On the eve of the Iraq invasion, the Vatican carried out a full-scale diplomatic, political, and theological assault on the War Party. The Pope sent his representative to Baghdad, and tried to arrange a peaceful settlement: the Iraqis, as we now know, were amenable. But this effort was disdainfully rejected by Washington – and viciously attacked by the neoconservatives, who initiated a round of anti-Papist demagoguery not seen since the 1880s, when the Republican party rallied the nation against "rum, Romanism, and rebellion."

Just imagine the uproar if this had happened to a rabbi.

As millions mobilized in the streets, the Pope sent a message You can read the rest here: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122903.html

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003

Answers

J. Fernandes = satanic apologist for mass murderers Saddam, Uday, and Qusay Hussein

Go back to hell, J. Fernandes, you anti-American, pro-dictator scum.

Yes, the pope, year in and year out, is "Man of the Year" -- but not for the reasons you imagine.

-- (Defeat@Terrorism.com), December 30, 2003.

Not that it matters to most people, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church lays down as a fundamental principle of its method of thinking about morally obligatory wars that, in the end, the last responsibility for making decisions falls on public authorities — lay persons, not clerics. Weighing the circumstances of whether to go to war or not falls upon the prudence of those responsible for the common good [See #2309]. In republics, these are the elected public authorities, that is, people like Berlusconi, Blair, and Bush, along with their parliaments, according to law. This is one more instance of "the age of the laity" announced by the Second Vatican Council of 1965.

...But let us first note that war is not always to be evaded. Sometimes it is morally obligatory.

It would have been morally wrong, for instance, for the United States to have fallen back and defended only the continental United States during World War II. Agreed?

In any case, the Vatican itself encouraged the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo, and has expressly approved the war against the terrorists, although not the war against Iraq.

But in what way is the regime of Milosevic in Kosovo less horrific than the barbaric practices of Saddam Hussein in Iraq? (There are many personal testimonies to the unendurable tortures Saddam has inflicted on tens of thousands of families in Iraq.)

What are the differences between Iraq and Kosovo? For one thing, it is very important that war against an Arab sovereign such as Saddam not be construed as a religious war. It is actually far better for the Pope in advance to be visibly opposed to a war in Iraq, even while pleading for Iraq's compliance with the U.N. resolutions.

The present point is that war can sometimes be morally obligatory, to defend the weak and the defenseless against remorseless aggression.

As a matter of prudential judgment, on this narrow issue of whether there are more reasons to intervene in Iraq on humanitarian grounds than in Kosovo, the evidence points hands down to weightier reasons to intervene in Iraq. In Italy, the Left (which led the intervention in Kosovo) is deeply embarrassed by this evidence, in the face of its refusal to support a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. The Italian Left is willing to allow the poor and tyrannized and tortured of Iraq to suffer indefinitely. The Italian Left's greater passion is to upbraid the United States. In Kosovo, they needed the United States to bear 90 percent of the fighting load, while they lightened their own consciences of the sufferings borne by the victims of Milosevic.

Now they oppose the United States more than they love the Iraqi, who suffer under Saddam, bitterly and unaided.

The reasons why the U.S. may have to go to war against Iraq do not expressly include this humanitarian motive. But they could. The fact is, however, that there are even more weighty reasons. Nonetheless, the objections against war fly. Like these:

What about the effects of an Iraq war on the Muslim and Arab street? Won't there be horrible turmoil? Do the Americans want to anger one billion Muslims?

That may be the fear of the bishops. But as a matter of fact, the New York Times (no friend of the Bush administration, and no friend of the war in Iraq) reports (Feb. 16) that leaders of the Arab nations supporting an intervention of the U.S. in Iraq (there are at least five of them) are predicting that great jubilation will welcome American and allied troops, and great victory celebrations, and dancing in the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Masul, and other cities. These sights, they say, will change the perception of the Arab streets. The joy of the Afghani after their liberation certainly did.

Perhaps this prediction is wrong. But since these Arab leaders are staking their reign and even their lives on it, it would seem to have at least as much validity as the much more pessimistic fears of the bishops of the United States, faraway.

A lot about this judgment depends on knowledge of the brutality of Saddam Hussein and the fear and loathing of him within Iraq.

Who is correct?

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021803.asp

In 24 months the United States defeated two of the most hideous regimes in modern memory. For all the sorrow involved, it has already made progress in the unthinkable: bringing consensual government into the heart of Middle Eastern autocracy, where there has been no political heritage other than tyranny, theocracy, and dictatorship.

In liberating 50 million people from both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein it has lost so far less than 500 soldiers — some of whom were killed precisely because they waged a war that sought to minimalize not just civilian casualties but even the killing of their enemies. Contrary to the invective of Western intellectuals, the American military’s sins until recently have been of omission — preferring not to shoot looters or hunt down and kill insurgents — rather than brutal commission. While the United States has conducted these successive wars some 7,000 miles beyond its borders, it also avoided another terrorist attack of the scale of September 11 — and all the while crafting a policy of containment of North Korea and soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

Thus by any comparative standard of military history, the last two difficult years, despite setbacks and disappointments, represent a remarkable military achievement .

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200312300000.asp

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

"Go back to hell, J. Fernandes, you anti-American, pro-dictator scum."

Yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with Bush is obviously anti- american, and anyone who dissagrees with the war on Iraq is obviously pro-dictator. Tell me, were you ever a Nixon supporter? Look into what happened in Chile and then tell me who is pro-dictator.

I think the Pope did the right thing. I don't say that as a protestant, I say it as a human being.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

I think the Pope did the right thing.

Nobody said that he did the wrong thing. He had the right to his opinion, and he had the right to offer exhortations and advice, based on his grasp of the issues and the information available to him.

Then he surely "did the right thing", (1) by allowing the coalition leaders to do what they judged best, (2) by not prohibiting (under pain of sin) Catholics from participating, and (3) by not condemning the virtuous victors.

-- (Defeat@Terrorism.com), December 30, 2003.

ah yes, Chile. hey there "anti-Bush" would you please explain to me why Pinochet stepped down from power peacefully? When has one of your Left wing dictators (Castro? Aristide?) freely relinquished power and turned his military junta into a functioning democracy?

Chile is not a 4th world hell hole like Cuba or Haiti or Nicaragua precisely because Pinochet kicked out a communist (who killed people too). That doesn't make everything he did perfect and it doesn't make everything he did moral. But if you can't give credit where credit is due... how clueless are you to the facts?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.

"J. Fernandes = satanic apologist for mass murderers Saddam, Uday, and Qusay Hussein"

hahaha. Dont make me laugh. I am a Ronald Reagan republican. I support the war in afghanistan. I never cared for the Bush family, a gang of mediocrities born to a life of privilege. Both Bush the elder and younger have exploited republican stalwarts to advance their elitist agenda. I dont know about other ronald reagan republicans but this one will be sitting out the 2004 election. I know many libertarians have decided to do the same. The republican aim of a limited constitutional government is better served with a divided government.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

"hey there "anti-Bush" would you please explain to me why Pinochet stepped down from power peacefully?"

Pinochet didn't "step down peacefully". He altered Chile's constitution so that he would be commander-in-cheif of Chile's military for life, so he would have his finger on the trigger, even though Chile looked to the international community as a democratic nation.

"Chile is not a 4th world hell hole like Cuba or Haiti or Nicaragua precisely because Pinochet kicked out a communist (who killed people too). "

Salvador Allende was a DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED leader who didn't kill anyone. Pinochet, on the other hand, killed thousands and was known to torture poltical dissidents. What a pal.

Hey, here are some nice Kissenger quotes that go quite nicely with the topic:

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

"My evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government that was going Communist." (to Pinochet, as he watched his death squad execute number 79 on his list of political enemies)

"The illegal, we can do with no problem. The unconstitutional takes a bit longer."

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

Anyway back to bush and the iraq war. The Bush family has close ties to the Saud family. If Bush was serious about fighting terrorism he would have declared war against Saudi Arabia, the source of Bin Laden's funds. Bush instead attacked Saddam Hussein, the greatest foe of islamists in the arab world.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.

The Bush family has close ties to the Saud family

PLEASE don't put this stuff out without citing your sources. As far as I know no such ties exist.

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.

We know now that J. Fernandes is a twelve year-old boy in middle school. There are real limits to what a pre- teen sophomore can understand. J.is likely repeating what he heard while Daddy and a few friends were arguing over cake and Port wine. He caught the juicy parts. Bush will destroy the world, etc.,

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

"PLEASE don't put this stuff out without citing your sources. As far as I know no such ties exist."

Come on Bill. Use google. Here is a link to prospect magazine which mentions the bush family's saudi connections:

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/9/steinberger-m.html

The links between the House of Bush and the House of Saud are deep, overlapping and notoriously opaque: the Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm whose rainmakers include George Bush Senior; the Saudi bankrolling of Poppy's presidential library; the lucrative contracts the Saudis doled out to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was at the company's helm. The main law firm retained by the Saudis to defend them against the 9-11 families is Baker Botts -- as in James Baker, the Bush family consigliere. And, of course, there's oil, the black glue connecting all these dots.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.

Vanity Fair had a fascinating article about the evacuation of Bin Laden's relatives in the United States after the 9/11 attacks. You might want to check it out.

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.

The links between the House of Bush and the House of Saud are deep, overlapping and notoriously opaque: the Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm whose rainmakers include George Bush Senior; the Saudi bankrolling of Poppy's presidential library; the lucrative contracts the Saudis doled out to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was at the company's helm. The main law firm retained by the Saudis to defend them against the 9-11 families is Baker Botts -- as in James Baker, the Bush family consigliere. And, of course, there's oil, the black glue connecting all these dots.

Come on, you can do better than that, surely? Evacuation of the Sauds doesn't make a Bush family tie. And what the heck is 'notoriously opaque' suppose to mean... maybe innuendo? Sorry, this isn't proof, it is speculation and rumor mongering. It hardly counts as historical research of a close tie between the Bush family and the house of Saud.

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.