Stephen,
I looked up the article on Kay that you referenced. His stance is confusing. Here is a paragraph:
Syria's anger has actually been in response to media reports, specifically from the Sunday Telegraph, citing an interview with Kay in which the former weapons hunter suggests that some Iraqi weapons equipment or technology may have gone to Syria. If Naji had instead read the New York Times, his anger would have likely been assuaged. In an interview published in the Sunday Telegraph last week, Kay reportedly says that he believes that some of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were sent to Syria. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons, but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program," the British paper quotes Kay as saying. A New York Times article also published last week offers a different take on an interview with Kay. The US daily writes: "Dr Kay said that there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had seen cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials." While these two quotes, at first glance, suggest that Kay is being equivocal, it is more likely that the two newspapers are presenting the same information in a different light. Taken together, the two reports suggest that while former Iraqi officials have claimed that some weapons material was sent to Syria, Kay does not consider this to be concrete evidence. Kay clarified his stance at the Senate Arms Committee hearing on Wednesday, saying that while it is probable that Hussein's regime moved technology, documents, and small amounts of material for weapons of mass destruction to Syria before the US invasion, "my belief that they did not move large stockpiles of WMDs to Syria is based on my conclusion that there were not large stockpiles to move."
( Iraq had no WMD program to give to Syria, says Kay: Former US weapons hunter David Kay tells the Senate Armed Services Committee that "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the possible "Syrian connection" hinted at in some media reports appears increasingly tenuous.
By Jen Tracy of ISN
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/d...ils.cfm?
ID=8211
U.S. intel 'unable to rule out' WMD transfers to Syria
World Tribune.com (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)
http://www.worldtribune.com/
worl...iraq_04_26.html
The Iraq Survey Group stated, in a report sponsored by the CIA, that it "was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."
The report marked the official end of a two-year weapons hunt led most recently by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer and was published on the Government Printing Office's Web site . . .
. . . The report said the Sunni insurgency in Iraq limited and eventually halted the investigation of whether Iraq moved WMD assets to Syria. ISG said the results of the probe "remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve."
Still, ISG asserted that the Saddam regime sought to transfer WMD assets to Syria, which served as the leading way-station for the transfer of illegal weapons from Europe to Iraq. The report said Syria initiated efforts to obtain the Iraqi WMD.
The report said the group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials, reviewing intelligence reports and inspecting sites.
"There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved," the report, entitled "Comprehensive Report: Addendums to the of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD," said. "In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
i don't get it: hussein was an "insane" mass murderer who had huge stockpiles of WMDs (that russian intelligence spirited away to syria who then spirited some of those away to sudan--funny how these are all countries on our "to-do-something-about" list..yes, even putin's russia is too autonomous for us) but he *never, ever* used them in the slow, month-by-month build-up that was operation iraqi "freedom"? what gives? it appears as though:
1. hussein wasn't so "insane" afterall (i.e., he was logical enough to realize a WMD game with the US isn't one he would win)
2. or, he simply DIDN'T HAVE said stockpile to begin with because, omg, scott ritter--a gulf war veteran who, according to so many neocons, had a pro-saddam agenda--and hans blix did their jobs rather well, even if some currupt UN officials got wealthy off of it.
besides, why would ANY country accept iraq's WMDs seeing as the US was so hell-bent on "securing" them? it would be suicide... 'sure, saddam! you got some weapons you want to stash somewhere for a while? i understand!" yep--i just don't get it, i guess.
all if that notwithstanding, i have a question for the pro-iraq crowd: why have we heard over and over and over from credible sources like dick clarke and paul o'niel that on 9-12 the admin was determined to go to war with iraq *regardless* of whether or not hussein had a hand in 9-11 or *regardless* of his WMD count or *regardless* of whether or not he had ties to al-queda---that they were going to war with iraq REGARDLESS? i mean, how can one say bush (and the congressmen who did NOT have all of the intelligence he had but voted for the war) was as 'misled' as everyone else on the WMDs and whatnot whenever, after 9-11, it didn't matter to W or cheney or rummy or wolfie or 'turdblossom' WHAT he had?
I have enjoyed this debate very much. At times it seems impossible to engage in a healthy debate of the topic. As someone that is associated with the unholy trinity it appears of being Republican, Prp-Bush, and Pro Iraq intervention let me make a few points.
The most frustrating thing that encounter is how history seems to rewritten as it were. If memory serves me correct the link between 911 and Iraq was never the front burning argument for the White House at all. Even though we are often demanded to defend such a premise as if that were the fact. The reasons were many I recall. (1)Iraq not following UN resolutions(with the famous 1441 being the last straw),(2) Security in region, Wmds, (3)Iraq constant hostile actions against the US including but not limited to the shooting of missles at US aircraft in the no fly zone and a attempt to kill the Former President George H Bush, and for(4) liberation of the Iraqi people. All these reasons I find compelling.
I think also a little honesty from the anti war side should come in as to their on history. Before 911 I remember arguments from various groups including many Catholics that said the sanctions must end. That the sanctions were imoral that they were starving Iraq children by the millions. It seems that this effort by many to remove the sanctions has been forgotten by many that now argue that Iraq was not a threat because of the Sanctions. Even with 911 it is clear especially as we see the European and UN involvement in the oil for food scandel that this sanctions were not going to be upheld politically in the long run. I believe the Bush administration realized this.
It seems that any case that the Bush lied to get us into this war falls on its face. At some point one must face the fact as to the wmd issue most other intelligence agencies had the came counclusions as their US counterparts. I believe myself that most of this was dispersed to Syria myself.
The reasons I listed above are all reason I supported as well as still support the intervention in Iraq. I see no moral quandry as an orthodox catholic. The key should be at this point to move on from the reason for the War and to what the correct moral thing to do now is. THe fact is that we are now in Iraq and it would seem to me that there is a moral responsibilty as to what we do next. If someone wishes to argue that the moral recourse of the UNited States is to withdraw now I certanitly would like to see that reasonings explained. In fact such action seems inmoral and reckless.
One final note , I often observe with amusement that amny people allege that the liberation of Iraq or the Humantarian reason for the invasion is often tacked on by the Bush Administration and it supporters after we invaded when massive wmd's were not found. I happen to disagree with this greatly. It was a amjor reason for my support as well the Gororge Bush's vision of how if Iraq could become a Democracy how that might change the fundamental dyna
***WARNING GRAPHIC***
video evidence of massacre of civilians in fallujah in 11/04 by US marines using WMDs:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/
ran2...lt_02112005.asp
THIS is what the late pope and the present one were worried about: that war is NOT containable--once the genie is out of the bottle, beware; that it is to be used ONLY in self-defense; that its primary victims are nearly always civilian populations, esp. women and children, regardless of how 'clean' or 'surgical'; that war is a LAST RESORT and not a preemptive, FIRST RESORT issue, preemptive war ALWAYS being an act of a tyranical, aggressor-state... how is it that we have *christians* arguing FOR what this video shows? FOR gitmo and abu ghraib as 'necessary' evils in a post 9-11 world? how is it that we have a "christian" president vetoing anti-torture bills?
continued from above
I wish the the opposition to this war to answer a fundamnetal point. That is what now. This argument is good to have but if Catholics are making a argument that the United States disengagement from Iraq at this point is the moral thing to do I would certaintly like to see that fleshed out a bit. If your position is that the if since the reason for the war was false(wmds) and that the moral stance is to withdrawl please think about this instance from our on history.
As a Southerner we live live and breath the civil war. You cant help it its all around you. As southerners we know there were many reasons for the Civil war. Slavery, Preservation of the Union, Business interest, the furtherance of Manifest destiny into Cuba and Mexico etc. President Lincoln was quite clear that the main reason to engage in a such a war that killed millions was the preservation of an political Union called the United States. At a certain point both politically and on the Unions Homefront as well as frontlines the moral issue changed. That in effect the war was about slavery. IN other words the aims and reasons for this conflict entered more clearly into a higher moral realm. I think its clear that the Iraq conflict has entered that realm. That realm being a free and healthy Iraq that would be a beacon to those who oppose militant Islam. If your rationale is that if the reason were wrong for entering the war because of no wmds might if you were able to go back into time have the make the same argument that LIncoln would have to end the civil war because of illigetimate reasons. Even if doing so meant the enslavement of masses of people for generations? The point is if your opnion is no wmds means that the moral and just thing is to withdrawl I would like to see that agin fleshed out. But this war like the Civil war with its mulitude of reasons for entering it have come down its appears to one reason to stay engaged in it. In effect this war like the Civil war has entered a higher moral realm. Arguments about the justness of entering this war are fine for future textbooks but I am concerned about what we do now.
Sorry for the typos but I am currently engaging a horrible toothache that certaintly doesnt help me from refraing to make typos and sentenece fragments lol
"If memory serves me correct the link between 911 and Iraq was never the front burning argument for the White House at all."
wrong, wrong, wrong. both paul o'niel (sec of treasury under W), richard clarke (terrorism tsar under clinton and W), and lawrence b. wilkerson (chief of staff to sec of state colin powell from 02 to 05)--all insiders here!--have stated that on 9-12 bush and co. stated, in no uncertain terms, that they WANTED AN IRAQI CONNECTION TO 9-11 and disregarded any evidence to the contrary. yes, history is indeed being re-written here by those who would ignore this crucial info in determining the "moral" arguements for this war. it was immoral from the start, b/c nothing could persuade this admin NOT to go. (i mean--they asked hussein to "prove" he DIDN'T have wmds or they would 'take him out': how do you do that? is that ethical?)
what now? see here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/
nati...0,1236291.story
jon,
I am just going by what the administration was mostly saying before the time of the war. I remeber the opnion polls that showed most americans thoought there was a connection between 911 and the terrorist and I having to argue that the administration was saying no such thing. Give me evidence of Presidentail statements and Press briefings that this was the paramount cause or reason for the invasion.
As to the Bishops statements. To be honest I take what the US Bishops say on issues such as this with a big grain of salt since especially in the Past many of their arguments on Social issues have been from whats appears to be a democractic parrty in robes. No that I dont take their statements in account but often their thinking has not shown much thinking outside the box. That being said what do thay say:
-Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner than later," said Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Fla., speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
So what to this I think this is the plan if the iraqis want it
""No matter what the debate might have been about going into Iraq, now that we are there, our presence gives us a whole set of new moral obligations that we have to try to fulfill in a responsible way," Wenski said.
my point exactly from above
Wenski, chairman of the bishops Committee on International Policy, said recent statements by the Bush administration that troop levels would be reduced were not enough. He said the U.S. must send an unmistakable signal that the goal was not to occupy Iraq "for an indeterminate period," but to help Iraqis assume full control of their government
This appears not to be a direct quote but I think the IRaqis are aware that we want to scale down quickly. In fact many Iraqis are hoping we dont scale down too quickly. With all regards to the good Bishop I dont think this administration has been hiding the fact that out goals are not to occupuy IRaq forever.
Jon,
As I have said about rewriting history as to Bush saying that Iraq was behind 911 i hope the below suffuces. There are hundreds of other sources if you wnat to google it.
No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says
By Greg Miller *
Los Angeles Times
September 18, 2003
President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.
Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."
Bush's comments were his most direct on the issue to date. He drew a clear distinction between alleged Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and the lack of evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. That is a distinction administration officials did not emphasize in the months before the war. The issue has come to a head amid recent polls showing that most Americans believe — despite the lack of evidence — that Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stressed Wednesday that Bush administration officials never claimed any Iraq-Sept. 11 link. McClellan's assertion appears to be factually correct, but many administration critics, including some in the intelligence community, said it was also somewhat misleading.
A reading of the record shows that while senior administration officials stopped short of accusing Hussein of complicity in the attacks, they frequently alluded to the possibility of such a connection, and consistently cast the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in stronger terms than many in the intelligence community seemed to endorse.
/www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/
justify/2003/0918proof.htm
note i have given a article that still trys the but Bush said anyway spin. But I think even this source shows as my memory was correct on that Bush never said iraqqwas behind 911
As to my earlier question of what now and jon response to us looking at out Bishops statement I have found and decided to look at it in length.
www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-006.shtml
"We share the pain of the countless numbers of persons who have been injured and maimed and of those whose lives will never be the same. There have been achievements. A dictator has been deposed and elections have been held, but the human and social costs of these achievements must be recognized."
Amen to that. Just like the human and social cost of past achievements in past wars such as ww II etc must be recognized. No one says war is pretty
"Today some see virtually no progress in Iraq and argue for rapid strategic withdrawal. Others see enormous progress and call for continued and steady engagement. Our Conference rejects any assessment of the reality that is either too pessimistic or too optimistic. Our nation cannot afford a shrill and shallow debate that distorts reality and reduces the options to “cut and run” versus “stay the course"
Of course as to the stay the course crowd to which many would put me in that camp constantly revaluating the strategy of course is important
"Our nation’s military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner rather than later. We welcome recent news reports that suggest that troop levels will be reduced as Iraqis assume more responsibility for their own security. But it is important for the United States to send even clearer signals that the goals of U.S. policy are to help Iraqis assume full control of their governance and not to occupy the nation for an indeterminate period. As one example, our government should declare that the presence of U.S. military personnel and bases in Iraq must be an Iraqi decision that respects the needs and sovereignty of the Iraqi people."
I think its unfortante they put the words "sooner than Later" in this document. In reality what does that statement or phrase mean? As to showing our Intention to declare that its up to the iraqi people about personel and bases and we must declare that. Gosh hasnt the President and Secretary of State already "declared that on NUmerious occasions? Who else do they want to "declare it" THis last sentence seems pointless and slighty misleading since we have "declared it " numerous times
Bishopd statement continued--
"Securing wider and deeper international support will strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of our nation’s efforts, but it will also require giving international partners and allies a real voice and real responsibilities. Transferring some responsibility and operational control of the stabilization and reconstruction process to a more accepted international entity, working in partnership with Iraqis, will require that the United States both provide continued financial and military support and also yield some control to others."
I wish they would be more detailed about this. I mean didnt the UN run out of there? Also what responsibility are they talking about?
"
A responsible transition in Iraq means establishing a series of basic benchmarks, including:
- achieving adequate levels of security;
- establishing the rule of law;
- promoting economic reconstruction to help create reasonable levels of employment and economic opportunity; and
- supporting the development of political structures to advance stability, political participation, and respect for religious freedom and basic human rights.
amen amen amen
"The Catholic Church has significant and growing experience in fostering post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation in various regions of the world, including in The Philippines, South Africa, Burundi, Mozambique, Guatemala, the Balkans and elsewhere. Church leaders and institutions have assisted many peoples as they walked the painstaking, but necessary, path to peace after war and violence. The experience of the Church and others can help inform the challenging work of building peace in the wake of war in Iraq"
If the catholic church vatican etc wants to play a role in mediating between the parties in iraq come on I dont the think Bush is against this
"In the frustrating and dangerous task of confronting terrorists, now drawn to and active in Iraq, our nation must guard against overly aggressive and unwise military responses that endanger civilians and thereby undermine the winning of hearts and minds that is critical to the long term struggle with terrorists and insurgents. Our moral tradition insists that the use of military force must be proportional and discriminate. When tactical military responses are required, we must never forget that the wider struggle with terrorism, together with our basic moral commitments and legal obligations, demand respect for human rights. "
I believe the United states military has bent over backwards as to this
"International cooperation in the fight against terrorist activities must also include a courageous and resolute political, diplomatic and economic commitment to relieving situations of oppression and marginalization which facilitate the designs of terrorists. The recruitment of terrorists in fact is easier in situations where rights are trampled upon and injustices tolerated over a long period of time.viii"
Is
Bishops statement cont
"International cooperation in the fight against terrorist activities must also include a courageous and resolute political, diplomatic and economic commitment to relieving situations of oppression and marginalization which facilitate the designs of terrorists. The recruitment of terrorists in fact is easier in situations where rights are trampled upon and injustices tolerated over a long period of time.viii"
I think the US has bent over backwards to this too. Encouraging freerer elections in Saudi Arabi and Egypt. Negoations with Libya, supporting freeer voices in Lebanon. The fact is the US is not just using the sword here.
Hi Dave and all...
We all want to fight terrorism and that's why we shouldn't be stirring the Islamic bees nest, lest we breed them ourselves like pinworms on the sorry aggression which has strenghtened the resolve of fanatics today ----and those unborn. Islamic fanatics have very long memories and every day they are learning how to fight superpowers. Tactically, even given Bush's view of the world, this was high blunder if we want to defeat terrorism.
As Jon has said, it is clear that WMD's were never the real reason the Bush Administration was itching to go to war with Saddam in the first place. Not just the Downing Street memo, which is also decisive evidence predating the war, but almost nobody but neoconservatives questions the fact that Bush Jr. was continuing dad's war which was grounded in our geoplitical "interests" in the region.
We let Rwandan's get hacked to death in the hundreds of thousands (topping a million I think) but moved heaven and earth to liberate Kuwait.
There is a reason for that, Granny. Black Gold, Texas Tea...
As for David Kay, I don't think his is mere political equivocation there about Syria, but as the report said, the speculation (which was never more than that) is just that. And it drags in another enemny conveniently. There was never any hard evidence that any traffick was WMD's, in fact the hard evidence indicated that 95% of Saddam's WMD's (I've seen that % somewhere) were destroyed under the watchful eye of the UN back in the early 90's. Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted and did what he was told.
But even if he had them, Israel could still send him to Hell before he could use them and terrorists in this country can make biological weapons from the goods at Home Depot, once they get the fertilizer. We don't really worry about anything foreign except a "dirty bomb" which will have to come from somewhere other than Iraq.
Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is the scandal of the century. And only one thing accounts for why we sleep with Kings who financially bankroll Wahabi terrorist mosques and schools and who oppress women beyond belief and behead those who convert to Christianity.... Black gold, Texas Tea...
James writes, "I take what the US Bishops say on issues such as this with a big grain of salt since especially in the Past many of their arguments on Social issues have been from whats appears to be a democractic party in robes"
No, James. Democrats think the USCCB are Inquistors from the dark ages on the matter of contraception and abortion, and there is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount to suggest one party or another can be identified as the Catholic party.
Catholics must transcend political parties and advocate life. We are with those in the GOP who urge more morality (even post-partum) and with those among the Democrats who urge worker rights over corporate greed.
Social justice in the Catholic sense reaches from life to life and blesses advocates for life wherever they are found, and opposes a culture of death. Catholics are universal (Catholic). We place no nation on earth above God and His Kingdom, not even ours. I have friends who are Republican and democrat. I am an Independent but voted for George Bush in his first bid because he said he wanted a humbler foreign policy, etc. Never again. Didn't vote in the last election. Couldn't in conscience.
"Give me evidence of Presidentail statements and Press briefings that this was the paramount cause or reason for the invasion."
i never said this was the 'paramount reason' for the invasion; i said: "why have we heard over and over and over from credible sources like dick clarke and paul o'neil that on 9-12 the admin was determined to go to war with iraq *regardless* of whether or not hussein had a hand in 9-11 or *regardless* of his WMD count or *regardless* of whether or not he had ties to al-queda---that they were going to war with iraq REGARDLESS?"
besides, your article *proves* that they were looking for connections RIGHT AFTER 9-11. it says:
"Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press'..."
and
"President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, ***amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.***"
don't you see? they were 'floating' the idea with the public early, early, early--before the invasion of afghanistan, even!--and they wanted to walk a fine line between saying 'hussein has *definite* connections to al-qaeda' and 'hussein is not (yet) connected to 9-11'--well, how do you justify making one statement w/o *insinuating* the other, especially in the heady days right after 9-11? i said they were going to war with iraq before 9-11 anyway, like they were going to war with afghanistan anyway: 9-11 only provided them with a fine excuse to do it.
pre-9-11 afghanistan war plans:
1. http://www.indiareacts.com/archi...ecno=10&ctg=%
20
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Archiv...4261737,00.html
(more on this if you want it)
actually, that second article is the wrong one...here's the correct link:
2.http://www.janes.com/security/
international_security/news/jir/
jir010315_1_n.shtml
(note the dates on the two above articles!)
and on a pre-9-11 iraq:
1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/
4354269.stm
actually, that second article is the wrong one...here's the correct link:
2. http://www.janes.com/security/
in...10315_1_n.shtml
(note the dates on the two above articles!)
and on a pre-9-11 iraq:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...mmes/newsnight/
4354269.stm
sorry! having trouble with haloscan...
here is the pre-9-11 iraq link:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ght/
4354269.stm
MR HAND
I agree that Catholics must transcend party. THe point I was making of "Democrats in Robes" was that often I feel on social issues the Bishops often dont think outside the box as it were for new solutions. I guess one that comes to mind is immigration for instance. A womb to the tomb Social gospel is necessary for Catholics to expound in their political lives. The problem is that the Bishops at times seems to still be stuck in the era of the Great Society's viewpoint of how to cure those social ills that effect all of us. It would be nice if some of our ideas were engaged once in a while by the Catholic heirarchy.
I guess part of the frustration I also feel is that as Catholics are working in the Republican Party it seems that for our hard work in bringing Catholic values or trying to maintain them in the public sphere we often get the reply well there is no difference btween the parties there all the same.
I must say if one cant see the difference between the Republican and Democractic parties and which represents Catholic values I think one must be blind. The fact that the majority of mass going Catholics voted Republican in the last election I think shows where the faithful know who represents their interest.
I wished we could go back to the old days where both parties had a diversity of opnions so that Catholics could work in both parties without sacrificing their principles. When I first regestered to vote I was a democrat. OF course almost all the major Democrats were pro-life at the time in my State including both US Seanators.
Perhaps we will return to those days but I am not seeing much evidence of that in the immediate future. A Democractic party that was open to Catholic values would at least mean that Christians did not have to put all their eggs in one baskets as it were.
Also i Love how people view oil "black gold, texas tea" as some sort of item that mustbe taken off the table as legitimate reasons to go to war over. I would argue it has its place in the public moral framework.As to Saudi Arabi I would like to hear from the other side what is there answer is to our what relationship should be. It appears we are urging the Royal family to engage reforms. I do not think it would beneificial to isolate the Royal family and have it fall and be replaced by a Government that was rabid anti western like the current govt of Iran.
Again the problem is again I hear alot of criticisms of how we are engaging the middle east but really not hearing much on an alternative plan. As for the former poster of stirring up the bees nest may I suggest that decades of ignoring the problem certanitly didnt help. Also Europe seems to be getting a rude awakening from their policy of not stirring up the hornets nest either.
Yeah; I'd like to know where we get oil if we can't buy it from countries unless they are morally perfect (as we judge, sitting here with our 1.5 million legal abortions every year, an abyss most Arab countries would not sink to, because they generally value family and still even have children!).
Or should we go back to coal and wood stoves and ride horses?
An alternative to our current oil policies:
Double or triple the excise tax on oil. This will do wonders for our dependence on oil. Short term there would be negative economic consequences, but in the long term, we would have greater independece from oil as more efficient and domestic means of energy were utilized.
I do think there is a lot of protestant thinking in the republican party. Yes we want to be moral but we don't accept sacrifice. That is why Cathlics and Protestans have such differant views on social policy. The Catholic bishops are reflecting the faith and I thank them for that. Many protestant converts have not pushed their new Catholic thinking as far as their politics. They are still pretty fundamentalist there.
The bishops are not democrats in robes. They are not rebulicans in robes. Fundamentalists have made a huge mistake in becoming to closely associated with a political party. The Catholic church has made that mistake a few times and it ended very badly. Now they talk in terms of policy and not in terms of party. They don't want to get in a position where they are not free to speak God's word on an issue because they have to respect their political alliances.
As far as middle east policy goes I think dispensationalist thinking is huge. The ideas of the rapture and the whore of babylon are very much part of Bush's thinking. I don't think he would be in Iraq if they were not.
Pretty much everyone agrees we need to radically cut back our dependence on foreign oil and develope alternative sources of energy. I hate to think of all the blood that has been spilled to keep the light on in Las Vegas, Manhattan and in LA.
We need to develop reliable nationwide public transportation to cut back on all the cars on the road here, since this is doing great damage to the atmosphere and planet, to say nothing of keeping us off our feet.
Until then, we can show ourselves to be peaceful, friendly and neighborly trade partners which can be a far greater incentive to stability in the Middle East than hegemony. And then we could demand true democratic reforms in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran via economic incentives.
Saudi Arabia needs us to buy their oil. Iraq and the other oil producing nations need us to buy their oil. I recall the 1973 (?) crisis where the Arab producers had us all waiting in very long lines for oil (I simplify here, to be sure). From then on we were talking about alternative resources, but how far have we come?
It is in this research and development, it seems to me, we ought to be spending billions instead of in bloodshed.
If we show the Islamic nations they need us as a market and that we can ensure their prosperity, rather than breathing fire and saber rattling toward them, there is a far greater chance they will respond more reasonably. But we've got to give up all plans to occupy parts of the region and we must resolve the Israeli-Paleistinian conflict. Force only invites terrible reaction. As Dr. Hubert has shown it is the military presence of the "infidel" near Mecca which ignited bin Laden's criminal wrath.
The former Soviet Union finally gave up their atheistic ideology, not because they couldn't keep going as a military enemy, but because it didn't make sense to become a backward nation toward the 21st century. They turned their swords into ploughshares which made more sense. It was more a great act than a defeat as the US frames it. Or so it seems to me.
The Soviet Union collapsed because President Reagan defied them with missiles in Eastern Europe and the Strategic Defense Initiative (derisively referred to by the liberals as "Star Wars"), and wouldn't back down in negotiations with Gorbachev; and because Pope John Paul II defied them with sheer moral force and his backing of Solidarity.
Simply becoming more capitalist had little to do with it, except on an indirect level (mainly the inability to maintain a huge army and stockpile of arms while people could hardly eat).
Communist China has been increasingly capitalist for many years, but that doesn't cause them to value freedom (particularly religious) or human rights (particularly of would-be second children, whose mothers are forced to have them murdered).
This is just one more lesson in real-life politics: unless the Soviets had been faced down with real weapons backed by real intent to use them, history woldn't have been what it was.
The Cold War wasn't won by Utopian, pseudo-pacifist wimps like President Jimmy Carter, who had the guts to boycott the Olympics if the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (wow! what moral resolve!). He couldn't even free the Iranian hostages, but all of a sudden when the Gipper got in there, just by amazing coincidence, the hostages were soon freed . . .
======================
The notion that President Bush is doing what he does because of the Whore of Babylon and the rapture is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know a whole lot about the particulars of Bush's Christian beliefs, but I understand that he is a Methodist. Generally, they don't fall into the dispensationalist camp (which includes belief in a rapture). And I know for a fact he is not anti-Catholic.
So if someone claims otherwise, I'd like to see documentation provided for a change, beyond mere bald assertion. We don't resolve these issues by preaching at and condemning each other, but by providing rational arguments and factual considerations, and input from the Catholic Church and Christianity in general, from which an observer can reasonably make up their minds as to what the best course of action should be.
Seems to me that Randy's remarks may be tainted by an incipient anti-Protestantism. If the derogatory remarks about Catholic converts were directed in part towards me (one might get that impression, since I am one of the main participants in this debate, and a convert), they don't fit:
1) I was never a "fundamentalist" in the first place. That is only a tiny minority of Protestantism or even evangelical Protestantism.
2) My politics cannot be that neatly categorized and dismissed. They were essentially what they are now from 1982 on (when I came to understand and become educated about the wickedness of abortion, and started questioning feminist radicalism), which included 8 years as an evangelical Protestant. Throughout the 70s I had been very liberal (and religiously almost agnostic). I have been critical of both parties, just as Stephen Hand has mentioned several times, as his own view. See my paper:
Reflections on the "Great American Mush God" of Civil Religion and Morality, and the Catholic "Third Way" in Socio-Political Thought
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ380.HTM
3) I, too, vote for both parties. When local Democrats are pro-life, I vote for them. I would never vote for any Republican who is either liberal or pro-death (and there are many who believe one or both things).
4) I am a harsh critic of corporate and multinational capitalism (have been as long as I remember), and advocate something along the lines of G.K. Chesterton's distributism. I am equally critical (as GKC was) of socialism.
5) The Republican party is not so much harmed by "Protestant" thinking as it is by libertarianism (which, in my estimation, is increasingly influencing both parties), or by asinine, spineless "moderates" who believe little in principle except in the rightness of getting re-elected and doing whatever it takes to make that happen.
6) I take several other positions, too, which don't fit into the classic "conservative Republican" mode, such as opposition to the death penalty, great concern in creating economic opportunities in the inner city, and fighting remaining racism through programs other than Affirmative Action, which has failed in its purpose, and to the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945.
7) Favoring this war as a Catholic is no more caving into "Protestant thought" than was the stellar support of the American Catholic bishops and Pope Pius XII for the Allies in World War II. That war had far more immoral elements in it than the Gulf War or the Iraqi War have:
A) The nuclear bombings were immoral, according to Catholic just war principles. They could no more be justifed than the German bombing of London.
B) Likewise, the carpet bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities.
C) Roosevelt's neglect of the European Jews was damnable.
D) Our treatment of Germans in some of our concentration camps was certainly not up the standards of Christian, let alone Catholic Christian ethics.
All
(cont.)
. . . All this, yet the Church supported that war. Support for a war doesn't mean that one necessarily agrees with every jot and tittle of conduct in it.
But the last two wars made vast improvements in conduct, making them far closer to just war principles than WWII, Vietnam, or Korea were:
A) The technology of smart bombs and highly guided missiles makes it far easier to avoid civilian casualties and hone in on the combatants and military targets of the enemy.
B) Increased spying capacity facilitates the same goal.
C) The tiny number of casualties in the Gulf War and (relatively) in the Iraqi War reflects this. 58,000 died in Vietnam; 50,000 in Korea in just three years. That's about 45 a day in Korea, and would take just 44 days to get to our current casualties of about 2000. It's 25 times higher of a casualty rate than the present war.
All casualties are a great tragedy, of course, but sadly necessary to preserve freedom in a fallen world. Thank God for our military: how many multiple thousands, likely millions of lives they have preserved by fighting tyranny . . .
But the problem today is that our country is so selfish that no cause is important enough to require any sacrifice at all. This is the fruit of the Me Generation and the selfishness of the 60s and 70s. No one believes in anything anymore; let alone a cause to die for. And that is a radical cultural change. This is why the liberals now oppose every war, no matter how necessary and sensible. Even after 9-11, sane liberal consensus policy on retaliation only lasted a year or so before it went back to business as usual and politicizing even terrorism for their own selfish goals. One observed this progression in the change in John Kerry himself.
So to rationalize this selfishness and political Machiavellianism, the liberals must come up with reasons to oppose this war (Bush lied, it's for oil, it's imperialistic, all war is immoral because people get killed, etc.).
I do not intend to indict Stephen Hand in the above, btw; it is a general criticism of the leftist near-pacifist outlook on all war, post-Vietnam.
Randy
I would agree that Bush is def not anti Catholic. The fact is that the Bush Family might in the future produce a "catholic" President that we wont be ashamed of as Catholics that is Jeb Bush. Also I would agree that the rapture theory is not at all big inthe Methodist theology.
Let me defend us Catholic converts such as myself and our accepting the entire Gospel including the Social aspect. I would disagree with that assertion. Often many converts change their postion on the death penalty for instance after their conversion. I myself even though not opposing the death penatly in the United States in my final analysis had to inform myself and submit my beliefs to Catholic doctrine.
No one is saying that the Catholic Hieracrchy should endorse the Republican party. However we as individual Americans must often make those decisons. The republican party is not the WASP creature of years back. Even then that party was critical in many votes on Civil rights. Have the fundamentalists made a mistake becoming closely asscoiated with the Republican party? I urge all people to go back to the blogs and their archives after the last Presidential election. Remember the references to all of us as bigots, homophobes, unducated folks that lived in Jesusland versus the rest of the educated folks. Why would a Chrisitian in their right mind belong to a party that members ridicule them. Remeber the New York Republican convention? Go back and look at the news articles in the local press in New York that as an American were very hurtful to me in their portray of Republicans, Christians, and southerners in particular. Big clue to the other side if you want Christian votes a good start would be not to make fun of in hateful ways
One finall thought on the whole Dispensalistist Rapture crowd and their effects on politics. I would say be very careful in thinking their influence is huge. Even though its an imnportant doctrine in some churches in my experience with the average voter down here its not a factor. The most one generally encounters that as being a influence is some vague belief that they need to support Israel but it doesnt generally get deeper than that.
As to massive oil taxes tariff whatever. I hope people realize that such a plan would have more than some short term impacts economically and socially. Many people do not realize that petrochemicals are parts of their lives in more ways they can imagine outside the filling up of the pump.
Dave I have enjoyed this discussion very much. Many people try to shy away from relligion and politcs. As our faith instructs us that is impossible. I have to admit if anyone is interested I would like to see more discussions on these matters. I am often curious to see why certain religious groups have the political leanings they do. In two cases this indeed perplexs me. As to Traditionalist Catholics(the Latin mass Crowd) as I call them their seems to be an almost anti Bush anti Republican Party Isolationist feel to many of them. THe most zealous being the converts from protestant faiths that eventually made their way into that segment of Catholicism.
The second case even being more extreme is the Orthodox and particually converts to Orthodoxy in the UNited States. I do not not know if its part of all thing western are bad including the politics thoght but almost all Orthodox converts I have encounted especially in the Anitochian rite here in the US are rabidly anti Bush, andanti REpublican. I dont mean to offend anyone but there does seem to be a general line of thought politically in both of these groups I have observed. Its of interest to me because as an American I think its important to realize my what my fellow Americans believe. Second, I am curious what sort of religious thought and analysis is going into these political choices.
Anyway nice discussion. I would enjoy doing these on other topics in the futre including on immigration reform, welfare, etc.
A doubling of gas prices didn't bring the economy to its knees over the past few months. Europe is still functional with higher gas prices. Capitalists can't have it both ways: the economy can't be flexible enough to accomodate micro and macro poor choices and at the same time be so intractable so as not to be able to accomodate a curve shift in oil supplies.
M.Z.
Your point of Europe being "fuctional" is correct with its high gas prices. The question is that if being merely "functional" is enough in the long term. I am very underwhelmed my self at the state of the European economy especially in the long term. I guess the problem I have with higher taxes on oil in order to bring about drastic change in the practices of the US is the other elephant in the room. That is China. I think much of the short supply had to do with Chinas need for such supplies of oil for their economy. In a age where China is making even more threats toward Tawain we can't even it appears to stop further arm sales to China. How are we then going to make them comply to enviromental standards.
I am not sure in this Global economy how if we take such drastic mesures to change our oil base society how China and other powers such as India will not take advantage of the situation to our peril. As many point out the problem in the Kyoto treaty is not that the US has to make cuts in emisions, But these "developing" nations all seem to be exempt from such protocals and that seems to make the situation even more worse. Again this is not to say do nothing because that is clearly unacceptable. However until we deal with the pollution factor in developing countries any protocals we establish are a dangerous illusion.
David, regarding the fall of the Societ Union: Do you really think a country opens up the churches because missles are pointed at it?
They pointed missles back at us. And, frankly got sick of it. JPII's moral persuasion, seen in the Solidarity movement in Poland, is what set the USSR to thinking, in my opinion. The soviets could always have answered missles with missles. But they were tired of it and saw its futility. I think Gorbachev was a man who listened to the likes of JPI.
John Paul II's views on Toleration of Deterrence Evolved
He wrote: "All are well aware that the type of security on which our planet has depended for several decades - a balance of terror based on nuclear deterrence - is a security with a far too high risk level. This awareness should encourage nations to enter into a new phase in their relations, with all due urgency. This is precisely what you are now devoting your attention to, in order to eliminate once and for all the spectre of a nuclear war and of all armed conflict..." ( Vatican, 31 May 1988 John Paul II Message to General Assembly of UNO)
"At the level of security doctrine, there is a great need to move beyond nuclear deterrence. The time has come for all States to comply with the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that negotiations toward nuclear disarmament be pursued and achieved in good faith under strict and effective international control. The Holy See reiterates its stand that a "peace" based on nuclear weapons cannot be the peace we seek in the 21st century." (April 27, 2004 Review Conference of the parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty)
Pope Benedict: Resources Can't be Wasted on Weapons and Wars
(AGI) - Rome, Oct. 17 - Referring to the message sent by Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of the celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of FAO's foundation, Cardinal Angelo Sodano has launched an appeal calling for a stronger commitment to combating hunger and promoting peace. Sodano stressed that the fight against hunger "must be a priority aimed at providing everyone with the means to earn one's living. Resources can't be wasted on weapons and wars. Prophet Isaiah links the dawn of universal peace to an image which means so much to FAO: it will come when people change their swords into ploughs and their spears into scythes". Sodano also praised the work done by the United Nations, that is an Institution which "was created to eradicate the scourge of hunger by promoting farming activities worldwide". This objective "is all the more urgent now that food crises keep hitting people all over the world, while there are countries where the abundance of their production raises some questions as to their life styles". (AGI) -
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani: Modern Warfare Condemned: "No conceivable...Justification"
He wrote in 1947: "The extent of the damage done to national assets by aerial warfare, and the dreadful weapons that have been intro
Ottaviani continued..."The extent of the damage done to national assets by aerial warfare, and the dreadful weapons that have been introduced of late, is so great that it leaves both vanquished and victor the poorer for years after. Innocent people, too, are liable to great injury from the weapons in current use: hatred is on that account excited above measure; extremely harsh reprisals are provoked; wars result which flaunt every provision of the jus gentium, and are marked by a savagery greater than ever. And what of the period immediately after a war? Does not it also provide an obvious pointer to the enormous and irreparable damage which war, the breeding place of hate and hurt, must do to the morals and manners of nations? These considerations, and many others which might be adduced besides, show that modern wars can never fulfil those conditions which (as we stated earlier on in this essay) govern - theoretically - a just and lawful war. Moreover, no conceivable cause could ever be sufficient justification for the evils, the slaughter, the destruction, the moral and religious upheavals which war today entails".
I wasn't singling out you Dave with the comments about converts. It is just a pattern I have noticed. If you think the comments apply to you then maybe they do. I am a convert but was a liberal before converting. In fact, the Catholic defense of policies that help the poor contrasted with "christian" right's lack of concern for the poor was one thing that caused me to respect Catholicism early on.
When James talks about the hatred between Repblicans and Democrats I see that as even more reason why christians should stay out of the partisan rhetoric. Lots of people see a conflict between faith and reason. I think the Catholic church is uniquely positioned to be able to embrace both. I havn't read Pope Benedict's book by that name but I hear he essentially says that.
There are people who refuse to consider christianity because they don't want to learn to think like George Bush. We need to tell them that faith is not shutting off you brain for fear of slipping into heresy. We can think things though and end up at a very nuanced position. As long as we havn't contradicted church teaching we can know this thinking won't put our souls at risk.
Great thanks particularly to James for his lengthy, thoughtful contributions, and to all others who have contributed.
I appreciate Stephen Hand coming here and presenting his views, and also the cordial treatment he was granted by my blog regulars. I suspect that the majority of my readers support the war but I don't know that for sure; it's only a guess. Maybe it is half and half for all I know.
As for future political discussions, I do that here occasionally, but it is always secondary to my main purpose, which is apologetics. There are tons of political forums on the Internet and many Catholic and Protestant social-political venues.
Even many ostensibly apologetic sites these days seem more intent on writing about and discussing cultural issues than theological ones. I suppose that's what people want, so they do it. Or they have run out of apologetic topics to write about (I could see that).
That's fine, but I will always stick to my main purpose, because I am an apologist and that is what God wants me to do with my life. Alongside that, I also talk about many other things, as I wish, including, e.g., music (many papers now posted). But those things will never be the major or predominant theme here.
>David, regarding the fall of the Societ Union: Do you really think a country opens up the churches because missles are pointed at it?
No, I think they did for a variety of reasons, including sensible self-interest forcibly brought home to them by pointed missiles and the resolve of the Gipper to fight the Evil Empire if necessary (or at least act
test
(cont.)
. . . as if it is possible or conceivable that he might do so: sort of a "psychological deterrence").
Stephen Hand
I think that the Regan Buildup had much to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Perhaps if I am incorrect on this but didnt the the CIA Director himself brief John Paul II on the United States deployment of Nuclear weapons in Europe that sparked massive protests in Europe. Didnt the Pope give his tacit approval? I could be wrong on this and might be buying into a political urban legend. But I believe more people than the Malachi Martins of the world reported on this I will try to do some further research.
I do not think the politburo was overwhelmed by JOhn Paul II political thought. I think we simply in the end after engaging them everywhere showed that economically they could not keep up.
Amen to the comments from Ottaviani above. The horrors of modern warfare such as Nuclear war are horrible to conteplate. In many ways this makes the 'Bush doctrine" even more compelling to me. The fact of an nuclears arms race in the middle east is something that can not happen under any circumstances. This is the main reason why if it comes down to it I would support preemptive attacks on Iran's capacity to produce a Nuclear weapon. One North Korea is enough in the world.
"[Carter] couldn't even free the Iranian hostages, but all of a sudden when the Gipper got in there, just by amazing coincidence, the hostages were soon freed . . ."
are you really suggesting this had something to do with the fact that an elderly, old-hollywood, ex-gov' of cali was voted into office and nothing to do with the fact that in the summer of '80 bill casey was running around handing out checks and assurances of arms to iranian go-betweens? because after all, that is what the house investigative committee found in 1991: the 'october surprise' had little to do with reagan scaring the iranians to death and everything to do with his #1 agency man *negotiating* with terrorists. in essence, reagan broke a campaign promise NOT to before he was even in office.
"President Reagan defied them with...the Strategic Defense Initiative.."
this never even got off the drawing board. yet, but the time he was dealing with gorbachev in iceland at th end of his term, reagan was so already so senile that could not be convinced to part with it in a deal to scale back nuclear weapons programmes--even though it didn't yet exist! so this programme could hardly be credited with soviet bankrupcy...
"Also i Love how people view oil 'black gold, texas tea' as some sort of item that mustbe taken off the table as legitimate reasons to go to war over."
finally! some intellectual honesty from the pro-bush crowd about one of the reasons we are at war. funny how the son-and-dance is, 'we never went for oil! we never went for oil!' UNTIL one can prove that afghanistan and iraq were on the timetable before 9-11; then the song changes to, 'well, how ARE we to get our oil?' your implications are right, however: we can only get oil in the amounts we want it in and for the price we want it by war-mongering or by just-short-of-war-making policies like embargoes and the like. it's our consumption that has to change: our consumerist-based civilization IS NOT WORKING. how can one justify this beast we've created when it demands war to feed it and keep it going? and it wouldn't be possible unless christians (some 80% of the US pop--catholics and prots) were lock-in-step with the way the US does business around the world: a trade system of cheap goods imported from poor countries using sweat-shop labor, and a system backed by the most lethal army in the world. our "defense" budget is $442 BILLION per year (does not include month-by-month spending on iraq or afghanistan)! that is obscene! russia and china spend approx $65 and $55 billion, respectively, on the same. education in this country receives only $39 billion annually--where is the christian outrage at that? what say you dave, james?
and it isn't as though this extra money went to the soldiers--bush exponentially hiked defense spending while simultaneously cutting veteran's benefits and pay raises for active-duty soldiers, but we are asked to believe that he is all about pat
riotism and God-and the-american-way...
no, christians *must* kick the cheap-goods, cheap-oil habit and put the pressure on their prez like they did when he nominated harriet myers or wrote 'happy holidays' on his x-mas card...
Randy,
you said
"When James talks about the hatred between Repblicans and Democrats I see that as even more reason why christians should stay out of the partisan rhetoric. Lots of people see a conflict between faith and reason. I think the Catholic church is uniquely positioned to be able to embrace both. I havn't read Pope Benedict's book by that name but I hear he essentially says that.
There are people who refuse to consider christianity because they don't want to learn to think like George Bush. We need to tell them that faith is not shutting off you brain for fear of slipping into heresy. We can think things though and end up at a very nuanced position. As long as we havn't contradicted church teaching we can know this thinking won't put our souls at risk."
I appreciate your comments. LEt me say if there is hatred the more reason for people to get involved. This doest not have to be the constant reality of things. I guess my point of Catholics being involved in Party Politics has had great pluses. How many years ago would the nomination of catholics to the Court or other position of power not been greeted with horro by non catholics. Now its treated by fundamnetalist as often something to rejoice.
MY point is we have no option but not to be involved. I primarly attack this issue as making sure we have freedom of religion in this Country for the years to come. The lack of Christian Voives in politics and its consequences can be seen in Europe and even in Canada. There we see the practice of Religion largely now to be regarded as something of a hate crime. A quick purview of actions of the EU tribuanals and the some of the early descions of Canada' human rights commisionsshow what happen when Catholics take themselves out of the public square.
George Bush is a blip on the political screen. When he leaves their we be another booyman for the anti religion folks. Even though I disagree with Pat Buchann on many things his infamous speech to the Republican National COnvention is coming truer every day. We are indeed in a culture war.
James,
I wasn't suggesting that Catholics remain silent. I was suggesting they should be above the fray rather than in it. I think too many christians have sunk to the level of personal attacks. They have defended unchristian actions by their own party and thrown mud at members of the other party in the name of culture wars. I see that from Democrat as well as Republican christians. They have bought into the idea that you must choose a side and stay there. After they choose a side then they try as hard as they can to convince people that God is really on their side.
Anyway, I saw John Paul as a great example of someone above the fray. I know not being American probably helps. Still he clearly says abortions and gay marriage is wrong. It did not tempt him at all to support the war in Iraq. He never said one party was better. He just laid out what christian values were and challenged both parties to go there.
Mr Hand and others,
If the liberation of Iraq was entirely about oil, we would be invading Canada at this very moment, since we import more oil from Canada than the Middle East.
Matt, invade Canada? It's not like we didn't think about it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...2901412_pf.html
As Carlson says in this marvelous piece "Invading Canada is an old American tradition. Invading Canada successfully is not"...
But no, digging into soft desert is easier than working in the biting cold and drilling into more difficult terrain. 
But I have already conceded it was not "only" about oil (even if that is integral, see previous remarks) but, as Chomsky said, if Iraq produced only pickles we would not be so anxious to kill and die. It is the total (myopic) economic "necessity" which propels into those places where angels fear to tread.
I recommend reading Dr. Hubert at TCR on the multifaceted and sorry blunder which will likely only multiply terrorists and possible Islamic states in the region.
"the multifaceted and sorry blunder which will likely only multiply terrorists and possible Islamic states in the region."
This is simply not true. It's one of the many myths which pepper this debate, like "Bush lied" and "it's mainly for oil" and "Iraq had no connection whatsoever to terrorism" and "Saddam had no WMDs," and so forth. I've been systematically disposing of most of these, I think; why not this one, too? And one does it with hard facts, just like the others.
----------------
Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says
By Robin Wright
Washington Post
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5071401030.html
Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released yesterday.
Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a "considerable degree" Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.
"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam," the poll concluded.
The one exception is attitudes toward suicide bombings of U.S and Western targets in Iraq, a subject on which Muslims were divided. Roughly half of Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco said such attacks are justifiable, while sizable majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia disagreed. Yet, support for suicide bombings in Iraq still declined by as much as 20 percent compared with a poll taken last year.
The results, which also reveal widespread support for democracy, show how profoundly opinions have changed in parts of the Muslim world since Pew took similar surveys in recent years. The poll attributed the difference in attitudes toward extremism to both the terrorist attacks in Muslim nations and the passage of time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In May 2003, many Muslims "saw a worldwide threat to Islam and [bin Laden] represented opposition to the West and the United States," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and project director. "Tempers have since cooled."
The poll results are a rare piece of good news for the Bush administration, which has faced difficulties seeing gains in its two top foreign policy goals -- combating terrorism and promoting democracy in the Islamic world.
"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are
(cont.)
. . . plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."
The survey, conducted from April through mid-June, before the London bombings, polled 17,000 people in the six Muslim-dominated countries and in 11 major Western and Asian nations, including the United States. They were asked about their attitudes toward Islam, Muslim nations and extremist violence. More than 6,200 interviews in Muslim countries were conducted in person, while interviews in the West and in Asia were done by telephone and in person.
The new poll also found that growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims now say that democracy can work in their countries and is not just a Western ideology. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. It was selected by 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey -- the largest blocks of respondents in both countries because significant numbers were unsure.
"They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," Kohut said. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."
At the same time, most Muslims surveyed said they think Islam is playing an increasing role in their politics, a development they view as a positive shift in response to economic problems, growing immorality and concern about Western influence. Jordan was the only exception.
------------------------
So the truth about this is exactly the opposite of what war opponents claim. Far from increasing rage; we are convincing Muslim and Arab onlookers all the time, who the "bad guys" really are.
We're winning on all fronts: we're killing the terrorists: some of the most evil men in the world, and lessening their power and influence and capacity to slaughter innocents; we're winning the war for the hearts of the people in the region; we're spreading democracy and freedom.
It's easy to preach about the glories of democracy from one's easy seat in a democracy. We're doing something ABOUT that, so that OTHERS can enjoy the same freedoms. Only liberals are dense enough to not see the clear rightness and profound, unarguable justice of that goal and strategy. They would rather oppose it because they know it helps Republican political prospects in 2006 and 2008: having been so spot-on right about this war effort and the terrorists and how to successfully confront them.
That can never be, no mater how right a Republican cause turne
(cont.)
. . . turned out to be, and how many lives are saved and how many millions more now enjoy political freedom and basic human rights as a result.
Here's more clear evidence along the same lines:
Poll: Major Change of Public Opinion in Muslim World
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.or...lenav.php?
id=56
In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States’ global war on terrorism, more people in the world’s largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.
This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released.
In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in the world’s most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased. The poll demonstrates that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami.
Key Findings of the Poll:
For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.
For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).
65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.
Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.
The Terror Free Tomorrow poll was conducted by the leading Indonesian pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia, and surveyed 1,200 adults nationwide with a margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.
Critical Implications
The support base that empowers global terrorists has significantly declined in the world’s largest Muslim country. This is a major blow to Al Qaeda and other global terrorists.
U.S. actions can make a significant and immediate difference in eroding the support base for global terrorists.
The United States must sustain its relief and reconstruction efforts in Indonesia in order to prevent the support base from rebounding.
The size and strength of the support base can dramatically change in a short period of time. This is a front in the war on terrorism where the United States can continue to achieve additional success.
----------------
On this page, one can access the complete report, too.
And another, from the liberal New Republic magazine:
Survey Says: Polls and the Muslim World
By Robert Satloff
September 30, 2005
Highlights:
After all, everyone accepts that America is widely loathed in the Arab world. And yet it's worth asking: Is it true?
In Pew's summary of the 2005 survey, there is scant reference to a remarkable set of positive trends: Compared to previous results, all Muslim countries polled had a less critical image of President Bush; a more favorable view of the United States (here again, Turkey was the sole exception); a stronger sense that America truly favors democracy in their country; and a greater receptivity to implementing Western-style democracy. That certainly runs against the common wisdom regarding the political attitudes of Arabs and Muslims.
One after another, Muslim leaders are lining up to sign free-trade agreements with the United States and to shake the hand of Israel's leader at the United Nations. It doesn't look like many are fearful of anti-American backlashes at home.
On the mass level, the famed "Arab street" is largely inactive. Despite the high number of civilian deaths in Iraq, it is extremely rare for Arabs to gather in large numbers to protest the U.S. occupation. Indeed, the largest Arab protest this year--the Lebanese demonstration demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces--was decidedly pro-American.
At the same time, recent Arab boycotts of high-profile American companies--if they had any traction at all--were short-lived and ultimately ineffective. McDonald's sales in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa did fall in 2003, when U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, but have rebounded strongly ever since. Even Caterpillar, under pressure for doing business with the Israel Defense Forces, appears to turn a handsome profit in the Middle East, with revenues for its division that include Arab countries up 50 percent in the past two years.
To be sure, none of this is proof that all is well in America's relations with Arab publics. But the truth of the situation is far more nuanced than the commonly held image of a region in which millions of Arabs rush out of bed each day to burn effigies of Uncle Sam before their morning coffee. The prime mission of post-9/11 public diplomacy is identifying, nurturing, and supporting Muslim allies in the ideological battle against radical Islamist extremism. That task is difficult--yet doable.
Forgot the URL for the last article:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.o...C06.php?
CID=873
And a fourth piece of evidence:
Our Friends the Pakistanis: Support for the U.S. is surging in some parts of the Muslim world.
BY HUSAIN HAQQANI AND KENNETH BALLEN
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ed...ml?
id=110007699
So much for the popularly peddled view that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is so pervasive and deep-rooted it might take generations to alter. A new poll from Pakistan, a critical front-line in the war on terror, paints a very different picture--by revealing a sea-change in public opinion in recent months.
Long a stronghold for Islamic extremists and the world's second-most populous Muslim nation, Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped to its lowest level since then. The direct cause for this dramatic shift in Muslim opinion is clear: American humanitarian assistance for Pakistani victims of the Oct. 8 earthquake that killed 87,000. The U.S. pledged $510 million for earthquake relief in Pakistan and American soldiers are playing a prominent role in rescuing victims from remote mountainous villages.
Released today, the poll commissioned by the nonprofit organization Terror Free Tomorrow and conducted by Pakistan's foremost pollsters ACNielsen Pakistan shows that the number of Pakistanis with a favorable opinion of the U.S. doubled to more than 46% at the end of November from 23% in May 2005. Those with very unfavorable views declined to 28% from 48% over the same period. Nor is this swing in public opinion confined to Pakistan. A similar picture is evident in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Again that's largely because of American generosity in the wake of a natural disaster. A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of American relief to the victims of last December's tsunami. If these changes in Pakistan and Indonesia influence thinking in other countries, then we could be looking at a broader shift in public sentiment across the Muslim world.
While support for the U.S. has surged, there's also been a dramatic drop in support for Osama bin Laden and terrorism. Since May, the percentage of Pakistanis who feel terrorist attacks against civilians are never justified has more than doubled to 73% from less than half, while the minority who still support terrorist attacks has also shrunk significantly. There's been a similar increase in the number of Pakistanis disapproving of bin Laden, which rose to 41% in November up from only 23% in May.
The important point is that direct contact with Americans on a humanitarian mission, including military personnel, has a positive impact on how Muslims view America. In Pakistan, 78% of those surveyed said that American assistance has made them feel more favor
(cont.)
. . . favorable to the U.S. America also fared much better in the opinion of ordinary Pakistanis than the other Western countries that also provided aid, or even local radical Islamist groups that made a much-publicized effort to provide earthquake relief.
That doesn't mean there isn't still more work to be done. The Muslim "street" is still not sold on specific American policies, with the poll finding the Pakistani public now opposes current U.S. policy in the war on terror by a larger margin than in May. But the overall message from Pakistan, pointing towards a potential trend in the Muslim world in general, is a positive one. By cutting out the middlemen who all too often portray a poisonous image of the U.S., direct American engagement in humanitarian assistance not only ensures its aid reaches those in need, but can also play a powerful role in marginalizing the foot-soldiers for bin Laden and other supporters of extremist Islamic causes.
Iraqis are much more ambivalent or opposed to American occupation of Iraq (which is why I favor withdrawal as soon as feasible without undoing the gains achieved). See this informative article:
Vicious Circle: The Dynamics of Occupation and Resistance in Iraq
http://www.comw.org/pda/0505rm10.html
That doesn't prove, however, that there is some mythical massive build-up of Muslim and Arab anger against the United States, and opposition to a supposed Crusader mentality, as Stephen has insinuated, citing his friend Dr. Hubert.
One expects resentment against occupation. This is normal. It doesn't prove that the occupation is unnecessary or when it should end, in and of itself. Folks hate to go to the dentist or to get a brojen bone repaired, too; doesn't mean those things aren't necessary for the long run.
funny how a washington post article a few months before yours said exactly the opposite:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...5042702096.html
Global Terrorism Statistics Released
Clearinghouse Data Show Sharp Rise
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A07
The U.S. government released statistics yesterday documenting a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks last year and a death toll of close to 2,000 people around the globe, a disclosure made a week after the State Department said it would publish its congressionally mandated annual survey of international terrorism without the statistical portrait it has always included.
The numbers were provided instead by the government's new clearinghouse for terrorism-related information, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and included statistics documenting a sharp surge in significant terrorist acts from 175 incidents that killed 625 in 2003 to 651 such attacks that killed 1,907 in 2004. But senior officials said the threefold increase was a result of changes in methodology and urged reporters at a hastily called briefing not to compare this year's terrorism numbers with previous ones. Congressional aides already had disclosed the increase in terrorist incidents to reporters Tuesday after a private briefing.
"The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way," said John O. Brennan, acting head of the NCTC, which produced the statistics. He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks. This year, Brennan said, 10 full-time intelligence analysts -- up from three part-timers -- searched for terrorist incidents to include, resulting in a much higher total than met the government's criteria for classification as a "significant" attack.
Although the officials called the data seriously flawed, they said they put it out to avoid criticism that the State Department was trying to avoid admitting setbacks in the fight against terrorism by not publishing the data. "If we didn't put out these numbers today, you'd say we're withholding data. That's why we're putting them out," said Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Zelikow was executive director of last year's commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department also released its annual terrorism report earlier than planned -- minus the statistics. It describes the evolution of al Qaeda into a "more local, less sophisticated but still lethal" threat to the United States, marking a change from the highly centralized terrorist group that struck the World Trade Center in 2001 to a looser amalgam of global affiliates. The report's strongest words are reserved for Iran, which is du
(cont)
...bbed the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2004" and criticized for failure to hand over or identify senior al Qaeda figures in custody there. Zelikow told reporters that at least one of those in Iranian custody had helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks.
The NCTC plans to release another report on incidents of global terrorism in June, to be available to the public at http://www.tkb.org . The new database will show terrorist attacks not included under the old counting rules used by the State Department, Brennan said.
But a senior House Republican charged with overseeing the administration's progress in attacking global terrorism said it did not make sense for the State Department to publish its annual terrorism report without the improved statistics. Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) wrote Rice that it "seems absurd to request data that could inform the report, then neither use nor include that data in the finished product."
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who had emerged as the chief critic of the State Department's decision, praised the data release. But he said the sharp increase in terrorist attacks "can't be explained away as a mere methodological artifact."
Regaring terrorism and the war in Iraq, not so fast. There have been a number of major terrorist attacks / warnings even outside Iraq since the war began---Spain and London and we all know what is going on inside Iraq. This is to say nothing of France's riots, etc, attacks on synagogues, etc, etc. Much of the smaller attacks are not even reported (the fact that the DC sniper was a Muslim was underplayed, no?) Moreover to suggest this war will quell terrorism flies in the face of what radical Islam is all about and what feeds and foments it. There is no shortage of evidence that the war has served to increase terrorism, and I do not cite any except with trepidation.
Another important and disturbing fact is that quiet periods between attacks for Islamic radicalists, when such periods exist, should never ---as we have learned--- give rise for any kind of triumphalism, since Jihadists know how to wait, lull everyone to sleep, and then, when we least expect it, hit very hard. Terrorism is an inexpensive way to cause havoc and mayhem (as opposed to the very expensive and cumbersome western marshalling of battalions and gigantic force) and the war in Iraq has provided those bent on it with all the reason they could want to strike blows against the infidels. Not to see a connection especially here between the terrorist threat and the Iraq war is to forget what kids can do with rocks and slingshots against the Israeli military power ----for a very long time. To say nothing of human beings strapped with hidden bombs (when this happens in the US, as I fear it must at some point, then we may wake up; but will President Bush then only strip away more of our liberties in the attempt to deflect from the terrifying effects of his own botched and tragic war adventure?)
To cite but a few:
-Losing the War on Terrorism: http://www.zmag.org/content/show...cfm?
ItemID=9489
-Iraq War Forces New Analysis of Terrorism http://www.tcrnews2.com/Terrorism.html
-U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...042601623.html/
-Iraq war is breeding a new generation of professional terrorists, warns CIA report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1391072,00.html
-British Intelligence Cites Iraq War as Cause of Terrorism: http://www.afterdowningstreet.or...org/?q=node/
859
- Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2005Jan13.html
-War Without End: http://www.zmag.org/content/show...cfm?
ItemID=9449
- Blix Says Iraq War Stimulated Terrorism: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/...4/
101504Y.shtml
-Iraq: A New Source of Terrorists: http://zfacts.com/p/173.html
-Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.or...%20on%20Terror/
-The War on terror in Translation: http://www.zmag.org/content/show...cfm?
ItemID=8917
-Iraq war
Pt 2/ re: war and terrorism
-Iraq war fuels terrorism: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/
l...1527144,00.html
-Will U.S. Foreign Policy Increase Terrorism? http://www.worldpress.org/Mideas...ideast/
1891.cfm
-And here is a recommended Winter break reading list: http://warincontext.org/bookstore.htm
One could go on and on...
a few comments/observations:
1. "'The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way,' said John O. Brennan, acting head of the NCTC, which produced the statistics."
i agree: some terrorism attacks go unreported or underreported; others are categorized as "acts of terrorism" and might not be considered such otherwise, depending on who is compiling the data; etc. stats can be made to prove or disprove a lot--they are misleading, they have to compared to data compiled over *extended* periods of time...and so on.
2. your other "articles", even if they claim to interpret polls and such, are opinion pieces, and are not reliable data.
3. " He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks."
this seems to indicate that past state dept. statements have not been honest with the american public in the past, causing many to believe, "we're winning!" when it's too early to tell.
and let's not forget what iraqis themselves are saying...
from the chaldean catholics in iraq website:
http://www.byzantines.net/epipha...ny/
chaldean.htm
[1.] "It must be admitted in all candor that Christians were not persecuted by the Baathist regime, however, they were subjected to random acts of violence from the Muslim majority. Whatever comes out of the war, the fate of the Christian communities in Iraq may be in doubt. "
[2.] "The Christian populations of the Middle East, once dominant, have either vanished altogether or have been reduced to small minorities by forced conversions, persecutions and emigration. In recent decades the Christian communities in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have been eroding at an accelerating rate through emigration due to increased pressure from militant Islam.... If current trends continue, the remnants of the ancient Christian Churches in Iraq and the Middle East will vanish.
[3. from UPDATE portion of webpage] "Since we published this page, Mission 'Iraqi Freedom' appears to be emerging as a civil war between the minority, formerly dominant, Sunni Muslims who seek through violence to prevent the inevitable emergence of the majority Shia Muslims to the position of power and control of the state and its oil and gas reserves. As for the Christian minorities in Iraq, their situation as infidels in a Muslim country grows ever more precarious. Christians are publicly harassed; their women are insulted for not dressing as Muslims; their businesses destroyed; and their churches are bombed, with the result that many are fleeing abroad. (see Christian Flight from the Middle East at: http://www.byzantines.net/byzcat...istflight.html)
Recently elections were held in Iraq resulting in the unquestionable ascendancy of the Shia to power. Already their clerics have made it clear that they want a new constitution based on the Quran and governed by the sharia (Muslim law code). Accordingly it appears to us highly likely that in the future Iraq will resemble the Islamic Republic of Iran. America's misadventure in Iraq is bearing bitter fruit."
hardly a ringing endorsement of preemptive interventionalism, eh?
Apparently Jon and I were thinking the same thing. Hell, forget us antiwar activists, let's at least listen to the Iraqis themselves who, with all Moslems, want self-determination (even if it may mean civil war) above all else. They are saying it's time to get out (when Murtha said it he was greeted with derision, but then the Bush Administration immediately began a reversal of course and expected applause)
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops: http://telegraph.co.uk/news/
main...xportaltop.html
Iraqis want us out, says US general: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,1...0-
38198,00.html
US general admits Iraqis want troops out: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsi...12/
s1537965.htm
82% Sunni, 69% Shiite Iraqis want the US to withdrawl immediately or after the elections: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/...ps.dbm?
ID=10805
New Poll: Most Iraqis Want US Out: http://www.blackcommentator.com/
...io_bc_text.html
Now that they voted, Iraqis want U.S. out: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-bre...94301-
1888r.htm
Iraqi leaders and American military families speak out: Bring them home now: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opini...V.%
20Kelley.htm
Point of consideration: Had Bush sought international approval for a police action to go into Iraq and remove Saddam and his top generals and then immediately sent them to the Hague and brought our troops home, he might have been seen by the Iraqis as a hero. Instead he chose war against the UN pleas for more time for inspections, refusing to wait for a UN mandate for circumscribed force and precisely defined objectives. He refused the advice of our major allies, he refused the advice of the Vatican and the Arab League itself and chose instead the quagmire, learning nothing from Vietnam and serving only to destablize the most sensitive and volatile region in the world. In short, he acted like a new imperium and violated the law against aggression established by the very international law the US worked to construct. This is not how it is supposed to be done anymore. The poor man ---and I take no pleasure in saying this---has made a fool of himself and our country, stiired the ire of the Iraqis themselves, probably proliferated clerical Islam and Sharia law in the region.
In the US itself we didn't give women the right to vote until the 20th century (!) and President Bush expects to wave a magic wand and impose a veriatble democracy at once on a peoples who have never known it? Please! I'd like to know if Mr. Bush has ever read a book on history.
Here is an article featured at TCR today of no small consequence
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
HA10Ak01.html
What kind of debate is this? Quoting obscure polls and opinion journals is the substitute for fact? If you study the history of Islam, from its inception and take a world view of what is going on with Jihad, moving the battle to their ground as opposed to NYC is brilliant.
History did not start the day the Age of Aquarius generation was born...I suggest you all read about the Muslim concept of the Dhimmi and Dhimmitude.
It is sophomoroic to toss out articles of nebulous polls and opinion journals as fact.
Stephen hand,
At times I believe I must live in an Alternate universe or some political twilight zone where facts dont apply.
"Had Bush sought international approval for a police action to go into Iraq and remove Saddam and his top generals and then immediately sent them to the Hague and brought our troops home, he might have been seen by the Iraqis as a hero. Instead he chose war against the UN pleas for more time for inspections, refusing to wait for a UN mandate for circumscribed force and precisely defined objectives"
You know if memory serves me right we went to the UN nonstop. Also the chattering classes of the left always talk about how the Bush family is getting rich off the war(Mr. Hand has thankfully that voiced this view). T he only evidence of people getting rich illegally has be the UN officials itself. Remeber the oil for food scandel. Billions paid out in the order of bribes to our "allies" and top UN officials and their families. Could this have been the reason no UN action would ever happen? Seems very likely to me.
"In the US itself we didn't give women the right to vote until the 20th century (!) and President Bush expects to wave a magic wand and impose a veriatble democracy at once on a peoples who have never known it? Please! I'd like to know if Mr. Bush has ever read a book on history.
Mr Hand goes on to generalize a whole region. Iraq is quite differnt than lets say Saudi Arabi or many other arab countries. However lets look at where democracy has taken hold. It seems to me that Afghanistan was a far tougher cookie as to "imposing democracy" but it appears its being successful. Remember afghanistin? As someonew pointed out that country culturally and politically was indeed in the 14 th century with the exceptions there are alot of japanese trucks around. The President hasn't demanded some western style form of republic like in the US. To imply so ignores the facts on the ground. It appears that the early steps to along lasting democracy in Iraq can be seen .
as to the above post i meant to say Mr Hand has not voiced the view that the Bush family is getting rich as many anti war people(the michael moore lot viewpoint) Mr hand has not in my view of his writings voiced this view which shows that even though i disagree with his views he had not adopted the wacko ideas of the left on this topic. Sorry for the typo
james,
again, both you and matthew are ignoring or deriding as 'sophomoric' what mr. hand (and i, to a lesser extent) have quoted as coming from the *iraqis* themselves: did you read the citations from the iraqi christians' website or click on the links stephen has provided? they tell a vastly different story than what you and the rest here are saying. if you would allow iraqis democracy--true, representative democracy--they'd vote us out in a second, as the polls stephen has listed prove. THEY DON'T WANT US THERE. when are you all going to respect that?
furthermore, the downing street memos and numerous testimonies from washington insiders have all said the same thing, in regard to going to the UN 'nonstop': that the admin was on the warpath to iraq LONG before colin powell made his (now infamous) speech at the UN, and they would not be dissuaded by a security-council vote NOT to preemptively attack iraq over cartoons (powell NEVER provided actual pics, just drawings) of 'mobile weapons labs' and such.
and yes, iraq WAS a vastly different place than saudi arabia: the baathists were secularists; women were allowed more liberties; they didn't persecute christians (or other religious minorities); iraqis enjoyed a literacy rate higher than any other country in the middle east outside of israel; etc. the christians in iraq--among many others--all believe that our 'misadventure' there will change that, that they are moving away from the relative liberalism of a secular regime and towards a theocracy. "to theocracy via democracy!" should be their motto and will be.
jon said " you would allow iraqis democracy--true, representative democracy--they'd vote us out in a second, as the polls stephen has listed prove. THEY DON'T WANT US THERE. when are you all going to respect that? "
I have noticed that the Iraq's had three elections since last January. This last elections had major Sunni representation. If the Iraqis want us out their elected representatives can send that message. I mean we can put up opnion polls all day long from both sides but it doesnt appear we are telling the elected representatives of Iraq how to vote.
Also yes I have read the links. I have a ready supply of quotes from Iraq citizens Christian and otherwise that support our presence there. Again there is an elected Government there that can voice and implemnt their view I don't know why we continue to act like it doesnt exist.
Jon you said"and yes, iraq WAS a vastly different place than saudi arabia: the baathists were secularists; women were allowed more liberties; they didn't persecute christians (or other religious minorities); iraqis enjoyed a literacy rate higher than any other country in the middle east outside of israel; etc. the christians in iraq--among many others--all believe that our 'misadventure' there will change that, that they are moving away from the relative liberalism of a secular regime and towards a theocracy. "to theocracy via democracy!" should be their motto and will be"
Jon at least your being honest here that the Iraq Government t and how it treated it citzens under the former regime was better than the current elected one. I guess I must disagree. As to the literacy rate before the intervention if you have details how that has gone down please let me know. Relative liberalism? Well i guess the Kurds and the Shites that were the victims of mass murder by the State might disagree with you on that. As to the persucution of Christians largely by terrorist it is an concern. But again the terroist are bent on a ideolgical mission. This is a war. We have to deal with the facts on the ground. I am not saying that everything is going gangbusers in Iraq but I see a lot more signs of hope than despair that freedom will prevail.
I have to say Jon's mention of "cartoon" in his previous post brought to mind another subject
Many people go on about the UN as some legitimate moral authority. I am not ready to give up on the UN yet but when in the past in the pre 911 days the UN put LIbya as head of the HUMan rights commision http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afric...ica/
2672029.stm ,
the oil for food scandel, their constant anti Israel stance I am doubtful. However lets see what the good people at the UN are up to as to cartons.
It appears that the UN is investigating Dutch editoral artist that dare put the prohet mohammed in a cartoon.
-Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten's twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed are causing ripples across the world and worries at the Office of the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour."
"Berlingske Tidende reported that it held a copy of the letter, which stated that Arbour had appointed to UN experts in the areas of religious freedom and racism to investigate the matter.
'I'm confident that they will take action in an adequate manner,' Arbour said in her letter to the 56 governments, which have requested the UN to address the issue with Denmark."
www.cphpost.dk/get/92663.html
Goodness me. ONe wonders why we yokels in the United States wonder about why we should go to the UN at all. Note to UN there are alot of offensive material relating to Chrisitianity that is put in the papers and Govt subsidized art every day. However UN do me a favor and not "investigate". Despite the fact this another reason why any European in their right mind should stay out of the eu(EU tribunals are investigating too) I think this shows the exact mindset of the moral body.
It is our Catholic duty to help those in need. I dont give a rip where 'your neighbor' is located, if you are aware of genocide, by golly do something about it. What kind of cowards are we breeding in the Catholic ranks? Why do they cower under the kitchen table when a madman is wreaking havoc in their neighbors home?
What we did in Iraq, and what we should do worldwide if we are aware of it(including the murderous Chinese Marxists, North Korea, etc) is stop it!!
Randy
At times in frustration I share your sentiment. I often wonder if I am the only one that thinks such thoughts. I know there is delicaate balancing act going on in the United States as to all the competing interest. For instance our national security and interest, economic concerns, and the good of the world.
On the whole I think most Americans do recognize we have a special role and a special responsibilty. Often my liberal friends talk about how horrible the UNited States takes so much of the world influences exports its imperalist western culture etc. I guess I have a different view. I grew up under Reagan. Remeber him. Remeber where it just wasnt about opposing the Soviets because of our self interest but also a very underlying theme that men were meant to be free. Those were heady days well we started to realize that for a Country that takes so much perhaps the very basis of " a pure containment policy" as was advocated by many for decades was not only not working but also perhaps not very moral.
In the end it comes down to what Bush said in his 2nd ignaural address doesnt it. as to our self interest
_"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world… " and
"Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world"
But as to the greater theme that might be our purpose or should be Bush stated
"We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul"
It is true its not a perfect world and because of circumstances our way we do this with other countries will vary. For instance invading N korea to end oppression might be counter productive if LA is wiped off the map by a nuclear weapon. However beside the US who will lead. THe UN?-doubtful, -the EU even more doubtful there too busy investigating Dutch cartoon artist and creating a new bureacracy in Brussels, China- perhaps but their leaders hip doesnt seem to be so altrustic to me. I guess in the end my question to our policy is what are your answers. What is the policy alt
what is the policy alternatives. We better think quick. Remember that old relic of the cold war the doomsday clock that was always just a few minutes from midnight symbolizing a Nuclear war between the US and the USSr. Well folks its ticking again in Iran. My point is that this want go away. MIlitant Islam is at war with us. Their goals is total domination of the world with the ultimate goal that all should be subjected to Islam. If the Bush policy is immoral, stupid, etc whats the alternative. TIme is running out.
james hood
I hate to be a post hog today. I guess politics is on my mind since the wonderful mayor of New Orleans has stated that God not only wants New orleans to be a majority black city(GOd is concerned about racial quotas?0 and some also say God doesnt want us in IRaq. Our have been at times the mayors hareshest Critic and at times defender but he really has that diease of that everything that comes into his head he must immediatly verbalize. I digress, I mention ealier that the other side had not mentioned alternatives. In retrospect I thought this was a little unfair and with the theme being dialouge I thought i should engage the alternatives from the other side
Mr hand stated"If we show the Islamic nations they need us as a market and that we can ensure their prosperity, rather than breathing fire and saber rattling toward them, there is a far greater chance they will respond more reasonably. But we've got to give up all plans to occupy parts of the region and we must resolve the Israeli-Paleistinian conflict. Force only invites terrible reaction. As Dr. Hubert has shown it is the military presence of the "infidel" near Mecca which ignited bin Laden's criminal wrath.
My question is where do people get the impression we are not doing large parts of this. THe policy on a whole is largely non military in outlook. As to thought that Peace will come if we ensure that they need us as a markets and their prosperity is ensured, to be honest I am not sure what to make of it. I mean hasnt that always been the past plan. In one breath we are demeaned by working with the Saudis and the next breat saying that "ensuring economic prosperity" is the key. Are the terroist concerned about the economic propersity of the Arab World or more particually the properity of the House of Faud and the Bathh party? Again the US esp as to Saudai Arabi has been demanding in reforms. As to the Israeli/ Palestine conflict arent we doing that? Despite some setbacks who can not admit that the past decade has shown considerable progress.
"What kind of cowards are we breeding in the Catholic ranks?"
you mean the kinds of "cowards" that simply don't agree with your methodology of 'helping' your neighbor (which is the weirdest, loosest translation of love thy neighbor as thyself--unleash holy war on their lands to 'free' them)? cowards like JPII, or, say, Benedict XVI--or virtually the whole of the curia and american council of catholic bishops? THOSE cowards who despise your american 'cowboyism'?
about your comparing--dave, james, et al--reagan to bush: THANK GOD reagan didn't buy into W's brand of unilateral, preemptive interventionalism--otherwise, we'd have launched our nukes! afterall, the USSR posed a vastly greater (and certainly more immediate) threat than iraq ever did! no, reagan did the "cowardly", diplomatic thing and actually sat down with the soviet premier. other than that, he attacked granada. sure, the agency ran a million smaller wars around the globe (supporting al qaeda against the USSR in afghanistan; helping the contras with illegal drug money; etc.) but all REAGAN did--for all of your blustering canonization of the man--was OUTSPEND the soviets. whoopdedoo.
James, I agree with your assessment. We Americans need to understand Islam more fully. It is rather naive to think that negoiating with Muslims will work, simply look at Europe. For starters, I suggest all read Belloc's book on Islam, coupled with:
Bat Ye'or's work at http://www.dhimmi.org/
and http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch
Jon,
if your neighbors is being tortured, his wife is being raped in front of him and his children, are you going to sit back and negoiate with the rapists?
Yes or no
It is that simple, stop obfuscating the issue.
"if your neighbors is being tortured, his wife is being raped in front of him and his children, are you going to sit back and negoiate with the rapists?"
no. never said that i would. but what does that have to do with this ocnversation?
"It is that simple."
so very, very wrong. you think we lauched a war to stop rapings? get real.
ok after taking another pain pill hopefully there will be less typos. I will continueto look at the other sides alternatives.
Jon stated "and yes, iraq WAS a vastly different place than saudi arabia: the baathists were secularists; women were allowed more liberties; they didn't persecute christians (or other religious minorities); iraqis enjoyed a literacy rate higher than any other country in the middle east outside of israel; etc. the christians in iraq--among many others--all believe that our 'misadventure' there will change that, that they are moving away from the relative liberalism of a secular regime and towards a theocracy. "to theocracy via democracy!" should be their motto and will be.
To be honest, this appeal to the police state of Hussian as being a moral alternative that is quite lacking to me. Our relationship with the HOuse of Saud is a case in point. With the changing demographics the current situation is and will be more intolerable.There were high literacy rates and woman had a abudance of rights in the former communist bloc also. Again we at times cannot demand or should expect a copy of western govt and culture in the west. Either a basic human right or natural law priniciple applies to all as regards to freedom of thought or particiapation or it does not.But there are models. I also understand that this a long term process if its to be successful. I talking in terms of the cold war time frame. Chances are if we havent blown ourselves up that we may be very old to see the end results.
Mr hand said"Point of consideration: Had Bush sought international approval for a police action to go into Iraq and remove Saddam and his top generals and then immediately sent them to the Hague and brought our troops home, he might have been seen by the Iraqis as a hero. Instead he chose war against the UN pleas for more time for inspections, refusing to wait for a UN mandate for circumscribed force and precisely defined objectives. He refused the advice of our major allies, he refused the advice of the Vatican and the Arab League itself and chose instead the quagmire, learning nothing from Vietnam and serving only to destablize the most sensitive and volatile region in the world. In short, he acted like a new imperium and violated the law against aggression established by the very international law the US worked to construct. This is not how it is supposed to be done anymore. The poor man ---and I take no pleasure in saying this---has made a fool of himself and our country, stiired the ire of the Iraqis themselves, probably proliferated clerical Islam and Sharia law in the region.
Gosh where to start. I have posted in the previous post about how effective "the way its suppose to be done" way of thought. I am all for the UN, the EU, and other international bodies. However I find them very ineffective at this time. That being said we must always persue diplomacy. However one must not ignore facts and especially as to to th
Jon,
Thanks for answering. I am glad you are not my neighbor, my wife and 6 children are home most of the day.l
THANK GOD reagan didn't buy into W's brand of unilateral, preemptive interventionalism--otherwise, we'd have launched our nukes! afterall, the USSR posed a vastly greater (and certainly more immediate) threat than iraq ever did! no, reagan did the "cowardly", diplomatic thing and actually sat down with the soviet premier. other than that, he attacked granada. sure, the agency ran a million smaller wars around the globe (supporting al qaeda against the USSR in afghanistan; helping the contras with illegal drug money; etc.) but all REAGAN did--for all of your blustering canonization of the man--was OUTSPEND the soviets. whoopdedoo
Jon Reagan among others did more than just outspend the soviets. Reagan changed the dyanamic. He called the Soviets what they were an"empire of evil". For that much like BUsh's statement on the "axias of evil" he was ridiculed. When I talk about how Reagan talked about freedom and how its was everyones right I am not just being poetic. It had a great influence on mnay around the world. True we negoated with the Soviets. What was the other option nuclear war? But we did so from a position of strength that was Reagans point all along. As to your comment of American Cowboyism. To be honest do you think thats reality. As i have repeatly said the primary tool of the the US is diplomacy. Case in point the negoations with LIbya that the US and UK held that resulted in LIbya giving over their wmd program. Again whats the alternative. In some ways i miss the Soviet UNion at times. At least there was another sphere of influence to contain this radical Islam we are seeing. If Europe wants to lead by all means lead. Get involve in solving the problem. Give an alternate plan ask for reform for international bodies like the UN so they can work if you want to go that route. Americans do not relish being the policeman of the World but with EU countries constantly downgrading their military budgets whats the alternative.
matthew,
that doesn't make a whole lotta sense: i said i WOULDN'T "negotiate" with your wife's rapist, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the rest got cut off.
james,
so, by your logic, you CAN change "the dynamic" without going to war? THAT'S what stephen hand and i have been saying all along...
Well it seems from the lack of postings in the last few hours that this thread may be playing out. However thought I would give mt two cents as to an interesting article by Christopher Hitchens. I know many will downgrade him as an very interested observor who has taken a very pro IRaq intervention side. But as often as I have disagreed with Hitchens on some things in the past I always pay attention to him because he often has something very important to say. And guess what his analysis has been the most dead on in the predictive factors.
www.slate.com/id/2134378/
"The best news from Iraq this year would certainly be the long New York Times report of Jan. 12 on the murderous strife between local "insurgents" and al-Qaida infiltrators. This was also among the best news from last year. For months, coalition soldiers in Iraq had been telling anyone who would care to listen that they had noticed a new phenomenon: heavy fire that they didn't have to duck. On analysis, this turned out to be shooting or shelling apparently "incoming" from one "insurgent position" but actually directed at another one. "
THis by the way is so true. I have spent hours with members of the returning Louisiana National Guard who paint quite a different version of whats going on than I see on CNN.
"We have had enough of this nonsense," said Sheik Ahmad Khanjar, the leader of the Albu Ali clan. "We don't accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis, regardless of their sect—whether Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs or Kurds." Ali Hussein Lifta, a local Shiite repairman, responded handsomely. "So many ties of friendship, marriage and compassion" connect people, he said. "We have become in fact part of the population here."
By the way he is not talking of colation forces here but Zarquai.
"The significance of this, and of numerous other similar accounts, is three-fold. First, it means that the regular media caricature of Iraqi society is not even a parody. It is very common indeed to find mixed and intermarried families, and these loyalties and allegiances outweigh anything that can be mustered by a Jordanian jailbird who has bet everything on trying to ignite a sectarian war. Second, it means in the not very long run that the so-called insurgency can be politically isolated and militarily defeated. It already operates within a minority of a minority and is largely directed by unpopular outsiders. Politically, it is the Khmer Rouge plus the Mafia—not the Viet Cong. And unlike the Khmer Rouge, it has no chance at all of taking the major cities. Nor, apart from the relatively weak Syrian regime, does it have a hinterland or a friendly neutral territory to use for resupply. And its zealots are now being killed by nationalist and secular, as well as clerical, guerrillas. (In Kurdistan, the Zarqawi riffraff don't even try; there is a real people's army there, and it has a short way with fascists. It also fights on the coalition side.) In counterinsurgency terms, this is curtains for al-Qaida"
Oh yeah Kurestan that place that no anit war person talks about.
"Which is my third point. If all goes even reasonably well, and if a combination of elections and prosperity is enough to draw more mainstream Sunnis into politics and away from Baathist nostalgia, it will have been proved that Bin-Ladenism can be taken on—and openly defeated—in a major Middle Eastern country. And not just defeated but discredited. Humiliated. Is there anyone who does not think that this is a historic prize worth having? Worth fighting for, in fact?
I leave that thought with all those who have been advocating withdrawal, or taking a fatalistic attitude to an overrated "insurgency," or who hold the absurd belief that al-Qaida would have left Iraq alone if only we had done the same. If their advice had been followed, and the coalition had pulled out in 2004, the Zarqawi forces would have tried to take the credit, and their boast might even have been believed. This would have been a calamity of a global and epochal order. Now, however difficult and messy the rest of the transition, that at least will never be the outcome.
I think he hits it dead on.
James, if anything good happens in Iraq, it won't be because of American warhawks who consider it business as usual, estimating in advance how many "troops" will be sacrificed, and how to word that nicely in the newspapers, make it seem like unavoidable death. The only honor in battlefield death is personal. No, anything good to come to Iraq after our vile actions will be from Mary's intercession, based on prayers and tears from those who work for peace (on ALL sides).
Bush was elected because the people were snowed into thinking it was a matter of choosing him OR choosing abortion. Is it me, or does abortion still seem rampant and utterly uncontrolled? (And no, this does not come from a Democrat. Catholics aren't partisan, if they're worth their salt.) Many who voted this dictator into office are having second thoughts. It's late for second thoughts. The only salvaging now is to bring our own home, and send everyone else home, and pool our monies for prosthetics, first for all the children, and for de-poisoning bombed lands so that the future doesn't still spell early death for all,and perhaps even for phone cards for those who'd like to call home from Walter Reed to say what medical necessities in their gruesome lifelong injuries aren't going to be covered by the government after all..
Matt.. wishful thinking. A lot of folks speak up for this war, because they a) think Republican means Christian, b) buy into the propaganda because they desperately want to believe we haven't fallen low, tho' we are listed at Amnesty Int'l and Human Rights Watch; by the way, how many are still left rotting in Gitmo without prisoner status, any idea?, c) have a loved one in the service, or d) feel it is disloyal to the flag to decry it. If you think we've received the truth from the oval office about Iraq or Afghanistan, the axis of evil, or WMDs, or the okaying of torture, or about illegal laws being slipped to us, etc ..it's not your fault, but you're not done with your homework. Presidents are elected to lead, not to run their private agenda of regime change. They are elected in trust that they have our best interests at heart. This 'war' was 100% unavoidable, one can obtain an abortion even if only hours away from viable birth, and we still execute mentally retarded folks. So much for trust! But back to Catholicism.
To all: What defines a Catholic, and by that, I mean someone presumed to uphold the tenets of the Church? Is it more than the (dead) Republican platform, or not?
I know it hurts folks to hear terrible things about the President, and I apologize for that hurt. But imagine Christ in the oval office for a moment, and then consider the differences you find.
Which one do you follow?
Typos keep us humble.. but I need to correct one, "This 'war' was 100% avoidable."
When Christ returns, He returns to judge this time. We will also be judged as a nation. But He will not be sitting behind a large desk like Judge Hatchett, being handed papers of argument to review.. He will already know how it all began, and what happened all along the way. Arguments for war and unrest and oppression and feticide and homicide and neglect and horrendous stewardship and unlove, which once seemed valid, may just find themselves set down over on the goat side. He gave His followers the Beatitudes to follow -- there is nothing mist-y there, it's clear what we are to do. He finished up with a new commandment. When He judges America, Cor ad cor loquitor, will He hear what we'll need for Him to hear?
Jes
In you post there is so much to comment on.
you said
"anything good happens in Iraq, it won't be because of American warhawks who consider it business as usual, estimating in advance how many "troops" will be sacrificed, and how to word that nicely in the newspapers, make it seem like unavoidable death. The only honor in battlefield death is personal. No, anything good to come to Iraq after our vile actions will be from Mary's intercession, based on prayers and tears from those who work for peace (on ALL sides"
I glad you mention all sides. I do indeed pray for peace. As to our actions being vile we have honest disagreement. I honestly believe that as Vice President Cheney was quoted as saying this week in Newsweek that ten years down the road the world will see the benifit of liberating close to 50 million people. To call what the United States is currently doing is vile is beyond me. Helping provide security =vile? providing billions in reconstruction and the expertise of some of American's finest =vile?, helping and pushing along the process that has resulted in 3 democractic elections in one year=vile? an elected parliment =vile?
You said "Bush was elected because the people were snowed into thinking it was a matter of choosing him OR choosing abortion. Is it me, or does abortion still seem rampant and utterly uncontrolled? (And no, this does not come from a Democrat. Catholics aren't partisan, if they're worth their salt.)
To be honest this line of reasoning as to abortion is getting so tiresome. I will take for Granted your American if not the following may not apply. I assume that in your High school American civics was a required class. As you know George Bush can not sign an executive order banning or really limiting abortion. The road to slowly repeal this outrage is a long one. The Bush administration has done its darndest to put poeple on the appeal courts and on the Supreme Court that it highly suspects do not believe in an unfettered right to an abortion. This takes time. Again I see this "but abortion is still legal line" alot from anti war Catholics and Christians . I have come to the conclusion they are being totally decietfull or unbelieveably ignorant of how our govt works. Also the line about Catholics are not partisan. Well yes that should be true. But often one has one political thought informed by their faith. I know I do. It seems fashionable for some Catholics to feign some sort of superiority over those in the trenches of the political process especially if it involves the two major parties. The ones that go door to door, run the phones, attend rallies, run for party office etc are fullfilling a important part of their Catholic faith. Perhaps, horrors, some actually have a vocation for it. Until some third party that is based on Catholic principles comes about please spare me the sermonizing on non partisan Catholics in the public square. Speaking as a Republican, I try to influence wh
response to jess continued
Jes writes"Many who voted this dictator into office are having second thoughts. It's late for second thoughts. The only salvaging now is to bring our own home, and send everyone else home, and pool our monies for prosthetics, first for all the children, and for de-poisoning bombed lands so that the future doesn't still spell early death for all,and perhaps even for phone cards for those who'd like to call home from Walter Reed to say what medical necessities in their gruesome lifelong injuries aren't going to be covered by the government after all.
Dictator? Ok again this is the problem with having a rational debate when terms dicator are used. NO Bush is not a dictator. He must go and try to persuade people as always. In 2002 we had elections in the HOuse and Senate where the Republicans gained seats. Everyone knew Iraq was going to be a issue and they voted accordingly. In 2004 BUsh took his case to the American people and won. MOre importantly the Republicans picked up more Seats in the SENATE. Those new Senators did not hide the fact that they thought the Bush policy is correct. Since 2004 progress has been made including 3 elections in Iraq. Again because you disagree with the results of the vote after America ahd a reasoned debate thats your problem. Using the word Dictator just diminishes what the word means. THe responsible course and indeed moral course is make sure we leave the Iraqis better off. Even our American Bishops have said that recently in the statement that referenced above.
you said"lot of folks speak up for this war, because they a) think Republican means Christian, b) buy into the propaganda because they desperately want to believe we haven't fallen low, tho' we are listed at Amnesty Int'l and Human Rights Watch; by the way, how many are still left rotting in Gitmo without prisoner status, any idea?, c) have a loved one in the service, or d) feel it is disloyal to the flag to decry it. If you think we've received the truth from the oval office about Iraq or Afghanistan, the axis of evil, or WMDs, or the okaying of torture, or about illegal laws being slipped to us, etc ..it's not your fault, but you're not done with your homework. Presidents are elected to lead, not to run their private agenda of regime change. They are elected in trust that they have our best interests at heart. This 'war' was 100% unavoidable, one can obtain an abortion even if only hours away from viable birth, and we still execute mentally retarded folks. So much for trust! But back to Catholicism
To be honest, I think i answered some of this in the above post. For the record most Catholics i know do not equate the Republican National Convention with lets say the Council of Trent. BUt its nice to be in a party that doesnt refrain in horror like a Vampire does to a crucifix when you mentioned that your Faith really informs your politics. Again, why this underlying theme that being a Catholic and involved
from the response to JES cont
jes said "To all: What defines a Catholic, and by that, I mean someone presumed to uphold the tenets of the Church? Is it more than the (dead) Republican platform, or not?
I know it hurts folks to hear terrible things about the President, and I apologize for that hurt. But imagine Christ in the oval office for a moment, and then consider the differences you find.
Wll the republican platform is vast. Currently the President is trying to be a voice of reson and moderation in the immigration debate but no is listening. Also he is trying to be a voice od reason in trying to save social security and other programs but is being ignored. I for one have no problem with the Republican Platform. I am not sure prayer in Public schools is still in the Platform if it is I disagree with that dinasour from the 70's and 80's. PLease tell me how the Republican Platform is incompatible with Catholic belief. How it opposes the tenants of the faith. Republicans are usually very upfront about their disagreement it is truly a big tent. To those who think that the Republican Platform contains some form of extreme libertarianism that might be incompatible let me assure you it does not.
jes says"But imagine Christ in the oval office for a moment, and then consider the differences you find
Well its the ultimate wwjd question isnt it. Really I cant picture Jesus in the oval office. THats not his way. When the time he firmly plants his rule for all to see and all will submit either on this earth or above there want be political debate or political parties. he will be King period. However I understand your point. If one must in your intrepretation be a Pacifist to be a Catholic or a Pacifist is wwjd, then I disagree. It often seems that are forebearers in faith had ot mess it up with people , nations and etc that were trying to interfere with God's people, And no I not saying America is God's People like the JEws were. I think Catholics struggle with what Jesus would do when they engage in politics and in the decisions that aas American truly touch billions of people. Your question is even more in my mind as to to the IRanian situation. Pretty soon thats coming to a head and for myself I am mighty concerned. However what I dont think what Jesus would do is say Just say a bunch of Rosaries and hope that Iran doesnt get the Bomb and maybe follows up on its threat to wipe Israel off the map. Prayer is the ultimate but I suspect there will come time when we will have to make some ultimate judgment calls with the aid of prayer on what to do in the coming weeks. As for miracles to this situation I am indeed praying for one.
COnt response to JES
Jes to end this on a good note let me say this. I can tell by your posting you are a committed Catholic. I dont mean to come across as someone that is taking some arrogant attitude from your remarks. Perhaps as Catholics we see often more than our Protestant breathen that the Gospel is more than just me and Jesus but involves our fellow man and Society as a whole. In Daves' reasons I am a Catholic post(I think its called 150 reasons why the catholic Church is true I think) he mentions that the Church incoporates the Social ethic or Social Gospel. Its not an alternative but something that must be considered
I can tell you do that. I guess my point is that many of us on the other side of the debate have tried to that also. We are generally not blood thirsty people that worships Mars the god of War at night. However we understand that war is sometimes necessary. I feel it was necessary in this context. However as to Iraq as I mentioned earlier we have moved past the stage if the entry to war was right. Now we must deal with what to do now. If your attitude is that an immediate withdrawal from IRaq is the only moral course please elaborate. I cant think to see such an action as being hugly immoral myself because of the devastation that would result. But I can try to keep an open mind on the topic. At least iI can understand the attitude of my fellow Catholics better even if I disagree.
sincerely james
Dave Armstrong
btw Dave are you back from your holiday yet. I am sure there must be more to this lets have a open comment section on the Iraq war. Perhaps a much needed rest., catching up other matters, maybe an Imperial command from the wife for a few days to lay off the massive output you give us every day( i can with past experience relate to this last one) I have to admit besides going to daily mass going to your site as well as to POntifications has become a daily habit for me in furthering my faith. Anyway thanks for your ministry. If I might can I suggest a topic. I am a pretty well read Catholic and to be honest alot of Catholic Doctrines have never caused me problems. But some some aspects of Death and the afterlife and Church doctrine have never been explained to my satisfaction. Of course its a mystery I suppose in many ways and never can be fully explained to my satisfaction. I have researched your papers dealing with athiest and other skeptics and have suprising found it wasnt touched on.
That topic is what happens when we die and how do we reconcile that with certain event s in the BIble. For instance Lazarus. or even more troubling all these ressurected folks running around Jeruslaem when Christ was resurrected. Or the other that were raised from the Dead by the apostles. I mean at first glance it seems from the whats portrayed that one could maybe think that the 7th day adventist may have gotten it right on this soul sleep thing. I mean there is no record of them saying "oh yeah I was down In sheol what a place in fact I was talking to King David down there the other day etc etc". I mean I come to the point where there are some things that I have to take on faith so no danger in me leaving Holy Mother Church. But often both Catholic and Protestants seem to sort skirt around the implications of all these dead folks rising again. FOr instance did the folks that rose from the dead that fateful easter weekend end up going to heaven when Jesus rose, did they hang out on Earth that doesnt seem possible since it doesnt seem possible that they would die again. Anywho I doubt you will read this since it comes at the end of a 95(often repeated rants) comments section. Just food for thought.
Hi James,
Thanks for your kind words. I feel I've said my piece in this debate (at least for now), and so leave it to others.
I'm not sure exactly what you are confused about, concerning the afterlife. Catholics believe that one either goes to purgatory, heaven, or hell (and anyone in purgatory is saved and will reach heaven eventually). One is conscious in all of these places, as an immaterial soul, until the resurrection. Sheol or Hades was the place of the dead in OT thought. Jesus, when He died, freed the OT saints from Sheol to go to heaven.
I refuted soul sleep in a section of my long paper on Jehovah's Witnesses. Go to section VIII, about 2/3 of the way down, on this page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030...smus/
RAZ118.HTM
If you have further questions about it, feel free to ask.
TThanks Dave let me clarify my thoughts I posted last night. I fully accept the Catholic teaching on this subject. In fact it gives me great comfort. My thoughts I guess are on a few particular passeges that knaw at me. I think every believer has certain a "issue" that come up from time to time especially when particular doctrines are discussed. For some its the Virginbirth, for other purgatory, perhaps some aspect of the incarnation. I find when I talk to my fellow believers many will open up and say yes I have trouble with doctrine x becasue of y and it often associated with that mystery called faith and that tiny yet little lingering doubt. That doubt that saying in a whisper to you where of course only you can hear "you know your making all this stuff up." I have been blessed with an inquiring mind and yet the abilty to have a simple faith. That is to the points or point I cant understand again or comprehend its time for a gut check and say ok God I am going on" faith alone" because reasoning is failing me here. Wow thats alot of blathering let me get to the point.
The Bible verses I hear that cause this little "doubt to become a thundercloud at time deal with resurection of the dead that have already occurred.. First the biggie the verse that I have had the most diffucult time grasping.
"[49] But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to save him."
[50] And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
[51]
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split;
[52] the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,
[53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
[54] When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" Matthew
27: 49-54
Now right off the bat I think this is a peculair passage. It appears that as soon as Jesus died these ressurected Saints arose. It then appears that they kinda of hung out in the cemetary together during that afternoon and the next morning till Jesus rose and beebopped into town.
Now there is alot here that not revealed to us that would clarify matters. For instance how long were these people dead, were they believers in Jesus and followers during his earthly ministry, etc. I guess my problems come in as to certain facts I think we have to accept. One is that lets face it bodies decompose. UNlike Lazurus that had died just recently these bodies would seem to very much on the road to decomposing. So are we to assume that these are their glorified bodies? If these are their glorified bodies is it right to assume they couldnt die again? If they couldnt die again are they still walking around or if I am correct that I believe some sort of tradition tells us that these Saints eventually Ascended with Jesus 40 days later. Other questions that linger in my mind if as we Believe that the soul has counciousness during this period of death it would then follow that they could and probally told all in incredible detail what Sheol was like. But like the versus relating to Lazurus the Bible is silent about what they said about this incredible experience. I suppose that some sort of divine amnesia could be in effect here where after the dead enter the realm of the living that they might not recall.
Another verse"36]
Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity.
[37] In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.
[38] Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, "Please come to us without delay."
[39] So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them.
[40] But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.
[41] And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.
[42] And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord."
Well here the issue of Purgatory comes up now since we are in the new ways of doing things since the NT Church is in full swing. If she was in Purgatory did she remebr it. If she was in Heaven was her soul taken from heaven and put back in her body(thats kinda of a drag I might think enjoying bliss and then be put back in the earthly realm, perhaps it was her calling), or perhaps whats occuring is what we hear in some near death experiences where people are told "its not your time yet"
cont
However, its still troubling that in all these experiences of the dead being raised we dont are not given any insight to their experiences in the great beyond. For instance if I was there when Lazurus was raised or this girl was raised my first thought prompted by human curiosity would be to yell out at them hey where have you been and whats its like. Perhaps wisely the BIble has decided not to inform us of all the details since that might make our attention depart from the main point.
Anywho, again its not a major issue but I have to admit that some times that lingering voice comes up when I hear these verses and it would be nice to put this voice to rest when I am trying to reconcile catholic teaching on the afterlife and the factual elements of this occurences..How I have attempted to do that is this way.
That as to Lazurus and this the people the Apostles raised they because of the short period of time they had died in my mind I think this must be like the near death experiences that we sometimes hear about. That indeed they saw the other side and probally talked about it but there stay was not long enough for them to all vast human insight into all the questions of the world. For instance Tabitha didnt come back and say oh the Trinity yes I was given perfect understanding of these things no big deal let me explain how this all works. Again not being flippant here but its something to ponder.
As to these resurrected Saints these were probaly believers in what I suppose where glorified bodies. I guess God could have made them resurrected in their natural bodies and perhaps restored them to their former state. But I think it makes more sense that this is there glorified bodies and probaly they ascended with Jesus(again where am I picking this up since the Bible is silent on this fact tradition?) As to their memories of the great beyond the Bible is prob silent on this so not to divert from the main point of the focus on JESUS. Another point, I think the resurrection of some of the dead is a pretty amazing thing. Why didnt the other gospel writers or the apostles referenced it. Is it because since this was Matthew that the significane was particually Jewish? Again my faith is not in danger here but again I hope I have been clear that the facts surrounding these miracles in my mind and traditional Christian teaching on what happens when we die sometimes dont appear to mesh. But again perhaps the Bible is wisely silent on the details here. Sorry for cluttering the thread with this I prob should have sent this in a email. But I wanted to clarify my thoughts from last nights post.
James Hood
louisiana
To clarify my main problem(why i cant more clearly state after 4 post is annoying to me). That is if the soul is aware then all these folks I have mentioned must have been aware of what had ahppened to them in the afterlife. The Bible is silent on this. Again its probaly because the Holy Spirit doesnt want scripture to read like some divine National Inquirer with stories of I saw Heaven or I was in Purgatory turn to page 33 and find out the fascinating details. But again the silence on this is troublin as to our councisness after death to me. I dont subscribe to soul sleep but I find these verses def could lend to an interpretation of it. Thanks
THIS WAR ON TERRORISM IS BOGUS
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher MP, environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies t
(CONT.)
...the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 an
(CONT.)
...and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated
(CONT.)
...in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our ele
(CONT.)
...electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
As to the above post what is there to say. I guess i should point out tha I just recently a former Canadian minister stated that the US was in contact with aliens.(The ET type not foreigners). Again for a paper such as the Guardian to imply that the US and the Bush administration knew about the 911 attacks and did nothing is ludricous. The post above and the Guardian article is similar in my opnion of anti catholic fables like the jesuit oath. If you google the words Jesuit oath you will have to go through pages of similary repeated lies about the secret oath the JEsuits took to kill Protestants. For fun I google the th terms 911 and Bush. Guess what the result is. Practically the same with numerous pages repeating the same ole lies the above Guardian article has posted except the paranoia of these pages would even make Michael Moore blush. Time to pull out the tinfoil hats
Chris,
Keep drinking that Chomsky Kool Aid. The US is defending the West from the modern day Ottoman Empire. Islam is the evil , not the US. Stop vomiting up the same canards as that sell out Chomskey, and think for yourself.
Hi James,
I'm still not sure why you think these things are difficulties. The Bible doesn't tell us a lot of things. I would simply say that God decided to resurrect the bodies of these people who rose after the Resurrection. They were conscious as immaterial souls prior to that time.
Consciousness of souls after death is all through the Book of Revelation. All the supposed "proof texts" of the folks who advocate soul sleep or annihilationism have been more than adequately explained (along with those of the people who try toi deny eternal hellfire). It is usually a function of the context or type of literature.
i don't see what's so outlandish about michael meacher's comments. after all, after several major newspapers ran articles like these in the days immediately following 9-11:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
1559151.stm
2. http://www.portal.telegraph.co.u.../23/
widen23.xml
fbi director robert meuller retracted his 'absolutely certain' position on the 19-saudis-did-the-deed and admitted that some of the highjackers might be using 'stolen identities':
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/
septem...,601550,00.html
a position that would radically alter the accepted conspiracy theory, so mueller eventually retracted his statements, no explanation given:
1. http://www.prisonplanet.com/
fbi_..._terrorists.htm
(and what's with these kind of stories? there are literally dozens of them!:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342936/
http://prisonplanet.com/
fbi_clai...frustrated.html
curiouser and curiouser!)
well now: if i had a healthy dosage of the wisdom of serpents and the innocence of doves, WHY WOULD I BE SO SCANDALIZED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF ALL OF THIS?
and in case you're saying to yourself: impossible! america would NEVER terrorize its own citizens in order to justify starting a war--think again:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?i...id=92662&
page=1
so, what category does that put me in? i loathe abortion; i think there is no such thing as a homosexual 'marriage'; i voted straight-ticket republican until '04; i am an ardent roman catholic who loves his saviour, his pope, his church--AND i happen to believe that 9-11 COULD'VE been an implementation of operation northwoods (assuming you read the last link). am i a noam chomsky-esque liberal? a timothy mcveigh-type conservative?
(btw, george: noam chimpsky doesn't buy this either--he's in your 'cognitive dissonance' camp.)
If it's free and it's not illegal tell me about it...
Commenting by HaloScan
