as some might suggest. It's not anti-Catholic to consider Novak's point of view, yet some radicals want us all to believe that. It's a dialog.

Few people are truly pro-war. Most of the discussion is, "How much deception from the Iraqi government is too much deception?" This is the question that the world community is asking. Considering military action in Iraq is not an "anti-Catholic" stance.

From a recent CNN article:

"German Defence Minister Peter Struck said the initiative built on a French proposal to double or triple the number of weapons inspectors unveiled earlier this month at the Security Council."

Conclusions from this statement:

1) The Germans and the French (no doubt, most of the world) agree with the USA. The current inspections are a joke.

2) The Germans and the French (no doubt, most of the world) agree with the USA. Saddam Hussein is a real threat to the world. He is a megalomaniac.

I'm going to say something again: the US has not invaded Iraq. It cannot be blamed for something that it has not done. If you agree with the Germans and French that the weapons inspectors have been ineffective up to this point, imagine how effective this process would be if there weren't military support to back them up. They wouldn't even be in the country.

-------------------

OK, time to go to work. God bless you, Kiwi! Keep me in your prayers.

Funny quote for the day:

"It is not a lie when you are ordered to lie."– a senior Iraqi biological weapons official

Mateo el Feo (I'm earning my name, one post at a time) :-)

PS--Marriage is wonderful. My wife is the greatest!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 11, 2003.

Don’t worry, Mateo, we love you too! :-)

Well, I will not enter the discussion of comparisons between countries. For me, most western countries (not to mention non- western) stink. I would point to Chile and Malta as exceptions, but I can see few more examples. But I understand the Cardinal the same way as Kiwi, and I saw nothing wrong with that. Certainly, the Cardinal is not saying that those countries are moral role models; he is saying that they joined the pope against this immoral war and that he hopes other countries will do the same. What’s wrong with that?

As for these countries being “strange bedfellows”, you should remember, as I mentioned above, that the pope joined with Muslim countries, even fundamentalist ones, in the war at the UN against abortion, against US and other western countries! It seems that the pope disagrees with you. He thinks that an alliance with any country that is willing to join the Vatican against some moral evil is good, notwithstanding disagreements in other issues. This is the case again with this war. Those Muslim countries are even more “strange bedfellows” than those the Cardinal cited, and nevertheless the Vatican articulated their support at the conferences at Cairo, Beijing and others. Is this to say that the pope supports Shariah Law and the persecution of Christians?

By the same token, the pope supports the UN and the EU, despite some very anti-catholic policies there. Let’s not confuse institutions with the people inside and their conjunctural policies. Is it not what we say to anti-catholics who come pointing their finger to pope Alexander VI?

That the US has not yet invaded Iraq is very good. The issue here is that catholics cannot dismiss lightly the papal interpretation of the just-war theory. If someone has a serious case for this war, he should try to convince the Vatican, as Novak is doing. If he succeeds, “good for him” as Martino said. But if he doesn’t, I think this is Roma locuta, causa finita”.

The interpretation of the just-war theory falls inside the teaching authority of the pope in faith and morals. So, what he teaches about it falls inside Ordinary Magisterium and demands our “faithful assent”. What startles me is that some catholics think they can lightly dismiss papal teaching saying, “this is his opinion, it’s not infallible”. The pope does not give his “opinion” lightly. The “not infallible” argument if way too frequently heard coming out of liberal, SSPX´s and other dissenter’s mouths.

As for John Allen, I still think you should read some of his columns before slamming him.

The comparison with subscribing Playboy is off the mark, I’m afraid. Apples and Oranges.

US should be helping the work of inspectors, not sabotaging it, as Hans Blix denounced. For me it is very clear that Bush wants to discredit the inspectors so that he can go on waging his precious war. If inspectors are ineffective, much of the blame goes to US proper. If the US has evidence that Iraq has those deadly weapons, just give the inspectors the GPS coordinates and make them go there! Why not?!

Interesting that some people can quote the CCC at the same time that they discard the pope’s interpretation of the same text. The unnamed person @ thinks he/she can interpret the CCC better than the pope, who published it! Amazing!

Emerald, I’ll look at your site as soon as I am able. Thanks!

Kiwi, thank for the compliment!

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I will not have time in the next days to post much here.

God Bless you all!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 11, 2003.

I just wonder why Dubya tells the American families to make reserves for 3 days when he knows the war will be over in a week or so and it will definitely free us from the danger of terrorism. Maybe he's not so sure, after all..? Charly

-- (charly7moe@aol.com), February 11, 2003.

I pray for peace daily. But "peace" between human beings and their governments is a fragile thing. To have it requires not just freedom of religion, but also a sizable number of civil leaders living virtuous and moral lives...

If however these human beings are ambitious and proud and stubborn atheists, people will suffer soon rather than later... just look at Russian, China, Germany, and France: all nations that have had dictatorships and state regimes antagonistic to Christianity and Catholicism in particular....

They don't see war as a terrible thing in its own right, but something bad from an economic/political dimension if it reduces their influence in the world....thus a war with Iraq is bad precisely because its outcome would lead to more US involvement and control over the situation in the Middle East...and for them "that's bad".

In their eyes, about the only thing we could do for "peace" is follow Buchanan's advice (which I loathe) of just pulling out of the world unilaterally, letting China rule Asia and Europe rule everywhere else... I suppose that would make plenty of those regimes very happy...and very powerful - dangerously so.

It would also condemn billions of people to lives of slavery and permanent low to high grade persecution. Catholics in Iraq as elsewhere can not hope for liberation because they are wholly at the mercy of the majority of people there... they MUST be "pro-status quo" or risk annihilation.

So it's absolutely no wonder that the Pope and cardinals are wary of war... for them it's by no means self-evident that an American victory will be permanent or successful. The Church plans for centuries, communist and socialists plan for decades, and the US has always reacted to threats on 4 year spreads...

In the end though, one group or the other will lead the world.

So who do you choose to control the initiative of world events? A conglomeration of dictatorships and atheistic socialist states or a Federal Republic based on Christian (especially Catholic) humanistic principles?

There has always been a "world's policeman". It's our pick whether this policeman will act like a mafia lord or as a benevolent guardian. If we all bark for the US to "stand down", then things will continue as they are, the economy will continue to sputter, the democrats (who are really SOCIALISTS) will stand a chance to win in '04, and then the twilight of history will decend on us: every major power will be anti-semetic, and anti-Catholic, and the world economic crash will only increase the power of the state which will only continue to promote hedonism and individualism (thus dividing peoples so as to better conquer them).

But if the US wins in Iraq, and democracy flowers... all this changes and the path of freedom will open new vistas to countless souls and hope for a new spring time of evangelization too.

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 11, 2003.

You got it, Joe! The Pope plans with communists!! A medal for you! Charly

-- (charly7moe@aol.com), February 11, 2003.

Joe, the pope and the Cardinals are not just "wary of war”.

They are saying that THIS WAR IS IMMORAL, because it DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS FOR A JUST WAR!

The pope is the responsible for interpreting the just-war doctrine, not Bush!

I’ll quote Chris Butler here again:

“The Holy See has no oil interest in Iraq, no Persian Gulf War parade that it needed to do in order to make up for Vietnam, no skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that leads to a misunderstanding of how the Arab world regards us, no politically neo- conservative wing of supporters to answer to, no campaign contributions to raise in 2004, no father who is perhaps most famous for allegedly not continuing with an invasion of Iraq to the end, etc. The Holy See's interest is in saving the most lives of everyone involved, and doing so morally. That is why the Holy See supported our actions after September 11, and opposes an invasion of Iraq now.”

Didn’t you read Chris quoting Pope Pius XII on the other thread? Here’s it:

Ad Apostolorum Principis His Holiness Pope Pius XII Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China June 29, 1958 "30. Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions--such as those which concern social and economic matters-- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See. "31. This opinion--it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence--is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy: "32. 'The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so- called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power. "33. 'By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end.'[9] "34. This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: 'All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad--that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law--fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church.'[10] "35. Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation." I can see, from this text, no way in which a catholic can support this war, in clear opposition to the pope.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 11, 2003.

No, the Pope is not "wrong". But he is not as informed about the details of Iraqi weapons as Bush is. And the whole argument about this not being a "just" war hinges on information, Atila.

The Church and Europe in general in virtue of not having access to the kinds of information we can presume the US has, can only make judgements based on what is "public" knowledge: and so far, there is no "glaring" threat.

Still, Atila, if you actually READ the Pope's words and the cardinal's words, you see that they are cautioning the US to provide more evidence - and then if an invasion is warranted, caution the US to tread lightly...as though the US was just going to carpet bomb them or something...

But again, the Pope and Church has not and will not provide an alternative plan. They propose principles and let lay people work out the details as to how to apply such principles in real life.

No one on this site nor in the media to my knowledge has offered any detailed and concrete alternative to an American led invasion to remove Saddam from power and dismantle his entire offensive weapons military-industrial complex.

So while you keep yelling "No!" I suggest you let us know what we can say "Yes" to.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 11, 2003.

Joe, it is not correct that the Church is proposing nothing. Archbishop Renato Martino has proposed many things publicly. It is not unbelievable that Church officials are working with other countries´ intelligence offices to propose an alternate plan.

Any way, what the Vatican is saying is that the inspectors´ work should go on and has everything to be effective provided that nobody sabotages it. Indeed, the chief inspector has accused the US of such sabotage, as you can read elsewhere in this thread. The pope sent yesterday a representative to Baghdad to try to convince Saddam to step down or at least not sabotage the inspectors´ work (Saddam is scared, of course, and has agreed yesterday to let NATO spy-planes fly over Iraq airspace). So, it is unjust to say that the Vatican “proposes nothing” and “does nothing”.

The papacy has the most brilliant peacemaking record in the world, especially after WWII. Indeed, a little known episode is that Pope John XXIII was instrumental in stopping possible nuclear war in the ´62 Cuban Missile Crisis (the story is told in a recent issue of Inside The Vatican magazine). The Church opinion about war is not something to be lightly dismissed, even by non-catholics.

Believe me, the Vatican DOES KNOW what they are doing. They are not naïve or unexperienced in war matters. They understand War and Diplomacy like nobody else in the world, much more than Bush. In fact, Diplomacy is a Vatican invention. A little knowledge of Church History by war-supporters would be useful here. And the pope himself is no fool. He knows war. He has access to information that Bush doesn’t even imagine to exist. The Church’s presence around the world gives the pope information inaccessible to the CIA, including in Iraq, where the Church is present and the CIA is not.

They are clearly saying that the “evidence” presented so far by Bush is unconvincing. The Vatican is not irresponsible, if they are saying that there are other ways, I believe them! If for nothing else, because of what Chris has said:

“The Holy See has no oil interest in Iraq, no Persian Gulf War parade that it needed to do in order to make up for Vietnam, no skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that leads to a misunderstanding of how the Arab world regards us, no politically neo- conservative wing of supporters to answer to, no campaign contributions to raise in 2004, no father who is perhaps most famous for allegedly not continuing with an invasion of Iraq to the end, etc. The Holy See's interest is in saving the most lives of everyone involved, and doing so morally. That is why the Holy See supported our actions after September 11, and opposes an invasion of Iraq now.”

You said:

“No one on this site nor in the media to my knowledge has offered any detailed and concrete alternative to an American led invasion to remove Saddam from power and dismantle his entire offensive weapons military-industrial complex. “

Bush has not been able so far to convince the pope and the world that this complex even exists. Hans Blix (chief inspector) has several times declared that they found nothing of this sort. He has also said that, if Bush DOES HAVE proof that it exists, than Bush should say where it is. Now, there are only two alternatives: Bush HAS hard- evidence that this exists; then, he should show this evidence, give inspectors the GPS coordinates and let the inspectors go there. Or Bush DOES NOT HAVE such evidence. Then, a war would be waged based on Bush’s “opinion” that such complex exists. Hardly something warranting a moral war.

James (?) Nicholson, the US ambassador to th Holy See, is a catholic and has a good, trusting relatonship with the Vatican. I am convinced that, if Bush really had such hard-evidence (which I believe he doesn´t), there is no motive that this evidence shoud be withheld from the Vatican. This is the way diplomacy works, not by public information. It is naive to think that all the information the pope has access to is that printed on newspapers.

You wrote:

“So while you keep yelling "No!" I suggest you let us know what we can say "Yes" to.”

I gave some suggestions above. Anyway, it’s not ME who is yelling, is THE CHURCH! I’m only repeating here what the Church is “yelling” everywhere!

“The Church and Europe in general in virtue of not having access to the kinds of information we can presume the US has, can only make judgements based on what is "public" knowledge: and so far, there is no "glaring" threat. “

Do you think the Vatican is foolish, irresponsible and naïve enough not to know this? That they are diplomacy-illiterate? As I said, in Diplomacy, the Church teaches, the rest of the world learns. If they are putting their authority at stake by opposing this war, you can be certain that they have all the relevant information to take such a position.

I am not saying that things will not evolve to a point that the war is warranted. But the Vatican is making clear crystal that this situation has not arrived yet.

God Bless and let’s pray for peace.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 11, 2003.

Here´s an interesting article by Paul Krugman on NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/opinion/11KRUG.html

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 11, 2003.

Hey Mateo Ive got a bit carried away rambling so please forgive my excesses!

>“Ignorance is bliss...temporarily.” Ha very good! LOL

>“For more information on the four countries we're supposed to "join" with, here's some recent news items…” I guess we just see his words differently, I think you are placing the wrong emphasis on the word “join”. But ok Ill wave the white flag on this one, Ive said all I can say on your interpretation here and I think Atila did a better job explaining what I was getting at, thank you Atila !

As for your links as interesting as they again all I can say is that IMHO they’re not all that relevant to the issue at hand, though I feel you could sell condoms to the Vatican if your put mind to it. Very persuasive and clever but IMHO wrong! A more energetic person than I would take the time to find a few stats on life in America. It could make interesting reading, for starters Id be interested in anyone who could provide figure on...

The divorce rate. The murder rate. The Crime rate. Abortion rates. Racism and religious discrimination surveys. The quantity of arms and money supplied to evil dictators over the last 30 years. Corruption rates. Honesty surveys. Access and availability of pornography. The production and worldwide distribution of anti-Catholic/Christian literature, films, music and television. The production and exportation of other immoral and spiritually dangerous goods and services. Common usage of profane language. The rate of obesity. Oil consumption per capita. CO2 emission. Drug use. Alcoholism. Numbers of weapons of mass destruction. The list is virtually endless. My guess is that America would come close to topping most of these stats in the OECD. Hardly the platform to launch a moral examination of other nations I would have thought?

A cheeky question would be who has unleashed the greatest weapon of mass destryction ever, and on a civilian population, when the enemy they were fighting was all but defeated?I know its a low blow and an unfair one but I cant help but stoke the fire of indignation!

Lets not begin to discuss the losers in globalisation and world trade, the loss of native cultures, independent diverse co operative caring societies for the selfishness/shallowness/blandes and greed that is American corporate consumerism and individualism.

Personally I think the forced link through abortion; between Catholics and Republicans in your country is a tragedy. Simply most conservative political polices around the world do not sit comfortably with Christian virtues and ideals. For a country with such a large population of Christians Im surprised a “Christian Democratic Party” doesn’t exist in between the liberal and conservative extremes. I’m showing my own ignorance and naivety here!

I think personally America sold its soul for cash along long, long, time ago. Indeed Im quite sure a very good argument could be made for America causing more damage to the morality of the people of this world than any other at any time (one I don’t agree with actually!). For all my cheap shots Im not anti American at all, and I am grateful for everything America has done before and continues to do today to protect democracy. I just disagree with a unilateral war and the arrogant attitude and language I perceive coming from your current administration ON THIS ISSUE.

America will not be top dog forever, history tells us its unlikely, she is not the world’s first superpower nor will she be the last- a bit of humility and respect for other nations would not hurt if only for that great American virtue, self intrest ;-).

God Bless and youve just reminded me to say a few prayers tonight I havent said any in a while.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Nay Kiwi, you´re just a brainwashed anti-American! ;-)

Kiwi wrote:

“Personally I think the forced link through abortion; between Catholics and Republicans in your country is a tragedy. Simply most conservative political polices around the world do not sit comfortably with Christian virtues and ideals. For a country with such a large population of Christians Im surprised a “Christian Democratic Party” doesn’t exist in between the liberal and conservative extremes. I’m showing my own ignorance and naivety here! “

It´s exactly what I am arguing here for years, but all I get is “You radical liberal brainwashed anti-American stooge!” Exception made to Chris Butler, as always.

God bless you all!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

A Political Science comment:

The difficulty in having a Christina Democratic Party in US is mainly due, in my opinion, to the districtal voting system, which makes bipartisanism almost a necessity. The same goes in UK.

It’s a tragedy that once upon a time somebody devised a voting system that in time would prove being bad in many ways.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

What is weird here is that many catholics make the logical jump (non- sequitur) that, because the Republican Party opposes abortion, then in follows that everything else they propose is good and Christian.

Simply put, this is not the case, as you brilliantly exposed.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

By the same logic, US catholics might as well support Fundamentalist Muslim Parties who propose Sharia Law. After all, Sharia Law forbids abortion, birth control, pornography and homosexuality.

This is just an extreme example that, because the Republican Party supports some good things, it doesn’t follow that all they propose is good.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

Kiwi writes:

"Personally I think the forced link through abortion; between Catholics and Republicans in your country is a tragedy."

Or, on the other side, the forced link through workers' right, between Catholics and Democrats in the USA is a tragedy.

There are some micro-parties (like the Constitutional Party) that better reflect Catholic views, but they have little support from the public or the media.

It's a tragedy that neither party represents the Catholic Church's teachings.

Regarding America's dirty laundry, I am aware of it. Americans are their own worst critics. But each of these issues deserves its own discussion.

Kiwi writes:

"I think personally America sold its soul for cash along long, long, time ago."

Ironically, the French and Russians (the most vocal anti-war countries) have major $$$ oil deals with the Iraqi government.

Atila, I have a question for you: are the Christian Democrats support Christian moral positions (anti-abortion, etc)?

Atila writes:

"What is weird here is that many catholics make the logical jump (non- sequitur) that, because the Republican Party opposes abortion, then in follows that everything else they propose is good and Christian."

This is just your imagination. You're judging the hearts of others based on your own biases. That's not nice.

All my best,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

A cheeky question would be who has unleashed the greatest weapon of mass destryction ever, and on a civilian population, when the enemy they were fighting was all but defeated?I know its a low blow and an unfair one but I cant help but stoke the fire of indignation!

The Australians did. I wouldn't say someone is "all but defeated" until they really ARE defeated. Look at Iwo Jima and the losses the Japanese took there (AFTER 70 days of naval and air bombardment) before they finally lost control of that island. I don't think many of the Marines fighting there would relish doing the same thing at Tokyo and the rest of Japan. (Though I'm sure they'd do so if asked)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 12, 2003.

I wholeheartedly agree that American will not be "top dog" forever...but right now, who would you wish to see take our place?

The "People's Republic" of China? A largely anti-Catholic Europe? A Muslim Middle East? Who? If you think Americans have a monopoly on sin...you haven't been to Europe (or Latin America) lately.

Yes, Americans are as guilty as everyone else of personal sins. Guilty as charged. But national "moral authority" doesn't depend on being squeeky clean but on being right. As a government we just happen to be right about quite a lot of things - as the Pope has repeatedly reminded us.

We spend more money on humanitarian relief to Africa and Asia than everyone else. We also have always been the ones who shore up the UN peacekeeping missions when no one else wants to or can help... We have long been the greatest supplier of food to North Korea - the same regime that hates us! Before that, we fed the Soviet Union.

So we're both a city on a hill and a cesspool. But what would you have us do? Pull out of the world?

A sinner can still see what's right and ask that others do it... every parent experiences this.

Yes, the Germans and French now ask for 5000 "inspectors" and UN soldiers to "occupy" Iraq - without disarming the Iraqi military first... where else have we seen such an idea? hmmmmm. Bosnia.

And when the Serbs continued to shell Sarajevo? The Blue helmets just sat there and "protested". Then those evil Americans flew in, bombed serbia for 2 days and the 3 year long war was over.... and then American troops (oops, sorry, NATO troops) moved in and the war really ended....

More inspectors should not be needed: their job is not to be "detectives" or "policemen" but to verify that Iraq is dismantling the weapons they admitted they had in 1998... But what can they do when the regime now claims to have already done so - but refuses to show any proof of said destruction?

Does anyone really think a country help captive by a tyrant and terrified by its secret police is going to help UN inspectors find hidden arms labs?

Every argument against "war" is based on the PRESUMPTION THAT SADDAM CAN BE REASONED WITH AND NEGOTIATED WITH. I ask: where's the basis for making such a presumption?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

Every argument against war is not based on the presumption that Saddam can be reasoned with.

Here's one that requires no coercion of him whatsoever: he can be contained indefinitely, just as he has been for 12 years, or until such time as he can be linked positvely to Bin laden.

To have been asked by an "intellectual stripling" (to quote Mailer) to become very suddenly afraid of Iraq and to support the unprecedented and, some would say, immoral American policy of preemptive aggression is more frightening to many than the implied threats of the Iraqi despot.

It is frightening because in the absence of open, honest national debate on this issue we get a stage-managed one, wherein all official argument is pre- shaped to lead to forgone conclusions. Many Americans are not infants. They wish to be dealt the facts. Lacking them, these Americans grow understandably suspicious of Bush's motives. His acknowledged personal deficiences and bellicosity toward anyone who did not ever lend him money do little to abate this suspicion.

Perhaps there is a real threat in Saddam, and perhaps we should crush him.

Larry

-- Larry (themick27@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Mateo wrote:

“It's a tragedy that neither party represents the Catholic Church's teachings.”

Yeah, now we are speaking the same language! :-)

Then:

“Atila, I have a question for you: are the Christian Democrats support Christian moral positions (anti-abortion, etc)? “

Well, many countries have parties with this name. So, it depends on the country. In some countries, yes, they are aligned with the Church, but I think this is more common in small Countries. In others, the “Christian” somehow stops at the Party’s name.

Generally, I think the parties who carry that name tend to be more supportive of Church teaching in Life issues than others, but frequently they have become much more conservative politically/economically than Church Social Doctrine warrants, just like the Republican Party of America. Some of them (like in Germany and Italy) have been bogged in corruption.

I think their conservative stance in economic/political matters (against Church Social Teaching) is historically due to the fact that the Church fostered these parties after WWII to be strong opponents to Communist Parties, which were very strong after the war (especially in Italy). So, they congregated all kinds of anti- communists, from the good ones (Catholics) to the bad guys (who opposed communism for the wrong reasons – big corporation representatives with utter despise for worker’s and poor rights or just plain corrupts, for example).

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, with communism no long being the primary danger to the Church and humanity, the Pope was free to concentrate on the criticism of western liberal capitalism. It’s a matter of stress, as you well know, because the Church’s Social Doctrine of course comes directly from the Gospel, and has been more directly articulated and developed beginning with Leo XIII´s Rerum Novarum.

Unfortunately, it seems Christian Democratic Parties have become, this far, more “conservative” that “Christian”. I am not sure, but I think Italy’s CDP even supported the Divorce Law.

Indeed, what is needed today, in US, Europe and elsewhere (Latin America too), are new CDPs, real ones (whatever their new names might be), supporting ALL Catholic doctrine. These would be “centrist” parties in European / Latin America political landscape (akin to current Social-Democratic Parties, but supporting Church teaching on Life and Family issues), and somewhat center-left in the US. I’m afraid present CDPs are not much to be trusted. They have become too right–wing as far as Church’s Social Doctrine is concerned, and are slowly abandoning Church’s teaching in things like divorce, birth control etc. Indeed, they are turning into something very similar to US Republican Party (where even the anti-Abortion stance is at stake, since great leaders such as Giuliani are “pro-choice”).

Then:

“This is just your imagination. You're judging the hearts of others based on your own biases. That's not nice”.

Well, maybe. I’d be glad to be wrong. However, I do not think it is my imagination, as some people here explicitly stated their unconstrained and unqualified support for the Republican Party. The fact that many here support the war on Iraq against the Pope’s express condemnation thereof is a key clue in this regard.

God Bless! :-)

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

Larry, you made very good points.

Joe, the problem is that, although your arguments are defensible, you should remember that those very arguments (and many others, some even more impressive) have surely been presented to the Pope, but they were not sufficient to convince him.

As I have already said, the Pope in no naïve pacifist. He is the wiser, holier, more experienced, best informed and with the most right intentions of all world leaders involved in the case. And this is only the secular view (that is, even a well-meaning atheist can see the Pope like this). If you add to that our faith that he has the assistance of the Holy Ghost, then we can see that nobody in the world is in position to know better than him in this situation.

The Vatican is very very better informed than you and me. The Vatican has the most competent diplomatic corps in the world. The Vatican has access to information that Bush does not have. They have heard arguments just like yours, and many others. And their conclusions are different than yours.

I do not want to be aggressive to you, but I think you should carefully consider what Kiwi said to Jake:

“>Because, in my opinion, he is wrong on this issue.

The Pope and virtually every Bishop on the planet is wrong! Jake and the Republican party of America is right! How did you come to your conclusion I wonder oh great one? Where did your incredible insight come from?...through your greater life experience than our Holy Father?.... perhaps through your greater intellect?.... perhaps being in a better position to be informed of all the issues involved? Perhaps your greater prayer life? “

I think it is arrogant for us to think we are better informed or that we have greater concern for humanity than the Pope.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 12, 2003.

Hi Mateo

>Or, on the other side, the forced link through workers' right, between Catholics and Democrats in the USA is a tragedy.

I dont find "workers rights" a tragedy at all, but perhaps thats not what you meant?

>It's a tragedy that neither party represents the Catholic Church's teachings.

Couldnt agree more. To me though Jesus would be leaning left of centre .... Catholic socialism is the way to go! But thats another argument!The Satanic Bible and Satanism based in part on the writings of Ayn Rand being no coincidence ;-)

>Ironically, the French and Russians (the most vocal anti-war countries) have major $$$ oil deals with the Iraqi government.

Mateo they will probably fall back into line behing the US, Germany being the only country to really go out on a limb. I couldnt help but admire the honesty of their Foriegn Minister telling Rumsfield how he felt. Of course personal oil intrests and links in the Middle East amongst the Bush administration are well documented.

Hi Joe >The "People's Republic" of China? A largely anti-Catholic Europe? A Muslim Middle East? Who? If you think Americans have a monopoly on sin...you haven't been to Europe (or Latin America) lately.

No where have I said you have a monoploy on sin, and Im glad that if there is to be a superpower it is you guys! Oh yes I lived over 6 years in South East Asia including Muslim countries and the UK for two years 1999-2000.

> But national "moral authority" doesn't depend on being squeeky clean but on being right.

Good point, but Mateo was implying some sort of American personal moral superiority when clearly there is not...

" Pray that they (Germany, France Russia and China) might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their societies."

Is was this statement I was replying to.

>As a government we just happen to be right about quite a lot of things - as the Pope has repeatedly reminded us.

I agree!But on this specific issue you are WRONG, the Pope and the worlds Bishops have repeatledly reminded you of this, though some American Catholics dont seem to be listening.

>We spend more money on humanitarian relief to Africa and Asia than everyone else. We also have always been the ones who shore up the UN peacekeeping missions when no one else wants to or can help... We have long been the greatest supplier of food to North Korea - the same regime that hates us! Before that, we fed the Soviet Union.

Yes, you more than pull you weight even if the motivations are rarely as humanitarian as they may seem. Still thats what foreign policy of every nation is all about, self intrest but I say THANK YOU AMerica.

>So we're both a city on a hill and a cesspool. But what would you have us do? Pull out of the world?

No way Joe but surely you can see that no country, not even America should be allowed to decide on a course of action, set in concrete in regard to Iraq,out of the ashes of 9/11 and proceed to demand that the rest of the world follow this plan blindly . The rest of the world merely wants some hard evidence, America cannot or will not provide any. Its not up Saddam to prove his innocence, he has provided his end of the bargin, he has given all the paperwork, whats missing is proof of your allegations. Powell didnt convince the Pope and he didnt convince me. Prove your case and everything else falls into line. I think Europe will capitulate under immense US pressure anway :(.... >Every argument against "war" is based on the PRESUMPTION THAT SADDAM CAN BE REASONED WITH AND NEGOTIATED WITH. I ask: where's the basis for making such a presumption?

I dont think that assumption holds true. I wouldnt trust Saddam one inch, but I think there are other options re inspections that dont need to be based on Saddams honesty or reasonablness. With more time and more inspectors and with the threat of force for obstruction I belive there are other options.

Hmm idealism vs cynicism... who is right,who is wrong? I personally dont know but as Catholics we must have faith and side with our Church.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003.

Hi Kiwi

You writes: "I dont find "workers rights" a tragedy at all, but perhaps thats not what you meant?"

The tragedy is that if a person (let's say a union worker) supports the Democratic party, they're also supporting abortion, publically financed contraception, etc, etc.

Kiwi writes: "Good point, but Mateo was implying some sort of American personal moral superiority when clearly there is not..."

Quoting me: "Pray that they (Germany, France Russia and China) might one day reject abortion and other immorality (pornography, prostitution, religious persecution, etc) in their societies."

Just FYI, I was implying that these four countries' cultures are mired in atheism and immorality. This is not to say that the US is perfect. In fact, I pray constantly for my country to embrace Christian ideals.

I was simply trying to use parallel phrasing to contrast the Cardinal Williams's statement to pray that others join with these four countries. All of us need to pray for the strength to reject vice and embrace virtue; but, if I had phrased my statement in this way, I wouldn't have had my parallel to the first statement.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

Thanks Mateo I was wrong to use the word "personal" perhaps if I had used "cultural" instead it would be more vaild. Maybe not, either way its not all that big a deal, all Western democracies are in pretty bad shape on the moral front!

Blessings :-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003.

Frank yeah they were nutters eh.Amazing footage in colour out on DVD on the Pacific battles, incredible the punishment they took. Actually many of the US marines involved in the pacific campaign were on R&R in NZ before they got their leave cut when they realised just how mad/brave the Japanese were and rushed into action.

A number of bridges in rural NZ were built by the engineers of the US marines during their stay here. Apparently they swept all the young NZ women right off their feet as well, or so my Grandmother tells me. Not so impressed with that :-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003.

the UK is decidedly anti-war and tomorrow there will be a peace march in london. Now Saddam is a real shit, and he treats his people like animals, but the reason that most UK people are anti-war (IMHO) has much more to do with distrust of the intent of the US and the UK's very own Mini-Me. now the Pope may well have examined the reason for the war ("war"?) and recognised that Bush is looking first and foremost for revenge (for 7/11): Mt 5:38 and 18:21 ring a bell? (as a buddy of Bob Jones, why has Bush not waited for 77 UN resolutions??) moreover, the Pope may well have focussed the world's current path towards Imperialism (remember the Romans). swatting a tyrant is, by normal everyday standards, never a bad thing; but when the current proposed action both flies in the face of the NT, and seems likely to lead us to a Global dictatorship (would anti-War marches be allowed if Bush had his way?), then i understand and support fully the Pope's position. as do the Ungodly Mish-Mash that constitutes the people of the UK. of course, ultimately His Holines has left this one to our individual consciences and our hearts should go out to all persons directly involves in this awful affair who must necessarily (as a matter of human nature) agree with the cause. if, in order to see this viewpoint, you need a quick lesson in scepticism, i suggest that you have a flick through Rv 12 et seq. of course, i am not suggesting that Bush is the AC, not least because i do not believe that the AC could have such a low IQ or lack of appreciation of world affairs (and that is no misunderestimation).

-- derek duval (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 14, 2003.

Bush has neither a low IQ nor does he have a messiah complex.

typically, Liberals accuse their enemies of being stupid. Thus Ronald Reagan was "stupid" and a "cowboy" back in the 1980's for refusing to bow to the supposedly wide-spread "Nuclear freeze" movement that swept across Europe. The peace marchers demanded that the US unilaterally disarm and pull out of Europe to give "moral example" to the Soviets. Instead, Reagan talked about SDI and forced the Russians to loose an arms-race they couldn't win...bankrupting the whole Marxist Empire and hastening its demise... thus Reagan helped fast- forward the peaceful liberation of Eastern Europe and Russia itself - AND NOT THE SO-CALLED "PEACE" MARCHERS.

G.W. is doing the same thing with respect to the Middle East. He's going to the root of the problem: evil leaders, terrorist thugs supported by state regimes. Once you dismantle those purse-strings you reduce terrorism to a mafia - something police can deal with.

But our so-called "sophisticated" Bush haters still don't have a concrete alternative plan for actually SOLVING any problem in the Middle East or elsewhere.

If you have a better idea - (thus proving your "intelligence") let's hear it. If not, I suggest you actually go to www.whitehouse.gov and learn something from the President.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 19, 2003.

Apologies to regular users of this site. I feel I will annoy some by responding to this toss at length, but I feel somewhat compelled to do so.

Cowboy says: “Bush has neither a low IQ nor does he have a messiah complex.”

Liberal says:

I never said he had a Messiah complex. In fact I expressly negated this. Trust you can read?

I stand by my comment about his IQ. If you disagree, please explain why his presidential debates were of the lowest calibre ever by some way (why, oh why, was Gore advised to go easy on him)? Why are his Presidential speeches so stale – sentences of no more than 5 words, all saying the same simple thing, no real message?

He became President because he is; a) a very, very rich man and so could afford it (what a democracy!), b) he is the son of an ex- President (who helped him dodge the draft, btw, so what moral authority has he to declare war?), and c) he is very disarming as he is a dimwit. All in all, he did not need any IQ to succeed, which is just as well. Cowboy says: “typically, Liberals accuse their enemies of being stupid.” Liberal says: Do they now. Sure, isn’t this what you are doing. And exactly what is the US Government and Press doing towards France, a sovereign nation with a right to an opinion that just happens not to accord with US Government/ Press opinion. I did not accuse the US Govt, not the US people (who didn’t really vote him in anyway), of being stupid, just the Sprig. Cowboy says: “Thus Ronald Reagan was "stupid" and a "cowboy" back in the 1980's…” Liberal says: You brought up Reagan, not me. But as you mention him, yes, if anything, Reagan was even more of a nitwit. Publicly forgetting speeches, making mistakes, etc. All the same hallmarks. That does not mean that he did not have a sharp team of advisors behind him as does the Sprig. I have not accused Rumsfield or Cheney of being stupid: rather, I would choose to describe them as “clever but hateful”. Cowboy continues: “…for refusing to bow to the supposedly wide-spread "Nuclear freeze" movement that swept across Europe. The peace marchers demanded that the US unilaterally disarm and pull out of Europe to give "moral example" to the Soviets. Instead, Reagan talked about SDI and forced the Russians to loose an arms-race they couldn't win...bankrupting the whole Marxist Empire and hastening its demise... thus Reagan helped fast- forward the peaceful liberation of Eastern Europe and Russia itself - AND NOT THE SO-CALLED "PEACE" MARCHERS.” Liberal says: It was the demented, extreme Left Wing, just as you represent the demented extreme right wing, that wanted unilateral disarmament. I certainly didn’t, nor did the majority of Liberal/ LeftWing/ Centrist/ Anything other than Extreme Left Wing Looney Lesbian etc etc… Sorry to disappoint you Cowboy. Cowboys says: “G.W. is doing the same thing with respect to the Middle East.” Liberal says: Engage the brain, Cowboy. The Sprig is standing against a country that is: - diplomatically isolated, largely friendless, small (certainly by US standards), poverty-stricken and virtually third world, sanctioned up to the teeth. Reagan on the other hand engaged in the Cold War against an empire as large as that of US/West that had visions of imposing its ideology on the rest of the world and the military hardware to give it a pretty damn good go. You are deluded if you think the two are the same. Cowboy says: “He's going to the root of the problem: evil leaders, terrorist thugs supported by state regimes. Once you dismantle those purse- strings you reduce terrorism to a mafia - something police can deal with.” Liberal says: It is quite conceivable that Bush is just opening a Pandora’s box. There are at least 3 ethnic groupings in Iraq, and the oil mainly lies in 2 separate parts of the country. Do you really think there is going to be a Post Invasion Party? Fat chance. There will be a scramble for power (as per Bosnia etc) and more and more bloodshed. Meanwhile in all the other Mid East countries attention will once again focus on the uneven treatment doled out by the US – why is Israel doing what it likes and why is it allowed to ignore the UN? The result will be even more murderous nutters targeting the US and its allies. It is very hard to stop a suicide bomber who, quite literally, will do anything. The UN will be in there for years to come. They will not, however, stop terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. Remember also that Bush will further have played into Bin L’s hands by over throwing the secular state that Bin L HATES so much, paving the way for more of that Fundamentalist Crap that he preaches. There is no connection between Bin L and Saddam. And Bin L is even more evil, if you can imagine that. Saddam is evil and will reap as he sows n the end. But this war is wrong. Cowboy says: “But our so-called "sophisticated" Bush haters still don't have a concrete alternative plan for actually SOLVING any problem in the Middle East or elsewhere.” Liberal says: 1 for reasons stated, do not attack Iraq. 2 Let him do as he is doing (sounds pathetic but lesser of 2 evils). He is going nowhere. More and more and more inspectors and flyovers. Food handouts to the people. 3 sort out Israel one and for all: put UN troops in place in disputed areas; stop supplying weapons; trade sanctions unless they lead by example. USe that to get Mid East countries to take responsibility. 4 US (and rest of civilised world, but hardly relevant) to stop sponsoring terrorism once and for all (Rumsfield/ Saddam – great picture, eh!) 5 US to start properly supporting the UN or get out (may favoured option as the US seems incapable of acting other than in its own best interests).

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duvall@virgin.net), February 19, 2003.

i am sorry, the previous post is a meandering mess. the important part of what i was trying to say follows -- if anyone is interested. its' just a viewpoint from the other side of the pond.

Bush is standing against a country that is: - diplomatically isolated, largely friendless, small (certainly by US standards), poverty-stricken and virtually third world, sanctioned up to the teeth. Reagan on the other hand engaged in the Cold War against an empire as large as that of US/West that had visions of imposing its ideology on the rest of the world and the military hardware to give it a pretty damn good go. You are deluded if you think the two are the same. Cowboy says: “He's going to the root of the problem: evil leaders, terrorist thugs supported by state regimes. Once you dismantle those purse- strings you reduce terrorism to a mafia - something police can deal with.” Liberal says: It is quite conceivable that Bush is just opening a Pandora’s box. There are at least 3 ethnic groupings in Iraq, and the oil mainly lies in 2 separate parts of the country. Do you really think there is going to be a Post Invasion Party? No chance. There will be more and more bloodshed. Meanwhile in all the other countries attention will once again focus on the uneven treatment doled out by the US – why is Israel doing what it likes and why is it allowed to ignore the UN? The result will be even more murderous nutters targeting the US and its allies. It is very hard to stop a suicide bomber who, quite literally, will do anything. The UN will be in there for years to come. They will not, however, stop terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. Remember also that Bush will further have played into Bin L’s hands by over throwing the secular state that Bin L HATES so much, paving the way for more of that Fundamentalist Crap that he preaches. There is no connection between Bin L and Saddam. And Bin L is even more evil, if you can imagine that. Saddam is evil and will reap as he sows in the end. But this war is wrong.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 19, 2003.

Long but good points Jr! In the world the US lost their "leader role" in democracy once for ever by the "democratic elections" blessed by the Supreme court. I'm a photographer, I use light tables for looking at negatives or slides. I couldn't believe it - day by day the TV was showing counting commities looking up against a bulb (!!) up on a ceiling to see the punched cards! And that when the time was pressing - nobody told them to use a light table for 25$ a piece or even a stupid table lampe aimed at them. They could count 10x more like that but no, they were taking the card one by one and again and again putting it up in the air, looking up, focusing and then the whole way back - 1 card every 1/2 a minute... None of those dudes had the thought to look down at the card in front of a light table instead of up to the ceiling... I tell you, even a last idiot from Siberia or Africa would understand that there must be a better way of counting votes manually! Speak about the most democratic society! No, absolutely no surprise about the IQ of the elected specimen!

-- Wayne (Waynehempton@free.com), February 19, 2003.

You proved my point so well...its amazing. Instead of giving us CONCRETE alternatives to war, you give us pie in the sky general ideas, and then drop all sorts of internet myths such as Gore going soft on Bush or Bush not winning the general election.

Newspapers and others recounted all the ballots again and again and not once would Gore have won. Not once...unless you throw in all the extra ballots...but if you did, you'd have to throw in not just those from Florida, but also from the other 49 states - and the result would have been the same: Bush won.

But you claim NO ONE VOTED FOR BUSH. Well, 49% of us did. That's enough.

As for Reagan being dumb... you've never read his speeches have you? How about his other, pre-Presidential addresses and radio spots? He was his own thinker - alot better than most. It's in black and white, available in most bookstores: "Reagan in his own words" - a book where you can see his actual handwritten rough drafts for speeches from the 1950's on. Typical Liberal: doesn't know history, doesn't read his opponent's literature, thinks slogans are good substitutes for ARGUMENTS.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 19, 2003.

Dear Cowboy,

i note that you chose to dwell on the "internet myths" [Reagan is a moron etc etc] because you haven't actually addressed my points.

On the one point that you make that amounts to anything, as far as you require "CONCRETE alternatives to war", your solution of just killing Sadaam and seeing what happens is the real "pie in the sky". Get real.

Cowboy, at the risk of repeating mysekf, i will do my best to simplify the analysis for you:-

a. after the destruction of Iraq what happens. the remaining Iraqi factions -- what do they do? Make Tea? Or kill each other and everyone else as per Bosnia?

b. the oil. who gets it? The Tooth Fairy. or will every mutha' and his dog be looking to get their greedy hands on it.

c. the other Mid East Countries. do they just idle away the time as they always do?

d. the Muslim Fundamentalist mad dogs (that want you dead just because you are a Christian). do they roll over and die, or does this extra humiliation heaped upon Islam just make the madder? even more of them will come after the Sprig.

e. Bin Laden - well, i needn't speculate because he will be pissing his pants. you will have destroyed his mortal enemy and further alienated Islam. you are doing his work for him, YOU SAD WANKER. Can't you see through the hatred/ignorance.

i despair, Cowboy, I really do.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 19, 2003.

Fyi, following a recent private meeting, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (RC) and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (Prod), have issued the following statement concerning Iraq:

War is always a deeply disturbing prospect; one that can never be contemplated without a sense of failure and regret that other means have not prevailed, and deep disquiet about all that may come in its train. We are very conscious of the huge burden of responsibility carried by those who must make the ultimate decision in these matters. They are daily in our thoughts and prayers, as are all those who would find themselves caught up directly or indirectly in a war. The events of recent days show that doubts still persist about the moral legitimacy, as well as the unpredictable humanitarian and political consequences, of a war with Iraq. We recognise that the moral alternative to military action cannot be inaction, passivity, appeasement or indifference. It is vital therefore that all sides in this crisis engage, through the United Nations - fully and urgently - in a process, including continued weapons inspections, that could and should render the trauma and tragedy of war unnecessary. We strongly urge the government of Iraq to demonstrate forthwith its unequivocal compliance with UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. The season of Lent is now approaching, a time when all Christian traditions encourage us to examine ourselves honestly, to acknowledge our shortcomings and to seek reconciliation with God. We must hope and pray that with God's guidance, an outcome which brings peace with justice to Iraq and the Middle East, may yet be found.

-- derel duval jnr (Derek.duval@virgin.net), February 20, 2003.

a) Does anyone think the "factions" right now want to break Iraq into 3 parts? Even they are not talking about that. The Kurds don't want to be land-locked.

b) Bosnia. Bosnia was not a civil war that broke out once the heavy handed Serbs departed. Bosnia was a case of heavy handed Serbs trying to kill their neighbors. You prove my point: today in Bosnia while US troops and other NATO troops patrol the boarders, there is no more murder and mayhem. DITTO will be the case in occupied Iraq.

c)The oil belongs to Iraq. Even if the French own the oil derricks. Right now the UN controls every drop of it, proceeds given to the Saddam Regime to buy food and medicines...not presidential palaces and imported SA-11 missile engines. There's NO REASON to doubt that the UN won't maintain management of the oil during the occupation, and use the proceeds from its sale to pay for the rebuilding and further consolidation of peace and justice in a new Iraqi government.

d)Do you REALLY think the surrounding muslim countries are even capable of messing with the boarders of Iraq with the US there? If so, you're crazy.

e)Pulling out and going home is not going to make the fundamentalist mad-dogs any less mad and any less doggedly anti-American. But liberating 22 million Iraqis from tyranny will certainly increase the number of pro-American Muslims, just as Afganistanis are now increasingly our friends or at least not as antagonistic and ignorant as they once were.

f) Right now terrorists have a handful of states who will support them. Once we're through with things, they won't have any country, any state regime backing them. Once that happens then the UN and interpol can handle the police work of rounding up the remaining thugs.

I think you underestimate Muslims if you think they are inveterate thugs - can't help themselves because they're poor, or angry. They - like almost everyone else except liberals can learn a lesson in economics and politics: wealth is not static, but created by human intervention, and freedom is the catalyst for all truly productive human economies.

-- Joe stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.

a) Of course this is going to happen. The whole point is that you learn from yr mistakes. This is a Pandora’s box. A civil war is an absolute certainty. b) see above. c)see above. d) See above.. e) War in Iraq will only further alienate Muslim sentiment. f) War in Iraq will only increase the support for terrorism. I also think that the Muslims are a rightly proud people, who will resent (even more than us Europeans) being treated like shit by US.

I am telling you now – you are opening Pandora’s Box. Think again. War on Iraq is simply not in the US’ best interests. War is a short term solution that will back-fire in the long term.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 20, 2003.

Derek,

Could you please refrain from the vulgarities?

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 20, 2003.

Thanks Derek for agreeing with me that "war is a solution".

As for what the long term solution is we already know: conversion to Christianity. But as that isn't even on anyone's mind these days, I guess we'll have to settle with a war of liberation, turning 21 million newly freed Iraqis into grateful, pro-US muslims... I distinctly recall the afganis dancing in the streets when the Taliban fled in disarray...so far no civil war has broken out in weapon laden Afganistan where AK-47s are sold for $50 on street corners...

Also, I do note your typical liberal urge to call me a cowboy and other snide pronouns. I'm obviously not "sophisticated" or "intelligent" like you am I? Y ciertamente no tengo la gran capacidad mental como Ud. y los suyos....porque no soy communista.

We won't even argue about graduate degrees or world experiences since what's the point? Liberals don't need to know history, or philosophy, or logic to be right. They just need to FEEL right. Since you feel that I am wrong, I MUST BE WRONG. But the cognative disonnance you feel when confronted with annoying arguments leads you to experience emotions of anger and frustration...and thus you HAVE to call me names to "put me in my place" and re-assert your moral superiority, right?

Now, if you have a better "short term solution" than war, let's hear it...but remember, two can play the "long term repercussion" game: every bad future event can be blamed on your appeasement and retreat policy just as easily as you'll try "post hoc ergo propter hoc" arguments re: an American occupation of Iraq.

Since you're far more sophisticated than I am, you of course know what the latin means.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.

Oh and another thing, I hate no one and IMHO am not ignorant of these issues. I pray for peace every day and would not will war on anyone.

But I see no concrete, viable alternative to war (especially given a compromised and ineffectual UN and "world community" scene)in order to secure a just and lasting peace. Derek, the status quo is not "peace". Christians are being ruthlessly killed around the globe and no one is defending them. Somehow no peace-nik is demanding respect for these people. Nor is any other government (besides the US) doing anything practical to stop such violence.

I don't see how we can make mad-dog fundamentalists "like us" by surrendering to them or "containing" them. After all, Christians didn't make the pagans "like them" by ceasing to preach the gospel - especially the counter cultural gospel of: no contraception, no abortion, no infanticide, no adultery, no promiscuity and immodest games or theater (the media of that time)... The pagans went to their graves hating Christians... or they converted and became Christians.

Our foreign policy should never be based on reacting to what others may think of us but instead must be based on what others need to think of instead - ie true human values such as freedom of religion, association, and speech - values denied huge swaths of human beings in those Muslim lands. You apparently think such values are not worth defending or fighting for. I do. I can defend my position. What defense is there for yours?

I believe in liberating slaves not standing back and smugly wishing captive peoples well - without lifting a finger to actually make them well! And if you haven't noticed lately, the US has fought more wars on behalf of Muslims than against them - and it wasn't our fault that they tried to invade Israel 5 times and lost 5 times...

From your posts one gets the impression that we should purposely LOSE a war or two just to mollify and please the hurt pride of the arab male! I say: "maybe this hurt pride is deserved! Maybe their humiliation should teach them a lesson! They lose wars...maybe they should learn not to pick fights....ala Osama bin (the loser) Laden."

Sheesh! Everyone knows that they started the problem: they invaded Christian lands first. They also provoked the Crusades - by killing unarmed Christian pilgrims. If you slap me, I shall turn the other cheek, but I can not morally stand by actionless if you slap my wife's face or my children's or some hapless neighbor.

This is why Derek, the Church has always frowned on duels but not always on defensive war. And if you think liberating Iraq is not one battle in a defensive war, you are still thinking in medieval terms militarily.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.

Joe

you are a man of extremes, contradictions, and extreme contradictions

1 you are presumably a Catholic, but you chose to ignore the view held in the Church that this escapade has no morality

2 you are in favour of a new round of crusades when you will eventually become a victim of them. the US is protestant. Pea Brain Bush has cavorted with Bob Jones and only backed off when he thought he was going to lose the Black vote. When they have finished off the Muslims and the Hundus etc then it will be the Papists. Is that what you want?

3 the historical experience of you own church is that crusades are fatally flawed. the 4th crusade only served to solidify the East- West divide in our Church.

4 as for the US and its furtherance of democracy, you still do not see the irony. Sprig does not actually have a lawful mandate. you owe a debt to Gore fo putting his country's credibility before his own desire to be President. your allies are all going against public opinion. in the UK, people are anti-war by 2:1. the US signed up to the UN but is picking the bits it wants to be bound by. the US supported South African Apartheid during the Cold War. you are no paragon of democracy, you just like to think you are.

5 you seem to regard Afghanistan as a success. let me remind you why it happened -- to get Bin Laden, who was in cahoots with the TAliban. Let me point out the outcome -- he is walking free and has evenb more support before because you legitimised him in the eyes of the Muslim world. success? freedom for the Afghanis is a wonderful by-product of a lust for revenge. i will keep saying this -- the US should know better, it should look for mature ways of dealing with the issues if faces.

as far as i can see, Cowboy, you are just as bed as the Muslim Mullahs that you purport to destroy. all mantra, violence, hatred -- no thought.

the world is a dangerous place and it will be a much better place when people like Bin L and Sadaam are behind bars for good. but going out and blowing up a load of Muslims is just not the way to do it. refer to my previous post for the approach that i think represents a mature solution. and the next time your government sends a free shipment of APache helicopters over to Israel, ask yourself why.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

In 1949, the Kuomintang (KMT), then government of China, failed in its war against the Communists. The exiled KMT escaped to the island of Formosa, now known as Taiwan, and declared itself the only legitimate governing body of China. The US recognized the KMT as China's only government for many years, but over time gradually shifted allegiances.

This is how we treat our friends. Had we backed Chang Ki Chek after WW2, there would be no Communist threat in China today. The USA has a remarkable record of winning wars and losing the peace. Well except for Korea, and Vietnam, and Gulf war. Wanna bet we'll blow this one too!.

-- Paul Revere (Gus@wakeup.com), February 21, 2003.

Once again Derek, you prove that you have not done your homework.

1)If you have read any public statement by the Vatican at any length or detail you would have seen that the cardinals are not saying that any form of military intervention is immoral on principle, but that they fear an immediate US invasion would not be "just". But the reasoning pivots on two axis: they don't feel the US has sufficiently proven its need for urgent armed action ("clear and present danger"), and they feel that the might of the US would directly lead to unacceptable loss of life (as if we were going to nuke them).

At the same time the Vatican recognized the US' right to self defense and has called for Iraq to be disarmed. It chooses to have this done by "the world community" i.e. the UN. But as we see, the UN does not have the troops and the "world community" was not attacked so does not have the motivation to actually disarm Iraq.

Thus the quandry: the Vatican agrees that the US has a right to defend itself, but the currently "approved" form of said defense (UN) has not hitherto resulted in any Iraqi weapon being dismantled much less the capacity to produce future ones destroyed.

2) I am in favor of preaching the Gospel - not crusades. But even if I were in favor of Crusades, your idea of them is hugely mistaken. Yes, the 4th crusade went arwy - and yes the Pope excommunicated the whole army (which invaded Constantinople rather than save Jerusalem). But crusades 1-3 were forms of self-defense of piligrims. Much more can be said about them. Do you want me to provide a bibliography?

3)You mention Bob Jones. You are a simpleton. Bush went there ONCE. BTW, so did BILL CLINTON, AND JIMMY CARTER... but Bush has met with Catholic bishops on a MONTHLY BASIS since being elected. He spoke at the John Paul II center in Washington in January 2001, and he has met the Pope twice. He is no anti-Papist. To think so you have to purposely be stupid - purposely NOT READ THE NEWS.

4)Derek, the United States of America is not, and NEVER HAS BEEN a "democracy". It was founded as and is today a Federated, Constitutional Republic. This means that the whim of fad and temporary public paranonia should not be the hand that controls the rudder of our "ship of state". Besides, for every "peace" nik in the US there are a dozen who support the war. The Pro-life rally in Washington is ROUTINUELY larger than every US "anti-war" rally. Besides, as Europe was not attacked, I fail to see the reason for Americans to respect their opinion. When was the last time "Europe" saved the day? Certainly not in the Balkans! Certainly not in Africa!

Finally, Derek, your continued use of personal insults not only against me but also the President ("sprig") shows you to be an intellectual light-weight. Your history and political science is way off (i.e. wrong) and your argument is full of holes.

I will pray for your enlightenment and conversion.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2003.

Hi Paul. Let's take a quick look at the score card shall we?

1773-1783 American Revolution: won war, won peace 1812-1814 War of 1812: started war, won war, won peace 1846-1848 Mexican-American war: won war, won peace (and the "west") 1860-1865 Civil War: won war, won peace 1892 - Spanish American war: won war, won peace 1917-1918 World War One: won war, peace wasn't our mandate. 1920 Fought red army lost. (was defeat of "League of nations" not US) 1941-1945 World War Two: won war, won peace created peaceloving Germany and Japan... 1950-1953 Korea: beat NKoreans, fought whole Chinese army to stalemate, saved S Korea. So far the peace is holding... 1948-1989 Cold War: definitely won that war and peace is still being built.

So far it looks like we only lost Vietnam - though truth be told it was the feckless, Democratic controlled Congress that let S Vietnam die.

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2003.

Cowboy, or shall i just call you Mullah Omar as you have the same instinctive hostility towards anyone that holds an disparate view. look back through the thread and you will se that the personal animosity is all your own doing. it is simply not my style.

a your Church is against this war and, try as you will, the semantics simply do not exonerate you.

b Paul Revere quotes but one additional example. the US is very bad at foreign policy. have you ever wondered why the nation that gave us space flight, the car, cures to may illnesses, elvis presley,etc etc -- in otherwords a nation gifted by a great many geniuses that have each worked their own miracles -- is generally disliked/ mistrusted throughout the world. i do not understand why, but you are very clumsy when it comes to your dealings with the "Old World" ie the REst of the World.

c your Pea Brain is treating the sovereign state of France (or Franceland as Sprig might call it), the nation that incidentally tipped the balance in the favour of the homies in the War of Independence, like an idiot. at the same time, you ar buying off Turkey and all those cheap little E European states. morality? i am sure the somewhere along the line Jesus had something to say about tithes and bribery.

d Sprig visited Bob Jones. Bob Jones thinks you, a CAtholic, are scum (and he thinks the Pope is the Anti-Christ). you support Sprig. that makes you a Judas in my liberal (for so you have christened me) book. again, you can semanticize all you want.

e your allies in the Mid East, esp Saudi Arabia, are far more anto- Christian than Iraq. of course you know this. but you support them anyway.

f finally, Cowboy/ Mullah Omar/ Judas: why are you always selective in the points to which you respond (eg i take it you agree that the US lost in Afghan, supported Apartheid, etc etc), but so expansive in your condemnation of my viewpoint. just part of everyday life of a Mullah, i s'pose.

God Bless.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

oooops Joe, forgot to say --

it was actually the inadequacy of the US military that lost Vietnam, no other reason. if only you had been there with your Atomic Bible, your Inter Continental Ballistic Rosary Beeds, and your good friend the un-Protestant Pastor Sprig -- but wait a moment, his daddy had arranged a convenient secondment for your idol that spared the VC (Sprig has some drinking to do).

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

it was actually the inadequacy of the US military that lost Vietnam,

Derek as inadequate as the US millitary forces were in Vietnam, and they were terrible, this is simply untrue and few historians would agree with you. It was social forces that determined the outcome of the Vietnam war. The American people (quite rightly), were not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to commit to a "total war" necessary to defeat the communists. The inadequacy you speak of both in terms of tactics of commanders and more generally poor training/ discipline/moral of draft troops was a factor but not the reason for failure. Seeing as I was born after the war ended perhaps Im not in the best position to judge personally but from what I have read this was the case!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 21, 2003.

Hi Joe,

A few points for discussion...

Firstly in regard to US isolationism, I find your view of the UN as disappointing but not surprising. Such thoughts on isolationism are nothing new and your thinly disguised distrust/ hatred(?)of such organizations is nothing new-in fact it is a prerequisite for all right wing Americans. The position is a sad one because US reluctance/isolationism is the very reason why it is unable to operate effectively= even more distrust of the UN in America. A vicious circle. This leads to a train of thought common in the US "it’s our way, or it’s no way". Incredibly destructive for both the US and for the world. The alternatives for world peace and stability are not between unilateralism or isolationism but multilateralism through the UN. The Un fails because of US apathy/arrogance/ignorance.

As grateful as the world is for all you do, we don’t OWE American anything, we ALL made huge sacrifices in the world wars BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Yet it only became the “right thing” for the American government when American soil was bombed…the logic there is?????? Its not as though Russia constantly bleats about how its never recognized for “saving the world”, but WW2 may not have been won without them, but every right wing American will do this to justify the indefensible. My advice to those Americans who shun the UN-read Papal encyclicals on multilateralism.

When you have repeatedly asked for alternatives or concrete solutions to Iraq from those opposed to the war, (BTW I don’t think labeling all those who oppose war as "peace niks", "liberals" "singing kumbaya" etc is constructive or accurate) but Im left wondering what the specific goal is?

Sorry for my ignorance here, but are you asking for solutions to…

1. The removal of Saddam from power?

Or

2. The removal of WMD and future ability to procure produce such weapons from Iraq?

The first goal is very difficult I agree without force. The diverse positions opposing war means there are diverse solutions to solving the problem, and especially difficult is presenting a coherent consistent position. I agree the articulation of this position has been poor, as bad or even worse than the reasons given for war. I honestly cannot see how a leader as firmly entrenched as SAddam can be removed from power with out force. Assassination being the only option I can think of as a solution - diplomacy, supporting internal revolt, sanctions = ineffectual.

If we accept that Iraq is but one of many dictatorships in the world, (and by no means the worst) and our goal is to remove the threat he poses to global security through WMD then this IMO can be achieved through means other than war, re inspection process.

I accept a war will achieve both these aims. Personally my mind operates on a cost/benefit, short-term pain/ long term gain on this issue (IMHO the OUTCOMES would be better for the Iraqi people country long term if the WAS invaded but I don’t think Saddam is in the position to pose a threat to world security) I feel in my heart it is naive to think that by not going into Iraq we are saving innocent lives but we must accept that the value of human life is not an issue we can make a judgments on, our Church leaders are perfectly placed in the ministry of making that judgment.

I feel as a Catholic when we find ourselves in conflict with our Pope WE ARE IN ERROR, NOT THE POPE. Ive been reading about ethical egoism and common AMerican values especially pride and its got me wondering about how extreme patriotism can be so harmful. Pride is an underpinning value of individualism indeed libertarian philosophy (that is central to many aspects of Republican policy) places pride as a great virtue. It leads us to ignore moral teachings of the church; it leads us to ignore the weakness of our leaders simply because of the position they fill. Our pride causes us to ignore Christ and follow ...President George W Bush????? Please the gentleman IMHO is the most dangerous and incompetent President in living memory The ability to swallow the Bush line comes not from greater understanding of the issues than "liberals" a refusal to acknowledge the sins of the flesh and allow the gifts of God to flourish.

America is not a holy Christian country, this is not a holy war, and Islamic States while lacking the "freedom and democracy" you espouse perhaps hold a higher moral position than America. Indeed Islamic law reflects our own Catholic natural law far more closely than ethical egoism - one needs to only look at abortion laws in Islamic countries and America.

Want to stop Islamic terrorism?

Option 1. Nuke Israel to oblivion

Option 2. Relocate the State of Israel to another barren land, where leaders also speak with righteous trembling rage and indignation, mumbled convoluted English and a unique ability to confuse God with individualism and selfishness. Like say the State of Texas. They would get along just fine.

Err I’m joking Texans just my 2 cents ;-).

Be Not Afraid

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 22, 2003.

Joe, you say we won in Korea. Not on my scorecard. Douglas MacArthur was not allowed to win, thanks to Harry Truman. He got canned when he tried. Remember Pork Chop Hill? An unnecessary slaughterhouse. No we did not win in Korea. Had to play by politicans rules.

-- Paul Revere (Gus@wakeup.com), February 22, 2003.

Derek...(sigh)

A The Catholic Church has merely said that up to now the US government has not made sufficent case for the use of force and they have also urged the US not to go to war for the sake of innocent civilizans who may (MAY) be harmed. No one believes the US is going to intentionally aim for civilians or intentionally try to harm as many Iraqis as possible.

I agree. I'd love for there to be peace and joy throughout the Middle East. Unlike you, however, I base my hopes on reality not myth or good feelings... you can't just "wish" peace into being.

I too hope the Government would connect the dots better but I also know that the military is not a bloodthirsty machine bent on hurting and maiming as many civilians as possible. Indeed all our tactics are based on LIMITING casualties.

I find it also amazing that no one seemed to mind when Clinton launched 450 cruise missiles at Bagdad back in 1998. I guess it's OK if a Democrat kills people huh? So long as Democrats were running the show in Vietnam things weren't so bad huh? How many of you protested when Clinton and the UN did NOTHING to stop the genocide in Ruanda?

As for the world loving Americans.... we're a really mixed bag. There are plenty of reasons for people to dislike us. Being Imperialistic isn't one of them. We didn't take over Kuwait's oil and we haven't annexed Qatar or other nations... so "war for oil" or "imperialism" while sounding nice just doesn't fit reality.

I don't suppose you recall ther Cairo UN conference in 1994 in which the US Government (Democrats and Bill Clinton) tried to ram-rod homosexuality and Abortion down the throats of the world via the UN... the Vatican, Muslim, and South Americans fought back and won. THAT engendered far more lasting damage and distrust of America than anything Bush has done. Oh. But democrats never make mistakes do they?

France. No. the US repaid France for their help in our Independence twice: 1917 and 1944. Since then France has repaid us with 40 years of constant obstruction. I'm underwhelmed with the French record in foreign policy in Africa and Asia too... How our refusal to give more weight to France is "antiChristian" is beyond me. Especially since "France" has not been a "Catholic" nation in over 200 years. At least its "state" has been one of the most anti-Catholic in Europe since 1773. No. They don't have the moral high ground. I won't even get into the area of sexual morality or lack thereof...

You continue to bring up 1 SPEECH at Bob Jones University as though that was something important. Bush is Methodist. He was in the South. He - like all other politicians before him including Clinton spoke on campus. Do you have a copy of that speech Derek? Since then he has made more efforts to reach out to Catholics and pro-lifers than any other president in history. He's anything but anti-Catholic.

You claim I support Saudi Arabia? What has any of this to do with them? How would a US occupied Iraq make the lives of Catholics there worse off? Can you even give reasons for any of these assertions?

Finally you get mad because it don't exhaustively answer all your assertions, charges, insults, and sophistry. Well I really try to Derek. I'm sorry if time and space makes me miss some. Believe me, it isn't intentional! ;-)

Now you have called me offensive names and I - while proving you to be less than a stellar intellectual or historian have yet to call you a name or insult your person or moral standing in God's eyes.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

Hi Kiwi.

I don't believe in nuking anyone into oblivion. This doesn't mean I think everything the IDF has done is peachy-keene.

As for the UN...of course it was a good idea and of course it does some good work. Heck, any institution run by men (especially politicians) will be prone to corruption and ineffectual efforts....and I have friends among the pro-lifers who have learned to play the NGO games in the UN for the sake of children, women, and human decency.

But when the UN is compromised by the active presence of states such as China or Libya, neither of whom care about terrorism or whether or not a 3rd state is trying to hurt the USA, I don't think the US should have to play diplomatic games. And they are games.

When wars needed to be waged on behalf of the "world community" no UN mandated force has ever been assembled until the US has taken the lead. Not in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, or Africa...

Secondly, the Bush administration HAS gone along with the UN to an amazing degree even while reserving the right to go alone... Clinton NEVER asked the UN for approval when he invaded Haiti in 1993, or when he bombed Kosovo or when he launched cruise missiles into Afganistan or Iraq...

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

Hi Joe I dont really want you to nuke Israel, rather I think a war on terrorism will be won through a viable state for the Palestinian people. This is only just and fair and consistant with Catholic policy.

I dont wish to be overtly anti american and it is starting to look that way. Newsweek presnted a good argument that anti americanism stems from strategic envy from the rest of the world. We HAVE to always seek accommadation and compromise, the rest of the EUrope cannot compete even collectively in comparison to AMerican millitary power- it is simply over whelming. IF YOU ARE REALLY POWERFUL THEN YOU ACT LIKE IT. Bush is simply flexing his muscles not so much because he has to but because he can. The AMerican millitary is tailor made for a war in Iraq, not fighting terrorism and al Queda.

Putting aside morality THIS IS ONE WAR YOU CAN WIN. ANd AMericans want results on the war against terror, this is a long term battle- so give then a short sharp war to keep them happy.It wont make one iota of difference to terrorism mind, but it will get rid of SAddam.

To illustrate world scepticism Newsweek used sociologist Emmanuel Todd, who points to the "The Wolf and the lamb" by LA Fontaine

"In it the wolf gives one reason after another for attacking the lamb, all of which prove false. Then he eats the lamb-just because he wants to. Thats all we need to know about US strategic thinking."

God Bless

Be not Afraid

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 22, 2003.

Hi Kiwi.

You are right that the US military is "tailor made" for a war with Iraq...but we're also in the Phillippines and our police forces (FBI) are everywhere else doing the non-military job of rounding up terrorist thugs.

Eventually these guys will learn that they can live peaceful lives in their own countries so long as they don't mess with us (ie killing American tourists and blowing up building in America).

WE DIDN'T START THIS.

Even though the US has practically occupied Europe for 50 years we never messed around with their internal politics or mores... ditto with Japan, Korea, and other nations. But Empires do try to force people how to live, what to do, produce, or believe. Yet the US allows little Qatar to run Al-Jezzera - freedom of the press, even if it's critical of us, and we have NEVER made it hard for Muslims to worship Allah as they see fit. Nor are we trying to foist Representative Constitutional government on them. At most we hold them to their treaty requirements ala UN declaration on human rights.

As for the Muslims hating us...well, let's just say that the Soviets hated us...until the Berlin Wall fell, and the Afgans hated us when the Taliban ruled them... "hatred" is a tricky thing to react against. After the war I think 21 million Iraqis at least will be pro- American.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

Hi Joe

"WE DIDNT START THIS"

Again I dont think a link from 9/11 to Iraq is valid and I think Afganistan was a just and necessary war.

Yes we could do a lot worse than having AMerica as the world superpower. Im a realist, youre the biggest and baddest country on the planet- you can do what you want, doesnt mean I will agree with it always ! If we look at US foreign policy as a big picture I agree you do a great job often, but in some specific areas you dont.

Israel/Palestine being an embarrasing blight on your record and showing just how far Zionism has a stranglehold in US politics. Pray for the day when you elect a President democratic or republican not bound by Jewish money, someone with the guts and courage to do the right thing for Palestine.

I guess I think its naive to believe AMerica has occupied countries without taking advantage (in a geo political and economic sense) by abusing their position of power, but thats another arugment also.

I think you must realise that anti- Americanism in Iraq will not dissapear through the removal of Saddam. The idea of 21 million new found loyal friends in Iraq simply is absurd to me.Yes they will welcome the removal of Saddam, of course, but I wouldnt mistake this for pro American sentiments.

The US has (rightly or wrongly) been seen by the Iraqi people as casuing much suffering in Iraq. If your family was killed by a cruise missile would you greet an invading army with open arms?

Besides the root cause for underlying anti AMericanism in the Middle East is not brutal dictators etc denying the truth freedom etc it is Palestine and the US support of Israel, AMerican money and weapons killing Palestinian children... God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 22, 2003.

Kiwi, America supports Israel for lots of reasons. the chief one being that if we didn't the arabs would be only too happy to push the entire Israeli people into the sea - as they have repeatedly claimed was their ultimate objective. Now, if stopping genocide is not something you think America should be concerned with, tell me what other moral high ground position is there?

As for America's responsibility for the solution of the PA/Israeli situation...wait just a second. It's NOT OUR FAULT that they hate each other. WE DIDN'T CAUSE THIS PROBLEM.

It's their issue. How would ANYONE solve a problem of two peoples simultaneously claiming the same land and one side willing to specifically target unarmed civilians while the other strikes back discriminately at any militants it can find?

We brokered alot of peace deals between them. We offered and gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the PA for their "state". They used the money to buy a ship load of rockets and heavy weaponry from Iran - the ship was intercepted and the PA suddenly denied signing the manifest orders found onboard or having anything to do with the ship and its captain (both PA)... The point is, they were not content with the peace deal they worked out.... they want the whole of Israel.

Whether or not they had a claim to the whole sheebang in 1946 is now moot. You've got 6 million Jews living there. You also have Arab countries on all sides unwilling to let the Palestinians be anything but refugees or second class citizens....so don't tell me that the PA situation is REALLY what makes Muslims mad about the US. It's a scam. If they loved the PA so much, they given 'em a chunk of Jordan.

If the PA people stopped the suicide bombers the situation would stabilize. Instead it's that cry for unending cycles of "revenge" that is poisoning every well of good will and precluding any diplomatic solution.

After all, Americans don't hate Iraqis. Shoot, we don't really hate anyone except Osama the joker Bin Laden. And even with him some are ambivalent. So we still have lots of motivation for believing that after Saddam is gone we can be friends and friendly with Iraqis. I was friends with some Catholic Iraqis in High school. Great people. I wish them only good things.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2003.

Missed something.

Kiwi, the point of the last paragraph above was that the US and Iraqi people have more chance to reach a diplomatic and peaceful relationship than the PAs do with Israel.

America after all has been warning every Iraqi to stay away from obvious military targets (like bunkers)... the famous "400" who died in Bagdad were in a bunker. Had they stayed in their apartments just 3 blocks away they wouldn't have been hurt because the US doesn't target apartments. We've also warned Iraqi soldiers not to fight, promising amesty (and 80,000 of them remember the humane treatment they received after the 1st Gulf War)..

Unlike Israel, we are being far more generous with our erst- while "enemies" than they...and I think the Muslim world is thus much less wholly antagonistic with us as with them. One thing missing with either is that freedom of religion is totally respected here in the US and to much degree in Israel.

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 23, 2003.

Hey Joe! Warning Im going to rant, this stuff gets my blood boiling and I cetainly hope you dont take any of our discussions personally...

>Kiwi, America supports Israel for lots of reasons. The chief one being that if we didn't the Arabs would be only too happy to push the entire Israeli people into the sea - as they have repeatedly claimed was their ultimate objective. Now, if stopping genocide is not something you think America should be concerned with, tell me what other moral high ground position is there?

Have you any idea just how powerful the Israeli army is? The fallacy of Zionists greatest fear of being ¡§pushed into the sea¡¨ is just that, utter rubbish. The formation of a viable Palestinian state does not in any way threaten the State of Israel, or the precious democracy that you pretend is one of the reasons for supporting Israel. A nuclear armed state with one of the most powerful armies in the world Vs a few thousand stone throwing children and suicide bombers¡Kplease give us a break.

>As for America's responsibility for the solution of the PA/Israeli situation...wait just a second. It's NOT OUR FAULT that they hate each other. WE DIDN'T CAUSE THIS PROBLEM. It's their issue. How would ANYONE solve a problem of two peoples simultaneously claiming the same land and one side willing to specifically target unarmed civilians while the other strikes back discriminatory at any militants it can find?

But Joe you¡¦ve repeatedly told me America is interested in DOING WHAT IS RIGHT in the world. And I think it normally is, yet on this issue it isn¡¦t. Why not? Israel could not continue to ignore the need for a Palestinian State without US money/arms/political support. ISRAEL being the one who refuses to be willing to negotiate a fair deal. Why would it? What motivation does it need when both Democrats and Republicans receive Jewish backhanders to make them toe the line, when it can convince Americans like you that any such deal would ¡§drive it into the sea¡¨? They must be laughing their heads off. From another thread I wrote about ISRAEL breaching UN resolutions, much like Saddam only more regularly and with less regard for the implications¡K. Back to this resolutions- Israel has been in breach of numerous UN resolutions, Israel ignores them because we all know that the US will never ever allow the Security Council to enforce them. The US will not even allow UN peacekeepers to monitor disputes. WHY? the Palestinians welcome such monitoring of their land by the rest of the world to help bring peace. Israel and America objects- why? Because of sovereignty issue?- jeez yeah right. They are committing gross breaches of basic human rights and international law. It is a disgrace to me. A small group of wealthy Jews in America holds the world to ransom. It makes me sick.

All one needs to do is listen to what is being said by both sides. Im a huge fan of common sense. Listen to what the Palestinians actually want. Listen to how the Israelis reply. Have you not seen the actions nor heard the words of Israeli settlers moving into Palestinian land. Have you studied the blueprints Israel offers Palestine for their state. It is a joke, a number of small Palestinian "islands" separated and controlled by Israel. Who would accept this? It is a sham, the Israelis certainly know this, the Palestinians now this and the whole world outside America know this. The excuse of the holocaust is wearing thin in allowing these crimes of Israel to continue.

>We brokered alot of peace deals between them. We offered and gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the PA for their "state". They used the money to buy a ship load of rockets and heavy weaponry from Iran - the ship was intercepted and the PA suddenly denied signing the manifest orders found onboard or having anything to do with the ship and its captain (both PA)... But it¡¦s ok for you to arm Israel to the teeth and stand by why it slaughters Palestinians? Im sure you¡¦re aware of the body count of the latest few years of fighting, many more Palestinians die than Israelis do, yet your media portrays suicide bombers as the only evil. Its ok to kill innocent people witha F16 figter or M1 battle tank or an M16 or an apache gunship.... but not with explosives strapped to your stomach? What a joke.

>The point is, they were not content with the peace deal they worked out.... they want the whole of Israel.

Oh no...hook, line and sinker. They¡¦ve got you well caught.

>Whether or not they had a claim to the whole sheebang in 1946 is now moot. Of course they have a claim, they¡¦ve lived on that land for THOUSANDS of years, are you saying they don¡¦t have a claim because the Koran doesn¡¦t call it the promised land? Or do you belive the whole world you revert to Old Testament international boundaries, looks like the American Indians in your part of the world are onto a winner if you get to office Joe ƒº.

>If they loved the PA so much, they given 'em a chunk of Jordan. I hope that¡¦s a joke!

>If the PA people stopped the suicide bombers the situation would stabilize. Instead it's that cry for unending cycles of "revenge" that is poisoning every well of good will and precluding any diplomatic solution.

Dream on, the Israelis haven¡¦t the slightest intention of giving the Palestinians a thing. Why, because they know America will support them, because every political party in your ¡§free country¡¨ is bound and tied by Jewish money to ignore this great injustice, because THEY CAN DO THIS AND NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING TO STOP THEM. Unless America wakes and stops funding the biggest terrorist state on the planet. Unlikely do you realise just how much dispropriante control Jews have in America on so many areas of policy. I dont know what percentage of your population they make up, but they have a heck of a lot of influence.

>After all, Americans don't hate Iraqis. Youd be surprised Joe, although I really cant think of a reason why you would hate an Iraqi, certainly not in comparison to how many reasons a Palestinian would feel for hating America. Again Joe if you refuse to listen to me, or think Im just talking liberal claptrap- I can handle that! What I can¡¦t accept though is someone who claims to be Catholic rejecting what our Church says on this issue. I believe your position is almost a polar opposite to the Vatican.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 24, 2003.

sorry Im not sure what happened to " and ' signs its a real mess. The golem is our to get me it semms already!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 24, 2003.

Kiwi I'm sorry If I upset you. It has never been my intent.

Two quick points. One, is I don't think Israel is squeeky clean or innocent, I just don't know what alternative they have to the status quo: they are building a fence/wall along the 1967 border, effectively hemming themselves out of Gaza and the West bank... Secondly, Israel is so small territorially that giving up the West Bank and the Golan heights would give their erst-while enemies (PA and Syria) the physical high ground - with 80% of Israeli population crammed into the low, flat coastal region, well within MORTAR FIRE range from anywhere in the mountainous west bank area. Furthermore, their sole International Airport would be within easy range of shoulder held SAMs, etc. Their enemies could actually SEE everything that moves on the coastal plain...not a good position to be in even for the world's 4th strongest military!

Thus, their problem: the world's 4th strongest military cannot be used to invade and push their PA neighbors into Jordan, and they certainly cannot nuke their close neighbors either. But these neighbors with low tech Katuska rockets and 120mm mortars can rain fire down on Israelis at whim....or send in insane suicide terrorists to kill scores of Israeli school children or teen agers or families sitting down for a religious dinner... completely unarmed civilians not placing themselves in harms way (such as those do who throw rocks at tanks).

Just because one side has tanks and the other suicide bombers doesn't mean the low tech "David" is innocent and the high tech "Goliath" is automatically evil. I know innocent PAs die too. But I also note that when they do, it's never the intent of the IDF. Thus the classic distinction of double effect kicks in. The PAs specifically target unarmed civilians. This is totally evil and unexcusable. The IDF targets militants and occasionally hurt civilians who happen to be near them. That is in no way the moral equivalent.

Kiwi, if you think there is moral equivalency here please tell me how this can be so in any coherant moral theory.

I think we can both agree that for peace to come to the middle east both sides are going to have to moral constraint and rope in the hot heads and radical members of their respective militaries... But it seems that Israel has more command and control over their forces than the PA's do... so even if America leans on the Jews, there's no guarantee that our "diplomacy" has any effect on the 4-5 different PA extreme groups, two of whom swear their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Hence, an apparent no-win situation barring some miracle.

For the record, I'm in favor of the UN relocating 10 million peace- loving Catholics into the region, to create a buffer between them, but that doesn't seem likely. After all, would YOU like to be the first to relocate there with your children?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Nay Kiwi, all you’ll get is to be called anti-Semite, besides anti- American (curiously, Arabs are Semites themselves. So far goes Zionist robbery: not content to steal Palestinian land, they go on and steal a word designating an ethnic group which includes Arabs to ideologically designate only Jews.)

I admire your courage and endurance, Kiwi, but it seems pretty clear to me that this discussion is useless. Pro-war and pro- Israel “catholics” will go on saying that the only reliable source of information is the White House, the Pentagon and Israeli government. The Holy See, of course, is not a reliable source.

I gave up, first because of lack of time, second because I saw I could not break the stubbornness of these brothers, nor even make them see that something might be wrong with their supporting positions diametrically opposed to the Holy See´s.

By the way, I always knew about Camp David’s offering to Arafat being unacceptable. Zionists like to say (and everybody in the USA believes them, given the overwhelming grip they have on US media) that Arafat’s refusal was the proof that the PA was not willing to negotiate. But I had not actually seen the maps until a few days ago.

Here’s a link to a map of the “fair and generous proposal” Israel made to the PA:

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

(Sorry, I am not good with putting links here, so if anybody can do me the favor of transforming the above URL in a link I will thank him.)

Now, anyone can see it for himself and judge. It is clear to me that, to any unbiased person, the proposal is a very very bad joke. If Arafat accepted it, he would be (justly) eaten alive by Palestinians. Israel would even control the water sources! Wow! The Israeli aim was, of course, to concede a Palestinian “State” that would be absolutely unviable!

The refugee issue was just a smoke screen convenient to both parties.

To say that Arafat withdraw the negotiations and started the second “intifada” is a completely absurd piece of Zionist propaganda. It is well known that Palestinians were infuriated by the ridiculous Barak proposal. To add infamy to injury, Ariel Sharon took the opportunity to make the greatest political move in his hideous political / military career with his provocative “walk” on the Mosques´ Esplanade (by the way, he is being criminally prosecuted in Belgium for Crime Against the Humanity, referring o the Sabre-Chatila genocide; that’s the guy Bush chooses to be his friend.) At that moment, Arafat was considered “weak” by many Palestinian militants and began his way to political irrelevance, loosing control of Palestinian terrorist groups.

But the catholic Zionists don’t need to believe me, just go and see the maps for themselves!

Kiwi, I understand you blood-boiling. Mine boils also.

For pro-war, pro-Israel catholics I give an advice I gave here tons of times, with no success. Try to get your news not only from US main media. There are lots os international news outlets free in the internet so that you can have a more complete perspective. You could begin with "Osservatore Romano", the Vatican offical newspaper.

Now, even in the US you can get a broader perspective. The EWTN site is publishing every day notes about the war on a very different tone than the warmongering going on here. And lots os American analysts are writing, even in The New York Times, about why this war is a very bad idea. Just read what economic analysts are saying about Bush´s proposed budget, and what will happen with American economy as a consequence of the enormous budget deficit Bush´s administration will leave, war or no war (much bigger with war). Americans, perhaps even more that people outside US, will be called to pay the bill. Of course, the poor will be those to suffer most.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 24, 2003.

Joe, your military tactical and topographical view of the whole situation would be correct if the principal goal of the future Palestinian State was to destroy Israel. And that is, indeed, what Zionist propaganda tries to convince everybody.

But nothing is farthest from truth.

Palestinians, in general, are the most educated and “modern” people in all Muslim World. They are not fundamentalists. All they want is a State where they can resume their life, mind their business, marry, work, have children and see them growing up.

Terrorists are a minority. They have some support from a small part of Palestinian people because of the outrageous treatment they (the people) have been receiving from Israel for 50 years, and especially now under Sharon.

If they had a viable State, where economy and life could go on normally, the terrorists would loose the small support they have now. Palestinians would not hide them, they would denounce them.

I think that the argument based on an eternal war status between Israel and Palestine is completely absurd. Even under the present outrageous situation, there were periods of long peace in the region. The building collapsed because of Sharon, as everybody knows.

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 24, 2003.

Anyone read CCC 2309 lately?

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Hi Atila.

Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2309 recently?

It's about the Just war theory. And it clearly states that the final arbiter in whether or not to wage war is...those vested with authority to govern the common good...i.e. politicians - not clergy.

With respect to Iraq, it has always boiled down to a prudential decision. The Church states the principle: war should only be the last option... but as to who makes the call is always left to the lay side to determine. This has been the crux of my argument.

The clergy have clearly stated the moral aspects. But they simply don't have the information to make such a prudential decision. They don't know or have any avenue of intelligence to know anything about Saddam's weapons programs nor do they have intelligence of the US' capabilities and strategies for minimizing civilian casualties. These are two crucial bits of info to have when making the Just War syllogism. If you don't know how dangerous the enemy is and you don't know how accurate your own weapons are, it WOULD BE IMPRUDENT, IMMORAL to wage war...

If the Pope clearly condemned any unilateral effort of the US as absolutely immoral I would cease and desist. He has not. I have read his statements with care. He has said that ignoring the UN is wrong. So far we all note that the US is not ignoring the UN. Last I checked the US was still working with the UN and negotiating. He has also said that war is terrible and a defeat for humanity. I agree.

But what alternative do we have? Wait? Until when? And who will decide when we've waited long enough? You? Me? France? China?

The clergy have not been in the role of deciding when and where and how to wage war since the 11th century. This doesn't mean they have no place. But in the final analysis Just war theory and Catholic theology and praxis has pointed to kings and rulers as having the final "go ahead" authority.

I totally understand as I've repeatedly said that the Holy See, as responsible for Catholics living in 50 Muslim dominated countries can not support the United States for obvious pastoral reasons...and of course I support the Pope's call for both sides to seek peaceful solutions. But so far the only person who can solve this mess is Saddam and he isn't making any move to do so.

If the US up and goes home, the Iraqis still will not have obeyed the multiple UN resolutions nor their own treaty commitments signed at the end of the first gulf war... and we know that Iraqi - if it gives WMD to terrorists - will probably not have them strike France, or Germany or Russia or China or Syria... no, they'll come for us.

So do we have a right to self defense or not?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Many times.

And I’m sure the Pope did also, before he defined this war as “not just”.

Joe, are you claiming that you are a better interpreter of the CCC than the Pope? I am not so arrogant.

Or are you suggesting that the Pope does not qualify as one of “those who have responsibility for the common good”?

If the situation changes to the point when the Pope considers this war just, I will not try to second-guess him.

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 24, 2003.

Sorry, I wrote the above answer at the same time as you wrote yours.

You said:

“And it clearly states that the final arbiter in whether or not to wage war is...those vested with authority to govern the common good...i.e. politicians - not clergy.”

That’s your interpretation. Nowhere in the CCC it is said that “those who have responsibility for the common good” is restricted to the politicians. Are you REALLY saying that the Pope is not a person “who have responsibility for the common good”???? What is he responsible for, then????

Again, the CCC never says that this is a politician’s-only realm. If the CCC wanted to mean that, it would say that!!!!

Anyway, the Pope disagrees with your interpretation. He is clearly saying that this war is unjust. He has NEVER said, since the beginning of this war talk, that he was voicing a personal opinion and that the ultimate decision is left for politicians. Chris Butler recently published here a quotation from a Pius XII Encyclical, where he clearly states the Church Right to teach on these matters, on the concrete issues, not only on “principles and guidelines”.

Again, you are trying to second-guess the Pope, claiming more interpretation authority on the CCC than the Pope himself.

You wrote:

“If the Pope clearly condemned any unilateral effort of the US as absolutely immoral I would cease and desist. He has not. I have read his statements with care. He has said that ignoring the UN is wrong. So far we all note that the US is not ignoring the UN. Last I checked the US was still working with the UN and negotiating. He has also said that war is terrible and a defeat for humanity. I agree. “

Nobody is claiming that the US is ignoring the UN NOW. What we are saying is that Bush has many times stressed that he will attack Iraq with or without the UN approval. That’s the crux of OUR argument. If he is working with the UN, great, he is complying with what the pope is saying. But in the moment that he attacks Iraq ignoring the UN, he will be wrong.

But UN-approval is a NECESSARY, NOT SUFFICIENT condition for the war, as the Vatican has repeatedly stressed. For example, if Bush tries to immorally convince the UN Security Council to approve his stance, through bribery and coercion, as he is doing now, UN-approval will be a mockery, and won’t turn this war from immoral to moral because of it.

I have many times said to you that the Vatican has much more information that you and me, and probably more than Bush himself. I have said that the Vatican is not a house of naïve pacifist jerks called Cardinals. I have told you that the Vatican has the most experienced and competent diplomatic corps in the World. In your fanatical support of this war, you have ignored all that I said.

I have told you that the Vatican proposed detailed alternative plans for settling the conflict. It is in EWTN, why don’t you go there and read it?!

You said:

“The clergy have not been in the role of deciding when and where and how to wage war since the 11th century”.

You need some History-reading, Joe. Popes have declared wars just and unjust at every single conflict. They sided with countries against others. They excommunicated Kings waging unjust wars. They even decided frontiers between countries, as Chris Butler frequently post here. The very fact that Pius XII is being unjustly accused of being “silent” during WWII shows how much everybody expects the Church routinely to declare the justice of a war or lack thereof.

You said:

“If the US up and goes home, the Iraqis still will not have obeyed the multiple UN resolutions nor their own treaty commitments signed at the end of the first gulf war...”

I repeat Kiwi’s question: Why are you so keen on Iraq compliance with UN resolutions and not so keen on Israel not complying with them? And why Saddam, as is obvious that the real threat today is North Korea? How do you explain that?

You said:

“So do we have a right to self defense or not?”

Why do you think that striking Iraq is safest form of self-defense for the US? Almost all analysts in the world, right or left, outside and inside the US know that the attack or Iraq is sure to break the Hell loose! Terrorism against US will soar! Only Bush’s extremely poor grasp of international situation is incapable of understanding this! And it is not something to wonder, given that he is the president who said that he was the proof that one does not need to be a good student to become president of the United States…

God have mercy on us…

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 24, 2003.

Atila, the Vatican diplomatic corps is only as good as the local parish priests and nuns who may send tid bits of local information to them... Iraq is overwhelmingly Muslim. Not many Catholic parishes there and I'd be willing to bet you a coffee that those working on WMD are not Catholics. Ergo, I doubt the Vatican has any real time knowledge of the weapon programs.

If this was taking place in South America I would agree with you though.

Secondly, now that we're comparing apples and oranges, tell me why the Vatican stated that NATO intervention in Kosovo was "Just" even though the United Nations Security Council did not in fact vote for it? (Russia promised to veto any such resolution, so Clinton and Nato went in bombing for 77 days without UN approval. No one complained much then.... odd isnt it since Saddam is much worse than Milosevic, and Slodoban didn't even have WMD or ambitions to hit America. (Of course, had the serbs been anti-American they would probably have been given more of a pass on all their atrocities...)

So we have a recent precedent in international affairs in which a regional military alliance bombed and later occupied a piece of another "sovereign" nation without UN approval or sanction. And that was considered "just".

On what grounds is the US planned invasion not just?

Let's hear you spell it out Atila. You can quote the Holy See if you must and I'll walk you through it.

Now we have a possible conflict brewing in which there is no regional military alliance but the UN itself has voted (1441) to give Iraq only a limited time to prove it has disarmed persuant to the treaty requirements signed at the armistice of the first gulf war 12 years ago...

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Joe, you want the war so much, don't you? Remember, you'll eat your own words!

-- Tom (WaspyT@only.net), February 24, 2003.

No Tony, I don't want any war. I just don't see what alternative we have left. Peace would come tomorrow if Saddam unconditionally gives up both his weapons and the means of their production. He could do so without a single loss of life.

The UN established as true in 1998 that Iraq had VX and other forms of Chemical weapons and various types of Biological agents as well. It was also determined before the inspections regime was expelled that while curtailled, the Iraqi nuclear research program was not dismantled. That was 4 years ago. It took the US only 4 years to develop the first atom bomb 60 years ago.

To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong Tony), Iraq has not proven to the UN that it has in fact destroyed these banned weapons. It has not shown documented evidence of place, date, and manner of their destruction. It has not shown the inspectors where, how, and who destroyed these weapons.

So until proven otherwise, Iraqi claims to the contrary are just that: unsubstantiated claims. They still have these weapons. This is illegal according to the UN resolutions.

Now, if Iraq continues to deny it, and embargoes are immoral (as everyone admits) how can the "world community" force Iraq to come clean minus an invasion?

Ball's in your court Tony, Atila, Derek, et al.

It's not my call to go to war...I just don't see what alternative the UN or the USA has to forced disarmament.

I understand the arguments on both sides; better than perhaps you do yourself.

I've read the Pope's statements, and the cardinals, and the Catechism, and the classic Just War theories of St Augustin (Civitas Dei) and Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm

The pivotal point in all the arguments about a just war is what information the judge has, and what presumptions he makes about a) the military necessity for armed action, b) the harm to civilian populations war would provoke as opposed to the harm to civilian populations should war be avoided, and c) the repercussions post- bellum.

By everyone's admission, the UN inspectors have less intelligence information than countries like the US, UK, France, and Russia have regarding Iraq... combine this with the FACT that the Holy See has diplomats and NOT spies (to say nothing of the complete absence of military espionage capability), it isn't hard to conclude that for all its expertise in human and moral issues, the Holy See simply does not have access to the information relavant to this discussion: Iraqi WMD and terrorist connections.

As for the legality and morality of wars fought without UN sanction, I have shown repeatedly above that there are plenty of precedents of wars being waged without UN sanction, Kosovo being the most recent.

I have also shown above that no one else has offered any concrete alternative to disarming Iraq beyond the status quo (in which Iraq refuses to disarm by claiming it has nothing to disarm).

Nor has the Vatican offered any concrete alternative to war, other than warning that it can be unjust (based on certain presumptions as to how the US would wage war, how Iraq would respond and what countless free actors in the region (Muslims) can reasonably be expected to do in the post-bellum period.

The Vatican up to now has posited that a US war would entail massive civilian casualties, destroy massive amounts of real estate, and alienate millions of Muslims. If this is a true analysis of real US war plans then I agree, it would be totally unjust.

However, no one in the US military has argued for "carpet bombing" or indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The US has also gone to great lengths to avoid urban infantry warfare... because of the expected collateral damage to civilians and civil infrastructure.

Thus, the US has responded positively to Vatican concerns - and the situation re: war plans can be expected to NOT FOLLOW the worse-case scenario posited by virtually every clergyman who comments on this being "unjust".

Finally, by the standards now being assigned to Just War theory by those opposed to the US, our involvement in World War II was totally unjust - since there was no UN mandate, no immediate danger to the United States mainland by the Germans, and the potential for enourmous loss of civilian life far outweighed initial hopes of successfully invading continental Europe. Yet, nearly everyone says that the "Allies" were just in WWII even though they were not perfect.

I just fail to see how an argument against the US can be sustained historically or systematically based not on presumptions of worse- case scenarios, but on presumptions based on likely scenarios.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Gentlemen, if I may I would like to ask for a moratorium on posts on this issue. None of us has any say on whether or not war comes. We are just offering our opinions as to its relative morality should it break out.

But the Lord can and does move mens hearts. let us instead pray for the conversion of heart and mind of Saddam Hussein. Only if he changes heart will peace come and bloodshed be averted, and a just order be re-established in the world through the aegis of the United Nations.

I have prayed for peace daily for months and have not ceased especially while writing posts here. I have researched and pondered philosophers and theologians, fathers of the Church and public statements... only God can move the hearts of rulers. let us pray that those who rule the nations in question accept negotiation and not violence as the ultimate move of this crisis.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Hi Joe, v quickly Im at work...

I agree a truce may have to be called here but not without one final word , my last replt I promise! While I take your point about morality and "intent" of in targeting civilians, I belive the Israeli army has little regard for innnocent Palestinian lives when it identifies valid "terrorist" targets. SUch collateral damage is dismissed with a shrug as unavoidable, when clealry such casulties can be avoided IMO.

Secondly Israel politicans continue to condemn the use of targeted attacks as something so evil, etc etc and something they will never do, when they have used such tactics themselves to fight for the State of Israel. While not condoning this use of violence as moral, what option do they have, they are not recieving arms etc from the US they have no other methods to fight for their just cause. The ends justify the means, you seem to belive so re an immoral war in Iraq for a just result. The morality is no different nor is the mindset.

Of course most freedom fighters from the IRA to ANC to Jews themselves re King David Hotel Attack on civilians have used such tactics when they have no othe option.

Gotta go,

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 24, 2003.

correction/explanation: "the ends justify the means" re Iraq- an unjust war according to our Church but a just outcome for the people of Iraq

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 24, 2003.

forgot to say thanks to Dr Atila, youre a star.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 25, 2003.

First good word from you Joe. Let's pray, to change OUR hearts first! Regards!

-- Tom (WaspyT@only.net), February 25, 2003.

Joe,

Your last post was so beautifully worded and your words are so true - only God can change hearts and we 'must' pray without ceasing that God changes the hearts of our world leaders. I do think it will take a miracle, and that can only come from God.

ml

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), February 25, 2003.

Mary Lu,

Joe (or Mullah Cowboy, as he likes to be known by me) is praying that Saddam have a change of heart. With respect to the Mullah, he is still missing the real point, a point that you make when you say -- "we 'must' pray without ceasing that God changes the hearts of our world leaders." I, for one, will be including Pea Brain in my thoughts.

PC

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 25, 2003.

Derek writes:

"Joe (or Mullah Cowboy, as he likes to be known by me)"

Do you think this is helping you win anyone over? It's pretty childish and annoying.

My $0.02,

Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 25, 2003.

if you want childish and annoying, just have a look at Cowboy's messages on this subject. they are not only unbalanced, but fly in the face of the view of the leaders of the Church. its the extremists on BOTH SIDES that drag the rest of us into these conflicts - can't yuou see that. but, no, i am the one who is supposed to be "winning people over". suggest you keep yr $0.02. PC.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 26, 2003.

Derek writes:

"...but fly in the face of the view of the leaders of the Church."

Are these the words of a man who has written that infallibility and transsubstantiation is a load of old nonsense (you used a slightly more offensive term)? A man who believes women should be ordained? A man who seems to think that the Vatican II documents allow for radical doctrinal reform?

Derek, you aren't making a very strong case. With your views, how could you possibly think that you could appeal to someone else by preaching fidelity to the hierarchy of the Church? And even if you were interested in fidelity to the Church, why would you feel that this could justify name-calling?

You should rethink your tactics. You wrote:

"But as i say, Tiochfaidh Ar La ("Our Day Will Come" in my native Irish)."

And I respond with the infinitely more important:

Lord, not my will, but thine be done. (cf. Matthew 6:10)

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 26, 2003.

mateo,

thank you for your message and my apologies if i have riled you in anyway.

you are right when you say that (a) i, a Catholic, have expressed my doubts on other threads about some of the fundamentals of the Church's teachings and that (b) it seems odd therefore that i should criticise someone else for their lack of fidelity to the church.

your logic is this compelling, but just take a look at some of the verbal contortions that have been posted on this site -- non- compliant Catholics trying to prove that the Pope actually supports this war so as to justify their own position. so which is worse: disagreeing with the Church and being open and honest about it; or pretending not to disagree by hiding behind rhetoric?

further the more the fact that I am not the perfect Catholic does not stop me from having a view on compliance with Catholic doctrine. surely any Muslim can have a view on the "Catholic-ness" of a viewpoint if he knows the doctrine? or can only perfect Catholics read an understand Catholic doctrine?

as far as the name-calling goes, again look through the thread and you will see that Joe began this with a disproportionately withering attack on Liberals, making the assumption that I am a political liberal, whenin fact i am not. the general tone of the exchaneg slowly approached gutter level as time went by.

Now if it please you, i promise never again to use the label Cowboy or Mullah to refer to Joe, and indeed never to use nicknames again on this website unless the person consents. and, isofar as i have caused offence to Joe, i apologise to Joe without qualification. i meant no harm. i am sorry. if there is a main point to this post, it is this one.

what i would say though is that my last e-mail (the one that got you going, Mateo) was inspired by Joe's last e-mail wherein he called a moratorium on debate but also pointed out that he would be praying for Bush. i confes that this annoyed me because Joe the War Monger had unllaterally decided to terminate debate. Do you see my problem here -- it relates to censorship? Further, he terminated it with one final swipe. Do you see my point, here? on another thread i announced that i had exhausted my points and invited the ever impressive Paul to have the final say. there's a difference here.

of course, none of this justifies my peurile final e-mail, and i remain sorry for that. i should have known better.

as my penance, this is the last e-mail i intend to post on this thread, no matter what else is said.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 26, 2003.

Derek, actually i do find the title "Mullah" offensive. I am not a "war-monger". But that doesn't seem to matter.

My first post (Feb 11) began with: "I pray for peace daily. But "peace" between human beings and their governments is a fragile thing. To have it requires not just freedom of religion, but also a sizable number of civil leaders living virtuous and moral lives..."

In the back and forth of civil emails Atila on February 12 agreed that my arguments were defensible...in other words not "frothing at the mouth war-mongeringly irrational". Then he disagreed with me.

Fine. I can deal with disagreement and counter-argument. I've learned alot from you guys.

But Derek, you arrived on the scene on Feb 14 calling people names and implying not only that they are intellectually deficent but also evil (as in "AC" = anti-Christ).

I responded to your ARGUMENTS AND ALLUSIONS on Feb 19, with easily checked historical references, and a link to the White House website where you can find more evidence of Iraqi violations, etc. Just because I happen to disagree with certain political positions ("Liberal" "peacenik" "left") doesn't mean I've stooped to calling people names. I made fun of their positions, not persons.

But on that same day you began calling me "Cowboy" and yourself "Liberal" in a long rambling post in which you confusedly presumed that a messiah complex is not a sign of the anti-Christ. Well, excuse me but most theologians have written that THE anti- Christ will take the form of a false messiah. So sue me for the non symetrical allusion. Different words, same concept.

So while I respond to arguments, you personalized this, insisting not only on calling me offensive names, but calling yourself names too.

The mere fact that I can see both sides of this issue and honestly think the "this appears to be a just war given the information" side is better than "this appears to be an immoral war given only our information (or presumptions)" side, doesn't make me a war-monger.

Nor does it make me a disloyal Catholic. We all agree that its the civil authorities who have the final say. No one disputes that the Church and its pastors have a duty and right to advise and teach...after all, this right and duty is also our right and duty as involved citizens concerned with the future.

I have insisted again and again that what is needed is more prayer, more grace, conversion of hearts - yes chiefly of Saddams since his is the country about to be invaded, and being a dictator his will does hold absolute power over that nation. If his heart changed today he could single handedly open all the tunnels and hidden bunkers and rid Iraq of said weapons thus avoiding any rational for war... No one else has that power. So it seemed rational (and not political) for me to beg for prayers for his soul.

My "moratorium" was for the sake of prayer for peace!

Just because we disagree on foreign policy shouldn't mean we are enemies. And yet, alot of heat and smoke and personalized passion seems to come from the "peace-monger" side. If we can't even be civil how can we hope for peace to break out in the Middle East?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.

Let's pray boys, no time to loose..!

-- Tom (WaspyT@only.net), February 27, 2003.

From another strain:

"No personal attacks on Stong...I don't know him, but his comments ... 1.) miss the point 2.) distract from productive discussion. Without addressing his character, I've seen Stong elsewhere on the web and his style seems to pick at a thing until the focus and point are so obfuscated as to be unrecongnizable....."

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

Withheld... again, just because you say or quote some "brilliant" bulb who claims I "miss the point" or "distract" or "Obfuscate" (big word!) doesn't mean I do.

If I really am so dense, if I really miss the point, it should be so slam-dunk easy for you to humor me and show me where I miss the point! If I "distract" the conversation, again it should be really easy to point out what the REAL direction is. BUT YOU NEVER DO SO.

So who exactly is missing the point and obfuscating issues here? The guy who deals with evidence, history, logic, and argumentation or the guy who tries to pick a fight going ad hominem?

Remember: people who live in glass houses....dress in the basement! ;-p

-- Joe Stong (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Joe Stong's comments are not obfuscatory.
They are clear and convincing to fair and open-minded people.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.

Starting a war is just sick , the fact is , innocent lifes will be killed , especially with al those weapons of today !!!!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 06, 2003.

Hollis, here is the richest thread about the issue, where all of Fr. Neuhaus´ arguments were already addressed.

Following is a quote of an earlier response from me to Joe, dealing with the same issue.

--------

You said:

“The clergy have not been in the role of deciding when and where and how to wage war since the 11th century”.

You need some History-reading, Joe. Popes have declared wars just and unjust at every single conflict. They sided with countries against others. They excommunicated Kings waging unjust wars. They even decided frontiers between countries, as Chris Butler frequently post here. The very fact that Pius XII is being unjustly accused of being “silent” during WWII shows how much everybody expects the Church routinely to declare the justice of a war or lack thereof.

You said:

“If the US up and goes home, the Iraqis still will not have obeyed the multiple UN resolutions nor their own treaty commitments signed at the end of the first gulf war...”

I repeat Kiwi’s question: Why are you so keen on Iraq compliance with UN resolutions and not so keen on Israel not complying with them? And why Saddam, as is obvious that the real threat today is North Korea? How do you explain that?

You said:

“So do we have a right to self defense or not?”

Why do you think that striking Iraq is safest form of self-defense for the US? Almost all analysts in the world, right or left, outside and inside the US know that the attack or Iraq is sure to break the Hell loose! Terrorism against US will soar! Only Bush’s extremely poor grasp of international situation is incapable of understanding this! And it is not something to wonder, given that he is the president who said that he was the proof that one does not need to be a good student to become president of the United States…

God have mercy on us…

(end-quote)

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 11, 2003.

Atila, besides the crusades, kings and princes have initiated wars and Popes while they may have taken sides did not call the shots. Nowhere but on crusades did Papal legates have any civil authority.

Ditto for WWII. Pius XII was against that war; to be sure, hostitilites were begun by Hitler's Germany. The League of Nations "strong statements" had no force of law because they were not backed up with military force or political will. So what's your point?

Finally the stupid and illogical assertion that since A is wrong and B is wrong, that B can't be punished until A is also punished...

It's not a rational argument to say that because Israel gets away with something Iraq should be given a pass on something too! Especially when the only guarantee for the survival of Jews as a race of people has NEVER been the protection of the UN.... the Iraqis as a people have never been in jeopardy. So you are comparing apples with hand grenades.

If your daughter is setting the house on fire and you go to spank her will you cease because you haven't first hit your son for setting the dog on fire? What kind of justice are you talking about?

Israel - for all its belligerence, is fighting a defensive war. Fully capable of invading and occupying its neighbors (how soon we forget its occupation of the Sinai Penninsula and Lebanon) it has given up virtually every inch of ground taken since 1967. It's done a lot of things with the UN. And it is not a brutal tyranny but a functioning - albeit imperfect democratic republic in which arab Muslims and Christians have citizenship and voting rights.

Iraq has only withdrawn from neighbors by force. It has not cooperated with the UN in any substantial way. You compared apples with hand grenades.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

Anyone hear the recent news? According to UN resolution 1441, Inspectors are allowed to go anywhere, anytime, unannounced...yet they have been telling the Iraqis exactly when and where their U-2 and Mirage surveillance planes fly over the country!

Yep, really Key-stone Kops there. Inspector Cluesseus... Call me crazy, but what exactly is the point of telling a regime when and where you'll be flying surveillance planes? The only possible reason is to let them know where and when to hide things from view!

And you people on line think the "Inspections" are working! So far, the Iraqis have NOT complied with a single request of the UN as it is obliged to do under last November's UNANIMOUS Security Council resolution.

Iraqi scientists and their families have NOT BEEN ALLOWED to leave the country for off-site interviews.

Inspectors have not been allowed unannounced site visits or fly-overs

If Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, what's there to hide? If Iraq isn't hiding anything why not let scientists leave with their families? If Iraq isn't hiding anything and has no WMD, it should be easy for them to cough up details about said weapon's destruction: where, when, how, by whom....

This is becoming more and more like the abortion debates: one side points to incontrovertable proof, and the other engages in wishful thinking, emotion, and hard case, apocalyptic scenarios...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

I think a lot of people are ignoring U.S. foreign policy under Ronald Reagan. The Iraqi mess did not just happen without any assistance from the U.S. Government. When Iraq invaded Iran, we rewarded Iraq (the agressor) by selling them weapons to use against Iran (which took over our embassy). Furthermore, U.S. intelligence provided Iraq information as to the whereabouts of Iranian troops. Even though the Reagan administration had knowledge of Iraq using mustard gas against the Iranians, they still provided them with this vital information. Later during the Iraqi/Iranian conflict, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran (Iran/Contra affair). How could this happen after our President, Mr. Ronald Reagan time and time again said that "we shall not negotiate with terrorists!" Well, actually, our Government did business with terrorists. Now, today we learn that five U.S. companies are earmarked to rebuild a postwar Iraq. This would be financed from Iraqi oil revenues. I think the UN inspections must be give more time, along with increased military pressure from the U.S. and others. Notwithstanding, an invasion of Iraq should only be the last result. No country in the region other than Israel feels threatened by Iraq. If this is really about national security, then the U.S. would have had a preemtive strike in North Korea by now, as they have already claimed to be actively working on a nuclear program. No, war in Iraq is not the answer at this point. President Bush has contradicted himself on several occassions ("I am not into nation building."). He now wants to build a new Iraqi nation by overthrowing Hussein. If this war is about ending human suffering, then maybe we should help feed the starving 1 million + human beings in Ethopia. If this war is really about putting a stop to human suffering, then why are we not finding homes for our homeless fellow Americans (estimated in the hundreds of thousands), where between 35- 50% are hiv/aids cases. If this war is really about stopping terrorism, then why did we do nothing to stop Americans from donating millions of dollars to help the IRA (a well-known terrorist organization) in Northern Ireland? In summary, I do not think that it is appropriate to use religion to justify making a preemptive strike on Iraq. Many respected U.S. politicians (present and past) are against the war in Iraq. Even U.S. General Franks expressed concern about such war plans last August (he has no choice but to follow orders). Several countries across the globe are against such a preemptive strike. I am afraid to say, that the average American is not very well informed about the rest of the world. And when our Government tells us that we need to do something, the average American says "well, I think our Government must know what it is doing." I say no to a military strike WITHOUT a UN resolution. We would be breaking international law. We would also be playing into the hands of terrorists worldwide. We cannot fight terrorism by flattening countries. We must discover the root causes of terrorism. It cannot be a coincidence that the world economy is in dire straights (even worse than in 1991) and that a war might be used to boost the U.S. economy. I hope to God that this is not the reason for going to war. The U.S. and many other countries have had less than perfect foreign policies. We must learn from our mistakes by first admitting our mistakes. Only then will our credibility in the world be restored. As an American living in Europe, I have spoken to several people who are against the war, NOT anti American. I know many Germans who appreciate Martial Plan aid, NATO, etc. If we invade Iraq now, where do we stop? Is Iran next? Then the Sudan? Then North Korea? What about containment? This has been working.

-- Darryl A. Birdsall (darralab@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

there is hope.

-- Well Done Darryl (Well.Done@Darryl.org), March 11, 2003.

Wwe HAVE fed Ethiopia and we are spending billions to help people with AIDS in Africa... we are currently the single largest donor of food aid to North Korea - even while they threaten us! We've done more for 3rd world countries in terms of real, concrete humanitarian relief aid and support than every other UN agency combined. Only the Catholic Church does more...although Catholic Charities does manage 130 million in USAID for Africa...

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

That's an interesting point about North Korea, Joe. That's called biting the hand that feeds, literally !

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 11, 2003.

before we get carried away here, the US gives the least (out of all the industrialized) countries, in proportion to its resources, to foreign aid. it only spends 0.1% of GDP, others pay ten or more times as much. The US budget for foreign aid is c.$10 billion, but it hasn't been increased for 10 years. this is about $3 per head of US population, the war in Iraq is expected to cost > $200 per head.

-- Well Done Darryl (Well.Done@Darryl.org), March 12, 2003.

Thanks Daryl. You're arguing percentages and I'm arguing actual numbers. Name me one other country that spends $10 billion on foreign assistance?

Secondly, as "America" is always judged not just as a government but also as civilization - so we are collectively to blame for "slavery" and for pornography, etc. even though alot if not most of "us" were and are agaist both... we also have to tally up how many millions if not billions of dollars in PRIVATE non-profit aid is being spent on the 3rd world by generous American citizens.

I don't recall any other nation's school children donating funds to help their Afgani counterparts. Maybe you do.

We are a generous people. Could we do more? Sure! But in real terms we are already giving more real dollars than any other country to these poor nations.

Question: in 1700 the 13 colonies were "3rd world" hovels... a mere 100 years later they became an independent nation - not needing a UN, and international "aid" to survive the winter. Why is that so? Could it possibly be that "wealth" is not mined out of the ground and then shared? Could "wealth" possibly be CREATED domestically by peaceful and hard working people?

In other words, the US is not the only place on earth where people can be responsible for themselves! How come WE ARE ALWAYS TO BLAME for some other country's bad government or backward economy, or 13th century civilization or religious nuts? Don't foreigners have free will? What happens when they immigrate here?

Could it possibly be that we are rich and prosperous because of our freedom, our limited government, the culture of generosity and tolerance...and more than tolerance, of charity and volunteerism, freedom of association and giving?

I'm amazed that no one thinks what we have here can be duplicated elsewhere! America is great because of our civilized beliefs in order, law, respect, etc. - not to say we're not fighting a fierce "culture war" among ourselves (right vs left)... but by and large our values and civic virtues allow all these 287 million people to convert inert matter into useful commondities, wealth, services...

If you think the Muslims are incapable of democracy or of a vibrant economy - then what does that say about your sense of humanity being one single family?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

Thanks Daryl. You're arguing percentages and I'm arguing actual numbers.

**** US citizens are the meanest when it comes to alms giving (and the most generous when it comes to arms giving, btw). given that God's word is directed at the individual, then there is a clear case that the correct way to rank-order (as opposed to tank-order) generosity is per capita.

Name me one other country that spends $10 billion on foreign assistance?

*** Japan. it gave 13 billion in 2000. in 2001 it was just shy of 10 billion. as you will know the Japanese economy (and GDP) is contracting -- and moreover its currency really devalued a few years ago -- so that is not a unsurprising trend. what is surprising is that Japan was hitherto giving more in "number" terms than the US -- it has a much smaller population than the US!

Secondly, as "America" is always judged not just as a government but also as civilization - so we are collectively to blame for "slavery" and for pornography, etc. even though alot if not most of "us" were and are agaist both... we also have to tally up how many millions if not billions of dollars in PRIVATE non-profit aid is being spent on the 3rd world by generous American citizens.

**** this is a non-sequitur. where is it alleged that the US is "collectively to blame for "slavery" and for pornography, etc."???

I don't recall any other nation's school children donating funds to help their Afgani counterparts. Maybe you do.

**** i think that you will find that such generous acts were performed all over the world. you might find some evidence of this on the www. the US most certainly doesnot have a monopoly on alms giving, nor is it actally that good at it -- see above.

We are a generous people.

**** yes, but in relative terms, simply not true -- see above

Could we do more? Sure!

**** agreed.

But in real terms we are already giving more real dollars than any other country to these poor nations.

*** see above. and in how many cases are strings attached. is it really "giving"??

Question: in 1700 the 13 colonies were "3rd world" hovels... a mere 100 years later they became an independent nation - not needing a UN, and international "aid" to survive the winter. Why is that so?

**** uummm, non-sequitur. but anyway .... might have something to do with the discovery of a New World with great pastures, natural resources, a young population (old people less liley to survive the trip over the ocean). basic economic forces.

Could it possibly be that "wealth" is not mined out of the ground and then shared? Could "wealth" possibly be CREATED domestically by peaceful and hard working people?

******** ummmmmm, think about the effect of war in Europe. that is the real reason for the wealth gap. the US did not have to pay for a complete recontsruction. the US' relative wealth is, by historical standards, a recent thing.

PS don't forget that these same "peaceful and hard working people" all but annihilated the indigeneous peoples of America; and that the civil war was amongst the most bloody on record.

PPS don't forget the US' use of Nazi scientists. very significant economic factor, btw.

In other words, the US is not the only place on earth where people can be responsible for themselves!

*** non-sequitur. but also true.

How come WE ARE ALWAYS TO BLAME for some other country's bad government or backward economy, or 13th century civilization or religious nuts? Don't foreigners have free will?

**** where is this alleged?

What happens when they immigrate here?

Could it possibly be that we are rich and prosperous because of our freedom, our limited government, the culture of generosity and tolerance...

**** see above

and more than tolerance, of charity and volunteerism, freedom of association and giving?

**** see above

I'm amazed that no one thinks what we have here can be duplicated elsewhere!

*** that may be precisely one of the great worries -- that you want to impose a liberal culture in foreign lands. why does the US have such obesity issues, why is everyone running to a shrink, why do you have schools shot up by young students, why do you need to be rich to get into politics, why is the US the bastion of liberal and fundamental Protestantism, why .......do i need to go on??

America is great because of our civilized beliefs in order, law, respect, etc. - not to say we're not fighting a fierce "culture war" among ourselves (right vs left)

**** see above. if yoiu recognise domestic "culture", you must be capable of recognising foreign culture.

... but by and large our values and civic virtues allow all these 287 million people to convert inert matter into useful commondities, wealth, services...

**** despite yourself, maybe

If you think the Muslims are incapable of democracy or of a vibrant economy - then what does that say about your sense of humanity being one single family?

***** where is this alleged?? you said this.

-- Well Done Darryl (Well.Done@Darryl.org), March 12, 2003.

**** US citizens are the meanest when it comes to alms giving (and the most generous when it comes to arms giving, btw). given that God's word is directed at the individual, then there is a clear case that the correct way to rank-order (as opposed to tank-order) generosity is per capita.

++++ What numbers are you looking at? UN figures?

*** Japan. +++ How much of that $10 billion was given by generous Japanese individuals rather than Banks?

Secondly, as "America" is always judged not just as a government but also as civilization - so we are collectively to blame for "slavery" and for pornography, etc. even though alot if not most of "us" were and are agaist both... we also have to tally up how many millions if not billions of dollars in PRIVATE non-profit aid is being spent on the 3rd world by generous American citizens.

**** this is a non-sequitur. ++++ We are talking about the generosity of Americans, not just the US Government. Now, alot of people are arguing that the mess in the world is caused not just by the US government or CIA etc, but by US Cultural Imperialism, McDonalds, etc. i.e. Americans in general. Thus the Terrorists have targetted civilian skyscrapers and airplanes, and have promised more civilian casualties not as "collateral damage" but as the primary goal of violence. Yet these "targets" are among the most generous people on earth.

I don't recall any other nation's school children donating funds to help their Afgani counterparts. Maybe you do.

**** i think that you will find that such generous acts were performed all over the world. you might find some evidence of this on the www. the US most certainly doesnot have a monopoly on alms giving, nor is it actally that good at it -- see above.

++++ The overwhelming number of NGOs and foreign charities raise their funds from the US. Ditto for all those Muslim charities.

Question: in 1700 the 13 colonies were "3rd world" hovels... a mere 100 years later they became an independent nation - not needing a UN, and international "aid" to survive the winter. Why is that so?

**** uummm, non-sequitur.

Look here's the syllogism for you:

Third World Countries are poor. America is rich. America is to blame for their poverty

My syllogism was:

America was a poor wilderness With only their own work as investment immigrants produced wealth America is now vastly wealthy.

ergo, it appears that it was dedicated, organized, civil work that turned a wilderness into a rich land.

Your "explanations" for a rich America don't prove anything. Every country on earth has the essential elements of riches: human ingenuity. Japan has virtually no natural resources, yet when the US arrived to trade with them in 1856, they were a highly organized civilization... and by hard work and social discipline were able to even rebuild from near total industrial annihilation after WWII...

Could it possibly be that "wealth" is not mined out of the ground and then shared? Could "wealth" possibly be CREATED domestically by peaceful and hard working people?

******** ummmmmm, think about the effect of war in Europe. that is the real reason for the wealth gap. the US did not have to pay for a complete recontsruction. the US' relative wealth is, by historical standards, a recent thing. ++++ Your comments about the US Civil war and the rise of Nazi Germany show this argument to be wrong: a nation can totally turn things around economically in one generation if they are committed to organized, civil, and cooperative national efforts.

PS don't forget that these same "peaceful and hard working people" all but annihilated the indigeneous peoples of America; and that the civil war was amongst the most bloody on record.

+++ I agree about the Civil War. But there are still American Indians today... not that they weren't affected, of course they were, and I too have read and believe Alexis de Tocqueville's 1835 assessment of their plight...but be that as it may, there are still indian reservations throughout the country. Fact is, North America was largely unpopulated even with the Indians... because of their cultural level of advancement they never did - not in 15,000 years use land and resources as the Europeans did.

PPS don't forget the US' use of Nazi scientists. very significant economic factor, btw.

+++ No, except in the rocket and bomb projects, the Nazis didn't help our economic engine all. Sorry. They were'nt THAT much of a "Master race"!

In other words, the US is not the only place on earth where people can be responsible for themselves!

*** non-sequitur. but also true.

How come WE ARE ALWAYS TO BLAME for some other country's bad government or backward economy, or 13th century civilization or religious nuts? Don't foreigners have free will?

**** where is this alleged? ++++ it's alleged that the world is poor because America is rich.

What happens when they immigrate here?

Could it possibly be that we are rich and prosperous because of our freedom, our limited government, the culture of generosity and tolerance...

*** that may be precisely one of the great worries -- that you want to impose a liberal culture in foreign lands. why does the US have such obesity issues, why is everyone running to a shrink, why do you have schools shot up by young students, why do you need to be rich to get into politics, why is the US the bastion of liberal and fundamental Protestantism, why .......do i need to go on??

America is great because of our civilized beliefs in order, law, respect, etc. - not to say we're not fighting a fierce "culture war" among ourselves (right vs left)

**** see above. if yoiu recognise domestic "culture", you must be capable of recognising foreign culture.

... but by and large our values and civic virtues allow all these 287 million people to convert inert matter into useful commondities, wealth, services...

**** despite yourself, maybe

If you think the Muslims are incapable of democracy or of a vibrant economy - then what does that say about your sense of humanity being one single family?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

topping for a final comment? ...

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2003.

Everyone interested in the subject of the conflict in Iraq and the morality of the coalition's actions should read Joe Stong's masterful message posted on March 21 on this thread.

[Joe, besides that effort, what you did on this current thread was excellent. I'm only sorry that I was not able to follow this thread throughout February and early March, so that I could have shared the burden with you. I am appalled today to see some of the things that were said (vainly) to contradict the correct positions that you took.]

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.