DON'T UNDERSTAND...ISN'T THIS A "CATHOLIC FORUM" WITH CATHOLIC PARTICIPANTS? ISN'T THE POPE CATHOLIC? DON'T YOU HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR YOUR POPE AND HIS WISDOM? ARE YOU CAFETERIA CATHOLICS? ARE YOU EVEN CHRISTIAN? WOULD JESUS BOMB HIS WAY TO DEMOCRACY..IS THAT HOW HE CONVERTED PEOPLE? YOU ARE NOT CATHOLICS. YOU ARE SELF-SERVING, ANGRY FOLKS WHO NEED TO PROJECT YOUR OWN DARKNESS OUTWARD ONTO ANOTHER. YOU ARE SPARSELY EDUCATED AND UNABLE TO FIND NEW WAYS AND IDEAS FOR SUPPORTING THE PEACE OF CHRIST IN THIS WORLD. SHAME ON YOU...YOU DO NOT DESERVE THE TITLE ...CATHOLIC.

-- EMILIO ARAUJO (LL11@BOL.COM.BR), March 30, 2003

Answers

You are very right in your opinions Emilio, your complain maybe is due to the unfaithfullness of christians to Christ´s example of poorness,humility and mainly to opposition to the human power faced in governments. However, I think your position is valid and worth only if you do not do what you complain of and do whatever you want others do.

-- MARIO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ (mariogh_mx@yahoo.com), March 30, 2003.

Emilio, If your neighbor was beating his wife, at what point would you intervene?

Or would you look the other way because your other neighbors thought he was a good guy?

May God Bless us all. John

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 30, 2003.

We have not insulted the Pope. We may disagree with some of his decisions. That's OK. We hope the spirit of God leads him and his advisers in doing what is right. Yet, there are times when God is silent.

Saint Paul insulted the equivalent of the Pope among the Jews: the High Priest, when he saw he was to no good. The Bible says you should speak no evil of the leader of your people, in reference to Moses, after his brother Aaron, his sister Miriam, and others in the community questioned his leadership qualities. From year 3 of the flight from Egypt until year 40, when they entered Cannan it seems that God abandoned the Israelites to their luck. God abandoned them to the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Romans,...

If we go to sleep, then he will abandon us too.

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

I think Emilio has some good points, and as time goes on I find it harder and harder to believe that orthodox Catholics are justified in supporting the actions of the Coalition movement. Of course, I don't think Catholics who do so have excommunicated themselves--most are simply confused.

But quite simply, the Pope is _not_ turning a blind eye on Hussein. The Vatican will always be among the most well-informed parties of any international conflict. But peaceful options had not been exhausted, and the morality gap between a peaceful solution and the current military ejaculation is so wide that it is virtually impossible to justify this attack. Look, there's a litany of errors operating here: the precedence for preemptive attack, the rejection of the UN, the unprecedented lack of international support (even governments who support the US remain anonymous because it is politically dangerous to do so), the disproportionate force, the awful execution (thanks to Rumsfeld), and death upon death upon death.

The Pope knows what he's talking about.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.

Emilio - I applaud your passion but caution you on your shaming of those who don't agree with the Pope on the war in Iraq. I for one do not agree with the Pope here, and this does not make me angry and dark!!! As for Jesus bombing his way to democracy, how do you think we obtained democracy in the U.S.? Germany? France? Japan? and on and on. History teaches us that war is necessary in certain instances, so your premise is faulty. And by the way, the bible has various references which indicate that war is necessary in certain situations. As for disagreeing with the pope, this is a geopolitical matter for which the pope is not an expert. If the pope were to comment on the weather and sports, would we be bound to fall in line here too? The Pope and various other Church officials' comments/position on the Iraq war is not instructive of Catholic doctrine and therefore has NO binding effect on Catholics.

Skoobouy - you are grossly misinformed. You are the one that is confused I dare say... The Vatican is not among the well informed parties of international conflict! Catholic doctrine and teaching, ono the other hand, no question! You state that peaceful options had not been exhausted - this is ludicrous! You may as well be a spokesperson for France. 12 years of diplomacy, 17 UN resolutions, embargo, limited military strike, failed inspections - if that's not exhausted, I don't know what is. Morality gap? Help me understand the morality of the UN standing by and refusing to do anything in Rwanda and Kosovo when thousands of innocent civilians were being summarily murdered. As for the doctrine of pre-emption, that's another discussion entirely. But fact is that Iraq is in flagrant violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first (UN-backed) gulf war. Put differently, we agreed to stop fighting contingent on various stipulations. Under international law, the cease-fire agreement is null and void since Iraq has not abided by the agreement. As for rejection of the UN, last time I looked, resolution 1441 passed 15-0 and called for "serious consequences" if there was not full, complete and total disarmament. According to Colin Powell, one of the most respected leaders in the world, EVERY member of the Security Council knew exactly what "serious consequences" meant... Unprecedented lack of int'l support - wrong again. Last count, there are 49-50 countries in the coalition of the willing - this is either the largest or second largest coalition ever assembled in history! Awful execution - you must watch CNN. Try Fox news. FACT is that never in history of warfare has so much care and planning been given to protect innocent civilians. And as for death, yes, this is true and tragic. That is the difficult part for all of us. But let me ask you this - how many babies are dying each month in Iraq because the gov't is taking the money it receives from oil and spending it on its military? Answer: approx. 5,000 according to one report I read. How many innocent Iraqi civilians have been summarily and randomly executed by the butcher of Baghdad? How many innocent people would die in the future (including US citizens) if we sat on our hands and allowed this maniacal psychopath (Saddam) to continue to amass weapons of mass destruction? The Pope knows what he's talking about - when it comes to Catholic doctrine, absolutely! When it comes to the war in Iraq, I respectfully disagree.

Look, it's okay that some of us supported the US and its coalition and others did not. One side is not comprised of good Catholics and the other 'bad'. For anyone to state or imply as much is flagrantly false and ignorant.

May God continue to bless us all, and may He continue to provide wisdom and courage to President Bush!

Bob M

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

Cafeteria Catholics? LOL!! :^D

-- Vic Shelick (yep@yep.com), April 08, 2003.

Bob M, you did not list facts, but a bunch of absurd propaganda. Many western humanitarian groups, have criticized the oil for food program for 12 years now, as not being sufficient for feeding the Iraqi people. The Americans know this, and the British know this, and so they will be responsible to God in the end for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who have died of malnutrition. FACT: before the embargo, Iraqi was a country doing quite well under the same brutal dictator, but with the embargo, you had the vast majority of Iraqi families living off of government handouts. Who caused the embargo that includes food and medicine? The Vatican has made it quite clear that food and medicine should NEVER be used as a weapon.

Remember Our Lord Jesus Christ, lived in a country that was brutally occupied by a dictator (a guy who slaughtered an entire village of children to try and kill our Lord!), who was in league with Rome (one of the most brutal nations ever!), and was executed unjustly by those same parties. Show me where Our Lord encouraged the overthrow of those two parties because of their brutal rule?

Anyway, it easy to start a war, but this solution is far from over. Let's see how things turn out in Iraq.

Why does not America liberate the people of of other countries who are ruled by brutal dictators? Why ONLY Iraq? Oil!!!!!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 08, 2003.

Gordon - I went back and re-read my post due to your claim that I listed no facts and all propoganda. I dare say this is case in point of the pot calling the kettle black...

You're right that the oil and food program has limitations, namely that Saddam has used it as a weapon against his own people. Saddam Hussein is to blame for the starving Iraqi's, not the US or the UN! The fact that the oppression and plight of the Iraqi people has been stepped up in recent years can hardly be pinned on the US or the UN - you are the one full of propoganda I dare say, not to mention something else my better judgment precludes me from stating explicitly.

Our Lord was not responsible for running a government. Let's not mix apples and oranges here. Your comment here lacks relevance.

It's more than just oppression. The US is not the self-appointed liberator of all oppressed people. Why Iraq? Name me another country on the planet today that (1) has used WMD on its own people and its neighbors (2) has invaded/attacked several of its neighbors in the last 20 years (3) currently has and has continued to amass weapons of mass destruction despite repeated condemnation of as much by the UN security council (4) openly and actively colludes with terrorist organizations AND (5)starves its people and systematically commits atrocities on them.

Oil? Hmmm, wonder what Kuwait thinks about that when we liberated them 12 years ago and returned to them their oil fields. If this is about oil, why didn't we hold on to some of the oil fields 12 years ago? If this is about oil, why aren't we 'picking' on countries with as much or more oil (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) and lesser militaries?

Your oil comment is ignorant, false and propoganda-laced! Stay tuned in Iraq as we turn control of Iraq to the Iraqi people and seek no oil in return. France and Russia on the other hand, it was ALL about oil for them. They were too focused on seeing Saddam as a customer than the very real threat to regional and world peace that he was until the coalition of the willing decided to demonstrate the courage and leadership that the UN could not muster.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

Bob M, I disagree, and I don't think it worth bothering arguing the points, as one, I doubt you will see my position, and the war is more or less over.

Well, I hope the Iraqi people can get off of government handouts, and get back to being self-sufficient again. They were by far the victims of Saddam and the West's cruel Oil for Food program. A program, whose limits were set by the the US and Britain largely, and a program, which has been criticized by organizations like the Red Cross for all the years it has been running as been insufficient to feed the Iraqi people, no matter how the food is distributed by Saddam.

If you are Catholic Bob, you might find this interesting:

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

Vatican Against Food Embargos

17-October-2002 -- EWTNews Brief VATICAN ENVOY QUESTIONS "UNILATERAL" EMBARGOS

NEW YORK, Oct 17, 02 (CWNews.com) -- The Vatican representative at the United Nations has strongly criticized unilateral embargos, citing their negative consequences for civilians.

Archbishop Renato Martino recognized the legitimacy of international sanctions, adopted by world leaders in an effort to bring pressure to bear on regimes that violate international law. But he questioned the wisdom and morality of sanctions that produce suffering among the civilians of the affected countries.

The Holy See has frequently called for an end to sanctions on Iraq, pointing out that the measures result in suffering for thousands of innocent civilians. Archbishop Martino told the UN that the position of the Holy See has not changed, and the Vatican will continue to question such sanctions.

The Vatican envoy argued, in particular, that an embargo should never be used to block the flow of humanitarian relief to needy populations. He argued that "food and medicine should never be used as instruments of political pressure."

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

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Yes Gordon, you are probably correct in that we simply see a number of things differently. And yes, I am Catholic.

As for the embargo, I don't think it is fair, right or accurate for anyone other than the government of Iraq to be blamed for the hungry people of Iraq. That is precisely why the food for oil program was instituted - to ensure the people do not suffer! Diversionary measures of the food rec'd in the UN program coupled with conscious decisions by the gov't to spend its money on guns and not butter are the real reasons for the suffering. Are you aware that a great many intelligent analysts contend that Saddam has used the embargo as an excuse to let his own people suffer further, circumvent the distribution of food and manufacture propoganda in the process? If you think this is outlandish, consider that this same dictator has used hospitals and schools for military outposts, tortured and murdered thousands of innocent civilians, and used chemical weapons on his own people.

Now that the ruthless regime has been ousted, expect the people of Iraq to enjoy a higher quality of life in due course...

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

> "As for the embargo, I don't think it is fair, right or accurate for anyone other than the government of Iraq to be blamed for the hungry people of Iraq."

Well the Vatican itself, says the embargo is wrong! You tell me, why should any embargo include food and medicine?

> "That is precisely why the food for oil program was instituted - to ensure the people do not suffer!"

The Red Cross, who are on the ground in Iraq since day one have claimed since the end of the Gulf War, that the amount of food and medicine will be insufficient to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. You think one of the most respected and non-political organizations on this planet would lie about this?

Bob, here is evidence also from Madeleine Albright:

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

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

-- A CBS Sixty Minutes interview between Leslie Stahl and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on 12 May 1996

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

There you have it, proof from someone high up in the American adminstration.

Since the Gulf War, with the Red Cross being in Iraq the whole time, I have never once heard from them, that food and medicine was being held away from the Iraqi people by Saddam's regime! I have only heard this from people in the American and British government adminstrations, and from people who believe this nonsense, like yourself.

The Oil for Food program, never allowed Saddam to buy weapons, as UN insured that all money was spent on food and medicine, because they did the actual purchasing of the food and medicine!!!

All other purchases that Saddam did in the mean time was with illegal sale of oil, and because he did not buy additional food to make up for the short fall incurred by the Oil for Food program, he is as guilty as the American and British adminstration who determined the limits of this program! Both sides will answer to God! Both sides are guilty, for the suffering of the INNOCENT Iraqi people.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

The "Peace & Justice" crowd, gotta love how rational they are. While I will take to task many self proclaimed conservatives for dismissing and outright insulting Pope John Paul II, I will point to the recent history of the church, it has opposed all wars, with the exception of siding with the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. Pope Benidict XV did everything he could to prevent WWI, and after it started put a early end to WWI. To hope for the Vatican to be for a war goes against church history of the last 200 years. Also people have to take into account the fact that Pope John Paul II actually has been though a war, and he saw the horrors of war first hand.

That said, the Vatican has said that it was the Popes personal opinion that the war was not a just war, and faithful Catholics can disagree with that opinion. As fro what I have seen, the "Peace & Justice" Catholics root their opposition to the war not based on church teachings, but because they tend to be anti Westeren Secular Humanists, who simpily claim to be Catholics. The same kind of Catholics that claim the church begins and ends with Vatican II.

Emilio, do us a favor, and read up on church history, and church doctrine, also read up that the Popes opinion on the incursion into Iraq does not even reach the level of a encyclical. Of course, from the sounds of it, you probably are a proponent of Liberation Theology.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Bob M.

I haven't seen this thread for a week, so I just finished reading your exchange with Gordon.
I want to let you know that I support your comments completely. They were very logical and persuasive. Gordon's comments were neither. Instead, they contained a mixture of facts, hyperbole, and non-factual material. I won't go into an exhaustive refutation of what he said. However ...

An example of hyperbole: "Our Lord Jesus Christ lived in a country that was brutally occupied by a dictator (a guy who slaughtered an entire village of children to try and kill our Lord!)"

King Herod was not a "dictator," but a local puppet of Rome. Nor did he slaughter "an entire village of children." He killed only boys, and only those under the age of two, in one village and its environs. I am not minimizing the horror of his action, but the number of Holy Innocents was quite small. I am only using this example to illustrate the fact that Gordon is an extremely emotional person who needs to get control of himself and think carefully before writing, because otherwise he exagerrates and destroys his credibility.

An example of non-factual material from Gordon (in addition to the ludicrous charge about oil that you so well refuted, Bob, by pointing to Kuwait): "Iraqi was a country doing quite well under the same brutal dictator ..."

The very statement is preposterous, in that no nation can do "quite well" under a "brutal dictator." A little checking of facts would reveal to Gordon the terrible conditions under which the Iraqis lived prior to the Gulf War, with hundreds of thousands of the sons, husbands, and fathers being killed in the conflict with Iran ... with about half the people being illiterate ... with political opponents being tortured and murdered, etc.. Gordon did not do his homework, but instead passed along pro-Saddam/anti-American propaganda.

Hello, John B. You wrote: "... the Vatican has said that it was the Popes personal opinion that the war was not a just war ..."
No, the Vatican has not stated such a thing about the pope. I believe that you took one thing that a Vatican official said and extended its meaning well beyond what was intended.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

The ultimate responsibility to determine if a war is just or not is with the head of state, that is where the authority is, and yesm those heads of state in turn are subject to God. The opinion that the war is unjust again is the opinion of the Pope. As Catholics, we should take his opinion into account, but in these matters, we are not bound by his opinion, again, faithful Catholics in these matters can disagree with the pontiff, and Vatican officals made that clear.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Gordon, Gordon, Gordon... "The Vatican" is entitled to its opinions as to right and wrong. "The Vatican", I believe you mean a variety of officials who work for and are officials of the Vatican, is not infallible (contrast that to certain Holy Spirit-inspired statements made by the pope) and have made a variety of statements that are not binding on Catholics.

Quote: "why should any embargo include food and medicine?" Comment: Duh, isn't that the reason why the food for oil program was instituted?!? As for limits, I'm not sure either you or I are knowledgeable enough to understand or articulate why the 'limits' are what they are.

Quote: "proof from someone high up in the American administration" in reference to Madeline Albright.

Comment: Are you American? If so, Democrat I presume. If not, then it all makes sense... Look, Madeline Albright is hardly someone I have much respect for to be candid. I doubt she actually said what you've quoted, and if so, I suspect the context may be more than what you have disclosed. But even if that's not true, her statements hardly constitute proof of anything. Colin Powell, on the other hand, I'll accept his statements of "proof"...

Quote: "I have never heard from them (Red Cross), that food and medicine was being held away from the Iraqi people by Saddam's regime!"

Comment: Are you suggesting that the Red Cross has perfect and complete knowledge as to distribution of the food from this program? If not, how can they object to something that they are being shielded from? If so, how do you explain the UNICEF shipments/cases found in palaces by the US troops?

Quote: "he is as guilty as the American and British administration" (Saddam) Comment: gee, I feel so much better now that the US and British are ONLY as 'guilty' as Saddam. For crying out loud, what a bunch of nonsense and ignorance. Where does your hatred of the US come from? Are you the speechwriter for Michael Moore? Saddam gives $25,000 to the families of Palestinians who blow up innocent civilians. Saddam spends countless millions on a lavish lifestyle while he denies his own people food. The US and British spill their own blood and spend billions of dollars to liberate and feed the innocent Iraqi's, and you dare say that our guilt is equal. Shame on you. Shame on the ignorance that spews from your lips and comes alive from your keystrokes. I have no patience for such ignorant and blatant lies.

John G - thanks for your comments.

God bless.

Bob

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

There are some things which point to whether vatican was right or not. Even though the US and Britain has done many good things, the bad shares are there as well. Who else have the world's most no. of wmd? Who wants every other nation to sign CTBT and would not sign itself? The US created Taliban along with Pakistan and supported pakistan's training terrorists against the soviets back then. In the 1971 war between India and Pakistan where Bangladesh requested India's help to acquire freedom, the US sent a carrier with a nuclear weapon and to clearly nuke India, and India's strong ally Russia, threatened to nuke the entire US if they didn't back off and only then they did. If we go back into history more and more could be found. I hate saying these things but when talking about ignorance, one should understand what ignorance really means. There are bad people, but evil against evil is against God and that is what vatican says, and even though we have done a lot of good things, we have done a lot of bad things for others as well. It is good to know this because most people do not know these things happened. It is clearly not something that someone would want to remember, but as catholics we should be more open minded and understand what the truth is, to the full.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Abraham.

You wrote: "The US created Taliban along with Pakistan ..."
This is incorrect. The United States did not create the Taliban. You have apparently been fed some lies in India (where hundreds of millions of people hate, or at least distrust Pakistan).

You wrote: "In the 1971 war between India and Pakistan where Bangladesh requested India's help to acquire freedom, the US sent a carrier with a nuclear weapon and to clearly nuke India, and India's strong ally Russia, threatened to nuke the entire US if they didn't back off and only then they did."

Again, you have been fed anti-American propaganda. I need to warn you that this kind of junk does not go unchallenged and unrefuted at this forum. Please stick to religion.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2003.

Actually J.F here you are wrong. I stick to religion, but facts cannot be forgotten. These are not fed by some anti americans in India. In fact, most people here are against iraq because they hate muslims. The fact about US creating Taliban is true. In fact, CIA was the main one and Pakistan secret service was merely helped. The 1971 war is also as true as you can imagine. Before blaming me on spreading lies, perhaps you should check your history from reliable sources. Also, I have travelled around Asia and Europe and at one time was very interested in history. I know very well that these are not made up lies or propaganda and I am not interested in bashing anyone or anything at all. It is for the mere reminder that some people don't want to admit any negative things done for their favor and that it is against being a christian, that I said all that. Again, all that was true history. Very bitter and hard to believe, and many don't want to believe it, but very true. I have also spoken to many American veterans who infact know these very well. Thanks.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Also it is true that many people hate and distrust pakistan. And it is not just us. If you go to any other place except US and China who are the allies of that country, even in europe or anywhere else, you could see people providing enough proof and facts of the creation and spreading of terrorism, lies, propaganda all sort of dirty works. It hurts me to say this, but the face of truth is always ugly. Like I said, if history is cheked with reliable sources other than that who neglects the negative things done in the past and being done, you will know as many know around the world.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Abraham.
I can tell that, because India is your native land, you approach these things with great emotion, and you have strongly held beliefs that I will not be able to shake, even when they are wrong.

I will only ask you to speak with greater precision in the future, so that people do not get the wrong impression. For example, you wrote these simple, blunt words: "The U.S. created Taliban along with Pakistan ...". To be an honest Catholic, you cannot just stop right there, because those simple words can deceive people into believing that the U.S. was in favor of all the horrible things that the Taliban did and stood for.

So, when you bring up things like this, you have to say MUCH more -- to be fair to America. For example, you can say this:
"In the 1980s, the CIA aided the Afghan 'mujahideen' (freedom fighters) in their resistance against the Soviet Union. Arising from the mujahideen, after the pullout of the Soviets, came an extremist group, the Taliban, which forcibly took control of Afghanistan. Contrary to the will of the U.S. government and the American people, these Taliban madmen installed the strictest imaginable Islamic law, banned non-Islamic religion, banned the education of women, took advantage of the sale of opiates, perpetrated widespread torture/amputation/execution, and allowed the land to become a hotbed of Islamic terrorists."

I hope that you will have the strength of character to admit that I am right about this need to explain more in order to be fair.

On the subject of the 1971 war, you flat-out stated: "the US sent a carrier with a nuclear weapon and to clearly nuke India."

Abraham, it is necessary for you to speak more accurately and carefully about such things. The U.S. never said that it was sending a carrier "to clearly nuke India." And so, we know that such a charge was merely an assumption made by some Indians. There was no proof, but only suspicion. I know about this, because I was 20 years old at the time.

Having lived in the U.S. all my life (more than 50 years), I can tell you that the American people would never had tolerated the nuking of India. In other words, over here we realize that the assumptions and suspicions made by some Indians were simply wrong. These assumptions and suspicions were understandable, though, because people were strongly affected by ignorance of facts, fear of dying, and anti-American propaganda from China/Russia/etc.. Thus, some people in India feared and distrusted America in 1971 (and still do), but their assumptions and suspicions were simply wrong.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Thank you J.F. It is true that I didn't elaborate on that. I didn't want the US to have a negative image from that. The actual creation and what happened during the liberation of Bangladesh was only what I meant. You are right about Taliban. They even went against pakistan. However, the creation of Taliban should point out some other aspects as the help was against the soviets in afganistan, and we know the cold war was a bitter one. I don't think the gov of US wanted it to happen that way, but the analysts are blaming everything on CIA because it is believed that even the gov had no control over what they do. It is also a well known fact that US and China wanted to slow the growth of India as a major power in Asia, even though the US has clearly removed that poilicy now, that was the case. Again, I am not stating this just from an Indian perspective. China giving Pakistan means to make WMD and missiles are just to increase problems within the Indian subcontinent. As of now, things have changed and even though US still needed Pakistan as an ally against taliban, we can clearly see them asking them to stop terrorism in India, and these are very good signs and makes sure that US won't repeat the mistakes that was done in the past.

You are not right about me being emotional because even though I came from a country who is being subject of terrorism for more than 20 years and war is the last measure and very few people actually support that policy, thanks to God I could think from a catholic perspective and remember the words of God. Beyond all these terrorism, securing land, dividing people, etc. the earth was made for everyone to live in and we are the ones who make problems to our brothers and sisters. This view might be hard to imagine from a political sense, but as a chirstian, especially a catholic, I beliebe that is the way we should think.

Actually in the '71 war, a carrier was clearly sent as a message to India because Pakistan was a strong ally of US at that time, and that made them move against the war for freedom policy. Even though it didn't say there was a nuke, worldwide analysts (not just Russia and China) have claerly specified that there was, but it is unclear whether they wanted to nuke or not. It was clearly as sign. We had Russia as our allies and we didn't have any nukes at that time so it was a clear message. That's why Russia had to threaten to nuke the American continent. I am not actually seeing this from the Indian point of view because most of the Indians there have either forgotten or are now favoring US because the past is past and all those works have been gone now. My view was more from a european point of view, and you may be surprised to know that I confirmed these as more than just propaganda from reliable sources in UK (bbc the most clear one), who is the strongest ally of US in anyway.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.

"..., because India is your native land, you approach these things with great emotion, and you have strongly held beliefs that I will not be able to shake, even when they are wrong..."

you are invariably a shining example to us all John, but this comment appears to be well beneath you. forgive me if i have misunderstood your intention.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 24, 2003.