Hey hey ho ho all that doom and gloom has got to go!

Well lookee here folks! The so-called "evil" US has once again liberated a nation, its people are dancing in the streets, and a new day is dawning in the Middle East.

And with a near miraculously low casualty rate, both in US and Iraqi civilian numbers, and a swift victory in what was preached would be our demise and Stalingrad...will leave the US and Iraqi people flush with victory and a sense of accomplishment.

The tyrant is gone, peace has come, Iraqi will be rebuilt and freedom's fruits will flourish there as they do where ever a people is allowed to breath free.

But don't fear! The Arab street still hates us we are told. And more of those "highly dangerous" Arab volunteers are still running away to confront Marines. They say they're going to booby trap ambulances and use other "honorable" means of harming Iraq's newly liberated people.

And I suppose the "Bush-haters" world wide will still hate him, and those who thought this war was risking the "destiny of humanity" will still feel that way - though why exactly they thought that is still a mystery. It seems they believed Saddam's propaganda more than American assurances that this would be just slightly more complicated than a cake-walk.

It's just going to be awfully hard for those of you who despised Bush and were loath to go to war to liberate Iraq, to see all those happy Iraqis dancing in the streets...

I mean, you've got to feel let down that it was so easy for the might of the US Armed forces... you've got to feel slightly depressed that so many Iraqis love us and are happy to see tyranny disappear and look forward to freedom and prosperity!

Like I said some time ago, you've painted yourselves into the uneviable position of being disappointed by good news and secretly desirous of disaster.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003

Answers

Well said (once again)Joe!

Ding, dong, the wicked witch is dead (gone)!

God bless Bush and Blair for their wisdom and courageous leadership to do the right thing, the moral thing, and the just thing - forcibly disarm Iraq and oust Saddam and his 'forty thieves'... Something tells me that they (Bush and Blair) will be more than happy to answer to God for this.

My favorite newsclip this morning was the sign that two Iraqi's were parading around - "Human Shields Go Home".

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

And the axis of weasel (Russia, France and Germany) actually have the gall to stand there and demand that they control post-war Iraq, as if they somehow deserve it. No risk - No reward I say. The dogs can beg for scraps from the master's table, but these dogs have been biting the hands they have fed them, and they don't deserve to stay near the table. Begone France who's butt we saved. Begone Germany who we rebuilt into an economic/social power. Begone Russia who we've propped up since the Cold War.

Let's hope that Canada, Mexico, Turkey and our other so-called allies are smart to keep their yaps shut now for openly opposing us.

The rewards should go to the US, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Egypt, and the others who risked much in freeing the Iraqi's.

Let's pray the U.S. does this right and gets control into the Iraqi's hands asap so they can enjoy the taste of freedom. And let's pray for the protection of all of the innocent Iraqi's lives (especially the children) as this thing wraps up.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

I don't the question was Stalingrad, Joe, but for most people in the forum, it was a question about oil, not saving Iraq from Saddam.

I was one of the few that was actually for this war. If you had seen my other contributions, you could see I expected this to be done in 2- 3 weeks ( 3 to be exact today).

Thanks be to Yahweh, the God of this universe and father of our lOrd Jesus Christ for bringing justice to a people who needed it.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 09, 2003.

To God Be the Glory!!! FREEDOM!!! Ahhhh, the taste of it.

Amen,

Gail

P.S. I've been singing that song ever since the other night when we bombed that evil dude and his son(s)! LOL! . . . the wicked witch, the wicked witch . . .

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 09, 2003.

Joe, on this forum at least, a lot of people have said a lot of things for a lot of different reasons.

Are you referring to things that forumites have stated or what people have said in the media? It's confusing as to who you are gloating over.

To come to the defense of some of these forumites who I am usually at odds with for one reason or another, they had a bit of difficulty with this one because they wanted to respect what the Pope had to say over the matter. I think it would be fair to at least recognize their desire to be loyal in that regard.

Now let's go get China, huh? lol.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 09, 2003.

My post has to do with the ridiculous doom and gloomers in the Media, especially the "Arab Street" media that eagerly expected us to be bloodied by some Baghdad seige and house to house fighting...

As for "formites" who wanted to be loyal to the Pope...I don't condemn either the Pope or those who mistakenly think he said what they paraphrase him to say or to MEAN. Nor do I condemn some cardinals who should know better...because honestly these guys for all their brilliant theology and philosophy, didn't grow up with an American's appreciation for our military prowess and technical knowledge of our capabilities...they are accustomed to EUROPEAN (ITALIAN) capabilities and warfare... WWII mainly, which WAS disasterously harmful and bloody.

Thus they misinterpreted our precision guided bombs as "more powerful = worse" rather than "more accurate = better"... And their moral argument (such as it was, although hardly articulated in the form of moral argumentation) was based on faulty presumptions of fact, as well as of intention. Finally, they seemed to actually believe Saddam's propaganda was as accurate about Iraqi moods and allegiances as US Media reports were about US moods.... in other words, they believed the whole Iraqi nation would resist us and thus we'd end up fire-bombing them all....

So I have no problem excusing the Pope and cardinals for what they said. If I believed what they believed about issues of fact and intention, I'd be forced by logic to conclude what they concluded...but being the lay man I am, privy to the information I have gleened over a lifetime related to and interested in military people and their capabilities....I knew better than think "armageddon" about this little war.

This has always been about prudential decisions. So the Pope's moral authority for me is not touched. He still is our shepherd in things to do with faith and morals. By not investing these cardinals or the Pope's personal opinions with infallible weight, my faith isn't shattered by the so-far apparent mistake these clergy men have made about "the future" results of this campaign of Iraqi liberation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

"I knew better than think "armageddon" about this little war."

I hadn't heard anyone really predicate armageddon of sacking of Iraq.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

I don't know what everyone else is thinking, but these are just some of my random influences of thinking on the matter.

First, I don't believe in the separation of Church and state. I just flat-out reject it as anti-Catholic. Secondly, I don't like Freemasonry, which I flat out reject as anti-Catholic. For thirds, fractional reserve banking systems and fiat money don't have my financial enthusiasm either.

Moreover, I don't think that protestantism in America represents anything close to Christianity in it's political manifestations.

Also, for me to believe that the way America is operating now is anything like what the founding fathers put down on paper is a patent absurdity to me. What's worse, I don't even think their orginal formula made much sense anyways.

What the problem is is this: way back when, Catholicism and The State became unhinged from each other. Each, separately then, has been systematically tortured by a synthesis of right and left ad nauseum until almost all semblance of purpose and principle have dried up and blown away.

Until Church and State are restored in unison, I don't want anything to do with lauding the temporal aims of either.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Hi Emerald:

I'm not sure if I catch your meaning. In reading through Church history, I don't see a great success story when Church was in control of the State. Could you be more specific.

Secondly, surely you can rejoice that this evil man and his regime of terror is over . . .?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 10, 2003.

Emerald, the Pope practially spelled out "Armageddon" without using the word when he feared that this war was "threatening the destiny of humanity". And cardinals everywhere picked up his fear and expanded on it preaching only doom and gloom - fearing a "clash of civilizations" and "widespread civilian death, destruction, and famine". They also feared wide spread terrorism.

Now, I don't fault the Pope for his fear. It was based on faulty information coming from the Church in Iraq, which was terrorized by Saddam, hoodwinked into believing the Iraqi people were at least 80% fanatical followers of Saddam, and that the Iraqi state would put up such a fierce resistance that any war would result in "total war" type destruction and loss of life.... enflaming the whole Middle East in the process... If I had believed those premises as true or even "likely" I'd have concluded the same thing as the Pope. But for all his brilliance theologically and philosophically and his experience and holiness.... he is not a military genius or historian. His experience of war - like that of all the European cardinals was WWII. Their experience of guerilla resistance and German or Russian tactics (indescriminate shelling and bombing of urban areas, ruthless house to house sweeps, etc.) gave them gut reactions to American claims of qualitative difference in our war-fighting strategy and tactics.

Virtually everyone expected us to go in carpet-bombing and steamrolling every hamlet, villiage, town, and city. Instead, like Sherman's march to the Sea, we by-passed much of the country! Ha! Ya gotta admit, we Americans are PRETTY CLEVER. :-)

And look what's happening:

The US rolls into a majority Shiite town, (recall that the 90% Shiite Iranians have been preaching for 2 decades that we're the Great Satan, their worst enemy, and filled with irrational hatred for all things Muslim...) liberate their Grand Ayatola, respect their most sacred mosque, treat their civil leaders with chivalry and respect.... unheard of conduct for conquering armies - at least in their experience.

The grand Ayatola - the Shiite "pope" proclaims that the allies are not to be harmed and even aided when possible. That "fatwah" carries more weight in Iran and all Shiite lands than anything OBL or Saddam ever taught!

Then we roll into Baghdad in 4 days. The whole Arab world's Media was predicting an Arab Stalingrad - they were going on Al Jazeera claiming that the US' days as a superpower were over, that the Muslim forces of justice and good and righteousness would bloody us - as a sign of God's hatred for the Americans... Now they're faced with happy Iraqis dancing in the streets - talk about cognitive dissonance!

Today's news (AP, Reuters, etc) has many Arabs "shocked and amazed" - they can't believe the Iraqis LOVE THE AMERICANS AS LIBERATORS! They've begun venting anger at their own MEDIA for fooling them!

And also note this: there are ALOT of grindingly poor Muslims in the rich Oil countries of the Middle East. They are watching all those Iraqi poor becoming rich by looting the vast wealth of the former Baath overlords... I bet not a few are wondering how much they could get their hands on stuff if only the American Marines gave them a "little help"!

Everyone who was opposed to this war was opposed to it supposedly because of the awful consequences: ecological disaster, the US somehow carting off 40% of the world's oil reserves (in what? Humvees?), world war 3, genocide, the destruction of antiquities, clash of civilizations... and yet so far they have not only NOT occurred, there is good reason to think that they are safely returned to the realm of "remote possibilites" rather than probabilities.

Then too, when all those "Arab fighters" return home to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. having been let go by the gallant Americans (remember that the Muslims pride themselves and Saladin with the invention of chivalry), who fed them, healed them, and clothed them.... will come back witnessing to our justice.

In short, Bush was right and the US was just and the world was wrong and opposition to the liberation of Iraq was not a principled stand but a largely passionate one based on faulty information and faulty premises and presumptions as to the Iraqi people's allegiance, will, desires, the US' motives, capabilities, and discipline and battle plan.

Admit it, it went alot better than you thought it would. Do I hear the strains of Henry V, "Non nobis Domine..."??

God's providence allowed this war to be mercifully short, the loss of life mercifully low and the infrastructure and environment of Iraq relatively undamaged... The war has also occasioned countless of our soldiers to turn to God in prayer and faith.

Fact is, the average US Marine is far more faithful and religious than your average "peace-nik". It shows.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Emerald...

Jesus told us to give to Caesar what belonged to Caesar and to God what belonged to God. In saying so Our Lord recognized - as Paul later explains - that the authority of the Church is not co-terminous with the civil authority.

Classic Catholic doctrine represented this as the "two sword" idea: the Church has real authority, but so does the civil arena. Only when the west was trashed by barbarian hordes in the 500's-1000's did the Church HAVE to assume civil duties in the absence of regimes capable of governing the people for their common good.

But the Church also teaches subsidiarity.

As for the American founding fathers not applying Catholic principles or that the Church somehow is incompatible with Constitutional republics, I refer you to the excellent anthology of the Pope's discourses to America on his 1985 visit to the country.

If it pleases you, on a new thread I will begin to quote from those texts which are some of the most beautiful and exquisitely "patriotic" lines in the English language. You will see how much the Pope esteems the United States and what a special country we are and what a unique and important role our nation has in this world.

None of this makes us angels and it doesn't make EVERYTHING we do perfect or insuperable. But it does mean that our foundation was not corrupt and intrinsically evil either.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Where are all those weapons of "mass destruction"? Who is going to get richer than ever? Not the service people, as all 100 families or so have ,is a dead body of their husband, son or father. Ask them if it was worth it.

As for the cheering crowds. Did you ever watch the History channel, the cheering crowds in Paris in 1945? What of those French today? The Japs,"Those dirty little yellow monkeys"... Making millions playing baseball in America. How soon we forget.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

I did say that it appeared to me that the effort to approach Baghdad was getting bogged down at one point, and I wondered if they were going to get stiffer resistance than they had thought.

That’s not a big revelation of any great value. I haven’t posited anything on this forum about my exact position on the matter because I don’t have one. All the necessary elements for me to be certain about something just aren’t there, and they won’t ever be. I do think there is enough observable phenomena in this world within everyone’s grasp that one might glean a shadow of the direction of humanity at this time. This Baghdad affair is a whiz in the ocean of the general trend of humanity.

I think there are deeper principles at work; not that I know exactly those principles are going to play themselves out. It's like money, where the principles are pretty common and straighforward, but the participants are so vast in number that it is virtually impossible to predict the exactly outcome of things in the long haul. But I think a case can be made for sort of a shadow of a predictable eventual outcome for humanity, should things continue under certain assumptions. It cannot sustain itself and will fall into chaos… that’s and optimistic view believe it or not, because it’s like an enema. Once the you know what hits the fan then things can begin the process of righting themselves. Because at this time humanity as a whole and as a rule does not honor their God. Sure, the sustaining of goodness in the world falls into the category of crisis management, and it has to take place alongside those who wish to drag down the process of promoting the good, but there is the point of no return past which only God’s ways will serve as a remedy, and I think we past that point a while ago.

"Emerald, the Pope practially spelled out "Armageddon" without using the word when he feared that this war was "threatening the destiny of humanity"."

I think he is alluding to a larger, longer picture than the snapshot of taking Baghdad. He may see it as a catalyst to bring about other delta factors or to set a whole new set a whole new host of change agents into play. I don't know exactly what he is thinking, but in that sense only, I believe he is on to something without having come to that conclusion from the most likely direction. If if does play out that way, to me it's like "well, John Paul II, what were you expecting?" not said in a way saturated in sarcasm or disrespect... but in honesty. After all, he brought into his very name a determination to continue a certain tactic of human endeavor within the Church (the name JPII seems to be a synthesis of John XXIII + Paul VI + John Paul I). Also, if he does come to the Armageddon take on things, he does show up there from a bizarre angle. He brought with him to the papacy an unsatisfactory philosophical basis for metaphysics in the form of this useless Phenomenology.

And cardinals everywhere picked up his fear and expanded on it preaching only doom and gloom - fearing a "clash of civilizations" and "widespread civilian death, destruction, and famine". They also feared wide spread terrorism.

I don't listen to the cardinals really, because based on simple observation, few of them hold the Catholic Faith. I don't think that this means I need to disregard them altogether, because they still do hold their ordained office. It just means I don't really look to them as any temporal beacon of understanding about any wise and prudent directions to take. Maybe someone could point to me and say I'm wrong in my attitude, but I would just point to the cardinals and say "tell them to live and preach the Catholic Faith". Until they say something Catholic for a change, I’m not going to too inclined to pay attention. Not in any way to absolve the laity of their guilt in letting western civilization decline into decadence, because they have. Now, I don't fault the Pope for his fear.

I don’t either. I fault him for not identifying the principle behind his fear; for not attaching it principally to it’s originating source. In other words, for saying the bold things necessary to understand our dilemma in the light of the impotence in the living of the Faith, macrocosmically, in this age.

But for all his brilliance theologically and philosophically and his experience and holiness.... he is not a military genius or historian.

Theologically, I believe, he has let us down. This is why no clear connection can be made between his fears, which are well founded, and the principle origen of those fears, which are not identified. They can’t be because they are clouded by deviation from the Faith of the ages, ever ancient and ever new. Phenomenology is anything but brilliance as a philosophical handmaiden to the Catholic Faith. As to his holiness, that’s his business. When it becomes our business, then it’s time to kick in the remedy of prayer. No one can say that this Pope is not holy, and likewise no one can say he is holy. Neither statement is useful or credible.

Virtually everyone expected us to go in carpet-bombing and steamrolling every hamlet, villiage, town, and city.

Did they now? I must not watch much tv. I didn’t think that. It has happened before, though… not that I would want to bolster anyone’s thinking in this regard. It did happen in Dresden, where we and the British lit a napalm fire in a city so large and so hot that body liquefied and vaporized in deep bunkers. The city was a non- military center of the arts and of no strategic value. It was an act of terrorism and that was the intent of it. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we committed a grave act that no 10,000 American lives saved argument will ever justify. This act will never stand up to scrutiny in the light of the Faith. It is impossible.

The US rolls into a majority Shiite town, (recall that the 90% Shiite Iranians have been preaching for 2 decades that we're the Great Satan, their worst enemy, and filled with irrational hatred for all things Muslim...) liberate their Grand Ayatola, respect their most sacred mosque, treat their civil leaders with chivalry and respect...

Why do we need to respect their Grand Whatever and their mosque? Just out of curiosity. It’s just a matter of time before this pagan religion puts into power another Saddam. That’s all we’ve ever seen happen over there. It’s that religion that’s the problem.

The grand Ayatola - the Shiite "pope" proclaims that the allies are not to be harmed and even aided when possible. That "fatwah" carries more weight in Iran and all Shiite lands than anything OBL or Saddam ever taught!

Like those waving palm branches in that same land two thousand years ago, it could be different next week.

Today's news (AP, Reuters, etc) has many Arabs "shocked and amazed" - they can't believe the Iraqis LOVE THE AMERICANS AS LIBERATORS! They've begun venting anger at their own MEDIA for fooling them!

Well… again, I’m a little confused here. Who listens to the media anyways? Do you? I don’t. I couldn’t give a rip what they say or do or think. Let me lay down the law here. If someone thinks that anything I think has any likeness to or origin in common television talk, I would just drop this entire conversation and walk away from it. If someone can’t see at least that little bit, I’d rather just go do something else.

Everyone who was opposed to this war was opposed to it supposedly because of the awful consequences: ecological disaster, the US somehow carting off 40% of the world's oil reserves (in what? Humvees?), world war 3, genocide, the destruction of antiquities, clash of civilizations... and yet so far they have not only NOT occurred, there is good reason to think that they are safely returned to the realm of "remote possibilites" rather than probabilities.

I don’t see that. What I do see is this: those protestors in the streets? Pardon me for being frank, but they seem to think that freedom consists of doing anything that moves, if you know what I mean. Seriously; that is the dumbed-down lay-it-out-straight basis for everything those on in that corner think and believe. How unfortunate it would be to have someone mistakenly equate one type of anti-war stance with another stance that cautions about the more fundamental principles and direction of humanity and governance. Again, if anyone even remotely equated my position of reluctance with those people, I would simply walk away from that conversation in disgust and cite irreconciliable differences.

In short, Bush was right and the US was just and the world was wrong and opposition to the liberation of Iraq was not a principled stand but a largely passionate one based on faulty information and faulty premises and presumptions as to the Iraqi people's allegiance, will, desires, the US' motives, capabilities, and discipline and battle plan.

In short, there is a hell of a lot more to it than that. It has to do with Catholicism's status in the world in this age; figuring as how we have salvation to offer humanity, it might do well to examine the whole issue from this end of the equation instead of the world's end, and ends.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Emerald, I enjoyed reading your response.

I do think we need to resist the great temptation to gloat. All across the world, Christians have been praying for a short war, for minimal casualities. Thus far, God Almighty has heard our cries.

To HIM be the glory! So let's maintain humility in that without Him nothing is possible, and with Him all things are possible!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 10, 2003.

Joe - on point and convincing, once again...

Gail - excellent point - all glory to God, without question. That said, Bush and Blair deserve kudos. How about this - praise be to God that He put Bush and Blair in their respective roles and provided them with the courage and leadership to stand tall in the face of criticism, ignorance and misinformation.

Ed - and your point is? While the regime in Iraq has been ousted, fighting continues and the war is not officially over. What were your expectations - that we would find WMD before the war ended?!? Mind you it took hundreds of professionally trained UN weapons 'inspectors' YEARS to find WMD back in the 90's. Would you kindly give us a month or two? Don't forget that there have been no 'inspectors' in Iraq for over four years - Saddam has had years to skillfully hide the WMD, and Iraq is a very large country. All that said, we have probably already found WMD - nerve gas tasting is being done presently but preliminary tests are positive. Weapons grade plutonium has likely been found, but it will take further testing to confirm as much. Rest assured Ed, WMD exists in Iraq. And as for the cheering crowds, I understand your comment but fail to see the conclusion. The fact that French officials today act less than graciously (that's as polite as I could be) has no bearing on the rightness of our liberating them from the Germans in the WWII.

Ed - as for the 100 or so US casualties, this is indeed sad and tragic. Such is the price a great nation is willing to pay to do what is right - namely, to safeguard its citizens and make the Middle East and the entire world safer and to free an oppressed people. What is tragic also are the countless THOUSANDS of Iraqi's that have been systematically starved, raped, tortured and murdered indiscriminately. As for who is going to get richer, I like that question. Simple answer: the Iraqi people. I'll tell you who won't get richer - the French, Germans and Russians, and therein lies one of the root causes to their opposition.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 10, 2003.

Cowboy, what a simpleton you are. All is achieved is looting on streets and a lot of suffering in badly equiped hospitals. Rejoice - if you are so simple...

-- Andrew Finder (Andrew44@hotmail.com), April 10, 2003.

Bob M. The munitions makers, the tanks and planes makers, the shipping people, (on of the largest costs of the war} the rebuilders of those cities and on and on it goes. They are raking it in already. If the government wants to do the right thing, they should take the profit out of war. Make those who profited turn all monies over cost, back to the taxpayers. I don't think that it will happen.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Years of Democrat rule has convinced me that government spending - no matter for what, and ESPECIALLY on wasteful projects, is an unadulterated GOOD THING.

Indeed, the Democrats always spend money in order to "help the poor" - so I don't see why government spending on military hardware and reconstruction is going to do anything other than "help the poor"....

Oh, unless you mean the "poor" only get helped when the Democrats are the ones spending the money?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Joe, I'm not a Democrat, used to be a Republican, now vote Constitution party for past 2 president elections.

Im not for welfare handouts, but money should be returned to taxpayers, by government. It would be better if we could collect direct, wihout government handling charges, but we can forget that.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Andrew - simple is as simple does... Did you expect all of the problems in Iraq to be solved overnight? Now, who's being simple? Or should I dare say "naysayer"?

Ed - you sure you're not a Democrat? Hmmm, the gov't should purchase everything at cost - is that an inference that we fight wars to line the profits of the defense companies? Ludicrous I say - have you ever submitted an RFP for a gov't deal? The gov't is not exactly the customer with the highest profit margin out there my friend... I got it - maybe we let the gov't take over the production of weapons, missiles and the like. Surely they could do it more efficiently, right? And that way, at least our conscience is clear that nobody made a profit, right? If history is any judge, the gov't WILL NOT produce it as cheaply and therefore the cost will be actually higher. So much for that line of reasoning. There's a reason organizations outsource their non-core competencies pal. Help me understand why these businesses would produce goods at no profit if their basic business objective is to make a profit? Have you ever run a business? Charity is one thing, but this is simply not feasible.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 10, 2003.

Hey Gail, you're so much nicer to me than you have to be. =)

Of course it's good to see this clown meet his demise. It would be better to see repentence, and it is technically possible, but I don't think it is a sin to call it virtually impossible.

He is (was?) a man that cried with pleasure while watching videos of the tortures performed on people, according to one of his mistresses. He is easily within the realm of the satanic.

But they all meet their demise with or without help; it goes with the territory and they know it. In fact, I visualize someone like that as being irresistably gravitated towards death and hell, since that's the currency they deal in. As strange as that may seem. They know they must pay their debt, and when the time comes and there's no time left, it is sort of amazing how some of these tyrants show a demonic resignation to it. The temporal rewards being run out and faced with the loss of everything, they persist and sometimes even seem to desire death. This must be what that unforgivable sin of the Holy Spirit is. Ligouri describes something similiar to this playout of events in his Preparations for Death.

Hitler, far from being the worst of them, was heavily involved in a resurrected paganist religion of a very particular sort, including the use of oracles for strategic planning. The last oracle ultimately betrayed him when the clock measuring his time of temporal goodies payout finally ran dry. These people, in full knowledge or unwittingly, make pacts with the demon. From their standpoint, everything seems carved in stone and irrevocable, and they carry it through with pleasure right to their death. Saddam seemed to be just another one of these.

While it is always good to see one deposed, it is still the case that they meet their demise with or without assistance. It was us this time, but it could have been anything or anybody; the fact is though, it has to fall apart because that's part of the deal.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Thanks Emerald, that was very interesting. And come on, tooo nice . .? No way!

The many tragedies of evil -- too numerous to mention, but one that keeps coming to mind is that a lot of these Fedeyeen were taken as children from orphanages and broken homes and then groomed for destruction at the hands of Saddam. Oh, what misery evil wreaks! Not only the victims of the families, the victims of the war, the tortuous lives of the Iraqies, but even these misguided young killers, who were serving Satan in the face of a man named Saddam. I realize that everyone has the opportunity to choose good over evil, but still . . . it makes me wonder, what if I had been born then and there?

Sweet Mary, pray for the mothers of ALL the victims, both their's and ours.

Lord, may your grace abound in mercy, may righteousness prevail, and may Truth and Wisdom guide those in leadership!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 10, 2003.

Part of what influences my take on these things, Gail, is that I presume that these evildoers get assistance. They have an impetus behind them for success that you or I don’t have access to.

Clinton had it. Nothing could go ultimately wrong for him; he was impervious. He had a path cleared for him as far as success is concerned, and he simply walked it in ease. Things were arranged for him… you could see; if you looked hard, it would become more and more apparent. I don't mean a man-arranged success solely, either. It is speculation on my part and probably a dangerous one, but to watch someone sail through obstacle after obstacle, to watch them counter resistance with great ease, is an indication of helps and “blessings” from the dark side. Don’t confuse this with envy, please, that’s not what I mean… not a simple thing about begrudging someone of their rightful rewards of hard work and effort. Not that; I mean something else.

The great evildoers of note had a path of demonic success cleared for them, so that at least until it came time to pay the piper, they sailed through unhindered. They operate within a time frame allotted to them. God allows it, much like what he allowed Satan to do to His servant Job. The whole time, his friends were just figuring he messed up somewhere and never accounted his condition to an outside angelic attack. Did didn't give no never-mind to their ignorance on the matter either.

Somewhere in all that, the souls of the just are purified. I guess what I mean to get at, is that at these national levels, I tend to believe that things operate more in the order of angelic phenomena than we might actually perceive, as opposed to just men doing stuff. It’s got to be more of a heavyweight battle going on than just the common actions of men on a large scale.

Always, it is the helpless and little people that are being fought over.

That’s one of the reasons why I don’t see clarity and simplicity in this matter of going to war, and what direction to take it in. I think the picture is bigger and needs more than a cursory analysis.

One area of reflection that clogs up the whole works, at least for me, is the origin of Faith, or lack thereof, in our country. I don’t perceive us as a Christian country. What I see is a pagan nation; that throws a monkey-wretch into the way I look at everything; into the justness of the actions we take, the motivation… you name it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Did didn't give no never-mind to their ignorance on the matter either.

I meant, God didn't..., that is.

lol. I had Him down as the great been there, done that. lol! Sorry God. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

"but still . . . it makes me wonder, what if I had been born then and there..."

You know, I really have no idea either. I can only assume that the things God does must fall into place, and that it is our only job to keep true to His revelations.

The question I think is beyond any of us; I used to struggle with that question, but finally came to the conclusion that all I really needed to do was just make an act of the will to believe that God is an all good God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Hey Emerald,

Thanks a bunch for great insights. Yes, Clinton, the Teflon man, he did seem to just glide through riccocheting bullets! It was quite frustrating to watch. I do believe that men in power are surrounded in ways we cannot imagine with angelic hosts and demonic powers.

I really can see both sides of this argument. That's why I hadn't posted anything on the "war" sites until after the war broke. It would have been much better to see Saddam eaten up with worms as was the fate of King Herod.

I don't see this nation as being Christian either. One of things that has bothered me is calling this thing a "Christian cause." I have a friend who seems to think George Bush has been put in office to "avenge the deaths of the martyrs," which is really frightening -- to think that she and others like her would condone, and even support, an endless battle of "justice" i.e., vengeance. SCARY! Stoking the fires of Jihad!

I gotta go. It's getting late.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 10, 2003.

Bob M. Yes I'm sure I'm not a democrat. The only decent one in this century was John Kennedy. The others were not worth two cents. We Got the Federal reserve bank under Wilson, plus the income tax, Roosevelt lied us into a war, Truman and Johnson fought no win wars, although Nixon was no better. Clinton, a disgrace. No I do not care for democrats. I only want companies to work without profit during wartime. During WW2 the companies were taxed 90%.Yes I voted two elections for Howard Phillips, a real American pro-lifer. Even better than Buchanan. Ron Paul of Texas is the congressman I respect the most.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 10, 2003.

Emerald,

".....someone sail through obstacle after obstacle, to watch them counter resistance with great ease, is an indication of helps and “blessings” from the dark side....."

Perfectly said. How I wish if all the Christians around the world discerned and see things through the eyes of God.

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (crusaders_warship@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

What would be a "Christian cause"? We just liberated captives. Isn't that a Christian cause? We will soon be feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, taking care of the wounded and ill... aren't these acts of mercy Christian?

Isn't the primary "cause" for Christians one of witnessing to the truth about man and about God's love for humanity? And wasn't part of the tyranny and tyrants the eclipse of the truth about the dignity of the human person who is rational and free?

Didn't our unsurpassed concern for avoiding civilian deaths and destruction - not only of essential infrastructure but also of mosques and antiquities tell them that we respect them far more than their overlords ever did?

Even the military's response to the looters: they are only taking things from government, Baath, and UN componds - which were empty anyway and whose "owners" were either dead or exiled... aren't we showing them that we are "on the side of the poor and dispossessed, the down trodden who were robbed not only of freedom but also of dignity, possessions and careers?

When the blacks riot and loot in THIS country, the Media doesn't have a cow. They drone on endlessly about social justice and why it's OK and how understanding we have to be of their plight... but look how negatively they are reacting to looters in Iraq! VERY INTERESTING.

If this liberation of Iraq is not a Christian cause because it reflects our ideals and belief about God and man...then what is a Christian cause?

Wasn't Somalia also a Christian cause? (Bush '41 sent in troops to stop a famine and restore order and peace...Clinton changed the mandate to include "nation-building" which translated into a double strategy: pull out all US armour while simultaneously antagonizing every available war-lord....a disaster in the making).

And you people still think this country is not a Christian country because we have a culture war going on! Earth to space-cadets, earth to space-cadets... Christian countries ALWAYS look like a chaotic mix of the City of God and the City of man, because each of us individually are waging a civil war with sin on a daily basis - so how could a nation of such individuals be any different?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

What do you propose these newly liberated poor masses do? Stay home and starve? Wait until some self-appointed bureaucrats move into all these government buildings, palaces, and UN embassies and take control of these possessions that were purchased at top dollar while the common Iraqi citizen starved?

I say, if looting is appropriate at all (and no one says the Blacks were evil and wrong or unfree when they looted in Cincinnati or LA or Detroit, or New York...) then it's appropriate for Iraqis who are just taking back what belongs to them!

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

We are a Christian country? We've killed 40 million innocent Americans in the past 30 years.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

Can we use this argument for against the IRS?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 11, 2003.

Joe (and other Joe people),

JPII doesn't think we act Christian here in the USA or in Europe. I like this from JPIIs Gospel Of Life

24. It is at the heart of the moral conscience that the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, with all its various and deadly consequences for life, is taking place. It is a question, above all, of the individual conscience, as it stands before God in its singleness and uniqueness.(18) But it is also a question, in a certain sense, of the "moral conscience" of society: in a way it too is responsible, not only because it tolerates or fosters behaviour contrary to life, but also because it encourages the "culture of death", creating and consolidating actual "structures of sin" which go against life. The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life. A large part of contemporary society looks sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to the Romans. It is composed "of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can build the earthly city without him, "they became futile in their thinking" so that "their senseless minds were darkened" (1:21); "claiming to be wise, they became fools" (1:22), carrying out works deserving of death, and "they not only do them but approve those who practise them" (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls "evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness.

Christian in name only means nothing. It means we have the right to be vomited out of God's mouth.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

The Bagdad's archeological museum has been looted. The world's history is poorer. Our American liberators don't care. They were given a list of museums to protect (by the UN). They were too busy, they couldn't put there 1 tank. Glory to our American cultural victory. Soon they will have McDonalds...

-- Andrew Finder (Andrew44@hotmail.com), April 12, 2003.

You people are ridiculous.

The Gospel of Life was not written with the United States solely in mind - If you've ever been to Europe you'll know the depths of depravity which Western man has reached - and its a lot ALOT worse than what we have here because there, there is virtually no social or cultural opposition to: abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality, promiscuity, pornography, atheism, and rampant State socialism...

Whereas in the the New World, while "we" Americans are a mixed bag, we do have an active culture war going on - in other words, we are actively engaging the culture for conversion and counter-cultural witnessing!

So I take umbrage with your simplistic and false lumping all Americans into the same boat as though "We" are all 100% to blame for Abortion or al the evils of the world.

As for unfortunate looting... You are an idiot. What's more important? Freedom from tyranny and repression or antiquities? What a stupid, snide, snickering fellow you are! Rather than see all the good that has come and all the evil that has departed, you focus on inconvience, imperfection, and temporary chaos!

On the one hand you lump all Americans together (judging the evildoers with the good) and then somehow blame the US Army for any lack of self control of newly freed and desperately poor Iraqis who have NEVER lived a day of their lives without fear of brutality.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Joe

The Gospel of Life was not written with the United States solely in mind

Who are you responding too? Can't be me, I didn't say or imply it.

If you've ever been to Europe you'll know the depths of depravity which Western man has reached

It may be that Europe has decayed worse than the USA. Some parts of it may have decayed less. But the disease is the same. We are from their stock and it stands to reason that it could be only a matter of time for us to catch up. We certainly have enough material wealth (mammon) to corrupt us if we let it. And if we in America were so morally stellar, I'm sure we'd be regarded as a role model for all the world by the Catholic Church leadership. I have not seen such commendations given to the USA.

This helps me: Generally it is healthier to take my own (nation's) moral inventory, be hard on myself, and consider possible excuses for other people's wrongs, especially if there is any doubt about my own ability to assess another's situation.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

Now that the Iraqis are liberated, they are "liberating" everything that is not nailed down.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Cowboy, forgive the stupid Iraquis who don't understand that going free to a McDonald is better than the cultural history old just 4000 years. Every Iraqui should now be happy. The tyrany is over. (The historical richies too but that is the right price to pay for the free McDonals). Glory to our American military logic! Once again we helped the stupid world who is not thanksful enough. Never mind if only we have our will.

-- Andrew Finder (Andrew44@hotmail.com), April 12, 2003.

Joe,

"we" Americans are a mixed bag

Very mixed, so mixed that there is barely a true Catholic left. We have dissolved into it and formed a modern homogeneous solution. The portion of Catholics found in America are often nominal at best, meaning that few of them in this country are truly united to the Pope and Magisterium. Thus it will be no surprise when America follows Europe's ways more fully, day by day.

What is Americanism?

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between Catholics and their fellow Americans now in moral outlook or religious practice. We fornicate at the same rate. We divorce at the same rate. We abort our children at the same rate. We are materially rich and so, in true chauvinistic fashion, we claim favored-nation status before the Lord." That unflattering judgment appears in a recent article on Americanism by Father Rory Conley, a Washington, DC priest and student of Church history. Writing in (winter 1993), he calls what has happened "the triumph of Americanism over the Roman Catholic Church in this country."

(from EWTN article AMERICANISM: THEN AND NOW by Russell Shaw)

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Catholics and their fellow Americans now in moral outlook or religious practice. We fornicate at the same rate. We divorce at the same rate." That unflattering judgment appears in a recent article on Americanism by Father Rory Conley, ACTUALLY, I WOULD HOPE THAT FATHER RORY CONLEY DOESNT FORNICATE AT THE SAME RATE AS THE AVERAGE AMERICAN

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 12, 2003.

OK so let me get this straight: The war was "bad" because none of you felt good about it. But now that it's over and all the doom and gloom predictions - made by Arabs, Frenchmen, and Leftists (and a handful of so-called Rightists) have not come to pass...but that doesn't matter because you were so SURE it was "unjust" that nothing short of the 2nd coming would make you change your "sophisticated minds".

So eager are you to find SOMETHING WRONG with the new state of affairs, that you fail to see the irony in prefering "law and order" of a police-state to a little temporary looting. Then you equate McDonalds with freedom and imply that the Iraqis would have been better off under the staus quo ante bellum (little bit of latin there for you sophisticates).

Yep, as far as you are all concerned freedom of 22 million people is not worth the effort. Neither is the recent discovery of a nuclear program and biological lab trucks. Nope, because YOU weren't FOR it, nothing makes it good.

And not only are you content with implying that a fascist like Saddam was OK and his reign of terror was "acceptible" and the world would have been better off with further UN imposed economic slavery, you also claim that the USA is more immoral than any other nation and hence has no moral justification for even existing.

Well, shame on you all. You lump the good in with the bad. You equate freedom with license, and looting for capitalism. You imply utter abuse of human rights with law and order, and suggest that the USA has no moral authority because some Americans are sinners. (I wonder who? Couldn't be 90% of those peaceniks now could it???).

No. I make the distinctions required of nuanced and intelligent thinkers. The Bush Administration has the moral high ground. Not EVERY American. And among all Western nations, our current government is better than ANY - morally and professionally. And as for faithful Catholics, even with all our warts and failings, the Church in the US is stronger than ANY in Europe - spare none, because we are faithful and counter-cultural in the face of the strongest opponents.

Your ideas of what should have happened is irrelevant. Your judgements of this war and aftermath smack of flippancy. Your understanding of how God works in human history is abysmal. The US Revolution is filled with Catholic principles and as De Tocqueville told us in 1835, Catholicism will inevitably be the only Christian group left in the US (counterpoised with Buddhism).

You idiots want your world presented on a platinum platter - and sneer if anything is presented on gold! It's not enough that we defeated the Middle East's strongest power, spared millions, liberated millions and are on the verge of changing the geo-political situation forever. Because YOU PEA BRAINS weren't for it, it HAS TO BE BAD...JUST BECAUSE.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

The Bush propaganda machine is far more successful than ever. These people have been killing each other long before Columbus discovered this land, and will coninue every chance that they get.

I thought weapons of mass destruction was the reason, not freeing people half a world away. The people truly are sheeple.

-- .N.O.T.. Taken in (truth@atnopropaganda.com), April 12, 2003.

Joe

I don't want to bother understanding your mouthy rude name-calling post? It is dripping with arrogance. I hope you feel better and write a more civilized one real soon. Peace

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

You're calling ME rude??!!! You are so stupid and blind as to not understand that to dismantle the WMD we had to overthrown that regime and that the necessary result of both actions would be the liberation of the enslaved Iraqi people?

You think there's anything ruder than claiming that the US has no right to self defense and that said defense can not be moral if it brings about the freedom of millions of human beings?

Neither of you care about freedom? Neither of you care that Marines have found biological, chemical and nuclear elements - and the means to deliver them,INCLUDING non-Iraqi terrorists???!!

Neither of you care...how the hell do you propose we help people on this earth if we sit back and let tyrants amass weaponry and conduct reigns of terror while the meally-mouthed UN elites let them get away with every abuse under the sun?? The UN has NO MORAL AUTHORITY. Name one country it has helped without the US Armed forces providing the backbone?

It's obvious to me that you hate Bush - and prefer tyrants and dictators - both Marxist and Fascists and atheistic European socialists... it's also obvious to me that you are no friends of freedom as you liken it to automatic depravity and chaos.

God have pity on us if the Church is split down the middle with idiots like you guys. IDIOTS. Comes from the Greek: Idios. Loner, loser, individual... no concept of subsidierity, no concept of solidarity, no feeling of compassion for the enslaved, no understanding of the responsibility to protect the common good from unjust aggressors... none whatsoever. You are born to whine, bicker, complain, see a trifling of imperfection as though it alone would take away all glory from a great good...

And then after drawing moral equivalents between polar opposites, calling evil good and good evil, and suggesting that there exists no authority on earth for good but the ones who promote the worst moral depravity... you have the gall to say I am rude???!!

Outraged and aghast, yes. Rude, no. If you had nobility and a shred of decency (to say nothing of a bit of coherent argument) then perhaps...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Now repeat after me children:

1) Every person on earth has dignity given by God which includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of beatitude.

2) Regardless of one's culture, race, form of government, every human being has certain inalienable rights which no law can remove.

3) When a person has power to protect the innocent and correct the evil doer, but does not act, that person is guilty of a sin of omission.

4) Might does not make anything right. But great power brings great responsibility - the key then is how we use this power - for good or for evil and it is only just when for good.

5) Wars of liberation are good because liberty is good. 6) Wars that depose ruthless and irrational tyrants are good when fought in such a way as to spare civilians and their environment.

7) The great liberation of Iraq is an unqualified blessing for those people. Now that they are free, their responsibility for their own future is begining to take root - with our continued help (subsidierarity and solidarity).

8) Freedom not fear is the engine driving the human race because one needs to be free in order to love.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Joe,

I havn't talked about Iraq in my posts to you on this thread, nor politics. You are arguing with a Phantom. I have only commented on people who wrongly think America is a nation of holy saints. Nothing directly to do with Iraq or the war. I commented only on small parts of things you said. The rest you wrote may have been important but I had no current interest in discussing it.

These were my topics:

"JPII doesn't think we act Christian here in the USA or in Europe. I like this from JPIIs Gospel Of Life..."

"It may be that Europe has decayed worse than the USA. Some parts of it may have decayed less. But the disease is the same...."

"...The portion of Catholics found in America are often nominal at best, meaning that few of them in this country are truly united to the Pope and Magisterium..."

No Iraq, No war, No politics.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 12, 2003.

Joe, you're scaring me. =) Just kidding.

Your obvious frustration getting people to agree with you, Joe, in a way makes a point for me... I mean the one about a Catholicism of social progress, ecumenism, nationalism, economics and politics being inherently incapable fulfilling the apostolic charge.

This is not the job of Catholicism.

What you've got here is brand of Catholicism which encorporates human endeavor and strategy to, in a manner of speaking, sell a concept of religious and social progress in the modern world.

To really win, we must lose.

I have always attempted to indicate the fact this new Catholicism would never work; that it's demise is a foregone conclusion, and that the enemy would be the one to reap the profits. But you know, that's not really my idea, and it is not even me that's saying it... it is the Catholicism of the ages, of Faith of the Saints that vindicates these ideas as Truth.

The reason why a Catholicism of progress won't work is for the self- same reason that you cannot get people to agree with you in the forum here. People are not changed in this way; they are not saved in this way, it is of the ways of mere men, and the dilemma of people is not any such a vincible temporal opponent; not at all a flesh and blood enemy.

Give people a well reasoned layout of the truth, but few will accept, and those that do are predisposed to accepting truth based on good will and grace. Holiness and virtue cannot be taught, and reason is enslaved by the will. Converts cannot be won by stealth of reasonings.

As at the time of Christ when the Jews were expecting a warrior-king liberator of a Messiah, we too in the Church in this day and age are speaking and acting of the same. This Sunday the crowds will wave palm branches and cheer the true Messiah, but next Friday, they will crucify Him, and He will walk the path in solitude, abandoned even by the Father. Salvation is made in such ways.

If the ages of the Holy Roman Church were in any way to reflect the life and times of Christ, then a couple hundred years ago in at the pinnacle of Christendom we have seen our sermons on the mount, our great preaching and gathering of the disciples from the four winds, our great Palm Sunday, but now... now we are the marginalized King not-of-this-world, walking and falling the path to death in seeming weakness and defeat.

"If he is really the Son of God, let him save himself."

Then He just died. Today's Catholic Church is walking the Hill to the crucifixion, not to glory. It is effecting the means of it's salvation; it's day of triumph will come, but it is not now. Suffering and death are the Food we must eat now.

Every person on earth has dignity given by God which includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of beatitude.

Here comes the twister. This, imho, is an attempt to take something of a modern concept and attempt to canonize it. The legitimacy of the word rights is actually a difficult case to make; it is arguably contrary to the Faith. Rights are not supported in the schema of Catholicism, and their existence in light of the true condition and destiny of humanity is doubtful. Rights are a novel and nebulous beyond definition.

Rights are not Catholic doctrine. Rights are an expression of individual sovereignty of the will, demarking the territory of that same will by an exclusionary principle, a principle that is foreign to a participating membership in a mystical body.

The concept of rights runs counter to the condition and predicament of man laid out in the doctrines of the Faith. Man has not a right to anything; all good things are a blessing to man. Man is fallen and incapable of saving Himself. Man is by default damned until remedied by the salvific Sacraments. Man has a will to choose but bears this responsibility in fear and trembling, in the words of Christ.

Given the condition of man and His dire need for the Savior to turn His attention in His direction in love, the very thought of rights seems to me a clanging cymbol in the ear of Our Lord, in the light of the gravity of His Sorrowful Passion.

Christ never spoke eloquently of human prowess, human endeavor, human success. He spoke this:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

The way I hear those words, they ring the town bell in my head, and it sounds like this: Extra Poor In Spirit, Nulla Solus.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those...

And so on.

The way of salvation is littleness. Great greatness is borne of littleness; it is the rule of opposites. If we play out the advancement of Catholicism in the world using the same tactics that are in the vein of the world, we will lose. Our enemies will be able to go so much further in this vein than we can, before we will inevitably have to fall short for fear of going any further, because the Name of goodness binds us from doing so.

To do so would be a species of living by the sword. We would die by it... and we are dying by it as we speak. We are losing right now while we play out our Catholicism in the vein of the world. Sleeping with the enemy will ruin us.

When the time comes for the warriors of God to act in His name, they will be invincible.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

A blessed and peaceful Palm Sunday to all.

Today the Pope asked for us to all have solidarity with the Iraqi people. The least we can do is cease to lump 22 million in with a couple thousand looters. The least we can do is pray for peace through a new just order of things.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

Now that that's over, Looks like Syria is next. Hiding those Iraquis that escaped.

-- why (Who@what.com), April 13, 2003.

To justify his theory of a just war, he cites Fr. D'Azeglio: ""The war should be just because it is a work of rational men, who intend to reestablish order. The order, then, can be violated either by error or deliberate malice."

That's fine unless we question the sanity of those who wield the power to wage war, as in the present case. Is it their intention to "to reestablish order..violated by error or deliberate malice"? That's a hoot considering that America slaughters one and a half million innocents a year -- 40 million to date, which is a number more than what Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and even Saddam have murdered in their collective lifetimes. 40 million since nine (take one or two dissidents) senile members of the Supremes decided that it's okay to slaughter ala Herod, except Herod murdered the living. If our leaders were rational men, in the Thomist or Augustinian context, the first order of business would be to undo the despicable practice of abortion. But as Mrs. Laura Bush said, this administration will not overturn the law of Roe v. Wade. So the slaughter goes on.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

First let me address emerald... sometimes you come up with valid points, but you have said something really unthoughtful this time. The catholic church does not have the authority to say that saddam hussien killing his own people is wrong?? ARE YOU NUTS? The catholic church is the only thing in the world that i would expect to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong. A tyrant is GONE because members of christianity stood together for what is right. yes, we stood against the rest of the world. Who the hell cares, chiraq is saddams boyfriend, and lets not forget that if given the chance, saddam will try to carry out jihad on all christians. But its not the job of christians to stop sin in the world, we shouldnt stand against evil, right emeril? WRONG. when we see grave transgressions against the basic rights of humanity as given to each man by GOD regardless of their nationality it is our fundamental duty to put an end to such violations. i think you are confusing the idea of blessed are the meek and humble to mean blessed are they who see a murderer butchering people and do nothing to stop him

Second Point on a quote "That's fine unless we question the sanity of those who wield the power to wage war, as in the present case. Is it their intention to "to reestablish order..violated by error or deliberate malice"? That's a hoot considering that America slaughters one and a half million innocents a year -- 40 million to date, which is a number more than what Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and even Saddam have murdered in their collective lifetimes. 40 million since nine (take one or two dissidents) senile members of the Supremes decided that it's okay to slaughter ala Herod, except Herod murdered the living. If our leaders were rational men, in the Thomist or Augustinian context, the first order of business would be to undo the despicable practice of abortion. But as Mrs. Laura Bush said, this administration will not overturn the law of Roe v. Wade. So the slaughter goes on."

Let me present to you a classic case of ad hominem logical fallacy. Lacking a better point as to why we shouldnt have gone to war, this idiot is pointing to something completely unrelated and picking at that. The truth of the matter is that abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue. saddam has ordered the deaths of four million people and youre going to justify that with "abortion happens here"? I dont think so... let me remind you of a simple little saying that you have obviously forgotten: TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 13, 2003.

The Iraqi's are being liberated alright, to the tune of 3 TRILLION dollars worth or oil. They said it was not about oil, but I read an article in the business section of the newspaper yesterday, that up to 3 Trillion dollars worth of oil revenue in the upcoming decades is up to for grabs. Guess what country's oil companies are getting the oil?

The US and Britain!!! Surprised?

Iraq was a society of have's and have not's, like any society. Which part of their society do you believe was celebrating in the streets? Yeah, the have not's!

3 Trillion dollars worth of oil up for grabs, by US and British oil companies, makes the cost of the war, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq's infastructure cheap by comparison.

The people of Iraq have been liberated. Of their oil!!!

Now the American and British oil companies control the second biggest oil reserves in the world, the power that OPEC had, has just become meaningless! Those same American and British oil companies can open the flood gates of oil at anytime they want, to drive the price down.

If you think for a second this had anything to do with liberating the people of Iraq, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

Thanks Paul.

Emerald, I think you're operating from a basic historical mistake - your theory about Catholicism being the small way and anti-progress way.... Here goes.

You claim that the high point of Christianity was the 12th century, that "age of faith". But wait a second. The 12th century was the culmination of centuries of work by men to convert their pagan cultures.... In other words, it was a re-birth and improvement on the faith that preceeded them! Did not the Church come out on top of the Roman culture, only to then undergo a long twilight from the 500's through the 1100's??? But then we came out with the Gothic cathedrals, the universities, Thomas Aquinas, the Franciscans, the Dominicans... all is hunky dory...until the Black Plague wiped out that generation, and the Mongol invasion shattered the high middle ages... leading to the disasterous 13th and 14th centuries that created the conditions for the Protestant revolt, the rise of atheism etc.

You seem to be implying that we're doomed. That we can never again re- take the vanguard of culture and must be content with living like the Amish while this world goes to hell.

I don't understand why you think we can't right now in this next generation take over. But the temptation to think its impossible is a strong one since it basically exonerates us from doing anything seriously about it!

Regarding Abortion... yes 40 million children, yes, perhaps 25 million women with that crime on their consciences...yes, maybe 30 million men who have lived promiscuously fathering souls only to abandon them... 50-60 million adults in the US with this on their consciences... So that makes us all sinners whom God MUST WIPE OUT?

Sorry but that analysis is not Catholic. God offers us forgiveness - isn't that what Easter is about? Do you doubt God's mercy? Half the women in the pro-life movement have had abortions! People convert. That alone shows me that there is hope!

As for the just retribution of God...is not the loss of life itself enough retribution? What more could God do to us that we haven't suiffered ourselves?

What would be more glorious for God to do? wipe out the USA or convert it into a spring time of Catholic fervor the likes of which has never been seen - and use this great generation to re-ignite the faith in all the 3rd world nations which hitherto have not had the chance to know Jesus?

I think some of you need a shot of faith, hope, and charity.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

Now I think I'm going down to the well tonight, and I'm going to drink till I get my fill. And I hope when I get old I don't sit around thinking about it, but I probably will... yeah, just sitting back trying to recapture a little of the glorea. Well time slips away and leaves you with nothing, mister, but boring stories of Glory Days.

Is this what you think I'm alluding to? I think you are misreading me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

3 Trillion dollars worth of oil up for grabs, by US and British oil companies, makes the cost of the war, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq's infastructure cheap by comparison.

The people of Iraq have been liberated. Of their oil!!!

Actually, i cant tell you how wrong you are. after reestablishing a democratically elected government, the iraqi people will be allowed to choose who they want to sell their oil to... namely the highest bidder. perhaps then the people will actually see some money from the government, you know, be able to buy food and shelter for their families. If you think america is profiting off this war, i can tell you youre wrong. no bridge needed, america had no oil contract with iraq before, and its not stealing iraqs oil now. if anything its going to buy the oil at a fair price

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 13, 2003.

Some excerpts from Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, 1658:

The fifth period of the Church, which began circa 1520, will end with the arrival of the holy Pope and of the powerful Monarch who is called "Help From God" because he will restore everything. The fifth period is one of affliction, desolation, humiliation, and poverty for the Church. Jesus Christ will purify His people through cruel wars, famines, plagues, epidemics, and other horrible calamities. He will also afflict and weaken the Latin Church with many heresies. It is a period of defections, calamities and exterminations. Those Christians who survive the sword, plague and famines, will be few on earth. Nations will fight against nations and will be desolated by internecine dissensions. Are we not to fear during this period that the Mohamedans will come again working out their sinister schemes against the Latin church.

During this period, many men will abuse of the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude the Apostle spoke when he said, "These men blaspheme whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.'" They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. "These are the evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. but God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down churches and destroy everything.

During this period the Wisdom of God guides the Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the Council of Trent like a light in the darkness, so that the Christians who see the light may know what to believe, 3) by setting St. Ignatius and his Society in opposition to Luther and other heretics; 4) by carrying to remote lands the Faith which has been banned in most of Europe.

During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh.

They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretation, modification, and delimitation by man.

These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything.

Interesting stuff. Of course, people will scream for verification. One way for me to do that would be by taking advantage of the law of large numbers; instead of getting absolute verification of the authenticity of the above texts, I can simply post remarkably similiar stuff in the writings of hundreds of mystic Saints... it would save time and effort and produce the inductive effect.

Which is easier to get the point across?

Of course the Church will vanquish it's enemies. The question is not if but when and how. What will be the modus operandi?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

Ooops; I forgot an important one for Holzhauser:

For, although, in the Fifth Age, we saw everywhere the most deplorable calamities: whereas all is devastated by war; that the Church and its members are rendered tributaries; that the subjects are tormented and that all men conspire to erect republics: man himself will be so astonishingly changed by the hand of God, such that no one can imagine humanity. For the powerful monarch, who will come like an envoy of God, will destroy the republics thoroughly in climax; he will subdue all to his will and will employ his zeal in favor of the true Church of Christ. All the heresies will be relegated to hell. The empire of the Turks will be broken and this monarch will reign in the orient and in the occident. All the nations will come and adore the Lord their God in the true Catholic and Roman faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

Emerald,

Nice quote from Ven. Holzhauser, a German perhaps? God loves Germans. :-)

It seems to me that all that finery in Rome will have to be wiped out too, eventually. And the Asians need a better chance to find Christ in the Catholic Church before the return of Christ happens. hmmmm

I quote from the Gospels to demonstrate the truth of that worldly temptation you mentioned Emerald. The modern temptation of the holy Catholic Church is this: "Politics, it's all about politics."

And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours." And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" Luke4:5-8

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 13, 2003.

Totally and completely, Mike. I was just digging in the dirt, to find the places we got hurt. Check these things in the same vein as yours:

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?

Then:

One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?" Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.

"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

This is a real kicker. I love this passage:

"What is truth?" Pilate asked.

I think he was being honest. I alse think he should have listened to his wife, huh? lol. On the other hand, lucky us and Oh happy fault.

We cannot face these opponents on the open field of battle using their tactics. We come straggling to the battlefield ill-equipped to do battle with supreme and well supplied forces. The tactics must shift back in the direction of the tactics that tap our true wealth of a supply line: prayer and sacrifice, self denial, suffering and non-recognition, resignation to God's will, and the whole world- contrarian bag of tricks.

This is what the enemy truly fears. It's easy and fun for the enemy to poke and prod the baby cub, at least until the comical point at which he looks up and melts in the fierce focus of the suddenly available momma bear.

I'm a gun lover myself, and not exactly what one might call a peacenik by common standards. But know your enemy, know yourself. Look what we are up against. We couldn't save ourselves before, and we can't now, and the One that will come crashing through the clouds in glory sometime in the future is the same one that stands crucified on our altars right now. We have to imitate Him, not the world.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

Funny things those propheses... funny because being vague enough men of every generation can apply them to their own times... how does 1870 sound to you? The Atheistic and anti-Catholic forces of the Italian REPUBLIC invaded Rome and laid waste to the Papal States...

Or was it refering to WWII?

Ah, how tricky are those little private revelations!

But wait, could the monarch not be Bush? How do you know? Who's to judge?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

Joe

But wait, could the monarch not be Bush? How do you know? Who's to judge?

They are all correct. There is a crescendo of similar events. Each new one stronger than the first. The birth pangs as Jesus says. Going into labor doesn't offer just one contraction.

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. Mark 13:8

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 13, 2003.

This help from God, this king who rules in submissive tandem with a great pontiff, is most undoubtedly a Catholic.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich:

I had a vision of the holy Emperor Henry. I saw him at night kneeling alone at the foot of the main altar in a great and beautiful church. ...and I saw the Blessed Virgin coming down all alone. She laid on the altar a red cloth covered with white linen. She placed a book inlaid with precious stones. she lid the candles and the perpetual lamp. Then came the Saviour Himself clad in priestly vestments. He was carrying the chalice and the veil. Two angels were serving Him and two more were following... Although there was no altar bell, the cruets were there. The wine was as red as blood, and there was also some water. The Mass was short. The Gospel of St. John was not read at the end. When the Mass had ended, Mary came up to Henry, and she extended her right hand towards him, saying that it was in recognition of his purity. Then she urged him not to falter. Thereupon I saw an angel, and he touched the sinew of his hip, like Jacob. Henry was in great pain; and from that day on he walked with a limp.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

> "Actually, i cant tell you how wrong you are. after reestablishing a democratically elected government, the iraqi people will be allowed to choose who they want to sell their oil to... namely the highest bidder."

Paul, that's not true. It will be controlled by US and British oil companies, and I read it in the business section of the newspaper. You can read it right here.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.

American blood for Iraqi oil. Not a bad deal for the power brokers.Now they can light their cigars with thousand dollar bills, instead of hundreds.

-- why (who@what.com), April 14, 2003.

It will be controlled by US and British oil companies, and I read it in the business section of the newspaper.

actually, i dont buy that newspaper article... the truth of the matter is that i am a very conservative catholic and in a world where the media is controlled by media moguls who are every bit worse than any oil tycoon because they prey on peoples morbid interest in order to fan the flames of sensationalism. I cant imagine an industry that makes me sicker than one that sells lies to earn 50 cents for every paper they put out. the truth of the matter is that the media has the loyalty of hitler. the fact that you believe them is even worse. most mainstream media sources, globe included, uphold such things as stem cell research and the like. as a catholic, i urge you to not take heed of the media, why dont you watch and see where the money for the iraq oil goes... i can tell you right now though, that its going back to the people

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.

Paul like you I am a conservative Catholic, and the Globe is liberal on a lot of issues, but not on business. I tend to read the National Post, as that is more conservative overall.

Iraqi's are going to get a fairer share of the oil wealth this time, but that does not mean a fair share, as oil companies who will be spending billions to upgrade those facilities, will deal very hard with any Iraqi government. Oil companies have a history in Iraq, British Protroleum that is, of giving the Iraqi's very little money from the exploitation of their oil. That's why Iraq nationalized their oil industry in 1972.

Also Iraq is heavily in debt, and the IMF and World Bank want to give them new loans to rebuild their society, but those two evil institutions have a long history of enslaving nations to more debt. Their loans always have strings attached that benefit corporations in exploiting 3rd world countries like Iraq. This is how the Western world "occupy" countries. Through debt enslavement.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

I was all in favor of the IMF and WB forgiving debts to the poorest 40 countries during the 2000 celebrations. And it makes total sense to forgive debts acquired by dictatorships and otherwise illegitimate regimes who wasted the money on useless things like weapons and palaces...

However, is not stealing against one of the commandments of God? Where does the money come from that is misued? Don't the creditors deserve something?

In other words it's not so cut and dried. If you loaned a country a thousand dollars and 20 years later got 0 in return (not even your principle back) wouldn't you feel robbed?

Or is it NOT a sin to steal from the rich?

What exactly is your moral principle you are invoking by a cry for sweeping forgiveness of debt?

How do other peoples and countries climb out of debt? For that matter, how do people create wealth to begin with?

I think some people believe that wealth is static and merely shared rather than something dynamic which can be created by human ingenuity.

The trick is to balance the demands of justice (returning someone's principle) with mercy (not charging them interest).

In the case of Honduras which suffered a massive hurricane or El Salvador which suffered earthquakes, forgiveness of the principle and interest debt seems reasonable since all available funds are required for immediate humanitarian relief. But other countries which have immediate resources on hand to repay at least the principle should be expected - as a matter of honor and justice - to do so.

If you think that's unfair still, try practicing what you preach. How many Peace or anti-IMF protesters are willing to simply give money away?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Someone on National Review Online asked a very good question in light of the current Iraqi situation: was Berlin better off in 1939 or 1946?

In other words, just because the capital of Germany had law and order, trains running on time and the trash regularly picked up (along with thousands of "enemies of the regime" who subsequently were liquidated), does that make it qualitatively (key word) better than the Berlin smashed, chaotic, and divided into 4 zones but free of Nazism in 1946?

From a strictly materialistic point of view, and avoiding any thought to the moral situation, capital cities under dictatorships seem to be far more "sane" and "orderly" than cities which are governed in the free-wheeling style of liberal democracy and captialism.

But material concerns are only half of the equation (or should be) right? Moral concerns *(such as political, religious, and social freedom) should also be part of the mix, yet up to now at least in the balance of most Media accounts and punditry this qualitatively different dimension is only mentioned in passing. The so- called "peace" zealots don't mention it at all.

'Yeah, sure, they're free but look at all the damage... Yeah sure they're no longer terrorized but look how poor they are... the trains don't run on time...garbage in the streets, lawlessness...' (*funny how anarchists in various "Peace demonstrations" are somehow AGAINST Iraqi anarchy!)

In other words, these critics look at Iraq as a disaster because they focus on material issues - ignoring all the moral ones.

And their Catholic anti-war allies fall into the same trap - no mention made to the goodness of liberty or the opportunity this gives us all to forge friendships through charity, solidarity, and support with the Iraqi people - who may after time be favorably inclined towards Christianity if they see us embracing such values as solidarity and support of their liberty and moral worth...

Instead we have constant sniping, complaining, blame mongering bemoaning the loss of peripheral things while ignoring the essential things.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Joe, you question the validity of criticism against the IMF and World Bank. You think they give that money as a straight loan, with no strings attached beyond paying for the principal and interest back?

Case in point, Jamaica got IMF/World Bank loans to open up sweatshops in a "free trade" zone. Those zones are free of taxation by the Jamaican government. The people who work in those sweatshops are paid, just enough to live on. They are not paid a dime more to be able to save money, and improve their lives. They have no worker rights at all, and they have to work insane number of hours.

For Jamaica to get that loan, they had to open up their milk industry to American milk products. American milk is subsidized by the American government by over 100 percent the cost of producing the milk. The result, the END of the Jamaican milk industry, by American subsidized milk. The American corporations pressure the IMF/World Bank to get countries to open their markets in the interests of free trade, but it's far from a level playing field.

Those sweatshops, stay open till the business men that run those places, find a cheaper place elsewhere. When they close, the loans are not only NOT paid back, but with interest are greater than ever. The whole point of the loan in the first place was to improve the standard of living of the average jamaican. The opposite has happened!

Ask yourself, why would the IMF/World Bank ever give loans to countries that have no hope ever paying them back! I will tell you why, because when they give the loan they get concessions for corporations, to exploit those countries. The end result, those poor countries have to rely on those western corporations to survive.

The IMF/World Bank have noble goals, but the result is something so tragic, that they have to be one of the most diabolical organizations that has ever existed. They are evil beyond belief, and they have only one goal, to enslave the nations of the earth.

You ask yourself, if the IMF and World Bank are so smart, why are so many countries so deeply in debt? Would you lend money to someone who you know cannot pay you back? They do it all the time!!! Ask yourself why? Look into it, and you will see, either the guys who run the IMF/World Bank are the biggest idiots around, or they have a diabolical plan.

Iraq piled up 10's of billions of dollars in loans to buy weapons, in it's fight against Iran, by Saddam. Why should the Iraqi people ever have to pay that back? It's unjust!

Also saying that countries should be responsible and pay these loans back, is somewhat laughable considering a lot of these loans are accepted by people who are taking a cut of the loan for themselves. They are not acting in the best interests of their country a lot of times, when they are accepting these unjust loans, and they are unjust because of the concessions that have to be made. Why should they care, as long as they get to line their own pockets! Who suffers in the end, the average citizen in that country. But you talk of being noble in paying your loans back, when the people who accepted the loan are the farthest thing from being noble, as matter of fact they are criminals for saddling unjust debts on their country.

The IMF / World Bank are two of the most diabolical organizations that has ever existed! If not, then they are run by the biggest idiots in the history of the world, for with all the debt owing, you wonder how they could have so mismanaged all that money! They are not idiots, they have a plan, and it's working.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

(Sigh)Gordon, for pete's sake can't you reason on principle rather than just bounce from one example to another?

Go ahead. Make any affirmation at all about anything as being good or being evil and I can play your game of "oh yeah? well what about this or that hard case? huh huh well??..."

Is it or is it not a form of stealing to not repay either the principle or interest on a loan?

If the "universal destiny of goods" allows someone to be exonerated from a burden of justice, then what conditions and criteria are we to use? In other words, I am NOT AGAINST forgiving debts entirely. I just want to know which debts and why.

So then Gordon, you are obviously such an expert on banking matters...what conditions would exonerate a nation or person from having to repay a debt? And unless this is understood as a one-time deal for humanitarian reasons, (jubalees), what's to keep countries from playing this game in the future? (Oh, that 3 Billion? well sorry, THAT was for our project X which isn't really paying for itself...not come on, give us 3 more billion for this Y project...)

Go ahead Gordon, make my day. ;-)

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

Hi Joe, just read all your complete nonsense on this thread, what a joke.... Ill make your day! Time to cut you down to size GI. Ill be back.....

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.

Joe, maybe it's a misunderstanding between us, but I agree, if you take a loan, you should pay it back. Who should decide the loan should not be paid back, it's the IMF and World Bank, as it's their money. Note that the IMF and World Bank is largely controlled by the members with the biggest voting shares, and that the US and Japan.

Some countries are in position, that with current growth rates, they will NEVER be able to pay the loans back. It surely cannot be just, to expect them to pay it back.

How come we can argue so easily for war to remove a dictator, but asking for loans to be forgiven for just reasons, is all of sudden wrong, because of the principal we should pay our debts back?

The IMF and World Bank, have to decide for themselves, which loans should be forgiven, and if they decide, there is nothing wrong with that. It's their money, and they can do with it as they please. Can the IMF and World Bank afford to forgive the loans it is owed by the poorest 100 countries in the world. Yes, it can, as it stocks of gold is worth more than the combined debt of those countries.

Will the IMF and World Bank forgive those countries their loans. Hell has a greater chance of freezing over. It's like expecting the IMF and World Bank to be a good organization, when they are anything but. They have an agenda, and that is to cater to the powers that be in the Western countries it represents. Those powers that be are corporations that want to exploit the 3rd world for the 1st world's benefit.

Anyway, I had all I have to say on this subject. Do some research on the IMF and World Bank and you will agree, they are either incompetant at what they are doing, as they fail completely at meeting their stated goals, which is the improvement of the countries they give loans to, or they have a hidden agenda, and everything is going according to plan.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

OK I see your point Gordon, and to that degree I agree with you. Any countries that couldn't possibly pay back the interest should be forgiven at least that. No sense killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (a nations economy, their GNP).

As for your opinions regarding the IMF I dunno. I know some of the people that work for them. Next time I see them I'll ask why they're so evil or dumb, or both. ;-)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2003.

You're on to something true Gordon; keep running with it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

For once, I agree with Gordon.

-- Ed Richards (loztr@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Dear Joe

From that great line in the classic movie The Wild Bunch then LETS GO……

Joe your views are not consistent in any way shape or form with a Catholic position on the war, there are plenty of web sites for you to offer your political opinions good one for you would be www. freerepublic.com.

We could discuss why the people of the world, no matter what political persuasion thinks GW is a bellicose insensitive, ignorant obtuse bafoon and probably the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory. We could discuss the historical facts surrounding the last time a foreign power marched through the streets of Bagdad and what happened to them. We could discuss the real reasons why a few of the world’s countries joined the “coalition of the killing”. We could discuss the impact this war has had on the Palestinain issue and the consequences of this. We could discuss the geo political consequences of this war to the region. We could discuss why pea brain Bush will no doubt have had is laziness and arrogance stroked by this “victory” and believes Baghdad is a licence for unrestrained unilateralism and pre- strikes. We could discuss the shattering blow this has dealt the United Nations and the consequences of this. We could discuss the legality of this war under international law… But this is not a forum to spew forth political ideologies, something I have on occasion been guilty of but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the conservative republican positions put forward never the less I shouldn’t have offered my political views.

No decent human being will weep for Saddam and his downfall is wholly welcome. But every Catholic knows that outcomes are not the only consideration in a moral dilemma. Consistently Joe has used a utilitarian “outcomes” based approach to the moral dilemma of this war. His argument is well, “look at the result and weep peaceniks”. Now looking at the outcomes is nothing new and I would like to explain in simple terms what forces Joe and co to do so. What could force them to betray his faith? Ill get back to analysing the obvious problems with Joes approach to moral problems later. But firstly lets look at a Catholic approach to the morality of this war.

I know the weaknesses of natural law from a philosophical viewpoint but philosophers agree on nothing and it remains the basis of Catholic moral philosophy. It flows from the very being of what we are Gods creation. Joes comments fail to appreciate that we do not share Gods full understanding of his divine plan, especially how God will bring greater good out of every evil. We should never forget what it really means to be Christian and this can get lost under the weight of political posturing and ideology.

“So faith, hope, love abide, these three” (1. Cor 13.13) We need to consider not isolated pieces of Scripture supporting force but to think about what it means to be a Catholic. Catholic morality as opposed to Joe’s utilitarianism teaches us that

One who lives in Christian hope will not do even a small evil for the purpose of achieving a great good or avoiding a great deal of hardship”

Joe and his pro war followers need to consider this carefully. One thing is clear. This war is a moral issue and it is the function of the magisterium of the church not President Bush to interpret the moral natural law. It is the role of Catholics to be guided by our Bishops and even more importantly by our Holy Father in issues of utmost moral importance.

Remember war is a moral issue and the Catholic Church in 2000 years has never taught a moral wrong. Whatever you think about infallibility and this issue and I believe we have a duty to follow this moral teaching and understand that under Catholic law and the just war theory this war is not justified. I have not read of one Bishop or theologian outside the US who disputes this, and I will happily challenge Joe to start a new thread on the just war theory trying to argue otherwise. Simply under Catholic law a pre emptive war can only be considered under exceptional circumstances, fulfilling very stringent requirements for just cause and just means especially. These requirements have not been met, not by a long shot.

So how can American Catholic conservative Republicans have got it so wrong? Firstly American history and culture is dominated by the thought that “might is right” and that strength comes through force. Secondly the philosophy that underpins much of what they consider “right” is a new morality centred on outcomes commonly known as utilitarianism. These two key value drivers along with more than a touch of blind nationalism badly corrupt their sense of morality. Both these drivers are in direct contrast to Catholic and Christian principles although in the interests of brevity I will talk about the opposing force of Idealism although I am sure it will be clear to all.

Let’s understand the first driver- the political ideology of Realism. A simple view of the world that should not however be viewed as simple minded. They identify security and the pursuit of autonomy as the central value of states. They believe in peace of course but believe that only through force and power can this be achieved. The roots of this ideology can be traced back to ancient Greece and the grandfather of realism Thucydies 460-400 BC . His one sentence can sum up a realist’s approach to war…

“What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta”

We see the focus is on 1. Power 2. City-state level analysis and 3. The fundamental importance of security. This is the level of complexity that underpins Joes beliefs.

Machiavelli in 1469 refined this train of though to the point where the interests of the state, most importantly its security justified any action. This was important because from a Christian point of view he proposed that even when in conflict with Gods laws the interests of the state remained paramount.

A final important development to realist view of the world is the emphasis on a fundamentally bad human nature. (Although I should point out that this does not necessarily mean that a realist views others as bad but that mankind is inherently bad and one must work with these forces not against them). It is the essential point of difference between opposing perspective’s of mankind (one side says man is essentially good another says man is essentially bad. No prizes for guessing what side of the argument Christianity stands on.

I hope some of you are still with me on this one but it is important to remember that the United States did not undertake this war primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It acted entirely in the interests of US security as it defines them.

I’m running out of steam and time here but finally Joe is clearly also driven by utilitarian principles. Every justification he offers is outcome based. This “new morality” as the church defines it is a great sin against God. Joe clearly and consistently has shown that morality is not a matter of pleasing God but nothing more than an attempt to bring as much happiness as possible to the world. Now we could as I have mentioned argue all night about whether this war does bring happiness for the Iraqi people and the world. But it not matters one iota whether Joe is right and the outcomes are good. The ends to do justify the means Joe my boy and youre stuck with most unwholesome company in your reasoning and logic.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

correction: "the ends do not justify the means" !

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

Kiwi, there are 3 chief requirements for an action to be ethically good according to Catholic doctrine: Intention, action, effect.

Thus giving alms is good - (in effect and act) yet if your intention is to show off, then, subjectively for you it is not good.

Thus too, contraception is bad even if the couple has good intentions because the act and effect contradicts the dignity of the human body and marital state.

It is also Catholic doctrine that individuals may choose to defend themselves agaist an unjust attacker with deadly force - though their intention should be not to kill but to render him incapacitated, if that is possible. If it is not possible, then while the act (to kill) is wrong, it is not considered a sin because individuals have a duty to defend their own lives or the lives of those they are responsible for to a greater degree than the life of an unjust attacker.

Thus in the civil realm law has always made the distinction (going as far back as Leviticus and Hamurabbi) between murder and manslaughter.

Note too, the many Old Testament revelations in which the Lord the "God of Hosts" commands the people to slay opponents - David and Goliath, for example. Wars were fought for the safty of the choosen people. They were not sought out - or entered into for fun. But when it came to it, the civil authorities - the Judges and Kings always had the choice between negotiation or war. Sometimes the Prophets commanded them to declare war. But it wasn't the prophets that declared the war, it was the decision of the King.

Now, in modern times unfortunately when your attacker is coming in a tank or airplane - or walking towards you wearing a suicide vest filled with C4 and ball bearings, negotiation, therapy, Kumba-ya sessions and non-lethal weaponry just won't cut it. But once he surrenders he becomes ipso facto an non-combatant and must be protected. And thus, had been by the US from time immemorial.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Police forces are immoral because they carry firearms and sometimes need to use them on criminals.

Nor does the Catholic Church teach that armed forces are illegitimate or immoral - yet golly gee, Kiwi, if your argument about war is correct, wouldn't armed forces be 'ocasions of sin'?? Wouldn't the manufacture and possession of any firearm consitute a sin?

So what does the Church teach? It teaches that nations have a right to self-defense, and gives the civil authorities ethical guidelines withwhich to make their prudential decisions. No where does the Church abrogate to itself the right to make the decision as to how that defense is to be achieved, provided the guidelines are followed. The decision is up to the civil authorities.

On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and then on Japan. Why Germany? Wasn't Japan the immediate threat? Indeed, why did the US fight in Europe at all? Hitler had not attacked the US! Ah, but the US realized that Japan, Germany, and Italy were working in league - and that a pre-emptive war on Germany would be vital to self-defense and victory over Japan.

Funny, Kiwi, I don't recall the Vatican being upset with the US involvement in the European war in the 40's. Yet, Germany was not at the time (1941) capable of invading, bombing or otherwise directly harming the US mainland was it? The V-1s and V-2's didn't have the range to harm the US so what were we doing there?

I suppose you think the US involvement in WWII was also unjust?

How quickly we forget - when it's convenient. Gotta be careful there Kiwi with you sweeping generalizations. They'll bury you.

This thread was tongue-in-cheek hilarity in response to all those in the Media and pundits who repeatedly broadcast dire predictions of the disaster that awaited the US and Iraq and indeed the world should hostilities break out.

Those against the war routinely mischaracterized the US's intentions (it's for oil, no, it's racism, no, it's hegemony, no it's world domination...), the US's proposed actions (they'll use nukes! they'll indescriminately bomb civilians! they'll torch the oil fields, release WMD, fire-bomb cities, etc), and the expected results or effect (world war 3, clash of civilizations, religious warfare, end of the world).

But all these critics - you included, though I know you didn't make all the above charges - were wrong. AS WRONG AS ANYONE COULD BE!

The intention of the US government was self-defense and not oil or engrandizement. Being self-defense, the US first sought diplomatic assurances from Iraq through the UN that they had no WMD withwhich to threaten the peace and unsettle the status quo. The UN had, UNDER CLINTON determined that Iraq DID HAVE a program for WMD, prior to being kicked out of the country in 1998. The burden of proof for proving that they destroyed the WMD was on the Iraqis, not on the UN!

If they destroyed this stuff, it would be slam-dunk easy for them to have told the world: when, where, how, by whom, and bring the inspectors out to the sites for them to verify "yep they burnt it all in that pit". But Iraq refused - indeed they refused cooperation at all until Bush moved 150,000 troops to Kuwait and surrounding regions.

So we jumped through all the hoops for the world - we waited, we asked, we begged, we looked at our options. But since it was the US that is threatened primarily by Al Qaeda and its state sponsors, the decision ultimately rests on the US civil authorities as to what is "enough".

In Europe during the Balkan wars if you recall, it was the European Union that made all the decisions - without UN security council involvement, and without peace-nik demands that Serbia cease and desist (couldn't be that Serbia was communist now could it?)

And during the shelling of Sarejevo, I distinctly recall the Pope demanding that the "international community" [by the way, does anyone know exactly what that means?] "do something" to stop the bloodshed, including the use of deadly force.

Ah soooooooooooooo. The Pope taught us in the 1990's in the case of the Balkans that it's OK for the West to use deadly force to stop repression, violence, inhumanity and thus create conditions for the justice of order which is the true definition of peace.

But gee Kiwi, if your morality was right and all deadly force is illegitimate and two wrongs don't make a right and no one can choose to do evil that good may come of it.... how do you explain the legitimate uses of force during the last 20 years by all countries from China to Russia to France (Ivory Coast anyone?) to Germany (yes, Germany has troops in Afganistan!

I don't recall any peace-nik or UN outrage over Operation Desert Fox in 1998 wherein Clinton launched 450 cruise missiles into down town Baghdad. Do you? Wasn't that an act of war? So chaulk one up for the hyprocisy of the Media and Left in general - the same ones would knee- jerkedly accuse the Right of being hypocrites!

I also don't recall any overwhelming peace-nik condemnation of the UN for doing NOTHING to stop the genocide in Rwanda (even though the UN, by its charter has an obligation to stop genocide - indeed, that was one of the reasons the august international body was founded in the first place!)

Nor was there any Vatican or UN or peace-nik condemnation of 6 weeks of bombing by the United States in Kosovo and Serbia - no calls for "continued dialogue" or for trying inspectors. Remember the Europeans and UN (minus US) had tried FRUITLESSLY to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans for 5 years prior to the US involvement (which ended all hostilities within weeks).

If what you are arguing is right Kiwi then explain to me why the above cases of US and UN foreign action was OK, but the current engagement is immoral? Not just because someone "says so" but upon what coherent principle? Wars are OK if democrats start and fight them?

As for Bush being stupid.... well let's see - all his opponents, you included feared the worst from the Iraq war. None, NOT ONE of the dire predictions came to pass...

Looks like he wasn't so stupid after all.

Looks like the coalition of 50 countries wasn't so small after all.

Looks like there was no environmental disaster, no widespread civilian death, no nuclear exchange, no world war, no clash of civilization, no eruption of Muslim terrorism... nada.

Neither our intentions, nor our actions, nor the outcomes were illegitimate or immoral. So, the war itself which liberated 22 million Iraqis was not immoral but a just one.

In the case of war, as in the case of police action sometimes those who are vested with responsibility for the common good have to render harmless an unjust aggressor using violent means. But in order to avoid worse evils, the Church has (since 990) come up with ethical guidelines for civil authorities who are charged with making such prudential decisions.

Thus we have the classic just war theory which you will find in Thomas Aquinas, and most recently in the Catechism.

What you fail to understand, or perhaps choose to ignore, is that the Church has long taught that civil society and authorities do indeed have real legitimate authority and duties for the common good - and that states do indeed possess the legal and ethical power to declare war and to engage in police work against crime.

This being so, civil authorities have a role to play in the prudential decision regarding warfare (as they and not the church are responsible for civil law and order).

In the case of the Unites States of America vs. Iraq, we have a case in which the civil authorities, vested by the consent of the governed - which has been recognized by the Church as a legitimate form of government - determined that Iraq possed a clear and present danger to the peace and security of the United States and the world.

The US broad cast its intention post 9/11 to root out terrorism and the Vatican taught that this was OK.

The US engaged in warfare with 12,000 Afganis of the "Northern Alliance" to liberate Afganistan, root out Al Qaeda and overthrow the Taliban rulers. The Vatican and world - not having any ties with the Taliban and having no vested interest in commerce or oil or arms contracts acquiesced. Since no one cared, apparently the war and liberation of Afganistan was hunky dory - at least as far as the UN, EU, Russia, China, France and Germany were concerned.

Anyone recall what "security council resolution" was invoked in the Afgan war? I didn't think so.

This successful war - which all the doom and gloomers threatened would be a quagmire, result in widespread civilian death and destruction, lead to immediate famine, and environmental disaster, and culminate in American imperial colonization...thus being illicit in act, intention, and result - actually brought to light the afganis love for the US, freedom, and civility. It also brought to light the fact that Al Qaeda had other friends besides the Taliban.

The US was forced to follow leads where ever they led - and this included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

The intention of the US Government post 9/11 is self-defence, not colonization, or occupation. The actions of the US Government have been extremely discriminating - avoiding civilian casualties and infrastructure damage whereever possible (such as by not using embargos which the Clinton WH did - which only provoked more poverty and tyranny).

The US first warned said countries to cease and desist from supporting Al Qaeda,

the goal of the war: defense of the United States which the UN and no other "international body" was willing to attend to was accomplished.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Kiwi,

You're such a sitting duck. ;-) (quack quack)

By calling Bush stupid and inept in foreign policy you set yourself up for serious problems when trying to explain away his successes.

To wit, the reduction of nuclear arms he signed with Russia's Putin in 2001. That was a major coup and totally unsung. What did the nuclear-freezers say about the US and Russia actually reducing the real numbers of bombs? zippo. "yeah" they sneered "you're only doing it for economic reasons". As though somehow that makes the whole affair illicit and immoral! Making the world safer is immoral because Bush and Putin were involved and not Clinton! (As though reducing the number of bombs under Clinton wouldn't have had economic side- effects!) and YET wasn't economic considerations central to the whole "arms race" because it took funds away from the poor?

So wouldn't one suppose that economic incentives have a central role in arms reduction? It's simply breathtaking how hypocritcal the peace- niks are and how historically-challenged they are.

Bush also pulled the US out of the ABM treaty and lo and behold, an arms race did not ensue! After all, both the US and Russia under the 1972 ABM treaty were allowed one system of 100 missile and radars to defend either their capital or missile fields. Russia chose to defend Moscow while the US chose to defend North Dakota. Our system was closed after 1 day of operation due to cost, the USSR expanded their system to cover virtually the entire country (breaking the treaty).

So since 1974 to the present the US has had NO DEFENSE AT ALL against Ballistic missiles. Russia has a defense of Moscow and Western Russia.

Yet, the peace-niks don't find this unfair or dangerous.

Now Bush wants to build 100 interceptors - enough to deter small rogue states but not enough to imperil China or Russia's balance of power, and the peace-niks cry foul!

Kiwi, do you know how offensive weapon systems are rendered obsolete? By coming up with a defensive system that nullifys much of their advantage. ABM stands a chance of rendering ICBMs obsolute. And they are non-lethal because ABM missiles don't hurt anyone! Yet the Peace- niks and Euro-niks dislike this. Amazing. Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid is not something that fits the bill for the US program!

These defenses make ballistic missiles less effective and thus prohibitively expensive for rogue nations to pursue as a threat to the West.

Bush pulled the US out of the ruinous Kyoto accord which allowed India and China to pollute while calling for draconian measures against the US - which would only hurt our economy while not affecting the global environment. (Thus, a pseudo-scientific charade).

What good would it be for the US to arbitrarily reduce emissions - thereby destroying our economy that runs 2/3rd of the world economy through imports and tourism... if India and China are allowed to continue burning fossil fuels with abandon and Indonesia is allowed under this "accord" to continue burning its fields instead of using modern techniques of farming?

Yet the idiot environmental wackos say it's absolutely necessary to save the planet. They've been wrong before and they're wrong now.

Bush also scores consistently in the high 70's as far as US approval goes - higher than CLINTON EVER SCORED. Apparently then, most Americans don't think he's a dim wit or his policies a disaster.

He also proved all his critics and naysayers wrong about the success of the war in Afganistan (which ALL claimed would be a quagmire) and now in Iraq (which all, especially the "arab street" swore would be not only a quagmire, but also the deathknell for the US as a superpower).

I know it feels awful for you to admit that he's been right more often than not, and that most Americans appreciate his policies and the direction he's taken us in foreign policy. He's also been far more favorable to the Catholic moral position in domestic policy than ANY previous US president including Ronaldus Maximus.

Also since when has it been immoral for a nation to defend itself? if the US acts "for its own interests" and those interests are chiefly its security, since when is this a bad intention?

Can't New Zealand act in its own interest? If it does, does that make EVERYTHING New Zealand does immoral?

I suppose the UN or France knows how to simultaneously remove WMD while not liberating a captive people, but the US doesn't. Normally people bend over backward justifying 3rd world countries behaviour as constructs of "their cultural world view which we ought not judge out of context or apply our western schemata to...." Well, if the US acts like the US and not France or New Zealand, why are we judged by your foreign standards of national etiquette?

If you had an armed forces and economy like ours - and a responsibility for world peace and security, maybe you'd act like it. You don't and so you don't. I feel no ill will towards NZ.

And finally, an action is not morally wrong if 2 GOOD THINGS come about as an effect of war: You couldn't help but liberate Europe while destroying the Third Reich, indeed, self-defense of the US required the destruction of Hitler's Germany. Liberation then was a great side effect - although, like in Iraq, that is also one of our goals: regime change and liberation.

I want to disarm an unjust tyrant. But to do so I must overthrow his regime, but doing so would liberate his people. Now, then if liberty is a good thing, and tyranny and WMD are bad things, just exactly how is it intrinsically evil to go to war if diplomacy and all other means are impractical?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Dear Joe

Being the master of generalisations your view that Im doing the same thing cracks me up!

Im real busy atwork but I will respond to every point you make later tonight or sometime tommorow. I was expecting a bit better from you but this is looking all too easy.

While I agree with many of the excellent political points you make, were not talking politics, were talking morality.

Your line of arguing is almost entirely political rethoric,line after line of political ranting, all very intresting I agree but not relevent . Im not intrestesed in arguing the toss over left wing vs right wing or the abilities of your esteemed leader GW Bush. ithought I made that clear. My thoughts (and yours for that matter) on politics are of no consequence to a Catholic forum and like I said take all your political opinions elsewhere.

What Im intretsed in is Catholic morality, natural law and the just war theory. You avoid the Catholic view and cloud it with all your usual conservative nonsense because the Church teachings are entirely inconsistent with your own personal opinion and that of your goivernment.

Your attempts to justify the actions in THIS WAR using 1.Authorities do indeed have real legitimate authority and duties for the common good! 2. The precedant of World War !! 3. The right of self defense of the individual!!!! 4. ANd most amusingly of all... the right of police men to be armed!!!!!

Quite how you have managed to equate any of these points to the justification of this war using a Catholic framewoek is beyond me, but youve provided me with a chuckle over my breakfast in your attempts to do so. Youre killing me here GI :-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

Aghhh I cant help myself but post a few peacenik political statements. I dont actually agree with many of the points personally but it is a refreshing point of difference from Joes narrow view. It also helps to illustrate the clash of perspectives that occurs when we try as Joe does to justify moral issues through political worldviews. AGain Joe try and give me something to respond to from a Catholic viewpoint. Cheers!

Let them drink Coke

Let’s be honest. The fall of a tyrant is a moment of bliss, no matter how it happens. The world is

well rid of Saddam Hussein. Dancing in the streets as the statues tumbled was a joy to behold, as brief as it was. And as staged as it was. In the morning, the hangover. The rough justice of the White House leaves a trail of gore. As I write, Iraq burns, hospitals are plundered, terrified citizens arm against mobs and wail, “now we face a thousand Saddam Husseins”.

The gloating of Donald Rumsfeld’s turns to rage. He damns the non embedded media for failing to focus on sergeants kissing babies. “It’s just a little untidy”, he says, as we watch a street mob murder a teenager. I am stunned by tonight’s footage of a deeply traumatised boy in Bagdad who is carried to a hospital in his father’s arms, only to find the gates locked. Other hospitals overflow with weeping, limbless children. It is the second day of liberation.

What do the Iraqis really think? That the cost is too high, say some. Worth every shattered bone, say others. My own opinion counts for little, but you’ll get it anyway. The fall of Hussein is likely to brighten the long term future of the Iraqis. The rise of super-tech warlords is likely to darken the prospect of creating a fair, diverse & sustainable world. If the Bush White House achieves its goal of forging another American Century, at whatever cost, welcome to Texas justice forever.

Reasons to be cheerful - and morose

Here’s a few reasons to feel good about having opposed the American War machine:

* Without your massive, worldwide protests, the bloodbath would have been bloodier, the marines even more trigger-happy.

* Despite its Kodak moment, the war remains illegal and unscrupulous; its legacy a danger to the world. Any nation is now fair game. You played your part in protesting the doctrine of pre- emptive strike.

* The weeding out of prohibited weapons was proceeding apace, without the need to slaughter children. Along with the proposed addition of UN troops, the inspection teams could have evolved into a surgical wedge for toppling the tyrant from within. Hans Blix: "We had the door slammed in our faces. I had a sense before the (US) decision to go to war, they were irritated by our work”. Instead, the White House has reinforced the option of military invasion as an acceptable instrument of national policy - something the world will come to regret. You can tell your children you marched to find alternative ways to resolve global conflicts.

Don’t Mention the Uniforms

The war is waged with lies and tricks. To this day, almost 50 per cent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was a key instigator of 9/11. (That’s why the US flag that was briefly draped across Saddam’s teetering face in Fardus Square is the very one that was flying over the Pentagon on the day of the September attacks. Lucky it happened to be lying around. Strange too that the spontaneous upsurge of pro American fervour took place opposite the Palestine Hotel, a media barracks. Several of the enthusiastic Iraqi participants, it now turns out, are known associates of US forces – see http://www.chicago.indymedia.org

The British were reduced to plagiarising a mouldy student essay to justify its fantasy that Saddam threatened London, (“Tony Blair stole my homework”). Leaks from peacenik insiders helped to expose such Orwellian tactics as the US bugging of Security Council members and the bribing of cash-strapped nations into token compliance. Despite claims of “extraordinary precision”, Iraqi hospitals are now rivers of blood in which children’s limbs are amputated without anaesthetics or even aspirin, just like in Afghanistan, (a dim memory for the West, but not to Afghanis). Weapons outlawed by global treaties, like cluster bombs and depleted uranium, were rained down upon the innocent with gusto. Hawks uphold cruelty. You stand for civilised values.

You also stand for common sense. “Stars & stripes Baghdad” will seed the future with hate.

Deluded apologists try to liken the conflict to World War 2. But the analogy only works in reverse. Iraq did not invade a small inferior power. We did. Even to call it a war is to claim a patina of legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. More like an elephant sitting on a flea. True, the flea took a few bites, even without an air force, and got itself accused of contravening the Geneva Convention. Asked at a Pentagon press conference why it is OK for American commando troops to take off their uniforms, but a crime when the Iraqis do it, Defence Department hard hat, Victoria Clarke, deferred the question for a later answer. We’re still waiting. Without the alertness of peaceniks on the web, such gems would rarely see the light of print.

The Kind of Mindset Running this War

Astute legal brains argue our invasion is a breach of UN resolution 1441. And it defied the known wishes of the majority of Security Council members, despite the bribes. This is relevant when it comes to pursuing war criminals. Only with continued peacenik pressure are we likely to see the spotlight put on atrocities committed by the Coalition. Despite all the talk of “extraordinary precision”, civilian casualties were excessive, whether at checkpoints, in the crossfire (“The chick got in the way” - a US Marine) in media centres, in residential areas. “UK troops in the Iraqi southern port city of Umm Qasr set up mass graves in the city to cover up hard evidence of committing massacres that claimed the lives of some 200 Iraqis in the first days of the war”, eyewitnesses reportedly told IslamOnline.net. They said the British left a lot of wounded Iraqis scattered across the streets without treatment, noting that the locals tried to treat them but were prevented by the UK soldiers. If so, this is a war crime. Who will prosecute it? While the Coalition refuses to count the dead, the peaceniks are keeping a tally.

According to the London Financial Times, April 11, a British official estimated that about 20,000- 25,000 Iraqi soldiers had been killed in the three weeks of this conflict, mainly in what he described as "carnage" caused by coalition bombing. “But given the scale of the destruction of the Iraqi army, this figure could well be an underestimate”. Keep in mind that this army of supposed bogeymen was largely comprised of unwilling, starving conscripts, whose lives are of no less worth than that of rescued US prisoner of war, Jessica Lynch, soon to be a major motion picture.

Over and above highlighting Pentagon doubletalk, peaceniks play an important role in holding up the mirror to the kind of mindset that is running this war. It isn’t pretty. When rumour had it that Saddam Hussein was skulking in a residential area of Baghdad, the US dropped its bombs of mass destruction without a moment’s thought for who was in harm’s way.

Over and above highlighting Pentagon doubletalk, peaceniks play an important role in holding up the mirror to the kind of mindset that is running this war. It isn’t pretty. When rumour had it that Saddam Hussein was skulking in a residential area of Baghdad, the US dropped its bombs of mass destruction without a moment’s thought for who might be in harm’s way.

“A young woman's severed head and torso and a small boy's body were pulled from a smoking crater carved into the earth by four U.S. bombs, so powerful they yanked orange trees from their roots”, reported Hamza Hendawi of Associated Press. “When the broken body of the 20- year-old woman was brought out torso first, then the head, her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.”

Saddam’s whereabouts remaining unknown. Asked about this mishap, Victoria Clarke, the US defence department’s gritty answer to Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf , replied, "I don't think that matters very much. I'm not losing sleep trying to figure out if he was in there." She may not have lost any sleep, but she has certainly lost her humanity. Victoria’s secret, and those of her colleagues, is that she has entered the war machine’s matrix, the zone of the emotionally dead.

The role of the peacenik is to prevent this disease from becoming a plague.

Ends.

Richard Neville’s juicy paperpack, AmeriKa Psycho is available now from http:// www.amazon.com

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

So who's now rambling along making political and not Catholic moral essays? You think carnage like you mention didn't happen on a daily basis for 25 years under Saddam?

You think the US would have purposely targetted civilians without the media present? Well, the media was present in Baghdad for 12 years but didn't protect the Iraqis under their charge by telling the truth about fascist Saddam.

As for Catholic morality - re-read my argument. It's sound. If you still don't get it I'll walk you through it step by step.

Hope you have a blessed Easter down under.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

The Arab coverage also shames the American media into showing the war more candidly. The April 7 Newsweek features a color photo of a small Iraqi girl with blood flowing from what had been her right eye. How can the U.S. Government neutralize a picture like that? There are no photos of little American girls whose eyes have been shot out by Iraqis.

Horrors abound — a devastated marketplace, a van full of women and children shot dead for running a checkpoint. It’s no use trying to supply “context” or “perspective” to soften these images. Accidents or not, they are the natural results of the “war of choice” the United States has chosen — and chosen in the teeth of worldwide opposition and warnings that such things were bound to happen.

The Bush administration continues to insist that the military war is going well, according to plan. But nobody doubted American military superiority. What is surprising is that the administration is already on the defensive. And no victory will erase the memories of the innocent victims. Even if you expected and predicted them, the actual images are still shocking.

Bush’s goal of a postwar Middle East happily reconciled to the United States depends on winning not only the military war, but the propaganda war as well; and the propaganda war has already been lost. It has been lost as lopsidedly, and as early, as the military war was supposed to be won.

If the United States is going to dominate the Middle East, it will have to do so by raw force, suppressing huge hostile populations the way Israel suppresses the Palestinians. If the West Bank has been a severe headache for Israel for decades, imagine turning the whole region into a mega-West Bank!

Even if the American people support the current war, will they have the stomach for an endless aftermath of resistance and suppression?

Joseph Sobran

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

Kiwi, your ignorance and misinformation is nothing short of absurd. Joe's comments are anything but narrow - they are factual, logical, and are very difficult to reasonably refute. And he has made comments on other threads in this forum that further delineate his logic and reasoning for the Catholic side to this argument.

There are too many baseless, propaganda-laced absurdities in your rambling post to possibly respond to them point by point. A few highlights: - it's the coalition forces that are restoring stability and safety to hospitals my friend - your statements that we have slaughtered innocents civilians without any regard is absolutely and flagrantly false, and i suspect you know as much but have your own anti-American agenda you are trying to advance. - 50% of Americans believe Saddam was a key instigator of 9/11 is false - name the source. The lies you speak of are not coming from the US Administration, but rather from much of the Arab media (e.g., Syria did not show the Iraqi celebrations/jubilation), the French (are you part French out of curiosity?) and your keystrokes. - "accused of contravening the Geneva Convention" - are you serious? Their flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention was broadcast for all the world to see - what part of this is subject to interpretation? Oh, I know, it must be my gov't lying to me again. Ho hum... - "Astute legal brains argue our invastion is a breach of UN resolution 1441" - reality is that anybody can argue anything, case in point your nonsense that you have posted. FACT is that 1441 called for "serious consequences" and had a 15-0 vote in favor - the breach was for the cowardly and duplicitious French, Russians, Chinese and Syrians to attempt to rescind what they had already supported, namely 1441!!!! - Victoria Clarke's comment I have no doubt has been twisted and taken out of context.

Kiwi, you obviously hate America, fine. Whatever. If you believe a small fraction of what you have written, I pity and pray for you.

Setting all your nonsense aside, I do sincerely hope that you have a wonderful Easter.

Bob M

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

So Bob and Joe... is this a good example of your ecumenism? Works like hell.

I can see Kiwi warming up to you guys already. The charity... you guys set such a good example of charity! The love of Christ just ooooozes from every fibre in your beings.

I love ecumenism in all it's various infest... uh, manifestations. Just out of curiousity, should I emulate you two? lol.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 16, 2003.

Emerald, this whole thread is about those against the war needing to eat some humble pie, accept that things aren't as bad and disasterous as they (and their ilk) feared it would be, and learn to give credit to where credit is due.

Instead we see that since all the dire and disasterous consequences that the opponents of war claimed were almost 100% guaranteed to occur have been proven by events to have been overblown exaggerations, the anti-war crowd merely latches onto ANY bad news: an accident here, an unanticipated and indirect consequence there, the disorder and upheaval concomitant with all liberations and immediate post-conflict situations... for "evidence" as "disasters" because the US hasn't been absolutely and miraculously perfect in every detail and way.... in other words because we "merely" won the greatest victory in military history with the lowest casaulty rate and collateral damage ratio to boot, everything was for nought.

Stubborn belief that this war was immoral "on principle" just because you say so won't help you make proper judgements on other events, unless your philosophy is one of moral exceptionalism in which there is no coherence possible!

As for Joseph Sobran... The man should stick to what he's good at - if you call him good at helping the pro-life cause. For geo-political punditry he's silly. How many little girls lost life and limb in the American revolution Joe? Oops, I guess we'd better go back on our knees to the Crown eh? What that is called is "use negative anecdotes to call into question a general situation".

Now when I use historical cases they aren't anecdotal. The Rwuandan genocid isn't an anecdote! The failed Somalian mission wasn't an anecdote! UN duplicity and moral status is proven by real historical actions and their justifications at the time.... I don't trump up little details having no real bearing on anything. For every little hurt girl I could talk about hundreds of newly liberated and smiling girls... but what would that prove?

If you have 1 hurt girl but 3 happy ones, does that in and of itself make an act good? Did the US invade precisely to hurt that little girl Joe? Did some US soldier purposely see her and send a bomb her way? Yes, it's sad. Terrible things happen. But Sobrans INFERANCE is one of moral conclusions that simply can not be made based on anecdotes!

It's not very logical. And the Pro-Aborts have been using it against Pro-lifers for ages! How can the Pro-life side be good if 7 Abortionists have been killed! Outrage! Why didn't the Pro-lifer's control those violent among them?

yadda yadda yadda... of course Joe will say "But WE pro-lifers didn't control these violent maniacs to begin with..." and I'll say "yeah, and the US Army didn't control these violent looters either". To which Joe may claim that a "chosen war" means every accident and unintentional consequence makes the US morally responsible...to which I ask him "Does that make post hoc ergo propter hoc your moral principle? Vatican II was freely chosen - as was Trent, do councils not therefore become responsible for every unintended side effect?"

Is God to blame for sin because he made us free? Is a parent to blame for the moral failure of their children because they gave them life? Are any of you morally responsible for every use your teenager may make of his bike or cell phone? If all evil is to be laid at the doorstep of the US then it follows that all goodness is ours as well - and no other human being on earth has any moral worth since apparently we're the only one's responsible for anything!

I find it amazing that people can so focus their arguments on one thing without realizing that if such arguments are true, they must be based on universally applicable principles of judgement. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whatever moral principle you invoke to condemn the US in Iraq, should just as easily be applicable to any other country, any other situation, and any other moral actor.

Yet, the typical Left- or far-out Right (the "discontinuants") don't see their hypocrisy because their world view isn't coherant.

So no, Emerald, while ecumenism has its place, this thread isn't about ecumenism. It's about those who are WRONG learning to admit it to themselves. That's the only way to go forward in life without seething hatred fueled by hurt pride.

Come on now: your dire predictions as to the results from this war were WRONG. It wasn't as bad as EVERYONE oppposed to it feared!

And all the little problems we worry about today are just that: little and being taken care of - not instantaneously, not overnight, not with superhuman perfection and clairvoyance... but as quick as honest, prudent, and dedicated people can solve them given the circumstances and constant sniping from both domestic and foreign critics who are eagerly poisoning the wells of goodwill needed for a just and peaceful Iraq.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Hey Joe:

Sorry I don't have time to read the entire thread (you guys have really been at it in my absence) but here's the big, big problem with the whole pre-emptive strike scanario. We have now set a precedent in which any American president henceforth can arbitrarily wage a war for any reason whatsoever. This precedent we have set can be used for generations to come. Of course, this has always been somewhat the case, but NOW we have REALLY set the stage -- and for what? That is the million dollar question. Right now, it looks like we are setting the stage for Syria! (We better not do that)

Secondly, I did catch a glimpse of your rebuke aimed at myself and perhaps Emerald earlier concerning the "America is not a Christian nation" sentiment earlier. Well, Joe, when the "church" looks just like the world in immorality, it can hardly be categorized as "Christian." Statistically, we are neck-in-neck with the world in issues such as divorce, abortion, sex outside of marriage. We glory in our materialism, we wallow in indecency, and we strut to church on Sunday singing "Washed in the Blood of Jesus!"

And this may come as a surprise to you, Joe, as it is to many of my fundamentalist friends, but GOD IS NOT AMERICAN! He does not have a U.S. flag over his thrown. The angels are not waving U.S. bandanas over head as they sing "God Bless America."

I have heard people on the far, far right make comments suggesting that America is God's favorite country! "That God is using George Bush to vindicate His people." "George Bush is the right hand of God's vengeance on ungodly nations." And even suggesting that if you are not "with" George, chances are you are not a born again Christian! That is a very scary litmus test.

Okay, so I am ever so glad Saddam is gone, but we have yet to see what the long-term price of this thing is going to be. Yes, it made me feel like dancing seeing that statue come down. But I REFUSE to make patriotism my god, and follow it's leader anywhere he wants to go!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 16, 2003.

Emerald, this whole thread is about those against the war needing to eat some humble pie...

Here's why I don't think this will work; I said this already. People who are against this war are against it for a variety of reasons. Even the word against is loaded with ambiguity in this case based on the the varied and even opposing principles of the people or groups who have come out against it. When a pro-abort tree hugger and a traditionalist (so-called) Catholic both come out against it based on different and even opposing principles, a universal communal banquet table of humble pie-eating is not going to happen.

...accept that things aren't as bad and disasterous as they (and their ilk) feared it would be, and learn to give credit to where credit is due.

What you're doing here, I think, is alluding to a universal one-size- fits-all package of bad and disasterous things. These bad and disasterous things, I believe you assume, are the same for everybody. Without defining what constitutes bad and disasterous, having yourself determined that nothing like that happened, you want everyone to admit you were right.

In order for me to admit you were right, based on what little you know about my reasonings for being opposed this war, I would like you to tell me what I had considered bad and disasterous, so that I can adequately pass of to you the desired laud and vindication.

But get ready, because it has to do with the ghost of the heresy of Americanism and virtually nothing to do with pacifism or any of the things you might credit to common liberalism.

Think about it... you said it: "and their ilk". That's not an aimless comment imho. In saying that, you've got to be inclining towards a view that all those against are against for the same reasons and based on the same priniciples.

But that's not all all the case.

It should be manifest that it is not the case. And because it is not the case, you cannot expect a universal chorus of admission of error.

Instead we see that since all the dire and disasterous consequences that the opponents of war claimed were almost 100% guaranteed to occur have been proven by events to have been overblown exaggerations...

See, there it is right there. In my case, it isn't even a question of "dire and disasterous consequences". I don't know how to emphasize this enough. It is about dire and disasterous principles.

Principles, not consequences. I am opposed to the principles of it. I say the principles are anti-Catholic and are in the vein of Americanism.

Damn the consequences... if you grab hold of the principles, then you can own the discussion. It's a little like grabbing a poisonous snake. I refuse to grab it by the tail; if you pinch it right behind the head and you own the snake.

Skipping on down, no surprise at all then that I agree with you on this one:

I find it amazing that people can so focus their arguments on one thing without realizing that if such arguments are true, they must be based on universally applicable principles of judgement.

Right. So let's talk some fine topics such as Americanism and the principles regarding the matter of separation of Church and state, and later on, this subsidiary principle you talk about.

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whatever moral principle you invoke to condemn the US in Iraq, should just as easily be applicable to any other country, any other situation, and any other moral actor.

Look up. I made this comment: Now let's go get China, huh? lol. That's exactly what I was getting at. Inversely, by whatever principle you invoke to attack iraq, it should be just as easily applicable to any other country, any other situation in your own words, any other moral actor. Now, let's attack China. Let's get them too. What's to stop us? Yet, the typical Left- or far-out Right (the "discontinuants") don't see their hypocrisy because their world view isn't coherant.

It is kind of amusing that someone can be "typically far out". lol! That's interesting; that deviancy and incoherancy can be predictable and measurable. That's a pretty funny word, discontinuants. But hey, I'll accept it, believe or not. It's actually pretty good. I'll pin it on, because this left and right of which you speak I have long believed to be the giant sucking sound of thesis/antithesis/synthesis... and if being a discontinuant in the left/right duality which leads the universal body into eventual and universal error, then I'm all over it.

So no, Emerald, while ecumenism has its place, this thread isn't about ecumenism. It's about those who are WRONG learning to admit it to themselves.

Sure, I would be happy to try to help you with this as much as I can... =)

Come on now: your dire predictions as to the results from this war were WRONG.

Well, no. I haven't laid out my dire predictions; you've assumed what they are. They aren't really so much dire predictions, like I said, as much as they are dire principles, heretical in origin. That's the real issue here.

I don't follow along in exactly the same vein of thought as kiwi lays out above, but listen, there is a hidden principle behind some of what he says that is entirely and completely worthy. I fished for a paragraph that woudl hint to it the best, and I think this one comes closest:

"I know the weaknesses of natural law from a philosophical viewpoint but philosophers agree on nothing and it remains the basis of Catholic moral philosophy. It flows from the very being of what we are Gods creation. Joes comments fail to appreciate that we do not share Gods full understanding of his divine plan, especially how God will bring greater good out of every evil. We should never forget what it really means to be Christian and this can get lost under the weight of political posturing and ideology."

Now the principles are oftentimes veiled and hard to identify, but herein, or round about this area of the body of his post above, is a principle of truth that needs to be drawn out and polished off, because there's a gem in it.

At any rate, In summary I think you are suffering from a desparate attempt to weld the principles that brought forth America with the principles of the Faith of the holy Roman Catholic Church.

It seems to me a little like try to weld a piece of steel to a piece of wood; good luck. One thing is going to remain as it was and the other will burn.

Let's get into the heresy of Americanism. But besides that, there's that pesky issue for the individual Catholic of dying to self; it's not going to go away; I won't let it. I'll hammer it into an oblivion if I have to, because that's where our salvation lies, and yes, it is very, very much part of this whole equation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 16, 2003.

Hi Gail. Look, I don't know why people feel the need to think "we" when they should make the distinction of "us" and "them".

For example; it's a standard moral principle (seen in scripture) that you don't lump the good in with the bad. God doesn't do it! And neither should we.

It's vital that we all make proper distinctions between the good, the bad, and the neutral bystanders. In the Cold War don't you recall how "we Americans" were always qualifying the Russians as "Communists and other Russians"?. Even today in Iraq and the war, "we" as in "the Bush administration" were saying to the four winds "this war is not against the Iraqi people (22 million of them) but against the Baath regime (1 million)". Thus proper distinctions were made. Our aim was not to 'liberate' Saddam and his hench men, but to kill them. Some people point to death and destruction as though they prove that the US was "really" trying to wipe out "the whole Iraqi people" - genocide. Instead, they should have seen that only some Iraqis were threatened - and even they were offered chances to surrender!

And what has Bush done prior to that? He specifically noted that the "war on terrorism" was NOT a war on Islam or Muslims in general and drove the point home by pointing to US domestic practice and past wars fought on BEHALF OF MUSLIMS. He didn't lump all Muslims together in one moral category because some are terrorists! Yet his critics do just that - picking at little anecdotes as though they proved EVERYTHING was evil, bad, mistaken, etc.

So again and again proper distinctions must be made.

The US administration is not the equivalent of the US Government, and the US Government is not equivalent to the nation called "The United States of America"... and within this nation, populated by some 270 million people, 10-20 million of whom are not citizens so they can not in justice be categorized in the same way as citizens. And among citizens there are some who are communists, others who are neo-nazis, others who are liberals, who themselves are divided into social (read, sexual) liberals as opposed to economic liberals, etc...

In reality, Gail, when people say use the royal "we" to bash the US, it's a slightly underhanded way of really saying "you evil-doers" without being mean.

"Us Americans are so guilty of sin before God" really means "my opponents are going to fry in hell and I'm ashamed they're alive because it makes me look bad at cocktale parties".

Therefore I find it extremely interesting how Liberals and some "conservatives" are always lumping "us" or "we" into the same moral category as though "we" are ALL to blame for something.

Slavery and Racism: all white people are somehow to blame for this, yet MY ANCESTORS came from Ireland and Germany, lived in the North and never owned slaves. So strictly speaking "we" have had nothing to do with slavery! Yet as a white male I'm supposed to feel guilty! An ancestor of mine fought for the North in the Civil war...isn't that enough? As for Racism, well I'm married to an island babe from Trinidad and Tobago... so "we" aren't racist! I can feel bad that other whites harbor irrational hatred for people with more pigmentation, but that shouldn't make me say "we are racist" because in reality, "they are racist"!

Did Lot say when leaving Soddom "Oh Lord, nuke me too, because we are all sinners"?

Abortion: "we Americans" are not united or on the same page with this issue so I don't see how "all of us" can all be held morally responsible for it. My family certainly has fought long and hard for the sake of life... and if we haven't done "enough" still, that hardly makes us guilty of Abortion! In the words of Tonto "what's this "we" stuff white-man?" THEY are responsible for Abortion. WE are trying to erect a civilization of justice and love, a civilization of life. THEY deal in falsehoods and trickery. WE deal in the truth about the human person and dignity.

Ditto for all the other moral failures fellow Americans commit. Why is it that law abiding citizens are to be judged as morally guilty accomplices in the crimes and sins of those who have freely chosen their behavior and actions? 2 million Americans are in jail or prison. How many of them are public school graduates I wonder? If it's determined that 70% were deformed in Public school would that mean the Homeschoolers are to blame? Or should private schools be JUST AS GUILTY because they happen to live in the same geo-political unit situated between the Canada and Mexico?

Some Americans are good, holy even. Some Americans are satanic and utterly depraved. Some Catholics voted for Bush, others voted for Pro- Abort Gore. Does that mean ALL CATHOLICS are guilty of supporting Abortion?

Gail, your complaints about what "we" do or what "we" are morally responsible for are simply wrong because you don't make the proper distinctions - nor does Emerald or others for that matter even though they should know better.

As for America not being a Christian nation... I ask you: the people who populated the colonies...which religion did they overwhelmingly belong to? Islam? Judaeism? Buddhism? No. Christianity. AND THAT WAS ALL OF 250 YEARS AGO. What was the overwhelming majority religion of American citizens in 1950? Christianity. What is the majority religion today? Christianity.

Now the founding fathers of the political union called the United States of America, which religion did they subscribe to, in the majority? Christianity.

Their founding ideals - and the pivotal documents which they wrote and adhered to, the principles of moral restraint, balance, and ideals they invoke... were these ideals anti-Christian? No. Christian.

Of all the nations on earth, which nations have the largest population of Catholics? Brazil, Mexico, United States, Philippines. Of all the Christian churches in the US, which is the largest? Catholics.

By claiming the US is a Christian country - does this mean to say we're all saints? No. AND IT NEVER DID MEAN THAT EVER FOR ANY OTHER COUNTRY!!!!!

Furthermore, pace Emerald who believes in some social theory of inevitable cultural decline....was Poland always a Christian country? NO. It's first King was, but subsequent kings grew corrupt and the Kingdom was lost... it later won back its freedom and is now a "Catholic country" - even though it has a sizable number of atheists and others who make noise and trouble... does that make Poland perfect? If Poland is not perfect can it still claim to be a "Catholic" country? Of course!

Look, until 2000, Mexico had had an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian regime in power since 1917. Officially the country was "atheist", and sizable numbers of Mexicans were corrupt pagans. Yet it was always considered regardless as a "Catholic country".

Those incapable of making distinctions routinely judged that Mexico was a poor basket case BECAUSE OF CATHOLICISM, completely ignoring the socialist/marxist anti-Catholic regime whose repression, socialist robbery and often outright repression directly led to poverty and misery! By not distinguishing between the people and the regime, ignorant Americans lump the good in with the bad, and assign moral blame on the good for the actions they in no way were responsible for but victims of!

Really you people amaze me. Just because a land or group is not perfect doesn't make it "just as bad as the rest".

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions. When you don't make 'em you fall into all sorts of illogic and injustice.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

What dire and disastrous principles are you talking about Emerald?

Now you're begging the question - just as Gail did, by not making distinctions. Americanism? PLEASE. It was never a movement and it was never an issue except in the minds of some FRENCH newspapers which filtered through into the Vatican who took alarm and issued a warning which didn't apply to anything happening in the USA at that time (not that subsequent commies and others didn't take the Pope's advice to create problems along those lines later...)

I suppose it's a dangerous principle to say that a country has the right to self-defense?

Or is the danger that we just might start actively promote human rights by tearing down dictatorships which abuse human rights? Wouldn't THAT be cool - actually hold the UN to it's charter of human rights!

But as you should know, principles can be and are applied differently according to "times and places". Thus sometimes the prudent thing to do is NOT go to war but instead impose an embargo or send in "inspectors"... or even throw wide the doors to trade.

If the goal is to promote human rights (based on human nature and the needs of the human person to be free in order to freely seek God and then worship Him, organizing civil life accordingly in peace...) then obviously sometimes the application will vary.

So your point is...?

You must be in the TFP crowd! Who are you, a noble or something? Aristocratic? Royal blood flowing in those veins? Royal is as royal does - nothing intrinsic to it. Or are you confusing - as the TFP people do - that the Church effort to convert and guide hereditary "leaders" means that such leaders are somehow qualitatively better than leaders who win their authority through virtue of their service?

Monarchy doesn't have a better track record than Republics when it comes to prosperity, security, and the freedom of religion. There were some good Kings and some bad Kings. No king except Jesus is perfect and no Kingdom save His is perfect.

The Church doesn't teach - and never has - that one form of political system is insuperable. It all depends... (distinctions!)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Dear Joe and others

The Catholic Church’s position on this war is clear ….this war is immoral and unjust. Spout all the political views you like, and yes I couldn’t help but offer a few myself but one thing still remains… the truth as defined by Christs church. Hard to argue with that.

The fact that the Catechism recognises that governments have the responsibility for common good does not alter the moral duty of all Catholics to listen to their church and Holy Father. This part of the Catechism (2310) simply states that governments have the responsibility and obligation to take into account conditions necessary to conduct war. America has failed to do this because as I have pointed out they are Joe are not interested in Catholic morality they are concerned only with their own state centred interests and utilitarianism. The church around the world has severely criticised the reasons given by the US government for a war on Iraq and in essence the Church believes the case for war is ‘contrived and misleading’. It argues that the proposed military intervention violates the just war conditions and hence should be rejected as unjust.

Under Catholic law no just cause has been established for war, as there is no convincing proof that Iraq aided the terrorist attacks on the United States and neither does it present an imminent threat. It argues that the claim to a right of pre-emptive strike is specious, lacks due authority and risks undermining the fundamental principles of international relations.

For the first time in their history, the western democracies are going to war without the blessing of their churches. This is a completely unprecedented situation.

War on Iraq charges that the alleged threat from weapons of mass destruction has been vastly exaggerated to panic public opinion. A war has inflicted considerable damage to many Iraqi communities and a humanitarian diaster is looming. War also inflames Islamic militancy, attracts radical recruits and fuels further terrorist attacks. In addition, the costs of the war will be astonishingly disproportionate. Nor does a war satisfy the condition of last resort since many people, especially the weapons inspectors, think war can be avoided, as Iraq is already largely disarmed, and can be further constrained if need be without war.

Please read the discussion paper put forward by the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council on another thread.

God Bless and have a happy and Blessed Easter

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Hey Kiwi:

You said, "For the first time in their history, the western democracies are going to war without the blessing of their churches. This is a completely unprecedented situation." Are you talking about the Catholic parishes, or mainline demoninations?

If you are talking about mainline denominations, let me assure you there are PLENTY of mainline denominations that most certainly DO support the war.

I just wonder what you've been hearing on your side of the planet! We are, after all, so dependent on news media -- all of us!

Love,

Gail

-- gAIL (rothfarms@socket.net), April 16, 2003.

Hi Gail

I was talking generally about Christian churches. In New Zealand all Christian churches are strongly opposed to the war, I imagine this is the case with 99% of all non Catholic churches outside America as well.

I agree we are all so dependant on media which is increasingly coming under the control of only a few large global companies. In New Zealand this is especially a problem as ALL our daily newspapers and most of the print media is controlled by two global giants.

ANyway if were talking Newspapers I do enjoy my local paper the New Zealand Herald but most of the good world articles in it come from British newspapers The Observer, The Guardian(bit left wing for my liking!),The Times and The Independant. Most of The AMerican articles we get in NZ seem to come fromm New York Times (which I have found really good), The Washington Post(less so) and Newsweek.

All the more reason to put our faith in the Vatican I guess.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Joe, your comment was the first I've heard of anything called TFP.

Until I looked it up, I figured TFP was that stuff I've been using to clean the oven with.

This made little sense, in that people of royal blood wouldn't be cleaning the oven. Are you confusing me or am I confusing you? I think you know what I'm on about.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

Kiwi, were all the Churches OK with the outbreak of World War I? How about WWII? France is fighting in the Ivory Coast. When was the last time you heard a sermon condeming them or a march against their aggressive involvement in a foreign land?

As for the "official church teaching" that never happened as much as your side tried to spin the Pope's words to mean whatever the latest peace-nik slogan of the day was. He said "War is a defeat for humanity" and called on Saddam to cooperate. Somehow that was translated as "US is immoral, Iraq is saintly innocent victim".

Later he prayed that the war would be brief. The US obliged him with the quickest invasion and victory over a like sized nation in world history.

As for the churches not accepting the argument of the US for the War, I have searched high and low on the internet for a reasoned argumentative response by ANY church authority rebutting the Administration. It boiled down to prudential decisions themselves based on information. The argument from the Vatican was not even directed in response to the motives and dangers but instead focused on supposed "consequences" - which has not materialized.

While I have always argued from moral/theological basis with only occasional asides into history and politics, you Kiwi, almost exclusively merely allude to "Church teaching" without quoting it (remember, I was the one who quoted the Catechism), before you jump into ad hominem attacks on people's motives, intelligence, and moral state before Almightly God.

I'm just waiting for you to quote to me passages from Pacem in Terris and other encyclicals. Here. I'll take a deep breath and.....

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 17, 2003.

Hey Kiwi, thanks for responding. My son sent me an article yesterday morning by an Australian Internet news agency concerning an incident where soldiers "opened fire" on a group of anti-U.S. supporters. Later yesterday I read an article from a more conservative news outlet and read that the soldiers were firing at men with arms within the group. Anyway, what was interesting was that I didn't even realize I was reading about the same incident as they were SOOOOO different! Truth, Truth, where is the Truth? Yikes, you can't trust any of them.

Over here in the U.S. (I'm not sure what percentage this would be), but I can say most definitely that most all evangelicals and/or fundamentalists (which is a sizeable group) are IN FAVOR of the war.

Interesting to compare notes!

Lots of Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 17, 2003.

As for America not being a Christian nation... I ask you: the people who populated the colonies...which religion did they overwhelmingly belong to? Islam? Judaeism? Buddhism? No. Christianity.

Wrong. It was apostacy from Catholicism that you are calling Christianity. But even that wasn't that brand of "Christianity" that was the impetus that was the driving force behind the formulation of the Constitution; it was Freemasonry. The mention of God that you see in the context of constitution, and the mention of virtue and the like, is in the style of Freemasonry.

There's Catholicism and then there's everything else. I assume you would say that we Catholics had things in common with these Christians that colonized the Americas. I ask, how so? What's in common? The Eucharist: denied. The holy orders: denied. Allegiance to the Pontiff: denied. An endless list of non-agreement with Catholicism.

So what's the basis of our intellectual and spiritual kinship with these colonists? Where's the Catholic influence?

AND THAT WAS ALL OF 250 YEARS AGO. What was the overwhelming majority religion of American citizens in 1950? Christianity. What is the majority religion today? Christianity.

Again, the real thing or some apostate deal?

Now the founding fathers of the political union called the United States of America, which religion did they subscribe to, in the majority? Christianity.

Absolutely not. They were predominately Freemasons.

Their founding ideals - and the pivotal documents which they wrote and adhered to, the principles of moral restraint, balance, and ideals they invoke... were these ideals anti-Christian? No. Christian.

Yes, they were anti-Christian. No, they were not Christian. Do an in-depth study of Freemasonry and you'll see all that restraint, balance, and other supposed objective-goods-rightly- understood that you refer to. They way play them on you, it sounds good and wholesome, sensible and reliable and recognizable. For for goodness' sake, give the enemy some credit for making a good appearance for the sake of deception.

So do we as a nation act as a body in unison the name of God, and do we base our actions on Christian principles today?

No.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

Joe,

In your post you kept referring to Christianity as a religion. Christianity is not a religion, so to speak, it is a......ummm....state of mind, if you will. Those who are true Christians belong to the one true Church, the Catholic Church. This is a religion. All others are just...well...wrong. Not true Christians. And if they weren't true Christians, then how could all the early colonies really be based on True Christianity? The settlements started by Catholic missionaries, now those were based on true Christianity, not the Dutch (or any other Protestant) settlements.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 18, 2003.

This particular angle is a bit different than your stand pacifist peacenik protest, isn't it?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

"stand" = standard

At any rate Joe, you're going to have a bit of a time lumping my reluctance in with the rest of what you see out there.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 18, 2003.

Emerald, it's not "all about you" you know ;-)

My posts I mean. When I say "the media said" or "somepeople said" I'm not taking indirect jabs at you, Kiwi, or others on this board but of pundits and talking heads in general - which may or may not reflect what you think.

Typically if I'm responding to something you said, I'll specify.

That being said, when are you going to next be in this neck of the woods? The twins are almost ready to "drop". Our bags are packed. We're just waiting for them to make their next move... it would be nice to see you, Monica, and kids again.

Happy Easter and keep in touch.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 19, 2003.

USA present Bush regime has turned the country into something worse Nazi Germany and Stalin Sovjet. Bush and his barbaric Marines destroyed the worlds cultural heritage placed in the Bagdad museum. Probaly these marines believe our culture is borne in Disneyland. I suggest to avoid american goods and to be hostile to american tourist in Europe. Americans has become a disgrace to humanity.

Christian Denmark

-- Christian Nielsen (ckn@oncable.dk), April 19, 2003.

This is a particularly confused thread. Each contributor addresses the subject emotionally, without much real reflection.

All the title asked is why is everyone who opposed this war now proved dead wrong about ''quagmires'' and Armageddon around the corner?

And those views WERE ridiculous. It only took a few weeks to vindicate the United States' actions.

It may seem unimpressive to many who were appalled to see the fighting begin, --that so few Coalition casualties resulted. There has been some loss of ''innocent'' life. But not a wholesale slaughter as many were warning. The same ones who predicted ecological disaster because Iraq's oil-wells would be ignited in a scorched earth defense. Completely unfounded.

We MUST acknowledge the overwhelming success of our NATION'S (not just ''the administration, as so many wish to stipulate) --plan; AS WELL AS the almost humane way it was implemented. No war crimes, no racial hatred, no disregarding of Iraqi human rights.

If the leftist partisans in America & the UK, and other partners had managed this amazing feat of arms and heroism, they would be HAILED all over the world!

But we have seen, rather-- a right-of center President do the proper thing; and his politics are so distasteful to the left as to disqualify him from all rightful credit. The immense credit he's entitled to get!

What are these politics which polarize a dozen socialist countries (Denmark included) and every Democrat, every leftward leaning partisan-- against George Bush?

(1.) He is a self-confessed Christian. He is pro-life (as a protestant), and he does not PANDER to minorities and career politicians.

(2.) Above all, women in western society are biased. WHY? (3.) Bush represents a powerful pro-life segment of our society; too dangerous to their agenda for comfort. If re-elected, George Bush might name new Supreme Court Justices capable of overturning Roe vs. Wade outright. The very thought freezes the blood of every ''liberated'' woman (so-called) in the U.S.--

Therefore, under no circumstance will a poltician indebted to these abortion-on-demand groups dare encourage Bush's re- election, even if W. walked on water! He's poison to the left, which panders incessantly to the various interest groups; and they are frightened of what he might accomplish after the successes of his middle east strategies against the terrorist threat. Not to mention what could happen to the tax-and-spend career politicians who depend on minorities and other self-serving constituencies. The last thing they want is a man who does what he says he'll do.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2003.

I know Joe. Thanks! I don't know when I'll be over that way again; I'm kind of stuck here for a while. Twins, huh? Sleep now. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 19, 2003.

“No one wants war,” a reader writes. “It is always a last resort.” I’m sure he means it. But he couldn’t be more mistaken.

It’s a matter of record that some men have wanted and planned a war on Iraq for years. They were eager for war. Some people always are. War, for them, means gain, glory, advantage. There are brave men who see war as a chance to prove their mettle; Shakespeare’s Coriolanus illustrates the type. Others, more numerous and more cowardly, scheme for war but want others to do the fighting. The “conservative” press will furnish plenty of examples of this type. They have an odd habit of speaking of the soldiers as “we.”

Consider the pro-war propaganda of the hawks, the vicious attacks on the motives of “peaceniks,” the cheering and gloating. Does all this sound like the talk of people who regretfully accept war as a “last resort”?

The other day I wrote about little Ali, a Baghdad boy of 12 who lost his family and both his arms in a rocket attack. Thanks to a London tabloid, which has published pictures of him, his case has already excited international sympathy and horror.

But another reader mocks my “phony” concern for Ali. She is really saying that she feels no concern for him, and that nobody else should either. But feelings, neither mine nor hers nor anyone else’s, weren’t the point. The point is that, terrible as Ali’s fate is, we have a duty to face the morally objective facts of this war.

It never sinks in with some people that moral questions are more than a matter of “feelings.” Feelings are merely emotional indicators which themselves must be critically examined. Even sympathy may be misplaced; but in Ali’s case, I don’t think so. It should lead us to reflection.

But in the modern world, political debates are usually about feelings. They aren’t really debates; they are accusations, unprovable, unfalsifiable, about whether the other side has the Right Feelings. Taking the “wrong” side means you have the Wrong Feelings. You “hate” America, racial minorities, women, or the poor, as the case may be. The reasons you give don’t matter. No matter how logical they may be, they are nothing more than expressions of your Feelings, Right or Wrong.

Even journalism is infected by the primacy of Feelings. During earlier wars, reporters asked tough questions like “How is the battle going?” Now they ask the Couric Question: “How did you feel when ... ?”

How times have changed. Even the old religious inquisitions were concerned with truths, doctrines, creeds — objective things. “Do you believe this?” or “Do you deny this?” was the inquisitor’s pointed question, not the inane “How do you feel about this?” Today an inquisition would focus on our feelings.

Our feelings are pretty much beyond our control. They are what used to be called “passions,” meaning, literally, that they were passive — mutable, fugitive, something you suffered rather than willed. You could feel differently about the same thing at different times, depending on your mood. It was no use arguing about an emotion (literally, something that is moved by an outside force). You felt something or you didn’t. Of course emotions should be properly trained, but Reason was supposed to be sovereign over them.

But popular psychology has dethroned Reason, reducing it to the mere “rationalization” of Feeling. Inevitably, the debate on the Iraq war quickly turned into mutual recrimination about the Right Feelings. You stood to be accused of the Wrong Feelings about Saddam Hussein, America, or war itself. People who opposed the war felt obliged to protest that they “abhorred” Hussein as much as anyone else. Others felt — felt, mark you — that abhorring him was sufficient justification for war. I get countless messages from people asking me why I don’t seem to abhor him as much as they do. Don’t I know about the terrible things he has done to “his own people”?

It follows that those who wanted war — and some people, despite my gentle correspondent, certainly did — knew that their task was to whip up the Right Feelings in the American public. Some did try to make a sober case for war. But it was really propaganda that carried the day, and propaganda is addressed not to Reason, but to Feelings.

In the end, it was no contest. “Feelings” won — in a cakewalk.

Joseph Sobran

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Once again Joe Sobran proves that he's a light-weight.

Where has HE BEEN? Those who argued (ARGUED) that war was just were not the ones' invoking feelings! We weren't the one's making rash and emotive based logical-leaps from wishful thinking to bait and switch sophism such as "Saddam's in a box, diplomacy is working!"

While most of the nations whose hands were in the cookie jar pleaded for "more time" (while illegally trading with the Baath regime), we asked the tough questions: why? What will "more time" mean? When they called for "further international pressure" we asked: What IS "international pressure"? What exactly does that mean? If you've embargoed a country, grounded its airlines and have inspectors running around looking in the same places (after giving the regime 24, 48, and 72 hours notice of their activities), what OTHER thing can you do? WHAT DOES "INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE" MEAN IN ENGLISH?

When has Joe Sobran laid out the case against war other than to affirm "war is bad"?

Doesn't he realize that affirmations are not the same things as arguments? Affirmations "this war is unjust" neither PROVE or explain why this war is unjust!

It wasn't HIS SIDE that invoked and used the classic Just War theory! And when the ant-war at all cost crowd were forced to address it, they again only made affirmations not arguments as to why this or that threshold or case was not made or met.

They all affirmed that the US Government was lying. Why? How would they know? Simple. They believed the Iraqi Government.

They all affirmed that there was NO connection between Iraq and terrorists. Again, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW? Simple. They believed the Iraqi government rather than US.

They all affirmed that there were no WMD - but worried that should the US invade such weapons would be used and thus lead to unacceptible loss of life. Why did they think the UN was wrong about weapons which were discovered in 1998? Why did they not side with the US position that, since such weapons were discovered we need proof of their destruction? Simple. They believed the Iraqi government.

They also affirmed that while "Saddam is of course bad...it doesn't matter". But then many of them affirmed that Bush is "the greater threat to democracy and world peace" when he has not done anything personally or professionally that even approaches Saddam's depravity and crimes. Why would people make such affirmations? Unless they believe again the Iraqi propaganda machine or Leftist machine more than the US government.

When asked to provide any proof, any reason for their position, they frequently would point to conspiracy THEORIES rather than fact. "War for oil" or "US Hegemonic schemes" ignoring that other powers on earth are very much into oil and hegemony - France in Africa, Russia in the Caucasia and China in Asia... but supposedly those regimes' activites are OK.

And to cap it all, most of these anti-war people threatened armageddon or world war three as the direct effect of any US intervention. That was their capstone argument, their trump card - even the Holy Father concluded his statements with the warning that he feared any war would unleash a class of civilizations, widespread Iraqi civilian casualties, etc.

Now, that's NOT consequentialism because other factors were mentioned - such as lack of proof to terrorist ties and WMD that was convincing to 3rd world countries and armchair generals, lack of imminent threats which were also convincing to these people who admittedly were NOT IN THE CIRCLE TO KNOW.

But when this author (me) has pointed this out I've been insulted in no uncertain terms as a war-monger, hateful, mean, cruel person.

I GIVE YOU REASONS AND YOU GIVE ME FEELINGS. JOE SOBRAN IS NO BETTER. He should have stayed with Shakespeare, at least he's an expert there.

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

As for Iraqi government ties with terrorists - that is being proven - both with camps and letters, documents and materials pointing to al Al Qaeda connection going back to 1998!

WMD will be found too.

So Saddam had the weapons and the means to deliver them secretly without revealing their origin. If that's not a threat what is?

Wishful thinking is no substitute for defense of the common good.

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