War on Iraq

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Now that the first rockets have landed in Bagdad, what are your feelings about this war?

On February 2001 I was telling my students get ready for Iraq in 2003. They thought I was joking. On March 5, 2003 several of them marched out in support of peace. They think Bush is a warmonger.

In November 2000, before anyone knew who was the next president I was told in a dream Bush was going to be the one. Maybe God has a purpose for him.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 20, 2003

Answers

Often when children speak we miss their clairty and insight

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 21, 2003.

i regret to see that even as we enterd this 21st century, we still cannot avoid war through diplomatic talks. why is it we cannot learn from our previous history of wars? needless to say, i fully share the regrets expressed by many members of the united nations security council at the fact that it was not possible to reach a common position. whatever our differing views on this complex issue may be , we must all feel that this is a sad day for the whole world. millions of people around the world are shocked at what they are watching on cnn etc.let me pay tribute to bahrain for trying to avoid the prospects of imminent war by offering saddam refuge in thier country for exile. but lets not forget the iraqi children who are suffering from chronic malnutrition, these are the ones that will be most effected from this war, not Bush nor saddams family. this war is based on two people being stubborn, Bush finishing what his father could not do and saddam being selfish and greed to grab on the seat of power to keep the oil all to himself, whilst his people die of hunger. Bush let the iraqi people take decisions on thier own. lets us pray only to the people who deserve our prayers and that is to the innocent people of iraq, not to the dictor nor his henchmen nor the u.s. and u.k

-- gino abdallah (ginolagos@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

i regret to see that even as we enterd this 21st century, we still cannot avoid war through diplomatic talks.

Same reason you don't get many converts through ecumenism. You have to be blunt & honest, and don't compromise.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.


Thanks for yor contributions. In a couple of hours more I will be undergoing another kind of war in the operating room. Just pray for me.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 21, 2003.

I will pray for your surgery, as well as your full conversion.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.


My family has been friends with Iraqis for decades, and I grew up with many Iraqi-Americans. They are noble and good people. I have never felt anger or hatred for the Iraqi people - even in 1991.

But the poor, the weak, the sick Iraqi children did not and do not stand a chance of being helped by Saddam and his regime. The thousands of children and families who have died since 1991 have gone to their graves because the Iraqi regime was more interested in building presidential palaces than rebuilding sewers, water treatment plants, and providing food for their people.

How could the Iraqi regime find money for importing spare parts for their French-built Mirage jets, Russian built SA-2 missiles and Al- Samoud missiles but not find money for medicine, food, and reconstruction of basic civilian infrastructure?!

All those civilians affected therefore are the direct and immediate victims of Saddam - a so-called Muslim! Yet the Koran urges leaders to be fathers to their subjects, and believers to care for the poor, the widowed and the orphans.

Why must the US always be blamed for the actions of others?

Saddam had plenty of money ($25,000 apiece!) to send to Palestinian families whose sons blew themselves up (*killing Israeli civilians which have included Arabs and Christians as well as Jews), how could the Iraqi government not have had funds enough to care for the children of Iraq?

If you - any of you - care for the Iraqi children...I urge you to think: up to now, the people in complete control of Iraq in peace and in war, have not been very good custodians or caretakers of them... why should we believe the Americans will be worse?

Americans have always improved the lives and conditions of people and countries we have invaded and liberated. There's not a country on earth which has not benefited from American troop deployments.

We have saved Muslims and respected their religion in every land on earth. They are free to worship as they please here in the US and in the West everywhere - but we Christians are NOT free to worship publically in Muslim lands... yet see how we do not imitate the Muslim policy!

Liberated Iraq will be a much better place because the US respects the four primary principles of a just world order: freedom, faith, justice, and solidarity. (cf. Pacem in Terris)

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


Thanks, Isabel. The surgery so far has been ok. I still have to go back next week to remove a plastic they inserted.

As to my conversion, I have always seen myself as a catholic.

To tell you the truth, my final change came in July 23, 2000. I had a night vision in 4 parts: "I saw a mountain. Then I saw a little rock trying to move the mountain but coudn't. Then another vision: I see myself talking to God. I called Yavé. He talked to me in English and Spanish. He tells me to talk to Protestants and Catholics. I coudn't see him clearly. He was full of light, the kind of light that shines all over you, yet it doesn't bother your eyes. Next vision: I see a swap meet. The vendors speak Spanish. They see a dark sky. They worry because it begins to rain hard. They have no time to save their goods. They ask Jesus for help. In the corner I see Jesus. He raises his hand. The rain stops. People forget about Jesus and return to their selling ways. Jesus gets angry. He tells me: They only call me when they need me ( in Spanish). He raise his hand again and begins to rain but not hard. He tells me that for 3 years it will not rain hard. That prophecy was fulfilled on 12/31/2002. In 2003, it has begun to rain hard in my area of Los Angeles. Final visio. The liitle rock begins to move the mountain everywhere. I ask for the meaning of this. Then I answer myself: faith moves mountains in Spanish. You could see that I saw Jesus and I saw God. They are not the same. God has endowed Jesus with powers beyond human mortals.

I wrote to the Pope about this vision and others I had. No answer. My final ones are on the Church . The look like the 3 vision of Fatima. I saw a Church in ruins. Homosexuality was one of the causes.

The problem with me, Isabel, is that I don't use the common way of answering by other visionaries. This is something John G, Eugene Chavez, The Pope, and others cannot understand: a prophet is without honor in his own country and among his own people when he speaks the truth. Yet, I don't see myself like the prophets of old.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (
egonzalez@srla.org), March 26, 2003.


Jmj

Elpidio, please read the subject of this thread.
Now read your opening message and the reply from Gino.

Notice anything wrong?
Yes, that's right.
This is a CATHOLIC discussion forum. Your subject and the two messages have nothing to do with Catholicism. This is contrary to the rules of the forum.
Making things worse is the fact that you are not Catholic. You fell away, and you aren't even Christian any more. You are a sick, deluded person, imagining that you are getting visiions, etc.
Most significantly, you are not here for one of the reasons required (of non-Catholics) by the rules.

This thread should be deleted. [Moderator, please take note.]
You, Elpidio, should leave the forum immediately and permanently, unless you are willing to read the moderator's rules and abide by them. [http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004UPn] We have no need for a lawless and deluded person here.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 30, 2003.


If this was 1415 AD, I will be condemned by you to burn at the stake. Thank God is not 1415, but 2003. Like Jesus said about his generation: the blood of Abel till Zechariah will be required.

El que este libre de culpa que tire la primera piedra.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 31, 2003.


Elpidio writes:

"If this was 1415 AD, I will be condemned by you to burn at the stake."

Hurling emotional appeals like this is such a cowardly thing to do. I believe you're forgetting the many Catholics that were killed by Protestants for not renouncing their faith. Here's something to think about when you next choose to spout off such anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.



Jmj
Elpidio, you told me: "If this was 1415 AD, I will be condemned by you to burn at the stake. Thank God is not 1415, but 2003."

This is complete nonsense. I did not (and would not) threaten you with bodily harm. Your very anti-Catholic comment did more harm to me than I would ever dream of doing to you.

Your sense of proportion is totally absent, and you did not even try to understand my point. The thrust of my message was not to say that you cannot express your opinion about politics, but that this is not the place for you to do it.

This is a place to discuss Catholicism, which you and Gino made no effort to do. There are other Internet forums where you can discuss pure politics, badmouth America, etc.. Please go there, and delete your bookmark to this forum. (The Lord will help you to find it again some day, when you begin to repent and wish to return to the Church of your youth.)

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.


DEAR MR. J.F.GECIK, THE SUBJECT OF THIS INTERNET FORUM IS VERY WELL CLEAR. PLS OPEN YOUR EYES, BEFORE OPENING YOUR MOUTH. I THINK YOUR ARE THE BADMOUTH AROUND THIS FORUM. MR. ELPIDIO OPENED THIS FORUM WITH THE SUBJECT WAR ON IRAQ. WHAT ARE OUR FEELINGS ABOUT IT. NOT WHAT THE CHURCH OR CATHOLICS SAY. IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS DISSCUSSION, THEN GO SOME WHERE ELSE. AND DONT COME HERE OR TELL US TO CHANGE OUR SUBJECT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER FORUMS OF YOUR CHOICE IF YOU DONT LIKE OR UNDERSTAND US, THEN YOUR ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

-- gino (ginolagos@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Feelings. About this war.

Oh, um, gee. I guess I'm currently feeling pretty good about it.

After all, in 12 days we've surrounded Bagdad, saved the oil fields, protected Israel from WMD, opened humanitarian relief ports, liberated hundreds of small towns and villages, and while dropping 10,000 bombs have killed less than 500 civilians... we've invaded with "only" 3 divisions against 12, yet have suffered less than 50 casualties from enemy fire.

Sure looks like an unprecedentedly clean war to me! No invasion of this magnitude in history has resulted in as few deaths with as much promise for the liberation and healing of Iraq.

So I'm feeling pretty good.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.


Elpido,

You have revalations also?

Why don't you get with the other fellow that is obsessed with this nonsense and get lost you phony!

-- David (David@excite.com), April 03, 2003.


The left wing crank must respond! No hard feelings Joe but I found your picture ...

Feelings. About this war.

Oh, um, gee. I guess I'm currently feeling pretty good about it.

>Well I could never fell “pretty good” about an immoral and illegitimate war.

After all, in 12 days we've surrounded Bagdad, saved the oil fields (from what?), protected Israel from WMD( Iraq aint got any WMD), opened humanitarian relief ports(The Iraqi peole have never been worse off then at this very moment), liberated hundreds of small towns and villages(of and aren’t they just over joyed to see you), and while dropping 10,000 bombs have killed less than 500 civilians (10,000 weapons of mass destruction eh congratulations you should be proud, ONLY 500 INNOCENT LIVES, jeez you make me sick Im surprised you didn’t say collateral damage) Oh BTW I guess dead Iraqi troop don’t deserve mention we've invaded with "only" 3 divisions against 12, yet have suffered less than 50 casualties from enemy fire (yeah I wouldn’t want to be fighting with US fire support, poor Brits and Aussies, its onlt a matter of time before some gung ho Rambo blows af ew more of his own side apart. Clowns. Give us a break Sgt Joe this isn’t a war it’s a slaughter the Iraqi army is a joke, be honest about the comparison of force… although not surprising, youre making hard work of it) The lasting image of this war so far for me is a group of Marines whooping and high fiving like they had just hit a home run after firing a rocket at an Iraqi position. Bloody clowns, all the professionalism of their commander so I shouldn’t be surprised…

“The US Army's senior ground commander in Iraq, General William Wallace, warned that long supply lines and Iraqi guerrilla-style tactics had reduced the chances for the swift war military planners had hoped for. "The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," he told The Washington Post.”

Well dang, who would have thought they would do something like attack supply lines in a desert campaign. Cripes Lord help us Then again with Bush and Rummy at the helm you could hardly expect better.

Sure looks like an unprecedentedly clean war to me! No invasion of this magnitude in history has resulted in as few deaths (Clean clearly you didn’t see the picture of the market place, funny sort of clean.True the accuracy of your WMD is impressive if you care for that sort of thing) with as much promise for the liberation and healing of Iraq. (Yeah well outcomes may be positive for Iraq in the long term(debateable), although the damage done to relations with the Muslim world will be long lasting and deep in its implication. This war will have spurned 10000 more Osama Bin Ladens. Nice work America.

So I'm feeling pretty good. Well Im most certainly not

.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.





-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.

Just kidding! Just kidding! lol.

Actually, he would be more likely to possess one of the nine.

And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the power and the will to rule each race. But they were all of them deceived...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.


Im just flaming as well Emerald, gotta keep Joe honest or at least try although my spelling is going from bad to worse. I must say does anyone like Rumsfield or whatever his name is? He comes across as having a few more clues than poor old Dubya but man it must be close. I doubt hes a Catholic, but I dont know, just get the feeling a Catholic could never be so well... repulsive and arrogant! Gotta go the rugby's on :-), wish there were some good topics to discuss here apart from Vatican Ii,you know it drives me nuts.

See ya mate

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.


btw the real number of civilian casulties is closer to 1500 than 500, but who cares really, just a few less skinnies to worry about becoming terrorists eh....

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

Easy, easy fellas...

I was answering tongue-in-cheek to the poster (april 3rd) who WENT ALL CAPS TO REMIND US THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT FEELINGS. He didn't like someone's arguments and reasons so I thought I'd have a little fun at his expense.

So I was flippant about things that are deadly serious...

Nevertheless, in your knee-jerk opposition to the war "on principle" you HAVE overlooked a couple of things we can be rightfully happy about:

Everyone from the Left in general and the "doom and gloom" crowd in particular warned that war would lead inevitably to the following disasters:

- ecological nightmare - widespread civilian massacres (read, genocide) - widespread infrastructure destruction (read, urban warfare) - ignition of a regional war with Israel and all neighboring states - use of WMD by Iraq (which they weren't supposed to have) resulting in vast civilian deaths... - the eruption of world-wide Muslim terrorism - the feared "Clash of civilizations".

All this was to occur because the vaunted Security Council (which did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide) did not give their blessing to the war, and because the "Arab street" claimed they'd declare eternal jihad...

AND YET

1) The oil fields have not been torched, thus setting off an ecological disaster of the first magnitud.

2) Up to now the "Coalition forces" have not sought out urban warfare which almost certainly would have led to massive civilian loss of life

3) Looking at the sheer number of bombs, missiles, and firepower unloaded on Iraq, it's obvious that the only civilians killed by "Coalition forces" have been entirely accidental - indeed 50% of our OWN casualties have been the result of accidents. Bridges, water, electricity and roads (to say nothing of markets, residential neighborhoods and Mosques) have been spared. Every chance was given to Iraqi troops to surrender...

4) Iran and Syria have not massed their troops on the borders - for good reason: 3 US divisions were "enough" to make mincemeat of the ENTIRE Iraqi ARMED FORCES, at a cost of less than one US PLATOON! They may be crazy but they're not stupid.

5) So far WMD have not been used and the majority of Iraqis are now behind US lines and thus, are likely out of range of any such weapons...

6) There has been NO Muslim terrorism in the US so far. 7) There has been no general mobilization of the Arab or Muslim world against the US. Indeed, half of these countries have quietly accepted our troops, ships, and planes... Their nutzy-kookoo "street" might think we're the Great Satan, but they know fair well that Muslims here in the US are totally free to worship Allah - and that we have gone out of our way to avoid harming Mosques, civilians, and Muslim sensitivities...

Now, the fact that any civilian died is a tragedy. BUT how many were routinuely killed by Saddam's secret police on a daily basis? At least with us they know we're not targeting them, AND unlike their status quo ante, we're not going to be waging war on them for decades. This will all be over within a month.

Believe me fellas, you guys are going to look pretty foolish when the Iraqis start coming out in droves praising and thanking us for liberating them!

The "pope" of the Shiite Muslim world (includes 90% of Iranians) just issued his fatwa telling believers to cooperate or at least not hinder the allies.... the US just got as big a Kudos and PR coup as is possible from the only "moral authority" respected by all Shiites... I suspect alot of Iranians will now be thinking alot more circumspect and nice thoughts about us now....

US forces have just discovered some evidence of a WMD program... more will come soon....

When we DO find their stock piles of NBC stuff, the "mature" countries who helped them make the stuff like France, Germany, Russia, and China will have egg on their faces...

Admit it. You don't like war, but as wars go this one has been as antiseptic as they come, and half the Muslim world now has officially been told to cease and desist.

There ain't gonna be that clash of civilizations folks. Nice try at fear-mongering Kiwi, nice try at calling me a liar. But unlike some people who post from their gut (viceral feelings), I post from my head (sure knowledge, fact, argument, logic, and historical precedent).

Now you have a choice: you can choose to hate me or you can choose to respect me. But if you choose to call me dishonest Kiwi you're going to be swiftly in the unenviable position of having to eat your own words...



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.


For the innocent men, women and children of Iraq who have been killed in the war. For the British Soldiers who have lost their lives because of so called 'Friendly Fire'. For allied soldiers and Iraqi soldiers who died, and for their families.

Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace, Amen.

May their souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the Mercy of God, rest in peace, Amen.

Queen of Peace, pray for us.

Sara

-- Sara (sara@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.


For the innocent American soldiers who have lost their lives fighting in this just war, may they rest in peace.

May God bless President Bush.

-- David (David@excite.com), April 04, 2003.


Hi David its the civilian people of Iraq who are most innocent, there is nothing innocent about willingingly accepting money to kill other people. It goes with the terriorty. You get paid money to fight, you might die doing it. In saying that I share your concern for the fate of their souls if they died fighting in this war.

Hi Joe shucks its all on again hey. Look neither side of this debate holds all the truth, and I think we both share very similar values. How those values are expressed in times of war is perhaps the difference between you and I.

Easy, easy fellas... I was answering tongue-in-cheek to the poster (april 3rd) who WENT ALL CAPS TO REMIND US THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT FEELINGS. He didn't like someone's arguments and reasons so I thought I'd have a little fun at his expense. So I was flippant about things that are deadly serious...

Similarly I was being flippant at your expense, I didn’t like your feelings, arguments or reasons either.

Nevertheless, in your knee-jerk opposition to the war "on principle" you HAVE overlooked a couple of things we can be rightfully happy about:

Nothing knee-jerk about my opposition to war Joe, although feel free to label my position by such a clichéd label If you had been at this forum long enough you would realize I had expressed my support for this war before fully understanding our Holy Fathers position. Shame you cannot do the same thing, yes you’re free to disagree with our Pope but it’s not something to feel good about or boldly proclaim as “right”.

Everyone from the Left in general and the "doom and gloom" crowd in particular warned that war would lead inevitably to the following disasters:

“Everyone from the left”…lazy work Joe.

ecological nightmare - widespread civilian massacres (read, genocide) - widespread infrastructure destruction (read, urban warfare) - ignition of a regional war with Israel and all neighboring states - use of WMD by Iraq (which they weren't supposed to have) resulting in vast civilian deaths... - the eruption of world-wide Muslim terrorism - the feared "Clash of civilizations".

Nope never said any thing of the sort, make up what you like though…

All this was to occur because the vaunted Security Council (which did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide) did not give their blessing to the war, and because the "Arab street" claimed they'd declare eternal jihad...

Nope the opposition to this war is due to the lack of a clear and present danger posed by Iraq. The justification for a pre-emptive war was not warranted nor accepted as just. This is the view of your Church and most of the Western world it is something we have discussed in depth on other threads and don’t want to rehash it all again.

AND YET The oil fields have not been torched, thus setting off an ecological disaster of the first magnitude.

Well I for one never thought Iraq would do this which is a small blessing)

2) Up to now the "Coalition forces" have not sought out urban warfare which almost certainly would have led to massive civilian loss of life

Civilian casualties is one factor of the war plan, it is not the most important factor, anyone who understands the US war plan or has even the most cursory knowledge of modern warfare will understand why the cities of no strategic importance are not engaged. Ill let you do some research to understand why this is so

3) Looking at the sheer number of bombs, missiles, and firepower unloaded on Iraq, it's obvious that the only civilians killed by "Coalition forces" have been entirely accidental - indeed 50% of our OWN casualties have been the result of accidents. Bridges, water, electricity and roads (to say nothing of markets, residential neighborhoods and Mosques) have been spared. Every chance was given to Iraqi troops to surrender...

Yeah who said you were deliberately targeted civilians. Your point is what? Your disregard earlier failing too even mention the deaths of Iraqi troops sums up your position. Another galling image of this war was some Texas general chuckling away at a Press Conference while he gloated about the deaths of 200 Iraqi soldiers with a single bomb. Sickening, yet it was broadcast on American TV without a shred of compassion or respect.

4) Iran and Syria have not massed their troops on the borders - for good reason: 3 US divisions were "enough" to make mincemeat of the ENTIRE Iraqi ARMED FORCES, at a cost of less than one US PLATOON! They may be crazy but they're not stupid.

Oh dear, the whole thrust of you 12 divisions versus 3, aren’t we doing just great is just absurd. You expect me to take you seriously when you paint this war as a battle against overwhelming forces. Everyone but you seems to realise that the Iraqi army is amongst the worst equipped and trained in the world, the regular Iraqi army consisting of around 295,000 of these troops is next to useless, the Republican guard at around 70,00 is better but still so badly outgunned that a contest it is not. If you cant win this war you’ll never win one. Even the best clapped out Soviet tanks of Iraq are outgunned by the M1A1 by over 1000 meters not to mention the armour and accuracy of firing systems. Again this is not a war it is a slaughter, you are right on one thing. The biggest threat to Coalition troops comes from the incompetence of US Marines and friendly fire. They’re so badly trained I cant believe it. Ye ha Sgt Rock, God save us.

5) So far WMD have not been used and the majority of Iraqis are now behind US lines and thus, are likely out of range of any such weapons...

Oh so why did they not use them earlier?

6) There has been NO Muslim terrorism in the US so far. Well that’s a blessing as well

7) There has been no general mobilization of the Arab or Muslim world against the US. Indeed, half of these countries have quietly accepted our troops, ships, and planes... Their nutzy-kookoo "street" might think we're the Great Satan, but they know fair well that Muslims here in the US are totally free to worship Allah - and that we have gone out of our way to avoid harming Mosques, civilians, and Muslim sensitivities...

Oh dear this is where I feel you are so badly off track. Do I need to tell you why? I cant be bothered giving you a drawn out explanation although if you wish I’m happy to discuss this issue in some detail, in the meantime this should suffice from “Newsweek April 7” From all available evidence, most Iraqis would be delighted to be rid of Saddam. But some might also watch their country being bombed and invaded and feel defeated, ashamed and helpless. And the foreign power that comes into their land has a complicated image in the Arab world. Across the Middle East—even in Turkey and Iran—American power is viewed with hostility, U.S. support for Israel is passionately opposed and American intentions are suspect. It is possible that Iraqis feel completely differently on these matters than do all other Arabs. But is it likely? Iraqis live under a tyrant but so do Syrians and Libyans. This hasn’t made them pro-American. If a majority of the British people—let alone Arabs—believe that Washington is attacking Iraq for its oil, it is possible that a majority of Iraqis feel the same way. The picture that many Americans have in their minds these days is of Allied troops entering France in 1944, with a grateful public lining their path. But France was being liberated from a foreign occupation. There are no pictures of the Allies being greeted warmly by Germans—and remember that the Allies were liberating Germany from the most monstrous dictatorship in the history of man. Nor are there pictures of friendly Japanese, thanking Americans for ridding them of their fascist regime.

Now, the fact that any civilian died is a tragedy. BUT how many were routinuely killed by Saddam's secret police on a daily basis? At least with us they know we're not targeting them, AND unlike their status quo ante, we're not going to be waging war on them for decades. This will all be over within a month.

Here you make your most compelling point yet you fail to realise that you have stooped to unimaginable lows yourself by having to compare yourself to a brutal dictator. The irony is obvious. Two wrongs don’t make a right, morality is not in the outcomes, the implications for the world from this war are far wider both in regard to the precedent set by the US in regard to International law and The Un and the damage done to relations with the Muslim world You ignore this at your peril IMHO.

Believe me fellas, you guys are going to look pretty foolish when the Iraqis start coming out in droves praising and thanking us for liberating them! I think Ive covered this above.

The "pope" of the Shiite Muslim world (includes 90% of Iranians) just issued his fatwa telling believers to cooperate or at least not hinder the allies.... the US just got as big a Kudos and PR coup as is possible from the only "moral authority" respected by all Shiites... I suspect alot of Iranians will now be thinking alot more circumspect and nice thoughts about us now.... You’ve got to be kidding yourself, just where do you get your information from?

US forces have just discovered some evidence of a WMD program... more will come soon… as soon as you can ship more “evidence” over.

When we DO find their stock piles of NBC stuff, the "mature" countries who helped them make the stuff like France, Germany, Russia, and China will have egg on their faces... No not really, in the unlikely event you do find WMD this will not validate this war in my eyes.

Admit it. You don't like war I admit it!

but as wars go this one has been as antiseptic as they come Well again war is never clean or antiseptic

, and half the Muslim world now has officially been told to cease and desist.

Yeah right, turn it up.

There ain't gonna be that clash of civilizations folks. Nice try at fear-mongering Kiwi, nice try at calling me a liar.

I never called you a liar( I don’t think,) I did say I need to keep you honest, it’s a phrase meaning to provide the other side of the story, apologies for any confusion.

But unlike some people who post from their gut (viceral feelings), I post from my head (sure knowledge, fact, argument, logic, and historical precedent). Oh dear from someone sussposedly with a degree in Philosophy I find these words rather amusing! Also the implied Left wing = emotional subjective, Right wing logical and rational and objective…. OH DEAR . And you asked for respect?

Now you have a choice: you can choose to hate me or you can choose to respect me. No sorry I have plenty of other choices these include loving you, feeling indifferent to you, ignoring you etc etc. But I do respect you.

But if you choose to call me dishonest Kiwi you're going to be swiftly in the unenviable position of having to eat your own words...

Sorry Joe your opinion is just that… your opinion, you would well to remember that. God bless



-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.


whoops damn italics

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

go away that should have killed it off

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

hmmmm

-- (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

Hi, Kiwi, nice to hear from you again.

When I e-mailed President Bush I expected 40,000-60,000 Iraqis to die in this war. Most of them innocent. That is the only unfortunate part about war, many innocent die.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (EGONZALEZ@SRLA.ORG), April 04, 2003.


Hi Elpidio, good to see youre still around hope those schoolkids are behaving :-). I agree with you but war is sometimes necessary, however this was not one of those times .

Joe disagrees and hes free to do so but to trumpet around that he is the only one with the facts and knowledge is a bit much to swallow. EVen the most conservative and hawkish staffers and politicans in the current US administration would fall over laughing at his optimism and narrowness of view.

The world has a few more layers than Pentagon press release IMO. Lets hope AMerica finishes this war off as quickly and cleanly as possibly and lets the UN take control, the signs are though that it wants to establish its own little empire with a retired general (sigh).

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.


I know Australians are in the War. Any Kiwis ( New Zealanders) that you know are there also?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (EGONZALEZ@SRLA.ORG), April 04, 2003.

No, while we had troops in Afganistan (sp?)the New Zealand people and government are strongly opposed to the current war in Iraq. Only Britian and AUstralia have commited combat troops... AUstralia has been lured by the offer of a free trade deal with the US, something we're going to miss out on :-(. See you

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

On second thought, this war may very well have instantaneously cured a number of prominant social ills.

Since the first day of the seige, there have been no child abductions, priest scandals, high speed chases, snipers or anthrax scares.

After all, if it isn't on the news, it either 1. isn't happening, or 2. isn't important, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 05, 2003.


Simple , war is stupid , senseless & wasted $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!!

Innocent lifes will be killed !!!!

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 05, 2003.


Simple , war is stupid , senseless & wasted $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!!!

Innocent lifes will be killed !!!!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 05, 2003.


Hey Laurent your still around and still a non believer! , hope the eyesight is ok these days. I would like to apologise for my rash and hot headed comments about the Marines, its easy to sit back and take cheap shots at the US military . Whatever my thoughts are on this war the troops dont desereve that and they are doing a fine job. May God Bless and protect them also.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

www.twf.org -- Press Contact: Enver Masud 'War is Just a Racket' Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC. General Butler was the recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor. War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher- ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

["If one were to look closely at the past 58 years, one would be hard pressed to find a single U.S. military or C.I.A. intervention that has brought us one iota of safety, or, for that matter, that has actually been done for national defense purposes. As Butler illustrated in 1933, and it is even truer now than then, the U.S. engages in interventions meant to protect the interests of the powerful and wealthy of our nation and our allies, and rarely, if ever, in order to actually protect its citizens."--Chris White, "Is War Still a Racket?" CounterPunch, January

-- Paul Revere (truth@freedom.com), April 05, 2003.


Hi, Kiwi

Hope all is well!

Your opinion is just that, and please rember that.(same advice you gave Joe)

When soldiers are fighting in a war to free enslaved people they are couragous innocent men and woman. When mechanics(soldiers) are shot in the back of the head they are innocent people. I agree the Iraqi people that are killed are innocent too. But the solders that are fighting to free them are my heroes. They are risking their lives for other people. Sadam has already killed maybe a million of his own people right? What about those innocent million souls? Ithink any level headed person would say 1000 to die is well worth a million that were already killed and possibly a million more in the future. Rember you are always dealing with the nature of the person.

War is for keeps friend. America learned its lesson on 9/11, and we will not sit back and wait to be attacked.

Rember your advice you gave Gale about 5 months ago? "Hit first, and hit hard". Well after 12 years the buck will be stopped here.

Yes, I know what the Holy Father has said about this, so you can save that part of yor post to me. But, I did see your post a few weeks ago where you know these statements are NOT binding on Catholics.

If every comment that comes from the Vatican was binding than we wouldn't know where to turn to next. I don't think the Vatican could possibly know all the information that the President does about Iraq.

I would like to see the Holy Father get to the bottom of how all those gay men were ordained priests. A gay man in not allowed to be ordained into the Priesthood. But how many thousands of past puberty boys were abused by gay men that were ordained?

Lets clean up the seminarys and convents in America before we start to tell people how to run the Country with every opinion that comes from the Vatican.

Whats that saying,"Take the log out of your eye before you tell someone to take the stick out of theirs"?

God bless you, and the million people that S.H. has already killed.

PS; I hope Nic. is all wll now with a full 100 percent recovery.

-- David (David@excite.com), April 05, 2003.


Kiwi , as it sez , I left religion , I did left the catholic church for good !!

My eyesight is at the moment stable , but I will not become blind [img]http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/how.gif[/img]

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

This war was just not necessary !!

But I do follow this war via satellite TV , I watch every channel that reports on both sides !! I see also reporters that risk their life to bring us the latest news , some were killed in this war , I really hope that this not will happen again !!

Also big mistakes , accidently shooting their own helicopters / plains , or crashes , this all can happen , even they have the best and latest equipment !!!!

But anyway , it's completely wasted money , they are throwing away !!!!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 06, 2003.


Sorry , hopefully the smiley will work this time: My eyesight is at the moment stable , but I will not become blind http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/how.gif

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 06, 2003.

Yes Emmerald, one of the Nine... The Evil King of Angmar, perhaps?

Forget Kiwi, you are wasting your time. If writing here makes you feel better as a means of alleviating you pain and frustration, very well… But be sure that we are going to change the minds and hearts of these ACRC (American Catholic Republican Conservatives).

There are the guys that quoted priests charging the Pope of abandoning St. Thomas and embracing a “personalist philosophy”, at the same time when they make clear that their preferred “catholic” thinkers are Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and William James (not to mention Niccoló Macchiaveli). The ends justify the means and that’s all. American Pragmatism and Utilitarianism at its best (I have just had a Scientific Paper accepted about this, connecting Weber’s view on American Calvinism to American Pragmatism and Utilitarianism). Max Weber to the point. They wouldn’t be Americans if they were not Calvinistic. Absolute Predestination (in this case, of a Country), that’s Rambo’s faith.

One of these guys went so far as to say that US Government has “ALL the information” (literal words). The same “catholics” who are so eager to deny the pope his infallibility are those who are prone to believe not only in Bush’s infallibility but even to go so far as to believe he is OMNISCIENT!!! Wow! If THIS is not BLASPHEMY I do not know what it could be.

Sad sad sad… It our Church is to depend on American Catholicism, we are really doomed… These guys have not one inch of catholic blood in their veins. Only book knowledge (something I daresay I too have – it’s not a question of “envy”; book knowledge will not save us – at least I am aware of that, to my soul’s benefit). To commemorate a war which the pope is crying about is simply disgusting.

May God have mercy on us.

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


Hi Atlia do you mind mailing me your address. Thanks.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.

Hi Kiwi, I sent you a personal email.

BTW, did you know that, when Bush came to Brazil, he was in awesome surprise that there were black people here? It was a most embarrassing situation (first of all to Condoleeza Rice, who had to explain to him that, being an American ex-slavery country, of course we in Brazil did have black people here).

This is the guy who is the most knowledgeable geopolitics expert, the One who has ALL the information… The pope? Nay, he is an idealistic ignorant. He knows nothing about geopolitics. He had nothing to do with communism downfall. He’s a poor old polish priest waiting to die.

Ignorance is really bliss…

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


Once again you broadcast your ignorance when it comes to understanding moral argumentation. A non sequitur argument is no argument Atila.

Just because the Pope is vastly more intelligent and vastly more experienced than every other politician in the world, does not mean that his judgement in a specific case, such as the prudence of invading Iraq, is infallible.

But that is what you imply. You similarly imply that ignorance of Brazilian culture = ignorance of top-secet information on Iraq!

But the whole just-war debate hinges as I've repeated over and over again on specific information which the Pope does not and should not possess: military intelligence, espionage, etc.

The prudential decision by legal authority to wage war is based on what they know about the threat and danger. Now you can dispute this based ON WHAT YOU KNOW. Not on what you don't know.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.


Hi David,

yes Im very well thankyou despite just having my car stolen and letting my insurance lapse :-(. Life lesson I guess. Yeah I admit its all a mystery to me morality etc and you know Im ranting whenever I start using the word "irony" but it doesnt stop be spouting forward my 2 cents. Ive just discovered the AUckland Catholic theological college is on my bus route home so Im going to go in this week and see what sort of courses they offer, hopefully something at night after work.

A bit more informed Catholic theology and less of my own views might go along way. Hope your wife and daughter are well and Ill keep you informed of the ALl Blacks progress to world cup glory this year for sure ;-).

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 07, 2003.


HAPPY NEW YEAR ELPIDIO!!!

-- GINO (ginolagos@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

Thanks, Gino.

I feel 65% lighter of problems I had in 2003.

Happy new year to you too.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), January 14, 2004.


It just occured to me that in Emerald's photo above, G.W Bush has not vanished....yet supposedly wears the Ring of Power. In other words, this isn't a damning photo at all! If for the sake of the argument we want to think the ring is real, and all the other effects of the thing are the same, then the only way a person could wear it and NOT vanish is if this person was EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD AND BLESSED...i.e. Tom Bombadil. Tom could, and did, wear the ring and didn't vanish because he was older and far more powerful and of course, morally superior to Sauron.

So this just goes to show that all things turn to good for those who love God... Romans 8:28. Bush is a God fearing man, and is doing a fine job considering all the stresses and problems he faces.

We may disagree with this or that policy or move but one thing is for sure: he's far more moral and ethical and Christian than Clinton and any Democrat - and more pro-Catholic than any president we've had since Reagan, or perhaps ever.

One final note: Since launching the war on terror (which was begun if you recall with the invasion and occupation of Afganistan) in reaction to 9/11, The USA has liberated 50 million people, at a cost of about 700 US casualties and perhaps some 10,000 Afgani and Iraqi civilians. As far as wars go, that's nearly a miracle.

But in the same time period, Democrats and their ilk have carried water for International Planned Parenthood and others who have killed over 2 million unborn children, dozens of women in botched abortions, and untold hundreds to suicide because of post-abortion depression.

But does the Left feel guilty? Of course not! Instead, they project their guilt on the Right for any accidental, non-intended death, while being la-dee-dah with INTENTIONAL murder on their hands.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 20, 2004.


Believe me or not, I still want to learn if the argument against the US war is truly solid or not.

In all the articles, websites, and magazines that debate this, I continually see talking heads talk about what OTHER opinion-makers have to say regarding the Pope and Bush but nowhere do I see people basing their arguments on what the Pope and Bush have actually said!

Has the Pope gone on record stating (in full context) that "war doesn't solve anything"?

That's what is reported but where is the actual text?

That's not entirely true: wars DO solve things! Poland's war against the Soviet Union in 1920 DID provide Polish independence for nearly 18 years - thus giving the young Karol Wojtyla time and independence to grow up as a Pole!

The US Civil War DID solve the immediate problem of Southern States cededing from the Union and the moral problem of slavery.

The American revolution didn't change human nature, but it did solve the problem of British political control over the colonies!

The Papal flotilla that was involved in the battle (an offensive battle) of LePanto didn't "solve" the problem of Turkish offensive drives against Christendom, but it did destroy 200 ships, liberate 20,000 Christian captives and stop the Turks for the first time in a generation.

No one from the US side therefore claimed that the "war on terror" is solely fought militarily, or that it alone will "solve" the problem of terrorism!

But that straw man argument is raised by cardinals who should know better. Where has the US government gone on record stating that the ONLY tool in "the war on terror" is military action? Cardinal Martino claimed that this is so, but he's disasterously mistaken... and could have corrected himself with a simple websearch of the US official documents online...

We know the Pope disagreed with Bush on the timing of war in Iraq, stating in 2003 that he should rely on more diplomacy and UN backing and more UN sanctions... but in 2002 the Pope condemned those sanctions as immoral and in 1990 disagreed with Bush 41 even though the UN authorized the use of force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait!

So we know the Pope disagrees with Bush on the timing of war with Iraq. Now I ask any of you for WHY?

What syllogism, what argument, what series of reasons, backed by Catholic doctrine and teachings is this disagreement based on?

If - as I think is the case - it's not based on anything other than difference of opinion, then we have a difference of opinion on a prudential decision, and not a question of principles clashing here.

In both letters published by the Vatican from the Pope to Saddam and Presidents 41 and 43, (found on www.vatican.va) the common denominator from the Pope's side is: war against Iraq threatens the WORLD with armageddon and the use of "modern weaponry" threatens to be immoral.

For those who read alot of Vatican diplomatic releases, "modern weaponry" is code language for Nuclear, biological and chemical arms.

But if the feared consequences of war is the reason the Pope in 1990 and 2003 decides further diplomacy is the only moral course of action.... it appears obvious to me at least that this judgment call is based not on fact but on presumptions. If you presume that the US was going to nuke Baghdad or that Saddam was going to release germs or gas... then sure, it would follow that said war would be utterly immoral.

If you presumed that this war would necessarily lead to World War III, then of course, diplomacy would seem the only alternative course of action.

However these are colossal "If's" which have to be proven, not presumed when making moral judgments about someone else's moral choice.

Then we come to those who claim now, in 2003 that only the UN Security Council's approval gives the US legal and moral legitimacy.

This is a novel argument - and something neither the Vatican nor other nations to my knowledge have heretofore accepted as "true".

Was the recent war in Kosovo just? NATO hadn't been attacked by Serbia, and Serbia didn't have WMD, and Serbia was not an imminent threat to NATO! Yet the Vatican agreed that that "armed coalition" was justified in rolling in their tanks to occupy Kosovo! Why?

The only stated reason was: defense of human rights being threatened allows for limited armed intervention by coalitions of nations even without UN approval.

The UN Security Council and "international law" forbade that action, but HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN NATURAL LAW demanded it.

In my mind and reading Catholic doctrine, the Vatican was right in that regard. So why the flip-flop in Iraq?

Have ANY of you seen anything like an argument coming from Cardinals as to why exactly - in light of history recent and ancient (Lepanto anyone?) the US action in Iraq was "unjust" given FACTS not FEARS?

No. They just asserted it and didn't back it up with any reference to Catholic teaching, CCC, or encyclicals. No syllogism, no series of reasons leading to a conclusion. Just "Iraq wasn't an imminent threat" and "proportionality wasn't respected" - IN THEIR OPINION.

Well, for the sake of that argument, in October of 2001, was the Taliban's Afganistan an "imminent threat" to the USA? No. But the world signed on (including the Vatican) to the US led invasion to overthrow the Taliban and root out Al Qaeda.

Why? We didn't know anything about Al Qaeda's next planned move or their capability. There was no certain knowledge about whether they could attack us again and zero knowledge of whether they ever had WMD's, though the claimed to want them.

Using the arguments against the subseqent US action in Iraq, it's impossible to conclude (as both the UN and Vatican did in 2001) that the US invasion of Afganistan - or the war on Al Qaeda - was just.

But the UN and Vatican joined in the world's FEAR of POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES of leaving Al Qaeda unmolested.... But strangely these same people KNEW FOR SURE that Saddam's Iraq wasn't a threat...yet offered no proof as to why they were so sure!

"Just believe us: Iraq has no connections to Al Qaeda and no WMD even though in 1998 they were proven to so have them." "Just believe me, more diplomacy will make Saddam come clean, and stop being a tyrant" "Just believe us, war will lead to armageddon and intolerable suffering". No proof was ever proffered by either UN or Vatican to prove these claims. But all proof was demanded of the USA for every detail of our response to terror.

Unless....unless what's at stake here isn't principle but it's application! But in that case, the question about US action in Iraq is a matter of disagreement over prudential decisions, not categorically sinful, "principle" mistakes on the part of Bush 43.

If it was OK in the UN's and the Vatican's eyes for us to invade a Muslim nation, overthrow its government and destroy a terror network because "every nation has a right to self defense" According to the Holy See's spokesman, even though we and the world had no sure knowledge of the regime's connection to Al Qaeda's attack on the US, nor whether this terror group had WMD... then why is it categorically immoral for the USA to invade a Muslim nation, overthrow its government and destroy a terror network when the government had WMD, did have connections to terror groups as was pleased with 9/11?

Now fast forward to March 2003. Iraq was a known sponsor of regional terror groups, and every single terror bombing since 1993, including 9/11's terrorists claimed that part of their motives to attack the US was our containment of Iraq.

The UN knew Iraq had WMD, and had tried to make nukes. We knew that Iraq was not "contained" - every time a suicide bomber blew up civilians in Israel (and no "Peace Movement" condemned those acts of aggression), Saddam sent the family $26,000. That's fact. It's not even denied by anyone. It's fact that Saddam praised whomever did 9/11 whereas the Taliban condemned them!

Given these facts, how in the world is a US invasion of Iraq fundamentally different from our UN- and Vatican approved invasion of Afganistan?

Both countries sponsored the same and other terror groups - neither state was "an imminent threat" if the definition of "imminent" means "conventional military invasion of the US main-land".

Anyone have any answers to this?

If diplomacy has proven effective in stopping terrorists, please show me when, where, and how.

If diplomacy - without the threat of force - has proven effective stopping tyrants from arms races and aggression, please show me when, where, and how.

You guys make mumbled references to the Pope. But who of you have quoted anything he has actually said on the matter?

I'm willing to bet none of you have actually read all his words or even know that his words were few, short, and non-specific.... he didn't roll out a full court encyclical or even roll out a single page full of ARGUMENTS or reasons for his position.

In my mind that means his words are diplomatic and designed to send "the message" to the Muslim world that the US is not on a crusade to spread Christianity but is (as the US has repeatedly stated) doing all this in reaction to 9/11 and in self-defense.

Now, we can quibble as to what is "appropriate" for the US defense. But there was no argument between the Pope and the President over matters of principle: the US officially recognized the Catholic Just War doctrine as true! What was disagreed on was its prudential application.

We can quibble about whether the Pope should excommunicate Bishop Gumbleton of Detroit for 20 years of scandal, overt sin and gross negligence and ommission...or whether 20 years of Vatican "negotiation and diplomacy" was the better course of action.

But the principle remains untouched: the Pope's authority to excommunicate Gumbleton remains.

Ditto with the President's authority to declare war against states that sponsor terrorists who have repeatedly claimed responsibility for acts of war against the US. He has the authority. Whether it was wise to use it in this or that case, is a matter of prudential opinion. If you disagree with his opinion, what's your case?

If you claim that US Presidents don't have a right to declare war in reaction to armed aggression against the nation, and that only the UN security council has that right, then you'd better come ready to explain why this great security council's vote wasn't needed for NATO to crush Serbia over Kosovo or why Rwanda's genocide was allowed to happen if the Security council and "International law" is supposedly the last word.

No, both the UN and "international Law" has authority only insofar as they reflect NATURAL LAW - ditto for US Presidents, Congresses and the Supreme Court.

An appearance of law isn't law if it is unjust. To think otherwise is to indulge in legal positivism.

If you think the US action "sets a bad precendent" then you are party to the dubious moral theory of "consequentialism" - after all, the history of the world being what it is, I don't think you'll find any other nation acting as the US has.

China will invade Taiwan regardless of what the UN or "international law" says. And Taiwan's crime? It may declare as "de jure" what it already enjoys "de facto": political independence.

We're not talking moral equivalency here folks! China isn't defending itself against Taiwanese aggression!



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 20, 2004.


If the US war against Iraq was unjust...then so was our war against Afganistan, and so was NATO's invasion and occupation of Kosovo.

If our response to 9/11 in Afganistan was "proportional" to the threat and FEARED threat of Al Qaeda - hosted by the Taliban but with no direct connection actionable here in the US' court system...then on what grounds was the US response to Iraq "unproportional" to the threat and FEARED threat of an Al Qaeda/Iraq connection?

And who exactly gets to authoritatively make the call as to what is or is not proportional when the US is concerned? Who gets to decide what "grave, lasting, and certain" means exactly? If the "public authority" isn't the one who so has the place to judge as stated clearly in the Catechism, what makes you think so?

If you are prepared to use certain criteria in judging the US-Iraq war to be unjust, then are you prepared to use these same criteria in judging other wars? If so, then we can suppose that your argument is a principaled one. If not, then either your opposition isn't principled or it is based on differences of prudential decision.

Now, on the face of it, the Vatican's response to various different wars and foreign armed intervention has varied from war to war and circumstance to circumstance. Thus, either the Vatican isn't being guided by principle, or it is, and the only difference is one of degree and application of that principle.

I believe the latter is true, not the former.

Reading the Pope's actual words, and comparing this with the President's actual words, and comparing both with Catholic teaching and official US foreign policy statements.... I conclude that the Pope walked a fine line: distance the Catholic Church from the actions of the United States of America so as to avoid any APPEARANCE of "crusade" and "clash of civilization" (which is MOST FEARED by the Vatican knowing full well what happened last time the West was locked in combat with the East - we nearly lost!) - while at the same time not claiming moral equivalence between Saddam and Bush or condemning the US while praising Iraq.

The only way to do this diplomatically is to say little and make only oblique references to the topic. If the Pope believed the US to be categorically wrong and evil and all it's actions unjust then he would have said so unequivocally and perhaps even at length as in an encyclical such as Evangelium Vitae which spelled out the Vatican's position vis a vis the Clinton Administration's promotion of a culture of death in 1994.

But if you read carefully, you see only general statements: war is bad. (duh). Diplomacy should be tried first (duh). Resort to arms should only be a last resort (duh) and armed conflict is full of dangers to civilians (duh). Anyone who decides to go to war will have to answer to God for this decision (duh).

The pope's words were vague enough that the ANSWER people could claim him as their own, the Muslims could be mollified and sure that the Catholic Church wasn't involved (so no need for anti-Catholic genocide and pogroms throughout the Middle East), and the US itself would be careful to avoid harming civilians.

In classic diplomacy, you sometimes warn about extreme cases so as to avert the possibility of such things occuring. So the Pope must warn that "we must reject the logic of war" so that nations don't fall into the logic of war - even though the US has NOT succumbed to such a temptation even now!

Of course, I assume those of you who may disagree with me have actually taken the time to read the Pope's many discourses and homilies and statements on this subject as well as the the US' administration's actual words rather than just formulate your opinions based on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand sources such as AP, Reuters, UPN, and the talking-heads.

In my opinion, if a nation's government is a repressive tyranny, natural law would lead us to conclude that it has no legitimate authority to rule, make laws, and conclude treaties "on behalf of the people".

If this regime systematically harms its own people and routinely threatens other nations, it should be undermined in all ways, including as a last resort, military overthrow with the aim of restoring the "tranquilitas ordinis", and justice owed to the people by basic human rights.

Now practical considerations of course follow: armed intervention is not always PRUDENT if said regime has nuclear weapons and his highly likely to resort to them if threatened with armed overthrow.

In this respect, the US is morally bound to find a negotiated and diplomatic solution in North Korea and with respect to China/Taiwan - as we were also obligated with respect to the Soviet Union.

But all this presupposes the existence of natural law, inalienable (and universal) human rights shared by all people regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, and political system.

If you don't believe all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness... then of course, all is positivistic, law is what the UN or any other sufficiently powerful body claims it is, and your truth and my truth can be mutually contradictory without this being a problem.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 20, 2004.


It's a year later.

Even though I still believe going there to dislodge Saddam was OK, I wasn't for an occupation.

Images of the burned bodies hanging from a bridge may haunt President Bush.

How I pray to God he had listened to reason.

When I e-mailed to him in February and March 2003, I let him know to have some one from that country to take over.There would be over 5000 casualties from the US. At least 50,000 Iraqis if he didn't listen.

My suspicions on the number of casualties is coming. Less than 30% get reported. Units are told not to report wounded, only dead. So the great majority will never count.

Even Iraqis are dying in higher numbers than those reported. Only when reporters are on the scene, casualties are truly counted.I know my sources.

I cared for President Bush, but his obsesion might be his downfall.

The Christian Yahwist

It's too late.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.


Some people might think that I am lying on my support for the war. Here is another thread which shows my support.

For War on iraq

Like I aid, I am against an occupation.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.


Thread

For War on iraq

the Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 01, 2004.


As of today about 600 US military people have died in Iraq.

Of these 432 were the result of enemy action.

However, since 1980 over 500 military people have died from accidents alone...thus statistically it's always been more dangerous just being in the military than it so far has been for the US in Iraq.

Which again puts this all in perspective: sure, we're in an occupation and are fighting terrorists, but we're not suffering terrible casualties and the terrorists aren't terribly good fighters.

http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf

-- anonymous (anonymous@yahoo.com), April 02, 2004.


HI I'M BACK ANYTHING NEW???

-- GINO (ginolagos@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.

As of today approximately 800 US soldiers and sailors have died as a result of Iraqi or Al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq, all the rest (about 300) died in various accidents.

During the same time period in Chicago and Los Angeles, over 1500 American citizens were killed by gangs or drug related criminals.

Washington DC and Detroit have both seen on average 300 Americans (mostly black men) killed per year.

Now what does this tell us? If criminals can kill more Americans per year than Islamic Jihadists in the middle of the Middle East - awash in Ak-47s and IEDs... it tells us that a) the war isn't some catastrophe beyond the pale - and b) since violent crime in this country isn't making us panic or seriously think of surrender and fleeing to Canada, then neither should Iraqi casualties.

For those of you who seem to think that the US led war on terror is the worst thing and worst moral crisis of our time, I refer you to Archbishop Myer's recent letter to Catholics with respect to the immorality of voting for pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Comparing apples to apples, abortion is by far the worst crime and most urgent moral matter for Americans to be concerned with - not Iraq or the whole war on terror!

In 2 years we have liberated two nations - at the cost of less casualties than were lost in a single skirmish in the Civil War! More US Soldiers died in a single training accident in 1944 than have died by enemy actions since 2001.

More Iraqis and Afghanis were killed PER YEAR by Saddam and the Taliban than were killed in the last two by the "war on terror".

And things are improving in both nations - as witnessed by virtually every measurable factor from housing to economy to liberty and freedom of expression. The violence in both countries only takes place on 1% of their soil - 90% of Afghanis have more to worry about decade old land-mines than they do of Taliban or Al Qaeda....

So the big picture is bright abroad despite the sycopants of the Media painting it dark. But the picture is not bright here at home where abortion and embryo-destructive research is ongoing, continually killing 3000 children PER DAY and wounding the souls of 6000 moms and dads, families and friends.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ