Recently I was reading that His Holiness believes george bush may be the anti-christ. From what I understand the Pope is infallible, so how is it that Catholics can support a man (bush) who is trying to use God as a manipulation tool to promote his power?

John

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004

Answers

Show exactly where you found this so we can discuss. Hard to believe..sorry.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.

"..From what I understand the Pope is infallible"

Thats what you don't understand.

Site you sources and I take it you arn't a Catholic?

-- - (David@excite.com), September 05, 2004.

Recently I was reading that His Holiness believes george bush may be the anti-christ.

you read incorrectly.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 05, 2004.

Well, thanks for taking the time to answer...but since some of you seem to know everything already...try doing a search Pope/anti- christ/bush...you will find the answer...and it is from the Pope...also according to Vatican II the Pope is infallible

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

Papal infallibility refers only to times when the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra", or, within the Chruch, over matters beign discussed by the magestrum where his voice is needed to settle a doctorinal issue.

IE, if a conflict over the Doctoriens ofthe chruch threatens the unity of the Catholic Communion, THEN the Pope can go to God in prayer, and recive guidance, and make an infallable pronouncement.

Paupal infallibility is not, hwoever, a constant. The Pope can make mistakes.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CM), September 05, 2004.

As bad as George Bush is, I hardly beleive he's the anti-christ. Please cite a source here.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.

I searched a lot on the net, and all I could find was this one article from the "New Catholic Times," and everyone else referred back to this one article. I think it's a hoax because if the Pope had really said that, I'm sure it would be all over the news. After all, the speech that the Pope gave to Bush was printed everywhere.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108 881880

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

The article in the times was the one I was refering to...i dont think that the media always represents what is really going on (especialy since it is under the scrutiny of the fed gov)...im not saying I believe this is a sure thing...but bush does try to use religion as a leverage to increase his power, and tax cuts for the rich, and the war in iraq dont exactly represent the beliefs of Jesus, not to mention his failure in regard to every bit of domestic policy...from what I know the "New Catholic Times" is a credible source, so if you find a credible source that rebutes that article please let me know...if it is true would we really know...

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

I realize this isnt actually an accredited person but this cite raises some interesting question (and makes some good points and bad) but its worth looking at plus there are many more like it...

bushisantichrist.com/

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

like I said before tax cuts for the rich, an overall failed domestic policy, and a war rushed into and based on false pretenses, using God to try to gain power...are all things that people who believe in Jesus Christ our savior should despise...hearing you speak of bush as you do makes me think that you either work for the campaign (because your rhetoric sounds like it) or as scary as it is there may be some truth to what we are talking about...and the Pope whether you think he believes bush is the anti-christ or not has openly denounced bush's policy in iraq...dont listen to me listen to His Holiness.

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

" ..don't listen to me listen to his holiness.."

Ok John. When the holy Father and President George Bush met back in June, papal spokesman Navarro Vallis said, "...The pope indirectly praised Bush's opposition to abortion, hailing his "commitment to the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family." The Roman Catholic leader also praised Bush's efforts, and those of Catholic charities, to ease suffering in Africa."

Doesn't sound like the "hocus pokus" you print out. Stay off those web-sites. They are poisoning your mind and make you say "silly things" that are proven false & untrue.

Have a blessed holiday.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 05, 2004.

Instead of wasting your time arguing who might be the Anti-Christ and looking for this and other things which you imagine are "signs of the end times", why don't you concentrate on following Christ's commands so that you will be ready WHENEVER the end comes. It doesn't matter whether it's next year or in 1000 years or a million years. No matter how much you try to work it out, you will never know WHEN or exactly HOW. But all you need to know is how to live NOW.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

i wasnt talking about abortion or families...i was talking about the Pope denouncig the war in Iraq and his fear of what bush might do...and thanks to the archbishop in st. louis it is now okay to vote against bush ispite of the abortion issue...also, i never suggested i believed everything in those websites or anyother for that matter, i said they raised good and bad points...i suggest u uncloud your mind at look at the truth and reality, two things which seem to escape you and bush, or you can just continue to try and spin peoples words and thoughts around for your own self serving interests...why dont you try thinking about the good of mankind and all people, i dont support bush because he is a devider in a time were we need togetherness more than anything. Knowledge, unity, and strength will crush terrorism not hollow words fromm a man who has failed at everything he has ever done.

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

Actually, curious, Jesus told us to ”stay awake, for you do not know the day and the hour”. That is, keep focussed on the things that matter, not trivial things like speculation about who may be the “antiChrist”.

The UN, for all its good work in many areas, CAN become, on security issues only, “nothing but a great debating society”, when one or more of the five countries with veto powers stymie it from taking any effective action. However even in this case, remember that in response to claims that the UN Security Council is “nothing but jaw, jaw, jaw”, Winston Churchill replied, “Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war!”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

“After 911--we had to act.” I’m not going to re-debate the whole Iraq thing, see previous threads. But yes we had to act. No, not by making war on Iraq. Even the most insistent of the pro-war party have now quietly dropped the charade of pretending that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. War, even if justified as a last resort, is never “brilliant”, but is always a defeat for humanity.

Jesus warned us of the “signs of the times” to warn us to repent and to righten our relationships with God and our neighbor. Not so that we could play silly predict-the-future or interpret-the-prophecy games, and certainly not so we could wage wars thinking we were somehow helping bring on the God’s final judgment. He will do that in His own good time without our help. Personally I think the “antichrist” referred to in the Bible was someone who died centuries ago. I won’t say who as I don’t want to start another irrelevant discussion; and our faith does not require us to have any opinion or make any judgment about who it might be.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

Steve I think you are right...curious i just shake my head...dont ever forget that we helped saddam in rise to power as well as osama, and we certainly have reaped what we have sown havnt we...

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

“am I to understand that you think the book of Revelation--for example--is given to us by God for no reason--and it is not to be understood?”

Certainly not. I merely said that it is not necessary for your salvation to know who “the antichrist” is. If you followed the guidance of the Church which Christ founded for that purpose, the Church which produced the Bible, you would not get so confused trying to make up your own private interpretations of complex and culturally foreign works like St John’s Apocalypse (“Revelation”).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breadth of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders. And with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God wll send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie. That they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and beleif in the truth. To which he called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work...(II Thessalonians 2:3-17)

I read your post from revelation, which I have seen before. And I thought I would turn to the bible and open it, which i do from time to time...when i opened it i found this passage (or it found me)...I hope you understand I was not labeling anyone anything...I was however raising a question...one that cannot be answered by you or I, but with all my heart and soul I would like to believe that I will never believe the lie no matter who it comes from. I just wanted to see what you were thinking...

John

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 06, 2004.

I agree...so if its alright...ill try to watch out for you if you try to watch out for me okay...

best of luck to you John

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 06, 2004.

There is no need to worry about whether someone is or is not Christ returning to earth. When Christ returns, it will be obvious to everyone that it is He, coming in glory on the clouds of Heaven.

But just to be safe, I’ll never place a bet on a white horse. :- )

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 06, 2004.

You know I was thinking about something...what about a white house?

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

Look this is stupidity. How do we know what the anti-christ is? Where does the name and concept come from? From the letters of St John and the book of revelation. And what does St John define the anti-christ as? "he who denies that the Christ came in the flesh"...

in other words, those who deny the INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD, who deny that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is GOD... HE IS ANTI-CHRIST.

So what has this to do with Bush? Nothing. The man believes that Jesus Christ is God.

Now if you have a driving, obsessive need to denigrate the man and calling him "hitler" just doesn't cut it anymore, I suppose calling some other "bad" name like "anti-christ" just might make you FEEL better...but words mean things folks.

Anti-christ isn't anybody you don't like!

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

hey bud mabye you decided not to read the first post but this whole thing started cause i read how the Pope believes bush may be the anti-christ "New Catholic Times"...if you have anything contructive to say about that go ahead, and what John the Devine wrote in revelation is relative...how you interprit it is fine...but dont think its stupid because the concept escapes you...and if you are a catholic you should be taking what the pope thinks very seriously, since he is our closest link to Jesus, and far more of a authority on the subject than you...

John

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

IF Bush or any other were identified by the Magesterium as the antichrist the 'news' would not be unclear and or rumor...

The posit Mr John Dell puts forth is therefore self-evidently false - further discussion a waste...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 07, 2004.

Thats fine if the article in the New Catholic Times is false...and again i say, i never accused him of anything, I raised the question...i suggest you refer me to a article that refutes the new catholic times, i have seen none...and the church is under the scrutiny of global pressure (america) just like anyhting else...also the very essence of this topic would be unclear, or it could never take effect...i do agree that discusion is most likely in vain, but why not question a man who says he talks to God and answers to a higher power, where I come from there are 3 reasons you say you talk to god, one you are crazy, two you really do, or 3 you are false...and it just so happens my opinion leans toward the later when confronted with a known liar...and in this failing world we live in there are more signs than not, it is time...

thanks for your opinion though John

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

This is highly entertaining. I can remember when people thought Ronald Reagan was the anti-christ. His full name: "Ronald Wilson Reagan," gave him away. Each name had 6 letters. Thus he obviously bore the mark of the beast--666. I'm sure some "journalist" wrote an article or 2 about that back in the day. Here is some more interesting news from the Vatican to digest along with the Bush/anti- christ story: Read all about it

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 07, 2004.

Yeah very funny Brian. Why do you think I call myself Steve (5 letters) instead of Steven (6 letters)? :-)

In contrast to the “aliens” article, I think the quote from the Pope in the New Catholic Times is accurate, but the interpretation from the Pope's words and actions that Bush is the anti-Christ is the journalist’s.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 07, 2004.

ok, about the article...ill take whatever from the quote...the alien thing is really weird and interesting...makes me think of the mayans and galactic syncronization in 2012...

john

-- John Dell (johnldell@yahoo.com), September 07, 2004.

john,

the reason there are no contradictory articles to be posted is because the vatican does not waste its time with every slander hurled at it... to do so would be to become worldly in nature and therefore to fall to satan's temptations. we thrive by pushing forward with our religious concern while bearing little regard for the libels of those who seek to do the work of satan in causing strife for or bringing down the church.

besides, if im not mistaken, the new catholic times is hardly a catholic publication in anything more than name.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2004.

Hey John,

I have an interesting article for you to read= the Bible.

Can you show me where it says "antichrist", AND is talking about some man or whatever in some end time senario? I think you mentioned something about the book of Revelations? I haven't been able to find the word "antichrist" in it. Is my book missing something, or does yours have the word "antichrist" in it?

-- ??? (concerned@dontknow.com), September 10, 2004.

Emily is correct to say, I think it's a hoax because if the Pope had really said that, I'm sure it would be all over the news. After all, the speech that the Pope gave to Bush was printed everywhere.

In fact, despite their disagreements on certain elements of public policy, the two men are friends, and the pope has complimented the president in various ways -- something he would not do to the "anti-Christ."

Most of us have seen Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights speaking on network news and commentary shows. See what he has to say about the anti-Bush foolishness of author Madsden in "New Catholic Times."

What's more, Paul H is correct to say, the New Catholic Times is hardly a Catholic publication in anything more than name.

In fact, it is exactly like the (American) National Catholic Reporter in that regard. The both are ultra-liberal, pro-Kerry-Democrat publications that would do anything to see President Bush defeated, including this goofy anti-Christ lie or rumor or misinterpretation.

Although the (Canadian?) "New Catholic Times" seems not to have an Internet site of its own (so we cannot judge it thoroughly), I have no doubt that its issues are peppered with dissent and possibly even heresy, like the Reporter's issues. You can get some idea about what the NCTimes must be like by reading this article that tells a bit about its founder, a nun from a very left-leaning congregation.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), September 11, 2004.

SORRY. LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN.

Emily is correct to say, I think it's a hoax because if the Pope had really said that, I'm sure it would be all over the news. After all, the speech that the Pope gave to Bush was printed everywhere.

In fact, despite their disagreements on certain elements of public policy, the two men are friends, and the pope has complimented the president in various ways -- something he would not do to the "anti-Christ."

Most of us have seen Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights speaking on network news and commentary shows. See what he has to say about the anti-Bush foolishness of author Madsden in "New Catholic Times."

What's more, Paul H is correct to say, the New Catholic Times is hardly a Catholic publication in anything more than name.

In fact, it is exactly like the (American) National Catholic Reporter in that regard. The both are ultra-liberal, pro-Kerry-Democrat publications that would do anything to see President Bush defeated, including this goofy anti-Christ lie or rumor or misinterpretation.

Although the (Canadian?) "New Catholic Times" seems not to have an Internet site of its own (so we cannot judge it thoroughly), I have no doubt that its issues are peppered with dissent and possibly even heresy, like the Reporter's issues. You can get some idea about what the NCTimes must be like by reading this article that tells a bit about its founder, a nun from a very left-leaning congregation.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), September 11, 2004.

Someone earlier asked for more scriptures concerning the antiChrist (other than Revelations). Both books of Thessalonians give specific reference to the "man of sin" and/or end-times events, such as the parousia. Sorry I don't have time to look up chapter and verse. They are short books.

Like someone above said, the anti-Christ will be loved by the world, he will be a man of pseudo-peace. My opinion is that he will be a Jewish secular leader of great power and influence . . . and blood line. He will exhibit every characteristic that Jews hold dear. Remember, they are still looking for Messiah. They rejected Christ because he came in on a donkey. They will accept the false Messiah because he rides in in Porsche. They they will realize their error at some point which will usher in the end-time harvest of the Jewish nation according predictions made in the book of Romans.

Gail

P.S. Having said all of that, there are a lot of strange things about President Bush, and one does have to wonder who is really pulling his strings. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or 9/11, but everything to do with Israel!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 11, 2004.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or 9/11, but everything to do with Israel!

Gail,

Have you been reading some Pat Buchanan or Joseph Sobran lately? Would you care to expound on this?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 11, 2004.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or 9/11, but everything to do with Israel!

Though the form of this sentence is declarative (as though it were a matter of fact), it is really just an opinion based on faulty information and/or lack of deep analysis of past and current events.

Point I: It is wrong to focus narrowly on Iraq. It is not accurate to speak of the "war in Iraq." What is happening there is just the latest in a series of what will probably be thousands of battles within the "World War on Terrorism." It is just coincidental that this group of battles is taking place in that nation.

Within the War on Terrorism, before the battles in Iraq, there were other "battles" previously in other nations. For example, Terrorism's attacks were in many nations, in the air, and at sea over the last 35 years (highjackings of planes, the Achille Lauro, the first attack on the WTC in New York, the embassies, the Kohl, etc.) and Civilization's response included the battles to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, the battles against terrorists in the Philippines, actions to destroy terrorist cells and their financial network throughout the "west," etc.. And there will be many other battles of this World War within other nations, after Iraq, in the future.

Just as there was a 55-year World War III (the Cold War) won by Civilization over Evil, so we are now in World War IV, a multi-decade conflict that will be won by Civilization (U.S. and allies) over Evil (international terrorists and tyrants who support them). Some of us writing and reading here were not yet born when this War started, and it is possible that many of us writing and reading here will get old and die before this World War has ended.

Point II: It is wrong to say that the battles within Iraq "had nothing to do with WMD". Anyone who has followed the news on this topic from the beginning knows that many people, of various political parties, in various civilized nations, were quite reasonably convinced of two things: that Iraq not only still had WMD in 2002, and that its insane leaders could easily be expected to allow international terrorists to make use of those WMD to harm Civilization. After all, Iraq's madmen were allowing various terrorists (including some linked with Al Qaeda) to reside in their nation, and Iraq's madmen were supporting terrorism financially by paying lots of money to families of suicidal murderers. It was therefore only logical for Civilization to begin new battles of World War IV in the land of Iraq.

Point III: It is wrong to say that what is taking place in Iraq "has everything to do with Israel." If one reads Points I and II above, it becomes clear that Israel has very little to do with this. Obviously, Israel has troubles internally and with its bordering states, but those troubles have existed for over fifty years. In all those years, no coalition of nations has ever agreed to fight battles on distant foreign soil to benefit Israel, and no one is doing that now either.

Oh, no. The new World War is being fought not for Israel, but to benefit ALL THE NATIONS of the civilized world -- and even to benefit the uncivilized world, though they don't yet appreciate that fact. Heck, even some of the nations of the CIVILIZED world, burdened by a blindness that arises from a paralyzing pacifism, don't yet appreciate it!

The new World War does not include a "Judeao-Christian Crusade" against Islam, but only a long-overdue effort of Civilization against Terroristic Madmen. By Catholic standards, the new World War is a just war, and those leading Civilization (President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and heads of dozens of allied nations) are much to be commended. If anyone in this War is the "anti-Christ," it is surely not one of the leaders of Civilization, but some leader of Terrorism.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), September 12, 2004.

By Catholic standards, according to JPII, the war against Iraq was NOT a just war! So I think you mis-use the name "Catholic," when the leader of the Church has denounced the preemptive strike we took at Iraq.

Israel will not attain peace UNLESS the Middle East is stablized. In order for Israel to be safe, there must be a buffer between Saudi Arabia and Israel; that buffer is now Iraq.

It is certainly no secret that the U.S.'s policy on Israel has been of utmost importance not only to this administration but the Clinton administration as well.

Does terrorism have to be quelled? Absolutely. Am I glad Saddam is gone? JOYOUSLY. But do I believe we went in there for the reasons given? No, I do not. Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 12, 2004.

By Catholic standards, according to JPII, the war against Iraq was NOT a just war!

Your statement is incorrect. I almost said "false," but that would imply that you are intentionally trying to deceive. Instead, I prefer to believe that you actually think that the pope said such a thing. He most certainly did not. Some French bishop or other in the Vatican probably expressed a personal opinion on "just/unjust," but not the pope. Moreover, a recent directive from Cardinal Ratzinger (approved by the pope) to all the U.S. bishops explicitly states that Catholics are permitted to disagree with the pope's opinions on specific applications of capital punishment and waging of war.

Catholic teaching is that CIVIL leaders (who are in a position to know all the facts) must decide whether waging war is "just." Catholic teaching is NOT that civil leaders must wait for Church leaders to speak -- and then to act only if those leaders declare an impending war to be "just."

So I think you mis-use the name "Catholic," when the leader of the Church has denounced the preemptive strike we took at Iraq.

No, I did not misuse the word "Catholic." I purposely used it to see if it would elicit an incorrect comment like yours, so that I could present the following clarification for the benefit of everyone who has been wrongly thinking the same way that you have apparently been thinking.

As I stated, Cardinal Ratzinger recognizes our right to disagree with the pope on PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENTS that he makes in specific circumstances. In obedience to what is taught in Vatican II and the Catechism, I NEVER reject what the pope TEACHES about faith and morals, not even when he is teaching in a less than "definitive" manner. But I do (on very rare occasions) disagree with his prudential judgment, because that is permissible, and he can be wrong on such things. For example, he can (and rarely does) make imperfect judgments in the appointment of bishops. Prudential judgments are partially based on an accumulation of pertinent facts, and sometimes the pope lacks all the facts, so he does the best he can with what he has. Like many other Catholics, including many bishops, I believe that the pope's prudential judgment on Iraq is flawed, because he could not have all the facts and could not have heard all the convincing arguments on the subject. And Cardinal Ratzinger says that I may hold this belief and express it.

If you are a convert, perhaps someone has wrongly taught you that you must believe and agree with EVERYTHING WHATSOEVER that the pope SAYS that touches on religion. But that is NOT TRUE. Rather, we must give our assent when he TEACHES. The key thing is that the pope has not TAUGHT on Iraq, but has only expressed his personal opinion/judgment, based on facts known to him.

In my previous post, I carefully explained that what is occurring in Iraq is a series of battles within a decades-long World War between Civilization and International Terrorism. It seems as though you didn't even read or grasp what I said about that, but continue to wrongly cling to the thought that what is happening in Iraq is completely separate from the Terrorists' acts of war in the 1970s through 1990s, from the Battle for Afghanistan, etc.. Oh, no! What is occurring in Iraq is NOT a separate war unto itself. If it were separate, THEN a pre-emptive strike would have been unjustifiable according to Catholic just-war principles.

It appears to me that the pope and certain other bishops in the Vatican have the same misunderstanding as you, picturing the Battle for Iraq to be a discrete "war" unto itself. That would explain why certain bishops have been unable to see how the actions in Iraq fit the just-war principles. However, the Battle for Iraq is NOT a separate war. Instead, it is an action within the broader context of the War on Terror (World War IV). And that is why pre-emptive actions by the U.S. in Iraq (and other nations in the future) are and will be justifiable. Remember, once Japan had attacked the U.S. in 1941, ANY pre-emptive action taken by the U.S. military services against ANY of the Axis powers in ANY nation became just and legitimate. The same principle holds now, in the new World War. The Civilized Allies should, and justly can, take ANY pre-emptive action against ANY Terrorists in ANY nation having corrupt leaders that have support those terrorists (e.g., Iraq).

Israel will not attain peace UNLESS the Middle East is stabilized. In order for Israel to be safe, there must be a buffer between Saudi Arabia and Israel; that buffer is now Iraq.

Everything you state here is incorrect. In fact, Israel "will not attain peace" until the whole region converts to Catholicism -- both Israel and its Moslem neighbors. This is unlikely to happen for decades or centuries, perhaps not until near the end of the world, perhaps never. The Middle East will not be "stabilized" until major International Terrorism is suppressed (which is why World War IV must be waged and won by Civilization). Saudi Arabia has almost no power at all and is not feared by Israel. Israel could make Saudi Arabia a "parking lot" in one week. Iraq is not, and never has been, a "buffer."

It is certainly no secret that the U.S.'s policy on Israel has been of utmost importance not only to this administration but the Clinton administration as well.

You are misinterpreting the situation. The fact is that Israel is the home of many U.S. citizens, Jewish people who hold dual Israeli citizenship. Additionally, Israel has always been a great ally of the U.S. in almost every way, one of the biggest being the sharing of "intelligence" about dangerous nations upon which Israel has been able to spy more easily (e.g., U.S.S.R.). It is only natural that the U.S. should try to protect this ally, both because of over fifty years of friendship and co-operation and because it is mutually beneficial. But one must not take these obvious facts and let them fool one into thinking that the World War on Terrorism is taking place merely or mainly for Israel. As I emphatically states before, it is happening for ALL of Civilization, for ALL the scores of nations that the International Terrorists have been attacking for over 30 years. But what is the purpose of all this bad-mouthing or blaming of Israel anyway? It sounds almost like a symptom of anti- Judaism to me.

Does terrorism have to be quelled? Absolutely. Am I glad Saddam is gone? JOYOUSLY. But do I believe we went in there for the reasons given? No, I do not.

One of the beauties of freedom in America is that you have the liberty to "believe" wrongly. And you have been taking advantage of that liberty! I only hope that something I have written will help you, or someone else here, to REALIZE that you have been believing wrongly.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), September 13, 2004.

Pelligrino,

I think you are reading an aweful lot into my very simple posts. I have stated that I simply do not believe everything this administration has told us about why we went into Iraq. There are too many things that just don't add up. There are also many questions concerning the events of 9/11 that have not been answered by the military and/or the government. I doubt seriously whether you even know what questions those are!

You have used some rather strong language against me simply because I do not pay blind allegiance to ANY secular government. I do thank you, however, for pointing out the recent encyclical posted by the Bishops. No, I do not believe that everything the Pope says is infallible.

Let me ask you this, Pelligrino, (and I am simply testing your knowledge concerning the events of 9/11) how many buildings were destroyed in New York City on 9/11?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 13, 2004.

Gail,

IF our Holy Father had denounced the preemptive war as an unjust war we would all know it as fact rather than conjecture. To follow your premise would presuppose the Holy Father would speak unclearly or in riddle regarding such a grave matter -I think not...

It has been suggested that a war not delared unjust is by default just... Regardless, it is best to answer questions and ascertain merits relative to Truth rather than polical 'spin'...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 13, 2004.

Oh good grief Daniel. Don't you remember when the pre-emptive strike was just on the horizon, the Vatican STONGLY urged the U.S. not to do anything without the U.N.'s go ahead? And then 3 or 4 envoys from the Vatican came to the U.S. to try to defer President's action. JPII was emphatically against the war in Iraq! Do a google search and read articles posted in reputable Catholic sites. They are abundant.

BTW, I have voted Republican in the past and will probably do so again this time, BUT that doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do, and it doesn't mean I have to swallow every piece of bait that comes dangling my way because I'm a pro-LIFE conservative!

Don't you think it's odd that we spent 40 million dollars trying to find out whether Bill did it with Monica, an impeachment trial, and every Christian group in the country (almost) crying out for his removal because he denied having sex with Monica and yet conversely, now, we can't even ask BIG questions concerning our national security and our governments involvement in various wars, without being called unpatriotic, or worse? I mean, GET REAL! Where's the honesty here? If Clinton and pulled off Iraq's WMD/preemptive strike thing, we'd all be SCREAMING OUR EVER-LIVING HEADS OFF!

We went to war because our government told us there was a serious threat and that without-a-doubt Saddam had WMD! That is the ticket used by this administration to sell the war. Yet the same people crying for Clinton's impeachment because he lied about sex could CARE LESS that we were lied to about the WMD (unless of course they show up one week before the election).

How can our government have been so incompetent as to 1) allow terrorists into the country; 2) allow terrorists to invade our air fields WITHOUT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL'S KNOWLEDGE, and 3) then not to know the whereabouts of the WMD?

Then how come there are no pictures of any aircraft flying into the Pentagon? Then there is the subject of Building 7, a 42 story highrise adjacent to the World Trade Center that came crumbling down some 7 to 8 hours AFTER the planes first hit. Strange, isn't it, that none of the mainstream media mentions Bldg. 7? Why not? Because it wasn't STRUCK! So how come it came down? It housed the headquarters of Rudy Guiliani, a fortified two stories in the building.

Okay, you can call me curious, but don't call me a LIBERAL!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 13, 2004.

Then how come there are no pictures of any aircraft flying into the Pentagon? Then there is the subject of Building 7, a 42 story highrise adjacent to the World Trade Center that came crumbling down some 7 to 8 hours AFTER the planes first hit. Strange, isn't it, that none of the mainstream media mentions Bldg. 7? Why not? Because it wasn't STRUCK! So how come it came down? It housed the headquarters of Rudy Guiliani, a fortified two stories in the building.

first, there are very few people who would have a video film going of the pentagon, it is rather dull looking outside and attracts MANY fewer tourists than a building such as the twin towers... one might as well ask why there weren't MORE cameras at the world trade centers... but the answer would be the same: Very few tourists at 10 am on mid tuesday.

As to building seven, nobody was trying to bring guiliani down. ALOT of buildings that close the WTC were destroyed, and several fell that much, if not days, later. think of it this way, you have more than 100 floors of falling concrete trying to go somewhere... where does it go? answer: into all the buildings nearby. gail, come on, you know this.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 13, 2004.

Paul,

You said, "first, there are very few people who would have a video film going of the pentagon, it is rather dull looking outside and attracts MANY fewer tourists than a building such as the twin towers... one might as well ask why there weren't MORE cameras at the world trade centers... but the answer would be the same: Very few tourists at 10 am on mid tuesday." YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THE PENTAGON DOESN'T HAVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO OF THE 1ST ASSAULT ON IT IN HISTORY!!!! Even Walmart has surveillance cameras!

Then you said, "As to building seven, nobody was trying to bring guiliani down. ALOT of buildings that close the WTC were destroyed, and several fell that much, if not days, later. think of it this way, you have more than 100 floors of falling concrete trying to go somewhere... where does it go? answer: into all the buildings nearby. gail, come on, you know this"

I mentioned Guiliani because he was obviously a man of great importance during this time, and the fact that his building came down, AND WAS NEVER MENTIONED, is highly suspicious!

You obviously did not see the tape of Bldg 7 coming down, Paul. Bldg 7 was 42 or 43 stories high, it was not some little high rise. It came down one floor upon and another, as if BOMBS were simultaneously set off. Our government tells us fire brought down the building, yet there are hardly any flames, and the steel beams that construct the building came a tumbling, and furthermore were SHREDDED. Fire doesn't do that to steel beams.

Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why surveillance photos have not been released on the Pentagon, and maybe there's a perfectly good reason why Bldg 7 came down in the manner it did, but so far, no reasonable answers have been given.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 13, 2004.

gail,

surveillance cameras would point out from the building and toward the ground. to see a plane you would have to have a perimeter-in view facing the pentagon and angled upwards towards the sky, which didnt make alot of sense from a security standpoint.

as to building seven falling down, MANY buildings were knocked over or had to be destroyed that day. several buildings DID have additional bombs set off inside them because engineers estimated that it was physically impossible to repair damage to them after being blasted by pieces of the WTC as it came down. it is HIGHLY dubious that anything remotely sinister occured that day.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 13, 2004.

Paul, there is NO CAMERA SHOT OF A PLANE HITTING the pentagon. Not one single shot, not even a glimpse of a plane, not even a nose of a plane, not even a tail of the plane. Wouldn't you agree that is incredibly odd?

You are grasping at straws with regard to Bldg. 7. Bomb experts did not enter the building and take it down 7 hours after the first strike. That is preposterous. There would have been video of such a thing PLUS that is not what we have been TOLD!

Look, Paul, I'm not a conspiracy nut but things just don't add up, and don't jive with what we've been told.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 14, 2004.

Paul, there is NO CAMERA SHOT OF A PLANE HITTING the pentagon. Not one single shot, not even a glimpse of a plane, not even a nose of a plane, not even a tail of the plane. Wouldn't you agree that is incredibly odd?

This is not true. Check out this: 9/11 Pentagon surveillance camera photos

In the lower right box click "Images of Pentagon crash and explosion" gallery

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 14, 2004.

Gail,

Your arguments are ALL relative; however, they are not relative to Truth... Do you agree? Do you see the flaws and the dangers is such an approach to this subject or any other?

Our Holy Father did not declare the war an unjust war -period...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 14, 2004.

Brian, I have seen these pictures, and there is NO PLANE IN ANY OF THEM! There is a fireball explosion. There is no shot of the PLANE, not before, not during, and not after. Why wouldn't the surveillance cameras have picked up the plane flying into the building? When the planes hit the two towers the media showed the pics over-and-over-and- over again 24 hours a day, yet NOTHING regarding the PENTAGON.

So I will say it again, "there is NO CAMERA SHOT OF A PLANE HITTING the pentagon. Not one single shot. . ."

Daniel, you don't have a clue what the truth is because you refuse to look at the evidence, or lack thereof. I am pretty tired already of your lame sarcasms. If I weren't a truth seeker, I would not have ended up CATHOLIC! You obviously didn't even bother to look at the pictures Brian presented, but just assumed they disproved my point, when in actuality THEY ILLUSTRATE MY POINT PRECISELY! What are you going to do now, start calling me names?

Brian, thanks for taking the time to dig up evidence! I really hoped that you had something there!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 14, 2004.

Brian, I have seen these pictures, and there is NO PLANE IN ANY OF THEM! There is a fireball explosion. There is no shot of the PLANE, not before, not during, and not after. Why wouldn't the surveillance cameras have picked up the plane flying into the building? When the planes hit the two towers the media showed the pics over-and-over-and- over again 24 hours a day, yet NOTHING regarding the PENTAGON. So I will say it again, "there is NO CAMERA SHOT OF A PLANE HITTING the pentagon. Not one single shot. . ."

Brian, thanks for taking the time to dig up evidence! I really hoped that you had something there!

Gail,

You're welcome. It was no trouble at all. I knew exactly where the pics were. In fact I was just reading an article about false conspiracy theories in The New American that included these pictures. There was an analysis of these pictures and other items relating to 9/11. The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. One of the senior editors attends the Latin Mass parish that I attend. They are inclined to believe conspiracy theories. In fact, the focus of the article was to separate the "kook" conspiracy theories from the real ones. Their analysis was that these pictures were real. They had photographic experts analyze the pictures frame by frame. They unanimously concluded that THESE ARE PHOTOS OF A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON. The plane is visible just before hitting the building.

Gail, I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's out there. What you are theorizing is that zionists are coordinating with or are in control of our government to such a degree as to clandestinely perpetrate the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in order to blame muslim terrorists in order to elicit anger towards muslims in order to enable US forces to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and whomever in order to benefit Israel. That there was no plane that hit the pentagon. That it was some missile? Where did the passengers from that airplane disappear to? So all of these firemen, and policemen, and doctors, and nurses, and hazmat crews, and the FAA and journalists, and Pentagon staffers, and bystanders are in on the conspiracy. Come on. I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you are spouting this stuff.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemillsc.om), September 14, 2004.

off

-- -------------------- (why@not.working), September 14, 2004.

Wow, Brian, you just spouted off a lot more than I ever have. All I am doing is asking questions. THAT'S ALL! Why does it make people so nervous when folks "ask questions"?

Please for goodness sake, just show me where the plane is in the pictures you provided. If it's there, I missed it. I looked carefully at each picture and I cannot see one inch of a plane. You mentioned emergency personnel being in on the scam, which is a very interesting observation on your part, except THERE ARE NO EMERGENCY PERSONNEL in any of the pictures you provided.

If the government wishes to quell conspiracy theories, they could simply post pictures that they surely must have from their surveillance cameras, and that they have, for some reason, chosen not to reveal.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 15, 2004.

THERE ARE NO EMERGENCY PERSONNEL in any of the pictures you provided.

That's because the crash had just happened. Emergency personnel come AFTER such a crash.

I looked carefully at each picture and I cannot see one inch of a plane.

Gail, have you ever seen surveillance videos--say, of a crime? Half of the time you can't tell what's going on, can't see a gun, can't make out what people are saying. But the police analyze the video carefully, with equipment you and I do not possess. I am telling you that these photos have been analyzed by experts (and not just Dan Rather's experts thank goodness) who see the plane approaching on the right hand side just before the explosion.

If the government wishes to quell conspiracy theories, they could simply post pictures that they surely must have from their surveillance cameras, and that they have, for some reason, chosen not to reveal.

They have done so, and it has apparently not satisfied you and others. This is to be expected. Some people will believe such things no matter what. To believe that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon however, is to believe that the following people are in on the conspiracy: Pentagon workers and others who saw the plane, relatives of people "missing" or killed in said airliner, emergency crews--police, firemen, emt's, hazmat crews--who showed up after the explosion, journalists etc. A bit of a stretch dontcha think?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 15, 2004.

Interesting conversation about september 11. I am afraid that I must yeild to the temptation of putting my two cents in . Is it outlandish to suggest that individuals within the government were involved in 911? that it was a staged psychological operation? It may be outlandish but that dosn't in any mean improbable. On the other hand , why is it so outlandish? Why is our reaction to such a suggestion almost automatic? some it threatens a security that has been with us since childhood. Others believe the current administrantion is annointed with the blood of Jesus Christ. That it was God who picked W as our leader.So much for domocracy huh? Others believe to criticize the govermnent is treason (!) and that a true patriot is one with an unshakable, blind trust in transient elected officials. particularly the current officials in washington and take their place in the parade and march with flag high, chanting the various slogans they picked up from the nightly news. This is whats required of a true patriot. Nothing could be more outlandish.

The reason I worte the above reasons is because I conform to the suggestion Gail has made. not because it is my duty or because I think subscribing to "conspiracies theories" is in accordacne with what God would ask of me. But because I have yet to hear a satisfactory explaination otherwise.

The pentagon has yet to release VIDEO of the peatagon crash.Despite what "experts" say, can YOU see a plane in the 5 images they released? There is no wreckage of the plane on site. Why? A Plane penetrated three rings of the pentagon. given the three feet of steel reinforced concrete on either side of a ring , the plane penetrated 18 feet of steel reinforced concrete. Leaving a 16 exit whole. How? How did the terrorist get to the pentagon with no help from FAA? why did they hit the one side the was being renovated and not Rumsfields office? Why , just before the plane hits the south tower and it begins to turn to the left , can you see a pod attached to the belly of the plane , and just before the plane hits a flash is seen coming form the pod? http://investigate911.batcave.net/planebomb.html Why was the wreckage of the (media obscured) flight 93 spread over a five mile radius? The maximum possible temp for an open fire fueled by hydrocarbons is 1600 to 1700 farenheit.Yet steel melts near 2700 farenheit. How then, did three building fall in perfect deomlishion stlye?

The fact is you have two conpiracies to chose from . One is true. one is a lie. There is plenty more "coincidences" one will be asked to accept if they believe the official account.Al Qaeda and fire, it is superfluous to say , is not an explaination.But a denial. They will have to compromise the integrity of critical objective thought. For some unfortunatly, it will be worth it. These are a few question that have yet to be answered by defendants of the official account.If one can pfovide rational answers . please do. Sorry for the length. with respect, rye

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Thanks Rye, you make some excellent points. I refuse to be "dummied" by our government or PEER pressure.

Brian, God bless you man, but we have video out the ying-yang of the twin towers and virtually NOTHING on Bldg 7 or the PENTAGON!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 15, 2004.

Hello, I ma back . I just wanted to clarify one quick point. Some will instinctively call me a liberal for the single reason that I'm criticizing the current administration. The conviently mis-leading term is "Bush Bashing". I'm sure we've all heard it before. In response to this potential reaction, I would point out the under the Clinton administration a similar incident occured. We all remember hearing on our news of McVeigh and his truck bomb. But if you lived in OK city you would have gotten an entirely different account . Such as BATF and FBI removing up to 3 high tech explosives from within the building. Local news in the area confirmed this numerous times. Or the fact that NO BATF agents were in the building that morning. Just another coincidence. Right?

No no no . Mc Veigh Placed 3 high tech explosives in stragic places in the building then decided to park a truck bomb in front of the federal building. But before he did, he called all BATF and tipped them not to come to work that day. Again, the feds won't release the videos of that morning. Not because they have something to hide. thats not the reason . The reason is National Security.

I'll say! Just see what would happen to our nations security if they did release the Ok city and Pentagon videos.

Here is an address to a short flash video regarding the pentagon . I urge critics and defandants to at least chenk it out . It will have to be pasted in the browser bar.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

rye

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Thanks Rye, you make some excellent points. I refuse to be "dummied" by our government or PEER pressure. Brian, God bless you man, but we have video out the ying-yang of the twin towers and virtually NOTHING on Bldg 7 or the PENTAGON!

Gail,

I'm glad you refused to be dummied by our government and your PEERS! That's a very healthy attitude. I hope you also refuse to be dummied by conspiracy kooks like Thierry Meyssan. We don't have video out the "yin-yang" of the first plane hitting the WTC either (at least compared to the second one), but that doesn't mean it didn't occur. Once the first plane hit, that's when people and news agencies broke out the cameras. There are eye-witnesses of the attack on the Pentagon, including Father Stephen McGraw, an Opus Dei priest who was stuck in traffic as he witnessed American Flight 77 fly over him and crash into the Pentagon. Read all about it here if you care to: Getting the Facts Straight

Gail and rye,

If a missile hit the pentagon and not an airplane, what happened to AA Flight 77 Where did it go? Where are the passengers? There are many eye-witnesses of a plane hitting the pentagon. There are none of a missile hitting the pentagon. Don't you find that odd? In fact this missile theory is so far-fetched that it gives conspiracy theories a bad (worse?)name. This needs to be put on the shelf next to "Bush is the anti-Christ", "nazi gas chambers didn't exist," and "Elvis sightings."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 15, 2004.

Hey Brian, thanks for pulling up the article. I never suggested a missile struck the pentagon. Obviously something did, and obviously some folks saw, heard and felt the impact of it. I don't doubt the priest's testimony in the article.

What I don't understand, Brian, is with all of these conspiracy theories flying around, and with this high-tech age in which we live, there are no satellites pics, there are no surveillance video, there is but a handful of unrevealing pictures presented to us which is supposed to silence the "conspiracy nuts." The pentagon surely must be under extraordinary surveillance, and yet we have 5 measley pictures. Why don't they just release what they have and put an end to the controversy?

But you are very kind to take the time to search for some explanation, and I truly do appreciate your doing so.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 15, 2004.

Is it outlandish to suggest that individuals within the government were involved in 911?

Worse than "outlandish."

Is it outlandish to suggest that it was a staged psychological operation?

Worse than "outlandish."

It may be outlandish but that dosn't in any mean improbable.

This is an illogical comment. Since the suggestions made are outlandish and even worse than outlandish, they are by definition nearly impossible (forget about "improbable"). And if a person can write such an illogical comment, one knows that he is going to be incapable of dealing with the more complex subject of conspiracy.

My evaluation of the suggestions of conspiracy as "nearly impossible" has nothing to do with the equally outlandish strawmen mentioned (threatening personal security, anointing of the administration, blind trust, etc.). Instead it has to do with history, human observation over long lives, and probabilities.

I know of four kinds of people who persist in pushing outlandish theories of conspiracy and the like (and each such person posting above can find his/her niche within these, as I will not try to be specifically accusatory):
1. the very young and inexperienced, who have not seen enough of real life, nor read enough about history, to realize how their ideas are a waste of everyone's time and energy and contribute to national disunity, malaise, and disloyalty;
2. certain ultra-conservative people (often raised as Evangelicals/Fundamentalists), who are born and raised in an environment of paranoia, and who are brainwashed with conspiracy theories and attempted links of current events to what they think are biblical prophecies;
3. ultra-liberals, who kneed-jerkedly reject whatever conservative people in authority tell them;
4. the mentally ill, the emotionally unstable, and the intellectually deficient, who lack the tools required to come to the right conclusions, regardless of how much evidence and history are presented to them.

May God help all of these groups of people to be healed of their shortcomings or maladies and to come to trust others and to be at peace.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), September 16, 2004.

"This is an illogical comment. Since the suggestions made are outlandish and even worse than outlandish, they are by definition nearly impossible (forget about "improbable")."

Outlandish a.Foreign;strange:uncouth:bizarre. From the Websters Expanded Dictionary

So, Pellegrino , accordingly, your statement above is in essence this:That which is bizarre is nearly impossible. Words are good tools to come to the right conclusions.

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 16, 2004.

gail,

the pentagon defense is mainly produced by several factors:

1) human guards outside, prevent anyone from entering the grounds and keep watch from people approaching the building from the ground.

2) Stop posts: stop vehicles from coming any closer than the parking lots or streets, preventing the use of car bombs against the sides of the building.

3) Probable: use of motion sensors and/or weight sensors in the ground to detect people moving in the lawns.

4) limited video surveillance at checkpoints. this is notable by looking at the surveillance photos shown... that is, that the checkpoints have costly video cameras which are monitored (probably) all the time, but that the place is not bristling with cameras, since other detection/deterent methods are already in place.

it stands to reason that if the attack WERE a missile, that it would have shown up on radar as such, the pentagon would have been evacuated hours before the strike (ballistic capability of al quada would be slow). and that the missile would most likely have been shot down. what no one expected, however, was that a plane which lost communications and went off course... accidently wandering into pentagon air space, was actually being used as a bomb to attack with. who would have ever guessed at such an atrocity? i certainly didnt, and if you're honest, you must admit that you weren't planning on september 11th either.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 16, 2004.

Brian,

Danielle O'brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles is qouted as saying: "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, thath that was a military plane."

Lon Rains, editor of Space News, said: "I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing lke an airplane"

One eye witness acount from Steve De Chairo. said what he saw had no wings, no tail.

There are also witnesses who are said to have seen two aircraft.

Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a “second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.” [Daily Press, 9/15/01]

Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130, two others aren't certain. [Daily Press, 9/15/01] Wheelhouse “believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.” As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west. [Daily Press, 9/14/01]

USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.” [USA Today, 9/17/01]

There are holes in the official account. That much one would have to admit, is blatant. An eye witness account of any event would hold more weight if there is evidence. In the case of those who say they witnessed a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon do so with no evidence to support their claim. Would this hold up in a court of law? In contradictions between evidence and eywitness claims , evidence takes momentum. Human testamony could have faults for many reasons. Im not suggesting that all who saw they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon are lying. To qoute David Ray Griffen from his book "The New Pearl Harbor"

"If what hit the Pentagon was a missile, the fact that several people said that they saw a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon is not surprising, given the dynamics of the psychology of memory and perception. But if what hit the pentagon had been a boeing 757, it would be VERY surprising to have reports of people-especially people with trained eyes and ears- claiming to have seen a missle or small military plane. These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane must, accordingly, be given more weight."

Here is information about the now declassified OPERATION NORTHWOODS document.Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had propased this plan the Kennedy in the sixties. Its real. You can find it at the National Security Archives online. This give testimony to the veiw that what we are discussing is probable.

N E W Y O R K, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right- wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 16, 2004.

Wow, Catcher Rye, where did you get all of that stuff?

Pellegrino, your statement above is so absurd, or should I say outlandish, as to be completely UNBELIEVABLE!

Shall I recount all of the outlandish things in history that have INDEED happened! How about Hitler! Was that outlandish? How many people went to the chambers because good people had their heads stuck in the sand, saying "this is too outlandish to really be happening"? You know what . . . I bet A LOT OF THEM!

Gail

P.S. You know what guys, America and/or its President is NOT the savior of the world. THEY ARE FALLIBLE! How come NO CHRISTIANS are asking why George Bush is a member of Skull and Bones? If it were Clinton, you betcha they'd be askin', but because GW is supposed to be a Christian, that's another subject that is "off limits."

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 16, 2004.

President Bush isn't the Anti-Christ, it is not as simple as that. I think things like the Democratic party is 40 years of compiled evil in this country. History is not a seriers of seperate events, but go together like a jigsaw puzzle. And repeat, if not solved the first time. I would say Clinton would be closer to an Anti-Christ, since he is sortonly the most amoral oval office occupant I can think of to have been in there. And let unchecked and helped so many outside build ups that are a threat to this country, such as terrorism and our enemies. And not only was a main cause of stopping much of the great reversal of the evil caused by the Democrats, that the Republicans brought forth, but then took credit for it. An anti- Christ would have to have a large loyal following. Clinton has been called the first black president by negroes themself. When in fact he made it very possible for the destructive programs against the stinky skins' communities to continue. Well among the blind, the one eyed man is king. But he was just a build of 40 years of @#$% in the intestine of this Nation. Things build up, demons do not just come along they are invited.

But as for a one eyed man being King in the land of the blind. An Anti-Christ would be come as a false prophet. Farrakhan would be closer to your false prophet I did not write this, it's a little whacky, but makes you think still.

-- (x@y.z), September 17, 2004.

xyz and MODERATORS,

again, a language check... this is a family forum, and even blanked foul language is not acceptable here.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 17, 2004.

How come NO CHRISTIANS are asking why George Bush is a member of Skull and Bones?

Now we can agree on something Gail. I'd like to know more about this as well. I'd also like to hear about Kerry's membership.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 17, 2004.

Brian,

Here is a link to a piece from the BBC on skull and bones. It's about 28 minutes. It touches on Kerry and Bushes membership.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091204skullandbones.htm

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 17, 2004.

" I think things like the Democratic party is 40 years of compiled evil in this country."

How do you not fall down more? Was civil rights evil? Was protecting the environment evil? Was protesting the war evil? The Democrats are pretty evil now, but I don't think they got that way until about twenty years ago. It was during the Reagan Administration that they sold out to big buisiness and stopped fighting for what was right. They were just too spineless to stand up to him, and they've never recovered from that.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has been evil since the 60's. Once people like Nixon took over. You want evil, look no further than Tricky Dick. Why don't you ask the Chileans how they felt about Nixon after he overthrew their government and installed a brutal dictator. Or perhaps you could ask all the soldiers that got shipped off to Southeast Asia to die for absolutely nothing. Or ask the people he unconstitutionaly spied on. But then again, Arnold Schwarzenager likes him, so he must have been good!

And then there's Reagan. Don't even get me started on Reagan. An abysmal economic plan, giving money to death squads in Central America, selling arms to terrorists...what a hero.

" I would say Clinton would be closer to an Anti-Christ, since he is sortonly the most amoral oval office occupant I can think of to have been in there."

Yes, because lying about an affair is so much more amoral than lying about a pretext for a war and getting a thousand American kids killed. No administation since Nixon has been as moraly bankrupt as the current one.

"And let unchecked and helped so many outside build ups that are a threat to this country, such as terrorism and our enemies."

Care to elaborate, or is this just something you heard on the O'Reilly Factor and thought repeating it would make you sound halfway intelligent? If that's the case, you failed.

"An anti- Christ would have to have a large loyal following. Clinton has been called the first black president by negroes themself."

Well, if I needed any more proof, that was it! Wow. You must be a theology scholar or something. It's genius. Clinton is the anti- christ because black people jokingly refer to him as "the first black President". Why didn't I think of that?

Oh yeah. BECAUSE IT'S RETARTED.

"When in fact he made it very possible for the destructive programs against the stinky skins' communities to continue."

Stinky skins? Hey Adolf, we live in the twenty-first century. Have a little bit of class. God, what an offensive thing to say. We all bleed red, man. Talk about hypocracy...my stuff gets deleted because I say the occasional unkind word about the Church, but xyz can throw out offensive racial slurs with impunity. I guess being a Bush supporter will do that for you...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 17, 2004.

Hey, Anti-Bush, I couldn't have said it better myself! I mean, come on, 'Clinton got the black vote, so that makes him the anti-Christ! Good grief, that's pitiful!

Thanks for the link Rye. I'll check it out too. By the way those excerpts from the Northwoods documents you sited earlier are chilling. If those docs are "open to the public," where are they? Do you have a link?

Brian, I know that Tim Russert questioned Bush about his membership in the SNB, and REALLY pressed it, but the most Bush would do was utter a nervous laugh, and make some comment about that feeding the conspiracy nuts, or something. Oh, and you know, Kerry is a SNB guy too! So either way, this election we get one Skull-N-Bones guy or another. I think there are only about 80 or so members, if memory serves me, so the fact that they are both members is, uh, shall-we- say, quite-a-coincidink!

The point that I was trying to make earlier is just that after 911 folks in this country were sorta like mesmerized by Bush, hailing him as if he were the 2nd coming. Then Bush started using scripture, but interjecting the word America in place of Christ. That was REALLY CREEPY, and hardly any Christian groups picked up on it but a slight few!

Gail

P.S. Where the heck is Kiwi?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 17, 2004.

I didn't say Clinton was the anti-Christ, I said he would be closer to it then Bush. It was one of you that made the absurb claim Bush was the anti-Christ.

Was civil rights evil?

You are a moron, boy. These are bliant generalizations. The majority of Republicans voted for the 63 Civil Rights Bill. Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law. And it was Reagan that gave King his own holiday.

Was protecting the environment evil? Yes the enviorment has improved drastically since 1956.

Was protesting the war evil?

LOL! The protesters of Vietnam, I assume you are refering to. Were protesting under a Democratic President Johnson. Who's DNC convention they rioted in. Nixon is the one who brought the troops home from there. We started going in with Kennedy though.

The Democrats are pretty evil now, but I don't think they got that way until about twenty years ago. It was during the Reagan Administration that they sold out to big buisiness and stopped fighting for what was right. They were just too spineless to stand up to him, and they've never recovered from that. Yeah like totally. They could learn so much from those communists who are like so good, and religious. And Business is what stops this country from running.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has been evil since the 60's. Once people like Nixon took over. You want evil, look no further than Tricky Dick. I know him and that burgarly break in in that hotel. This country has never quite recovered from it.

Why don't you ask the Chileans how they felt about Nixon after he overthrew their government and installed a brutal dictator. How about the other 2 that got us into Vietnam before him. Why don't I give a %$#@ about the Chilieans, and their uthipian socialist state he runined.

Or perhaps you could ask all the soldiers that got shipped off to Southeast Asia to die for absolutely nothing. Or ask the people he unconstitutionaly spied on. But then again, Arnold Schwarzenager likes him, so he must have been good! Yea, but the Baldwings and the Hollywood clique don't. So I am not decided. Like study a little more on Vietname. Nixon ended it.

And then there's Reagan. Don't even get me started on Reagan. An abysmal economic plan, giving money to death squads in Central America, selling arms to terrorists...what a hero. I know c--t. I feel your pain. This country was like going so well with Jimmy Carter until Reagan came in and messed it up. The 80's were like such an unprosperious time.

Yes, because lying about an affair is so much more amoral than lying about a pretext for a war and getting a thousand American kids killed. No administation since Nixon has been as moraly bankrupt as the current one. Clinton got us into about 5 more wars then Bush. And never was honest about our reason for going. Or even needing to get to get Congresses permission. Had he not screwed up so bad, we'd still be in there. Clinton never told the truth about anything, or took the same posistion on something the polls disagreed with.

Care to elaborate, or is this just something you heard on the O'Reilly Factor and thought repeating it would make you sound halfway intelligent? If that's the case, you failed. You're right dude. Clinton had the Al Queda so in check, then in the 100 or so days Bush came in offie it like just totally built up again. Same with the flow of illegals. I mean Clinton totally sucked at leading us into wars, but he was a real tiger on Terror. It was all Bushes fault.

Well, if I needed any more proof, that was it! Wow. You must be a theology scholar or something. It's genius. Clinton is the anti- christ because black people jokingly refer to him as "the first black President". Why didn't I think of that? No. An Anti-Christ would have a much loyaler following. Bush can not be the anti-Christ because he does not have the media so behind him. And unlike Clinton, any hosser can't critize him in public. And you don't have all the social studies teachers, saying how great heir Clinton is. The difference between Bush and Clinton, that Clinton has in common with Hitler is the media alliance. And praise that he is someone groups savior. Like the "first black president."

Oh yeah. BECAUSE IT'S RETARTED. LMAO what an ironic way of spelling it you little $#@% moron.

The point that I was trying to make earlier is just that after 911 folks in this country were sorta like mesmerized by Bush, hailing him as if he were the 2nd coming. Then Bush started using scripture, but interjecting the word America in place of Christ. That was REALLY CREEPY, and hardly any Christian groups picked up on it but a slight few! Like totally Gail! I mean Clinton never repeatly said how religios he was. And like Clinton never said those opposed him are evil and made appearences in Churches saying these things. Like Bush is quoting scriptures and says like how much he likes Church. He must be the anti-Christ. Like totally.

PS

Where is Kiwi? Maybe the kiwi is in the same place you left the cucumber. I don't know.

-- (x@y.z), September 18, 2004.

*The majority of Republicans voted for the 63 Civil Rights Bill. And the majority of Democrats voted AGAINST it. You see the Republicans want the blacks to be free, and are the ones who freed them. And realize under such things as welfare they are not. And our in servitude to those that provide them with it.

But that voting count is a fact. I don't have time to get the link now, if you want to disprove it feel free.

-- (x@y.z), September 18, 2004.

Cut and Copy this link for the NorthWoods Document. It's a PDF file. It may take a couple minutes to load.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

-- rye (h_c_rye@yahoo.com), September 18, 2004.

“it was Reagan that gave King his own holiday” –with GREAT reluctance, he signed the bill which the Democrat-dominated Congress had passed, only because his spin-doctors told him that even they would be unable to contain the huge backlash against him if he used his reserve veto powers and refused to sign it for no other reason than to give the Black population a proverbial slap in the face.

The Chileans had a democratically elected socialist government, with policies similar to those of the British Labour Party government of the same time. I assume you also “wouldn’t give a …...” if Nixon’s goons had invaded Britain, installed a fascist military dictator and killed any Brits who objected.

And I thought you said you were going to clean up your potty-mouth.

Who is Kiwi? Look up his contributions on this forum (you can search by contributor) if you want to know what being a Catholic really means.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 19, 2004.

“it was Reagan that gave King his own holiday” –with GREAT reluctance, he signed the bill which the Democrat-dominated Congress had passed, only because his spin-doctors told him that even they would be unable to contain the huge backlash against him if he used his reserve veto powers and refused to sign it for no other reason than to give the Black population a proverbial slap in the face. Is that a fact? Well it's such a great holiday anyway, little Stevie. I just wish we had given one to some of the men who founded this country. The Chileans had a democratically elected socialist government, with policies similar to those of the British Labour Party government of the same time. I assume you also “wouldn’t give a …...” if Nixon’s goons had invaded Britain, installed a fascist military dictator and killed any Brits who objected. LOL! Yeah the labor party did such a wonderful job for Britain. Made em into a full fledged 2nd world power. Socialism tends to do that. And no I don't care about what happened to Chile. I'm sorry.

And I thought you said you were going to clean up your potty- mouth. I'll let the moderator worry about that, BOY! Why don't you just worry about your ardious posts.

-- (x@y.z), September 20, 2004.

Why don't you copy and paste's Rye's link about the planned of Castro. I mean, technically he is an elected offical as well. I mean I am far more concerned with how our involvement was handled in Vietnam starting en masse from that same administration then Chile. But I'm sure if there was no interference, Chile would be the first socialist state to actually work!

-- (x@y.z), September 20, 2004.

How can anyone votefor either of these two men. One would kill all babies, and the other would kill only two percent. If youvote for either you are an enabler.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 20, 2004.

When there are only two moral alternatives available and neither is completely morally acceptable, we are morally bound to choose the more moral alternative, and in this case "choosing" means voting. Even if you consider neither candidate morally acceptable, if you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the greater of two evils ends up in office, THEN you have been an enabler by your lack of action. If you don't decide, someone else will decide for you, and you will have no right to criticize their choice.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 20, 2004.

When there are only two moral alternatives available and neither is completely morally acceptable, we are morally bound to choose the more moral alternative, and in this case "choosing" means voting. Even if you consider neither candidate morally acceptable, if you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the greater of two evils ends up in office, THEN you have been an enabler by your lack of action. If you don't decide, someone else will decide for you, and you will have no right to criticize their choice, having done nothing to prevent it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 20, 2004.

Or a Getty Lee would say, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 20, 2004.

"LOL! Yeah the labor party did such a wonderful job for Britain. Made em into a full fledged 2nd world power."

Depends who you ask. Last time I checked, no Brits were denied healthcare because they didn't have insurance, and no British kid was denied entry to a college because his family didn't have the money...

"And no I don't care about what happened to Chile. I'm sorry."

I'm sorry too. How can you call yourself a Christian when you admitedly beleive that there is nothing wrong with installing a fascist dictator and murdering thousands of people who don't agree with you?

"But I'm sure if there was no interference, Chile would be the first socialist state to actually work!"

That's not the point. You don't get to decide what works for the Chilean people. Allende was elected freely and democraticaly, and had taken no undemocratic steps at all. But I guess a system that DOESN'T murder political opponents and cancel elections wasn't really what Chile needed, right?

"The issues are far too important to be left up to the Chileans themselves."--Henry Kissinger

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 20, 2004.

Choosing the lesser of two evils, still leaves you with choosing evil.

That can in no way be a choice for a Catholic conscience. If the Churchchose that philosophy, it would no longer be called Holy.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 20, 2004.

“it's such a great holiday anyway, little Stevie. I just wish we had given one to some of the men who founded this country.” Ever hear of a guy called Washington?

“the labor party did such a wonderful job for Britain” Whether they did or not, the point is it should be up to the British or the Chileans or anyone else to decide for themselves what sort of government they want. And even if Allende would have messed up the Chilean economy, at least he didn’t kill anyone. The comparison with Britain is not idle. Chile was known as “The England of Latin America” because it was the only country in Latin America that had had a peaceful democratic government throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, until Nixon and Kissinger’s coup. But you support your government demanding the right, if they think it’s in their interests, to overthrow any other country’s elected government and install a murderous tyrant. And people wonder why the rest of the world hates the USA?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 20, 2004.

I wonder if anyone read the above quotes posted by Rye concerning "Northwoods" I think it was, as well as the link he provided. (I wonder why in the world they would make this info accessible to the public!)

Pretty scary stuff!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 20, 2004.

I never said I was a Christian, and I don't support it I am just quite indifferent about it. And it is more complex and less clear cut then just Nixon went in and overthrew him. Besides it has little to do with anything! If it was known as the England of Latin America at the time perhaps we did them a service. I really wish there was a Socialist state that worked, not because I think Socialism works, but so then all the Socialists in the US could leave for there, instead of eating away at and destroying the integrity of the system.

There are things Kennedey got us into that are far worse. And no England was in quite in a shotty state until Margaret Thatcher came along, kind of like the direction we were heading into with Carter. But I don't blame it all on him, like I said these things are build ups. History is like a jigsaw puzzle not just a series of spontanious events and people. Even though he was a stupid a@#%^le, and it did a terrible job as president.

Washington does not have his own holiday you fool, he has to share one with Lincoln. It's called President's day! And these are the only 2 of this Nation's founders that get even that. I am reluctant to give anyone their own holiday who has there records sealed up for another quarter century or so. But like you said there would be a bad backlash if there wasn't, maybe rioting. What a way to decide holidays. This may be why, his records have been sealed so long I don't think he deserves his own holiday. Some of the things he did may have been noble, but there are far greater deserving men.

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

*Eating away and destroying the economic integrity of the system, here!

Liberals have not come across a system yet, that they couldn't @#$% up!

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Yeah it’s really terrible how all those socialists are just eating away and destroying the integrity of the USA, isn’t it? LOL! History’s really not your strong point is it xyz? Lincoln wasn’t one of our founders, he came along “four score and seven years” later. And it was your bumbling hero Reagan who combined the holidays into “Presidents’ Day” to increase the profits of his corporate paymasters by depriving working people of a day off.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

He saved this Nation. I would say that makes him a founder.

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Then I guess you think Churchill founded England.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

No, but they should give him his holiday. As should Lincoln before King, for what he did for the negroes.

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Why do u guys talk about politics so much?

-- Oliver Fischer (spiceunt@excite.com), September 21, 2004.

"And it is more complex and less clear cut then just Nixon went in and overthrew him."

Yeah, you left out the part where we installed a dictator who declared martial law and murdered his political opponents.

"If it was known as the England of Latin America at the time perhaps we did them a service. I really wish there was a Socialist state that worked, not because I think Socialism works, but so then all the Socialists in the US could leave for there, instead of eating away at and destroying the integrity of the system."

You're missing the point. The Chilean people elected him. Whether or not you like his economic policy is completely irrelevant, and it sure as hell does not give you the excuse to start lobbing bombs at them. You don't get to decide what is best for the Chileans, and niether does Richard Nixon. The Chilean people do and I'm sure they'd appreciate it if you stayed out of it!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 21, 2004.

Why not? I hope you're not implying "religion has nothing to with politics"? Those who say that don't know what religion is.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 21, 2004.

So you're saying that since the people of Germany elected Hitler democratically, those generals and statesmen who tried to assassinate him and overthrow the Nazi regime would have been doing something not just illegal( from the german state point of view) but also immoral from the universal objective truth standpoint too?

Anti-Bush, what is your theory of rights and duties? Where do governments derive their authority from? Following legal forms alone? Or is there something deeper than that? When does a legitimately constituted government become dereft of authority?

In Chile's case, in the 1970's a communist take over - even through "peaceful" means was a human rights disaster given the Communists track record of denying opposition parties very right to exist! The fact that Chile today isn't a complete basket case as many other countries down there proves that that coup you so detest did more good than harm to the "people" in whose name all communists and socialists claim to work.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.

"So you're saying that since the people of Germany elected Hitler democratically, those generals and statesmen who tried to assassinate him and overthrow the Nazi regime would have been doing something not just illegal( from the german state point of view) but also immoral from the universal objective truth standpoint too?"

Allende didn't kill six million people. He didn't hire brownshirts to beat random people in the streets to cause a national panic. He didn't seek to revoke an entire ethnic group of it's fundamental right to exist. He didn't declare war on any of his neighbors. He didn't have secret police to murder anyone who spoke out against him. I'd say that's a pretty bad analogy.

"Anti-Bush, what is your theory of rights and duties? Where do governments derive their authority from? Following legal forms alone? Or is there something deeper than that? When does a legitimately constituted government become dereft of authority?"

Governments derive their authority from the people. Pinochet derived his from the barrel of a gun and an American-trained death squad.

When a government ceases to rule justly, then it is the people's right and duty to change it by whatever means neccessary. But it is not Richard Nixon's job to decide what kind of economic system is best for some people on a different continent. He did a crappy enough job running our country, he had no buisiness running theirs.

"In Chile's case, in the 1970's a communist take over - even through "peaceful" means was a human rights disaster given the Communists track record of denying opposition parties very right to exist!'

What are you smoking? Takeover? He was legitimately elected! He didn't ban any opposition parties. He didn't kill anyone. Chile under Allende was one of the few democratic nations in Latin America. The people elected him because they thought he would do a good job, WHAT RIGHT DID WE HAVE to overthrow him?

"The fact that Chile today isn't a complete basket case as many other countries down there proves that that coup you so detest did more good than harm to the "people" in whose name all communists and socialists claim to work."

How can you call yourself a Christian after what you just said? How can you say the Pinochet did a good thing? He overthrew a free, democratic government and in it's place created a brutal dictatorship. His first act as President was to assemble a death squad and round up and murder all of his political opponents! Thousands of people were killed during his bloody rule! How many people did Allende kill? None. Nada. Have you just attempted to convice me that installing a brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his own people was a good thing? How dare you? Who do you think you are? If Americans are the police of the world, then Chile was Rodney King. Although, given your track record of supporting murderers and tyrants, you probably didn't have to big of a problem with that either.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.

We shall soon have an election between two men, neither of who should lead us.

We have American citizens being beheaded, our troops being killed while fighting by terrorist rules.

Warn those in fallujah and the other hot spots to get out and then flatten them from the air.

Since the secnd world war we nevr fight to win. What gives?

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 23, 2004.

Yeah great idea Roger. Some of the people in a city shoot at our soldiers, so we warn them to get out and then flatten the whole city. Should work a treat. Surely everybody there will be grateful to us. They won’t even think of becoming terrorists to get revenge on us for destroying their homes, workplaces, hospitals and schools! Wait, maybe we should ask the “sovereign Iraqi government” if it’s all right with them to destroy one of their major cities? Nah, who cares what they think? As Kissinger would say, this is too important to be left to the Iraqis. What the whole world needs is government of the people, by the USA, for the USA.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 24, 2004.

Anti-Bush...I'm far more informed about Chile - from Chileans - than you are.

Secondly, your SURE that Allende, the communist, had no intentions to suppress the opposition...and your proof is? He wasn't alligned with world communism either I suppose right? And what is communism about if not the denial of private property, the denial of the family, the denial of any private sphere of life at all?

Yes Pinochet killed people. But alot less than your AVERAGE communist country!

As for Nixon, well let's count all the things he did for this country shall we? Peace with China, Detente with Russia, pulled troops OUT of Vietnam, founded the EPA, and the economy was not tanking during his term either. Iran was an strong ally and no islamic terrorists were blowing up Americans.

Oh but the leftist historians have decreed him to be awful and that's all we can say right? Clinton's administration did far more immoral and illegal things than Nixons...but Nixon is the one blamed for all the world's problems. Get a grip mister -too-afraid-to-use- his-own-name.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

Steve; Obviously you don't kmow about Bremerhaven,Schweinfurt, Berlin, etc. We did not ask for Hitler's pemission to fight the war as we thought. When you go to war you go to win, or stay the heck home.1100 dead, thousands more crippled and blinded. Ask their loved ones if much of this could not be avoided. These guys like Bush, Kerry, McNamara,Johnson, etc. Just worry about their poll numbers, not flag covered caskets.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 25, 2004.

That's the problem with the right/religous right/Republicans in this country. Everything is either black or white or red or star spangled bannered.

Yes Pinochet killed people. But alot less than your AVERAGE communist country!

Hitler abolished all parties but his. He murdered millions. He was a Catholic.

Allende was an Atheist, but a Socialist, not a Communist. A socialist is what you guys term a liberal in the USA. And like anti- bush said, freely elected. He never eliminated the competition. He even nominated Pinochet, someone opposed to his political beliefs as chief of the armed forces.

What Pinochet did is called treason. I believe Henry Kissinger, Nixon, and George Bush Sr.(CIA chief) gave him the OK to kill Allende.

In 1989 people rejected Pinochet. He thought that after 16 years of eliminating his enemies, the people would vote for him. To his dismay, years later, they elected Lagos as President, a Socialist. Now, Pinochet is about to face charges for taking millions of dollars from the Chilean government.

Oh but the leftist historians have decreed him to be awful and that's all we can say right? Clinton's administration did far more immoral and illegal things than Nixons...but Nixon is the one blamed for all the world's problems. Get a grip mister -too-afraid-to-use- his-own-name.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

Pinochet is getting what he deserves, Joe. He doesn't need the help of left leaning historians. Even his own people are turning their backs on him.

Clinton did illegal things? He got caught messing with Monica Lewinsky. But he is not alone, Joe. Other Presidents we know had women other than their wives: Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, even Ronald Reagan was divorced.

If we dig deeper, we may find one under you know who....

President Clinton was exonerated of all charges in his business dealings.

And like all Democrats, he has saved this country from disaster: Wilson (WWI), T. Roosevelt (The Depression,WWII),Roosevelt's vice- president who dropped bombs on Japan,later invaded Korea to stop North Kortea and China from taking over, Kennedy (Russian Exopansion in Latinoamerica),John (Civil rights, voting rights,Vietnam...) Carter (Born Again -----), Clinton (the budget deficit-had a surplus,fought high unemployment, high interest rates,.....he even sent troops to restore order in the former Yugoslavia, bombed Afganistan's Al-Qaida training camps, tried to restore order in Somalia, restored Haiti's true elected President, made sure Mexico elected a president in fair elections,... We had the highest expansion in modern history.) Shame on Republicans who try to belittle his record!!!

Clinton should rank among the top 5 best performing presidents of all time in USA history. The 2 Roosevelts: Theodore (National Parks, Puerto Rico,...)and Fanklin (out of the depression, WWII), Jefferson (The Constitution,Lousiana Purchase), Lincoln (preserving the Union)and Washington (creating a nation).

Republicans? Eisenhower ended Korea, did not stop Russians from crushing rvolts in Europe. Nixon made peace with red China, prolonging Mao's reign there after a disastrous 1960s. Reagan invaded Grenada a tiny island. He was kicked out of Lebanon. Only good thing, talked to Soviets. Because his administration suffered a black Monday (stock market), sold arms to Iran and got caught. Armed Saddam Hussein against Iran. Armed Osama Bin Laden and what later became the Al-qaida network through "our allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan". If those our friends,....,and the Mujahuddin the later Taliban.

I give credit to George Bush Sr. he closed the chapter on th soviet Union. Realized Saddam was becoming a threat as was Noriega. He had helped them before. He turned his back on them. But unfortunately, he could not stop the recession.

Why everytime we have Republicans we get depressions/recessions?

Why Democrats are never given the credit for ending them?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 25, 2004.

"Anti-Bush...I'm far more informed about Chile - from Chileans - than you are."

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you just had heard about Chile from the wrong sources, that you didn't understand that Allende was a democraticaly elected leader with no record of authortarianism whatsoever, and that Nixon and Kissinger helped a mass murderer to power. I had hoped that maybe you just didn't know that. But now I know you just don't care. You think it's perfectly ok to go into a country and prop up a pathological killer just because you aren't a fan of the old leader's economic policies. My mistake.

"Secondly, your SURE that Allende, the communist, had no intentions to suppress the opposition...and your proof is?"

You made the claim. Burden of proof rests on you. I don't have to prove that Allende was completely above any ambition of power. He may have been, or he may not have been. What's more important is that you can't prove that he WAS. You don't murder someone because you have a vague suspicion that he might some day do something bad. Look at Allende's record and find me some instances that might back up your theory that he intended to "suppress the opposition". I sure as hell couldn't find any. If you're so informed, how come you can't point to one example of authortarianism?

"He wasn't alligned with world communism either I suppose right?"

Can you show me some proof that he was?

"And what is communism about if not the denial of private property, the denial of the family, the denial of any private sphere of life at all?"

You might have a halfway valid point if a) the people hadn't elected him in, or b)he was actualy a communist. He wasn't. He ran as a socialist, and if you can find me one shred of evidence that suggfests that he planned to "deny private property, deny the family, or deny any private sphere of life at all", I'll be surprised.

"Yes Pinochet killed people. But alot less than your AVERAGE communist country!"

That could very well be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You couldargue your way into the special olympics with that one, pal. SO WHAT? Does that make him a saint? If I kill twenty people and you kill ten, am I more evil than you? Aren't you always the one whing about the "moral relativity" of the left? I do beleive you've just been exposed as a HYPOCRIT.

Besides that, why is the mean (that means average, junior) body count of communist nations relevant at all? Allende had no plans for a communist economy, and didn't kill anybody. This is meaningless rhetoric, and either a) you think I'm stupid enough to fall for it, or b) you have no idea what you're talking about.

"As for Nixon, well let's count all the things he did for this country shall we?"

Sure! I'll be glad too. Overthrew a democracy in Chile, supported numerous dictatorships around the world, told America we were pulling out of Vietnam and neglected to tell us about that little country to the West called Cambodia, authorized increasingly authortarian crackdowns on the anti-war protests, used the FBI and the IRS to harass anyone he didn't like, spied on an opposition party ("suppress the opposition", anyone?) and then lied to the whole country about it...have I left anything out?

Oh yeah. He relectantly pulled out of Vietnam after eight years of bloodshed under his watch. What a hero.

"Iran was an strong ally and no islamic terrorists were blowing up Americans."

No, instead they were ruled by a brutal dictator whose secret police terrorized the populace and allowed enough discontent to breed that the islamic terrorists were able to take hold. I'm just loving this guy more and more.

"Oh but the leftist historians have decreed him to be awful and that's all we can say right?"

Umm...not just the leftist historians. Most Republicans will tell you Nixon was a horrible President too. Pretty much anybody who is a fan of democracy wil tell you Nixon was no hero...

" Clinton's administration did far more immoral and illegal things than Nixons..."

Such as...

"but Nixon is the one blamed for all the world's problems."

Naw, not all of 'em. He didn't come up with the idea for American Idol.

Or did he...

"I believe Henry Kissinger, Nixon, and George Bush Sr.(CIA chief) gave him the OK to kill Allende."

Nope, they went one step furhter and dropped a bomb on his house, if I'm not mistaken.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.

Elpidio:
You have become excessively abusive. Don't give us this ''Hitler was a Catholic'' foolishness. He was no more a Catholic than Caligula ever was. Whatever your political gripes against the Right may be, leave the Catholic faith out of there. Of all people to be ''instructing'' others here: YOU, an apostate Christian. An apostate without any sense of justice whatever. Justice is the farthest thing from your agenda. It's clear by the people you think you can exonerate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 26, 2004.

Eugene, what has Elpidio said that is abusive, let alone “excessively abusive”? Isn’t he allowed to express his political views? Hitler WAS a Catholic. A very bad, non-practising one, indeed, but a Catholic. Yes he instituted his own Nazi quasi-religion, but you can’t un-baptise someone. He was a Catholic just as Jesus was a Jew.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.

Roger, obviously you haven’t heard the news that Saddam has gone. When I suggested asking the current “sovereign Iraqi government” I wasn’t talking about “Hitler” but the puppet government we installed. But you have confirmed my belief that you and your type regard the new “democratic” Iraqi "government" as of no consequence whatever (or as equivalent to Hitler).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.

Hitler was an atheist. His parents were nominal, non-practicing Catholics. He was also a madman, which would have rendered any religious affiliation irrelevant anyway.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 27, 2004.

1. Your reading of US History is biased: when you give kudos for Democratic presidents for their successess and debit points for Republicans for their failures, rather than compare apples to apples; the causes they wanted to succeed which succeeded as opposed to events that happened under their watch which they had little direct control over.

Case in point: wORLD WAR 1. Wilson campaigned on the platform that he'd keep us out of the war, but then broke this promise by getting us involved: 100,000 US boys died and the status quo in Europe changed for the worse with a humilitated Germany and a newly Communist Russia.

We "won" not so much because of great military victories but because the spanish flu killed so many soldiers and civilains in 1918 that both sides were running out of men.

WW 2: Roosevelt did not build up the US military in the Philippines or in the Homeland when it became obvious that Hitler and Tojo were not going to stop their militaristic expansion. Being weak certainly fed into both empire's calculations that they COULD go to war with impunity.

If you give FDR kudos for winning the war, you have to give him debit points for being there when it started.

Korea. It was Truman's administration that set up the situation for a free S.Korea to be left defenseless and it was the Truman administration that pulled out US troops, and then announced to the world that the Truman doctrine excluded the Korean penninsula, thus giving the heavily armed N. Koreans what they perceived as a US green light to invade. But perceptions aside, it was true that the South had been slapped with an ARMS EMBARGO keeping them from having anything larger than .50 cal. machine guns and rifles whereas the North had heavy tanks and artillery provided by the USSR.

So Truman fumbled the ball in Korea, resulting in a war that killed 50,000 Americans.

The DEMOCRAT Kennedy got the US involved in S. Vietnam and the DEMOCRAT Johnson made it worse than a 4th grader would have by micro- managing the troops and forbiding them from winning the war by taking it into the North from which all the VC and NVA troops were coming. (After the battle in 1965 there was no doubt that the VC were merely a 5th column, not the main source of communist trouble.)

It was Carter that lost us the Panama Canal (thus setting the stage for Noriega), it was Carter who personally sold out the Shah of Iran, putting pressure on him to ACCEPT the exiled Ayatolla from Iraq, and not put down the islamic revolutionaries in 1977... and what happened? The Shah was overthrown, an Islamic republic was formed, US Embassy was stormed, hostages taken, the US lost it's main ally in the middle east, Islamic terrorism was born - the destabilized Middle East became clients of the Soviets - who invaded Afganistan in 1980 BECAUSE there was no longer any US bases in IRAN!

Oh and the energy crisis, inflation, unemployment...all happened under Carter's watch and BECAUSE of his economic policies.

You give him credit for GOOD INTENTIONS - NOT GOOD RESULTS!

Clinton inherited a strong foreign policy position from Bush Sr. In 1992 Iraq was in a box, the USSR was no more, The USA had successfully stopped the famine in Somalia, and was turning things over to the UN (first mistake).... And what did he do?

His first executive action was to pump millions to Planned Parenthood affiliates abroad by overturning the Mexico City convention established by the Reagan administration.

He then pushed for gays in the military! He promised a middle class tax cut but early in 1993, pushed through a middle class tax INCREASE (remember his talk about our need to sacrifice?)

His defense secretary handled - with White House intervention - the whole Somalia debacle and pull out.

The Whitehouse slapped Haiti with an economic embargo (thereby wiping out the middle class overnight), then invaded. He stood by doing NOTHING while Rwanda suffered a genocide - and stood by for 5 years while Croatia and Bosnia also suffered near genocides.

It wasn't the democrats who pushed through NAFTA OR WELFARE REFORM, OR A BALANCED BUDGET! It was the Repulican revolution of 1994 that managed to re-focus Clinton's economic policies in favorable directions!

It was Clinton in 1994 (prior to the elections) who angered the Muslim world at the UN Cairo conference in which he tried to muscle 3rd world countries into accepting abortion and gay "rights" - and lost due to the Vatican and Muslim alliance.

So don't tell me about how wonderful that stupid man was. Stupid as rocks. Great speaker - but not at all a wise man when it came to stategy, foreign policy (giving the Chinese missile technology anyone?) or economic theory.

But the dEMOCRATS give themselves bonuses for their good intentions - while not paying much attention to their actual results- or taking credit for things they had nothing or little to do with (such as the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 - WHICH WAS VOTED THROUGH CONGRESS WITH A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS AND A MINORITY OF DEMOCRATS!!!) cHECK THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD!

Look at the results of their social "war on poverty"! Disasterous, grinding poverty among the black ghettos in most US Cities...catastrophic decay of the black family, enormous rise in out-of-wedlock births, disease and crime - all while DEMOCRATS pumped billions of dollars into "programs" whose INTENTIONS were to make things better!

Look at the public schools - billions of dollars spent, and what results? Wonderful institutions to INDOCTRINATE kids in "values free" (really liberal, atheist, hedonist values) approaches, sex- education (promoting promiscuity not stoping it), dumbing them down to the degree that most colleges and universities have to do remedial education...

Look at "the environment" - DEMOCRATS have great intentions - but don't want to do anything to actually improve our energy independence: they don't want Nuclear plants (forcing us to have conventional electricity production - Coal fired plants still produce 50% of our electricity! France (the liberals erst-while hero) produces a majority of their electricity by nuclear plants and NO GREEN is marching in the streets of Paris to protest. I wonder why?

We could open up 6,000 acres (of 6 million) in the frozen tundra of Alaska - producing 100,000 jobs for eskimos and US citizens, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil...but the Liberals are against it. OK, well lets put up wind turbines...except that the blades kill birds - which made GREEN activities shut them down or reduce their activity 50%! And where are the wind farms in MA? In the windiest places such as Nantucket Island? Oops, Liberals live there and don't want it in their backyards. So much for results to help the environment - it's all hot air, not results.

Now you're thinking I think the GOP is perfect (illogically as I haven't affirmed that anywhere). I don't. But measuring political parties by their actual accomplishments and the chronology of events, rather than by their rhetoric and good intentions, we have to conclude that the Democrats have for a long time been filled with people with worst ideas than the GOP.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Like they say, Joe, the ball or the buck stops here.

I showed to you last year about Iraq that we were getting into a mess because the President chose to make some bucks instead of putting someone in charge from that country. By the time he did, he was already into this mess.

And I I pointed to you before, Democrats have always not only taken this country out of recessions/depressions (except for Carter). We always being there in coalition with other nations, saved the world in WWI,WWII, Korea,....Bosnia,....

The USA doesn't belong to the Republican right or the Christian Right, or the Neoconservatives. It belongs to each person claiming citizenship. It belongs to each person who lives and works to make this nation better.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Steve, Eugene has a distorted view of history. His theology is a little better.

President Carter may have left in disgrace as a President because of his inaction or incapacity to alter the economy.

Since then, the man has help build or rehabilitate homes for the poor, diasable,...in habitat for humanity.

He was invited to speak at the convention.

President Nixon never was. Even President Bush Sr. was ignored by his son in this convention.

Denying one's own as you pointed out cannot happen. Just as Jesus canot be taken out of his Jewish heritage, regardless of what racists and antisemites may say.

Hitler was born a Catholic. He came from a catholic family. So was Mussolini. So was Franco. So were so many others who have shed innocent blood. So is Pinochet. So were the Argentine Junta leaders. So were the salvadoran death squads.

As Catholics one should try to learn from the mistakes of these men so these brutal acts should not happen again.

Just like Saddam was a Muslim Sunni. Osama Bin Laden, also a Sunni. So were the Turks who massacred the Christian Armenians. So were the Arab Sudanese in the Sudan now.

Unfortunately for our Sudanese Christian brothers, Sudan has no oil for our President to invade it.

PS: Paul M., do you have the documents that disprove Hitler was not born a Catholic or did claim the Catholic Church?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Elpidio,

I already stated that Hitler was born into a nominal Catholic family. Documents are not issued indicating that individuals do NOT practice their faith. Do you have any documentation indicating that he ever did practice the Catholic faith? Anyway, what's the point? The only thing that would be demonstrated if Hitler had actually been raised Catholic is what can happen when one turns away from the Catholic faith and God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 27, 2004.

Actually, Paul M. ,Hitler used his Catholic roots to entice the Pope to support, just klike Mussolini di before when he sighned the famous 1929 concordat giving th Vatican back to the Pope. Hitler also signed a Concordat.

So it matters.

My point is that the Church should not support brutal dictators just because they happen to be Catholic.

Rarely does this happen . One case is when the Pope opposed Napoleon. He, the Pope, died in Prison in 1799.

So I offer constructive criticism , unlike others who try the Church down.

Don't forget I was a Catholic once. I am the only Catholic that left because of Yahweh and Jesus as opposed to being kicked out. I wrote to the Pope. He never excomunicated me.

This happened in the Summer of 2002.

The Christian Yahwist

PS; I have read parts of Mein Kampf and other biographies of Hitler. Nowhere does he claim he is an Atheist.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Dear Steve:
This may suit you better: Elpidio has always been borderline abusive, intruding in a Catholic forum to spread error and confusion. Without any intention of trying to understand, only as devil's advocate. You didn't like my words directed at his latest abuse, I only said, ''Don't give us this 'Hitler was a Catholic' foolishness.'' It may not be a text-book statement of how we ought to see Hitler. But it's an emphatic retort at Elpidio's foolishness. And also yours, if you like. (I hope you don't object.)

I have to reply as well, if Elpidio says my views of history are ''distorted''. He may think so; yet I feel certain HE comes here and repeatedly distorts even RECENT history. --Who's right?

You should wait and see. You go ahead defend his ''right to an opinion.'' That's very kind of you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 27, 2004.

You have never proven me wrong, Gene.

Just because you are a Republican and support 100% President Bush doesn't make you right or trustworthy.

Most of what we believe is because we trust those before us, Eugene.

Like I said many times before, you or no one lse has a monopoly on the truth.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gponzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.

Even the Pope agrees, Eugene.

POPE APPEALS FOR MORE HUMANE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (AGI) - Castelgandolfo, 27 Sept - Pope John Paul II met the directors of the Penitentiary Administration Department this morning in Castelgandolfo...and appealed for more humane prisons and more adequate training of personnel. The Pope said, "the desire for true .... The model to be followed is that of the "great saint of charity, Vincent De Paul, who personally suffered the harsh conditions of prison and taught the daughters of charity special attention for prison inmates. He asked them to ensure them humane treatment...

If the Pope is against cruelty, why would Catholics from the USA condone it?

That is why I like about this Pope: asked forgivenness to the Jews about all the attacks from the past, asked forgiveness to the Orthodox for Constatinople, asked forgivess about John Huss,....

But he still hasn't asked forgivess for the genocide of 2 branches of my family: The Waldenses and the Caxcan.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@srla.org), September 27, 2004.

Well Joe, I guess changing the subject is a whole lot easier than admitting you were wrong about Chile...however cowardly it may be. Oh well. Good to know that I changed somebody's mind, even if he won't come out and say it.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 27, 2004.

You set up the old straw dog. I never have approved of cruelty and the Church hasn't either. In this alone, immediately, I prove you're wrong. ''Why would Catholics from the USA condone it?'' is a false premise. ''Why would Catholics from the USA condone [cruelty, injustice] it?'' We don't.

Also, keep in mind our Holy Father was NOT making apologies for ANY Catholic doctrine, tenet or custom, when appealing for forgiveness from all aggrieved peoples. He spoke only on behalf of the many Christians who were unjust in their particular actions. No one denies there were entire towns which acted in an unchristian way, But not by reason of their FAITH. It was because they sinned against the faith itself.

No one has to apologize anyway. The sins of the fathers are not on the heads of their children; according to Christ's Gospel. If they WERE, we would be ''justified'' in punishing the Jews, wouldn't we? But only those who hated our Lord in His day are guilty of deicide, not the Jewish people. And we today aren't guilty of Jew-baiting or hatred or pogroms. We love & respect them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 27, 2004.

And, Elpidio:

Before you claim no one can prove you wrong;

Find yourself the definition of GENOCIDE.

Don't accuse Catholics of something you haven't the least understanding of.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 27, 2004.

Clinton should rank among the top 5 best performing presidents of all time in USA history.

And I I pointed to you before, Democrats have always not only taken this country out of recessions/depressions (except for Carter

If I understand your second sentence correctly (a difficult task), you are saying that only democratic presidents have cleaned up recessions and depressions left by republicans --except for Carter. Ok, so when Bush inherits a recession by left by one of "the top 5 best performing presidents of all time in USA history," and cleans it up, is this another exception? The bursting of the high tech bubble should carry the most blame for the recession. It was predicted, and inevitable. In other words, recessions have more to do with the business cycle than who is president. Sometimes there is a lag. To say that Democrats are always cleaning up recessions (except for Carter) caused by republicans is wrong. My point is that the Church should not support brutal dictators just because they happen to be Catholic.

Get a clue. Pius XII supported Hitler? There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, Pius XII chose to side with the Allies and JOSEPH STALIN over Hitler and the Nazis. As Paul is charitably telling you, even if Hitler's parents were Catholic, and even if he was baptized a Catholic, he was not a Catholic by his actions. In fact, he was surely excommunicated, ipso facto, as head of the Nazis. Eugenio Pacelli was no dummy.

I am the only Catholic that left because of Yahweh and Jesus as opposed to being kicked out. I wrote to the Pope. He never excomunicated me.

I'm puzzled by this statement. That's no surprise, as I am by puzzled and flabbergasted by most of your statements and dreams. I don't know what goes on in your head Elpidio, but you are in my prayers.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 27, 2004.

Yes I do defend Elpidio’s right to an opinion even when I disagree with him, Eugene. Sorry but I don’t see why the forum should be restricted to just one political viewpoint. He may have abused you in the past but he certainly hasn’t done so on this thread. (Though his latest accusation of “genocide” is abusive to the Church.)

Elpidio when the Church signs a Concordat with a country, it does NOT mean that the Church “supports” the government of that country. The 1929 Concordat with Italy did not “give the Vatican back to the Pope”. The Vatican had been in the pope’s possession all along. The Concordat formalized in law the status quo which had existed in Italy since 1870. The Church certainly did not support brutal dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet and the Argentine junta. The Holy See has agreements with just about every country in the world, setting out what the Church is and isn’t allowed to do in each country. But it has no official position regarding their governments. Unofficially it has of course successfully worked behind the scenes to help ensure the removal of many of the most brutal dictators or, where this was impossible, at least to dilute their brutality. Yes no doubt these nominally Catholic dictators played up their Catholic roots when they dealt with the Church. But the Popes and most bishops, and certainly the Church as a whole, were not stupid enough to see these monsters as simply “good Catholic boys”. One example is when the College of Cardinals in 1939 (reportedly unanimously bar one) elected Pope Pius XII whose election both Hitler and Mussolini had done everything in their power to prevent, due to his well known strong anti-Nazi position.

"only those who hated our Lord in his day are guily of deicide". NO. All of us sinners, of all races and all generations both before and after the event, share the guilt for causing Christ's suffering and death.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

Thanks, Steve. Eugene and I go a long way back.

Who said this, Steve? People might think I said it. I didn't.

"only those who hated our Lord in his day are guily of deicide". NO. All of us sinners, of all races and all generations both before and after the event, share the guilt for causing Christ's suffering and death.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.

You both realize well my remark is about Jews who have suffered for something they didn't take part in. Suffered at the hands of anti-semites who unjustly persecuted them. I didn't parcel out guilt in any way, I criticized Christians for doing it. The same ones for whom our Holy Father apologized. (By YOUR standard, the Pope was under an obligation to apologize for every soul who ever lived except Jesus and His holy mother.) Please don't go for my jugular vein over the one statement, Boys.

BTW-- Elpidio claimed the Catholic Church is participated in genocide. But in truth, she has not; not even in ONE murder. Teaching this man is just about hopeless. You try it, Steve.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.

Steve ;

I am not talking about the Iraq interim government. This thing will never work until people e willing to fighat for their own freedom. We would still be waiting if we depended on Fance or Germany to free us from King George.

A helping hand is always at the end of one's arm.

The Jews and Muslims have hated each other for many centuries. We always end up the loser y trying to be the policeman of theworld.

We are only about 6% of the world population. We just can't continue to be nation builders. More so, we have groups of powerful Imperialists trying, { and succeding}, in their new world order.

Islam would do the same if they could.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 28, 2004.

Not only does the Pope suspect that Bush may be the anti-christ, I and many others definitely believe that Bust is the third anti- christ. If you need the article about the Pope, type "bush anti- christ" into a google search engine, and the article will come up. Let's see how many times this man who has been a catalyst for mass murder around the globe mentions God during the Presidental debate. I hope America wakes up in time.....but I guess we can't because it meant to be.

-- Randy Jones (marksman@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.

Maybe Bush is the Anti, but so is Kerry.

The pope aint doing such a good job with the church either. So what gives.

-- FRK (turtlebay4@aol.com), September 30, 2004.

This whole idiotic thing is the result of the good old 666 crowd spouting their absurd numerology once again (Mr. Bush is among some 200 or so people who have been idenfied as "the AntiChrist" by this same method, at various points in time over the past couple of hundred years, which is as long as these self-appointed fundamentalist pseudoprophets have existed).

Of course, "George W. Bush" doesn't add up to 666. Neither does "George Walker Bush". BUT (are you ready for this? You better sit down!) ... the original spelling of "Bush" in German was "Busche", and God Help Us! "George Walker Busche" adds up to 666!!!!!! There's the proof! Who can deny it? George Walker Busche is the Anti-Christ! Well, until the next AntiChrist comes along anyway. SO stupid!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 30, 2004.

Paul,

Rotfl. Is it safe to say that you've had enough of these inane comments? Here are some more ideas on who may be the anti-christ: anti-christ poll

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 30, 2004.

I vote for the Olsen twins as the anti Christ.

-- FRK (Turtlebay4@aol.com), September 30, 2004.

Seems like everyone only listens/reads what they want to listen/read in order to prove thier own point. Bush could very well be considered the antichrist....and so could any other leader. Just like everyone is saying....the world will love the person.(more than likely including religious)People are not all knowing...so dont act like it.....my opinion is that some religious fanatic would be the antichrist...i mean really religious people seem to be easily fooled as long as you tell them what they hear.

-- arthur beechum (nutzxxx@hotmail.com), November 18, 2004.

Most peoepl are easily gofooled so long as you tell them what they want to hear... Atheists included. I mean, how else do yo explain acharya S and her idiocy having such support amongst those who actly eek to disprove Christainity, dispitre her books being wholly fraudulent?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

Anti-catholic atheists seem to be easily fooled as long as you tell them what they want to hear. How else do you explain the record breaking sales of The DaVinci Code, a book which has neither any literary merit nor any semblance of historical accuracy?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 18, 2004.

Ir for that matter sicnetific or common sence merit... I mean the albeino was practialy a crack shot!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

Hi guys and girls,

I just encountered this posting today and found myself awestruck by the many opinions that have been raised. Some are fervantly and passionately stating thier claims on the issues, others are humorously putting in a word or two, and I would like to thank everyone who posts to things like this. It keeps us all fired up. Politics, religeon and sex. My mom told me never to mention these things in polite company - lucky for me I am just typing them on a keyboard into cyberspace.

This leads me to my post here. Have we become so disconnected in our present lives that we forget what we are discussing as a real, hard, physical reality associated to it? I have noticed a marked increase in the number of mis-guided and duped individuals, who through no fault of thiere own, believe in things based on a desire to be included, acceptance of media propaganda or simply because we are arrogant enough to believe our ways are the only right ways.

With that said, please continue to embark on your own voyage of discovery, but don't forget to unplug every once in awhile, take a step back and realize how complex everyone in the world is - even those red comunies, nazi butchers, faceless terrorists; because from thier standpoint they think they are doing the right thing too based on what they know. Who is to say our actions are correct? The problem with thinking that we are right is that someone must be wrong. I am baptized, confirmed and married catholic. I own my own IT Company. I know what arrogance can do. As my mom told me, it doesn't matter what lies you believe, just don't ever decieve yourself.

We must soldier on but never forget... Hitler was elected.

Let the flaming posts begin.....

-- PJ (baskey@canada.com), November 22, 2004.

Who is to say our actions are correct? That's a great question - I presume you know the answer and it's not just a rhetorical flourish.

Yes, let's ponder this: on the one side, a Nazi SS trooper, on the other an American GI. Both believe they are right, both believe they are fighting for a just cause. Are both right and holy because they sincerely, subjectively FEEL like they are?

Subjectively, let's assume they are both sincere. Objectively though, one is fighting for an unjust cause while the other is fighting for human decency.

Unjust because the National Socialist Workers Party did not respect the rights of other Germans to say nothing of other human beings, begining with the Jews and moving on to the handicapped and sick.

According to their theory - some future "Thousand year Kingdom" was the good which all other goods should be subordinated to - begining with human life. But that would mean that human life is less valuable than some future thing that doesn't exist...a metaphysical impossibility. Being is and non being is not. If you have to balance two existing goods - say, human beings on the one side and an existing political system on the other, the human lives clearly are more real, more good than any "relationship they enter into for mutual benefit" (politics).

Which is to say, politics ought to always be subordinate to the good of human life not vice versa. Political regimes are good in direct proportion as they benefit human life not from some intrinsic source apart from human life.

But the Nazis almost worshipped their nation as though it had some intrinsic goodness apart from the people who made it "go". Marxists also fell into this fable of "future workers paradise" justifying actual crimes against human beings.

And the Baathist thugs and Islamofacists who today murder Iraqi or other civilians in the name of some as of yet non-existing "Umma" or Nation of muslims can't thereby justify their means (the direct, intentional killing of innocents) as even conducive towards their supposed "ends".

Thus, if one's means won't lead to one's end - (supposing that the end justifies the means) then even so the means (actions) of the Nazis, Marxists and current crop of Islamofacists are wrong, and hence, unjust.

Now that is the objective part of the question about who can know which side is right or good.

To discover the subjective status of the individuals involved we have to define justice and elaborate a theory of human governance and morality...once done, we can then see if the Nazi regime and SS component within it match the concept of justice and objective good for humanity.

As far as subjectivity goes, sure we can presume that everyone feels good about themselves... but feeling good about raping a little girl doesn't make it right or good or healthy or not a problem.

Because goodness is not a creation of our own minds or whim or will. Goodness is a reality and a relationship. It exists independently of our minds and thus is knowable to our minds... it pre-exists us and thus is not subjective in nature but objective.

From this point of view then, we can know - and swiftly whether or not an SS trooper's cause is more just than an American GI.

But if the question is who is morally culpable - then subjectivity has a role. A person could do what is objectively wrong while not being morally guilty of sin.

So where do we go from here? First of all, one must judge actions - as they are public and thus objective. But judging motives and thus moral culpability (sin) is far more tricky if not impossible to pin down.

Lots of people have been told "you shall not judge" but the judgment in question isn't about the exterior, public actions of a person but of their interior culpability which we cannot see.

But we can make reasonable guesses, which the apostle John does when he says "how can someone love God whom he does not see if he does not love his brother whom he can see?" In such a way, the apostle INFERS from the public actions of one Christian towards another *(and attitudes) whether or not it is likely that the person is truly capable of loving the invisible God.

But even so, there is a DISTINCTION between the public act and the actor - the objective judgement and the subjective culpability.

Our Lord mentions this with respect to the Pharisees who may do public actions that are noteworthy and good (giving alms to the poor) while subjectively guilty of pride and evil intentions that thus make them unjust even though their exterior actions were good.

On this Catholic site we have argued about say, homosexual sodomy. We can come to know without any doubt that sodomy is immoral because it is always unhealthy biologically, emotionally, psychologically and thus, spiritually. But we can't know the degree of freedom and thus moral guilt of the individuals involved.

We can know objectively that girls starving themselves because they think they are fat is insane (anorexia), unhealthy, a mental illness or mental dysfunction imparing their use of reason.... but we can't "judge" them to be immoral NECESSARILY because to be morally responsible a person needs to have freedom, knowledge and the intent.

We can know that abortion is always a heinous crime - the taking of a completely innocent and defenseless, harmless human life. But we can't know to what degree the mother is guilty of murder or an assessory to murder. Many young girls don't know or don't want to know what is happening. It's still a bad thing - but to what degree the mother is a victim as opposed to a villain is hard to judge.

Thus all pro-lifers are against abortion but for the mother!

The traditional distinction is "hate the sin, not the sinner". That SS trooper's cause was an evil one - and depending on what he knew and what he did, he may have been unjust and evil too.

The American's cause was a just one, but his personal justice and moral goodness isn't axiomatic until we know what he knew and believed and intended too. Having a just cause doesn't necessarily make every means or action just too.

I believe the US liberation of Iraq was just - but that doesn't mean that the Marines can do ANYTHING they want! Killing unarmed and surrendered enemies is still murder. Conversely the act of one Marine doesn't make the whole military engagement bad any more than the fact that a professor of Yale who rapes a girl makes the University entirely evil and culpable.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 23, 2004.

Who is to say our actions are correct? The problem with thinking that we are right is that someone must be wrong.

Yeah you're right. Or wait...maybe you're wrong.

I have noticed a marked increase in the number of mis-guided and duped individuals...

Yeah you're right. Or wait...maybe you're wrong.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 23, 2004.

Humm, i guess my point is proven. I gave no indication that i was talking about anti-Catholic atheists, or atheist's at all, as being the anti-christ, or any specific religion for that matter.(Which i intentionally done to prove my point of people reading what they want.) But assumptions were immediately made, as predicted, without a forethought to what was being read. I also wrote nothing about what my own religion is, but most seem to indicate they were replying to a atheist, which is far from the case. Point proven that really religious people are easily manipulated, their own unwaivering misguided beliefs will cloud their judgement and allow the anti- christ to gain favor. Go ahead, throw the first stone, you can always regret it later, right?

-- arthur beechum (nutzxxx@hotmail.com), November 25, 2004.

arthur,

You have proven no point -you initially stated no pointed opinion or position and you subesequently commented relative to a selective portion of your profound non-position.

Assuredly at best, your 'point' would appear to be pointless commentary...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 25, 2004.

“Point proven that really religious people are easily manipulated, their own unwaivering misguided beliefs will cloud their judgement and allow the anti- christ to gain favor.”

LOL! What gives you the idea you have "proven" anything? You have proven no point Arthur. You made a totally unsubstantiated allegation that religious people are easily duped. I and others pointed out, WITH examples, that non-religious people and especially agnostics and atheists are more easily duped. If you don’t believe in something then you’re only too ready to believe anything.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 25, 2004.

My point was proven, it is just too bad that some cannot or will not try to understand what my point actually was. The born blind cannot describe colors and are at no fault, but those born with sight and lose it, lose themselves. Bless you all, even if you are blind.

-- arthur beechum (nutzxxx@hotmail.com), November 26, 2004.

does anyone know what infallible means.... NO! I'l tell ya what it means it means he(the pope) cannot be wrong on any circumstance... RELAITEING TO A HOLY OBLIGATION-such as preaching about Jesus or God or saying mary is a virgin(RELATED TO THE BIBLE. To my knowlodge preaching about George W. Bush wasnt in the bible when i last checked. -CASE SETTLED-

-- ME MYSELF AND I (tgle27@aol.com), January 27, 2005.

One does not have to be a pope to know that President Bush got us into a real mess. Now how does he get us out? It looks like a little Vietnam all over again.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 27, 2005.

Tell that to ANY viet-namese american. They'll laugh at you.

One: there is no Superpower funding the insurgents (unless you think Syria and Iran and the MSM add up to a Super-power.)

Two: Geography is vastly different: open desert and cities isn't the same challenge as Mountains and jungles.

Three: Our technology is vastly improved - we could even invade and re-liberate Vietnam and it wouldn't be "another vietnam".

Four: Liberty and religious freedom are authentic human values - not created by governments, not created by human whims, and we are on the side of those values where as the other side is against them. Thus the terrorists are in an INHERENTLY UNTENABLE SITUATION....

Only a censorous and myopic MSM keeps Americans feeling bad about Iraq. By every measurable (i.e. quantifiable and qualitative, objective) fact, Iraq and Iraqis are improving and don't want to go back to dictatorship and don't want to become a province of a mega- islamic state ruled by OBL or anyone else.

Like the Lord of the Rings' Palantir, the Media may show a true story - but without context, thus leaving people like the steward and Saruman with a mistaken idea of the situation and thus prone to dispair.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 31, 2005.

JS, By the looks on the millions of Iraqi faces that got to vote over this past weekend, I'd say the endeavor in which we have embarked has been a monumental success!

You liken this to "Vietnam" ...? I think you've been paying too much attention to Teddy Kennedy and the "liberal media elite." This does not even REMOTELY look like Vietnam. That statement is a slap in the face of every soldier who fought in that war, and the liberals that are espousing such nonsense ought to be shipped off to communist China or somewhere where they'd be amongst others of like mindless- ness.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

Gail;

I despise Teddy Kennedy and the liberal media, but even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Vietnam was a "No win war". Ask most of the veterans about that. ten years to beat a third world country, when Japan and germany were beaten in less than four?

MacArthur wanted to win in Korea and was fired by the Masonic Truman. Truman the man who atomized the two most Catholic cities in Japan.

I am not against the atom bomb, but against the targets.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.

You're quite a historian. As I recall (from my youth) Truman ''the Mason'' stopped MacArthur because we ran the risk of bringing all of Red China over the 38th parallel; and then he would've been forced to nuke North Korea AND most of China.

Japan was a mortal enemy, and in essence a pagan one. You wonder why two ''Catholic'' cities in Japan, a nation completely unwilling to surrender, --were atom bombed? But two whole Asian civilizations, Korea and China would seem fair game, because of a Civil War between Koreans? What goes on in your head?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.

even by Sun Tzu's ancient standards, mcarther wasnt too bright. the government sets the parameters of the war by which the general is to execute through his plans. the parameters set for the war included NOT going too far north and inciting china to enter the war. McArther ignored this dictate and pushed ahead without permission.

China responded... McArthur didnt just come close to bringing china into the war, there WERE chinese troops entering korea, and the air force had a hell of a time holding them at the 38th parallel. we almost lost all of korea thanks to the fact that one general couldnt follow his appointed job and keep the whole scope of world politics in mind. that is what happens when a general is so arrogant as to his own abilities as to remember his place.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

Your maverick opinion on nuclear weapons is totally opposed to Catholic principles, JS. Pope Pius XII condemned ANY use of atomic or other weapons which indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians. Regardless of the religion of the victims.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 31, 2005.

Invading Japan would have cost even more lives, perhaps half a million Americans.

My other critic also corrects me on Vietnam. Can't seem to get anything right.

What was the final good for getting involved in Korea and Vietnam. Are things any better now?

America never lost a war until that time. Now we have two and a half. That is counting the Gulf war.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.

um, last time i checked, we won the gulf war by stated objective: expel iraq from kuwait. we kicked the living snot out of iraq in one of the most successful campaigns EVER executed. not a defeat at all. (assuming by gulf war you mean the gulf war that was held in the last millenium and not operation iraqi freedom which is, ahem, not the gulf war)

also, we accomplished our objective in korea, expel N Korea from S Korea. that objective is held to this very day. it was only the actions of one rogue general that endangered the victory of that war. had we drawn the line where it was supposed to go it wouldnt be as big an issue to this day.

finally, we didnt "lose" vietnam. our objective was to keep N. Vietnam from taking S. Vietnam. that objective was accomplished. little known fact, we LEFT vietnam with a treaty that lasted for almost a year after our troops were gone. technically we accomplished our objective and then decided not to come back a second time. while vietnam certainly wasnt a victory, it isnt correctly classified as a defeat either.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

A pretty expensive stalemate and I don't mean money. I mean human lives. 110,000 dead, At least four times that much wounded, blinded, crippled. Sure it was worth it if you

did not lose a dear one. Ask those other families if it was worth it.

I hate it when I hear those blow hards on TV saying We have to stay and see this thing through. What do they mean by we? They are going on with their life uninterrupted. When they say we, they mean you.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.

yes, JS, i'm in the reserves and studying towards comission in the military, i understand that "we" means the people i work with on a daily basis. i understand that i may one day be asked to do my duty to my country and i accept that wholeheartedly. was vietnam worth it? i'm not sure... but i remember, "gentle men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to violence on their behalf."

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

I also was in the military during war time, so I do have some experience in this.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.

“Invading Japan would have cost even more lives, perhaps half a million Americans.” I see, so you’re saying Pius XII was wrong. I beg to differ. Half a million Americans are just as precious in God’s eyes as half a million Japanese. And half a million SOLDIERS is NOT "even more" than the three quarters of a million innocent CIVILIANS slaughtered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention a million more who died later of radiation induced cancers). And who said that invading Japan and nuking it were the only two alternatives? Sheesh, I can’t believe I even have to tell you this.

“America never lost a war until that time.” You’re forgetting the War of 1812, when President “Mad” Madison tried to invade and conquer Canada, and the Brits and Canadians kicked the US's butt.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 01, 2005.

Read War is a racket by General Smedley Butler.

Who was he. A two time congressional medal winner. A major General Heading the U.S. Marine Corps. Here is a little of it.

WAR IS A RACKET, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the 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 very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back- breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

-- JS (A@A.com), February 01, 2005.

um, steve, half a million dead instantly and another million eventually might be a little high considering the total population of hiroshima and nagasaki combined was 250,000... just a thought. that doesnt change the fact that attacking civilians is wrong, but the estimated death total from the two bombs isnt anywhere near half a million.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 01, 2005.

What has the US war department's policy of carpet bombing civilian industrial centers in 1945 to do with GW Bush in 2005?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.