If America attacks sites that it believes are producing weapons of mass destruction isn't that kinda like pressing the red button ?

I would have thought that war is the last thing you want to do, fearing that shooting here and there will bring horrific consequences. Not of Iraq's retaliation, but of the emmissions produced by the WOMD.

Looking back at the us attacks on the red cross units in Afghanistan, I don't put much money on the US getting it right in Iraq.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 11, 2003

Answers

That thought occurred to me, too, Oliver! If we don't know where the nukes are, isn't it kinda scary to go around sending bombs down!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 11, 2003.

Weapons of mass destruction are not limited to nuclear weapons. They also may be defined as weapons used in chemical or biological warfare, or could be referring to "garden variety" missiles, etc. that have a paticularly long range (i.e. can be used to hit a populated area some distance away). Besides most, if not all, nuclear weapons are designed not to explode upon impact, they have to be detonated. If this were not the case, we couldn't risk carrying nuclear weapons on planes, what would happen if the plane got shot down?

-- Steve (carguy65@hotmail.com), March 11, 2003.

still pretty shakey. I think the US should have gone for stealth.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 12, 2003.

What a sad legacy Mr. Bush will leave to future American children. Shallow brain pan and a greedy egocentic bully. Sad indeed.

Should war happen on a world scale his epitaph may read " You killed us all you fool. "

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 13, 2003.

there is every chance that, should Bush fail to find WMD in the desert, he will plant it there. but whichever is truth, the WMD will always say "" MADE IN THE USA "".

-- ricardo parlezo (ric.4456par@hotmail.com), March 14, 2003.

There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq.
The nuclear scare tactic of the dubbya and Powell has been proved to be based on false information.
"Damn the torpedos!!!"

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 14, 2003.

Jmj

It is always terribly sad when people fail to get themselves exposed to the facts (because they read and view inaccurate information -- for example, ignorant celebrities, liberal politicians, and anti-administration news sources).
It is worse when they then become hand-wringing pacificist worriers who come out in public and propagate the liberal media's errors on the Internet.
It is still worse when they end up bashing their own country, unpatriotically, as a result.
It is even still worse when they do all these things on a Catholic form, posting all kinds of comments that are against the rules -- because they have nothing to do with Catholicism.

But since it is all out there for people to read and be misled, I need to try to patch things up. I am not going to mention any names, because most of you are my friends, and I have no desire to embarrass anyone -- but just to inspire confidence, foster better education, and encourage sharper thinking.

1. "If America attacks sites that it believes are producing weapons of mass destruction isn't that kinda like pressing the red button?"

To ask a question like this, one has to think that there are morons leading the U.S. -- people who could not have thought of these things and could not have gauged the safety and dangers involved. Let us have confidence in peoples' intelligence! We may not like to admit it, but people leading the anti-Iraq/anti-terror coalition are smarter than we are!

Coalition bombs (especially certain kinds) will cause fires, which can destroy chemical weapons and biological weapons. Some of these kinds of weapons lose potency (chemical) or die (bio) extremely rapidly when exposed to the air. Most of these weapons are probably underground anyway, will not be hit by bombs, but will be found later by invading forces.

Iraq has no nuclear weapons and no reactor producing dangerous radioactive materials (yet). I suspect that the chance of American bombs creating death via Iraqi WMD is almost nil. Worriers ought to be more concerned about (a) the fact that the WMD are there [and need to be found and destroyed by the allied forces] and (b) the fact that the real environmental damage is far more likely to be caused by Saddam's setting the oil wells ablaze.

2. "I would have thought that war is the last thing you want to do, fearing that shooting here and there will bring horrific consequences."

But that IS the coalition's philosophy. The coming Battle of Iraq "is the last thing" these leaders "want to do." It will cause great loss of money, lives, and property -- but the leaders have judged that they have reached the point at which "the last thing" must be carried out.

3. "Looking back at the us attacks on the red cross units in Afghanistan, I don't put much money on the U.S. getting it right in Iraq."

There were vast numbers of operations carried out in Afghanistan and huge numbers of bombs/rockets used. People need to focus on the fact that more than 99% of what was done there went correctly -- instead of focusing on the less than 1% of human error and accidental loss of life. I am not saying that people dying is something insignificant, but rather that the military success in Iraq in 1991 and the even greater military success in Afghanistan should preclude the kinds of pessimistic comments I just quoted.

4. "still pretty shakey. I think the US should have gone for stealth."

Huh? Does this refer to "stealthy" undercover activities within Iraq that would destroy things? Or does this refer to "stealth" jets? If it is the former, a few undercover people cannot clean up a nation the size of California. If it is the latter, then be aware that stealth jets and fighters will definitely be used in this Battle.

5. "What a sad legacy Mr. Bush will leave to future American children. Shallow brain pan and a greedy egocentic bully. Sad indeed."

What is "sad" is your comment, since it arises from unkindness and ignorance of the facts. How twisted -- to refer to the president respectfully as "Mr.," only to call him a mental and moral defective in the next phrase! Without the slightest doubt, Pres. Bush is far more intelligent and of far greater moral character than the person who left this vile insult. The president graduated from Yale (and also spent time at Harvard, if I'm not mistaken). He is a prayerful Christian. The insulter can only wish that he were more like Pres. Bush.

6. "Should war happen on a world scale, his epitaph may read 'You killed us all you fool.'"

There is not the slightest hint or chance of escalation to a world war. Such comments come from unrealistic people, including cowardly, effeminate men (whom Ann Coulter calls "girly-boys"). These are the kind of people who were afraid to oppose Hitler.

7. "there is every chance that, should Bush fail to find WMD in the desert, he will plant it there. but whichever is truth, the WMD will always say 'MADE IN THE USA'".

Sigh! Still more anti-American horse manure, coming from ultra-liberal prejudice. This is pure invention -- just an excuse offered in advance by people who know very well that there are WMD in Iraq, but don't have the guts to fight.

8. "There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq. The nuclear scare tactic of the dubbya and Powell has been proved to be based on false information."

Again, ignorance is shown here. American leaders have never claimed that there already ARE nuclear weapons, but rather that there is incontrovertible evidence (esp. from defector nuclear scientist Hamza) that there was and is a nuclear program, that needed equipment has recently been sought by Iraq, etc.. What has been stated by the President and Secretary of State has been cold, hard facts, not "scare tactics." It is a pure fiction to say that their facts have "been proved to be based on false information."

In closing, let me reiterate that everyone needs to get the facts (not anti-American falsehoods) by reading/viewing such things as (a) Fox News Channel, (b) the Washington Times, (c) Newsmax.com, (d) Townhall.com, and (e) DrudgeReport.com. Once people get educated, they don't post inaccurate or insulting comments.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2003.

"the even greater military success in Afghanistan "!!!!!!

NB-1 Usama Bin Laden is still free. it was hardly successful, then, was it, as his capture was the motive?? it could actually be described as a military failure.

NB-2 the attack on Iraq is part of the "War on terrosism", but Saddam Hussein hates Usama Bin Laden, just as Usama Bin Laden hates Saddam. "We may not like to admit it, but people leading the anti- Iraq/anti-terror coalition are smarter than we are!"

Oh, what a wicked web we weave,.......

PS "It is always terribly sad when people fail to get themselves exposed to the facts...."

-- Not Here (kr.twing@safe.com), March 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, "Not Here."

You wrote: "Usama Bin Laden [UBL] is still free. [The military action] was hardly successful, then, was it, as his capture was the motive?? it could actually be described as a military failure."

Good heavens! It is not a "failure" in the slightest. The terrorist acts of war occurred on September 11, 2001 -- just 1.5 years ago. Have you forgotten so soon that the U.S. action in Afghanistan had several goals, only one of which was to end the "reign" of UBL? Let me refresh your memory:

1. The action was intended to kill or capture UBL. He is probably, but not 100% certainly still alive. But his effectiveness and abilities have been cut by 90%. He disappeared for months, his face is never seen, and his (?) voice is hardly even heard, possibly because he was gravely wounded (maybe even killed). He can't get at his billion dollars any more. We want him, but many are even more thrilled to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the brains of the outfit.

2. The action was intended to destroy as much of Al Qaeda as possible. There was a great success here, in that huge numbers of AQ terrorists were killed or captured. (Remember the guys in Cuba now?)

3. The action was intended to boot out the maniacal Taliban oligarchs, who had ruined Afghanistan with a reign of terror. Remember the amputations, the women in burqas, the failure to educate girls, etc.? Again, there was a great success here, in that the Taliban is smashed.

4. Remember how the "mighty" Soviet Union was humiliated by the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s? Remember how we were told that the geography of Afghanistan would prevent our military from achieving objectives? You know what happened, right? A military success for the coalition of civilized nations.

You wrote: "... Saddam Hussein hates Usama Bin Laden, just as Usama Bin Laden hates Saddam."

What you are forgetting is that people often set aside personal animosities when they have a common enemy. SH and UBL both hate the U.S. and Israel even more than they dislike each other, so they are willing to join forces to try to defeat what they see as a Christian/Jewish alliance. [I believe that a recent audiotape, purportedly from UBL, indicated the need of Muslims to support the Iraqi people against the U.S. and Israel.]

Where have we all seen this kind of thing before? In the five Mafia families of New York City. They hated each other, sometimes even slipping into "civil war." But they usually overcame grave differences, with leaders running a "Commission" for the common goals of defeating the enemy (law enforcement) and getting rich.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.

But did UBL & Saddam have any connections before America decided to go after Iraq? If we're fighting Iraq because of a relationship that our aggression caused.. that doesn't seem very justifiable to me.

-- Josh Eklund (truerulerof81@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.

Well Josh you are not alone. It didnt seem very justified to most of the worlds governments. It also didnt seem justified to most of the worlds religions including the Catholic church. Please read the other war threads on this forum, sorry Im not good at links, especially comments from "Atila" to understand the reasons why.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

Not here,

Are you Atila using a alias? You writing style is very similiar.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 23, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Josh. You wrote:
"But did UBL & Saddam have any connections before America decided to go after Iraq? If we're fighting Iraq because of a relationship that our aggression caused.. that doesn't seem very justifiable to me."

I see that you (and Kiwi) are among the many people who forgot (or didn't undertand, or [God forbid!] ignored) what President Bush said in his first major speech after the crimes of September 11. That ignorance of what Mr. Bush talked about is the single greatest reason that so many people are having such big disagreements these days.

Mr. Bush did NOT say that America was merely going to go after the organization responsible for the 09/11 crimes and the nation(s) that support(ed) that organization in some way. So MANY people mistakenly think that the U.S. has declared war on Al Qaeda and governments that support Al Qaeda. NO!!! What Mr. Bush announced was a "War on Terror" -- in ALL of its manifestations, regardless of whether a "manifestation of terror" had anything to do with the 09/11 crimes.

Therefore, we were going to head for Iraq (after Afghanistan) REGARDLESS of any connection of Al Qaeda to Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has (1) a lengthy record of support for lone-wolf terrorists and terrorist organizations, (2) stocks of extremely dangerous weapons that could be used by terrorists, and (3) an insane dictator who [hating the civilized world] would sell such weapons to terrorists. That is why Iraq is being "taken out," not because of some connection to Al Qaeda (though even that exists in a small way).

When the "Battle of Iraq" (within the "War on Terrorism") is over, we will move ahead to another battle. Meanwhile, other (quiet) Battles in the War are going on elsewhere -- e.g., in the Philippines and in the financial world (where terrorists' money is being locked or confiscated).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Hey kiwi, there's your new world order, right there. Slick packaging, nice advertising campaign. Loyal customer base. Ways of the world.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Excuse me, Mr. Greenglass, but your comment is a total non sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I just wrote. I suggest that you reread my message, this time with care.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

[Ya got me so upset, I forgot my "/i", pal.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

This is just laughable!!!

>>>>>"The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq has"

WAIT FOR IT !!!

>>>>>(1) a lengthy record of support for lone-wolf terrorists and terrorist organizations,

AND THE US HAS NOT SUCH A RECORD?!?! DI I NEED TO LIST THEM ALL. DO YOU WANT ME TO. THEY INCLUDE IRAQ BTW.

>>>>>(2) stocks of extremely dangerous weapons that could be used by terrorists, and

DITTO!!!

>>>>>(3) an insane dictator who [hating the civilized world] would sell such weapons to terrorists.

WELL, THE "INSANE DICTATOR" BIT (AS IN MR PRESIDENT) IS YOUR PHRASEOLOGY - BUT PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT MANY US PRESIDENTS HAVE SUPPLIED WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS.

>>>>> That is why Iraq is being "taken out," not because of some connection to Al Qaeda (though even that exists in a small way).

NOW THIS IS ALL, OF COURSE, POLITICAL RHETORIC. SO WHY IS IT APPEARING ON A CATHOLIC WEBSITE.

WELL, I WONDER.

ANYWAY, MAYBE AT SOME POINT THE WRITERS OF THIS KIND OF FILTH WILL START THINKING ABOUT THE POPE AND HIS CLEAR DIRECTION THAT THE WAR IS IMMORAL. IF NOT, MAYBE AT LEAST THEY WILL TRY TO CONNECT THEIR POLITICAL THEORIES TO SOME KIND OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY SO THAT THERE IS SOME RELEVANCE.

BUT NO, THAT WOULD MEAN HAVING A GO AT JUST WAR THEORY.

CLUE - THE RATIONALE FOR THE WAR IS IMPORTANT. THINK "US POREIGN POLICY" -- as in NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING VICTIMS but EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SELF-INTEREST.

-- Bruno (b.ner@dallag.com), March 24, 2003.

Et tu, Bruno?

"Excuse me, Mr. Greenglass, but your comment is a total non sequitur."

Mr. Greenglass... is that like a glass darkly or do you mean a beer bottle? Is a beer bottle the same as a "glass darkly"? I've heard that en vino veritas, but could it be true that en cerveza veritas? lol! "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?"

How could there be a non-sequitur? I didn't even use a syllogism there; I just posited something. Oh well. Cheers!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Ah, you disappoint me, sir, in not figuring out my barb!
I will call you "Greenglass" when you post a bad message -- a message that makes you undeserving of such a name as "Emerald."
A bad message makes you look like cheap green glass, not a green gemstone.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Hey, "loudmouth" Bruno ... Cool it with the upper case letters, please. That's considered shouting (bad manners) at this forum.

You wrote: "MAYBE AT SOME POINT THE WRITERS OF THIS KIND OF FILTH WILL START THINKING ABOUT THE POPE AND HIS CLEAR DIRECTION THAT THE WAR IS IMMORAL."

There is no "filth" above. More importantly, the pope did not give "clear direction that the war is immoral." That is your (wrong) interpretation of his comments. If he had said such a thing, I would not be supporting the U.S. action.

You wrote: "... MAYBE AT LEAST THEY [the writers] WILL TRY TO CONNECT THEIR POLITICAL THEORIES TO SOME KIND OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY SO THAT THERE IS SOME RELEVANCE. BUT NO, THAT WOULD MEAN HAVING A GO AT JUST WAR THEORY."

All over this forum, on ten or more threads, the "CONNECT[ion]" you demand has been made. And the U.S. action has been shown to be in keeping with "just war" criteria.

Please do some more reading at the forum, Bruno, rather than sounding off like a bellowing moose.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

BRUNO, THE BELLOWING MOOSE :-) IS TRANSFORMED INTO a quiet "church moose"!!

Bruno's idea, now made sotto voce, is that the 3-points described could too be applied to other countries such as US, Russia, Francia, &c &c. all have given weapons to terrorists many times. there is no evidence that Iraq has done too. only speculation or mere spes. CIA cannot prove it, so who can? he is a brute but has not made any war on america or europe. now you force him to do so. it will get very very ugly.

ok, kindly point to the composite just war analysis and mabe i will be no bother. you know, the one that considers the theology.

Ciao Bello.

-- Bruno (b.ner@dallag.com), March 25, 2003.

No matter what side of the issue you come down on, the fact is that Saddam Husein is a diabolical maniac, right up there with Stalin and Hitler. I don't believe I've heard even the heartiest of liberals claim otherwise.

Yet we see thousands, perhaps millions, fighting in protests around the world in "violent peace protests," for this madman's survival! What a specticle! Now that we are so close to grasping freedom for these oppressed people, those against the war would have us back out and let them down again! Leaving them in as lambs to the slaughter. "We want Barabbas," cries the crowd!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Bruno.

As I mentioned last time, there has been a multiplicity of discussion threads on the current military conflict in Iraq. I do not have time to track down one or two that might interest you particularly, so I will just list the ones I know about, and you can examine them if you wish:

War ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Afmt

John ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Aeh3

How ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AeJr

The Pope ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Afn4

Just War ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AYSn

Pope to ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Ac73

Why ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AcL0

Pope as ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AfvO

War ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AVIr

Vatican's ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AeMJ

Thread dedicated ...
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AedJ

If G. Bush is so holy?
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AbpB

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 28, 2003.

So, now that the war is over and the occupation has just begun, what now?

-- Josh Eklund (truerulerof81@yahoo.com), June 15, 2004.

So, now that the war is over and the occupation has just begun, what now?

This war is not over by any streatch of the imagination.

Look at the war on terrorism like WWI, WWII or the cold war. Afganisan & Iraq were two battlegrounds, but the war will not be over until the Islamisists are pacified. (notice I didn't say concurred).

You might want to read:
Fe eding the Minotaur by Dr. Victor Davis Hanson

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.